End of the post-Cold War era

Thanks for correcting the link, Squeek--don't know how it got messed up, but I also fixed it.

But the new Cold War this isn't.

Click to expand...

Perhaps not. It seemed rather reminiscent of the passive-aggressive side of aggressive that we saw back then, consisting of a lot of line-drawing in the sand and threats not without substance, but difficult to actually see happening. Perhaps this threat is all too real, but in that case, surely Ukraine knows, and is pursuing a somewhat dangerous course in applying for NATO status.

magerette said:

Wasn't sure where to put this, but this thread seemed the most appropriate:

Russia's Putin issues missile warning to Ukraine
which basically consists of some threatening language should Ukraine join NATO:



Thoughts?

Click to expand...

Russia is rather tired of NATO expansion eastwards, and losing Ukraine (which has been part of the Russian sphere for much longer than say the Baltic republics or Poland) would obviously be seen as a more aggressive enlargement than the past ones. There is also a complicating practical issue of a Russian naval base (the Black sea navy) on the Crimea (a bit unnecessary given that Crimea historically isnt Ukrainian but only given to the Ukraine SSR during Soviet times).

The talk about missiles is symbolic. If Russia genuinely wants to hurt Ukraine it will do so by cutting energy exports there and starting a general trade war on the nation. I can imagine the Ukrainian economy still is rather dependent on Russia. Such a course of action (particularly "technical difficulties" in gas and oil deliveries) are definitely a realistic option. Given the shaky political climate in Ukraine I dont see any outsiders jumping to their aid either...

magerette said:

Perhaps not. It seemed rather reminiscent of the passive-aggressive side of aggressive that we saw back then, consisting of a lot of line-drawing in the sand and threats not without substance, but difficult to actually see happening. Perhaps this threat is all too real, but in that case, surely Ukraine knows, and is pursuing a somewhat dangerous course in applying for NATO status.

Click to expand...

The thing is that under current conditions, all of this is just gesturing. The real Cold War was predicated on very real assumptions of the possibility of it turning hot at any moment. The USSR was mortally afraid of an American "first strike," and NATO was mortally afraid of the USSR rolling through the Fulda gap. Worse, what with ICBM's and all, there was a big strategic advantage to striking first. Well, kinda; it'd mean that less of your territory would be permanently uninhabitable since you would get *some* of the other side's nukes.

Currently this isn't the case. None of the great powers is genuinely on a war footing towards each other. This could conceivably change, of course, and if it does, those forward bases and missile shields could suddenly prove very valuable. That's the reason for this game of moving chess pieces on the map -- you put an ABM station in front of my house, I'll point my nukes right at it.

As Zaleukos said, when Russia means business, it'll just pull the plug. I'm fairly convinced Ukraine would come to heel quickly if they did that. Naturally this type of thing doesn't come without cost either (the previous "technical difficulties" got Europe to get serious about diversifying its energy supply, which is not what Russia wants either). Mega-cards like this are really only effective when they're not played.

Thanks Zaluekos and Prime Junta, for the clarifying input.

There does seem to my simple brain a similarity to these chess moves, and the cards that were often put on the table but never played in the Cold War earlier, but I can see that the casino set-up, if you will, is a bit different.

Everyone has played the game before, and the stakes are better understood. If I understand your collective points correctly, threats that were made then with a hand actually on the gun are now more symbolic, and an economic threat, especially an energy-related one, trumps a nuclear bullet because it works as well or better and is so much less likely to pull world opinion and foreign powers into the fray.

It's also reassuring to hear that the European union has some concerted clout that in the original Cold War was lacking. (Or that's my interpretation of the description of the response to 'technical difficulties,' anyway.)

Again, I appreciate the European perspective on things; you are much more aware of the nuances in that part of the world than we are over here, and your remarks help me make sense out of a somewhat alien playing field.

Zaleukos said:

...Ukraine (which has been part of the Russian sphere for much longer than say the Baltic republics or Poland)....

Click to expand...

Didn't they declare themselves free in the days after WWII? And didn't the Soviet Union roll in tanks to crush their dream of independence?

Well, Russia is more or less a neighbour, so it gets a lot of press here. The Baltic is also becoming one integrated economic area in a way that we havent seen for hundreds of years, so it makes sense to look eastwards again.

"Technical difficulties" just mean that Russia, as Europe's provider of oil and most importantly natural gas, tends to just have to close down its pipelines to whatever country they are having a row over regarding Estonian statues, Polish beef, or a Ukrainian election result that doesnt go their way. It is a card that has been played a few times and it does hurt the recipient, particularly if done during winter.

The weakness of this energy card is that these pipelines also serve Germany with gas. A Germany that not only needs the Russian gas, but also is Russias main friend inside the EU, and a very important economic partner to Russia.

Overuse of the energy card has made Germany more sympathetic to the plights of Poland and the Baltic states, and also made it more attractive for Germany to support a diversification of the EU energy supply.

These results are obviously contrary to Russias strategic interests. The solution seems to be to build a pipeline going directly from Russia to Germany through the Baltic Sea, circumventing all those pesky countries that are hostile to Russia. The Nordstream project is chaired by Gerhard Schröder (who approved the project while still German chancellor). Sweden and Finland who have the economic rights to the seabed where the pipeline will be laid are conducting "environmental evaluations" of the project that may or may not political smokescreens for stopping the project...

I can understand how you get cold war vibes though, the rethoric is still there. But it is to some extent a matter of pandering to a nationalist/chauvinist domestic public more than anything else. Russia is doing business with the rest of the world to an extent that the Soviets didnt, and it's direct aspirations only concern the immediate neighbours and possibly the traditional ally Serbia. I also get the feeling that there is an isolationist trend on your side of the pond (heck, Bush was a bit of an isolationist before WTC).

Squeek said:

Didn't they declare themselves free in the days after WWII? And didn't the Soviet Union roll in tanks to crush their dream of independence?

Click to expand...

I havent heard about that, but Ukraine did suffer horribly throughout Stalin's regime. The Nazis were initially seen as liberators and there was anti-Soviet guerillas in the aftermath of WW2. There were some Ukrainian statelets during the Russian revolution. These are however all very brief historical outliers.

But otherwise Ukraine has been split between Poland and Russia (and mongol/tatar khanates) for the last thousand years. The state that had its court in Kiev was part of a Russian federation of Rurikid princes (the Moscow branch died out with Ivan the Terrible IIRC) but was destroyed by the mongols.

Zaleukos said:

...The weakness of this energy card is that these pipelines also serve Germany with gas. A Germany that not only needs the Russian gas, but also is Russias main friend inside the EU, and a very important economic partner to Russia.

Overuse of the energy card has made Germany more sympathetic to the plights of Poland and the Baltic states, and also made it more attractive for Germany to support a diversification of the EU energy supply.

Click to expand...

Very clear and makes perfect sense.

These results are obviously contrary to Russias strategic interests. The solution seems to be to build a pipeline going directly from Russia to Germany through the Baltic Sea, circumventing all those pesky countries that are hostile to Russia. The Nordstream project is chaired by Gerhard Schröder (who approved the project while still German chancellor). Sweden and Finland who have the economic rights to the seabed where the pipeline will be laid are conducting "environmental evaluations" of the project that may or may not political smokescreens for stopping the project...

Click to expand...

I thought your first sentence was a little sarcasm, but then you name an actual project...that seems like a very expensive alternative for Russia and Germany, and it also smells like an attempt to build a base of power that's quite exclusionary. If I were sitting in Finland and Sweden, I think I'd be looking for an out also.

I can understand how you get cold war vibes though, the rethoric is still there. But it is to some extent a matter of pandering to a nationalist/chauvinist domestic public more than anything else. Russia is doing business with the rest of the world to an extent that the Soviets didnt, and it's direct aspirations only concern the immediate neighbours and possibly the traditional ally Serbia. I also get the feeling that there is an isolationist trend on your side of the pond (heck, Bush was a bit of an isolationist before WTC).

Click to expand...

Helpful comparison. And yes, there is a latent streak of isolationism that is flaring up here atm, mostly due to our disastrous recent foreign policy and the disillusion with the Iraq war and the concept of 'nation building' it invokes--though it seems to me more nation-destroying...Deep down, I think the 'nationalist/chauvinistic domestic public' side of the American people is fundamentally isolationist and hates being in the position of 'policemen to the world' that our leaders frequently adopt. It's only after a dramatic incident like 9-11 or a convincing paranoid fantasy of the same (the advance of Communism, WMD, etc) is spoonfed to us that most are willing to back any kind of long-term fight outside our borders.

magerette said:

I thought your first sentence was a little sarcasm, but then you name an actual project...that seems like a very expensive alternative for Russia and Germany, and it also smells like an attempt to build a base of power that's quite exclusionary. If I were sitting in Finland and Sweden, I think I'd be looking for an out also.

Click to expand...

Nah, the project supposedly pass an economic cost-benefit analysis as well. Russia needs to build a new pipeline somewhere no matter what. Schröder's involvement is still highly suspect though

Personally I think we Swedes should let them build the thing but expand our own nuclear power so that we can export energy to the rest of Europe. And still do straight honest business with Russia without political undertones. A wealthy Russia with a functioning civil society (as opposed to the power concentration tendencies seen the last few years) could be a great neighbour.

magerette said:

Deep down, I think the 'nationalist/chauvinistic domestic public' side of the American people is fundamentally isolationist and hates being in the position of 'policemen to the world' that our leaders frequently adopt. It's only after a dramatic incident like 9-11 or a convincing paranoid fantasy of the same (the advance of Communism, WMD, etc) is spoonfed to us that most are willing to back any kind of long-term fight outside our borders.

Click to expand...

Most people would probably not give a hoot about the rest of the world if they had a choice, but a lot of us live in tiny countries where that isnt so much of an option It is dangerous if the politicians lack a readiness to cope with international events though (and I feel that much of Bush' foreign policy failure comes from this lack of readiness).

That's a very kind way of putting it, Zaluekos. It's definitely a lack of something....

Personally I think we Swedes should let them build the thing but expand our own nuclear power so that we can export energy to the rest of Europe. And still do straight honest business with Russia without political undertones. A wealthy Russia with a functioning civil society (as opposed to the power concentration tendencies seen the last few years) could be a great neighbour.

Click to expand...

Prime Junta needs to leap in here and explain the form of economics this represents. I agree that a Russia with a real functioning middle class is bound to be a better world neighbor for all of us, much as China has altered with it's acquistion of same--though in their case, I think the verdict may still be out on whether or not their middle class seeking a high energy-consuming life-style in a country with a very low emphasis on the environment makes them more of an asset or a liability to the rest of us. (Not that the US is that great either, of course, but hopefully that is changing.)

Rest assured that I dont think very highly of the current US administration

I'm inclined to believe that we will develop a middle class lifestyle that is less problematic for the environment sooner rather than later. A large middle class wont stay apathetic with respect to the environement for long anyway.

Civil society is also a matter of things such as independent media, lack of corruption, and a business world that isnt crooked or acting like a political tool. Russia has some way to go on those issues, but once they are fixed it'll be a land of opportunity

Squeek said:

Didn't they declare themselves free in the days after WWII? And didn't the Soviet Union roll in tanks to crush their dream of independence?

Click to expand...

They did, but it's a great deal more complex than that. For starters, Ukraine is really three countries mashed into one: Western Ukraine, which is ethnically Ukrainian (Eastern Catholic and speak Ukrainian, a Western Slavic language closely related to Polish and Slovak), Eastern Ukraine, which is ethnically Russian and Orthodox, and Central Ukraine which is centered around Kyiv/Kiev and has a mixed identity (some speak Russian, some speak Ukrainian, some speak "surzhyk," which is sort of a pidgin between the two, and religiously Uniate or Orthodox). On top of this are the political divisions -- at the time, there were plenty of true-blue Communists of all ethnicities, with a large group of integral nationalists (ideologically similar to Fascists) in the West.

The Ukrainian independence movement crystallized around the UPA (Ukrajins'ka Povstans'ka Armia, Ukrainian Insurgent Army), which was Ukrainian integral nationalist, and based in Western Ukraine, around Lviv/Lvov. During the chaotic bits of WW2, they controlled a quite a significant swathe of territory, and Stalin fought a minor war against them after the German surrender; after being defeated in regular warfare, they went underground and continued to resist. You know, blending in with the civilian population, not wearing uniforms, doing sabotage, assassinations, and terror attacks; that sort of thing. (But, naturally, they were white, Christian, and anti-Communist, so this is all OK.)

Anyway, they fought a damn good fight, and it took Stalin until 1955 or so to stamp out the last remnants of the armed resistance. Some of their leaders emigrated to the USA and Canada; a few of that community made it to quite important political and academic positions there. A Ukrainian nationalist underground remained, but only managed low-key agitation through samizdat and smuggling in books printed by the emigrants; when the USSR collapsed, Ukrainian independence sort of just happened half by accident, a bit like the Czech-Slovak split.

Incidentally, this little episode is worth studying for anyone interested in counter-insurgencies. It's sobering to think that it took someone like Stalin, with one of the biggest, scariest armies ever, and certainly the biggest, scariest secret poilce ever, ten years to stamp out that little affair. These things aren't easy.

Zaleukos said:

Sweden and Finland who have the economic rights to the seabed where the pipeline will be laid are conducting "environmental evaluations" of the project that may or may not political smokescreens for stopping the project...

Click to expand...

At best, retarding it. We don't have a snowball's chance in Hell of stopping it, if Russia and Germany have agreed about it. The Gulf of Finland seabed is dead anyway. And at least we get much of our electricity and all of our natural gas from Russia, so we're not really in a position to complain. (Not to mention that a bunch of, um, episodes have drummed it pretty deep into the national consciousness that picking fights with Russia is not a good survival strategy for a country of five million with about a thousand miles of border with them.)

magerette said:

Prime Junta needs to leap in here and explain the form of economics this represents. I agree that a Russia with a real functioning middle class is bound to be a better world neighbor for all of us, much as China has altered with it's acquistion of same--though in their case, I think the verdict may still be out on whether or not their middle class seeking a high energy-consuming life-style in a country with a very low emphasis on the environment makes them more of an asset or a liability to the rest of us. (Not that the US is that great either, of course, but hopefully that is changing.)

Click to expand...

Yeah, it'd be awesome if Russia suddenly turned into Sweden. Hey, Rurik did it once, maybe if they asked nicely Carl Gustav could give 'em a hand?

Seriously, though -- Russia is Russia. We're going to have her as a neighbor no matter what kind of society and government they have. Thing is, Russia is not an unreasonable nation (well, not since they shut up about world revolution and stuff), and we can have perfectly functional relations with them. It's my personal opinion that the majority of our problems with them aren't about questions of substance at all; they're more about tone and attitude. I believe a great deal could be solved simply by toning down the rhetoric a few notches.

Prime Junta said:

Yeah, it'd be awesome if Russia suddenly turned into Sweden. Hey, Rurik did it once, maybe if they asked nicely Carl Gustav could give 'em a hand?

Seriously, though -- Russia is Russia. We're going to have her as a neighbor no matter what kind of society and government they have. Thing is, Russia is not an unreasonable nation (well, not since they shut up about world revolution and stuff), and we can have perfectly functional relations with them. It's my personal opinion that the majority of our problems with them aren't about questions of substance at all; they're more about tone and attitude. I believe a great deal could be solved simply by toning down the rhetoric a few notches.

Click to expand...

Did you catch me oversimplifying again? Sorry. Still, it seems to me that the middle class has so much more to lose, that they are a significant factor in calculating whether tensions will escalate or be controlled, and make it easier to have those functional relations you refer to. If I was cranking up any rhetoric, there, I was unaware of it. I was trying--apparently with less than overwhelming success--to think in terms of economics.

So many of our problems are about tone, attitude and of course, paranoia and prejudice. Thanks for the enlightening history lessons, both on the Ukraine and in the Hezbollah thread.

Magerette : I am more likely to be the one guilty of cranking up rethoric here

Prime Junta said:

At best, retarding it. We don't have a snowball's chance in Hell of stopping it, if Russia and Germany have agreed about it.

Click to expand...

The first step towards retarding the process has been taken. Sweden ruled that the application is incomplete and has to be revised before we can look at it again

I've always wondered exactly what kind of rights an "economic zone" that isnt actual territorial water gives the nation owning it.

Swedifying Russia might also be to take it a bit too far, but I do think it is reasonable to hope for less arbitrary law enforcement and reduced corruption, and that such changes would be in the interest of any native population regardless of cultural differences. The Russian economic development would have been more diversified if investing there had been a more predictable and less bureaucratic venture. Sure, the country is there and we have to deal with it no matter what, but in addition to doing business with them we need to make clear what kind of rules are required for such cooperation to flow smoothly. EDIT: I dont think obstructing pipelines is the way to go about it though.

Prime Junta said:

The Ukrainian independence movement crystallized around the UPA (Ukrajins'ka Povstans'ka Armia, Ukrainian Insurgent Army), which was Ukrainian integral nationalist, and based in Western Ukraine, around Lviv/Lvov. During the chaotic bits of WW2, they controlled a quite a significant swathe of territory, and Stalin fought a minor war against them after the German surrender; after being defeated in regular warfare, they went underground and continued to resist. You know, blending in with the civilian population, not wearing uniforms, doing sabotage, assassinations, and terror attacks; that sort of thing. (But, naturally, they were white, Christian, and anti-Communist, so this is all OK.)

Click to expand...

Interesting. It also sounds like an example of what kind of genies that can be let out once totalitarian pressure is relieved (you dont get much more totalitarian than uncle Joe and it is safe to say that pre-war USSR was somewhat lacking in political pluralism). But was this UPA the legacy of a serious political movement or just a band of thugs that the Nazis gave arms to act as cannon fodder and concentration camp guards?

Zaleukos said:

Interesting. It also sounds like an example of what kind of genies that can be let out once totalitarian pressure is relieved (you dont get much more totalitarian than uncle Joe and it is safe to say that pre-war USSR was somewhat lacking in political pluralism). But was this UPA the legacy of a serious political movement or just a band of thugs that the Nazis gave arms to act as cannon fodder and concentration camp guards?

Click to expand...

Very serious, and entirely home-grown. The Nazis considered the Ukrainians, as Slavs, to be racially inferior; they didn't give any of them arms nor support of any kind. (Big strategic mistake; if they had been less racist, they could easily have co-opted such nationalist movements, which could conceivably have won them the war. OTOH if they hadn't been such racist pricks, they probably wouldn't have fought the war in the first place.) Their closest political equivalents in the West would be authoritarian corporatist nationalists like Franco, Päts, or Mussolini.

As it was, they fought a glorious fight and went out in a blaze of martyrdom; however, had circumstances permitted them to actually get to power, we probably wouldn't have liked the results much: they had pretty clear ideas of what to do with the Jews and the Russians, most of which weren't very nice.

On a somewhat more positive Russia-related note Medvedev (Putin's designated heir) talks the talk at the Krasnoyarsk economic forum:

BBC said:

Heir to Putin' in economy pledge



Mr Medvedev, 42, is first deputy prime minister and head of Russia's state gas monopoly, Gazprom.

Speaking at the Krasnoyarsk economic forum in Siberia on Friday, he said "a significant share of the functions carried out by state organs should be given over to the private sector".

Large state-owned companies should adapt to remain competitive, he said.

"I think there is no reason for the majority of state officials to sit on the boards of those firms.

"They should be replaced by truly independent directors, which the state would hire to implement its plans."

Rule of law

Mr Medvedev said he would seek to make Russia into "one of the biggest financial centres in the world" with a stable currency, strong banking sector and reformed tax system.

He talked little about foreign policy or defence but stressed the need to create an independent judiciary.

"One of the key elements of our work in the next four years will be ensuring the independence of our legal system from the executive and legislative branches of power," he said.

Mr Medvedev also spoke of the need to mend what he called the "law breaking" habits of Russians.

"What kind of equal opportunity and innovative thinking can there be if everybody knows that rights only belong to those with the sharpest teeth, and not those who obey the law," he said.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/...ope/7246161.stm

Published: 2008/02/15 07:44:14 GMT

Click to expand...

Great if anything comes out of it (particularly the part about an independent judiciary would be invaluable both for the Russian people and for Russia's neighbours), but even if he is since he still would have to best both a hostile Siloviki faction and the inertia of the publicly owned company mishmash. There is also something mildly surreal about a Gazprom director talking about apolitical and independent companies