The Cold War lasted for four decades, in many ways both beginning and ending in Berlin. The good news is that it stayed cold — largely because nuclear weapons introduced a discipline missing from previous great-power rivalries — and that the US, together with its European and Asian allies, emerged victorious, owing to sustained political, economic and military effort that a top-heavy Soviet Union ultimately could not match.
A quarter-century after the end of the Cold War, we unexpectedly find ourselves in a second one. It is both different and familiar.
Russia is no longer a superpower, but rather a country of about 145 million people with an economy dependent on the price of oil and gas, and no political ideology to offer the world. Even so, it remains one of two major nuclear-armed states, has a permanent seat on the UN Security Council and is willing to use its military, energy and cybercapabilities to support friends and weaken neighbors and adversaries.
Illustration: Louise Ting
This state of affairs was anything but inevitable.
The end of the Cold War was expected to usher in a new era of friendly Russian ties with the US and Europe. It was widely thought that post-communist Russia would focus on economic and political development. Relations also got off to a good start when Russia, rather than standing by its long-time client Iraq, cooperated with the US in reversing then-Iraqi president Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait.
The goodwill did not last. Just why will be a matter of debate among historians for decades to come.
Some observers will blame successive US presidents, pointing to a lack of economic support extended to a struggling Russia, and even more to NATO’s enlargement, which, by treating Russia as a potential adversary, increased the odds it would become one.
The US could and should have been more generous as Russia made its painful transition to a market economy in the 1990s, while NATO enlargement was preferable to other security arrangements for Europe that would have included Russia.
That said, the lion’s share of the responsibility for the emergence of a second Cold War is Moscow’s, and above all, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s. Like many of his predecessors, Putin views the US-dominated world order as a threat to his rule and to what he regarded as his country’s rightful place in the world.
REVISIONIST COUNTRY
Russia in recent years has used armed force to seize, occupy and annex Crimea — in the process violating the fundamental principle of international law that borders cannot be changed by armed force.
Putin continues to use military or covert means to destabilize Eastern Ukraine, Georgia and parts of the Balkans. Russia also employed military force in particularly brutal ways in Syria to prop up Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s appalling regime.
Putin’s Russia also went to great lengths to carry out “fraud and deceit for the purpose of interfering with the US political and electoral processes, including the presidential election of 2016,” US special counsel Robert Mueller has said.
Heads of US intelligence agencies have made it clear that they expect more such efforts between now and the midterm congressional elections in November.
As Russia has become a revisionist country, with few if any qualms about overturning the “status quo” by whatever means it judges necessary, shoring up Europe’s defenses and providing lethal arms to the Ukraine is a sensible response.
What more should the US do, beyond reducing the vulnerability of voting machines and requiring technology firms to take steps to prevent foreign governments from trying to influence US politics?
OTHER MEANS
First, Americans must recognize that defense is not enough. Congress is right to call for additional sanctions and US President Donald Trump is wrong to refuse to implement sanctions that the US Congress has already passed.
The US government also needs to find its voice and criticize a Russian regime that arrests its opponents and reportedly murders journalists.
If Trump, for whatever reason, continues to coddle Russia, then Congress, the media, foundations and academics should publicly detail the corruption that characterizes Putin’s rule. Circulating such information might increase internal opposition to Putin, persuade him to hold off on further interference in US and European politics and, over time, buttress more responsible forces within Russia.
At the same time, the objective should not be to end what little remains of the US-Russian relationship, which is already in worse shape than it was for much of the first Cold War. Diplomatic cooperation should be sought whenever it is possible and in the US’ interest.
Russia might well be willing to stop interfering in eastern Ukraine in exchange for a degree of sanctions relief, if it could be assured that ethnic Russians there would not face reprisals. Likewise, the Kremlin has no interest in a military escalation in Syria that would increase the relatively modest cost of its intervention there.
At the same time, Russian support is needed to tighten sanctions against North Korea. Maintaining arms-control arrangements and avoiding a new nuclear arms race would be in the interest of both countries.
There is thus a case for regular diplomatic meetings, cultural and academic exchanges, and visits to Russia by congressional delegations — not as a favor, but as a means to make clear that many Americans are open to a more normal relationship with Russia if it were to act with greater restraint.
The US and its partners have a large stake in greater Russian restraint while Putin remains in power — and in a Russia characterized by something other than Putinism after he is gone.
Richard N. Haass is president of the Council on Foreign Relations, served as director of policy planning for the US Department of State from 2001 to 2003, and was former US president George W. Bush’s special envoy to Northern Ireland and coordinator for the future of Afghanistan.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
The return of US president-elect Donald Trump to the White House has injected a new wave of anxiety across the Taiwan Strait. For Taiwan, an island whose very survival depends on the delicate and strategic support from the US, Trump’s election victory raises a cascade of questions and fears about what lies ahead. His approach to international relations — grounded in transactional and unpredictable policies — poses unique risks to Taiwan’s stability, economic prosperity and geopolitical standing. Trump’s first term left a complicated legacy in the region. On the one hand, his administration ramped up arms sales to Taiwan and sanctioned
The US election result will significantly impact its foreign policy with global implications. As tensions escalate in the Taiwan Strait and conflicts elsewhere draw attention away from the western Pacific, Taiwan was closely monitoring the election, as many believe that whoever won would confront an increasingly assertive China, especially with speculation over a potential escalation in or around 2027. A second Donald Trump presidency naturally raises questions concerning the future of US policy toward China and Taiwan, with Trump displaying mixed signals as to his position on the cross-strait conflict. US foreign policy would also depend on Trump’s Cabinet and
The Taiwanese have proven to be resilient in the face of disasters and they have resisted continuing attempts to subordinate Taiwan to the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Nonetheless, the Taiwanese can and should do more to become even more resilient and to be better prepared for resistance should the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) try to annex Taiwan. President William Lai (賴清德) argues that the Taiwanese should determine their own fate. This position continues the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) tradition of opposing the CCP’s annexation of Taiwan. Lai challenges the CCP’s narrative by stating that Taiwan is not subordinate to the
Republican candidate and former US president Donald Trump is to be the 47th president of the US after beating his Democratic rival, US Vice President Kamala Harris, in the election on Tuesday. Trump’s thumping victory — winning 295 Electoral College votes against Harris’ 226 as of press time last night, along with the Republicans winning control of the US Senate and possibly the House of Representatives — is a remarkable political comeback from his 2020 defeat to US President Joe Biden, and means Trump has a strong political mandate to implement his agenda. What does Trump’s victory mean for Taiwan, Asia, deterrence