Cohen Lecture

Stephen Cohen at Fairfield University
February 5, 2015

Stepen Cohen, an historian and analyst of Russian and Soviet politics/history, as well as a professor emeritus of NYU and Princeton came to Fairfield University to present a lecture on "The Unkrainian Crisis: Why a New Cold War?"

Cohen identifies the crisis as a cold war worse than the infamous Cold War that followed WWII for five reasons:

1. The epicenter of the crisis is Ukraine, which is right on the border of Russia, and therefore right in the center of an area saturated with intermarriage, culture, and religion.  As a result, there is a high potential for friction, misunderstanding, mishap, and provocation.

2. It's unfolding in a "fog of war" -- there is a spread of misinformation
Who's telling the truth and who's lying?  It's hard to tell.  This is a common motif of all of history.  In terms of this particular historical occurrence Cohen said, "It comes down to the fact that the facts are all bad and dangerous and getting worse." (16:00)

<<<Technology, including social media sites like twitter, as well as email, and other forms of online communication are indeed advantageous when information needs to travel quickly and efficiently.  However, the progress due to these technological tools seems to also be hindered by its immensely public nature.  With great ease, one can post skewed stories, fill "facts" with bias, spread propaganda, and ultimately, mislead the public.>>>

3. The conflicting powerhouses in the crisis lack attention to the mutual rules and practices of constraint that were developed over the decades since the last cold war.  Agreements between Moscow and Washington, such as the Red Phone hotline, the "check before acting" promise, as well as the "we won't do this if you don't do that" mentality, have gone with the wind.

<<<Progress or regression?  This seems like regression.  Are we children fighting or intellectual, culturally and morally developed human beings, capable of policy formation, negotiation, and constructive behavior?>>>

4. "Thug!" "Bandit!" "Murderer!"  Cohen argues that while Putin may not be a good leader, our attempts to restore relations and negotiate with Russia are blocked by "the demonization of Vladimir Putin, president of Russia."

<<<Cohen makes a point that rather than focusing on the unfolding of the event and searching for truth behind information labeled as "fact," the American media and government is "personally vilifying a Soviet Communist Russian leader."  Is our goal to provoke?>>>

5.  There is no effective American opposition to it.  Cohen scoffed; only a handful of people are opposed and/or critical of America's contribution in regard to Russia.

Cohen calls it a "failure of our democracy" (21:15)

<<<I realize that Cohen's thinking is completely submerged in Russian thought.  He even said so himself: "90% of my time is spent thinking about Russia."  Thus, his perception leans far toward Russia.  His insight is still valuable in that he pushes for Americans to have these challenging discussions so that we can act in a way that will potentially warrant better results.>>>