The United States of America owes credit for both its birth in the 18th century and its survival during the Civil War to an unlikely source: Russia.
At least that’s the narrative that’s taken hold in some circles inside the former Soviet Union. And it’s a viewpoint that was espoused recently by Russian President Vladimir Putin, who went out of his way this month to highlight historical examples of what Moscow’s state-run media called “Russia’s contribution to U.S. statehood.”
The truth, historians say, is much more nuanced. Russia did back the Union during the Civil War and sent naval detachments to both coasts during the conflict. During the American Revolution, Russia’s refusal to send troops to fight alongside the British, and its maritime “neutrality” policy that undercut total British dominance of the seas, did significantly aid the Americans’ cause, historians argue.
But the recent focus on those centuries-old events seems designed to advance a subtle foreign policy talking point for the Kremlin: As it seeks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, the Trump administration should approach Moscow with humility and gratitude, not hubris and antagonism.
Russia, of course, has followed a similar rhetorical playbook for decades in its dealings with Europe, often stressing its fight against Nazi Germany and the appreciation that it believes nations such as Britain and France should show.
Russia’s roles in the American Revolution and Civil War are less understood, at least from the perspective of Western history. Scholars say Mr. Putin’s recent comments on the subject reflect one of his core beliefs, that major powers on both sides of the Atlantic owe Russia.
“He has, at times, a very positive, upbeat and simplistic view of Russian history. And I would say that his comments bear out that narrative,” said Alexander Burns, a history professor at Franciscan University of Steubenville and an expert on 18th-century European and American military history.
“I would not say that the Russian Empire was instrumental to Union victory in the Civil War or the outcome of the American Revolution,” Mr. Burns said in an interview. “But with that said, I would say that they were on our side, the United States’ side, in both wars. Not as uniformed combatants, but as people who were ironically giving the sort of aid to the United States that the United States is currently giving to Ukraine.”
Moscow’s motivation
It is that current conflict in Ukraine, now well into its fourth year, that seems to be the driving force behind Mr. Putin’s decision to raise these issues. His comments this month came against the backdrop of an increasingly tense relationship with President Trump, who has made clear repeatedly in recent weeks that he believes Mr. Putin is a key obstacle to a ceasefire.
Mr. Trump’s efforts to end that conflict, as he promised to do within days of taking office, so far have made little progress, though Russian and Ukrainian delegations have met for several rounds of talks. He said Tuesday that Mr. Putin has 10 days to agree to a peace deal or face severe tariffs from the U.S.
Mr. Putin’s comments came amid his insistence that Russia was interested in the U.S.-backed peace push despite his country’s continued attacks on Ukraine.
“We have always had, for a very long time, very good and special relations with the United States. We supported their aspirations for independence from the U.K. We actually supplied weapons. We helped them with money,” Mr. Putin said in a July 6 interview on Russian television. “Afterwards, we supported the North during the North-South war.
“So, in this sense we found things that united us,” Mr. Putin said.
Two days later, Mr. Trump publicly blasted the “bull——” that he said comes from Mr. Putin, though he was not specifically referring to the Russian leader’s comments about U.S. history.
Russia’s role in American history
Mr. Putin’s remarks weren’t entirely surprising. Five years earlier, Russian Public Affairs Committee policy analyst Alexey Viryasov wrote a lengthy analysis titled, “How Russia Saved the United States Twice.” The piece was posted on the website of the Russian International Affairs Council, a leading Russian think tank.
Referring to the American Revolution, he wrote: “Nowadays most Americans remember the French fighting alongside them in this nation-building war. Unfortunately, they are never reminded about Russia’s contribution to the U.S. independence.
“Twice in less than a century, Russia stood on behalf of the United States in its fight for freedom and unity,” he wrote.
During the Civil War, Alexander II, the Russian emperor at the time, did send Russian fleets to both New York and San Francisco. Mr. Viryasov said those ships were prepared to “fight the British Navy” if Britain threw its military and economic weight behind the Confederacy.
That argument has some merit. A lengthy 1969 publication from the U.S. Naval Historical Foundation and posted on the website of the Naval History and Heritage Command says: “Such a partnership between the United States and Russia, two countries which were the very antithesis of each other, is considered to have contributed to preventing European intervention in our Civil War.”
Russia’s navy played an important role during the American Revolution as well, most notably through the implementation and enforcement of the “First League of Armed Neutrality,” which aimed to ensure that neutral nations could continue shipping goods across the seas without interference from the powerful British navy.
Mr. Burns, the Franciscan historian, said the Russian-led effort ensured that “naval supplies and ammunition and artillery are flowing from where they’re made in Europe, from the Scandinavian countries, to France.”
“It wouldn’t be a stretch to say that some of the French ships that come and directly fight against the English, and help George Washington win the Battle of Yorktown, those French ships would not have been able to be equipped” without Russian help, he said.
Another important point, Mr. Burns said, was Russian Empress Catherine II’s refusal to send troops to fight alongside the British army. The British instead enlisted Germany’s Hessian soldiers. Those troops were soundly defeated — and a majority of them captured — during a major Continental Army victory in Trenton, New Jersey, in December 1776.
Had those troops been Russian, the outcome may have been different.
“I do think it would’ve been really challenging for us … to win in the same way with the Russians,” Mr. Burns said. “The Russians have a really great reputation for being incredibly dependable [soldiers] who don’t run away easily in the 18th century.”
• Ben Wolfgang can be reached at bwolfgang@washingtontimes.com.