Here is a truly naïve question: What is wrong with Russia? Why can’t Russian leaders focus on their own damned affairs rather than conquest or their clandestine efforts to destabilize other governments? From the western side of the globe this seems like a fair question. Are their lessons from history so scrambled that they have not learned some basic axioms of humane civilization? What happened to them? Why the perpetual paranoia, brutishness and authoritarianism?

It is important to separate “Kremlin” from “Russian people”. The Kremlin is a Moscow-based institution presided over by Russia’s national leadership. The Russian people are those working citizens distant from the Kremlin. Naturally, the Kremlin purports to represent the interests of the Russian people. Many say that the Kremlin represents an oligarchy inside and outside of the government. Most would say that Russia’s tradition of bribery and graft is rampant and even a built-in feature and not a bug. Whatever the case, it seems clear from the news that Russia’s military/industrial complex is riddled to the core with corruption.

The USSR and later Russia claim that they are threatened by Western adventurism and interference in their sovereign affairs. The lengthy Cold War between NATO and the Kremlin was largely about the spread of Soviet socialism and undesired political alignments between factions. Western countries were busy in the post-WWII years waging proxy battles and clandestine buggery with client states of the USSR and China. For our part, America didn’t do so well. In contrast with the Allied victory in Europe and Japan in WWII, the US had to sign an armistice with North Kores, a peace accord with North Viet Nam with the lightning-fast collapse of South Viet Nam, followed by the clumsy hijinks leading to the Iran-Contra scandal in the 80’s.

Kremlin policy would seem to be that “interfering in Russian Affairs” includes materiel support for emerging democracies around the world. This “interference” is justification for the incessant brinksmanship and covert meddling issuing from the Kremlin.

The US and coalition forces successfully routed the Iraqis in Kuwait in 1990 with the start of what became Gulf War I. After liberating Kuwait, US President George H.W. Bush invaded the Republic of Iraq destroying a good bit of their military but left Saddam Hussein in power. By 2003 George H.W.’s son, President George W. Bush, oversaw a clearly bogus campaign to take down Saddam right after the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan. The smoke and mirrors show put on by the Bush administration conflating al Queda in Afghanistan with imaginary Iraqi weapons of mass destruction led to Saddam being quickly toppled and captured while hidden is a hole in the ground, tried and finally hung by his own people.

What the US-led coalition failed to appreciate was that Saddam held together Iraq by brute force and murder. Coalition forces swooped in and shut down his government without any thought as to the pragmatics of who will run the country the next day. There was the intent of giving birth to democracy with elections, but the power vacuum created by the toppling of Saddam and the dissolution of his government gave opportunity to numerous factions who jumped at it. This was the Iraqi insurgency which lasted until the US withdrawal in 2011.

US interventionism aimed at regime change by force or by covert efforts to remove certain leaders has a spotty record. Chili, Cuba and Nicaragua for example. The point is that US leaders have badly botched many schemes to cultivate governments friendly to US ambitions.

The first thing to remember is that we Americans view Russia through the smudged lens of our own popular culture and history. Over the decades since the end of WWII our self-appraisal of our many merits has swollen and become distended. The MAGA crowd seems to think there was a period of time when America was “Great”. I’d like to know when this happened. I’ve never heard MAGA people cite a particular time when this greatness occurred. Maybe they are thinking of the outcome of WWII and the succeeding few years. Perhaps it was their senior year of high school or during the summer break after third grade. When people?

As I survey American history as an amateur historian I have yet to find a halcyon period in America when peace and calm enveloped the land and all was well. With magnification, history is very granular and every year is a braided stream of tragedies, scoundrels and bad luck with the occasional patches of wonder and joy somewhere for a few. Well, perhaps this is all we can expect. Maybe the world really is a grubby place occupied mostly by people who are often nice, and with more than a few crackpots and psychopaths sprinkled here and there to round out the bell curve.

To be sure, we Americans have done a great deal to advance civilization overall in many ways. This has largely come through the allocation of funds in a resource-rich continent through capitalism, taxes and primed with incentivizing programs from the government after the New Deal. While necessity is the mother of invention, who can actually organize and monetize this necessity by asking for competitive bids on a moon project? A government can. Rather than “trickle-down” economics, this is pumped-down economics, and it works. What do the wealthy do with their tax savings? Trickle it down? Hardly, though some may allocate a bit of trickle-down money in venture capital firms, but that’s risky. Better to invest in solid assets like beachfront property in Florida.

The land that we call Russia, apart from the Siberian reaches of eastern Russia, has been home to many diverse peoples. One Wikipedia reference cites the beginning of Russia in the north with the Eastern Slavs in 862 CE and ruled by Viking conquerors. On this timeline, it is clear that people in the region have been in war, civil conflict or crushing poverty and authoritarianism almost continuously since then. The baseline condition of a great many people of Russia and nearby lands was the grinding poverty of serfdom and were only emancipated in 1861 by Tsar Alexander II. There have been invasions by the Mongols, Ottomans, Swedes, Napolean, Hitler, uprisings and fratricidal infighting for power. It is hard to know what occupants of the Moscow Kremlin are thinking. Russia seems destined to be ruled by an iron fist.

Unlike the English-speaking peoples, Russia never had a Magna Carta in their past outlining agreed upon limits to the power of the monarch. The very notion of wider participation in the conduct of government affairs was unknown. Democratic virtues taken for granted by western states never took hold in Russia. There was initially some hope for democracy after the fall of the Soviet Union by some, but there were no institutional and legal structures in place from which to operate a democratic republic. Worse yet, people were unemployed en masse and became frustrated by the lack of a “freedom dividend” and eventually there was support for a strongman leader. The collapse of the USSR left a power vacuum waiting to be filled. Yeltsin proved to be the wrong guy to inherit the reigns of power from the collapsed Soviet Politburo. He was widely seen as a drunken fool.

Russia had no history of conducting private business within the umbrella of international business law and capitalistic norms. What business law and intellectual property protection there may have been was from the Soviet era. Instead, there was a scramble to acquire the big industrial and financial pieces left over from the old USSR.

I’ve not found anything in the history of Russia that may have been a home-grown template for constructing a workable version of democracy. Russia’s long geographic and cultural isolation from the West doesn’t seem to have helped with the migration of what we might call the norms of democratic society. To be sure, Tsar Peter I (Peter the Great) had spent time in England and learned a great deal about shipbuilding and navigation, eventually leading to the formation of the Russian Baltic Fleet. King William III of England welcomed Peter because of the potential for trade with Russia.

The Soviets were successful in adopting some Western technologies and just enough consumerism to placate their population … partly. Unlike Western Europe, the USA, Canada and even Mexico who continue to be inundated by migrants wanting to get in, the USSR, on the other hand, had to contend with its citizens trying to escape. This is still a problem today in Russia. People vote with their feet.

Back to the initial question. Why can’t Vlad play nice? We can only guess. He is not burdened with a national history of a capitalistic democratic republic or with utopian visions of a liberal democratic society bursting with opportunities for everyone. Vlad is a product of his upbringing as a KGB officer in a closed and isolated security state with a population long accustomed to going along with what the central authoritarian leadership forcibly requires. As a former KGB operative in East Germany, he understands authoritarian rule at the ground level. While bubbling up the chain of command he mastered the complex internal Kremlin politics and managed to get selected by Yeltsin to succeed him. Lucky guy. But when will he decide enough is enough? Today, his poorly conceived plan to expand Russian influence by overtaking Ukraine has backfired, leading to over 500,000 Russian military casualties. Along with the loss of a large fraction of his conventional military armaments like tanks, cannon, radar, air defense systems, aircraft, naval vessels and so on, he has singlehandedly exposed the Russian military for what it is- a paper tiger, but only in conventional arms. He still has a potent nuclear triad to serve as his final stinger.