Okay, I'll do a proper thread on Khrushchev and Robert Frost. What a combination! First of all, although a great admirer of Frost's poetry, I never read his biography, so I don't know what he was doing in Gagra in 1962.
Gagra is a lovely little resort town just south of the Russian border in today's Abkhazia. Unfortunately, it was badly damaged in the civil war in the early 1990s (many of the formerly glorious palaces still stand abandoned, and overgrown with lush vegetation).
In the Soviet timies, Gagra was a summer destination for vacationers who would pack its many sanatoriums and the long beach. Khrushchev's villa was in Pitsunda, just south. He'd spent his vacations there and in fact was overthrown two years later while he was at Pitsunda.
Early in his tenure, Khrushchev often received completely random people (like groups of American tourists) but then he grew into the role and by the early 1960s, he'd only spare time for prominent politicians, businessmen, and public figures. Frost was one.
It was an interesting time. After declaring an ultimatum in 1958, where he tried to oust Western forces from West Berlin by concluding a peace treaty with the GDR, Khrushchev pedalled back. After the Wall was built in 1961, tensions began to die down.
But in September 1962 Berlin was still on everyone's mind - it was not even a year since the infamous tank standoff at Checkpoint Charlie, which highlighted the prospect of the Cold War turning quite hot in the heart of Europe.
Meanwhile, what Frost did not know was that the Soviets had been secretly shipping nuclear missiles to Cuba. Just weeks after this encounter, an American U2 would show them being installed in place. The world was about to live through its most dangerous moment in modern history.
Berlin was very much on Frost's mind when he saw Khrushchev. His thesis was that Germany was not important enough to fight a war over. "Neither you nor I want a united Germany," Frost said, so "don't let this simple question distract us from solving more important problems."
He later returned to this idea several times, saying at one point that there are only two countries in the world that matter - the US and the USSR. The others (including China, India, and all other countries) are just "trivial things, which should not be taken into account."
Khrushchev was quick to contradict this not very politically correct thesis, pointing out that China and India had a great future. On Germany, he peddled his standard line that the Americans had no right to West Berlin.
To demonstrate his point (and also to relate to Frost), he recounted an anecdote, where Leo Tolstoy told Maksim Gorky that whereas young people have both [sexual] desires and capabilities, as they grow older, they may still have the desires but not longer the capabilities.
America's "tragedy," Khrushchev said, was that it did not trim back its desires in line with its diminishing capabilities. Frost, however, predicted that the US would have enough capabilities to last for another 100 years.
At one point, during the discussion of Berlin, Khrushchev said that it is impermissible for any country to resort to the language of threats (not bad for a guy who had kept Europe on the edge with his repeated ultimatums). There should be no fear, Khrushchev said.
Yes, Frost answered, there should be no fear. "Let fear be the preserve of women," he added. On hearing such gender bias, Khrushchev jumped in, saying that Russian women have no fear and that, for instance, Empress Catherine the Great, was not even afraid of war.
The big task that the US and the USSR should set themselves, Frost went on to argue, was to compete over the building of a democratic, humane society. He annoys Khrushchev by making reference to Communist brutalities.
Khrushchev retorts that Frost doesn't know anything about Communism, which is actually the most humane of all societies. When Frost brings up Stalinism, Khrushchev says that this page had been closed.
The conversation ends with Frost presenting Khrushchev with a volume of his poems with a hand-written note: "From your competitor in the sphere of friendship." Robert Frost died not quite four months after this encounter. /END/
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
A champion among bad takes on Russia, which starts out by setting Putin up as an "existential threat" to the West. I am glad the author does not propose to nuke Russia outright. On the contrary, there's some sensible noise here about arms control talks. foreignpolicy.com/2020/11/13/bid….
The problem with these rubbish takes is a) they overstate the extent to which Europeans share a view of Russia as an existential threat, and b) they understate shared challenges, including nuclear proliferation, climate change, disease, poverty, corruption etc.
The upside for Putin, of course, is that viewing him as an existential threat to the West feeds into his legitimacy narrative. The downside is that the failure to approach Russia pragmatically will only feed the spiral of confrontation and enable bad policy on both sides.
From the annals of Soviet decision-making on Afghanistan, 1979. Many people know that the Soviets were in fact remarkably reluctant to intervene in Afghanistan. We had long known that they refused to intervene in March 1979, despite being pressed to do so by the Afghans.
This here comes from September 1979. In case Taraki (who met with Brezhnev) raised the question, Brezhnev was to say that he could not intervene as it would only help "our common enemies" and have "extremely negative consequences" for Afghanistan and the international situation.
Of course, a few days after this conversation Taraki was arrested and strangled in prison as Amin consolidated power. Exactly two months later (in early December 1979), the Soviets decided to intervene after all, killing Amin and staying for 10 years at tremendous cost.
A thought-provoking piece by @DmitriTrenin on Russia leaving its empire behind: carnegie.ru/commentary/832…. Lots to reflect upon here, and some things potentially to disagree with. I would argue that whether Moscow is leaving its empire behind depends on what we call an "empire."
After all, much of today's Russia is still an empire of a kind: it is not like it has suddenly become an average European nation-state. Is Russia leaving Chechnya behind? Or perhaps Tatarstan? Is Moscow rethinking its relations with the periphery?
Russia learning to live with others in the former Soviet space could be a pointer to post-imperium, or it could be a pointer to scaled-down ambitions. Tsarist Russia "lived" with Britain in Central Asia and Japan in the Far East, much as today's Russia lives with Turkey or China.
Why do so many people care so deeply about whether Putin congratulated Biden? What, are they best buddies? Is there an international law requiring that you congratulate projected winners of US elections? Will it add to Biden's electoral legitimacy to be recognised by Putin?
In any case, why would you expect Russia, which has had a generally nasty relationship with the US for years, to congratulate Biden, who had recently called Russia the main foreign "threat" faced by the United States, and promised tough measures to counter Russia's aggression?
- OMG, Putin had not congratulated Biden - can you believe it?
- Yes, I can believe it, and I am not surprised. In fact, I'd be surprised if Putin went out on a limb to congratulate a candidate where the other candidate is yet to concede or, indeed, peacefully relinquish power.
Well, time to start re-reading what Biden had to say on foreign policy. This here is a must read. foreignaffairs.com/articles/unite…. A lot of useful ideas here, for example, focusing on America's domestic problems (proverbial leading by example), and fighting against corruption.
There is positive vibe in comments on climate change, on the Iran deal, and nuclear arms control.
At the same time, there is a lot of old, tired trope that will annoy America's friends around the world. Like these brave proclamations here that will lead to a lot of eye-rolling, e.g. in Europe.
Some people have criticised that I've compared the US election with that in Turkmenistan: let me explain. The OSCE has 57 participating member-states, among them some vile tyrannies. Turkmenistan is probably the worst, which is why I use it for benchmarking.
If you were to take key indicators of democratic elections - from campaign and media environment to campaign finance to voter enfranchisement to election administration, you will see that the US doesn't do too well in these categories. I'd say it's in the bottom 50 percent.
Of course, there are many others that are much worse. Central Asia, Russia, and Belarus are examples. There are others that are much, much better. Having observed elections in Mongolia, I'd say Mongolia is way better across all indicators. Much of Western Europe is way better.