“The Germans, Scandinavians, Poles and Hungarians, energetic as they were, had never held their own against the heterogeneous mass of inertia called Russia and trembled with terror whenever Russia moved.” ¹

These were the words of the historian Henry Adams after his 1901 visit with European heads of state. As a close confidant of the McKinley administration, he had accompanied his close friend, John Hay, then Secretary of State, on this diplomatic mission. He was the great grandson and grandson of two Presidents and a friend of President McKinley. Thereby, he was an historian especially blessed with unusual connections to government officials and creditable sources. This quote was not only his historical assessment of Russia’s role in Europe at the time but became his predictive assessment of Russia’s role in the new century. He equated Russia with an archaic glacier that was “more likely to advance” and inclined to bury Europe under its inert mass. He also stereotyped (possibly coined) the pseudonym of the Russian “bear” that the “monkey,” his characterization of Europe and America, would always fear or mistrust. For the “monkey,” spurred by technology and hyper capitalism, was active and fundamentally opposed to inertia. He wrote these words at the turn of the century (though not published until 1907). He died in 1918, just a year after the start of the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, marking the end of the Czar’s reign. But he likely would not have been surprised at the unchanging role of Russia on the borders of Europe. In fact, he foresaw it. Throughout the rise and fall of the Soviet Union and the dictatorship of Putin, the threat of the Russian bear in Europe has never diminished. It still simulates a glacier-like inertia weighing heavily on the free, fast-developing countries of Europe. And it now justifies America’s diplomatic and material support of Ukrainian resistance from half-a-world away.

Unsurprisingly, the Russian bear myth persists. It represents a carnivore that has no remorse in devouring its prey as Russia now attempts to devour Ukraine and, literally, Ukrainians. Characteristically, Putin has accused Ukrainians of his crimes, vilifying them as Nazis monsters, guilty of genocide. Given this pretense, his army has the license to kill, rape, rob, and brutalize civilians while demolishing their homes, markets, hospitals, and schools. Euphemistically, Putin declares his unprovoked invasion of Ukraine as a “special operation” and his soldiers as “liberators.” But Ukrainians are only being “liberated” from their lives and homes. Putin, in czar-like fashion, cannot and will never accept criticism for being inhuman. The Russian bear is simply being itself by devouring these Ukrainian-Nazis monsters. From a different but related perspective, the European and American “monkeys” have had difficulty fending off criticism for their respective roles in subjugating African and Middle Eastern nations to their economic hegemony after the World Wars. Perhaps Adams can be forgiven for characterizing the West’s “monkeys” in a solely positive light. America’s western expansion and the vast lucrative trade with Europe painted a rose-colored future at the turn of the century. Adam’s “monkey” analogy can be forgiven for capturing only the positive aspect of the West’s energy at the dawn of the machine age. Nevertheless, he was right about the West’s unavoidable prod of the Russian bear.

President Putin understands these “monkey/bear” analogies too well, for he repeatedly references them with his “what about-isms.” For example, did not America invade Iraq under the false pretense of an alleged nuclear arsenal and then forcibly attempt to liberate the country from a dictator? Did not European nations justify their colonial conquests and occupations as liberators of backward civilizations? History does remind us that nations can use self-serving, but false, rationales to justify their actions. What Putin is unable to grasp is the ability of a free and democratic society to admit its mistakes and rejoin its efforts to live its ideals of liberty and justice for all. Why cannot international relations redeploy this democratic ability to world affairs and diffuse the tension between democracies and dictatorships? Both sides should—and must—discover a new diplomacy and perhaps a necessary reconstruction of the role the United Nations plays in supporting it. Eliminating each other cannot be the only option.

Today, the United Nations’ charter clearly supports the sovereignty of independent states, the security of their borders, and the peaceful resolution of disputes in lieu of wars. Moreover, through its associated agencies, it attempts to protect human rights, deliver humanitarian aid, promote sustainable development, and uphold international law. But its ability to assure these various missions is subject to its Security Council whose members include those very states captured in Henry Adam’s analogies. They are not only the liberators/conquerors who ridded the world of the Axis powers but are also the economic hegemons of the new world order. And the Russian bear is not the only voracious animal on the Security Council. Maybe it’s time for the United Nations to reconstruct itself and create a new balance of power within its ranks, where each member state has an equal vote and the Security Council’s only role is to provide military support to enforce the actions of a majority. The Security Council’s composition could be only those member nations willing and able to contribute military arms and personnel to the UN’s enforcement of its basic mission—that is, to secure the sovereignty of member states. Its membership might be self-elective among member states, but contingent upon each candidate’s adherence to the UN charter and upon acceptance by a majority of the UN member states. And each candidate should meet a pre-determined threshold of its military investment and capability. Although members of the Security Council would have an equal vote in any military plan, its enforcement would be proportioned to the pre-determined capability of each state. Finally, any enforcement action proposed by the UN member states would also require a majority vote of the Security Council. There must be a “check and balance” mechanism here to assure any military action was justified, appropriate to meet the need, and not conducive to a wider confrontation, including a world war.

If the above suggestion sounds too simplistic, that’s because it is. But it could become the starting point of serious discussions within the community of nations to create a more effective world agency to protect the sovereignty of nations and avoid the next world war. Today, one nuclear armed nation can violate the sovereignty of another nation while intimidating any intervening nation or nations with the threat of nuclear war. The Russian bear has introduced this new hazard to world peace. And that hazard demands a world response. For the world has finally arrived at the state defined in science fiction chronicles like “Dune” where “world-states” contend for power and threaten to depopulate one another’s planets. Today, Russia’s leaders threaten all of Europe with annihilation—in just “30 minutes”—from a space-directed nuclear bombardment (reference a recent quote from the head of Russia’s nuclear arsenal). Its President even claims America is threatening Russia, though it is only Russia that has invaded Ukraine, a nation that presented no threat to Russia. Remember, it was an unprovoked invasion that started World War II. Perhaps history does not exactly repeat itself, but sometimes it rhymes, even with a more dramatic ending. The twentieth century was a self-inflicted holocaust, unparalleled in all human history. Any such replication in the twenty first century would be apocalyptic by comparison. Specifically, picture radioactive clouds circling the planet and slowly killing all habitants of planet earth. Could homo sapiens attain such a pinnacle of suicidal stupidity? (Reference “It’s a MAD World.”)

Yesterday, I had dinner with a Russian American who had voted for Donald Trump because he was a life-long Republican. We did not discuss Trump’s friendly relations with Putin or his comments about how “brilliant” he termed Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. Instead, we shared anecdotes about our pasts, our likes and dislikes, our hopes for the future, our health concerns, and those important relationships in our lives. In other words, though two individuals with different life experiences, we related as two human beings capable of understanding and appreciating each other. Why cannot nations reach this level of human rapprochement? Are we doomed to the forecasts of many Sci-Fi authors who predict “war of the worlds,” based on human fear of the other, even within the same species?

The quest for power—personal, political, national, imperial—is at the root of human failing throughout history. But also prevalent in our nature is the relationships we build amongst each other, within families and communities, and between individuals and national cultures. The current war in Ukraine brings these two aspects of our humanity in vivid contrast, as we witness both the impact of Putin’s unprovoked war and the world’s humanitarian response. Putin has engaged the world in a battle for the very soul of humanity. His war is not just against Ukrainian soldiers, but against their families, homes, and the infrastructure needed for their survival, such as food, water, shelter, and energy sources. His war is exceedingly punitive for it not only takes lives but degrades the human experience of living. It is more akin to torture. It is the World War II holocaust redux, extended not just to a people, but to a whole nation, and potentially to all of Europe. Putin’s bear requires a continent in which to spread its smothering body politic. We might have dismissed Mein Kampf as the work of a madman. But Putin’s actions and threats could even exceed the ambitions of Hitler for world domination. For his threats prefigure a world in ashes if it does not bow to his dominion. For his dominion might well be annihilation. What can we do as powerless individuals to stall and reverse Putin’s intent to destroy Ukraine, rile international relations and the world’s financial stability, and—worse—threaten a nuclear Armageddon?

Well, our President has done what he can to unify nations against Putin’s atrocities. But frankly, America has stumbled as the “leader of the free world,” despite its elected President. The forces of popularism/nationalism have been seeded here by Donald Trump. And paramilitary groups, white supremacist, wild conspiracy groups like QNON, and grievance antagonists of all stripes have come together to question and even to overthrow America’s democratic institutions and heritage. Many of our politicians have joined the rabblerousers to gain their support and hold onto office rather than to uphold and protect our Constitution. The quest for power, as stated above, is at the root of this undemocratic rot, as demonstrated in the build-up and execution of the January 6 insurrection in 2021. Many of our politicians have betrayed the trust of the American people and their oath to support our Constitution. The question raised above—”what can we do”—has an obvious answer. We can vote for liberty and justice for all and hold those accountable who do not uphold our democratic values.

The roadblocks to liberty and justice must be taken down, as Americans have done in the past. Over 750,000 people died to preserve our Union and to free the slaves. Many women suffered abuse and even torture to win full citizenship and the right to vote. And many more Americans marched through barricades and suffered violent attacks to gain civil and voting rights. Even today, many of us have sought redress through the courts for equal justice or marched for women’s rights and under the banner of the Black Lives Matter movement. We are a liberal, democratic country that supports both states’ rights and a strong central government. How else can we preserve liberty and justice in every state of our Union? We are not like the European Union of diverse countries where laws and administrations can differ and even conflict with each other. Our differences of this type must be settled in the light of our general welfare—which demands compromise within the scope of our Constitution. Too many of our politicians claim adherence to the Constitution and yet oppose any compromise, even violently so. These politicians too often would rather exchange government largesse for large campaign donations so they can hold onto elected office. I remember reading how Andrew Jackson abhorred these office seekers: “It appeared that instead of love of principle it was love of office that had induced them to support the good cause as they pleased to term it . . . (and) that self-exertion was about to be abandoned and dependence for a livelihood placed upon the government.”² Today, we have legislators who have deep roots in office, sometimes over decades, with no interest in legislating. Instead of addressing campaign reforms, a broken immigration system, public education or communal health needs, wealth and income inequality, police-community relations, the many threats of climate change, systemic racism, the safe and lawful use of guns, and so on, they are consumed with suppressing the vote of non-supporters and regaling so-called “right to life” shibboleths that risk women’s lives and weaken appropriate pre-natal care. But America’s diverse population demands a government of, by and for the people—meaning our general welfare must include all of us, else be meaningless.

Currently, Thomas Jefferson’s Republican Party seeks control of Congress without even a Party platform. Their only campaign promise then is to control Congress, but apparently to just one end—to stop any democratic agenda. The GOP has well deserved the designation of “the Party of no.” But, if both Parties were aligned on the fundamental principles outlined in our Constitution, then they could and should come together for the common good. They would seek compromise, the primary principle that makes a democratic legislature functional. But, as Jackson demurred, “instead of love of principle it was love of office . . . “that consumed some office holders. Today, it has consumed an entire political Party. Is a seat in Congress sought only to advance a career, amass a fortune, or simply to exercise the power of office? We already have many millionaires and lawyers in Congress. Perhaps they perceive themselves as a new elite or aristocracy, like many of our founding fathers. But the men who signed our Declaration of Independence and Constitution were signing death warrants if England had won the Revolutionary war or even the subsequent war of 1812. Do these same ideals and bravery still reside in our elected officials . . . or even in our body politic?

In conclusion, the Russian bear can only be stopped if Ukraine wins its war against its Russian invaders. But that victory will require the continued support of the “free” world. America and its NATO allies are providing that support today. Will that support continue as refugees overflow into the allied countries, as gas prices rise, as grain supplies dwindle, and as a world recession looms on the horizon? The answer unearths an underlying assumption about America’s resolve. For it assumes America is still its promise of liberty and justice for all. Today, we can no longer presume we are that America. Our previous President was more aligned with Putin than with NATO. His supporters are planning a second coup at this very moment. Conspiracy theories, rancor, and divisiveness rule in our politics in place of truth, comity, and compromise. George Washington’s fear of a certain “fatal tendency” has become our reality where factions would “become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.” ³ Truth can still prevail if facts and our Constitutional values are demonstrably supported. America is the oldest democracy—surviving for over 246 years—but it cannot subsist as a viable democracy unless it ceaselessly renews itself in alignment with its core values. Democracy is not assured by any document, but by the people who live by its principles. As the Ukrainians are demonstrating, no adversary can stand against a people dedicated to democracy, not even Putin, The Putrefier. ⁴

____________________________________________
¹ Henry Adams, “The Education of Henry Adams,” p. 383.
² Marquis James, “Andrew Jackson: Portrait of a President,” p. 182.
³ This excerpt is from Washington’s “Farewell Address,” as quoted in my blog, “Of . . . By . . . and For.”
⁴ I could not refrain from coining a new word, “putrefier,” as I did with “pejority” in my blog “Majority Pejority.” That coinage placed the majority in a “state of being made worse.” This new coinage is the convolution of two Latin words, namely putrere, to be rotten, and facere, to make. The intimation is obvious.