I was prompted to ask this question by listening to Season 3 of the Blowback podcast (fantastic podcast btw, I can’t believe I started listening to it until now), which is focused on the Korean War. One thing that stuck out to me was how reluctant Stalin was to give the DPRK Soviet support; he was possibly even willing to let the American occupiers be neighbors with the USSR if it meant he didn’t have to fight the US. He seemed to genuinely think he could engage in compromise with America.
This Western-friendly behavior from Stalin’s government wasn’t particularly new either. Prior to WWII, he reached out to the Brits/French/US to form a pact against Hitler, was rejected, and of course the Munich agreement followed and the Soviets settled with the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.
It is said Stalin greatly admired Roosevelt, and apparently even Churchill. After WWII, he and the US were able to agree on Austria being a neutral state, and Stalin really wanted a similarly neutral, unified Germany as well (this of course, the US would reject).
So that’s Stalin—genuinely seemed to think the West would act in good faith, but continuously got burned.
Fast-forward to the ‘90s, when much of the Russian/Soviet populace (especially Gorbachev) thought they too would get a liberalized, social-democracy with strong welfare and cheap commodities like Western Europe. Instead, Western financiers gutted their country and basically started the apocalypse until Putin comes along and stabilizes things.
But then Putin asks Bill Clinton if they can join NATO, gets burned again. Even several years ago, the Russians seemed to think the West would uphold their end of the Minsk 2 agreement, and now we have Merkel on tape saying that was never going to be the case. Only with the invasion of Ukraine does it seem like Russia has finally gotten the memo that the West will never act towards them in good faith (and even then, I’m not sure if that sentiment is resolute).
Compare this with other independent non-Western nations, such as China, the DPRK, Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, Yemen, Burkina Faso under Traoré, etc. These nations exist on a spectrum, with the DPRK or Yemen being openly hostile towards NATO while China is eager to do business (but doesn’t seem to be under any illusion that it will get to join The Big Club).
So TLDR: it seems to me the Soviets/Russians have constantly engaged with the West in good faith, but always get burned. This stands in contrast to other independent countries which have always seemed much more cynical. Is it due to their relative proximity to whiteness? A lack of direct colonization? Why have the Russians constantly thought they would ever be considered equal partners with the West?
It's a very good question and one I don't have a good answer.
Thinking aloud I'll admit in Stalin's case there was definitely some pragmatism to not going off on the west. The USSR was still behind developmentally and especially after the great war and losing so many people, so much industry, farmland, etc there might have been real fears of collapse or being overrun and so there might have been a really strong attempt to offer an olive branch, to do the utmost to be conciliatory and non-threatening to buy time to grow, recover, develop. Though after a certain point this does make less sense.
The capitalists and liberal-roaders during late (Gorbachev) and after the fall of the USSR make far more sense given they strongly believed that the difference between west and Russia wasn't that the west was a club of aristocratic old racists and colonialists intent on dominating and exploiting everyone not a member of the club but that it was all shared values and that the communism was the threatening thing instead of the whole Russian bourgeoisie being minor outsiders who were not desired to grow to the heights of the western capitalists and aristocracy as Russia was slated for plunder. Besides that the planners of empire of course, the US and UK specifically knew a country as large, diverse, rich in resources as Russia could not be allowed to rise and join the club as it would inevitably seize a large amount of power from their factions for itself and its interests.
When talking of Russian reluctance to confront the west over e.g. Ukraine it is also important to remember material interests. Russia has been slapped with massive sanctions, their economy has been partially decoupled from by the west and the west is gearing up for war with Russia within the next 10 years and calling them a threat which must be destroyed. All because Russia had the audacity to swat away the dagger being positioned under its heart in Ukraine. Putin was definitely suckered by the west for a while but it was an inconvenient reality to face the need to confront the west. The result has been painful. Right now Russia is staring down a likelihood of years of devastating and spectacular western intelligence service aided terrorist attacks like those recently seen on two passenger trains where bridges were blown up and the attacks on their strategic bombers. They've had top generals assassinated in Moscow. They are enduring a horrible pain and knew to some extent they'd get things like this for challenging the west so were inclined to try diplomacy past the point of foolishness just in some vague hope they could work this out. As you I'm not convinced Russia won't drop many of its critical demands or moderate them and make concessions to end the Ukraine war. I hope they don't. I think it'd be foolish and selling the future for the present but they might and the west thinks they might which is why they're doing all this.
I suppose I'd have to guess it may be the whiteness, the lack of experience with the full brutality of extended colonization (though I'll note fascism is really just colonialism used on white people and over 1940-1944 the USSR experienced a great deal of pain inflicted in a short period by that though admittedly the end of that did have some help from the west who were portrayed as allies against it).
Thinking about the DPRK they were never really courted in the way the west has courted and tried to deceive and charm Russia/USSR and its leadership. Thinking of Iran they likewise were saddled with dictatorship and never really courted by the west but imposed with isolation and sanctions for their revolution. China has somewhat warmer relations but pragmatism and that comes from the west courting them for the Sino-Soviet split and because they exploited the west's hunger to profit from their population. Many smaller socialist states like Cuba, etc have been subject to crushing sanctions, coup attempts, color revolutions, etc perhaps because they're seen as small enough to easily crush while larger powers like the USSR and China are seen as better dealt with through courting and deception. I think the role of diplomacy and messaging may play a role as the west has certainly fostered a certain kind of attitude towards some nations and not others.
Thanks for the response! You bring up a lot of good points.
With regards to the beginning of the Cold War, I think Stalin’s conservative approach does make sense from the perspective you laid out; the Soviets had just lost >25 million people and much of their industry.
With respect to post-Soviet Russia, yeah I think they’re truly stuck between a rock and a hard place. They don’t want to capitulate to the west but still understandably want broader peace. To be honest, if I was in Putin’s shoes I don’t really know what I’d do. Be socialist again? Lol.
Russia is such an interesting country to me because of this weird space they occupy where they’re like a sort of Schrödinger’s European. Simultaneously Western and not. I do wish the Russian left could become a more meaningful force in politics there.
I have to admit if I were in Putin's shoes I'd have this terrible temptation to gamble. The west has been actively attacking them and Russia has held their hands from hitting them directly and in his shoes I have to say I'd be awfully tempted with them saying they're going to go to war against me anyways in the near future, re-arming themselves, rebuilding arms industry and currently depleted in weapons because they sent them all to Ukraine to start hitting them with Oreshniks while they're weak to dissuade them, like strike their intelligence centers and kill their spies aiding Ukraine as valid combatants. It could easily lead to nuclear war or a broader war but timidity so far hasn't worked out great so maybe it's time to go all out, sucker punch them in the face and hover that finger above the big red nuke button and act deranged, bluff them, dare them to continue escalating against you and get nuked. Maybe unwise but seeing how the west intimidated Stalin into not acting and how things have gone so far to backing down to the west, I just don't know if at this point in history it makes sense to not try to finally knock the smirk off their face.