End of the post-Cold War era

[Prime Junta]

I don't know if anyone noticed, but the post-Cold War era just ended.

Specifically, Russia suspended its application of the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE).

When the Cold War ended, three major treaties defined the military relations between the Great Powers: START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty), INF (Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty), and CFE. (There's also the ABM, but that's a bit different.)

Of these, START and INF didn't have that much of a practical effect, although symbolically they're certainly significant. They still left all participants with hair-trigger nuclear arsenals big enough to devastate the planet several times over, so they didn't really change much.

CFE was different. Pre-CFE, the Warsaw Pact and NATO forces were pretty much facing off in attack formation at the Fulda gap: it would have been a matter of days to get the tanks rolling. This was also the raison d'être of tactical and intermediate-range nukes in Europe -- since NATO couldn't match Russia in ground force numbers, it countered with a tacnuke arsenal.

What CFE did was pull back the forces to a "peacetime configuration" and, most importantly, put in a strict regimen of transparency, reporting, and inspections. This made it impossible for either side to initiate a surprise attack. Since a nuclear first strike doesn't make much sense without a conventional-forces attack to go with it, this treaty alone did more to reduce the risk of nuclear war than anything before or since.

And now it's pretty much dead in the water, but nobody seems to care. Which, I believe, is the major problem -- ironically, Russia seems to be the only country where the CFE is a high diplomatic priority. They suspended it because most NATO countries have not ratified an updated version of it. NATO countries have refused to ratify it because Russia has troops stationed in Abkhazia, and Russia won't back down from that.

I'm pretty sure that if the diplomatic will was there, some sort of compromise could be reached over Abkhazia. But it isn't.

So, essentially, we're going back to the Cold War way of doing things because of... Abkhazia. Wonderful, eh?

 

[magerette]

Aside from the embarrassment of not knowing WTH Abkhazia is, I have to say I don't find this too surprising. The chest-thumping and national fervor going on right now reminds me very strongly of the types of events I remember from that period. It seems obvious that Putin is invested heavily in an aggressive return to Russia as a world power, and that interferes with the balance of things in ways that I'm sure alarm his closer neighbors as much as they are minimized by soft-pedaling in our US national news.

Not that a lot of facts haven't been reported(though I certainly don't remember hearing about this one,) just that no one really seems to want to look at them very closely. Iraq is a big distraction here, as is the media circus surrounding the upcoming presidential election, and world affairs take a low priority as an entertainment factor. As the little snip I posted about Kosovo also shows, Russia seems to be initiating pretty much any stance that will divide and weaken local consensus while strengthening their own position locally and/or globally. As you say, Cold War tactics and a very ugly way to begin the next decade of the millennium.

 

[Prime Junta]

Aside from the embarrassment of not know WTH Abkhazia is,

No need to feel embarrassed. You're in good company.

In a very small nutshell, Abkhazia is a part of the Republic of Georgia in the Caucasus mountains, which is ethnically mostly Russian. Most Abkhazian Russians even have Russian passports, and Pootie clearly feels that the border could do with a little shiftin'. There were some minor wars fought, and as a result some Russian soldiers are camped there too. Naturally the Georgians aren't having any of it, and what with their current Prez being very closely tied to Washington, we have a fine diplomatic mess on our hands.

But that's really beside the point; the point being that in the big scale of things Abkhazia really isn't that important, and if there was a will to solve it, it could certainly be solved. My apologies to any Georgians and Abkhazians who would certainly feel differently, but there you have it.

I have to say I don't find this too surprising. The chest-thumping and national fervor going on right now reminds me very strongly of the types of events I remember from that period. It seems obvious that Putin is invested heavily in an aggressive return to Russia as a world power, and that interferes with the balance of things in ways that I'm sure alarm his closer neighbors as much as they are minimized by soft-pedaling in our US national news.

There is that; Russia clearly considers itself the protector of the ethnic Russian minorities in former Soviet republics -- and its protection can be, um, heavy-handed at times. However, I have to say that the West hasn't really done a damn thing about some of Russia's entirely legitimate concerns. Take the Baltic states, for example -- they're NATO and EU members now, they treat their Russian minorities pret-ty shamefully, and Brussels/NATO hasn't so much as raised a peep.

(And yeah, I know, they didn't end up with these minorities because they invited them in, but neither is it the Russians' fault for being transferred or born there. There are certain standards we should adhere to, and many post-Soviet states aren't doing it -- and nobody even notices, other than Russia of course.)

Not that a lot of facts haven't been reported(though I certainly don't remember hearing about this one,) just that no one really seems to want to look at them very closely. Iraq is a big distraction here, as is the media circus surrounding the upcoming presidential election, and world affairs take a low priority as an entertainment factor. As the little snip I posted about Kosovo also shows, Russia seems to be initiating pretty much any stance that will divide and weaken local consensus while strengthening their own position locally and/or globally. As you say, Cold War tactics and a very ugly way to begin the next decade of the millennium.

Chess is the Russian national sport, and Putin is pretty good at it. He's also a black belt judoka. Both games/sports involve turning your opponent's actions against him. He's not someone you want as an enemy.

However, neither is he a megalomaniac loon out to take over the world. He has tried engaging with the West -- for example, post 9/11 he actively helped the US war effort in Afghanistan. What did he get? A few months of adulation followed by what he would see as a total betrayal. So he went back to chess and judo, and here we are.

What really bugs me about the situation is how entirely avoidable it was. Surely there's some better solution than having the tanks facing off at the Fulda gap again?

 

[magerette]

Prime J wrote:

But that's really beside the point; the point being that in the big scale of things Abkhazia really isn't that important, and if there was a will to solve it, it could certainly be solved. My apologies to any Georgians and Abkhazians who would certainly feel differently, but there you have it.

Why am I inexorably reminded of the assassination of the Arch Duke Ferdinand?

Chess is the Russian national sport, and Putin is pretty good at it. He's also a black belt judoka. Both games/sports involve turning your opponent's actions against him. He's not someone you want as an enemy.

Yes, he has dangerous eyes. But he also appears to be both strong and intelligent, and I imagine there may be a volume or two of Machiavelli and Sun Tzu in his collection as well.

What really bugs me about the situation is how entirely avoidable it was. Surely there's some better solution than having the tanks facing off at the Fulda gap again?

World peace, justice and balance are things private people yearn for, but not I think governments. It doesn't appear to be in the nature of those who hold or desire to hold power to be able to resist applying it, let alone relinquish it to a greater good, and sometimes not even to their own best interests. I'm far from a historical buff or political scholar, but it often seems to me the closest we ever get to peace and accord is the acknowledged relative equality to destroy each other between the powers that be.

So while I'm sure that there's a better solution than bringing back the tanks, the question is how do you get there? Condoleeza Rice got a somewhat arctic reception on her last foray as Bush's pc diplomatic errand girl (a few months back-the reason for her trip to Moscow escapes me, but I have a vivid memory-photo of her sitting at a long table listening to what appeared to be the Russian version of the good ol boy network talk her down, with a non-plussed and lost look on her face) For no doubt many reasons, it would seem the US is (self?)cast in the role of the force to be resisted in any diplomatic endeavors. You point out the NATO countries are also not as yet bringing anything to the table. Who's going to be the big dog that draws the line and urges enforcing the treaty if it's participants don't ratify it?

One would think there would be something the U.N. could do. My neo-con friends have a poor view of it, but I 'm a political as well as spiritual agnostic, so to me it's a solution that ought to work in disputes between countries.

 

[Zaleukos]

I think that this would have gotten more attention if it had been more sudden. But Putin has stated that Russia would pull out of the CFE (in response to the central European missile shield that he considers a threat to Russian security) for years, and the actual decision to pull out was made by the Russian parliament at the beginning of this year AFAIK. This is in some sense just the final signing of a document that has been around, and has been known, for a long time.

PJ, since you are well read on the subject you might have an idea of the answer to an issue that has bugged me. Is the missile shield really near the trajectory of Russian missiles going anywhere but western Europe? I had this conception that their ICBMs either are submarine launched, or in the land based case will fly across the polar cap, making the shield pretty useless against them (unless the targets are in Europe), but I dont have any hard facts to back up that assertion.

 

[Prime Junta]

Oh, the missile shield.

First off, it doesn't work. Not yet, and it's not certain whether it'll ever work -- hitting an ICBM is extremely difficult; hitting more than one at a time is even harder than that, and hitting a big swarm that also deploys decoys is harder by orders of magnitude. And, of course, Russia has a big bunch of technology that bypasses any such shield altogether -- sub-launched and air-launched cruise missiles, sub-launched ballistics, and, hell, supercavitating torpedoes.

That out of the way, the only missiles the shield could counter (if it worked) would be intermediate-range ballistic missiles launched from one specific region in Russia against Western Europe.

However, it doesn't do a damn thing about the genuine or even conceivable missile threats currently on the table; in order of decreasing likelihood, a Chinese attack on Taiwan, a North Korean attack on the US over the Pacific Ocean, or an Iranian attack on Israel. (FWIW I don't think any of these are particularly likely.)

In other words, the whole thing just doesn't make any sense. The way I see it, this is pretty much a re-labeled SDI -- "Star Wars" -- which is essentially a very efficient way to funnel tax dollars to the defense establishment without demanding too much in return.

Finally, your question about the layout of Russian nuclear forces. In a nutshell, it's very much like the American nuclear capability: it consists of a fairly limited range of warheads, a very wide range of delivery mechanisms, and massive over-capacity predicated on the idea that even if a surprise first-strike knocks out 90% of the capacity, the remaining 10% will be enough to destroy the attacker.

Of course, both the US and Russia operate a pretty wide variety of delivery platforms for their nukes -- apart from ICBM's (about 500 missiles with about 2000 warheads total on each side), they have the naval forces (about a dozen submarines, plus missile cruisers, aircraft carriers, with about another 2000 warheads), and strategic bombers carrying cruise missiles (about 80 aircraft on each side, with about 900 warheads). No conceivable missile shield could effectively counter an attack by either side.

All of these are still on hair-trigger alert, by the way, especially the ICBM's. So even today we're one order and 30 minutes away from total annihilation. Funky, eh?

So, *in theory,* an anti-ballistic-missile weapon *might* be able to counter a handful of missiles launched from a "rogue state." The missile shield as it's currently planned would be between Iran and Western Europe, but even if Iran suddenly managed to increase the range of its rockets fivefold and develop an arsenal of deployable nuclear warheads, I just can't think of any conceivable reason it would want to nuke Paris or London. Tel Aviv just maybe, but that missile shield should be put in Syria and I don't think the Good Doctor of Damascus would agree.

 

[Zaleukos]

I'm well aware of the technical problems of the missile shield (it's not all that far from my professional specialisation after all). And I agree 100% that it is rather senseless to push so hard for a system that most likely wont work.

I was just thinking that even if it worked "according to plan", the shield wouldnt affect the Russian missiles.

 

[Prime Junta]

Not those Russian missiles, no.

 

[Geist]

Surely there's some better solution than having the tanks facing off at the Fulda gap again?

Well, they won't be facing off at the Fulda gap luckily so at least there will be a bit of a buffer this time. Interesting topic. I don't think Russia's suspension of the CFE necessarily heralds the start of a large military buildup on its western border. It could be a tactical maneuver to pressure NATO into signing the revised ACFE that was concluded in Istanbul in 1999, or used as a bargaining chip over some other contentious issue. In any case, it underscores the ever increasing tensions between Russia and the West. The aggressive political interventions by western powers in the former Soviet republics and their efforts to undermine the Kremlin's influence in Eastern Europe have put Russia under a lot of pressure. Russia is certainly in no position to engage the West militarily, nor would any US or European leader who isn't a total nutcase, consider a direct military attack on Russia. What we will likely see in the future though, is a rise in the number and intensity of wars fought by proxy, with Russia increasingly supplying weapons or intelligence to factions hostile to US interests. If the US ever attacks Iran, relations with Russia will become very dicey.

 

[Prime Junta]

Oh, it's certainly a tactical maneuver. Trouble is that in diplomatic impasses tactical maneuvers have a nasty habit of becoming facts on the ground.

 

[Squeek]

That makes a lot of sense, PJ. But I wouldn't discount completely the Russian's concern that a missle shield might actually work. Just compare all the technical innovations over the past hundred years with everything experts had to say about them at the time.

I wish I could understand and explain it. There's a long list of authorities who laughed out loud about things like the Internet, the laser, space travel, etc. I don't imagine that's lost on the Russians.

 

[Prime Junta]

I was talking about the predictable future -- say, the next 10-20 years or so. It's certainly conceivable that there will come a time when it will be possible to build, for example, a laser system capable of shooting down anything at all. We're very far from it now, though; so far that we can't even say with any reasonable degree of confidence that it's possible even theoretically.

However, in this case it wouldn't really matter even so -- geography dictates that even a 100% effective missile shield positioned where this one is being positioned would have very little strategic impact on the Russian nuclear threat. If you're concerned about American security, you'd have to make it big enough to cover all of Canada and then some; if it's Europe you're worried about, you would have to deploy it from Tallinn to Odessa.

 

[Geist]

Russia probably isn't too worried about the actual missile shield, but it is very much concerned about the growing US military presence in former Warsaw Pact countries. Putin wasn't particularly pleased to see American military bases recently established in Bulgaria and Romania, and while the missile shield itself may not constitute a threat, the equipment and supporting facilities that come with it could serve as a platform for the eventual implementation of more offensively oriented military installations if needed.

Incidentally, I just noticed I really don't like the first sentence of my previous post ("Well, they won't be facing off at the Fulda gap luckily, so at least there will be a bit of a buffer this time.")
That's a very narrow, western European way of looking at it. My apologies to anyone living in those countries I referred to as a "buffer".

 

[Prime Junta]

I think that plain old pride and dignity factors into it. Russians feel that the NATO countries have been doing exactly as they please without asking or even considering the Russian point of view with regards to security arrangements in Eastern Europe; and they're still especially upset at the (perceived) slap in the face they got after Putin's genuine attempt at engaging with the West in 2001-2002. Much of the thinking is "if they don't care what we think, then fine -- we won't care what they think." Good ol' tit-for-tat one-upmanship in other words.

 

[Squeek]

Poor Putin. He's so genuine. What have the Russians ever done to deserve such distrust?

 

[Prime Junta]

Oh, a quite a lot, there's no question about that. He's no angel, and he's doing a hell of a job pandering to the worst aspects of Russian nationalism too.

I was just explaining the other side of the story, since the Western media (usually) doesn't.

 

[Bartacus]

Oh, a quite a lot, there's no question about that. He's no angel, and he's doing a hell of a job pandering to the worst aspects of Russian nationalism too.

I was just explaining the other side of the story, since the Western media (usually) doesn't.

I don't know PJ, I think Russia indeed need such a man. I know that the freedom of outing your opinion is considered one of the basics of a democracy, it's not all bad things he does. There had to be a hard reaction against the Russian mob and also (more importantly) a hard sign against the 'oilthieves'. I'm talking about that scum called Ibrahimovic (Chelsea) who was just a taxidriver at the start of the nineties. And yes, I believe that one can make much money if he sets his mind to it, but you can't make 12 billion dollar out of thin air!
At least Putin will use the oilmoney to help his country. One of the benefits of a cold war is that the economy booms cause of the war factories. It might be hard to grasp, but I really think Putin is just trying to do what he thinks is good for his country.

 

[Zaleukos]

You are mixing up Ibrahimovic (Swedish footie player) with Abramovich (Russian oligarch and owner of Chelsea.

Interestingly Abramovich is one of the oligarchs that have been left alone by Putin (and not the only one). The dividing line between those who went into involuntary exile/jail and the Abramovichs is whether they decided to meddle in politics post-Yeltsin or not. There is a marked decrease in corruption under Putin, but there is also a tendency to hide and keep quiet about the problems that remain. And Putin is using the oil money to buy up media (Gazprom has been a major tool in the gobbling up of independent national TV channels) and weapons.

I dont think Russia as a country, nor the Russians, have some inherent need to be ruled by a strongman. It is however a fact that centuries of mismanagement, corruption, and heavy handed centralisation attempts by the more effective rulers, have left Russia with a lack of civil society. There is no structure to fall back upon in times of poor leadership, unlike Western countries that would suffer much less under weak leadership.

 

[Prime Junta]

I don't know PJ, I think Russia indeed need such a man. I know that the freedom of outing your opinion is considered one of the basics of a democracy, it's not all bad things he does. There had to be a hard reaction against the Russian mob and also (more importantly) a hard sign against the 'oilthieves'. I'm talking about that scum called Ibrahimovic (Chelsea) who was just a taxidriver at the start of the nineties. And yes, I believe that one can make much money if he sets his mind to it, but you can't make 12 billion dollar out of thin air!
At least Putin will use the oilmoney to help his country. One of the benefits of a cold war is that the economy booms cause of the war factories. It might be hard to grasp, but I really think Putin is just trying to do what he thinks is good for his country.

I'm fairly certain Putin is trying to do what he thinks is good for his country. However, that's not much of an excuse, in my book. In fact, the most horrible things in history have been done for the good of the country.

It's also painfully clear that Putin is far from the worst option for Russia -- lots and lots of worse ones have been tried over the years. (In fact, he's doing damn well compared to just about any Russian leader since Alexander II at least.)

But that doesn't mean I like what the Nashi stand for, that I find political assassinations acceptable, that I find the way Russia treats its own minorities acceptable, that I believe that the way Russia treats foreign business for anyone in the long run (including Russia), that Putin's use of his leverage as energy provider is wise or morally tenable, and so on.

However, I also believe that many of these things are exacerbated by the fact that the West consistently talks down to Russia, ignores its perfectly legitimate concerns, let Poland set the tone for EU-Russian relations, and turns a blind eye to the way the Russian minorities are treated in the Baltic countries. I believe that if we believe in, for example, decent treatment and human rights for everyone, regardless of creed, color, or nationality, we should first and foremost set our own house in order; only then do we have the moral standing to criticize others on it -- even if the others are much worse than us in this respect.

 

[Eliaures]

West consistently talks down to Russia

I know the West involves more than just the U.S., but I think our current President and his abysmal approach to international relations can't help but exacerbate the former Soviet satellites aggression towards its Russian minorities and Russia. If not for The Shrub's tough guy, cowboy stance towards Russia, I'd think Georgia, Poland, and the other countries that used to buffer Russia in the former Soviet Union could not be quite so bold in their relations with Russia.

I'm hoping that our next President, and I'm assuming it will be a Democrat and not one of those chest thumping gorillas the Republicans have campaigning, will bring some reason to international diplomacy. Obviously, our current "do what we want or else" policy is not working too terribly well.

It's also painfully clear that Putin is far from the worst option for Russia

Am I mistaken, or is not Putin pretty much just a continuation of Yeltsin's Russia? A few Russians from positions of power grabbing most of the choice assets and then the leadership protecting those folks through government? Of course I realize the irony, the U.S. is not much different in this respect. I suppose the Russians could do worse with another Stalin, but for the average Russian, the fall of the Soviet Union has been no advantage. I think they would have been better off with Gorbachev, and certainly with Kasparov had the elections not been rigged.