By Linda S. Heard

It’s been 15 years since the collapse of the Soviet Union and with it 45 years of ‘Cold War between the USSR and the United States. The fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 was seen as symbolic of a new, open and peaceful period of détente. The West celebrated triumphantly and a pared-down Mother Russia struggled to implement economic and democratic reforms. An impotent Russia triggered a more powerful United States, which flexed its muscles in the knowledge there was no contender in its class. For a while the US was the world’s own superpower. But like a boxer forced to temporarily retire from the ring from injury, a stronger, richer and fiercely independent Russia has emerged as a puissant heavyweight eager to prove its comeback. The question is: are we heading for a new ‘Cold War”?

Statements from Russia are becoming more and more bellicose. The Russian President Vladimir Putin made his position clear when he declared “One state’s rule has overstepped its national borders in all areas, in economics, politics and the humanitarian sphere, and is trying for force itself on other states,” adding, “Well, who would like that?” You don’t have to be a mind reader to work out which state he was talking about.

According to the Guardian, there is a “common feeling in Russia that the US has reneged on an agreement after the collapse of the Soviet Union to abandon Cold War politics. The article quotes a senior research scientist at Moscow’s Centre for Arms Control as saying “Russia has been deeply disappointed by what has happened after 1991. NATO started to expand, and the US started to think it had won the Cold War. We had hoped for a partnership, but it didn’t happen”.

Russia has a laundry-list of complaints against the Bush administration starting from Washington’s perceived interference in the politics of former Soviet republics to the latter’s belligerent stance on Iran and its plans to erect missile interceptors in Poland as well as a radar-tracking facility in the Czech Republic.



The Russian leader recently compared the atmosphere surrounding the US missile shield proposal with a severity parallel to the Cuban missile crisis in the early 1960s when the Cold War heated to the point of becoming a nuclear confrontation. The US insists the shield is necessary to stave off threats from Iran and North Korea.

Russia believes that it is the real target. This paranoia has been fed by statements from the Polish government to the effect Poland isn’t threatened by Iran but welcomes the system to defend itself from Russia. In response, Russia has threatened to target Eastern European sites with its own missiles.

President Putin has also told Washington in no uncertain terms that his country will not accept military strikes on Iran and reinforced that message with an unprecedented invitation to the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to visit him in Moscow.

Furthermore, he has pressured Caspian Sea states to make statements to the effect they will not allow their land or airspace to be used by a foreign nation to launch attacks on any Caspian countries.

In November, Putin compared the American President’s attitude towards Tehran with that of a madman “running about with a razor blade in his hand”, and said sanctions would undermine any hope of constructive dialogue between Iran and the West.

Now US senators have submitted a bill demanding sanctions against Russian companies that sell arms to Iran and Syria. The senators claim such sales contravene US laws but Russia insists no other country can restrict its weapons exports, which it says are legitimate under international law.

It is surely inconceivable that world leaders would be prepared to put their nations on a suicidal collision course for any reason. Even during the most critical periods of the Cold War, successive leaders on both sides of the Iron Curtain were careful to use restraint. It was, therefore, shocking to hear President George Bush admit he had told world leaders “If you’re interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing Iran from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon”.

Was this a warning to Russia and China, which are blocking UN sanctions against Iran? Or was it merely overblown rhetoric designed to be a wake-up call? Whatever the intent, it brought the ugly specter of another World War back into the public consciousness as a potential reality.

Russia has also warned of a full-scale arms race between Russia and the West should the US station weapons in space. “We don’t want to fight in space,” said a Russian commander, but “the consequences of positioning strike forces in orbit will be too serious”.

This dangerous tit-for-tat power play risks unforeseen consequences. Russia’s nuclear bombers have resumed their Cold War-style global flights and in August flew close to the US Pacific island of Guam; close enough to “exchange smiles” with US pilots on aircraft carriers. In July, Britain was forced to scramble RAF Tornado fighter jets to dissuade Russian bombers from entering British airspace.

What if one of those pilots on either side of the divide decided to unleash his firepower fearing his country was under serious threat? Given current tensions, the consequences are unimaginable.

In 2006, Russia renewed its annual military parades past the Kremlin in an effort to display the country’s renewed military might and wealth. This autumn, the Russian Air Force conducted major military exercises, designed to coincide with US-sponsored war games. Russia has also been conducting war games in the proximity of Alaska, which have rightfully made the US nervous.

Russia’s alliance with China is another factor that upsets Washington. “Time and time and time again, the Russians are voting with the Chinese on a variety of issues” in international forums such as the UN Security council, says Sarah Mendelson of Washington’s Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Russia has also been cozying up to India, which has been accused of playing both sides of the fence. In November, the Indian President Manmohan Single traveled to Moscow to strengthen energy and defense ties.

There are many other bones of contention between the US and Russia not least over the future of Kosovo, which the US and the West would like to emerge as an independent state. Russia Foreign Minister has threatened to veto any UN Security Council resolution backing Kosovo’s independence. “This is an issue on which are positions are diametrically opposed,” he said.

For its part, the US accuses Russia of covert interference in the internal politics of Georgia and has accused the CIS peacekeeping force, mainly composed of Russians of backing separatists from the breakaway republics of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.



The Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili says Russia has been working to overthrow his government which is keen to join NATO by financing anti-government opposition groups and protestors. Russia has made it clear it will not allow NATO troops and bases so close to its border.

Moscow is angry with the US for lobbying to re-route energy pipelines away from Russian territory.

Russia has had a similarly fraught relationship with Britain since employees of the British embassy in Moscow were found hiding telecommunication devices in a fake rock. This has recently worsened due to Moscow’s refusal to extradite a Russian suspect wanted in connection with the poisoning of a former KGB agent in London.

President Putin has made no secret of the fact he regrets the break-up of the Soviet Union and is working to retrieve as much influence as possible. To this end he uses the incredible wealth accumulated due to the high prices of oil and natural gas that account for 75 per cent of Russian GDP. And during his presidential tenure he has garnered popularity by elevating standards of living and giving Russians a renewed sense of dignity.

As Daniel Fried, the US Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, recently told the Senate Committee, “in the view of many Russians the European order that emerged in the 1990s was imposed on a weak, vulnerable Russia…they view the support of the US and EU for the Euro-Atlantic aspirations of former Soviet states with suspicion”.

“This order was, in the view of many Russians, unjust; a function of a latter day ‘Time of Troubles’ to be challenged and to some extent rolled back. We are witnessing a backlash,” he said.

Fried believes President Putin is seen as “a restorer of order and a state-builder, and on the international stage, as a leader who has halted national retreat and sought to reverse it. Russians attribute to Putin a return to national pride”.

Putin, who is at the centre of a personality cult, is bound to leave office next spring, as under the Russian constitution the presidency must end after two terms. But with a massive 70 percent approval rating, it is thought he will still control the country under cover of another official title until he is allowed to run for president again in 2012.

Whatever happens, it is likely his successor will follow his hard line and as Putin said in November during a visit to Siberia, a big win for his party would give him “the moral right” to hold lawmakers and government officials accountable for implementing his policies.
One thing is certain. The Russian bear has come out of hibernation to loudly roar. Whether there will be renewed détente, a cold war, a big freeze or even military confrontation is yet to be seen.
Russia is certainly demanding respect and in the end, the US must come to terms with the fact it’s no longer the only big guy on the block.
 

Top of the page

| Home | Al Habtoor Group | Habtoor Hotels | Al Habtoor Automobiles |
| Diamond Leasing | Emirates International School |

Copyright © 2007 Al Habtoor Group. All Rights Reserved.
Articles, excerpts, and translations may not be reproduced in any form
without written permission of the Al Habtoor Group.