Does the war in the Caucasus herald the coming of Cold War II? Or is it a Russian invitation to the West to reshape the global status quo that has prevailed since the end of Cold War I?
Russia’s military is certainly not fit for a global confrontation with the West. Not only did Russian intelligence fail to catch the coming Georgian attack on South Ossetia, but Russia’s electronic warfare system and ill-equipped ground troops looked like outdated Soviet-era relics.
Then again, a war does not have to display state-of-the-art weaponry to convey a powerful political message. After all, the US’ global leverage is dwindling even as its army remains the most sophisticated military machine in history. By showing that the US has lost its monopoly on the unilateral use of force and by invading a US ally — which even the Soviet Union never dared — Russia blatantly challenged the Pax Americana that emerged from the US victory in the Cold War.
The war in Georgia could not have happened if the US had not mishandled its global hegemony so disastrously. The US entered a calamitous war in Iraq, missed more than one opportunity to engage Iran’s revolutionary regime, pushed for unending expansion of NATO onto the doorstep of Russia and haughtily ignored Russia’s protests against the deployment of missile defenses in Eastern Europe. Under the cover of the “war on terror,” the US played into Russia’s fear of encirclement through its military penetration into Central Asian countries such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan and Tajikistan.
In its quest to counter what it sees as a hostile US strategy of creating American “Cubas” on its doorstep, the Kremlin is promoting alliances with Raul Castro’s Cuba and Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela.
In the Middle East, Russia is doing everything to regain some of the footholds it had in the past with the aim of sidelining the US as the sole global actor in the region. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s recent visit to Moscow is a transparent manifestation of the potential for a renewed alliance.
Russia continues to place hurdles before the US proposals for sanctions on Iran, has signed with it lavish energy contracts and is about to sell it advanced aerial systems aimed at thwarting a possible Israeli or US attack. Likewise, the Russians have just erased much of Iraq’s debt and agreed to lucrative oil drilling deals.
One victim of the US’ post-Cold War unilateralism has been the transatlantic alliance. The US drive to expand NATO is not shared by all its allies, and Europe is in no mood to follow in the footsteps of Georgia’s impulsive president and be dragged by the ex-Soviet Baltic states and Poland into a confrontation with Russia. Europe, dependent as it is on Russian energy supplies, is not prepared for a new Cold War, and its alternative to Russian oil — Iran — is not palatable to the Americans.
A return to a Cold War strategy is clearly not in the West’s interest. Threats to expel Russia from the G8 or keep it out of the WTO will only increase its sense of isolation, strengthen its authoritarianism and push it into the role of a revolutionary anti-status quo power in the Soviet Union’s old sphere of influence and beyond. Russian minorities still waiting to be “redeemed” in Ukraine, the Baltic states and Moldova are potential triggers for Russia’s neo-imperialism.
But, as a power burdened with too many domestic ills and a chronic sense of insecurity along its vast and dangerously depopulated borders, Russia cannot be interested in a Cold War II, either. Its recent agreement with China on border demarcation notwithstanding, Russia can never be assured of China’s ultimate intentions as a colossal power hungry for raw materials for its booming economy and living space for its massive population.
As the war in the Caucasus has shown, the global economy does not offer a foolproof guarantee against war. But it is one thing to take a calculated risk, as the Russians did in rightly assuming that the West would not go to war over Georgia; it is another thing for Russia to jeopardize its colossal economic gains of recent years in an all-out confrontation with the West.
Indeed, the war in Georgia has already thrown Russia into the most severe financial crisis since its virtual bankruptcy in 1998; it lost US$17 billion in capital flight in just one week. The Moscow stock exchange lost 15 percent of its value last month, and Russia’s central bank forecasts a 25 percent decline in foreign investment this year.
Russia must seek genuine strategic partnership with the US and the latter must understand that, when excluded and despised, Russia can be a major global spoiler. Ignored and humiliated by the US since the Cold War ended, Russia needs integration into a new global order that respects its interests as a resurgent power, not an anti-Western strategy of confrontation.
Shlomo Ben-Ami is a former Israeli foreign minister who now serves as the vice president of the Toledo International Center for Peace in Spain.
COPYRIGHT: PROJECT SYNDICATE
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
RSS