MOSCOW (Reuters) - A speech by Vice President Dick Cheney strongly critical of the Kremlin marks the start of a new Cold War that could drive Moscow away from its new-found Western allies, the Russian press said on Friday.
...
"Vice President Dick Cheney made a keynote speech on relations between the West and Russia in which he practically established the start of the second Cold War ... The Cold War has restarted, only now the front lines have shifted," it said.
Washington and Moscow have largely ignored differences since the hijacked airliner attacks on U.S. buildings in September 11, 2001 and concentrated on joint interests in the fight against international militant groups.
But ties between the former rivals have cooled recently.
...
"Yesterday in the Lithuanian capital of Vilnius, like in Yalta in 1945, the map of Europe was redrawn," KP said, raising the specter of Russia being isolated from the mainstream.
"What can Russia do? It would appear it will have to strengthen ties with Belarus and Central Asia. And get close to China, to balance this Western might."
Has Cheney single handedly bitch slapped the only US tolerant nation on the Asian continent?
So, we are buddying up with India, Japan, Australia. Cutting loose Russia, China and Pakistan. Do we have anyone from Russia that can shed some light on the geopolitics of the region?
Kenneth Waltz's (in)famous treastice on neo-realist international relations examines the design, characteristics, and dangers of polar systems.
His analysis is simple: bipolar systems tend to be very stable (see the US and the USSR during the (now first???) Cold War while multipolar systems tend to be less so. It is, however, his analysis of tripolar systems that is most relevant to this recent development.
Tripolar systems are, by far, the least stable. We've been dancing on the edge of a tripolar system since China gained nuclear capabilities (Russia is still considered a polar power...its stockpiles of nuclear, chemical, and---particularly---biological weapons ensure that it maintains polar status). It -=would=- have been in the United States' best interest to ally with Russia in order to preempt a Russia-Chinese alliance (hereto unlikely becuase of the Sino-Soviet split but Wendtian constructivism suggests that China and Russia would make plausible, if not perfect, allies...and that the Sino-Soviet split would be easier to get past than, say, the Cold War).
Needless to say, this was not a good decision, Mr. Vice President.
Cheney is playing with ideological fire here. Half of a generation has passed since Gorbiachev's government last lowered the Hammer and Sickle over the Kremlin in December of 1991 - but to suppose that Russia and Russian political and military leaders don't long for the old glory days would be a gave mistake.
Since the 1991 fall, Russian politics have strayed slowly but surely back towards the Stalinist Left. Russia, much like the United States, has a long history of a "rally round the flag" syndrome - often uniting in the face of an outside threat.
Moreover, Russia has historically suffered an identity crisis. As both an Asian and a European power, Russia tends to define itself by its enemies - acting as an Asian power when confronted with Asian opposition and a European power when dealing with the West. Since the end of the Cold War, Russia primary security threats have been from within Asia and its military strategy has shifted to deal with the possibility of Asian conflict. This has been good for the United States (for reasons I'll avoid for now).
In all likelihood, Russia will blow this off. Cheney is an old Cold Warrior who doubtless has fond memories of a simpler time - when America's enemies were neatly contained within a few countries that could, hypothetically, be nuked into submission. A more alarmist tack would interpret this as the beginning of a rising stream of rhetoric and animosity between the United States and Russia.
This would be bad.
Were this to be the case, Russia would rapidly begin a backwards slide towards an even more authoritarian rule. Asian elements of the Russian national identity would sink beneath the surface as the European Russia takes hold. This would encourage alliances with China (potentially less of a threat than the United States), though probably not to the same degree as enjoyed under Stalin and Mao. In the meantime, Russian military strategy will shift back towards the European model of power projection. The United States would once again find itself facing another blue water navy and another strategic air force.
The precursors to this escalation in tensions would occur under the table. Much of the old KGB remains in tact, though largely privatized. The organization was designed to be survivable however, and the reactivation of KGB assets and networks is well within the reach of the Russian government in the face of an exterior threat. These networks are of particular significance as they have the capability to multiply many times the power of Iraqi resistance and other terrorist organizations. We did this to the Soviets in Afghanistan - they saw how effective it can be.
This is quite a lot to risk.
Much as I'd like to label the Bush administration as vapid ideologues in this case, Cheney is a smart guy. This line was delivered for a reason and - while I think it was a bad gamble, someone at the White House thinks otherwise. In theory, Cheney is probably trying to put pressure on Putin to back US efforts in the Global War on Terror to a greater degree. Apparently he thinks dangling the Cold War in front of him will help.
Killfile wrote:Cheney is an old Cold Warrior who doubtless has fond memories of a simpler time - when America's enemies were neatly contained within a few countries that could, hypothetically, be nuked into submission.
Quoted for truth.
We didn't appreciate the stability of the Cold War but plunging us into a second one is not a well-conceived plan. Still, I can empathize with the longing for a simpler time.
Killfile wrote:
Much as I'd like to label the Bush administration as vapid ideologues in this case, Cheney is a smart guy. This line was delivered for a reason and - while I think it was a bad gamble, someone at the White House thinks otherwise. In theory, Cheney is probably trying to put pressure on Putin to back US efforts in the Global War on Terror to a greater degree. Apparently he thinks dangling the Cold War in front of him will help.
I hope he's right.
thats the gist of it.
but so what if a new cold war came to pass? its all just rhetoric to me.
what kind of activities would dominate this cold war? arms, space and espionage race defined the previous one and cumulated in the soviet union's fall.
The last cold war had three "theaters" if you will - though I use the term loosely.
The first theater was the arms race. The US and the Soviets poured money into building better and more lethal weapons with which to fight each other. This is dangerous because it creates a sea-saw effect. Both sides are looking for an opportunity to strike and will feal that they must strike before the sea-saw reverses its pitch. So long as the sea-saw remains level or close to it, everything is ok - but a perceived inbalance leads to war.... fast.
The second theater was intelligence. The US and Soviets operated sophisticated intelligence networks that spanned the globe, meddled in the affairs of many other countries, created "proxy wars," and generally skirted the outside edge of open conflict. Besides the obvious dangers, these networks themselves invited open hostility. Even though it was an open secret that they were in use, both sides always reacted with shock and outrage should they discover enemy activity. Again -- taunting the dogs of war.
The final front was diplomatic. Both the US and the Soviets divided the world up into three camps. NATO and allied countries, Warsaw Pact and allied countries, and everyone else. Consolidating the world's nations under these banners made the likelihood of a small proxy war (as mentioned above) exploding into a general Third World War much greater. The NATO treaty even explicitly specifies that an attack on one is an attack on all.
To get an idea of how dangerous this was - look at the confluence of these trends. Cuba - 1962.
The arms race has lead to the US development of numerous medium and long range missiles - far outstripping the Soviet capability, though Soviet intelligence networks have prevented this fact from becoming known to the US. The Soviets in turn, have developed substantial shore to sea and ship to ship nuclear weapons to hold the superior US navy at bay.
Cuba has been consolidated into the Warsaw Pact & Allied Nations. Fearing US nuclear superiority in long range missiles and US medium range missiles in Turkey, the Soviets begin moving missiles into Cuba.
In October, a US U-2 spy plane take photographs of the Soviet missile sites under construction. The Kennedy administration goes into full crisis mode. Once the missiles are operational, the US will face (what it thinks to be) a substantively superior Soviet strategic situation (I should get alliteration points for that). Kennedy has but a few days to either convince the Soviets to give up their missile program or he is going to be forced to start WWIII to prevent the Soviets from starting it once they have the upper hand.
With so much build up to war - the hypothesized third world war would be not just bloody, but fast. Consequently many weapons existed in both the US and Soviet arsenals which were often left on high alert - making an accidential release not just easy, but fairly likely.
During the Cuban missile crisis the number of "close calls" we had would stun an ox. US fighters armed with air to ground "hound-dog" nuclear tipped missiles were sent in to Soviet Airspace to rescue a U2 flying over Siberia. A Soviet attack sub captain had to be wrestled to the ground by his XO to prevent the use of a nuclear tipped torpedo against the US blockade. US ships actually fired their guns at Soviet transport ships which were transporting more missiles to Cuba.
Time and time again we came to the razor's edge of nuclear anhiliation. But for the grace of God went we.
A Cold War is dangerous because the ease with which a simple misunderstanding can turn into a global nuclear war is absolutely staggering. All it takes is one bad call - not from the President or someone like that, but from some fighter pilot or a low ranking gunnery officer on a destroyer.
The possibility of open war is greater today than it was during the Cold War. The possibility that any given open war will escalate into a globe spanning conflict that ends human civilization, however, is much lower.
The possibility of open war is greater today than it was during the Cold War.
what makes you say that?
what or who will fire the first salvo?
Not an open war between the US and Russia - just an open war in general. During the cold war, with everyone picking sides, you basically couldn't sneeze without the treat of triggering a global crisis. Today, if the US rolls into Iran the Russians probably aren't going to incinerate DC just to be on the safe side.
The lower risk of triggering a global war makes the possibility of small regional wars more inviting for the powers that can win them. That makes the likelihood of a war greater - but the likelihood of World War III significantly lower.
i dont have any historical backing or concrete facts to that saying.
i was pointing out the opposite of the proverb "the less a person has the more he will for it"
seeing as how the major powers have so much to lose by waging war, i doubt anyone wants one.
only america bucks the trend by aggressively looking for one all the time. my opinion is that america can afford to do so by running huge deficits that are in turn exported to and paid for by their creditors.
