Politico: Why did we like Americans more during the Cold War?

The United States has short-term and long-term problems in Russia. The first problem is temporary, and it is simpler, it is the hostile attitude of Vladimir Putin and his closest circle to Washington. The second problem is more long-term and much more complicated; it is the hostility of the Russian people themselves. This may astonish my friends in the West, but today the attitude of Russians towards the United States of America and towards Americans is worse than during the Cold War, when US citizens were considered "good guys" living in a bad imperialist state. Now, many Russians see not only American leaders as bad guys, but also the citizens of this country.

And trend lines here are moving only in one direction: lower and lower. According to a survey recently conducted by the Russian independent sociological organization Levada Center, the number of people in Russia who are positive towards the United States last year fell by almost three quarters, while the proportion of those who treat America negatively exceeds 80%. The number of Russians calling relations with the US “hostile” increased from four percent in January 2014 to 42% in January 2015. This is partly explained by the fact that in the conditions of a weakening Russian democracy, the society is ready to peck at the most ridiculous ideas and ideas put forward by state media, such as claims that Americans adopt orphans from Russia specifically to sexually abuse them and sell them organs.

But not only anti-American propaganda is to blame. It is important to understand that American sanctions also played a role in the escalation of anti-Americanism in Russia. The main negative point here is the expansion of NATO. Many in Russia believe that it is directed against their country, and is intended to surround and isolate it. The bombing of Belgrade also contributed, to a greater extent due to the fact that at that moment Russia’s opinion was completely ignored, rather than because of the hostilities themselves. You can add the Iraq war, the intervention in Libya and many other actions to this list.

Another reason for the deterioration of attitudes toward the United States is the fact that Russia’s cultural and historical identity is ignored, despite the usual assurances of respect for Russian culture. For more than three centuries, beginning with the time of Peter I and especially after the victory over Napoleon, Russia considers itself a great power. But the feeling that Russia has a special mission exists among Russians even longer. Many in Russia are unwilling to accept a secondary role on the world stage. But the United States in recent years does not take this into account either in style or in substance.

Cultural and historical identity of Russia explains the tremendous support with which the country met Putin’s decision to annex the Crimea. The approval rating for this step persists at 90%. At first, only one percent of the population was categorically against joining, and a year later this number increased to 2,6%. This has nothing to do with the supposedly aggressive nature of the Russians and the desire to revive the lost empire. The annexation of the Crimea, carried out without a single shot and without loss, was carried out under the unifying slogan of helping the Russians and restoring justice (unfortunately, Russian citizens believed in these arguments). The annexation of the Crimea revived victorious feelings, national pride and faith in Russian power and moral authority, which were lost with the collapse of the USSR.

This does not in any way relieve Russia of responsibility for its last year’s actions. Resentment and offended feelings can not justify aggression. And Russian society is not monolithic. The majority do support Putin’s policy in Ukraine, but there is also an active minority in the country — mostly educated residents of large cities — who strongly oppose such a policy, seeks peace with Ukraine, not its enslavement, but also cooperation, but not confrontation with the United States. Tens of thousands of people took to anti-war marches in Moscow. It would be wrong to put today's Russia on a par with its president. However, this is exactly what the American Congress 4 of December 2014 did when it adopted House Resolution No. 758. Condemning the actions of the Russian Federation, he did not even mention the people of Russia, who are interested in ending the war to the same extent as the people of Ukraine.

The only long-term solution to the problem of powerful anti-Americanism in Russia is that Americans need to better understand the general mentality and mentality of Russians. This country feels itself historically deprived and unlucky, believing that the vengeful West pours salt on its wounds after the Cold War, increasingly undermining its status as a great power. Frankly speaking, this country does not like democracy very much. This is the main reason for the continued popularity of Putin.

At the same time, the Kremlin is unlikely to have a monolithic unity of opinion in support of Putin, and the current policy of the Russian leader does not at all correspond to the interests of all Russians. Russian businessmen suffer from corruption, scientists and academics from isolating their country, and representatives of the high-tech community from breaking ties with the most technologically advanced countries. Russian writers and artists are under ideological pressure. The annexation of the Crimea caused huge financial losses for the entire population. If the war continues in the Donbass, it will lead to new casualties, especially among the poorly educated and least wealthy part of society.

Intoxication from victory in Crimea will sooner or later pass, and then the American government will have to look for a balance of interests not with Putin, but with numerous groups that make up Russian society, as well as with the new government of Russia representing the interests of the population. Only in this case will it be possible to restore normal, constructive relations between Russia and the United States.

The recent measures taken by the United States with respect to Russia affect (in some unexpected ways) not only Putin’s policies, but also the attitude of Russians to the United States. From this point of view, personal sanctions against “Putin's friends” will not worsen in the long term, and may even improve the perception of the United States. Many of Putin's entourage are considered immoral and corrupt by people who have made huge fortunes in dishonest ways. Personal sanctions also increase tensions around Putin, which is probably the goal of the authors of such a policy.

However, tougher sanctions will only lead to a further decline in the living standards of millions of Russians. This does not force the Russian government to change course towards Ukraine, but this will worsen the attitude towards the United States.

The supply of American weapons to Ukraine will undoubtedly lead at least to a temporary increase in anti-American sentiment in Russia. At the same time, these weapons can prevent new attacks by Russian-backed separatists in Ukraine. The Kremlin does not want to pay for the continuation of its policy in Ukraine with serious losses, because they, combined with the economic crisis, can cause unrest inside the country.

In fact, human losses are the price that Russian society is not ready and unwilling to pay. If it becomes clear that parity in armaments will make such losses inevitable, new offensives may cease, and this will save the lives of many Russians and Ukrainians. American weapons can play the role of the same deterrent and deterrence factor that the nuclear arsenals of superpowers have played for decades. Of course, the most dangerous period will be the time between the announcement of the supply and the arrival of these weapons to the front.

If you think in the long run, then the United States should launch two more initiatives. First, they must provide moral support to those people and organizations in Russia who are fighting for freedom and democracy in their country. Their moral and political resistance prevents, or at least slows down, the country's slide into archaic barbarism. They were left alone in confrontation with the government of their country, but they should not feel lonely. At one time, the support of Soviet dissidents played an important role, and many in the USSR duly appreciated it.

Secondly, the United States should not reduce, but expand the programs of direct assistance in science, culture and especially in education, however difficult this work may be in conditions when the Russian government in every way impedes the implementation of such programs and closes them. Young people who learn about life in the United States through well-organized educational exchange programs and internships will never fall victim to primitive anti-Western stereotypes. People returning to work in Russia will try to introduce the principles of freedom and openness in their country - principles that today are alien to a significant part of the Russian population. Russia needs this in order to develop effectively, and the United States and the rest of the world need Russia to be not an enemy, but an ally.