« Iraq Detainees Held in Small Crates
Class Doesn’t Stay That Way »



Russia’s dangerous steps to a new Cold War

August 13th, 2008
By BRIJ KHINDARIA, International Columnist

Print Print

The Russian invasion of Georgia has removed the lid over the simmering tensions between Russia and the Western allies that could easily turn into a new Cold War, stoked by hardliners on both sides.

This “Cool War” is low intensity compared to the one with the former Soviet Union but the mistrust between Russia and the Western democracies can no longer be papered over and will take a long time to heal.

The US is faced with a fait accompli. Russia has effectively obtained a conquest over disputed territory through war. It cannot claim self-defense or pre-emption because it was not threatened in any way. Therefore, its military intentions can no longer be fully trusted in any situation.

This is the most dangerous contemporary development in geopolitics. It is far more dangerous than international Islamic terrorism because it may again divide world nations into rival groups probably centered on the US or EU, or Russia or China.

The groups would be polite to one another but remain separated by undercurrents of suspicion. The distrust will fuel arms races and provide a bonanza for non-State terrorists because the opportunities for leakages of weapons sales and technologies for weapons of mass destruction would increase exponentially.

Each group could use non-State fighters as proxies to conduct wars of attrition similar to what the US did in Soviet-dominated Afghanistan, Pakistan is doing in Indian Kashmir and Iran is doing through Hezbollah, Hamas and Shiite militias in Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq.

These likely outcomes must be kept in mind as Washington confers with its NATO and other allies in coming days and weeks on how to handle Russia. The worst outcome would be a slide down this treacherous slope because of hubris in Western capitals.

Shoddier still would be more of the short-sighted White House thinking that created the quicksands of Iraq and Afghanistan and roused Iran to speed up its drive for nuclear weapons.

The challenge is how to set limits to Russian resurgence without pushing its back so far to the wall that it prefers a Cold War to cooperation with the West. That must include giving it the security space it craves.

Russia is paranoid about being surrounded by pro-US governments along its borders. It called a truce only after destroying Georgia’s main military bases near South Ossetia and Abkhazia, thus making it impossible for President Mikheil Saakashvili to reclaim those territories through force.

As a result, the strongly pro-American Saakashvili may lose the next elections allowing Russia to neutralize American influence in Georgia. If Saakashvili prefers to fight for those territories again, the Russians may advance further into Georgia to thoroughly destroy its army. That would surely cause a full-fledged Cold War, or more, with the West.

Russian paranoia is not entirely misplaced. Currently, American forces are much closer to Russia’s territory than ever before. They are present in Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Georgia as well as across the Middle East and Central Asia. All of these new European countries are currently hostile to Russia. The US is also weaning India away from dependence on Russian weapons.

Recent history is not reassuring for Moscow. After the Soviet Union fell, the US, Britain and European Union took advantage of the newly-emerging Russia’s many weaknesses to strip away almost all its sphere of influence close to its frontiers.

In effect, the Western allies have peacefully annexed almost all countries previously in the Soviet sphere of influence by using NATO or EU membership or both. That has drastically changed the balance of power in Europe for Russia.

Insisting that Russia should not fear NATO is naïve especially since the US and its key allies bombed Serbia, a Russian ally, and this year rejected Russian pleas not to recognize Kosovo’s independence. The US is also close to locating anti-missile systems in Poland and the Czech Republic, which could be used against Russia just as easily as against Iran, North Korea or China.

Kosovo’s independence and long-standing US support for Georgia’s positions on Abkhazia and South Ossetia humiliate Russia because it seems no longer capable of protecting its friends against US and European pressure. Whatever the rights and wrongs of Russia’s perceptions, rubbing its nose in its diplomatic and economic weakness compared with the West is unwise.

Modern Russia is nothing like the Soviet Union but the Russian people, who suffered greatly in 20th century European wars, are still prickly about national pride and paranoid about security. The US must recognize these emotional blockages even if they seem needless or irrational.

Currently, Georgia is the largest recipient of US military aid after Israel and is being groomed for full NATO membership together with Ukraine despite Russian protests and threats. Through the invasion, a resurgent and oil-rich Moscow has sent a loud message to the Western allies saying, “Enough is enough!” The bear has been pushed too far.

The immediate goal must be to prevent Moscow from becoming convinced that the US and Europe are perfidious and want to emasculate its power in the world’s eyes.

The current conflict is the first concrete signal that Moscow, if pushed further, will no longer hesitate to assert its military power as a rival of the West even at risk of a new Cold War.



This entry was posted on Wednesday, August 13th, 2008 at 11:13 am and is filed under At TMV, Cold War, Russia, War, Foreign Affairs, Europe. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Viewing 7 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    It's an interesting and provoking analysis. The main disagreement I have is with the expression that the West or Europe annexed former Soviet Bloc nations. Technically, of course, it isn't true with Poland, Ukraine, etc., being as independent as they've been for a century. But even metaphorically, in the sense of annexing into one's sphere of influence, I think the word "annex" is misleading as well. I am sure various pressures were used but by and large places like Poland and Latvia chose, once free, to align themselves more with Western nations for both economic and security reasons. I think there is a difference between supporting an ally who chooses to work with you and annexing something.

    Anyway, good post.
    • ^
    • v
    I would like to correct a glaring mistake in the title of this article.

    It should read: "BigOil's dangerous steps to a new cold war"

    After all, Russia is being truthful when it complains about US aggression in that region threatening it's traditional area of influence.

    Like I said, what would our response against the russians be if they decided on a whim to invade Mexico for its petrolium reserves...all under the guise of humanitarian issues?

    At least the russians are honest about their intentions and make no bones about it.

    If Russians were smart they'd speak about Bush's aggressions and ties to the BigOil monopoly that got the Georgian ball rolling. How would we feel if Russia started putting missile silos in Canada and Cuba and allying those region's troops with its mexican takeover in our hemisphere.

    We would be SO VERY PISSED OFF.

    And yet we criticize them and are sending troops in on BigOil's behalf to start WWIII.

    How nice.

    Congress?
    • ^
    • v
    "Modern Russia is nothing like the Soviet Union but the Russian people, who suffered greatly in 20th century European wars, are still prickly about national pride and paranoid about security. The US must recognize these emotional blockages even if they seem needless or irrational."

    The same arguement could be used to explain why the ex soviet repulics and satallites wanted to join Nato and the EU. The differances are that there arguements are not irrational but make perfect sense, The EU and Nato would never attack Russia first, the same thing can't be said about Russia. It is these countries that wanted to join Nato and EU and it's not like the west forced them. Since these countries joined they have experianced high gdp growth and are finally catching up to the standard of living in the west. Each country has that right regardless of Russia's irrational fear. Must we let these countries suffer and live in poverty just to keep Russia satisfied.
    • ^
    • v
    Silhouette your an idiot.....what oil???.... if your talking about Iraq than your sadly mistaken. Their has not been any increase in oil shipments to the US from Iraq since the overthrow of Saddam. If your talking about oil contracts, I'll be happy to inform you that so far Chinease companies have recieved the most contracts in Iraq for oil. Inform yourself a little more before you comment on things you do not know. You listen to some anti-war propaganda and label it as a fact.

    Now if your talking about the oil pipeline in Georgia and Bush's support for it to bypass Russia. I say kudos to Bush. Once again you need to inform yourself a little more on these issuies. Russia has been holding Europe hostage since it is owns most of the piplelines supplying oil to Europe. On several occasions it shut off oil to Belarus and Ukraine to punish these countries for not doing as Russia pleases. If Bush or the US wants to build a pipleline to Europe that bypasses Russia and relevies the EU from being pressured by Russia by all means we should support it.
    • ^
    • v
    BigOil innocence-rhetoric courtesy of the GOP.
    • ^
    • v
    Russia is the source and the cause of its anti-Western problem but the fools and troublemakers find it easier and more convenient to blame Bush and his evil administration.
    • ^
    • v
    Wow, Skiba101 your your pomposity and arrogance are diminished only by your ignorance. Energy, oil, pipelines is what it is all about, and the arrogance of the Georgian president who actually believed he could attack separatists (bomb,kill, murder rape a couple thousand) of his own unruly countrymen that are defended by Russia. This one is a real confuser in terms of who are the freedom fighters and who are the terrorists, and who are the protectors of such groups. Get your head out of Bush's bum parts Skiba, and smell the fresh air of freedom, free of fascist, hyper capitalist, energy dreams. I could refer you to several articles but why bother, in all likelihood you would not be interested in any position but the one you have disingenuously crafted.
 
close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus

« Iraq Detainees Held in Small Crates
Class Doesn’t Stay That Way »


By posting comments on The Moderate Voice you are acknowledging and agreeing to the following general comments policy:

(1) The Moderate Voice's comments are hosted by Disqus (http://disqus.com). If your comment doesn't appear immediately, please be patient since it is an off-site system.

(2) All e-mail received from readers by The Moderate Voice is considered intended for publication unless otherwise indicated in the initial message from the writer. Please do not send us attachments unless you contact us and we agree to it.

(3)The Moderate Voice reserves the right to edit all e-mail and posted comments for content, clarity, and length.

(4) Our comment space is reserved for comments that relate to a post's topic. You should not reprint lengthy text from your own works or those of others, including news articles. You MAY link to them.

(5) Comments that are abusive, offensive, contain profane or racist material or violate the terms of service for this blog's host provider will be removed and the author(s) banned from future comments. Such comments also violate the very SPIRIT of this site -- which was created to encourage thoughtful and vigorous discussion among readers who may share differing viewpoints.

(6) All points of view are welcome on The Moderate Voice, with the following exceptions:

(a) Comments posted several times a day with the intent of dominating, re-directing or hijacking the thread by turning a discussion into the equivalent of a bitter shouting match.

(b) Comments posted several times a day that insult or call other commenters or blog writers names or repeatedly make the same point with the effect of or clear intent to annoy other commenters or blog writers.

(7) Name-calling, personal attacks, racist comments or use of profanity by any commenter, whether they are by persons who agree or disagree with the views expressed by The Moderate Voice will NOT be tolerated and will result in the deletion of the comment and the banning of the commenter's ISP address, without notice. In some cases a comment may be deleted and the writer will be given another chance. Commenters who virtually ASK The Moderate Voice to ban them by ignoring any warnings or daring TMV to ban them will quickly get their wish.

(8) Anonymous commenters should identify themselves with the same moniker, so readers know their comments are coming from a single individual. If they don't, they are subject to a banning.

(9)If we have problems with inappropriate or inflammatory comments from a commenter who it turns out gave a fake email address that person is subject to immediate banning.

(10) Quotes from material appearing on The Moderate Voice with attribution are allowed. Reprints are allowed only by permission from The Moderate Voice. You may request permission by e-mail.

(11) The Moderate Voice is a personal site. It is not the Government. It is NOT aligned with any political party. It is NOT promoting any specific candidate for office. It is not a public institution or a media organization. It is not a neutral site. It is intended to express and disseminate the authors' varying points of views. Writers on this weblog WILL take positions. It reserves the right to limit comments to those that, in its view, comport with its stated comment policy. Comments that do not comply are subject to deletion and banning of the author's ISP.

Disclaimer:

--Reading and posting comments at The Moderate Voice constitutes acknowledgment of and agreement to the terms outlined in this comment policy. This comment policy may be revised in part or in full at any time.

--All comments must comport with applicable state and federal laws. The Moderate Voice has no obigation to monitor, edit, censor, or take responsibility for comments. It may or may not act upon a violation of its comment policy once a suspected violation has been brought to its attention. Therefore, commenters are solely responsible for the content of their comments and should ensure that that their comments are lawful and fall within the stated guidelines of both The Moderate Voice and its hosting company.

--The Moderate Voice is not be responsible for injury or liability to any reader or commenter resulting from its own communications or those of commenters, that may be offensive, misleading, inaccurate, illegal, or otherwise unsuitable in the view of the reader. Readers and commenters further agree to indemnify and hold harmless The Moderate Voice from claims resulting from the use of any material appearing on The Moderate Voice which damages the reader, commenter or any other party.

--The Moderate Voice is not responsible for and might disagree with material posted in the comments section. While we strive for accuracy in our posts and DO correct errors, material posted by The Moderate Voice in its posts -- or those left by others in the comments section -- may or may not be accurate.

Read and Post at your own risk.