Russia's actions causing a new cold war

[fulano]

The U.S.S.R called, they want their empire back.

Seriously though, I don't think the next cold war, it will just subside like every other little conflict when America threatens to just blow the crap out of them.

The U.S isn't stupid, and the U.S knows it can't strongarm Russia into anything these days without risking blowback. I'm not talking about actual fighting but about diplomatic and trade relations. Which is why Bush only said that Russia's actions were "unacceptable."

I just don't see how the U.S can threaten to bomb anything and solve the problem.

 

[werepossum]

The U.S.S.R called, they want their empire back.

Seriously though, I don't think the next cold war, it will just subside like every other little conflict when America threatens to just blow the crap out of them.

The U.S isn't stupid, and the U.S knows it can't strongarm Russia into anything these days without risking blowback. I'm not talking about actual fighting but about diplomatic and trade relations. Which is why Bush only said that Russia's actions were "unacceptable."

I just don't see how the U.S can threaten to bomb anything and solve the problem.

True. American military threats will mean nothing, with the USA armed forces over-deployed and Bush neutered by Pelosi and Reid. All the SALT treaties allowed the USSR (a.k.a. Russia) to keep more nukes than the USA, not that it's that important either way. Both sides retain plenty of nukes to destroy all the other's major cities, ports, and military facilities; the USSR just insisted on keeping enough for the UK, Germany, and France as well. And that's in spite of Russia's ABMs and the US/NATO missile defense system. Thus, the USA and NATO aren't going to be making any real threats of nuclear strikes, in spite of Russia's threat of nuclear strikes against Russia. Poland is a NATO member; a nuclear attack against Poland would mean full-on nuclear war between NATO and Russia. Thus it isn't a credible threat. What it is is a declaration of Russia's seriousness.

As you mentioned, Russia is shrinking; she has the lowest birthrate in Europe. Russia wants back her empire, her "sphere of influence", not only because she feels she's entitled to it and the respect an empire brings, but also because the only way Russia can avoid fading away as a superpower is to grow, and the only way she can grow is through capturing or co-opting other countries. The least Russia will accept is that most of the nations around her, most of the old Soviet Union puppet regimes, be similarly submissive to Moscow as in the Soviet days. This give Russia economic strength, by influencing economic deals and guaranteeing favorable terms within a wider area, but also provides a measure of security by making sure her border nations aren't arming to move against her. (I don't think the latter is a practical concern, but the KGB leaders of Russia might well see it as a justifiable concern.) The converse of this - Russia's border states joining NATO and developing ties with the West - especially with the USA, whom Russia sees as not only her historic enemy for preventing the Soviet Union from taking all of Europe, but also as her main rival for influence in Europe - is seen as both weakening Russia and empowering her border states. Since Russia only really succeeds in energy and weaponry, former Soviet satellite nations buying Western weapons for compatibility (and political favor) are a triple whammy to Russia. Russia loses potential arms sales, NATO gains potentially useful allies, and Russia loses potential allies to the extent that supply chains need to be parallel. At the least, NATO expansion robs Russia of the ability to leverage deals, to say: "Albania, we'll sell you these advanced air defense systems, but only if you also buy 'X" number of Russian trucks, Russian commercial and cargo jets, Russian telecom equipment, etc." NATO expansion necessarily means reducing Russian power in a number of ways. Furthermore, the only reason such nations need to be in NATO is for protection against Russia - Iran is hardly going to slip past Russia and attack Ukraine - and that's hardly escaped Russian attention.

Two other minor points: First, Medvedev is nothing more than a tool. His pronouncements on Russia's pull-out were three times ignored by his own country, which tells me the people who actually run Russia and who made him president (Putin and Sechin definitely, but I doubt they are alone) are leaving no doubt in the eyes of the West as to with whom they are dealing.

Second and potentially more important, Russia only does two things well, energy and war materials. Russia exports huge amounts of weaponry, and some of it is top notch. They also have the third component necessary to waging war, willpower, in spades. If Hitler at his zenith couldn't break Russian morale, neither can NATO. Thus from a Western perspective Russia's economy is quite weak, but it's already nearly a wartime economy. In the hopefully unlikely event that actual war breaks out on a wide scale, Russia's economy will out-perform the West's by a substantial margin on a per capita basis. Only in the fourth component required to wage war, manpower, is Russia likely to come up short, and by that time Europe would be a very unpleasant place indeed even without nuclear weapons.

 

[Meet_Your_Doom]

I completely agree with everything werepossum said, except from the last line. In the event of a global war, Russia would have the manpower to completely overrun Europe, and even if it couldn't, their economy and almost limitless resources would. Russia probably couldn't defeat the USA though, due to massive American superiority in air and naval strength. If it did come down to a world war three (god forbid) Russia would defeat Europe and lose so many men that they would be forced to make peace. America too would want peace, having seen what happened to Europe, and the world would be left in an even worse state; either a fourth and final world war, or and apocalyptic exchange of nuclear weapons. Either way, it doesn't matter because no-one wants war, and we need Russia more than they need us (believe it or not, we do). So Russia will continue whatever it is they're doing and we will do nothing to stop them, but we probably only know half of the story, and nothing is the best thing we (NATO) can do in the best interests of global peace.

 

[BallPtPenTheif]

Russia has lost a lot of economic and political pull it would only make sense that they practice a policy of brinksmanship on order to create leverage where there they previously had none.

 

[Dance The Revolution]

OOh, smart people.

 

[meatloaf231]

Easy solution: let them cut all NATO contact, we'll cut off their IMF cash flow and demand immediate repayment of all IMF loans, freezing all of Russia's assets.
They'll be bankrupt before the end of the week.
Lets see what they do without money or international trade.

I would laugh so hard.

 

[fulano]

Easy solution: let them cut all NATO contact, we'll cut off their IMF cash flow and demand immediate repayment of all IMF loans, freezing all of Russia's assets.
They'll be bankrupt before the end of the week.
Lets see what they do without money or international trade.

I would laugh so hard.

Sorry, but that can't happen. Europe may not say it, but Europe loves mama Russia bigtime. Without mama Russia putting the gas and oil in Europe's belly, things would be much, much uglier. If mama Russia is not there supplying, then who will? Iraq, Iran, third world countries? The price of gas, plastic, PC's, etc. would skyrocket over there.

People have to face the facts and admit that they need the Russians. If people don't want them, well...as I see it, Russia just wants to act on an even keel with the U.S. If the U.S can act unilateraly then so can mama.

 

[werepossum]

I completely agree with everything werepossum said, except from the last line. In the event of a global war, Russia would have the manpower to completely overrun Europe, and even if it couldn't, their economy and almost limitless resources would. Russia probably couldn't defeat the USA though, due to massive American superiority in air and naval strength. If it did come down to a world war three (god forbid) Russia would defeat Europe and lose so many men that they would be forced to make peace. America too would want peace, having seen what happened to Europe, and the world would be left in an even worse state; either a fourth and final world war, or and apocalyptic exchange of nuclear weapons. Either way, it doesn't matter because no-one wants war, and we need Russia more than they need us (believe it or not, we do). So Russia will continue whatever it is they're doing and we will do nothing to stop them, but we probably only know half of the story, and nothing is the best thing we (NATO) can do in the best interests of global peace.

Okay, I have two problems with this post. First, Air Superiority means nothing in the grand scheme of the GROUND WAR. Air can assist in stopping an attack, but can neither take nor hold ground, which is how a war is won. Second, ever heard of LOGISTICS? Russia has a short supply line. America has to cross an ocean. While Russian troops simply have to load up a train, and transfer supplies from the train to a truck, and from there take it to front, America has to load a train, unload to trucks, transfer to ships, unload the ships, then transfer it to the front. Russia can get supplies from a supply depot to the far side of France in THREE DAYS, America can get supplies to GREAT BRITAIN in THREE WEEKS! See where the problem lies? Russia can surge a huge army to the front in hours and days, while it takes us weeks and months.

Yes, once we had our troops over there, the superior training would give American troops the advantage, the problem is getting our troops over there.

Actually air power means everything - even a short logistics tail is of no use if it's effectively interdicted. And the USA already has in storage in Germany everything it needs to fight Russia for the first three months. We had to - for decades, American power was the only thing keeping the USSR from absorbing all of Europe.

I think that there won't be a war unless Russia actually invades Ukraine, and maybe not until Russia invades Poland, unless both sides bungle it so badly that we stumble into war. Russia's allies are limited to Iran, Syria, Venezuela and Cuba, none of which would be particularly useful in a war of this type. The American forces, the backbone of NATO military strength, are already tired and over-deployed. That means Russia doesn't have the strength to easily take back its satellites if Europe opposes it, and Europe doesn't have the strength to easily prevent Russia from taking them back. Hopefully, that will keep both sides sane.

A tiny part of my mind keeps worrying though, thinking about Hitler. Everyone thought all he wanted was Czechoslovakia and part of Poland. No one thought he had the strength to seriously threaten France, the UK, and the USSR. And look what happened...

I suggest prayer.

 

[fulano]

A tiny part of my mind keeps worrying though, thinking about Hitler. Everyone thought all he wanted was Czechoslovakia and part of Poland. No one thought he had the strength to seriously threaten France, the UK, and the USSR. And look what happened...

I suggest prayer.

Russia is still growing economically, and probably won't ever do anything more drastic than what the world is used to the U.S doing. Besides, it has nifty trade agreements with Europe, and neither the Russians nor the Europeans care to burn bridges right now.

 

[anti_strunt]

The quotes were growing out of hand, so I had to cut them down a bit...

First, I'm sorry if I gave the wrong impression, I'm not from Brazil. I'm just aware that Brazil has a very good economy by Latin American standards.

Brazil is a large and important economy by world standards - and unlike Russia, they don't have overpriced oil to rely on...

Now, on to the main thing: you do make a strong argument...
[...]
But, I do have to disagree with your final comment of "so far little seems to be forthcoming."
While inflation has remained a problem for the russkies since always(it's kind of going up as of now), somehow, the economy seems to actually be getting better(I didn't really know this). During Putin's tenure in there, the Industry grew by 75%, somehow investments increased 125%, even agricultural production increased as well. People's income more than doubled and the average joe(or average van?) salary increased eightfold from $80 to $640. The number of people living below the poverty line also decreased from 30% in 2000 to 14% in 2008.

While Russia has certainly seen some impressive economic growth in the last years it's important to remember that they, like most of Eastern Europe, actually saw their economy decline following the communist collapse. Add to that the near-Weimar Germany like chaos of the first post-Soviet years, and it's clear that at least some of the economic growth has really just been a case of returning to normalcy after a major crisis, rather than "new" growth (it took quite a while for most Warsaw Pact countries to return to their pre-1990 levels of production, IIRC).

Long-term economic growth (or so the theory goes) is primarily decided by population growth, technological advancement and the state of institutions (although the effects of the latter are somewhat poorly understood). Capital accumulation has only a limited effect in the long term, and cannot be used to sustain economic growth forever. Eventually you'll run into decreasing returns unless the number of effective workers (population and technology) increases.

Population, technology and institutions. Russia has a shrinking population; badly battered educational system and large institutional difficulties. So while she has seen impressive growth, and can indeed continue to grow for some time, her long-term prospects of catching up with the West look slim.
As for the "little seems to be forthcoming" comment, I was referring only to the educational system. I could be wrong, and here Russia has a real chance at parity, but it will still take time and there would still be the issues of population and institutions...

Oh, I almost forgot: It's not Putin but Medvedev that would go ?berzerk.?(can you spot the metaphor?)

Eh, Medvedev is just a puppet. ;-)

I think I missed the metaphor though?

There is one thing I really don't understand. What do people exactly mean with ?the combined power of NATO?? I've checked the member countries, and well, they're not the largest bunch:
[population stats]
How many people are those small countries willing to lose to a long dragged out conflict?
I've also checked their armies, and to me, it wouldn't seem like many of them are that much better supplied than the Russian Army. Given, they are much, much better trained and more effective but then, we fall to the next question: how many of those countries can actually fend off shrapnel after shrapnel of missiles? Or mount effective countermeasures when the carpet bombing of nukes comes raining.

Well, that?s the point of having a military alliance; the small countries don't have to go it alone. As for pure manpower/population; you really only have to consider the major countries. Even Italy has almost half the population of Russia:
US:300,000,000
Germany: 80,000,000
Turkey: 70,000,000
France: 65,000,000
UK: 60,000,000
Italy: 60,000,000
Spain: 45,000,000
Poland: 40,000,000
Canada: 30,000,000
Sum: 750,000,000
vs.
Russia: 140,000,000

Even if you remove the US/Canada, that's still 420,000,000. Granted, Russia would probably have a much higher ratio of soldiers to civilians, but with a combined population five times as large (and an equal or larger economic margin) the West could theoretically put an equal number of better equipped soldiers in the field, to a smaller cost to their economies. The smaller countries would only have to provide support (*cough* diversionary targets *cough*).

As for surviving missiles, that's a different issue, but like I said - then everyone, everywhere just dies. Russia as well as Europe...

Well, yeah. But then how do you keep the russkies from walling themselves and ?chalking them missiles?? One thing is to traverse the waters of the weird free market economy that runs amok in the world, and another is to keep yourself walled because you can and live off of your own natural reserves. Russia is not Cuba, Russia is Russia, and it's huge.
I agree with you that the west has military superiority but, well, what good is it for, other than getting everyone into a very, very uncomfortable impasse?

Well, my point (way, way back) was really nothing more than that Russia doesn't have the military capability to present a credible threat of conquering/destroying Western Europe - unless they go nuclear.
We actually seem to agree on this, though?

All your projections seem correct to me, but again, I just don't see this kind of conflict being in any way conventional. The russian army is indeed in no way to fight against any superpower in a conventional war as of now, but let's not forget the whole ?as of now.? From her up to 2020 is just enough time for the current administration to ?strongarm? the bureaucratic situation, getting the army running smoothly, and THEN, there's always the whole thing with the market of privately contracted armies which I tread lightly. ?If you can't train 'em rent 'em.? We live in a global market economy, anyways. By following your train of reasoning Russia could be, in twenty years, training an assortment of conscripts, volunteers, and working with a steady base of well paid ?professionals? that inked a pretty fair deal. Only then would mama Russia get into a "conventional conflict."
Thanks for replying, by the way.

Perhaps. Like I said, I wouldn't currently rate Russian long-term economic growth prospects very highly, but if they can successfully reform the economy there is no reason why they couldn't reform their armed forces. However, all that is in the future. Much can happen in the following ten years; the rest of the world won't be resting on its laurels either. Perhaps in 2020 we'll be discussing the Indian invasion to "protect the Indian citizens of Tibet"...

 

[Eyclonus]

I've noticed that no ones really pointed out the fact that if Condi and Bushy hadn't been force feeding the US media soundbites about this, no one in America would've cared.

The reason why Russia is so against the interceptors, is because Bush and the current administration haven't learnt the basic rule of modern diplomacy (not the one about violating soveriegnity for your own self gratification): "Don't say the M word!!!" Missile interceptors, are really just missiles that hit other missiles. Simple right? Well if we look further into it an astute observer would note that interceptors need quick ready launchers. Said launchers only take a smaller class of missile, and given that the US has developed ICBMs that can be carried on Subs then maybe the Russians do have some reason to protest? If anything I blame this potential "Cold War" on Bush's inability to not fuck up international relations and the portrayal his own country as the most stupid and polluted people on Earth.

 

[fulano]

Yep...quotes are running out of hand...

[SNIP]
As for the "little seems to be forthcoming" comment, I was referring only to the educational system. I could be wrong, and here Russia has a real chance at parity, but it will still take time and there would still be the issues of population and institutions...

I agree with you in mostly anything, but I'd have to take issue with the rate of time needed to grow to western standards. Let's not forget that current projections put Russia ?up there? by 2020-2050 approx. That's a long time, but in terms of ?historic time,? not so much.

Eh, Medvedev is just a puppet. ;-) I think I missed the metaphor though?

Well, there is a certain old game that goes by the name BERZERK (with a Z) that pretty much ranks as the first in history to be related to something very, very ugly.

[SNIP]
.
.
.
the West could theoretically put an equal number of better equipped soldiers in the field, to a smaller cost to their economies. The smaller countries would only have to provide support (*cough* diversionary targets *cough*).

As for surviving missiles, that's a different issue, but like I said - then everyone, everywhere just dies. Russia as well as Europe...

Yep, I agree. Hopefully we don't get to see nukes. My argument is that the fear of nukes is so great, that just one nuking would seem like a lot, hence nobody will try anything.

That's what the whole pro deterrence argument was all about.

Well, my point (way, way back) was really nothing more than that Russia doesn't have the military capability to present a credible threat of conquering/destroying Western Europe - unless they go nuclear.
We actually seem to agree on this, though?

Yup. We agree.

Perhaps. Like I said, I wouldn't currently rate Russian long-term economic growth prospects very highly, but if they can successfully reform the economy there is no reason why they couldn't reform their armed forces. However, all that is in the future. Much can happen in the following ten years; the rest of the world won't be resting on its laurels either.

Well, fifty years fly by pretty fast in historic terms, now add the fact that Russia and China seem intent on becoming good friends...at least western dominance over the world's economy will vanish and will be forced to share that piece of the pie.

Perhaps in 2020 we'll be discussing the Indian invasion to "protect the Indian citizens of Tibet"...

Hopefully not.

Thanks for replying.


By the was, are there any Russian posters that can elucidate how things look from their side of things- or even eastern European? I mean, here in the west, we are going nuts calling this thing a ?New Cold War,? and stuff, but I was curious about how people over there are living this thing.

 

[Alphavillain]

Governments may change, political ideologies come and go, but cultural tendencies abide. Russia's leaders have had a long history of machievelian scheming and trying to increase the size of their lands, and just because the Soviet Union is gone doesn't mean the political caste has changed. At all. Furthermore, the Russian leadership's willingness to sacrifice their own people will nolt change, especially as Russia only ever had one day as a parliamentary democracy prior to 1991 (and that parliament was dissolved by Lenin) and very little afterwards, so there is no accountability for the leadership.

 

[fulano]

Governments may change, political ideologies come and go, but cultural tendencies abide. Russia's leaders have had a long history of machievelian scheming and trying to increase the size of their lands, and just because the Soviet Union is gone doesn't mean the political caste has changed. At all. Furthermore, the Russian leadership's willingness to sacrifice their own people will nolt change, especially as Russia only ever had one day as a parliamentary democracy prior to 1991 (and that parliament was dissolved by Lenin) and very little afterwards, so there is no accountability for the leadership.

I think that's taking it a bit far. We can't talk for sure because we have our "western goggles" on. We have to admit that probably we don't see the whole picture cristal clear. I mean, Russia didn't just zerg rush the nazis in order to drive them away, those were people fighting for their homes quite literally, and they were pissed because of what had been done to them, PERSONALLY. Just look at Kiev and what happened in Babi Yar, along those lines the russkies did the unthinkable and actually detonated their own city(talk about a strategy for losing a fight/

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d6/Ruined_Kiev_in_WWII.jpg). Or what about the twenty something age average units of snipers that happened to be girls? It may seem hasrsh that the Soviet high command was willing to push that hard and in that direction, but, think about it, those people were in special circumstances.

I think it's fairly easy to say for us that that's insane, but again, their cultural makeup is very, very different from ours, and somehow, people still judge them as they would anyone of us western folks.

History takes a toll on any population, and from what I gather, the russkies are not exaactly pining about their eroding human rights, or their economical inferiority. They just want to get to the top again, and if they have to claw, they will. The majority even loves mr. Putin over there.

 

[flatearth]

What these goverments should remember is that the only way to get peace, is to do business. Free trade between countries makes sure that those countries will not go to war against each other. Look at United Kindgon and France, they tried to eradicate each other in the middle ages and were constantly in war. Today they trade between each other and are peaceful, sure they still hate one another, but there is no need for war when you can sell them stuff.

 

[HuntingWolf_01]

there will not be a cold war, even though i'd like one, cause russia is a shell of its former self and is nowhere near as strong as NATO. ever heard of the warsaw pact?

 

[anti_strunt]

Yep...quotes are running out of hand...

[SNIP]
As for the "little seems to be forthcoming" comment, I was referring only to the educational system. I could be wrong, and here Russia has a real chance at parity, but it will still take time and there would still be the issues of population and institutions...

I agree with you in mostly anything, but I'd have to take issue with the rate of time needed to grow to western standards. Let's not forget that current projections put Russia ?up there? by 2020-2050 approx. That's a long time, but in terms of ?historic time,? not so much.

[...]

Well, fifty years fly by pretty fast in historic terms, now add the fact that Russia and China seem intent on becoming good friends...at least western dominance over the world's economy will vanish and will be forced to share that piece of the pie.

Fifty years is such a long period that I think it becomes impossible to make halfway accurate predictions. We can extrapolate from current trends; but those trends can change, paradigms can shift etc. After all, it took only fifty years to get from 1900 to 1950 - two completely different worlds...

I will however opine that Sino-Russian relations should never be taken for granted. If either ever started to expand into Central Asia (which is not very unrealistic considering some estimates of the amount of oil found there) they might very well find themselves rivals. As for the rest of the world catching up with the West, that's already happening. We can only hope that it goes quickly, and all the way, and that Africa isn't left out in the cold (as is currently the case).

Anyway, it's been a fun discussion!

What these goverments should remember is that the only way to get peace, is to do business. Free trade between countries makes sure that those countries will not go to war against each other. Look at United Kindgon and France, they tried to eradicate each other in the middle ages and were constantly in war. Today they trade between each other and are peaceful, sure they still hate one another, but there is no need for war when you can sell them stuff.

While I certainly agree with this in theory, it should be remembered that the exact same thing was said prior to WW1. It was considered common knowledge that the European economies and financial systems were so intertvined over national borders that any conflict would mean economic ruin. Therefore, war was impossible. We all know how that turned out...