La revanche de Kennan

Apr 22, 2014 Robert Skidelsky

LONDRES – Le président russe Vladimir Poutine a annoncé ce mois-ci que Gazprom allait demander à ce que le paiement des approvisionnements que le géant gazier fournit à l’Ukraine soit désormais versé un mois à l’avance. Le journal britannique The Observer a réagi par la caricature, publiant un dessin de presse explicite, représentant Poutine sur un trône d’épées dangereusement dressées, le président russe refermant le robinet de gaz ukrainien tout en ironisant « L’hiver approche. » La toile de fond n’est autre qu’un rouge écarlate, la faucille et le marteau pendant autour du cou de Poutine, accompagnés d’une tête de mort. Pour certains, voire pour beaucoup, la guerre froide serait bel et bien de retour.

Mais avant de replonger dans une seconde guerre froide, nous ferions bien de nous remémorer les raisons pour lesquelles nous avons sombré dans la première. L’effondrement du communisme a fait disparaître l’une des causes originelles de cette première guerre froide, à savoir une poussée expansionniste gargantuesque de la part de l’Union soviétique, contrebalancée par une ferme volonté des démocraties occidentales de s’y opposer. Néanmoins, un certain nombre de sources de l’ancienne guerre froide demeurent aujourd’hui.

Le diplomate américain George F. Kennan les a identifiées en ces termes : insécurité névrotique et esprit de dissimulation du côté de la Russie, contre légalisme et moralisme dans le camp de l’Occident ; le juste milieu d’une discussion raisonnable, autour des intérêts, des perspectives et des risques en présence, demeurant encore insaisissable à ce jour.

To continue reading, register now.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

Already have an account? Log in

Subscribe to Project Syndicate

Enjoy unlimited access to the ideas and opinions of the world’s leading thinkers, including long reads, book reviews, topical collections, short-form analysis and predictions, and exclusive interviews; every new issue of the PS Quarterly magazine (print and digital); the complete PS archive; and more. Subscribe now to PS Premium.

Robert Skidelsky

Writing for PS since 2003
194 Commentaries

Robert Skidelsky, a member of the British House of Lords and Professor Emeritus of Political Economy at Warwick University, was a non-executive director of the private Russian oil company PJSC Russneft from 2016 to 2021. The author of a three-volume biography of John Maynard Keynes, he began his political career in the Labour party, became the Conservative Party’s spokesman for Treasury affairs in the House of Lords, and was eventually forced out of the Conservative Party for his opposition to NATO’s intervention in Kosovo in 1999.

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 10 Comments on this article

Christian Frace May 5, 2014

The question is if it does not turn out all as intended, East Ukraine and Crimea to Russia, Westukraine to West/NATO. Ukrainian bongo state gone. Win-Win-Win.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Jean-Louis Piel Apr 28, 2014

I disagree totally with this misunderstanding of G.F. Kennan's ideas.

Robert Skidelsky is making the same error as many of Russian historians in the past: Russian state has not represented only Russian Ethnics but was a dictatorship above all the nationalities which belong unfortunately to this state - this Empire.

For example in the XIXth century most part of today Ukraine, Poland,Baltic States were part of the Russian state - so called Russian Empire.

During the past three centuries - from XVIIIth to XXIst Century the Ethnic Russians have represented the main minority of the population of the Russian state - as this Russian state was named Russian Empire or Soviet Union.

The ideology of colonised citizens of this Russian state - like the ones of Poland, Ukraine, Mongolia, Tatar, Caucasian, Kazhakstan, Belarus, Baltic states, etc were totally different of the ideology of Ethnic Russians. All desire to free themselves from the colonisation of this Russian state. The nature of this Russian state was very related to this colonisation and even most of her leaders were not ethnic Russian but German, Georgian, Ukrainian or at least mixblood with German, etc.

What George F. Kennan has really well understood is the nature of this state and the fact that the Ethnic Russians were a minority. He explained very well why Ethnic Russians need dictator , even a foreigner and why this dictator needs to create ennemies in front of these Ethnic Russians that most of the time they defined as "Russian slaves". Kennan understands deeply why these Ethnic Russians have been during centuries so passive in front of such foreign dictators.

At the opposite all the colonised citizens of this Russian state as the ones from Poland, or Ukraine, or Baltic states , or Caucasian states, or Mongolia or mainly all the Central Asian states have always fought against these dictators whose some of them came from their own country - as Stalin with Georgia.

When these citizens succeed after long long fights to free themselves from the Russian colonialist state, they establish as quick as they can a system of defines which could protect them from being colonised again by this Russian state : it was the main reason for Poland, Baltic state, Rumania, etc to become part of NATO. As for Ukraine and Georgia and Moldova to want to become member of NATO; After to have been brutalised and occupied by this Russian state it is obvious that they become part of NATO. It was not an extension of NATO , it was simply a natural movement from free countries to be part of a secure system against a possible invasion of the Russian state.

What George F Kennan has defined is why this Russian state has a "natural" tendency to invade, to colonise Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakstan, Caucasian states, etc.

It is because the Ethnic Russians have a "slave mentality", because they need a dictator - and , that is the most important , it is because they - these "Russian slaves" to belong to a state which colonise others in their names.

Why they need so much to colonise Ukrainians for example or Georgians? It is because as "Russian slaves" they need to feel that they are people which are under themselves - in a way more slave than themselves. It is absolutely vital for them to feel that other way their status as Russian slave is unbearable.

It is , in my view, the correct way to understand G.F. Kennan's concepts.

The containment concept is fundamentally a concept of isolation of Soviet Union - without any direct war against it - because G F Kennan said that Soviet Union will destroy itself by itself, from the interior forces. He means by that that the power of the colonised people like the Polish or the Ukrainians , etc who want to free themselves from the the' Russian state colonisation will automatically destroy Soviet Union. He was right. It was useless to have a war against this Soviet Union - the best was to isolate them.

Ethnic Russians need to liberate from themselves, from their state of slavery - which is translating most of the time as a colonialist , imperialist mentality. It is easy to notice that when you read the Russian medias today or most of the Russian intellectuals. For them Ukraine as independent state doesn't exist. Ukrainians as citizen of an independent country with a total different history as Russia don't exist for these Russian slaves. Same a little bit for the Georgians.

But when you speak with Ukrainians or Georgians, you realise very easily that they feel themselves and with good reason that their culture is much superior and older than the ones of the Russians. They see the Russians as "peasants", who have always been backward of all the values and civilisation that they represent which they consider is part of the European civilisation has its highest level at the opposite of the Russian ones. But it is also the same for the Mongolian or for the Tatar, islamist etc.

The way to manage the Ukrainian crisis is not what proposes Robert Skidelsky who is betraying his Polish origin, the best way to manage this crisis is to help the Ukrainians to fight for their independence, for their freedom, for their desire to be part of EU and of NATO, to end the Russian colonisation which brings them to this disaster. Only a total victory against these Ethnic Russians will mean the end of this crisis.

Decolonization process has always been a long and very difficult process - all the countries who free themselves from their colonisation have been through civil wars, wars, long and painful fights.

This Russian colonisation has taken place in Ukraine since more than two centuries . The Ukrainians with their superior civilisation and culture have not succeeded to elevate the Russian ones. It is the reason it is so painful for the Russians to see that the Ukrainians are on the berge to create a real democratic state, to free themselves from the horrible corruption created mainly by the Russian state when themselves as Ethnic Russians they are still prisoners, slaves of their own dictatorship.

History has demonstrated us that the will of Ukrainian people will dominate the Russian slave mentality. It has always been the case for many countries around the World.

The real losers are the Ethnic Russians who are lovers of dictator - meaning acting as slave.

We, European, need to support these Ukrainians to build their own democratic and independent country because it is a fundamental element of our security , of European peace, of our prosperity and of our values.

In this there is nothing of moralistic - it is pure interest.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Yuriy Gorodnichenko Apr 27, 2014

related post
http://voxukraine.blogspot.com/2014/04/russia-west-relationship-long-telegram.html
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen Apr 26, 2014

According to Robert Skidelsky, the historian George Kennan, "the father" of the US Containment Policy during the Cold War, "argued that long-term peace between the capitalist West and communist Russia was impossible, owing to the mixture of traditional Russian insecurity, Stalin’s need for an external enemy, and communist messianism".
The Soviet Union never succeeded in bringing about "the collapse of capitalism". Instead it saw its own demise and the rise of a capitalist system ruled by cronies and oligarchs closed to the political elite. Under Putin ordinary Russians are more wealthy and freer than in the old days.
If Kennan was dismayed that his "Containment Policy" had been misinterpreteted by Harry Truman's administration, he no doubt knew the Russian soul. The Soviet leaders then were "impervious to the logic of reason", but "highly sensitive to the logic of force". His "containment was meant to be economic and political, not military" and he "opposed the formation of NATO". Today Vladimir Putin is not much different from his Soviet predecessors and he sees the NATO eastward enlargement as a real threat to Russia's security.
In retrospect Skidelsky asks, "whether it was NATO or US economic and political support that prevented Western Europe from embracing communism". Likewise, the question can also be whether Russia would have been a more different country had the West offered Moscow financial help, instead of leaving it to its own devices after the collapse of the Soviet Union? Kennan's post-WW II Marshall Plan helped Germany integrate and prevent it from recividism. Yet it did too little to promote trust between the West and the Soviet Union, leading to an arms race, that posed the biggest threat to the world.
Skidelsky says: "To understand how Russians regard Ukraine today, one needs to view events there through this lens". Yet Putin believes the Orange Revolution was not the result of popular uprisings at all but orchestrated by America and its allies to subvert real democracy among Russia's former allies. He and many Russians regret the collapse of the Soviet Union, not just because it plunged Russia into chaos but because, during Russia's temporary absence on the international stage, the US made huge strides forward. The Western thrusts in recent months have "undoubtedly inspired Russian paranoia, reflected today in Kremlin-fueled conspiracy theories about Ukraine".
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Basle Jean-Luc Apr 26, 2014

Excellent article. Thank you. Two quotes to comfort your point of view:
“The US has treated Russia like a loser since the end of the Cold War.” Jack F. Matlock Jr. – Washington Post - March 14, 2014.
“Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?” Matthew, 7,3.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
hari naidu Apr 23, 2014

It’s amazing what intuitive intelligence and policy advise we’ve here on Ukraine :

From Richard Haas & AM Slaughter: Former Director’s of Policy Planning directorate of State Department: There is a “primitive level of slogans and jingoistic ideological inspiration,” as quoted by Skidelsky.

Personally I’m glad that neither of the two are in *foggy bottom* advising Kerry.

In Syria, Assad has called a general election and will inevitably return to power – while +90% of chemical weapons have been removed by UN Agency under civil war conditions.

President Obama has more or less given up on Syria – after his failed demarche.

And it seems he’s no real or serious strategy to deal with Putin – let alone invite him to WH for a serious political dialogue.

Bottom line: Merkel must have made it absolutely clear to Obama that military action against Russia (or Putin) is not acceptable and will not resolve the crisis.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Velko Simeonov Apr 23, 2014

Interesting and objective analysis of the situation. Too bad that the people who run the show will never pay attention to such non-indoctrinated analysis.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Zsolt Hermann Apr 22, 2014

What sounds strange to me is that every commentary on the Ukrainian conflict pitting Russia against the US and the Western alliance speaks as if we were still speaking about the same polarized world, a de facto communistic or socialist country against the perfectly functioning capitalistic West.
But is is not true.
Russia is neither communistic nor capitalistic, it is hung somewhere in between.
The "free market, constant growth" capitalism is failing, collapsing, and even democracy and freedom themselves are just empty ideas today.
Then there are other experiments, like the also failing European model, the paradox Chinese system, the highly volatile amorphous Middle East and the developing but completely unpredictable, disjointed Africa.
It is possible we haven't had such an unpredictable and potentially volatile chaos, explosive mix since the Middle Ages, but this time we arrived here after we had all the possibilities, chances to create the "right system".
It turns out it is not the system that is the problem, but it is our own, inherently self-centered and egoistic human nature.
For the first time we can and have to realize it is not the world we need to change, we do not have to be explorers, conquerors, heroes, but we have to critically examine and change ourselves, our own nature.
And since we evolved into the globally interconnected and interdependent human network we have to do this mutually together.
When vast natural disaster, global catastrophe strikes people tend to connect and help each other above inherent or historical differences, hatred.
We should try to do the same now before such calamity forces us.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Max Samadov Apr 22, 2014

Only 10% of Ukrainians are in favour of federalization. Perhaps it's the Ukrainians who should be talked to and listened to first.

The Russan 'proposals' are not meant to resolve the crisis, but rather to destabilize situation in Ukraine further.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Michael Kryschyshen Apr 22, 2014

Ukraine should remain non-aligned, but this does not mean that it should be a Moscow dominated buffer-state.

WWII was the last time Russia relied on Ukraine's strategic position to create distance between Moscow and a Western aggressor. In order to maximize Ukraine's value as a buffer, Stalin employed his infamous "Scorched Earth Policy." Under Moscow's orders the Red Army slaughtered nearly all of Ukraine's livestock, either stole or torched both its grain reserves and the plants growing in the fields, and it demolished roads, bridges, power-plants, apartment buildings, entire city blocks and even treasured landmarks that dated to pre-Christian times.

Moscow's past actions show that Ukraine was not historically seen as a part of a Russian heartland that needed to be protected at all costs but rather as speed-bump for Western tanks.

All talk of Russia having special privilege to it's former vassals should cease. That being said, special consideration to Russia's geopolitical concerns should be taken very seriously and to reasure Moscow, all dealings with Ukraine by large Western organizations should be transparent.

Moscow has no claim to Ukraine and if Moscow feels that a Westernized Ukraine is a mortal threat; then it should take innovative steps, within its own borders, to minimize this threat.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.