russia

Books of Interest
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

THE RUSSIAN ECONOMY (A Very Short Introduction)

Author: Richard Connolly

Narration by: John Pruden

Richard Connolly (British author, Associate fellow at the Centre for New American Security (CNAS) in Washington D.C., former director of the Centre for Russian, European and Eurasian Studies at the University of Birmingham.)

Richard Connolly offers a brief and informative overview of Russia’s economic growth from the days of Stalin through today. He explains Russia’s economy has grown into a blend of state control and market demand that became the 20th century’s USSR. The common objective of every Russian leader since the 1917 revolution is stabilization of the country and any territory they rule. From the early days of Lenin and Stalin there is the goal of transitioning Russia from an agrarian lifestyle to an industrial power that could compete with other nations. In the process of that decision and from the spoils of WWII Russia became the USSR.

The goal of industrializing Russia for what became the U.S.S.R. is to create a powerful nation-state, by any means necessary, to compete with and/or dominate other nations. The shortest road for an agrarian nation to become an industrial power is dictatorship which fit the personality of Lenin’s successor, Joseph Stalin.

Joseph Stalin (1878-1953, General Secretary of the Communist Party 1922-1952.)

Stalin is a born martinet. He views Russia’s agrarian workers without concern for human or economic cost to turn their labor to industry with the intent of creating a military/industrial power. He redirects Russia’s people to work for the betterment of the state. At the same time, Stalin transitions farm laborers to industrial workers managed by government apparatchiks. Five-year plans are created by the government. Those who fail to achieve five-year plan goals are punished. Agriculture is forcibly collectivized and controlled by the government. The methodology Stalin uses to industrialize Russia is repeated in countries Russia claims after World War II.

The hardship one hears in traveling to Poland and the Baltics opens one’s eyes to the terrible experience their citizens endure from Stalin’s rule. The revenue from agricultural and mineral production goes to the State for purchase of machinery to industrialize Russia and newly acquired territories after the defeat of Nazi Germany in WWII. Thousands die of starvation because of Stalin’s ambition. Economic independence is not tolerated, either in agriculture or industry. Stalin focuses on steel, coal, and machinery to transform the economy. Living standards of workers is of no concern with goals that must be met. Profitability, consumer needs, and human life are sacrificed with the singular goal of maximizing industrial production.

The Soviet economy advanced because of Stalin’s political goals. Stalin’s goals are state security and survival. Human cost is no concern. Those who opposed Stalin’s goals were either suppressed, tortured, or killed as enemies of the State. Stalin rules for 29 years, from 1924 until his death in 1953. Stalin achieves enormous strategic economic gains by building a heavy-industrial, militarized economy that gave Russia, then the USSR, great-power status. Despite his methodology and the duplicity of Stalin’s early support of Hitler in WWII, Russia became a critical world power with the defeat of Nazi Germany. For that success, the world owes some measure of gratitude for an amoral and inhumane tyrant.

Nikita Khrushchev (1894-1971, Secy. of the communist party 1953-1964)

When Khrushchev came to power after Stalin’s death, he shifts Stalin’s model of governance to a more sustainable, technologically oriented system for Russia to remain a superpower. Khrushchev rebalances the Soviet economy in a way that keeps Russia militarily competitive and capable of global engagement. He shifted the economy toward science, technology, and space exploration. One is reminded of Russia’s Sputnik moment. Technology became a core component of economic power. Khrushchev moves Russia toward consumer welfare to illustrate his belief in the superiority of socialism. Connolly suggests Khrushchev began raising the living standards of the Russian people. The Soviet Union became more of an international partner by aiding other countries, selling arms to other countries, and using trade and technical assistance as a geopolitical influencer. Brezhnev solidified the vision of socialism as a stable and predictive governmental system. However, the Russia economy became less dynamic in the modernizing world. In the 1980s, the Russian economy falters.

Yuri Andropov (1982-1984 General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party, born in 1914-died in 1984.)

When Brezhnev dies in 1982, Yuri Andropov becomes the General Secretary of the Communist Party. In his short tenure, he revives discipline in governance of Russia by fighting corruption and trying to improve Russia’s economy. Andropov’s tenure is short, approximately 15 months. Andropov wished Mikhail Gorbachev to succeed him, but the Politburo chose Chernenko who only served for 13 months.

Konstantin Chernenko (General Secretary of the Communist Party 1984-1984, born in 1911-died in 1985.)

Chernenko’s successor is Mikhail Gorbachev. Gorbachev transformed the USSR. He ended the Cold War and reduced hostility toward the West. He received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1990. On the one hand he democratized Soviet politics but on the other he unintentionally triggered the collapse of the U.S.S.R. Gorbachev’s replacement is Boris Yeltsin who effectively dismantled Russia’s planned economy and opens Russia to global markets. His short tenure is chaotic, but it creates a foundation that leads to Putin’s reign.

“The Russian Economy” is written before Putin invades Ukraine. Putin reasserts the Russian government’s control over the economy.

Energy, defense, and finance are state controlled. In a sense, Putin returns to something like the rule of Stalin. Putin chooses to reorient Russia toward Asia rather than the United States. Putin rebuilt Russia’s wartime military capabilities. However, Connolly argues Putin fails to diversify or modernize Russia’s economy. He has successfully created a durable, state-centered model of government with geopolitical power, but economic prosperity seems, at best, a faltering work in progress. Connolly believes Russia will be able to withstand pressure from the West with its nuclear capability and economic power. Connolly believes Russia will survive its present semi-isolation. Connolly believes the State will remain the central actor in Russia’s future with (at least a near term) orientation toward Asia rather than the West.

WORLD INIQUITY

One comes away from Trevor Reed’s book with the feeling he tilted at Don Quixote’s windmill. One’s heart goes out to Ukraine and their fight against an implacable Russian President who tilts at a different windmill.

Books of Interest
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Retribution (A US Marine’s Fight for Justice, from the Russian Gulag to Ukraine’s Front Lines

Author: Trevor Reed, Jim DeFelice

Narration by: Roger Wayne, Joey Reed

Trevor Reed (on the left) is the subject of Retribution. It is co-written with the novelist Jim DeFelice (on the right).

U.S. Marine infantry.

Trevor Reed is a former Marine infantry soldier who was imprisoned for being drunk and disorderly in Russia. He became a victim of Russia’s hostage exchange system. The story of his young life and how he became a marine and a Ukrainian combatant against Russia is explained in “Retribution”. As a strong-willed youth who challenged parental control, he became an athletic wrestling champion in high school. His disciplined physical work ethic made him a 145 lb. highly self-confident young man who decided (contrary to his father’s council as an ex-marine) to enlist in the marine infantry.

The risk of travel to foreign countries.

Reed’s story of being arrested in Russia is a lesson about the risks of traveling to a foreign country that disagrees with America’s form of government. Reed became romantically involved with a young woman in Russia who he had corresponded with after completing his 4-year commitment in the Marines. Alina Tsybulnik, his Russian girlfriend, visited America, became a friend of his family, and invited Trevor to Russia. They became intimate friends.

Alina Tsybulnik and Trevor Reed.

Tsybulnik is enrolled in a Russian college to become an attorney. When Trevor visits her in Russia, they go out on the town. Trevor gets drunk and disorderly and is arrested by the Russian police in 2019. In what is characterized as a gross exaggeration of Trevor’s actions on their night on the town, Trevor is sentenced to prison for nine years in a Russian penal colony. In April 2022, after three years, Trevor is released in a prisoner exchange.

Trevor Reed’s parents.

Reed shows himself to be a tough-minded person who refuses to cooperate with the Russian prison guards’ orders to work while being unfairly imprisoned in a work camp. He is visited by his father who works to have the Biden administration get his son released. Alina Tsybulnik uses her legal experience with the Russian legal system to get Reed released. The corruption and purpose of incarceration in Russia is shown to be political by Reed’s story. Reed explains how even some Russian administrators, not to mention his girlfriend, resist the political ministrations of the system but are unable to change its policies.

Alexei Navalny, a Russian dissident, is sentenced to an Arctic penal colony and is poisoned. He dies in that Arctic colony at the age of 47 in 2024.

The last chapters of Reed’s book recount his effort to get a level of revenge against Russia’s injustice by volunteering in Ukraine’s war against Russia’s invasion. Reed had become a fluent Russian language user because of his intellect, his relationship with Tsybulnik, and his imprisonment. He used that skill to join the Ukrainian resistance. One comes away from Trevor Reed’s book with the feeling he tilted at Don Quixote’s windmill. One’s heart goes out to Ukraine and their fight against an implacable Russian President who tilts at a different windmill.

HOSTAGE NEGOTIATIONS

The disturbing message of “Swap” is that human beings are currency, i.e., nothing more than a dollar bill, a euro, a yen, a pound, a franc, or a renminbi. Like a hot war, the Cold War monetizes human lives.

Books of Interest
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Swap (A Secret History of the New Cold War)

Author: Drew Hinshaw, Joe Parkinson

Narrated By: Keith Brown

Drew Hinshaw (on the left) is a senior reporter at The Wall Street Journal.

Joe Parkinson is also a reporter at The Wall Street Journal. Both are Pulitzer Prize finalists and nominees.

Human life is viewed in this new Cold War’ era as economic transaction.

“Swap” is a detailed explanation of how human beings are just bargaining chips. Hinshaw and Parkinson argue that the Cold War has been resurrected by Russia. Russia uses accusations, sometimes lies, and unreasonable charges against foreign travelers and native dissidents to gain leverage in a blood sport that convicts, incarcerates, imprisons, or murders alleged internal spies, dissidents, and foreign citizens. The authors of “Swap” have researched the 2024 hostage exchanges between Russia and the U.S. to illustrate how crude and transactional hostage-taking has become in a new Cold War.

Hinshaw and Parkinson note that 24 prisoners and 2 children were swapped in what is called the “Rubik’s Cube” hostage exchange of 2024.

“Rubik’s Cube” is meant to describe the complexity of a 2024′ human exchange of prisoners between the West and Russia. The most publicly known hostage release from Putin’s Russia was Brittney Griner (the WNBA star) who was the first to be released when Paul Whelan (a former U.S. Marine), Trevor Reed (also a U.S. Marine), Evan Gershkovich (a Wall Street Journal reporter), and Alsu Kurmasheva (an American journalist visiting her family in Russia) were also hostages but later released in a complicated exchange between many nations’ leaders. This later group was released through the work of the American State Department during the Biden administration which had been criticized by some because of Griner’s celebrity being more important than others. Whether true or not, Hinshaw and Parkinson explain the political reality of hostage taking and exchange has evolved since the earlier Cold War.

Vadim Krasikov (a Russian assassin convicted in Germany), several Russian spies, smugglers, and hackers were released to Russia in exchange for a mega-swap of Americans after Griner’s exchange. The mega-swap was highly complicated and a dramatic example of what negotiated hostage exchanges really mean in the 21st century.

Paul Whelan (Canadian-born U.S. Marine arrested in Russia in 2018.)

This complicated “Rubik Cube” transaction began in 2018 when Paul Whelan had been jailed and convicted in a Russian court for alleged spying. (Interestingly, Whelan had been dishonorably discharged from the Marines for bad conduct related to larceny in 2008.) Along with Whelan’s arrest, Trevor Reed’s conviction and incarceration was in 2019, Brittney Griner in 2022, and Evan Gershkovich in 2023. Each arrest was for different alleged transgressions which added to the negotiation difficulties.

Evan Gershkovich (American journalist and reporter for The Wall Street Journal.)

Brittney Griner (American professional basketball player.)

It was the Wall Street Journal’s hostage (Evan Gershkovich) and the WNBA player (Brittney Griner) that intensified negotiations and public awareness of hostage exchange. The authors of “Swap” explain why awareness is only the beginning of understanding. Whelan’s twin brother is identified as one of the most relentless advocates for Paul Whelan’s release. Whelan’s entire family became “accidental diplomats” by injecting themselves into the American government’s ponderous efforts to get Paul Whelan released. The family injected themselves into the American government’s process by becoming squeaky wheels in the negotiating offices of the government.

Several different countries participated in a multiple hostage swap after Griner’s release. Germany, UK, France, Netherlands, Poland, Lithuania, and the Czech Republic were persuaded by the U.S. government to exchange a convicted assassin and several alleged Russian cyber operatives and spies to gain release of Whelan, Reed, Kurmasheva, and Gershkovich.

This negotiated human exchange is a complicated transaction that involved many governments’ participation and agreement. It required coordinated release of eight Russian operatives, one of which was a convicted assassin, and seven others, either proven or suspected spies or smugglers, to be exchanged for Russia’s imprisoned hostages. Along with the U.S., Germany agreed to release a convicted assassin, while the UK, France, Netherlands, Poland, Lithuania, and Czech Republic agreed to return several alleged Russian cyber operatives and spies. The releases were coordinated by the CIA and MI6 with the transaction to take place in Turkey. This was an amazing operation that required agreement and coordination by 8 nations to secure an agreement with the President of Russia.

Hostage taking has changed human beings into a commodity like money. War and now hostage release dehumanize society.

DICTATORSHIP

The importance of freedom in book publication and for those who read them is the message Charlie English gives the public in “The CIA Book Club”. It is too bad America’s current President chooses not to read because this book reminds one of how important books are in the world.

Books of Interest
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

The CIA Book Club (The Secret Mission to Win the Cold War with Forbidden Literature)

Author: Charlie English

Narrated By: Michael David Axtell

Charlie English (Author, British non-fiction author, former head of international news at the Guardian.)

“The CIA Book Club” is a reminder of the former USSR and today’s Russian invasion of Ukraine and what is at stake for Ukraine’s citizens that may, once again, come under the repressive return of a dictatorial leader. Putin has adopted many of the same characteristics of Joseph Stalin, a leader who believed in dictatorial control over the media, and isolating or murdering anyone who challenges his leadership. The scale of Putin’s use of gulags, and mass executions is much smaller than Stalin’s but his cultivation of a cadre of followers, rewarded by the power of association and lure of wealth, create a similar dictatorship.

What Charlie English reminds listener/readers of is how Poland suffered under Stalin and what it will mean to Ukrainians when much of their land is taken to settle the Ukrainian war.

Without solid opposition of all Western powers, concession of Ukrainian land seems inevitable. Trump’s waffling opposition to Putin and the fear of nuclear confrontation reduce the likelihood of Russia’s peaceful withdrawal from Ukraine.

Like the repressive actions of the USSR in the Baltics, English explains how brutal Hitler, Stalin, and Stalin’s successors were to Poland even after Stalin’s death.

Strick control over publishing continued after Stalin’s death. Orwell, Koestler, and Solzhenitsyn were banned, and western books were blocked at the border. Polish citizens like Miroslaw Chojecki risked imprisonment for smuggling and/or re-printing forbidden works. The KGB monitored dissidents, writers, and students. English notes that phones were tapped and homes raided. However, a CIA program continued to provide copies of banned books to Polish dissidents. Polish citizens became partners in covert activities to smuggle and re-print books for their countrymen and women. A Solidarity movement against censorship and discrimination is formed by Polish patriots. This reminds one of the resistances one hears when visiting today’s Baltic countries and stories of citizens whose families were jailed, tortured, and sometimes killed during Stalin’s occupation.

Poland, a spectacularly beautiful country.

Poland is an important trade and agricultural producer at the crossroad of Europe. It has no natural land barriers between itself and the great powers on their borders. Its strategic value to European aggressors has made it a victim of a history of foreign occupation. In the 13th, 17th, 18th, and 20th centuries Poland was occupied by Mongols, Prussians, Germans, and Russians. Poland’s diverse population seems to have been unable to create a strong centralized authority that could successfully resist their powerful neighbors who confiscated their riches and occupied their land. Charlie English’s book reminds reader/listeners of what makes Poland a great nation. It is its diversity and its pursuit of intellectual development. Sadly, its geographic location has threatened its existence for millenniums. America is blessed by its geographic location and shows how it could survive as a free democratic nation. Through clandestine operations and support by the CIA, Polish patriots were able to reproduce banned books during the cold war that aided the intellectual growth of Poland despite Stalin’s repression.

America’s current President impedes the influence of freedom in Europe by dismantling surveillance oversight, undermining the EU-U.S. Data privacy framework, and by shutting down the GEC (Global Engagement Center) which is designed to counter foreign disinformation.

Trump’s intent is to save money. The author notes the same thing nearly happened with the CIA book publishing support of Poland when some of America’s leaders tried to cut its funding. The CIA prevailed and the financial support continued.

NO WINNERS

Black America is not liberated by the Civil War. Neither will the Russians or Ukrainians be liberated by whichever side wins. There are no winners. There is only death and destruction as evidenced by the tragedy unfolding in Gaza.

Books of Interest
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

How to Dodge a Cannon Ball (A Novel)

Author: Denard Dayle

Narrated By: William DeMeritt

Denard Dayle (Author, Jamaican-American writer, graduate of Princeton with an MFA from Columbia University.)

The central character in Denard Dayle’s novel is Anders. Anders is a light skinned Black soldier in the American Civil War. He begins as a Confederate and escapes to become a Union soldier as a Flag carrier. The author’s story is tedious and a mess, but it reflects the many conflicts among Americans fighting in the Civil War. The bizarre happenings in Dayle’s story are meant to be satirical with a bite but with so many twists in ideas about race, nationalism, gender, and the history of the war that one is inclined to put the book down. One may soldier on with a hope to understand Dayle’s point.

America’s Civil War.

After listening to “How to Dodge a Cannonball” for several hours, one gathers Dayle’s point is to show the complexity of America’s Civil War and what it means to be an American. The absurdity of all wars is revealed in America’s Civil War contradictions and hypocrisies. There are many, some of which are uniquely about civil wars, but also about every war.

In fighting a civil war for freedom in America, governments deny freedom to both sides of the conflict.

In fighting a war of conquest like that in Ukraine, both the aggressor and defender nations equally deny freedom to their citizens. Dayle shows race, gender, and nationality make little difference in who loses their freedom when war is declared. Black America is not liberated by the Civil War. Neither will the Russians or Ukrainians be liberated by whichever side wins. There are no winners. There is only death and destruction as evidenced by the tragedy unfolding in Gaza.

Dayle makes his point, but the story becomes too repetitive and tiresome for this listener/reader who quits the book before its ending.

UNJUST CAPITULATION

Both Trump and Putin are wrong in trying to return America and Russia to their past. What one presumes from Nye’s lectures is that a threat of millions of lives being lost from nuclear war will actually result in a gorilla war in territory unjustly ceded to Russia by Ukraine.

Books of Interest
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Must History Repeat the Great Conflicts of This Century?

Lecturer: Joseph S. Nye Jr.

By: The Great Courses

Joseph Nye Jr. (1937-2025, Distinguished Service Professor Political Scientist at Harvard Kennedy University.)

In listening to Joseph Nye Jr.’s history of “…Great Conflicts…”, one thinks about similarities between leadership of Russia and America today. Both Trump and Putin believe in strong executive leadership and appear to have a political base that allows Putin to exercise dictatorial power and Trump to bypass traditional bureaucratic limitations on government power. Both Putin and Trump believe in their countries moral and economic superiority and are trying to return their nations to the twentieth century. As leaders of their countries, they have influenced media support of their ambitions through influence and the creation of conspiracy-driven narratives.

Joseph Nye’s lectures suggest history is only a guide to the future, not a prediction.

Nye explains circumstances of the present are never exactly the same as the past. Every war of the past is based on complex causes that are never precisely the same. The world wars and the cold war developed as a result of specific government’ diplomatic, operational, and international circumstances. Nye explains why two world wars were about balance of power that changed with WWI and were refined by WWII. The German, Austro-Hungarian, and Ottoman empires collapsed after WWI. With the defeat of Hitler, Nye infers WWII is a failed effort to reestablish the German empire.

Listening to Nye’s view of history, makes one think of Putin’s and Trump’s maneuvering in the 21st century. Both leaders are trying to recreate a balance of power with America strengthening its position and Russia reestablishing its role among the top three powers. What gives weight to that view is Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, China’s wait and see attitude, and Trump’s foolish antagonism toward its traditional western allies in the belief that it strengthens America. Trump seems ignorant of history by failing to recognize America’s power is hugely benefited by its close relationship with Great Britain and North America. To antagonize England, Canada, and Mexico with tariffs and the NATO alliance with complaints about unequal financial support reduces America’s power and influence.

Today, nuclear war is a different circumstance upon which every government leader recognizes as a fundamental change in the principle of “might makes right”.

One sees that Trump’s hostile confrontation with Zelenskyy on television is an expression of America’s leadership fear of nuclear war. Putin threatens nuclear retaliation, but threats are not actions. Putin continues his conventional war against Ukraine and Trump pressures Putin to end the conflict with limited support of weapons for Ukraine and implied willingness to agree to Putin’s demands for annexation of some part of Ukranian territory.

Nye’s lectures do not say history repeats, but he warns it can have similar results without careful analysis and strategic foresight by government leaders.

However, Trump and his advisors appear ignorant of the lessons of history noted by Professor Nye. America and Russia think they have a choice in how the war in Ukraine can be brought to an end that will bring peace. The truth is that peace is only a Hobson’s choice where there is only one option. Trump sees the possibility of millions being killed from a nuclear war. Putin sees the possibility of gaining territory from Ukraine with potential loss of rule as President of Russia. Zelenskyy and Putin have the illusion of choice while the international community and America will likely make the decision.

ABSOLUTION

History of the world has shown all forms of government are “equal opportunity” inhibitors, if not destroyers.

Books of Interest
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Secondhand Time (The Last of the Soviets)

By: Svetlana Alexievich

Narrated By: Amanda Carlin, Mark Bramhall, Cassandra Campbell & 8 more.

Svetlana Alexievich (Author, Belarusian investigative journalist, winner of the Nobel Prize in Literature in 2015.)

Svetlana Alexievich’s “Secondhand Time” is a remarkable and informative explanation of why Putin believes he is right and why many citizens of Russia seem to continue in their support of his administration.

Map of the former U.S.S.R.

Alexievich conducts a series of interviews with Russian citizens of different generations about the U.S.S.R. and its return to the world stage as a Russian nation. The narrators of her book recite those interviews to give listener/readers a complex and enlightening picture of Russian culture. The clash of communist and capitalist ideals is at the foundation of the interviews and the narrators dramatically told stories.

The Russian Soviet Army is the first to arrive in the Battle of Berlin on April 16, 1945. Their flag was hoisted on May 1, 1945.

The citizens of Russia are justifiably proud of their role in WWII that turned the tide of Germany’s war of aggression. (Of course, that is putting aside Stalin’s Machiavellian decision to join Hitler at the beginning of the war.) Some Russian soldiers who fought in that war were disgusted with what they feel was a betrayal by Mikhail Gorbachev of communist ideals for which they lived and died for in the 20th century.

The rejection of communist ideals for capitalism is viewed by some Russians as a tyranny of greed that lays waste to the poor and creates a class of haves and have-nots.

Some Russian veterans of WWII see the seduction of capitalism destroying the ideal of a classless society. Some citizens see the ideal of a government is to demand the wealth of life be spread equally according to individual need. To these believers, enforcement of communist ideals would eliminate private property and greed that would create a classless society. Some believed Stalin exemplified leadership that would achieve that ideal. The hardship of life during Stalin’s rule is considered by some as justified means for the achievement of the Marxist ideal of communism.

Statue of the “Circle of Life” in Norway.

Cultures may be different, but all human life is the same.

The underlying point of these interviews is to show Russian culture is not monolithic, just as culture is not in any nation. All cultures are filled with diversity. There is no singular cultural mind but a range of interests among many factions that establish a nation’s culture. The evidence of that is the contrast of Gorbachev and Putin in Russia and FDR and Trump in America. All four leaders led their countries but represent completely different cultural beliefs.

Alexievich shows there are veterans in Russia who strongly believe Gorbachev was a traitor to his country.

Conservatives, New York Governor Al Smith, Southern Democrats, and isolationists like Charles Beard opposed FDR in America. Putin and Trump have their cultural supporters in today’s national governments, but they also have their critics. The difference is that in Putin’s world, being killed or put in prison for opposition is culturally acceptable. In America, one is reminded of Trump’s deportation and imprisonment of migrants without due process.

The author’s interviews are not suggesting that either Russia or the West have good or bad governments but that every culture tests their leaders.

Many Russians, undoubtedly blame American Democracy for the dismantling of the U.S.S.R. Alexievich interviews Russians who believe the hardship that countries within the U.S.S.R. experienced were not the fault of Stalinist policies but the failure of citizens to live up to the ideals of communism. To anyone who has traveled to the Baltics, that opinion is founded on ignorance of the hostility expressed by citizens of the Baltics who were starved, displaced, jailed, and murdered during their occupation by Russia.

The other part of the story is the rise of the oligarchs in Russia as a result of the greed associated with capitalism.

The gap between rich and poor is accelerated in Russia just as it has been in America. Democracy does not have clean hands when it comes to equality of opportunity. Like the Jewish pogroms in Russia, America’s enslavement, murder, and discrimination of Blacks is proven history.

Siberian Exile during Stalin’s reign in Russia.

Alexievich draws from all sides of Russian beliefs. Those interviewed note the terrible conditions of those exiled to Siberia. Many Russians became disillusioned by the redistribution of wealth and privilege after Gorbachev and Yeltsin showed themselves to not be up to the task of leadership change. In fairness, one wonders who could have been up to the task when Russia had a long history of monarchal and tyrannical leadership?

Alexievich reveals a split between those Russians who want a fairer communist’ socialism or fairer western capitalism. One doubts either is possible with Putin.

A few Russians became immensely wealthy while the majority were somewhat better off but some struggled with the loss of State benefits and fewer jobs. The rising gap between rich and poor soured communist idealists. Even those who had been sent to Siberia by Stalin who toiled and suffered the experience of isolation, slave labor, and frigid weather felt they were no better off because of the loss of a socialist future.

The frightening truth of Alexievich’s book about the culture of Russia is that Putin may be absolved for his atrocities just as leaders of America have been absolved for their mistakes. History of the world has shown all forms of government are “equal opportunity” inhibitors, if not destroyers.

WAR

The only hope for Ukraine is a change in Russia’s leadership as a result of Putin’s foolish effort to return Russia to its past. It is the same effort and mistake Trump is making in trying to return America to the 20th century.

Books of Interest
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

The Evil Hours: A Biography of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder

By: David J. Morris

Narrated By: Mike Chamberlain

David J. Morris (Author, former Marine, reporter in Iraq, received Navy-Marine Corps Commendation Medal, M.A. from San Diego State University and the University of California, Irvine.)

In listening to “The Evil Hours”, the refrain “War, what is it good for, ABSOLUTLY NOTHING” from Edwin Starr’s song comes to mind. Ukraine’s and America’s current political position in ending the war are irreconcilable. Anyone who has read this blog knows I am not a fan of President Trump but his position on the war is sadly correct. It is sad because it is only Ukranian people who will suffer, not we who are isolated from the European continent.

Having recently visited the Baltics, and hearing of their experience under Stalin from a family we had dinner with makes one understand how horrible Trump’s decision will be for Ukraine’s citizens.

Trump’s decision is a Hobson’s choice because there seems no alternative. The potential for nuclear war is a threat from Putin who has an ego like Trump’s that cannot be assuaged. Putin appears not to be deterred by his followers or the Russian citizens.

What is left is the domination of a portion of Ukraine that will be forced to live under a dictatorship.

Hearing from Baltic citizens of how horrible their lives were under Stalin; one’s heart goes out to Ukrainian citizens who will have to live under Putin. Putin and Russia will pay a high price for their occupation because of citizen opposition that will take many forms. Though there is no comfort to the Ukranian people, Russia’s occupation will eventually end. The cost of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has been high. It will be a reminder of the folly of unjust invasion and dictatorial control of an independent people.

America’s foolish Vietnam’ belief in a domino theory of Vietnam was wrong, just as the belief that Russia’s success in Ukraine will lead to further Russian expansion.

The relevance of “The Evil Hours” is the stress Ukrainians will face with Russian occupation. One hopes Russian occupation will not take as long as it did for the Baltic countries to regain independence.

PTSD is shown as the horrible consequence of internecine conflict that will continue after Russia’s occupation.

SOCIAL CROSSROAD

There is enough abundance in the world to create opportunity for all, but Ernaux’s history implies people must change their ways.

Books of Interest
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

The Years

By: Annie Ernaux

Narrated by: Anna Bentinck

Annie Ernaux (Author, French writer, 2022 Nobel Prize winner, born in 1940.)

Annie Ernaux offers a perspective on history from the experience of her life as a French woman in the mid 20th to 21st century. Though born before the beginning of World War II, Ernaux matures as a young woman in the 1950s. A striking difference between the history of this time is the difference between Algeria’s drive for independence and American’s mistakes in Vietnam. French Algeria is less understood in American memories than its troubled history in Vietnam. Aside from misunderstanding France’s Algerian experience, the social changes Ernaux’s notes are similar to many Americans’ experiences in Vietnam.

Eisenhower’s, Kennedy’s, and Johnson’s leadership in the Vietnam war seem, in some respects, similar to Ernaux’s memory of Charles de Gaulle’s leadership in Algeria.

Eisenhower and Kennedy were veterans of war who became leaders of their countries. Though Eisenhower and Kennedy believed Vietnam was a threat as a communist Domino, de Gaulle believed Algeria was a threat to France’s right to colonize. These famous nationalist leaders were wrong. Southeast Asian countries had a right to choose their own form of government, and Algeria had a right to choose self-government.

Though Annie Ernaux was born just before 1946, she matured during great changes in the world.

Her experience of post-war reconstruction, the rise of consumerism, women’s rights, sexual liberation, social class differentiation, and societal norms changed in America, France, and most nations of the world.

George Marshall was Secretary of State from 1947 to 49 and headed the Marshall Plan to reconstruct Europe after the war.

America played a great part in the financial reconstruction of Europe, Japan, and Germany after the end of WWII. America’s goal was to prevent future conflicts, promote economic recovery, and counter the influence of communism, but in that process, America influenced social norms throughout the world. Some of the influences created clear lines of opposition between communism, socialism, and capitalism. However, all economic systems influenced societal change. Whether communist, socialist, or capitalist there were changes in normative social values. Societies increased consumerism, instituted policies for equal rights to some degree, and made class distinctions based on money, or its equivalent, i.e., power. In capitalist and socialist societies, social position became more about money and the power of its influence. In communist societies, it was more about power and the influence of money. Political differences remained sharply divided in ways that influenced social norms, but the general direction was similar. Communism, socialism, capitalism, and all its derivations focused on consumerism, women’s rights, and class differences that changed the world during Annie Ernaux’s “…Years” of life.

American President Harry Truman led the U.S. from 1945 to 1953.

Feckless leaders, deluded authoritarians, and a few truly service-oriented leaders rose in every system of government, including American, English, Japanese, Chinese, French, Russian, and other nations. The main differences lay in leader’s longevity, and their economic policies. Leaders of China and Russia having fewer leadership changes between 1946 and 2006 than most nations were largely authoritarian. There were 6 leadership changes in China and 9 in the Soviet Union. Only 1 of 6 in China and only 1 of 9 in the Soviet Union leaned toward capitalism.

From 1946 to 2006, there were 11 presidents in America, 13 prime ministers in England, 32 prime ministers in Japan, and 6 presidents in France. All of these democratic nations exclusively leaned toward capitalism.

However, Ernaux’s history infers every nation shows social norms changing in similar ways. Even China and Russia show changes in consumerism, women’s rights, sexual liberation, and class differentiation. Unquestionably, the societal changes did not change to the same degree, but they were similar. Maladies of society are common in all forms of government, only the degree of change in societal norms is different. All nations have more or less consumer opportunities, more or less human equality, all have class distinctions, but normative change is a work in progress, not an end but a beginning process.

Annie Ernaux in earlier years of her life.

Ernaux’s trip down memory lane is interesting but not particularly revelatory. Her remembrance of the past is helpful because she shows how social change evolved in both good and bad ways in her own life. Consumerism seems on the edge of being out of control with money and wealth being the “sine qua non” of the good life. Without money, life seemed not worth living to some. Ernaux suggests America has become an arrogant example of wealth and privilege that diminishes civility. Ernaux is not suggesting she is above the fray of wealth as privilege and reveals her own character flaws by noting affairs with younger men in what seems a wasted attempt to reclaim youth. She implies a prejudice against Arabs and Africans who she believes wrongly consider themselves as French. She infers they are not French because they are not white Christians, even if they are born in France.

One comes away from “The Years” with a feeling that societies of the world are at a crossroad.

Wealth should not be the measure of one’s social value and privilege. Inequality is a sin against humanity. Prejudice is the cause of much of the world’s conflict. Immigration is a misunderstood value of societal comity. Tolerance of all religious beliefs has been an unresolvable puzzle but a desirable societal goal. There is enough abundance in the world to create opportunity for all, but Ernaux’s history implies people must change their ways.

WAR & PEACE

Trump’s effort to make peace is important. Putin will gain a pyrrhic victory, and many Ukrainians will suffer the same consequence as the Baltic citizens who were victimized by Stalin. It is likely that the price of peace is going to be the lives of Ukrainians who come under Putin’s rule. The only solace is that Putin, like Stalin, is near the end of his rule.

Books of Interest
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (A History of Nazi Germany)

By: William L. Shirer

Narrated By: Grover Gardener

In thinking about Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, it seems prudent to revisit William Shirer’s studied history of Nazi Germany and the beginnings of WWII.

Reviewing the literature and history of Russia and Germany, one wonders if there are parallels between Hitler’s invasion of Poland and Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. Literature suggests few cultural parallels. Having read Dostoevsky and Tolstoy, one can hardly compare their themes of societal suffering and redemption to Kant and Nietzsche’s themes of individualism or Mein Kamph’s iteration of survival of the fittest. In the history of the Czars of Russia, society and class were of the greatest importance while in Germany, Goethe’s Faust and Hesse’s Siddhartha–the focus was on individualism–not the general condition of society.

It seems Putin is not like Hitler in his aim to acquire other countries. Putin is interested in expanding Russia’s territory to return to a Stalinist style of communism. Both Hitler and Putin are deluded but in different ways. William Shirer characterizes Hitler as ambitious, and fanatic but focused on gaining personal power through German conquest of other countries. Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is to return Russia to a Stalinist U.S.S.R., a nationalist power. Both are set on invading other countries, but Shirer shows Hitler’s desire is for personal power while Putin is more interested in nation-state power.

One must ask oneself, if there is a motivational difference, so what? The consequences to countries being invaded is the same.

Yes, the consequence to an invaded country is the same regardless of the motivation of the invader. Hearing the atrocity of Russian oppression is as though it happened yesterday when one visits the Baltic countries and talks to people who survived Stalin’s control of their countries. There is a palpable fear one hears from Baltic citizens when the invasion of Ukraine by Russia is discussed. The fear is in the possibility of the Baltics being next.

President Trump is attempting to quell the war between Russia and Ukraine, but the cost of peace looks like it will require appeasement at the expense of Ukrainian citizens.

The question is–will appeasement stop further encroachment by Russia on other former U.S.S.R. countries? Putin is 72 years old. Hitler was 45 years old when he became the Führer of Germany. It seems unlikely that the next leader of Russia will follow Putin’s lead in view of Russia’s atrocities in Ukraine and the history of former citizens, like those of the Baltics in Stalin’s U.S.S.R.

The invasion of Ukraine is not like Hitler’s invasion of Poland except in the tragedy of death of innocents.

There is little reason to believe Ukraine is a domino, as was the mistaken American belief in Vietnam by the Kennedy Administration. As all who have read this blog, I am not a fan of Donald Trump. However, in this realpolitik world, Trump’s effort to make peace is important. Putin will gain a pyrrhic victory, and many Ukrainians will suffer the same consequence as the Baltic citizens who were victimized by Stalin. It is likely that the price of peace is going to be the lives of Ukrainians who come under Putin’s rule. The only solace is that Putin, like Stalin, is near the end of his rule.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: