The former Indian diplomat, M K Bhadrakumar, has written an interesting article for The Asia Times on the recent escalating tensions between the US/Europe and the Russian Federation entitled, “In the trenches of the new cold war”¹. In it he attempts to disentagle the strategies emerging in post cold war europe, paricularly in the light of the US announcement of new anti-ballistic missile systems close to russian borders.

Ostensibly, the new “missile shield” is there to provide defense against ICBMs originating in rogue states. Iran and North Korea are often mentioned in this regard, and, clearly, China is pursuing massive military development. The U.S. published a “Fact-sheet” about the systems in order, partly to calm Russian fears. Seven “facts” are highlighted:

(a) the European missile shield is meant to counter possible attacks from Iran or North Korea; (b) the US is puzzled by Russia’s anxiety, since the rockets to be deployed in Central Europe are no match for Russia’s arsenal; (c) Russia itself should be worried about the missile threat from “rogue states”; (d) the US is prepared to cooperate with Russia on missile defense; (e) the US is open to the idea of merging the missile shield with the Russian system; (f) Washington would like Moscow to take part in research and development, though it is unlikely the Russians will consider such cooperation; and (g) the US has endeavored to be “transparent” and is prepared to hold consultations with Russia to explain its case for the deployments in Central Europe. [Asia Times]

However, as Bhadrakumar points out, the Russians are deeply suspicious about the strategic capabilities of the new deployments. After all, the oft-mentioned rogue states are very far from strategically deployable ICBMs (even if the west is very far from an effective missile shield technology). General Yury Baluyevsky, chief of the Russian General Staff was quoted as saying:

The real goal [of the US deployment] is to protect [the US] from Russian and Chinese nuclear-missile potential and to create exclusive conditions for the invulnerability of the United States. [Asia Times]

There has been mounting concern in Europe as the Russian government have demonstrated an increasing willingness to use energy supplies as strategic weapons. Many European countries are now very nervously dependent on Russian natural gas. In the UK concerns are mounting about Gazprom’s desire to move into the energy supply markets. The UK currently has one of the smallest proportions of domestic gas supplies coming from Russian fields. Indeed, one flashpoint of the new cold war seems to be Kazakhstan’s role in the

US$6 billion gas-pipeline project that is an extension of the South Caucasus pipeline, linking Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey, and which is expected to run from Turkey to Austria via Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary. The 3,400-kilometer pipeline across the Caspian bypassing Russia, which is to be built from early next year so as to go on stream in 2011, will have a capacity of 30 billion cubic meters and promises to be a rival to Russian Gazprom’s Blue Stream-2 (scheduled to be commissioned in 2012). [Asia Times]

One part of the european strategy for evading what seems like increasingly belligerent Russian energy strategy is to deepen economic cooperation with the US. Der Speigel has reported that a “confidential draft” of a new EU-US economic treaty has already been produced. Signatures are expected on the treaty next week. However, it would be wise to see this treaty as largely focused on the increasing economic significance of Asian states - Russia is increasingly looking like a potentially destrucive distraction in a bigger game.

The Americans seem to have decided that they need to put the mutually-assured destruction arrangement with Russia behind them in order to focus on a more important game. The only way to achieve this is to put the reciprocal stability of the cold war behind them and move to a position of strategic dominance. Bhadrakumar points out that this, at least, is how the Russians perceive the US strategy. Sergei Rogov of the USA and Canada Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences has proposed cost-effective ways the Russian military can counter the ongoing extensions to the US-European military capacity without getting involved in an economically damaging arms race.

Commentators on post-Soviet affairs are pointing to events in the Ukraine and Georgia as the hot spots of the new cold war. With Europe and the US attempting to undermine Russian influence in these strategically important states, Russia has no choice but to try to maintain its influence there by whatever means it can.

Tensions are increasing in the Baltic states where ethnic Russians are often sizeable minorities and are increasingly seen as vehicles for the continuation of Russia influence after the withdrawal of the Soviet state. Estonia is currently experiencing large scale rioting in the aftermath of the removal of a statue commemorating a soviet soldier’s involvement in the defeat of Nazism (BBC news item here). Estonians often regard such monuments as symbols of their occupation by the Soviets. Many commentators are claiming that the Russian state is participating in the escalation of Russian nationalist sentiment in this situation.

1. Bhadrakumar, M.K. (2007) “In the Trenches of the New Cold War”. Asia Times 28 April 2007 [Online] Internet: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/ID28Ag01.html (Accessed 28 April 2007)

Bookmark to:

Old Nick has posted an interesting article about cities at Hyperstition. Old Nick laments the paucity of good theorising about cities and points out what looks like a great paper by the historian William H McNeill: “Cities and Their Consequences”, at The American Interest Online (subscription only).

There’s enough detail in Nick’s post to whet the appetite, though. From the development of specialisation in China to arms races amongst modern urban sects, there are some fine ideas about the general patterns to be found wherever there is large scale urbanisation.

Bookmark to: