Beware a new cold war
Beware a new cold war
The Reset Defense Bulletin is a review of strategic issues published sixteen times a year by the Project on Defense Alternatives -- edited by Charles Knight and Carl Conetta. Should you find yourself not wishing to recive any more of these bulletins, here is a quick and sure way to unsubscribe.
|
A Bad Choice for America [Adapted from a panel presentation by Charles Knight at the American Economic Association annual conference, Boston, MA, 04 January 2015.]
The notion of a New Cold War with Russia first arrived in 2008 with the publication of Edward Lucas' book The New Cold War: The Future of Russia and the Threat to the West. It received some attention at the time, but the cold war construct in its title gained little traction until the 2014. Since the Ukraine has been in crisis the phrase "a New Cold War" has become fairly commonplace in the media. Part of the reason for this is that the emotional memory of the Cold War is still strong and 'cold war' remains an easy, ready and convenient trope for media commentators in need of dramatic content. However, we should be concerned with more than rhetorical overreach by writers of headlines, book titles and opinion pieces. While "a New Cold War" has not yet been adopted as an official framework for US foreign and military policy, there are many foreign and military policy-makers who will be tempted by its appeal. We should be circumspect about following them down this path. The Cold War The original Cold War amplified, displaced, and generalized the post-WWII tension between the USSR and its former Western allies. As it developed it infected and transformed international relations globally, undermining potentials for integration and cooperation everywhere and in every field, including commerce. It fed on itself, rendering many lesser disagreements and disputes intractable once they were sucked into the dominant framework of highly conflictual and militarized relations. From a global and historical perspective, this became an inefficient and destructive dynamic. In terms of accountable costs:
1. As a construct "the Cold War" was used to ratchet up the presentation of great power competition to the level of "war" in order to mobilize the country to confront a particular threat. To a large extent it was quite successful in that regard. A significant portion of the creative energies of a generation or two of Americans and allied peoples were marshaled to the cause. At what cost to other possible endeavors? Probably quite significant. 2. Enormous fears were induced in Americans and Russians in order to gain their consent for this program and to marshal their energies. The narratives feeding these fears were so often repeated that the fear response in much of the public became automatic, often feeding on itself into more complex and fantastic convolutions. A sort of collective neurosis resulted which undermined societal capacity for rational action, critical thought and efficient allocation of resources. These sort costs don't get into most economic measures, but that doesn't mean they aren't there. They represent a collateral cost of cold war. New Cold War? Russia's annexation of Crimea and active support of rebels in Eastern Ukraine is not the beginning of some wider Russian aggression toward nations to its west. Russia has neither the wherewithal nor any interest in beginning a general war in eastern or central Europe. It does have real, repeatedly stated, interests in Ukraine and other immediate border areas ("near abroad.") [for more from the Bulletin on Russia and Ukraine see "NATO expansion and the Ukraine."] In an exchange of letters in the pages of Foreign Affairs debating the question of "Who Started the Ukraine Crisis?" John Mearsheimer points out: "Great powers always worry about the balance of power in their neighborhoods and push back when other great powers march up to their doorsteps. This is why the United States adopted the Monroe Doctrine in the early nineteenth century and why it has repeatedly used military force and covert action to shape political events in the Western Hemisphere." The combined economic capacity of the US and EU countries is many times that of Russia. Russia cannot win a war with the West and Moscow surely knows that. Henry Kissinger, among others, supports this assessment of limited Russian objectives in Ukraine saying: "The annexation of Crimea was [a special case] not a move toward global conquest." Why a New Cold War If Russia is not intent on a campaign of conquest, then why has the specter of a New Cold War been raised? One reason is that it serves very well in support of arguments for more military investments. Three examples of how the new Cold War construct is and will be used by advocates of higher investment in a militarized foreign policy:
However, Allen Sinai, the prominent economic forecaster, recently raised a troubling possible consequence of a new cold war with Russia. At the American Economic Association annual conference in early January he spoke of the likelihood of Russia falling into depression brought on by steeply declining oil prices, resulting in the more than negligible possibility of Russia then "going belly up" and "failing" as a unified state. He posed the strategic question, "Does Russia need to be saved?" The world was extremely lucky that when the Soviet Union collapsed its widely dispersed nuclear weaponry was repatriated to Russia -- with the strong encouragement from the US and NATO. Last month Moscow ended twenty years of "cooperative threat reduction" programs in which the US funded and provided expertise to the Russians in securing and reducing stocks of weapons and material. A disintegrating Russia would make the post-Cold War collapse of Yugoslavia look like a summer picnic. Imagine Croatia, Serbia and Bosnia twenty years ago with nuclear weapons. Pushing Russia over the edge into state collapse might be the most irresponsible step (in terms of Western security) that the US could take at this time. Furthermore, if the construct of "a New Cold War" spreads its rhetorical wings to encompass future relations with China we will have a much bigger problem. China is, of course, a rising power. We need to be doing everything we can to build partnership, not confrontation, with China by helping to construct an inclusive common regional security and economic framework -- which is the opposite of constructing cold war. Should US leaderhsip fail to build a common (inclusive) Pacific regional security structure and, instead, decides it needs to mobilize the American people for an arms race with China, a New Cold War encompassing both Russia and China will be a convenient construct in support of that program. The Wrong Choice A cold war framework for our relations with Russia, China, and any other powers that might eventually align with them, could easily result in the addition of $200 to 300 billion in annual US security expenditures. If US leadership makes a priority of investing in a larger more resource intensive national security sector it will mean less resources for other investments needed to sustain US economic strength. If we go the way of a new cold war we will hasten the relative decline of our economy while other nations which opt out of the New Cold War will come away winners. |
Recommended
from the Archives
|
Project on Defense Alternatives: 
National Interest: 
Sources and Recommended News/Analysis
The Boston Globe: "Russia ends US nuclear security alliance," Bryan Bender, 19 January 2014.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2015/01/19/after-two-decades-russia-nuclear-security-cooperation-becomes-casualty-deteriorating-relations/5nh8NbtjitUE8UqVWFIooL/story.html
The Boston Globe: "Russia appeals for calm as crisis forces it to cut budget," James Ellingworth and Vladimir Isachenkov, 15 January 2015.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/world/2015/01/15/russia-appeals-for-calm-crisis-forces-cut-budget/0U5LWA80h0uiocEAQYU1cJ/story.html
The Washington Post: "War, hot or cold?," Walter Pincus, 12 January 2014.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/war-hot-or-cold/2015/01/12/2af56b80-96ae-11e4-927a-4fa2638cd1b0_story.html
The Washington Post: "Crafting a win-win-win for Russia, Ukraine and the West," Micahel O'Hanlon and Jermey Shapiro, 07 December 2014.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/crafting-a-win-win-win-for-russia-ukraine-and-the-west/2014/12/05/727d6c92-7be1-11e4-9a27-6fdbc612bff8_story.html
The Telegraph: "Mikhail Gorbachev accuses US of stoking 'new Cold War," Tom Parfitt and Roldand Oliphant, 02 December 2014.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/11268298/Mikhail-Gorbachev-accuses-US-of-stoking-new-Cold-War.html
Open Democracy: "The 'return' of nuclear weapons," Nikolai Sokov, 28 November 2014.
https://www.opendemocracy.net/od-russia/nikolai-sokov/%E2%80%98return%E2%80%99-of-nuclear-weapons
Der Spiegal: "Interview with Henry Kissinger," Julian von Mittelstaedt and Erich Follath, 13 November 2014.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-with-henry-kissinger-on-state-of-global-politics-a-1002073.html
Der Spiegal: "Interview with Henry Kissinger," Julian von Mittelstaedt and Erich Follath, 13 November 2014.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-with-henry-kissinger-on-state-of-global-politics-a-1002073.html
Foreign Affairs: "Faulty Powers: Who Started the Ukraine Crisis?," Michael McFaul, Stephen Sestanovich and John J. Mearsheimer, November/December 2014.
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/142260/michael-mcfaul-stephen-sestanovich-john-j-mearsheimer/faulty-powers
New York Times: "A Way Out for Ukraine and Russia," Anatol Lieven, 03 September 2014.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/04/opinion/a-way-out-for-kiev-and-moscow.html
Forbes: "Ukraine Lesson: Missile Defense Is The Missing Link In U.S. Global Strategy," Loren Thompson, 21 July 2014.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2014/07/21/ukraine-lesson-missile-defense-is-the-missing-link-in-u-s-global-strategy/
E-International Relations: "Russia, Ukraine, and the Testing of American Hegemony," Robert W. Murray and Luke M. Harrington, 06 March 2014.
http://www.e-ir.info/2014/03/06/russia-ukraine-and-the-testing-of-american-hegemony/
Palgrave Macmillan: The New Cold War: Putin's Russia and the Threat to the West, Edward Lucas, 2008/2014.
http://www.amazon.com/New-Cold-War-Putins-Russia/dp/1137280034/
|
|
|
We hope you find the Reset Defense Bulletin useful. Please address questions or comments to Charles Knight at rdb (at) comw.org.
Past issues of Reset Defense from July 2013 to present are archived here. Issues published from September 2011 to July 2013 are available here. Access to current and archived issues is free.
To receive the latest edition of Reset Defense free of charge as soon as it is published, click here.
The Reset Defense Bulletin is a service of the Project on Defense Alternatives (PDA) at the Center for International Policy. PDA seeks to adapt security policy to the challenges and opportunities of the new era. Toward this end, it promotes consideration of a broad range of defense options and advocates resetting America’s defense posture along more effective and strategically sustainable lines.
