Russia Vs. America: Here we go again kids!!

[christo-f]

Was doing some reading to update myself on the US Russian relationship when I remembered and article a Read a few years ago. I know there are a few politically motivated and knowledgeable heads on this site and thought they might be interested and have some interesting opinions on the matter.

 

 

A few years ago Robert McNamara, in Foreign Policy magazine/journal, claimed that the Cold War wasn't over and that it was just in hiatus and the US needs to be cautious not to piss the old bear off again. Seems he may have been correct correct.

 

He claimed that the US, after winning the cold war has not paid Russia enough respect. The biggest issues were two fold; 1. That NATO was encroaching on Russia's doorstep by incorporating the Baltic countries of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. This is significant keeping in mind that NATO was originally formed to counterbalance the USSR's expansion into Europe. The second Issue was that the US was attempting to formulate complete nuclear dominance, for no valid reason, thus decreasing Russia’s relative security.

 

 

 

Goodbye To Old Friends

 

Since the end of the Cold War the West (being the US and Western Europe) has been vastly expanding it's influence across Eastern Europe and “forcing” itself upon the Middle East. This is significantly in the form of the military/NATO action against Serbia in the late 90's, the Orange Revolution in Ukraine (which was largely a US sponsored action), the Rose Revolution in Georgia and the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan where the US is largely expected to base troops for decades to come. You can now add the recent independence of Kosovo to the list.

 

The West was able to successfully wrest Ukraine and Georgia from Moscow with their bloodless coups, of sort by training the grass roots movements in peaceful means if insurrection and political strategy. Viktor Yushchenko took power in Ukraine and immediately looked to gaining EU membership. Mikheil Saakashvili took power and instantly became vocally friendly with the US…, namely because their were instrumental in coming to power. Both leaders have since publicly spoken of an interest in joining NATO.

 

Along with Eastern Europe you have Central Asia. Once upon a time also part of Moscow’s exclusive sphere of influence, countries like Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and so on have also been pulling away from Russia. As can be seen in the below attached picture, the US has used bases in Uzbekistan for logistics and troop staging areas for Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan has been used to base attack fighters and large bomber fleets along with combat troops and Tajikistan has been used by the French for military logistics for Afghanistan. It is the fear of Russia that The US/West will forge strong ties to these nations, most importantly military ties that will encourage the hosting countries to look to the US for political and military protection, thus excluding Moscow form the region.

 

Russia still has a few points of leverage against the West. Those being the amount of energy it supplies to Western and Eastern Europe in the form of natural gas and oil and the residual benefits resulting from Kosovo’s independence.

 

However, the majority of these levers are interconnected and quickly eroding. Of the 5 'Stan's major rail systems, only 2 of them do not link directly to Russia (Iran and China). However, China is now beginning work on two rail lines, one to Tashkent, Uzbekistan and one to Almaty, Kazakhstan. This then opens up these two states to Chinese trade on a much larger scale than previously. This will also undermine Russian influence in the region being that China's domestic market is richer and developing quicker than Russia and Chinese exports are of a superior quality than their Russian counterpart's.

 

China has also recently converted old Soviet built pipelines to transport oil from Kazakhstan to China (pictured blow). This oil has previously been sent exclusively to Russia keeping Astana firmly within the Kremlin’s grasp and Russia’s client states under Moscow’s thumb. In Turkmenistan the situation for Moscow is even worse, not only has China been awarded the first post-Soviet Greenfield license but it has also secured a good deal of Turkmenistan’s gas exports that have previously been bought by Russia. Russia supplies 25% of Western Europe's natural gas at a yearly income or US$9B and all of the Ukraine's gas imports. It has been this energy supply that the Kremlin has used to blackmail Europe and the new pro-Western government of Yushchenko that is now slipping away.

 

Due to this “double whammy” not only is Russia losing influence in Central Asia but it is also losing its levers that allow it to retain a certain amount of influence in Ukraine and Europe.

 

 

 

One Word: Nuclear Fucking Weapons

 

As previously referred to, Russia holds the second largest nuclear arsenal in the world. Yet, this also is being undermined by the actions of the West. As I'm sure we're all aware, the US is in the preliminary stages of placing a ballistic missile defence system (BMDS) throughout Eastern Europe..., once again in countries previously inside Russia's sphere of exclusive influence.

 

A nuclear bomb is not an offensive weapon, it is defensive in nature. The theory of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) dictates that if you fire a nuke at another nuke or nuke-aligned nation, you'll cop them back and you'll both be destroyed. That means you cannot use them to attack, only to deter attack hence, a nuclear capability is a defensive capability. The key to turning your nuke capability into an offensive weapon is to neutralize your opponents nuke options. One way is a first strike capacity (the ability to take out your opponents weapons before he can retaliate with them) which is pretty much impossible because most nations have a second strike capability through nuclear survivability (the ability to keep your nuke sites defended, secret or underwater on constant patrol), or you can successfully defend against their strike.

 

That's what the BMDS is, a neutralisation of Russia's nuclear deterrence. This is added to the fact that Russia's nuclear arsenal is quickly exceeding its shelf life and replacement is slow and inefficient. The real main remaining reason to regard Russia as a major global player is just about to be removed, to a certain extent.

 

With Russia's influence being undermined in Europe, the switching of Central Asia's commercial and energy interests from Russia to China and Russia's nuclear capacity being further neutralised, what are they doing about it?

 

 

 

Russia Pushes Back /No Homo

 

The most obvious reaction to the treatment it has received since the break up of the USSR is Russia’s military response. Reminiscent of Cold War tactics is the resumption of strategic bomber patrols. They are named strategic bombers for their nuclear capabilities. Not only have these patrols been reinstated but they also are pushing the limits of regional friendliness. Over the last 18 months, Russian bombers have encroached upon the airspace of Norway, Iceland, Alaska, Great Briton, Guam and most recently, Japan. Not only does this allow the Kremlin to gauge response times and procedures, make the opponents lock on radar systems to read their processes and to intercept any electronic communications for intelligence purposes.

 

Russia has tried to reclaim the role of protecter in the Central Asian states by holding a number of joint exercises throughout the region with the hosting nations (documented below). Whilst not tipping the balance completely in Russia's favour it has given some positive results for Moscow. Tajikistan has voiced its impatience with US usage of bases in the region and Uzbekistan violently crushed the initial stages of its own coloured revolution without a care for American complaints of human rights violations. Not only have these military actions throughout Europe, Central Asia and the Pacific reasserted some Russian influence, most importantly it has conveyed the message that Russia is not willing to accept a loss in terms of regional and national security.

 

On the domestic front, Russia has launched the National Information Center. This is a rehashing of old Cold War practices where the Center has three particular roles; the coordination of foreign media agencies (Surveillance and restriction of access), publishing international and domestic news with a Russian perspective (propaganda) and reporting from around the world (information gathering). Secondly, Putin recently publicly advocated stronger roles for the FSB in military and foreign relations showing that they take their international relations as strategic imperatives rather than just business as usual.

 

Russia has also withdrawn from the Conventional Forces Europe Treaty (CNE). This treaty was designed to cap the limit of conventional forces (man power, artillery and tanks) on the European plains acting to lower the tension in the region and avoid the pitfalls of brinkmanship. This issue goes hand in hand with Moscow’s response to the proposed BMDS the US is planning for Europe.

 

Russia recently, “theoretically” suggested deploying missiles in Belarus if the US should implement its BMD. However, some may argue that the BMD doesn’t really matter to Russia as it still posses the quantitive capability to saturate the shield and also is working on a number of decoy and evasion technologies that could defeat the system. The real issue is that if Poland and the Czech republic do take on the BMD, the US will have a much greater commitment to defend these countries which gives them pretty much complete reliance and loyalty to Washington…., which is more than NATO membership ever can. Therefore the deployment of missiles to Belarus is a move in the same direction. Where missiles are based, so are troops.

 

This military planning accompanies the recent moves Moscow has made in the Middle East and Mediterranean. Russia has been stymieing US attempts to deter Iran from building the capacity to enrich weapons grade uranium and has reportedly sold them missile technology. There are also recent talks about aiding Syria in upgrading its air defence system, although both parties have publicly denied this. In late 2007, Russia deployed a battle carrier group (the only one it has) to the Mediterranean for naval exercises. Whilst the Russian navy is no match for US naval and air power it does display Moscow’s interest in the region and allows the navy to hone its skills and monitor the US reaction

 

 

 

You Say Goodbye, I Say Hello

 

Russia’s military and strategic leverage is not its only lever in the post-Cold War era. Russia still holds at least one significant diplomatic lever useful in influencing post-Soviet states.

 

Both Ukraine and Georgia represent a physical and strategic geographic buffer for Moscow. Both border Russia and have significant geographic characteristics. Georgia has the natural barrier of the Caucus mountains to the north near the Russian border which can restrict troop movement into the country, Ukraine over 1000 kilometers that help to separate Russia from Western Europe and both have coastline access to the Black Sea. Ukraine is even more important to the Kremlin in that it is the birthplace of Russian ethnicity, is the center of the a large amount of Russia’s defence industries and has over 50% arable land within its borders…, something that Russia does not possess in abundance.

 

Both of these nations ceded their Russian influence to the West in US manufactured colour revolutions. Since Yushchenko took control of Ukraine in the Orange Revolution and Saakashvili with the Rose Revolution in Georgia, both have moved closer to the West and spoken publicly of an interest in attaining NATO membership. This is unacceptable to Russia for obvious reasons.

 

In the Case of Ukraine, Russia possesses a lever of debt and energy supply. Recently Moscow and Kiev held an emergency meeting regarding this debt (for supply of natural gas) of which the outcome was that US$1B was to be transferred through a Ukrainian national energy company to that of a another that is also half owned by Russia. This is quite a generous result for Ukraine but also carries the strings of at least acceptance that they still operate within Russia’s sphere of influence. This specifically translates to no NATO membership. It is arguable to say that Kiev is willing to pay this price in the knowledge that Russia’s energy levers are beginning to wane due to the weakening of Russian sway over the Central Asian states that supply Russia with a large amount of this energy and in time the situation will once again favour greater autonomy for Ukraine.

 

Unfortunately for Georgia the issue is so not simple. In the north west of Georgia lies Abkhazia. Bagapsh, the president of the already de facto breakaway republic is staunchly aligned with Moscow and is pushing with great determination for official independence from Georgia. Serbia, which was vehemently opposed to independence for Kosovo, is also aligned with Russia and enjoyed loud and strong support on the issue. Since Serbia/Russia lost the tug of war over the ethnically Albanian province to Western interests Russia has hinted to Tbilisi that if it intends to move towards NATO membership and Western alignment the Kremlin will then do to Georgia what the West did to Serbia and the West will be in no position to argue if it wishes Kosovo to remain independent. Since Moscow made these two diplomatic moves with Ukraine and Georgia neither state has since mentioned NATO, displaying the influence Russia yet retains over the Eastern region.

 

If these tactics of military and diplomatic maneuvering prove successful it will communicate to the other former Soviet states that Russia still remains a strong regional power and has a willingness to act and deny Western encroachment into its perceived sphere of exclusive influence.

 

It is important to note that the US is not in a totally dominant position at the current time. The US land forces are spread throughout the world pre-occupied with combat and manning strategically important bases thus denying their deployment elsewhere en masse. American naval and air forces are not totally pre-occupied in the Middle East and Afghanistan. However, if they are further deployed to active involvement in Eastern Europe and the Western Pacific, the home base will be left with minimal defences leaving a window of opportunity to any force that is willing to try its luck, namely Russia.

 

So, the question is posed; was Robert McNamara correct in suggesting that the Cold War never ended and that the West needs to treat Russia with greater respect to avoid another arms race, cold war and the conflicts it potentially brings?

 

Where to from here?

 

 

[Map of Georgia doesn't want to work..., fucking shithole anyway...]

[shai]

I don't know why this would be a surprise to anyone. We "won" the Cold War only because the Soviet system collapsed in on itself from trying to keep up with the US in the arms race.

 

Capitalism came in, and it turned out to be maybe not the evil that the Kremlin proclaimed it to be, but it certainly made Russia a very scary and lawless place more or less controlled at certain levels of society by organized crime.

 

I could see Russia having a VERY big bone to pick with the US, and if they decide to do it with the current administration (who's short-timing it anyway), we're quite possibly fucked. Diplomacy, restraint and common sense seem to be out of fashion in Washington DC nowadays. Imagine Bush taking this as a direct, personal challenge as opposed of a sign of things to come and egging the Russians on somehow.

 

It's not really that far-fetched, unfortunately.

[lord_casek]

aaaaand russia got pissed because we shot that satellite down....with what we said was a standard, 20 year old, technology....hmm...

[Theo Huxtable.]

I don't know why this would be a surprise to anyone. We "won" the Cold War only because the Soviet system collapsed in on itself from trying to keep up with the US in the arms race.

 

 

Bin Laden claimed it was due to the mujahideen victory in Afghanistan.

 

But the credit goes to this man:

 

 

He knew the US had much more spending power than the USSR and used that to his advantage. Unfortunately, he cut down on social/domestic programs in the process.

[shai]

The Cold War definitely helped, though.

[Guest spectr]

Bin Laden claimed it was due to the mujahideen victory in Afghanistan.

 

But the credit goes to this man:

 

 

He knew the US had much more spending power than the USSR and used that to his advantage. Unfortunately, he cut down on social/domestic programs in the process.

 

are you really trying to give credit to regan for ending the cold war?

[ohefdubs]

yeah reagen ended the cold war fool !

he was a good president

[Theo Huxtable.]

are you really trying to give credit to regan for ending the cold war?

 

Yes. He escalated the arms race in the 80's in both high-tech weaponry and in sheer mass(expansion of force sizes, planes, warships, troops, bases, etc.); he spent the most on millitary expansion during peacetime during the entire Cold War. The USSR tried to keep up and folded in on itself. At the same time he sought constant relations with Gorbachev, a moderate, that was wary and and skeptical of the future of the USSR. Gorbachev was also an instrumental tool in ending the Cold War, in part thanks to Reagan.

[angelofdeath]

the cold war was not ended by reagan. for the most part he just got lucky being in office and getting the credit. the soviet union collapsed because socialism must fail and it did. i do commend him for arming the US and not using it to start anything.

 

i dont think we owe a damn ounce of tribute to russia, i wouldnt trust them, but i dont think nato should of even been created nor should the US of been part of it. and we damn sure shouldnt be expanding it to russia's door step.

seriously, if russia started putting bases in cuba and arming that place to the teeth, how would we respond.

[smooth bruce]

the cold war was not ended by reagan. for the most part he just got lucky being in office and getting the credit. the soviet union collapsed because socialism must fail and it did. i do commend him for arming the US and not using it to start anything.

 

There was nothing socialist about the USSR.

[angelofdeath]

im dont to get into a philosophical debate about socialism or communism, but the state owned the means of production. call it what you want. i'll call it a form of socialism.

[smooth bruce]

but the state owned the means of production. call it what you want. i'll call it a form of socialism.

 

The state owned the means of production... ie. Not communism/socialism.

[H. Lecter]

OK.. NOW do we see why we're in Iraq and Afghanistan~?

GOOD!

Clinton slept at the wheel.

[christo-f]

OK.. NOW do we see why we're in Iraq and Afghanistan~?

GOOD!

Clinton slept at the wheel.

 

Um..., WTF???!!

 

What on earth are you on about???

[christo-f]

Russia has just cut gas supplies to Ukraine again. This has just happened in the last couple of hours since Medvedev has taken office and is probably a little nudge to Ukraine and Europe (Europe's gas flows through Ukraine). Apparently Yulia Timoshenko has something to do with it. She has a problem with Yshchenko and is blocking the planned payment of US$1B to Gazprom. I don't have solid info on the matteryet because it has only really just happened, but it just shows how fluid the issue is between Russia and the West.

[Stereotype V.0002]

Great read dude. The ruskies power depends heavily on their natural resources right now though, if/when prices go back down again they may lose some of their bravado (like the bear flights or assassinating dissidents abroad.)

[angelofdeath]

blah blah blah. USSR = communist, a form of socialism. all forms of socialism must fail.

 

i mean shit. from the first line on wiki:

 

"The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (abbreviated USSR, Russian: Союз Советских Социалистических Республик, СССР (help·info); tr.: Soyuz Sovetskikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik, SSSR), also called the Soviet Union[1] (Russian: Советский Союз; tr.: Sovetsky Soyuz), was a constitutionally socialist state that existed in Eurasia from 1922 to 1991."

[Theo Huxtable.]

The Soviet Union was never a true Socialist or Communist society. It only borrowed Communist and Socialist ideals.

 

I think it's too elementary to say that the USSR fail simply because "all socialism must fail"

 

There has never been a true, 100% Socialist or Communist society for us to gauge that theory on.

 

The Soviet Union was cracking by the 1980's, while at the same time trying to keep up with the US in military power/technology. Reagan used this opportunity to elevate military spending to unprecedented levels in which the USSR could not compete. It just expedited their collapse.

[angelofdeath]

i think we are splitting hairs. the US is enough of a capitalist country for it to be called 'capitalist' in conversations, no?

the same can be said for soviet russia. it is socialist enough (from each according to their ability to each according to their need, state owned means of production) to be called a socialist country in normal conversations.

 

all central economic planning will fail. it cannot calculate.

its just like the laws of gravity. you cannot repeal the laws of economics.

 

the military build up during the reagan administration just simply put the last nail in the soviet coffin.

[christo-f]

The Soviet Union was never a true Socialist or Communist society. It only borrowed Communist and Socialist ideals.

 

I think it's too elementary to say that the USSR fail simply because "all socialism must fail"

 

There has never been a true, 100% Socialist or Communist society for us to gauge that theory on.

 

The Soviet Union was cracking by the 1980's, while at the same time trying to keep up with the US in military power/technology. Reagan used this opportunity to elevate military spending to unprecedented levels in which the USSR could not compete. It just expedited their collapse.

China was a fully fledged communist nation. No private ownership of property or the means of production. Communal work units, communal eating, central planning of the labour and economy etc. Doesn't get much more communist than that.

[smooth bruce]

blah blah blah. USSR = communist, a form of socialism. all forms of socialism must fail.

 

No it wasn't and 'all forms of socialism MUST fail' is a joke because you obviously don't know anything about it.

 

i think we are splitting hairs. the US is enough of a capitalist country for it to be called 'capitalist' in conversations, no?

the same can be said for soviet russia. it is socialist enough (from each according to their ability to each according to their need, state owned means of production) to be called a socialist country in normal conversations.

 

The Soviet Union was never a communist/socialist society, ever.

 

all central economic planning will fail. it cannot calculate.

its just like the laws of gravity. you cannot repeal the laws of economics.

 

Oh here is the problem... you have no understanding of 'economics'

[Theo Huxtable.]

China was a fully fledged communist nation. No private ownership of property or the means of production. Communal work units, communal eating, central planning of the labour and economy etc. Doesn't get much more communist than that.

 

When? What era? I'll look into it. Definitely not in recent decades with their capitalist ventures.

 

I can't imagine them being a "fully fledged" communist nation. Everyone being paid the same amount? From government officials down to the janitors?

[christo-f]

The communist revolution was in 1949, the land reformation started in the early 50's and started to fall apart after the Great Leap forward failed and then everything fell apart after the Cultural Revolution in the late 60's. Deng Xiao Ping came to power in the early 80's and started the process of marketisation.

 

As for the perfect Communism, of course not. Mao and his generals were obviously a lot better off and there would have been some sort of corruption somewhere down the chain. But to look for the perfect anything is like chasing your tail. There is no perfect market society either. There will always be safety nets, some sort of social welfare, subsidisation and so on. I don't know of any country where the government only implements safety and contract/property law. No system can ever be implemented 100% because they are black and white theories and life will always be shades of grey.

 

There has never been any perfect and total system implementation anywhere and never will be. Most modern democracies are a mix between market economies and socialist economies.

[shai]

The prevailing paradigm is capitalism, so whether you like it or not you're going to have to come to terms with it to some degree.

 

Therefore, no system can be totally socialist because there has to be concessions made to be involved in the global/free market economy.

[smooth bruce]

The communist revolution was in 1949, the land reformation started in the early 50's and started to fall apart after the Great Leap forward failed and then everything fell apart after the Cultural Revolution in the late 60's. Deng Xiao Ping came to power in the early 80's and started the process of marketisation.

 

As for the perfect Communism, of course not. Mao and his generals were obviously a lot better off and there would have been some sort of corruption somewhere down the chain. But to look for the perfect anything is like chasing your tail. There is no perfect market society either. There will always be safety nets, some sort of social welfare, subsidisation and so on. I don't know of any country where the government only implements safety and contract/property law. No system can ever be implemented 100% because they are black and white theories and life will always be shades of grey.

 

There has never been any perfect and total system implementation anywhere and never will be. Most modern democracies are a mix between market economies and socialist economies.

 

China was not communist either. There has never been any communist states.

 

Life is grey and ideas are best kept loose but things like... democratic control of workplaces and the abolishment of a state are pretty basic principles that don't slip into that grey area.

[christo-f]

The prevailing paradigm is capitalism, so whether you like it or not you're going to have to come to terms with it to some degree.

 

Therefore, no system can be totally socialist because there has to be concessions made to be involved in the global/free market economy.

 

Was that for me? I have no problem with capitalism and haven't meant to say any different.

[christo-f]

China was not communist either.

Unless you give some reason as to why not, I/we will just have to disregard your opinion. Just saying so isn't enough.

[shai]

Was that for me? I have no problem with capitalism and haven't meant to say any different.

 

No, not towards you. Obviously, you know what you're talking about and what informs your opinions, so I won't belabor the point since it would pretty much be a waste of time for both of us.

 

I'm not crazy about capitalism, but I've come to terms with it.

 

I do agree with PM to a point, though. It's almost impossible to be a socialist state without some kind of concession to the prevailing global economy.

[smooth bruce]

Unless you give some reason as to why not, I/we will just have to disregard your opinion. Just saying so isn't enough.

 

things like... democratic control of workplaces and the abolishment of a state are pretty basic principles

 

 

 

...

[christo-f]

Ok, sorry, I misunderstood you. Abolishment of the state, they would argue that they did that. The party was the people in their eyes. They would still argue that the party are the people because they are elected delegates that come from the provinces and unions that work for the country, not personal interest.

 

Democratic control of workplace, they'd argue that they had this too. In some places they probably did as per reality and others they'd say that the orders that came from the party concerning agricultural and industrial methods were a product of the democratic process of electing party officials.

 

It's all in the perspective. We all know that reality is far different, but then politics is always removed from reality and is always different through other people's eyes.

 

Don't get me wrong, I certainly don't support any of this, I'm arguing from a historical perspective and passing on the lines that they hand out.