Friday, March 28, 2014

The George Will-Peggy Noonan Dichotomy

In an article published in the Washington Post, George Will asked: “Can NATO restrain Russia?” and the next day, Peggy Noonan wrote in the Wall Street Journal: “Mr. Putin's Revealing Speech.” She was not responding to Will but was expressing that she saw things from a position opposite to that of her counterpart. The Will article came down on March 27, 2014 without a subtitle whereas the Noonan article came down with the subtitle: “At the Kremlin, he makes the case for an increasingly aggressive Russia.” It was published on March 28, 2014.

Will makes no bones about what he means to say: Vladimir Putin has proved to be in league with Hitler; one of the worst bandits in all of human history. And he uses his entire article to draw parallels between what happened in the early to mid-parts of the Twentieth Century, and what is happening now in the early parts of the Twenty First Century. As to Noonan, she makes use of the Putin speech to describe a situation that makes the reader wonder if this is not more like a soap opera of epic dimensions.

What George Will is describing is revanchism in the sense that Russia lost some territory and is trying to take it back by force of arms like the dangerous kidnapper that should be dealt with harshly by America, the policeman of the world; and by NATO, his squad of special operations. But Noonan conveys the sense that this is a family feud which promises to run for several episodes with plenty of love-and-hate emotions generate among members of the family, and plenty of fear generated by the meddling of outside forces.

Come to think of it, Crimea was given as a gift to Ukraine by Nikita Khrushchev while Ukraine itself did not separate from the Russian Federation. Instead, it was Boris Yeltsin of the Federation that wanted to be free of the old Soviet Union, and when the other republics refused to break loose, he used a provision of the Soviet Constitution to break the Federation away from the other republics.

Well, this sounds more like a messy affair of separation, divorce and wooing back to the family nest than the definition of revanchism as given by some dictionaries. In fact, it sounds more like revanchism in the French sense of the word because the events are a testament to the rivalry that still exists between the two old camps of the Cold War than they are of a lost territory which Russia is trying to take back by force of arms.

And so, there should be no doubt that what is happening on the Eurasian Continent is a human drama that is played out not by individual characters, but by groups of various ethnic backgrounds and various languages; groups that lived together as a family for hundreds if not thousands of years. They tried separation, even divorce but in the end, came back to square one which is the uncertainty about what it is they really want to do.

What is complicating matters is the meddling by some members of the European Union as well as NATO, acting in a manner reminiscent of the old rivalry between that organization and its counterpart, the now dissolved Warsaw Pact. These members view the events unfolding on the Eurasian Continent through the same prism as that of George Will. They assert that the divorce between Russia and the old Republics is definitive, and that the latter have remarried to NATO and to the European Union. Where the marriage has not been consummated, as is the case with Ukraine and Georgia, it will soon be because it is how it must be.

As in all human affairs, it is how you view a situation that determines how you react to it, therefore what the ultimate outcome will be. In the Will-Noonan dichotomy, neither extreme would be a good choice to make, which is why the dichotomy must be rejected. Therefore, a case must be made for an alternative that will make it clear that no matter what happened to have caused the break-up of the old Soviet family, getting it back together by means that fall outside the norms established by international law is unacceptable.

But that does not mean if you're not a saint you're a demon. It simply means that Russia should not overreact, and that NATO and the European Union should not do anything that will provoke Russia. The situation must be handled with understanding, intelligence and deft.

Everyone should learn to be patient. Let time calm the raw emotions, and let it heal the wounds.