Why This Is Not A New Cold War
Why This Is Not A New Cold War
Ruben Velez
During the 52nd Munich Security Conference on February 13, Russian Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev stated recent international developments have pushed the United States and Russia “into a new cold war”. The alarmist statement reflects the deterioration of the relationship between Russia and the West, which has accelerated in recent years due to disagreements over the future of Ukraine and Syria, the US development and fielding of Ballistic Missile Defense systems, and nuclear force modernization in both countries. Given these are some of the most complex challenges currently facing the world, some may find it easy to agree with Mr. Medvedev’s statement. But those with a deeper understanding of the Cold War will not buy into this proclamation so easily. Today’s strategic stance between the United States and Russia is different, by an order of magnitude, from that of the Cold War years. While during the Cold War years the United States and the Soviet Union enjoyed similar levels of international influence, economic power, and military might, today’s Russia pales in comparison to the former Soviet Union, especially as it now relates to the United States.
There are those that may interpret Russian military adventurism in Ukraine and Syria as proof that we are in a new Cold War environment. Looking back at the Cold War, however, we can see the struggles between the superpowers were greater in scope and farther in reach. Except for the non-aligned movement that took hold in the 1960s, a large number of countries around the world fell under the influence of one of the two blocks. A government that proclaimed itself democratic would almost immediately fall into the fold of the United States, and could reasonably expect to be supported economically and in some cases militarily by it. The opposite holds true for the Soviet Union and communist states. Today’s Russia hardily has the wherewithal and influence to influence states at the same level that its predecessor did. Moreover, the titanic clash of communism versus democracy no longer exists. In Ukraine, Russia may seek a buffer zone from the West on its borders, while also attempting to bring ethnic Russian populations under its umbrella. In Syria, Russia’s aim may be related to preserving access to the Mediterranean Sea and maintaining a loyal ally in the region. While these actions have understandably placed Russia at odds with the United States and other Western nations, they hardly compare with the placement of short-range nuclear missiles 90 miles from United States territory or the carte blanche support of communists in Latin America, Africa, and Europe. To elaborate this further, let’s look at how both countries compare in some key aspects both then and now.
In terms of territory, the Soviet Union may have been considered the largest state in the world. Now, not only has Russia lost de facto control of 14 other states, but the United States and its allies at the North Atlantic Treaty Organization have grown from 16 states at the end of the Cold War to 28 now; 10 of those were previously part of the Soviet Union. Population increase in the United States—a key component of economic growth—has risen from approximately 158 million in 1950 to over 324 million now, or over a 105% growth. In contrast, Russian population has grown from about 103 million to 143 million, or approximately a 38% increase. Worse for Russia, its population has stopped growing since the year 2000 and it’s expected to shrink for years to come. Also striking is the current economic picture between both nations. In 2015, US Gross Domestic Product stood at 28% of the world economy, while Russia’s stood at a significantly smaller 3%. The Russian economy is suffering from the double whammy of extremely low energy prices, which account for the majority of the country’s export revenues, and Western sanctions.
A country in the midst of a severe economic downturn with little relief in sight, dwindling material resources, and a reduced sphere of influence at the international stage can’t expect to replicate the bi-polar power relationship that existed in the latter half of the previous century, as much as its leaders want to proclaim so. One area that may support the Russian leadership “new Cold War” narrative, however, is that of nuclear strategic weapons. Thanks to the various arms control agreements, strategic nuclear arsenals for both states are much lower than they were in the midst of the Cold War. Throughout these arsenal reductions, Russia and the United States have maintained strategic parity in numbers to maintain the effectiveness of nuclear deterrence. That said, Russia’s nuclear arsenal has not been able to escape the systemic economic problems outlined above. While the United States is pressing forward with the biggest nuclear weapon systems buildup since the Cold War, Russia has cancelled its feared rail-mobile Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) weapon system project due to budgetary pressures. The revival of Russia’s rail-mobile ICBMs would’ve complicated the United States’ targeting solutions in the event of nuclear conflict. Moreover, Russian leaders have expressed grave concerns about the US’ development of ballistic missile defenses, and will feel obligated to develop weapons systems to counter them. These ambitions, nevertheless, as those of the rail-mobile ICBM before it, are poised to crash against the wall of economic reality. In spite of these difficulties, it would be unrealistic to expect Russian strategic and conventional forces to undergo severe atrophy. After all, Russia has historically prioritized its defense budget over other types of spending, and its military forces remain a focal point of national pride. But for its leaders to declare that a new Cold War is upon us is more than a stretch. If that was the case, this new Cold War is over before it began. With his statement, the Russian Prime minister may have sought to link current Russia with Soviet Russia to influence the narrative and modify Western actions. Western nations may face new challenges with regards to Russia and its current geopolitical ambitions, but equating these to the trials of the Cold War would only feed the desire of the current Russian leadership to feel they are as mighty and influential as they once were. His statement is politically clever, as it’s doubtful that many in the Western world yearn to return to the high-tension years of the Cold War era. For the informed, however, this is little more than verbal aggrandizement shrouded in nostalgia.
Simply because the Obama era USG chooses not to step up and compete with the Russians militarily is no reason to assume we are not seeing the rebirth of a form of Cold War. The Russian military is competing with the US military not in the aspect of strategic nuclear arms but in what may prove to be of greater consequence because we do not have a MAD deterrent.
Russia is testing not simply its advanced weapons but is trying to upgrade systems like our Blue Force tracking the Russians failed to deploy in their Georgia incursion. Russia’s GPS systems did not work nearly as good as the US military’s.
The point missed in Snowden’s defection is the interest in making technology work in a more systemic way. They may be less concerned with espionage that merely delivers blue prints of advanced weaponry than they are with systemic deployment of the technology. Systemic knowledge like that required to operate the Iron Dome or David’s Sling. It is not simply enough to have the technological knowledge both the Chinese and Russians have been deficient in systemic knowledge of building advanced systems and bringing them on line. China’s frustration in that respect may be measured by its attention to building countermeasures like EMP devices to degrade our systems.
Snowden may not have betrayed codes, technology etc.,. but within the dense intel he has, he may have compromised systemic intelligence and been a next generation boom of systems intel.
If you look for a comparison with the Cold War it will always be false. There can be no such comparison.
But a new form of arms race is happening nevertheless. The question is will the USG compete and attempt to stay ahead or is there some intentional design to let the Russians catch up and “level the playing field”?
A result of our failure to compete might be the direct result of an ideological shift in the USA.
Why are USAF Generals being upbraided by Senator McCain, because they want the advanced F-35 which has entirely new systems in its platform, one that innovation no longer classified is a 360 degree cockpit view giving the pilot total visual situation awareness. The USAF is being given an option, keep the A-10 which is needed immediately or the F-35. That is a choice the USAF should not have to make, they should have both.
I grew up being told that if we cut the military, economic prosperity would result. Our efforts in technology would be refocused and America would enter a new golden age. Yet with cuts in the military we are experiencing an economy that is being kept by annual trillion dollar debts and increased credits over 125 trillion. And it may directly correlate with a retreat from global influence that may only be affected by having or not having military power.
Apparently utopias and the national socialists advocating unilateral peace do not have a genuine plan of how to maintain prosperity in the long term.
The notion competing in a new cold war is economically unfeasible a myth born of self destructive ideological constipation.
Simply because the Obama era USG chooses not to step up and compete with the Russians militarily is no reason to assume we are not seeing the rebirth of a form of Cold War. The Russian military is competing with the US military not in the aspect of strategic nuclear arms but in what may prove to be of greater consequence because we do not have a MAD deterrent.
Russia is testing not simply its advanced weapons but is trying to upgrade systems like our Blue Force tracking the Russians failed to deploy in their Georgia incursion. Russia’s GPS systems did not work nearly as good as the US military’s.
The point missed in Snowden’s defection is the interest in making technology work in a more systemic way. They may be less concerned with espionage that merely delivers blue prints of advanced weaponry than they are with systemic deployment of the technology. Systemic knowledge like that required to operate the Iron Dome or David’s Sling. It is not simply enough to have the technological knowledge both the Chinese and Russians have been deficient in systemic knowledge of building advanced systems and bringing them on line. China’s frustration in that respect may be measured by its attention to building countermeasures like EMP devices to degrade our systems.
Snowden may not have betrayed codes, technology etc.,. but within the dense intel he has, he may have compromised systemic intelligence and been a next generation boom of systems intel.
If you look for a comparison with the Cold War it will always be false. There can be no such comparison.
But a new form of arms race is happening nevertheless. The question is will the USG compete and attempt to stay ahead or is there some intentional design to let the Russians catch up and “level the playing field”?
A result of our failure to compete might be the direct result of an ideological shift in the USA.
Why are USAF Generals being upbraided by Senator McCain, because they want the advanced F-35 which has entirely new systems in its platform, one that innovation no longer classified is a 360 degree cockpit view giving the pilot total visual situation awareness. The USAF is being given an option, keep the A-10 which is needed immediately or the F-35. That is a choice the USAF should not have to make, they should have both.
I grew up being told that if we cut the military, economic prosperity would result. Our efforts in technology would be refocused and America would enter a new golden age. Yet with cuts in the military we are experiencing an economy that is being kept by annual trillion dollar debts and increased credits over 125 trillion. And it may directly correlate with a retreat from global influence that may only be affected by having or not having military power.
Apparently utopias and the national socialists advocating unilateral peace do not have a genuine plan of how to maintain prosperity in the long term.
The notion competing in a new cold war is economically unfeasible a myth born of self destructive ideological constipation.
Yes, where could people have come up with the silly idea of a “new Cold War” or negative competition? Sanctions? Huge military drills on borders? Expansion of NATO? Heated rhetoric about invasions of Baltic nations? Increasing budgets for nuclear weapons and missile defense?
How on earth could anyone have made that mistake? It’s the line of Control between India and Pakistan recreated in eastern europe, if that makes you feel better (only, no fences and the laziest of fencing and border controls. Gee, that’s funny).
Russians usually have a better sense of history (at least their own), which makes this statement look like posturing. The salient feature of the Cold War was just how close it always felt to going hot. The Soviet economy may have been consuming itself from the inside, but even as late as the mid-80s, the outer shell had lots of teeth. Angst over whether the Russians will infiltrate their way into the Baltics is a long way from wondering whether we could keep Group Soviet Forces Germany from breaking through to the Rhine in less than a week without resorting to tactical nukes. In this decade, no one, including Putin, believes the latter is a serious possibility.
The current environment is much more like the traditional picture of countries jockeying for position — another step in a multi-polar, nationalistic reset.
The New Cold War that Russian Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev refers to relates:
a. To the “expansionist” designs of the U.S./the West today.
b. To the contemporary “containment” and “roll back” initiatives of such great nations as Russia, China and Iran. (Especially as relates to their own “backyards” and their own “sphere’s of interest.”) And
c. To indigenous resistance, elsewhere, to unwanted “western” state and societal changes — changes that the U.S./the West seeks to advance throughout the non-western world. (This such indigenous resistance indeed often coming from, and indeed often being similar to, the resistance that the Soviets/the communists faced, re: their similar “expansionist” designs, in the Old Cold War of yesterday.)
Our author above’s (non-responsive and non-related?) “equality of power,” “order of magnitude” and “scope and scale,” etc., arguments; these do not appear to address, and thus would not seem to be able to negate, these such critical, and indeed foundational, aspects of the Russian Prime Minister “New Cold War” assertion.
Note:
If our author above’s (lack of) “equality of power,” “order of magnitude” and “scope and scale” arguments disprove the “New Cold War” thesis, then on what do we base “their” — and now “our” — return to such things as “political warfare,” “hybrid warfare,” “unconventional warfare,” etc.?
Herein to suggest that the Russian Prime Minister’s “New Cold War” thesis (and the “expansion” versus “containment”/”roll back” and “indigenous resistance” aspects thereof); these appear to best explain the return of all parties to these such methods and approaches.
As an ordinary Bulgarian citizen, I was impressed by the rank and the position of Major Ruben Velez, and even I was shocked by the naivety, that even military high ranked officials in America could be so far from the truth, which is obvious in every serious intelligence office around the world, and especially visible within Eastern European countries, like Bulgaria, where I am born and live.
The truth, that the Cold War had never ended.
The truth, that Gorbachev’s “Perestroika” has been made successfully – and we could say – barelly, as the Grand Chief of KGB for 20 years, Yuri Andropov, had been planned it from the early 70’s.
The truth, that, as Gorbachev, as so Boris Yeltsin – “the alcoholic”, who “gave away Russia to ruin itself by gangs and mafias, without any State’s control” – has been exactly at the right time, and at the right place, doing exactly what the KGB Masters of today’s Putin had been told them to do.
The truth that KGB robbed it’s own nation – the Russians – and all post-soviet and post-communistic countries. Because, Mr. Ruben Velez, the Soviet Bloc was ruled by KGB, and every secret intelligence agency within this Soviet Bloc with Center in Moscow, was a pure BRANCH of KGB. So, there were no independent States, as there were no competent democratic people, when KGB run the Perestroika by Gorbachev. They have done all that had happened, they fake the collapse of the Soviet Block, setting Boris Yeltsin as a president of the Russian Federation, so the simulation of chaos and internal chaotic robbery to seems as it seemed to be, as they organized robbed the big national capitals of every post-communistic country, except China and Cuba,
AND
invested these Trillions of USDs in strategic assets within the West. Neither CIA knows exactly what kind of assets and the amounts of strategic properties KGB owns in the U.S.
(Let me ask you, how do you think these powerful Mexican Methamphetamine Cartels had been build, at the degree, that, neither the U.S. institutions, neither the Mexican ones couldn’t handle the massive import of Cristal, high-quality Methamphetamine in the U.S., that destroys America from the inside? How these uneducated Mexican Bandidosh happened to be more powerful than the American Agencies and Mexican Government? KGB trained and study and trained them with all it’s powerful intelligence knowledge and immense capitals…)
So, there is a real WAR, but not with Russia. Russia is only one of many KGB Internacional’ properties – surely the main, but only one of many!
You may read a post in my blog MIROGLE.com, which is targeted by forwarding on my domain miro.so (www.miro.so). This is not spam! It’s about reality, which %99 percent of the Americans even cant believe in…
Best Regards, Major Ruben Velez.
I just wished a voice of truth to be heard under you uninformed article.
Miroslav Petrov Avramov, Bulgarian Citizen.
Big ticket items is what is meant by a return to the Cold War versus a different way of looking at local insurgencies with cross border support. The conventional aspect is being played up to ensure that NATO budgets and missile systems and the rest are prioritized over borders, local governance and cross border support.
The language from BOTH sides is alarming, especially given the nuclear weapons on both sides.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/07/nuclear-weapons-risk-greater-than-in-cold-war-says-ex-pentagon-chief
What did NATO think when it went right up to the border of a state with nuclear weapons? Despite all my unhappiness with our campaign in Afghanistan, I never wanted to provoke neighbors because of the nuclear weapons. I thought we should leave and think of other ways. But somehow, the same principle changes in Europe from South Asia, because why?