I have long believed that Russian anti-Americanism, integral to the Putin era, is an anomaly. Unlike other European nations, where public opinion about America is actually contingent on U.S. foreign policy, Russians don’t need current events to ground their feelings. For instance, in 2006, when George W. Bush was president, the number of Russians with favorable opinions of the U.S. was equivalent to the numbers in France and Germany. In 2011, the number in Russia went down, while the number in Europe rose. Last March, in an interview with the Voice of America, U.S. Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul said that the level of anti-Americanism in Russia "came as a surprise for everyone in Washington." But what is the source of Russia's strange resentment?

Аs a former superpower, Russia is deeply troubled by its sudden drop in stature. However, considering the examples of France and Germany, this alone is insufficient as an explanation for its resentment. Like Russia, France and Germany are fallen world leaders. France ruled Europe from 1800 to 1815 and 1853 to 1871; Germany from 1870 to 1914 and 1939 to 1945. Once Europe's fearsome rulers, both ended up mercilessly cast off Olympus. Not only were they diminished, but, unlike Russia, they were also occupied to boot. And yet they accepted their fates. There is more to Russia’s hatred than simple mourning for former glory.

Recently, filmmaker Slava Tsukerman published an article on the Snob magazine website that proved rather controversial. In it, he listed what he sees as the greatest perils of Putin-endorsed anti-Americanism. These include:

•    Seeking external causes for Russia’s problems instead of internal ones, which prevents these problems from being solved.

•    Senseless military expenditures.

•    Supporting Russia's real enemies, such as Iran, just because they are America's enemies.

•    Cultivating outdated patterns of thought that lead to ignorance of the true contemporary world order and, consequently, innovation, which will lead the country to ruin.

Unfortunately, Tsukerman's argument is as poorly received in the nation at large as it is on the online forum. The problem is that in Russia, people don’t just dislike America, they hate it. “In my social circle (intelligentsia), I am the only Americanophile. When my colleagues start deriding me for it, they say such nonsense that I can only put my head in my hands,” comments Katerina Murashova, a psychologist practicing in St. Petersburg. “It’s convenient for many people to hold onto this bipolar worldview.”

 

 

Why is it convenient? “Perhaps because America seems more dangerous as a potential enemy,” says one commenter. “The U.S. is no herbivore,” continues another. "Some obvious examples show that it is an aggressive predator that makes no bones about doing away the weak… Russia is weak now… Fear and envy – can there be a more powerful cocktail?”

Yet another Snob reader pointed out that, if Russia and the U.S. switched roles, Russophobia would spread over the world “because a strong and wealthy Russia would impose its idea of 'sovereign democracy' on other nations, and no one wants that.”

Unfortunately, none of the discussion participants brought up the fact that Russia had already been the world leader twice. Both times, it was fiercely hated, to the extent that during the reign of Nikolai I, known as the era of Orthodoxy, Autocracy, and Nationality, Russian students felt compelled to conceal their nationality abroad. According to 19^th century Russian poet Fyodor Tiutchev, at that time, Europeans saw Russia as “the cannibal of the century.” In the second period of its greatest influence, between 1945 and 1991, especially following the harsh crackdown on the Hungarian Uprising and the Prague Sping, Russia was again reviled.

It was the same with other superpowers, from Napoleon's France to Hilter's Germany. Hatred of this kind was typical of the brief (in historical terms) “age of superpowers" because no nations wish to be told how to live.

The Roots of Russia’s Hatred

There are two important preliminary questions for studying superpowers.  First, we need to look at what was happening in Europe between the fall of the Roman Empire and the emergence of the first superpower, Napoleonic France, which ended up dominating the continent by virtue of its military superiority. Secondly, we need to understand why history would recreate an empire of this kind, nearly forgotten since the Roman Empire.

A brief answer to the first question is that between the Roman and Napoleonic Empires, Europe shook in the chaos of a multipolar world order. In this paradoxical situation, I see the roots of Russia’s hatred. The current diplomacy and propaganda machine are working in aims of returning to that chaos. It's a revanchist mentality: yes, Russia is no longer a superpower, but the U.S., its former adversary, should not be one anymore, either. This is Putin’s dream, broadcast around the clock on state-controlled television networks, and preventing our technological and academic intelligentsia from asking themselves a key question: what would the world look like if America were no longer a superpower?

History can answer that question, as well.

The Chaos of the Multipolar World

The term ‘multipolar world order’ suggests that there is no dominant superpower.The defining feature of this world is an endless war of everyone against everyone. For instance, take the a timeline of the Age of Enlightenment:

1733 – the war between France, Austria, and Russia for the Polish throne;

1733-1735 – the war of France and Spain against Austria;

1735-1739 –the  war of Russia and Austria against Turkey;

1740-1748 – the war of Prussia and Austria for the Austrian succession;

1756-1763 – the Seven Years’ War between Russia and Prussia;

1768-1774 – the Russo-Turkish war.

Thirty out of forty years were spent in long, bloody wars. If this is the multipolar world Putin is dreaming of, it would be difficult to describe it as anything but a violent jungle.  It is the proof of why the world needs a superpower: to put an end to the European ‘jungle wars’ and, in crude terms, to save civilization.

The First Era of Superpowers

When Napoleon came to power, Europe finally got a master, and, as it usually happens, the master was reviled. However, the endless wars for succession among the underlings of all the various Hapsburgs,  Bourbons, Romanovs, and Hohenzollerns were finally put to rest with his reign. Two factors kept people from celebrating.  First of all, the French Revolution that had given rise to Napoleon had also brought national patriotism to the forefront, which could have been a good thing, except that it has the tendency to turn into its opposite – national egotism.

Secondly, the new master was a predator. He would redraw borders arbitrarily, destroying old territories and creating new ones on whims, then ceding them to his brothers and sisters. Soon, Europe began to resemble a jungle all over again. Only a coalition of all the European states was able to overthrow him. The coalition took 15 years to form, and the English had to pay for it.

Sadly, further developments continued in a vicious cycle. New predators emerged one after the other – Nikolai I, Napoleon III, Wilhelm II – always to rise and be overthrown, until the national egotism of the European nations, together with German aggression, led to a world war that buried an entire generation of European youth.

The  multipolar world that Europe had seemed to have left behind suddenly reared its head once again. There was no superpower anymore, and a new war was looming on the horizon. It was then that Nikolai Berdyaev wrote his famous The New Middle Ages. Ideologies took the place of the religions that had ostensibly caused the wars of the 17^th century: Bolshevism reigned in Russia, Fascism in Italy. America went into deep isolationism. No one seemed to know how to live anymore. Everyone waited for Apocalypse, and their expectations seemed justified.

The Second Era of Superpowers

Nazism conquered Berlin and soon transformed Germany into a new predatory superpower. If it hadn’t been for a fateful mistake, Hitler's alliance with Stalin and the USSR could have overturned Hegel’s intuitive understanding that history of humanity is the history of freedom. But Hitler invaded the USSR. Germany's ally, Japan, attacked the U.S., and finally, America was fored to enter the war. By that point, the USSR had fatally weakened the Nazi military machine, leaving America to finish it off.

It seemed like a great victory was achieved, promising a cloudless future. But the vicious circle prevailed: a predatory superpower led to a multipolar world, and the latter, in turn, led to the creation of the next predatory superpower.

Stalin’s monster, with its victor’s laurels, swallowed Central Europe whole, enslaving 111 million people in addition to its own 180 million. With Western Europe lying in ruins, the monster had no rivals: if Stalin would have decided to repeat Hitler’s journey, marching through the continent up to the English Channel, he could have done so unhindered.

A miracle was in order. A superpower of an entirely new breed that could not only stand up to the monster, but would also not take over Western Europe in return for liberating it (unlike the way USSR treated Central Europe.) A superpower that would pay to restore Europe from the ruins and then to leave it to its own devices. If it weren’t for America, this precedent in the history of international relations would never have happened.

The Guardian of the World Order

United States, to be sure, have plenty of faults. The greatest among them is the absolute belief in its exceptionalism, inherited from its Puritan forefathers. This belief would make the country forfeit its sense of proportion and lead to inexplicable fits of madness (after World War I; in its intervention into the Vietnam civil war; during George W. Bush’s presidency.) However, surprisingly enough, unlike its predecessors, America has never been a predator. It didn’t appropriate Western Europe, nor Japan, nor the military base in the Philippines, oil fields in Iraq, nor opium plantations in Afghanistan. America genuinely feels its duty to protect the world from the chaos of the multipolar order. On top of that, it is faithful to the principle of freedom.

As far as Russia is concerned, America's merits are priceless. With all of its shortcomings, the U.S. never gave up its duty of standing up to the Communist monster that was fiercely suppressing freedom across the world--first and foremost in Russia.

It is really amazing to watch skeptics who ask the same question every June 12^th: what kind of independence should Russia be celebrating on this day? The answer is actually quite clear. First of all, independence from its imperial past. Secondly, independence from  Communism. Isn’t that enough? Isn’t that tantamount to liberation from a foreign overlord? Who knows what Russia would have become if the U.S. hadn’t overwhelmed and exhausted the Communist empire. To see how we return the favor!

Here, I am not referring to the conscious anti-Americanism of Putin, the diplomats working under him, or the vengeful ideologues at large. I am addressing Russia’s technological and academic intelligensia, who don’t seem to grasp what the world would look like if there were no superpower guarding it from chaos. Could it really be that nobody has explained it to them?