What we have established is that the Western bloc or the NATO bloc is void of doctrine in terms of its conflict or competition with the Eastern bloc and in particular Russia. But what is there to say about Eastern doctrine or Russian doctrine? According to one Cold War expert, Odd Arne Westad, Cold War doctrine is a matter of socialization above all else, especially socialization of the Third World on the part of America and Russia. But as Westad noted, the socialization goes both ways. Socialization is a two-way street. While America and Russia seek to socialize the Third World as the core aim of the conflict and competition between themselves, the Third World does its own share of socialization as well. To borrow from Westad:
“In historical terms, much of the twentieth century can be seen as a continuous attempt by other states to socialize Russia and America into forms of international interaction based on principles of sovereignty. In these efforts there were some successes, but many failures. The successes have mainly been connected to crises within the international system that could directly threaten Moscow or Washington themselves. For the United States…the Great Depression, the Second World War, and the end of the Vietnam War all led to greater degree of accommodation to the interests of other states. For Russia, the period between the 1905 and 1917 revolutions, the aftermath of the German attack in 1941, and the Gorbachev-Yeltsin era signaled such accommodation.”
Overall, however, and historically and traditionally, Cold War interactions and socialization have largely been one-sided and lopsided. America and Russia seek to dominate others. They seek to exercise hegemony over others. America and Russia do not really seek to be socialized by the Third World. To borrow from Westad yet again:
“But the periods in which both powers have been poised to intervene unilaterally against the gradually developing norms of international interaction have been much more prevalent. Given the form that American and – at least during its Soviet period – Russian policy took during the twentieth century, it is reasonable to assume that the two projects – one of state sovereignty and another of global ideological predominance – cannot be reconciled, even though both Cold War superpowers at least in form came to accept alliances and international organizations.”
Cold War interaction or international interaction means that the Third World seeks to assert and convey its own sense of identity and sovereignty towards America and Russia, while America seeks Americanization of the Third World and Russia seeks Russification of the Third World. In turn, both Americanization and Russification are viewed as modes and methods of propelling Third World peoples towards overcoming what the two Cold War powers saw as Third World backwardness and primitivity through modernity. Both America and Russia are the same ideologically, in the sense that the ideology of both Cold War powers consists of modernity. The two differ only in terms of what modernity means, as Westad argued. For America, modernity means capitalist modernity. For Russia, modernity means communal modernity. One revolves around capital and profit, while the other revolves around social advancement and social development. Russia’s idea of modernity based on social advancement and development is thus perceived by the Russians and by many others in the Third World as being far more superior than the American idea of modernity that is based solely on the worship of capital and profit. In turn, the aforementioned sums up Cold War interaction or international interaction in a nutshell.
Adam A. Azim 