no one else. When the spoils of the empire were dividedrnamong various Russian institutions on December 16, 1991, A.rnAlimzhanov, Speaker of the Council of People’s Deputies,rncalled this “the final act of lawlessness. . . insulting . . . to thernnon-Russian republics.” When the Soviet Academy of Sciencernwas renamed the Russian Academy of Science, its Russianrnpresident stated: “In essence, it was always ours.” I le expressedrnan opinion, commonly held by Russian elites but studiously unnoticedrnin America, that the Russians have treated the SovietrnUnion as theirs, in contrast to every other nation that was partrnof it. They were the primary beneficiaries, in terms of culturalrnand military identity, of the might of the Soviets. The BolshoirnTheater was maintained at the expense of not only Muscovitesrnbut also the inhabitants of Tashkent, but only Russiansrngarnered the benefits of owning such a splendid cultural institution.rnThe Red Army with its nuclear arsenal has been therncenterpiece of that terrifying Russian splendor before whichrnAmerican elites have been genuflecting, then and now.rnUnlike the Eastern European countries that had to startrnfrom scratch after 1989, the former Soviet non-Russian republicsrndid not even have the scratch to start with. Their populationsrnwere hit by economic earthquakes that the West hasrndiscreetly avoided seeing, turning its cameras at, and sendingrnits scores of journalists to, Russian cities only. For every articlernin the American press about the fate of the poor in Uzbekistanrnthere have appeared several hundred about the poverty of Mr.rnIvanov in Moscow. While Mr. Ivanov makes, on the average,rn$85 per month, his counterpart in Kiev makes $7, while thernminimum wage in Kazakhstan was recently raised from $2 to $3rnper month. Americans are oblivious to the fact that for everyrnsuffering Mr. Ivanov there are two non-Russians whose livingrnconditions are scarcely better than those prevailing in ThirdrnWorld countries. Sixty-two years ago, during the plannedrnUkranian famine, Walter Duranty was equally oblivious to thernstate of that nation, even as he fawned upon “that great lightrnfrom the East” in Moscow.rnIt is time to pose the question of why the American mediarnand intellectuals display so much tender solicitation towardrnRussia and the Russians, while treating 300 million non-Russiansrnof the former Soviet Empire as unpersons. One answerrnis that the media and intellectuals, of the left and of the right,rnare attracted to displays of brutal power. Our value system hasrnevolved in such a way as to put on a pedestal those who arernleaders in that regard. Such people and such nations havernacquired immunity to criticism and that magic quality whichrnencourages worship. This is why the twin powers of Russian artrnand Russian army are irresistible as objects of fawning attention,rnwhy the holes in Russian children’s clothes generate more concernrnthan birth defects and starvation in a Central Asian countrysidernpoisoned by chemicals. Power attracts; its trespasses arernblurred by its might. Stalin’s famed question “How many divisionsrndoes the Pope have?” underlies many a learned articlernand book written by think-tank gurus. American culture hasrnbeen increasingly hospitable to the language of violence andrnpower. Russians have mastered that language to perfection,rnand American elites seem to be mesmerized by it. RudyardrnKipling’s “The Truce of the Bear” captures remarkably well thatrnsingular quality of pitifulness and terror that Russians have sornoften projected in the West for their exclusive benefit.rnIt is of course in Russia’s interest to encourage admirationrnand alarm, pity and sycophancy in those who deal with her onrnbehalf of America: journalists, scholars, statesmen, and ordinaryrncitizens setting up countless “exchange programs,” which bringrnRussians here to study high tech and send Americans tornMoscow to study Russian literature. The song of “Let us helprnRussia for this is in our interest” is being sung in unison by vastlyrndivergent groups, and thus it is perhaps not entirely spontaneous.rnThe more people hear it, the louder it becomes, as newrnvoices join in. And a country so wounded, a population so desperaternare unlikely to be hostile. This increases the good will ofrnAmericans and also helps to create a climate for American reductionsrnin military spending.rnThe tender solicitation bestowed on the Russians is a formrnof fascination with the power of the gun and of oil fields.rnAmong professional Russia-watchers, it is also related to a desirernto keep and strengthen their own professional standing.rnThe concern with the plight of Russians in non-Russian republicsrn(has anyone ever shed tears over the plight of Ukrainiansrnor Uzbeks in the Russian Federation?) and sentimental waxingrnover the multiplicity of beggars in Moscow (how differentrnthe accounts are of beggars in India) are hardly caused by a suddenrnupsurge of Christian compassion.rnThe oft-repeated opinion that the Russians have been “humiliated”rnby the troubles of their empire is of similar provenance.rnRussia is one of the most imperially successful statesrnever to exist. She has subjugated numberless peoples andrnnations over the last 300 years. The Russians profited enormouslyrnfrom their conquests. The history of Russia equalsrnceaseless expansion since the fall of the Mongols (whosernempire, incidentally, coincided with the territory of the formerrnSoviet Union). This expansion is like kleptomania, like anrnaddiction. Long before the Soviets appeared on the worldrnscene, Russia was an army with a country, rather than a countryrnwith an army. Russians are land-hungry, even though theyrnhave not been able to populate, assimilate, or civilize the landsrnthey have conquered. Yet instead of turning a searchlight onrnthis problem (the way we have done with the Nazi conquests),rnwe become, like Linda Richman, verklempt at the mere mentionrnof the aggressor’s humiliation at going home. Whatrnabout the humiliation of the peoples whose homes thernaggressor invaded?rnThe idea that the Russian Federation in its present form canrnevolve into a benign authoritarian state, let alone a democracy,rnis Utopian. The federation is torn by disparate interests.rnRussians dumping nuclear waste in the Sea of Japan while installationsrncapable of processing that waste stood idle nearrnMurmansk illustrate this point. If Russia aspires to normalrnstatehood and freedom for its citizens, it has to disintegrate. Ifrnthe Russian Federation does not disintegrate, it means thatrnit has remained a tyranny, regardless of appearances. Tellingrnthe Russians that they are victims rather than creators of theirrnown fate is like offering drinks to an alcoholic. Instead of tryingrnto develop a dialogue with their Russian counterparts,rnAmerican intellectuals have preferred to adopt the vision ofrnRussia that comes from that country’s propagandists.rnFor Russia to choose normal statehood would mean makingrna radical turn away from its own history, which the Russiansrnhave been indoctrinated to adore. Americans are delaying thernprocess of Russia’s maturation by their persistent courting ofrnthe empire’s elites, whether they be socialists or nationalists.rnKibitzing and flattery from abroad prolong the status quornrather than helping the Russians face up to themselves.rnOCTOBER 1994/35rnrnrn