The Godfather Country

Everyone knows the quote from Tom Hanks’ character in the movie “You’ve Got Mail,” that “The Godfather is the answer to any question.” I personally don’t know if you can actually find all the answers to any question in Mario Puzo’s famous novel. Although, maybe this novel could help our political analysts to solve some questions concerning the U.S. agenda, but only if they deign to pay attention to this modest product of popular gangster literature.

Mario Puzo’s novel was published in 1969 and immediately became a bestseller. By this time there were a lot of books about gangsters, murders, street fights and divisions of territory, but Puzo wrote a different story about gangsters. Gangsters for him could be politicians and royal families with their systems of succession, and ordinary families with their own problems. The originality of the book consists in its blend of different genres: starting with a family saga, and ending with a career novel. That’s probably why “The Godfather” became a so-called backbone of American literature.

Francis Ford Coppola, the film director of “The Godfather” and also an American citizen, never hid the fact that the Corleone family is an allusion to the United States of America. Mr. Coppola said, “I feel that the Mafia is an incredible metaphor for this country … Both the Mafia and America have their hands stained with blood from what it is necessary to do to protect their power and interests.” He also stated, “Both are totally capitalistic phenomena and basically have a profit motive.”

Surprisingly, his thoughts have something in common with the thoughts of another American citizen, Nikolai Zlobin.* Mr. Zlobin has repeatedly stated that the U.S., although it has a very democratic internal system, follows a totally undemocratic foreign policy, dictating its will by force onto other parties in the international arena. What else can this political strategy be compared to, if not to typical mafia family behavior? Not a real family, of course, but a fictional one, like that created by Mario Puzo. There are allies, mafia family members and strangers. The mafia will do everything for its allies and nothing for the strangers. Who cares about strangers? They are not even enemies; they are no one.

If we take a look at U.S. foreign policy in light of “The Godfather,” then some of our questions will became clearer. Maybe it will even help us to get rid of some political delusions.

Indeed, many things resemble each other. The U.S. State Department — just like Don Corleone — wants to be friends with everyone who wants to be friends with it. Sometimes all you need to do is just “kiss the hand,” and all your problems will disappear. Just never forget the fact that one good turn deserves another.

While reading Puzo’s novel, you can find that some stereotypes about Americans are not correct. For example, we consider the typical American to be a cynic and a pragmatist whose life motto is “nothing personal, it’s just business.” Michael Corleone demolished this stereotype in Puzo’s novel: “It’s all personal, every bit of business. Every piece of shit every man has to eat every day of his life is personal. They call it business. OK. But it’s personal as hell. You know where I learned that from? The Don. My old man. The Godfather. If a bolt of lightning hit a friend of his the old man would take it personal… And you know something? Accidents don’t happen to people who take accidents as a personal insult.” Perhaps the U.S. political establishment is taking all of Russian foreign policy since Putin’s speech at the Munich Conference in 2007 as a series of personal insults.

The word “humiliation” is a favorite of the American publicists. At first they explain that Russia acts a certain way because it feels its own humiliation after losing the Cold War. Then they say that by his actions, Putin is humiliating the politically weak and indecisive Obama. Anyway, overseas columnists too often resort to emotional explanations for the motives of the main international players when it concerns geopolitics. At the same time, it is not typical for Russian journalism, where columnists are always trying to find rational explanations for the actions of our political partners. The idea of mentioning emotions and feelings in the field of international politics is considered childish and impolite. Russian politics does have emotions, though, which you can see in photos from the summit talks.

People suppose that high-up politicians will not benefit from satisfying their appetite for taking revenge in certain spheres, but people are wrong to think that. After all, even our diplomats tell us about this. Veniamin Popov, the Director of the Centre for Partnership of Civilizations MGIMO (Moscow State Institute of International Relations) used the word “humiliation” too. In the socio-political talk show The Structure of the Moment,** he said, “The Iranians have been like a red rag to the U.S. bull, because of the way Iranians humiliated the Americans. No one has humiliated them in the last century. The U.S. had to take revenge.” Mr. Popov added, “The Assad family reversed their political line toward Iran, and that’s why the U.S. will never forgive them.”

Also, didn’t we all see Hillary Clinton’s “wow!” reaction to Gadhafi’s death? The U.S. does not simply exclude its opponents from power, but it has a need to humiliate them, and then abolish them in the most degrading manner. This is considered “wow.” Hussein, Milosevic — you can continue this line as you like. What do our good natured liberals say when they address our own president? They remind him exactly of the destiny of Milosevic and Gadhafi. The majority of them live a perfect life in our totalitarian country; they enjoy the freedom to travel and freedom of speech, but their desire to say “wow!” [to Putin], and feel the pleasant sensation that comes after this, overpowers everything. Can this be considered business? No, it’s personal, and it will never go away.

Recently, the idea that U.S. rhetoric toward Russia is changing due to the extraordinary activity of the Kremlin’s foreign policy is starting to be mentioned more. Russian newspapers quote some [American] politicians, and point to articles from the American newspapers. They say that Russia finally demonstrated its power to the U.S., and now America understands there is no other alternative than dialogue with Russia. Everyone from liberals to conservatives in the Russian political community says that it’s necessary to start a dialogue, to find different diplomatic ways to settle some sort of agreement, and to proceed with the policy of détente; we have common threats, we can be allies, et cetera.

No one talks about the fact that maybe the U.S. does not want to negotiate with us — not now, not ever. Not when Putin is the president, not when someone else is. Not under this U.S. administration, not under the next one. Maybe it indeed wants to destroy us, just like Hitler once wanted. Maybe it’s not a popular paranoia, but an indisputable fact.

Of course, we have nuclear weapons. But the breakup of the Soviet Union happened, as far as we know, without any nuclear war. Moreover, all these words like “détente” and “dialogue” have a trace of Gorbachev’s era. In the ‘80s we took down our arms and extended our hand, but the gangster in front of us shrugged his shoulders and blew our brains out. It all happened because we are not part of this gangster’s family — we are no one. The last time he missed, and he didn’t beat us completely. Will we be that lucky next time?

I’m personally worried about the fact that no one in the Russian political community discusses the problem of the United States’ incapability to settle an agreement with us, and what we should do about it. What should Russia do if overseas it’s considered as a threat way worse than all the terrorist organizations put together?

The Russian Federation, in fact, has undermined U.S. authority in the international arena over and over again. In 2008, Russia could at least somehow help its ally when the United States was unhelpful to Saakashvili. In 2014, Russia deprived the U.S. ally Ukraine of the Crimea and Donbass regions. Russia has also prevented the U.S. from removing Bashar Assad from his post.

It’s important to remember that we are dealing with the country whose leaders publicly declare their exclusiveness. The U.S. went a long way toward world supremacy. In the early ‘90s it finally got it, and 25 years is certainly not enough for it. The U.S. won’t forgive Russia its recent actions. Thus, there is a very dangerous situation between Russia and the U.S., although Russian politicians are too optimistic about it.

*Translator’s note: Mr. Zlobin is a Russian political scientist, journalist and historian who has spent more than 20 years living and working in the U.S.

**Translator’s note: Channel One Russia, issue 29 Sept. 2015.