55°
Light fog
FRI
 60°
 52°
SAT
 59°
 47°
SUN
 57°
 48°
MON
 60°
 45°
TUE
 58°
 47°

McManus: The dawn of Cold War II

Here's a chilly thought: We are seeing the dawn of a second Cold War between Russia and the West. But this one should be easier to manage than the first was.

The headlines over the last week have echoed the bad old days of the 20th century: Russian troops marching into someone else's territory. Poland calling on NATO to help secure its borders. Americans and Russians trading angry charges at the United Nations.

But just as in the last Cold War, remaining calm is the starting point for strategy.

"The whole point of the Cold War was avoiding a direct military confrontation," said John Lewis Gaddis of Yale, the dean of American historians of the era. "The whole story is one of respect for each side's sphere of influence."

"In 1956, (Soviet leader Nikita) Khrushchev did something that was far worse than anything Putin has done; he invaded Hungary and killed thousands of Hungarians," Gaddis pointed out in a conversation Tuesday. "And what did (President) Eisenhower do? Absolutely nothing."

Of course, there are big differences between the first Cold War and this one. During the first one, the world was divided into hostile ideological alliances, and their leaders were willing to wage wars on their allies' behalf in such places as Vietnam and Angola.

"Russia's position isn't comparable to the Soviet Union's," Gaddis noted. "We don't have global alliances anymore."

But there are also similarities. The original Cold War was a long stare-down with a Soviet Union that sought to maintain a huge European empire, both to increase its own power and to serve as a buffer against the West. It ended once a Soviet leader recognized that his ossified economy could no longer compete and decided that the costs of holding the empire together exceeded the benefits.

This second, smaller Cold War is a stare-down with an autocratic Russia that would like to reassemble as much of the Soviet Union as it can, both for reasons of traditional Great Russian nationalism and as a buffer against what it sees as a hostile West. It may well end the same way; Russia's kleptocratic economy floats on oil and gas earnings, but it can't compete with, say, Poland or Estonia when it comes to real economic growth.

That's why Ukraine's economic association with the European Union was so threatening to Vladimir Putin; the more Ukraine's economy became linked to the West, the less likely it became that Ukrainians would ever rejoin Russia.


comments powered by Disqus
© The Press Democrat |  Terms of Service |  Privacy Policy |  Jobs With Us |  RSS |  Advertising |  Sonoma Media Investments |  + |  Place an Ad
Switch to our Mobile View