Lack in the USSR

In 2001, the U.S. was attacked by a faction headquartered in Afghanistan. Many were aghast to learn that Afghans had recently received armaments and training from the U.S. How could we be so short-sighted as to militarily assist such scalawags?

The 1980s James Bond movie The Living Daylights puts matters into perspective. Bond, opposing the USSR, befriends the Afghan resistance. His ally is a dead-ringer for the then-little-known Osama bin Laden. Bond helped these Afghans defeat the Russian invaders, and audiences cheered.

The irony turns eerie when 007’s ally makes an unexpected appearance at the film’s conclusion. Ol’ Sorta-bin-Laden arrives late for a concert, and an inquiry is made as to what kept him. His response? He was detained at the airport.

Was it worth helping Afghanistan in the 1980s? Probably. Russia was our biggest threat at the time.

Or were they? Reality beckons. Russia embodied a policy of fear – “Our way is superior to your way; be scared” – and this philosophy can frequently be peeled away to reveal three-deep coats of bluster.

This begins in the 1800s. As America became an industrial powerhouse, Russia embraced the writings of Karl Marx. Marx hypothesized that all human conflict can be traced to the growing tensions between, shall we say, the haves and the have-nots. Some people own the tools necessary to create industrial centers – factories, textile equipment; most do not. Eventually, Marx predicted, tensions would build, then erupt, between these two factions. The have-nots would inevitably stage a worldwide revolt, and both sides would have to share everything equally. This principle was called communism, a name Marx deemed catchier than its historical moniker, socialism.

Russia decided to get in on the ground floor. If, they reasoned, the entire world would one day become communist, they would comprise its epicenter. When the rest of the world followed suit – fell like dominoes into Marx’s predicted pattern – Russia would stand as the capital of the world. Their attitude: We have something better than you have. Be nervous.

Marx’s predictions, however, failed to manifest. Yet the USSR doggedly refused to acknowledge the inherent flaws of their strategy, propping up the notion that the world was evolving toward socialism by enlisting allies at the point of a gun.

It must be remembered, in this context, it was worthwhile to help an organization that opposed the USSR. Russia’s failure to annex Afghanistan symbolized the fall of the Soviet Union. Their communist dreams of worldwide expansion ran dry, and they abandoned them a short time later. This was great news for the U.S. – the Cold War was won without firing a shot. The Soviet Union collapsed, in large part because our side helped Afghanistan.

A pattern emerges. In the 1980s, another thought-provoking film called WarGames made us American kids shiver. In it, an accidental standoff with Russia played up our belief that their technological capability was equivalent to our own, and we should be fearful. After the Iron Curtain fell, however, we got the skinny on those dreaded military installations. What high-tech security measures protected many of these Soviet outposts? Hardware-store padlocks.

Now that times have changed for Russians, their fallacies are becoming obvious. Every later-day cinematic offering about Mother Russia seems to depict the Soviet war machine as trumped-up hooey.

The Russia House states that the USSR’s military technology was ludicrously trumped-up in order to promulgate an arms race.

A 2002 submarine epic, K-19: The Widowmaker, does nothing to dispel this notion. In it, 1950s Russia unveils their latest high-tech boat. Given the Kremlin’s shoot-the-messenger mentality, no one is willing to admit that the sub is unfit for operation; components are mismatched and jury-rigged; and this seaborne jalopy would likely be the death of more Russians than Americans. As always, though, Russia was determined at all costs to convince the world they had a better way, and we'd best be scared.

Science fiction writers seek the ring of truth in their work; successful efforts are well-researched and rooted in reality. Can it be a coincidence, then, that the blockbuster Armageddon featured a Russian cosmonaut who reviles mismatched electronic junk, and takes remedial action by howling at high-tech panels and battering them with a blunt, metallic object? Are we not to get the impression, from those in a position to know, that Russian technological know-how is largely a matter of spit and glue?

Lately, Russia seems to be flaunting some new military triumphs before a bemused world. They boast of a new missile whose ‘fishtail’ motion can foil any American defense system. They also tout a new generation of bomb that duplicates an atomic warhead in every sense, down to the mushroom cloud, but without pesky fall-out. Full-dress military parades and high-profile political appointments advertise the notion that they are not to be trifled with.

Their message, in short? We are up to something scary – fear us.

Sorry, Russia, I have heard it all before and I’m not buying what you are selling.

Very truly yours,
Kevin O’Brien