To Russia With Love? Re-Setting Relations in the Trump Era

Believe it or not, this is not going to be a piece about whether or not Donald Trump colluded with the Russians to influence the U.S. presidential election in his favor. I will await the results of the independent inquiry before passing judgment on this issue. While the media and the U.S. public are so caught up in the question of to what extent the Russian government attempted to influence the U.S.  election, far more dangerous developments are taking place between the U.S. and Russia which threaten to bring us back to the worst days of the Cold War. I'm referring to the mutual troop buildup between NATO forces in Eastern Europe and the Russians along their western border.

In order to understand these developments, we have to go back to the end of the Cold War. All during the Cold War, U.S. propaganda portrayed the Soviet Union as an expansionist power bent on spreading its godless ideology throughout the globe. The Russians, by contrast, interpret history very differently. From the Russian perspective, their country has been the victim of repeated invasions from Western powers, which were repelled only at great material and human cost.

Thus, when NATO began expanding eastward into what was at one time Russia's sphere of influence, many in the Russian government, including Vladimir Putin, were alarmed and not without reason. During Bill Clinton's administration, NATO expanded to states directly adjacent to the Russian border. While we in the West may see this benignly, it's only because we haven't been the victims of such a policy ourselves. Recall how we almost brought the world to nuclear annihilation when the Russians, countering the threat of U.S. nuclear missiles based in Turkey, placed their own missiles in Cuba "90 miles off the coast of Florida" as our panicked press repeated endlessly. Imagine how we might react if the Russians formed an alliance that included Mexico and Canada and one might begin to understand Russian attitudes about NATO.

Upon coming to power, Vladimir Putin has consistently sought to restore Russian strength and pride of place in the international system. Angry at the West for taking advantage of post-Cold War Russian weakness to enlarge what it sees as an anti-Russian alliance (with good reason, since that was NATO's Cold War raison d'être), Putin has begun resisting and challenging American hegemony within it's sphere of influence. The problem is his actions have resulted in what International Relations scholars identify as the Security Dilemma. In seeking to improve Russia's security, the actions taken by Putin have been viewed as provocative and threatening by the U.S. and its NATO allies. There have been several incidents of Russian jets "buzzing" U.S. ships in the Black Sea (though none of these reports ever bothers to ask the question what a U.S. ship is doing operating that close to the Russian heartland. It's simply taken for granted that the U.S. has the right to conduct military exercises anywhere in the world it deems fit). Further, Russia's annexation of the Crimea led to a NATO troop buildup in Eastern Europe, which was met by a similar buildup of Russian forces along its western border.  Most alarming was Russia's placement of nuclear capable Iskander-M missiles in Kaliningrad, which are capable of striking Berlin.

The problem for anyone concerned with these alarming developments from an American perspective is that allegations of Russian interference in the U.S. Presidential election makes it extremely difficult  to begin any kind of process of re-setting relations between the two powers. Democrats, seeking to gain political advantage, can easily attack Trump from the right by portraying him as "soft" on Russia
(and that is a most generous interpretation of the kind of political attacks Trump would face). Once again, our dysfunctional political system makes it almost impossible to cooperate to achieve desirable policy objectives. In the meantime, the two greatest nuclear powers continue to escalate tensions, threatening the very future of the human race.

Leave Your Ego at the Door

Leave Your Ego at the Door

Anybody who has practiced Brazilian Jiu Jitsu for any length of time has heard this statement before. The idea behind the statement is that there are going to be many times during the course of one's jiu jitsu journey where you will be the nail to someone else's proverbial hammer. In order to progress in the art, you have to learn to deal with loss. Upper belts tend to think that they've mastered their egos and that the saying, which is the subject of many a jiu jitsu meme, is something that only applies to lower ranks and newbies.  I can only speak for myself on this subject, but I also find it difficult to leave my ego at the door, despite the fact that doing so would make rolling (which is sparring for those not familiar with the art) a lot more enjoyable for me.  It would free my mind and allow me to experiment more during rolls without worrying about getting trapped in a bad position and possibly forced to tap out. As a 49 yr old, rapidly aging practitioner who holds a brown belt, I seem to believe that I'm not allowed to lose to anyone who is lower-ranked than me (with one or two notable exceptions). Specifically worrisome for me is the idea that a blue belt or even advanced white belt might tap me out during a roll.  I don't even want to think of the pressure I would put on myself if I was a black belt.  

Unfortunately for me, my academy has plenty of bigger, stronger, faster, younger, and more athletic guys than me who also learn at a much faster rate. Right now I can hold my own against anyone in the class with the exception of my instructor, who can tap me with ease. But I am fully aware that my days are numbered. It won't be long before these guys start tapping me, possibly with regularity, even though some of them are blue belts or soon-to-be purple belts. Rationally, I am aware that I'm going to have to come to terms with the likelihood of getting tapped out by these guys, but emotionally I find it very difficult to do so. I would love to know how other jiu jitsu practitioners, particularly older ones, handle this issue.

Of course, I already know how I will react when I do eventually get tapped by one of these guys. I will tip my proverbial cap, compliment him on his skill, slap hands, and keep rolling.  But that won't make it any easier.

Memorial Day

I can't help but feel very ambivalent about Memorial Day. It just seems as though this holiday is often manipulated (by the media) to celebrate U.S. militarism rather than contemplate what the deaths of literally millions of young lives in our nation's wars means. When I first moved to Washington, DC many years ago, every Memorial Day I would walk down to the National Mall to see what was going on. I vividly remember the overwhelming roar of motorcycles parading down Constitution Ave. But even more so, I remember being drawn to the memorial to the Vietnam War. When you read the names of all of those people who died in that war...all those 18 year old men and women whose lives were cut down before their time...well, you can't help but question whether all of these wars we continue to fight are worth it.

We tell ourselves that our wars are necessary to defend our freedoms. Yet when was the last time an external enemy REALLY threatened our freedoms--our freedom of speech, of assembly, etc.?  Indeed, it's usually during times of war when our freedoms are most at risk from our own government. History is replete with such examples. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War, Congress passed the Sedition Act of 1918 during WWI, Japanese-Americans were infamously confined to camps during WWII. Today, it's the so-called "War on Terror" that most directly threatens our freedoms. And that threat isn't from al-Qaeda or ISIS. It's from a government that secretly monitors the communications of American citizens, and even goes so far as performing targeted assassinations against U.S. citizens accused of aiding and abetting the enemy.  The last direct threat to the security and freedom of Americans was probably the War of 1812, when the British succeeded in burning down the Capitol. If we were able to be honest with ourselves about the vast majority of wars we undertake, we would be forced to confront the ugly reality that young men and women aren't dying to protect our freedoms, but rather our power and privileges. And especially the power and privileges of that small elite that controls that vast majority of the country's wealth and their representatives in the government.  

It's my belief that war should be the very last resort to resolving an international conflict. We have an obligation to the men and women of our armed services not to send them into harm's way and put them in situations in which they are forced to kill other human beings and to risk being killed or injured in return unless it is absolutely necessary to prevent a greater "evil."  We tell ourselves that we are reluctant warriors who only fight under these conditions. Unfortunately, the historical record does not support this belief. It is my hope that Memorial Day will give more of us pause to think about these issues and to do everything in our power not to send our men and women off to war.