A new cold war

S P SETH

In a world gone mad with conflicts of various descriptions and intensity, one that has the potential to be most deadly and apocalyptic is the ongoing civil war in Ukraine, with Russia and the NATO (US and its allies) ranged on opposite sides. Moscow is backing and apparently helping the rebels in eastern Ukraine to carve out virtual independence from the western-backed Kiev regime, which regards the rebels as terrorists. As they are considered terrorists, the Ukrainian government based in the capital Kiev, wouldn’t deal with them to discuss proposals for autonomy for the pro-Russian eastern region required under the Minsk 11 (Belarus) agreement. In other words, they want them to virtually surrender, as well as withdrawal of Russian weapons and ‘volunteers’, before taking the political process any further. Hence, the Minsk 11 agreement, like its predecessor Minsk 1, is in tatters with both sides fighting their civil war, drawing encouragement and support from their respective protagonists. As Russia is accused by the NATO countries of igniting and fueling the Ukrainian crisis, the US and its western allies have extended economic sanctions against Russia for another six months. It is part of the Western policy of mixing carrots with sticks to make Russia see sense and do what is expected/demanded of it in Ukraine and to desist from destabilizing any of its other neighbours bordering the country. Apparently, so far Moscow is not doing the US/EU bidding even if it is hurting its economy.

However, the US and some of its western allies, particularly eastern European and Baltic countries, are not satisfied with just economic sanctions. They fear that if Moscow gets away with destabilizing Ukraine, it might be encouraged to do the same to its other neighbours that were once part of the Soviet Union, like the Baltic states, and eastern European countries once under its control. These countries have, after the collapse of the Soviet, become NATO members. And they are seeking some concrete expression from the US of its resolve to stand by them against a Russian threat. The Pentagon is responding to it by undertaking to pre-position troops and military equipment in some of these countries as a precautionary measure. The equipment reportedly would include about 160 M-1 tanks plus M-2 Bradley fighting vehicles and self-propelled howitzers. Such equipment would be pre-positioned, according to a Reuters report, variously in the Baltic states of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, and the eastern European states of Poland, Romania, Bulgaria and possibly Hungary. The US has been at pains to make it look harmless with Colonel Steve Warren, a Pentagon spokesman, saying that, “This is purely positioning of equipment to better facilitate our ability to conduct training.” The question is: training for what?

Not surprisingly, Moscow has reacted strongly threatening counter measures. According to the Russian defence ministry, “If heavy military equipment, including tanks, artillery batteries and other equipment really does turn up in countries in eastern Europe and the Baltics, that will be the most aggressive step by the Pentagon and NATO since the Cold War.” According to General Yuri Yakubov of the Russian defence ministry, “Our [Russian] hands are completely free to organize retaliatory steps to strengthen our western frontiers.” And he said the Russian response was likely to include speeding up the deployment of Iskander missiles to Kaliningrad, a Russian enclave bordered by Poland and Lithuania, and beefing up Russian forces in Belarus. Which, in effect, would suggest the onset of a new Cold War.

When the Cold War ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union in the nineties, the US-led ‘free world’ was in ascendance. So much so that Francis Fukuyama, a US political analyst and scholar, pronounced this development as the end of history, being the last frontier for human development. To quote him from his book, The End of History and the Last Man, “… the liberal democracy [after the fall of communist Soviet Union] may constitute the ‘end point of mankind’s ideological evolution’ and the ‘final form of human government,’ and as such constituted the ‘end of history’”. However, as we have now seen over the last quarter of a century, Fukuyama and others like him were too starry-eyed suggesting that the US was now, in all senses of the world, the ultimate power, both ideologically and otherwise. That kind of self-congratulation and arrogance became an obstacle to creating a new and inclusive world order. For instance, an understanding between the Soviet leader Gorbachev and the then US administration to limit NATO frontiers, a relic of the Cold War, was soon observed rather in breach than compliance.

Russia’s place in the new US-dominated world order was one of accepting its sharply downgraded position, a constant reminder of its virtual defeat. The Boris Yeltsin presidency became more known for the division and plunder of state assets and resources among a handful of his cronies and advisers with their US and western connections. At times, it looked like Russia was for sale with its president Yeltsin more and more sinking into a state of perpetual drunkenness. And he decided to bring in Vladimir Putin as his prime minister, who later was elected the country’s president. And has been in this position, except for one term when the then prime minister Dmitri Medvedev and president Vadimir Putin exchanged their positions. This was done because of a constitutional requirement that prohibited an incumbent president (Putin) to consecutively hold more than two terms.

Russia’s 1998 financial crisis was not a good omen for Putin, as he became the country’s prime minister in 1999 and later its president. But a surge in oil and gas prices enabled Putin to become confident in the conduct of its relations with the US and its western allies. At home he was able to come on top of the Chechen rebellion with massive use of force. At the same time he got rid of Yeltsin’s erstwhile cronies, who had once recommended him to Yeltsin. They had thought that as someone without any political base, he would be easy to manipulate to advance their own interests. Putin seems to have outsmarted a lot of people who under-estimated him when he first came into power.

With his economic and political position strengthened, and as the old ‘free world’ was expanding NATO’s frontiers right to Russia’s borders, Putin decided to take a stand when Georgia, an erstwhile part of the Soviet Union, undertook to forcibly incorporate two rebellious provinces of Ossetia and Abkhazia, encouraged or else hoping that the US and its NATO allies would stand by it if Russia sought to intervene militarily. Georgia was also a hopeful candidate for NATO membership. But in the event Georgia found itself largely on its own, despite loud opposition to Russia’s virtual annexation of Ossetia and Abkhazia.

As we know that Ukraine became the next flashpoint when it sought to integrate with EU, which its pro-Russian president Viktor Yanukovych was not too keen on. A mix of political forces in Ukraine, egged on by the US and its western allies, managed to overthrow him, leading Russia to come on the side of the rebels in eastern Ukraine. Despite political initiatives like the Minsk accord 1&11, the situation remains unresolved in the midst of an ongoing civil war. So far, despite US and western economic sanctions that are hurting Russia, it remains steadfast in its support of the rebels seeking autonomy/independence from Kiev. The core issue here is that Russia is understandably worried about the expansion of NATO right to its borders, with Ukraine the likely next member. And unless the core issue is sorted out-- as would have been the case if an understanding to limit/roll back NATO frontiers had been adhered to-- the new cold war is likely to become a new fixture with a potentially serious eruption. Though Putin’s economic position is weak, his position at home is very strong with about 80 per cent approval rating in polls. He is, therefore, making the most of his nationalist card. 

Note: This article was first published in the Daily Times.

Contact: sushilpseth@yahoo.com.au