Words To Live By: Brezhnev vs Putin

On November 9, 2024, the world marked the 35th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall.

And we also marked the 42nd anniversary (from November 10, 1982) when the leader of the Soviet Union, Leonid Brezhnev, died. Immediately after his passing, Yuri Andropov succeeded him as General Secretary. But our subject today is Brezhnev and the hauntingly similar ways both Brezhnev and Putin have ruled.

At the time in 1982, our National Security Advisor, Bill Clark, delivered the news to President Reagan in the middle of the night. He told the President that Brezhnev had finally succumbed after several years of poor health at the age of 75 and that President Reagan was invited to the state funeral. Due to scheduling conflicts, it was decided that Vice President Bush would attend the state funeral but that President Reagan would go to the Soviet embassy and sign the guest book.

As told by Secretary Clark, he accompanied the President along with Secretary of State George Shultz to the embassy, signed the book at which point President Reagan asked his two companions:

Do you think anyone has ever prayed inside this embassy?

Both men, Shultz and Clark, suggested that perhaps a quiet exit might be politically expedient…but then at that moment, the president bowed his head in prayer and both Clark and Shultz followed.? Gotta love the guy.

Here’s the President, at a November 11, 1982 press conference:

“Before taking your questions, I want to share with you just briefly my reflections on the important events that we've witnessed today.

“From Moscow, we've learned of the death of President Brezhnev, a man who played a major role in world affairs for more than two decades. Here in the White House, I met with Phil Habib [The President's Special Representative for the Middle East] about our plans to help bring peace to the Middle East, where the opportunity for progress has been fundamentally improved by recent developments in that region. And also today, the space shuttle was successfully launched. Once again, we will expand mankind's opportunities for enriching the human experience through peaceful exploration of the universe.

“Those events could have a critical impact on our future -- a future we face with confidence and resolve. If there is a lesson for us, it is that we, as a free people, must always be prepared for change, so that when it comes we're ready to meet new challenges and opportunities. Our system of government is unique and best able to adapt to change and move forward without disruption or break in continuity of purpose.

“I want to underscore my intention to continue working to improve our relationship with the Soviet Union. Our two nations bear a tremendous responsibility for peace in a dangerous time -- a responsibility that we don't take lightly. Earlier this year, we put forth serious and far-reaching proposals to reduce the levels of nuclear and conventional forces. I want to reconfirm that we will continue to pursue every avenue for progress in this effort. But we shouldn't delude ourselves. Peace is a product of strength, not of weakness -- of facing reality and not believing in false hopes.

“Q. Mr. President, who will be leading the U.S. delegation to Leonid Brezhnev's funeral? If you won't be going, how come? And also, aside from your personal hopes for peace, do you have reason to believe that the next coming months might see the new Soviet leadership flexing its muscle a bit and a period of increased tension coming about?

“The President. Well, answering the last part first, no, I don't anticipate that as they make this transition. And we certainly can hope that there won't be anything of the kind. But with regard to the service, we've had no direct, official word yet on anything about the service, although we are in communication directly with them. And it was just a plain case of looking at schedules and my own schedule calling for visits here by a head of state next week, and it was felt that it would be better for George to head that delegation. But it will be an appropriate and a very distinguished delegation.

“Q. So, it will be the Vice President who will be -- --

“The President.?That what?

“Q. It will be the Vice President, then, who will be heading the delegation.

“The President.?This is what we're considering now. No final decisions have been made, because, as I say, we're waiting to hear some word about the services.

“Q. If there is a period of tension, how would you respond?

“The President.?Well, we've had periods of tension before. And I think you just -- you can't guess that in advance or what the answer would be, except that I think we must remember that our goal is and will remain a search for peace, and we would try to find the best way to achieve that. And, incidentally, I believe that we can continue that search without my attendance at the services.”

Prior to Brezhnev’s passing, much criticism was leveled by Ronald Reagan in his radio addresses before even becoming President. So here’s a little refresher course starting with the Brezhnev doctrine. That was a Soviet foreign policy outlined in 1968 by Brezhnev which called for the use of?Warsaw Pact?(really….Russian-dominated) troops to intervene in any Eastern Bloc nation which was seen to compromise communist rule and Soviet domination. Essentially, it was the Soviet Union’s way to control Eastern European communist countries, nations and states. Further, the Brezhnev Doctrine outlined dire consequences for any actions with which the Soviet Union disagreed.

So enough from us. Let’s read citizen Ronald Reagan’s March 23, 1977 radio address. Here he criticizes the anti-ballistic missile treaty of 1972, because as Reagan says, the US bargained that anti-ballistic missile technology away in exchange for nothing.”

“Every once in a while something happens that points out how dangerous it is to handicap our counter intelligence agencies as we’ve done these past few years. I’ll be right back.

“In mid-March the Soviet U. warned us that detend would be endangered if American officials continued to criticize violation of Human rights behind the iron curtain. I don’t know about you but I didn’t exactly tear my hear and go into a panic at the possibility of losing détente.

“On February 11 a somewhat liberal newspaper the Boston Globe, carried a news story that should habe been front page in every major paper in the land. So far, the only publication I’m aware of that saw fit to reprint the item was Bill Buckley’s magazine National Review.

“According to the Globe article, British Intelligence in early 1973, obtained a speech made by Sobiet head of state Leonid Brezhnev at a secret meeting of East European communist rulers in Prague. In their evaluation, the British rated this speech as comparable in importance to Kruschchev’s 1956 denunciation of Stalin. The British informed our government of Brezhnev’s speech, but apparently, it didn’t lessen our desire for détente.

“Mr. Brezhnev told his fellow communist leaders, we are achieving with détente what our predecessors have been unable to achieve using the mailed fist. We have been able to accomplish more in a short time with détente than was done for years pursuing a confrontation policy with NATO. Trust us comrades, for by 1985, as a consequence of what we are now achieving with détente, we will have consolidated our position. We will have improved our economy. And then he added the bottom line which certainly should have guided our own policy for these intervening years….he said, a decisive shift in the correlation of forces will be such that come 1985, we will be able to extend our will wherever we need to.

“There was more to his speech. He was optimistic about the future of Marxism in France and Italy and now 4 years later, we know his optimism was justified. He said Finland was already in the Soviet pocket, trends in Norway were in the right direction and Denmark was no longer a viable part of Western strength.

“Washington evidently received the new British intelligence report with less than a wave of excitement. According to the Globe, the then secretary of state Kissinger minimized it’s importance to say the least. The only official reference to it came 3 years later in 1976, in the national intelligence estimate.

“Maybe in 1973, there was some excuse such as interpreting Brezhnev’s remarks as a form of campaign rhetoric for in house consumption. But now we can look back over the 4 years since the speech was made and see how consistent with his words soviet policy has been.

“Soviet forces on the NATO front have been increased by 54 divisions, a 40% increase in tanks to 3 times NATO’s armored strength. They have developed 6 new strategic nuclear systems and apparently are engaged in a crash program to develop an effective anti-ballistic missile system. You’ll remember we bargained away our right to have such a weapon for the protection of our cities. That was one of our contributions to détente.

“Question – why did we keep this information secret for 3 years? And why has the news media ignored it now that the secret is out? This is RR. Thanks for listening.”

A little history on Brezhnev – he was born to a working-class family in the UKRAINE. Joining the Communist party’s youth league in 1923, he ultimately joined the Red Army as a commissar and due to his performance against the Nazis I WWII, he rose to the ranks of Major General.

Once ejecting Nikita Khrushchev from power in 1964, he initiated a massive arms buildup and widespread military intervention to expand the Soviet Union's influence abroad (particularly in the?Middle East?and?Africa), although these endeavors would prove to be costly and would drag on the Soviet economy in the later years.

Brezhnev's disregard for political reform ushered in an era of societal decline known as the?Brezhnev Stagnation. In addition to pervasive corruption and falling economic growth, this period was characterized by an increasing technological gap between the Soviet Union and the United States. Upon coming to power in 1985,?Mikhail Gorbachev?denounced Brezhnev's government for its inefficiency and inflexibility before?implementing policies?to?liberalize?the Soviet Union.

In this next radio broadcast from April 13, 1977, the big hits come at the end. He focuses on the Middle East but his commentary hits right in the middle of Soviet expansionism.

“There was another part to Mr. Brezhnev’s recent speech on human rights that deserves more coverage than it received from our press.? I’ll be right back.

“On March 21st Soviet communist party Chief Leonid Brezhnev made a speech warning the President of the United States to lower his voice on the subject of human Rights.? He, of course, received worldwide coverage.? Indeed we could all be excused if we thought that’s all he talked about.? It wasn’t.

“He had things to say about the Middle East and frankly, if a man biting a dog is more newsworthy than a dog biting a man then the world press missed the real news in his speech.

“In introducing the subject of the Middle East, Brezhnev sounded as if a re-convening of the Geneva Conference on the Arab-Israeli stalemate might be in order.? Then speaking for the Soviet Union which co-chairs the Geneva Conference, he outlined what his country considers essential to a peaceful settlement between Arabs and Israelis.? He said, quote, “We hold, in particular, that the final documents should be based on the principle of “- now hear this-“the impermissibility of acquisition of territory by war,” unquote.? He then went on to say that Israel should withdraw her military forces from all the territory she took in the 6 day war back in 1967.? And, of course, return that territory to the Arabs.

“This to be sure is one of the bones of contention in the present stalemate and could raise among us Americans a question of, “why not?”? After all we fought two world wars, were victorious in both and never asked for or took so much as a square inch of anyone else’s territory. ? But we’d be pretty na?ve if we applied that yardstick to Israel in the present situation.? ?

“The real issue in the Middle East had to do with the Arab refusal to recognize that Israel has a right to exist as a nation.? To give up the buffer zones Israel took in the 6 day war could be to put cannon on her front walk aimed at her front door by those who have said she must be destroyed.

“But let’s take a look at those other words of Mr. Brezhnev.? He’s telling us the Soviet Union does not believe any nation has the right to hold territory seized by force of arms? ? Well, let’s play, “what if”.? What if the U.S. said to Israel, you give back that territory to your Arab neighbors and we’ll enter into a treaty with you-a mutual aid pact-that says, if you are attacked we come to your aid?

“Don’t go away!? There’s more to come if we’re playing what if.? Then we say to the Soviet Union by way of Mr. Brezhnev, quote, “you, of course, must get out of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia which you seized by force of arms”, unquote.? And come to think of it that means turning loose Finland, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, East Germany, and Rumania.

“As a matter of fact there are some islands north of Japan and some territory in Mongolia you occupy only because you joined the fight against Japan 20 minutes before the end the War. (I don’t think they heard a single shot fired in anger).? And up til then Korea was one nation. ? It only became a North and South Korea because the Soviets came in like a squatter and homesteaded the north half.? Unfortunately, that was during a time when we were in that “good old Uncle Joe” mood thinking Stalin was going to turn out to be the gruff old codger with a heart of gold.

“How about that?? One sentence by Brezhnev in a speech on March 21st 1977, and if everybody (especially him) did what he said, peace would come to the world.? This is Ronald Reagan.? Thanks for listening.”

Vladimir Putin recently overtook Leonid Brezhnev as Russia’s longest-serving leader since Joseph Stalin. His economic record, coupling stability with stagnation, looks increasingly like Brezhnev’s too.

The past four years have proved that Russia’s economy can withstand brutal shocks, including the collapse in oil prices in 2014 and subsequent Western sanctions on Russian banks and energy firms. But the four years since have also demonstrated that a return to rapid growth is unlikely. In 2017, Russia’s economy grew by 1.4 percent, significantly slower than both the United States and the eurozone. It is expected to underperform in 2018, too, thanks to sanctions and low oil prices but also to a long-standing lack of investment. Russia is far poorer than its Western rivals, so it ought to be growing significantly faster than them. But last year Russia was one of the slowest-growing countries in Central and Eastern Europe, significantly lagging neighbors such as Poland and Romania. And don’t even ask about comparisons with Asia.

The world is watching.