Is Russia a Superpower? Cold War II?
Ronald Steel, professor of international relations at the University of Southern California, argues that Russia's strong hand against Georgia signals that, “A Superpower Is Reborn” (NYT):
THE psychodrama playing out in the Caucasus is not the first act of World War III, as some hyperventilating politicians and commentators would like to portray it. Rather, it is the delayed final act of the cold war. And while the Soviet Union lost that epic conflict, Russia won this curtain call in a way that ensures Washington will have to take it far more seriously in the future.
This is not just because, as some foreign-policy “realists” have argued, Moscow has enough troops and oil to force us to take into consideration its supposedly irrational fears. Rather, the conflict in Georgia showed how rational Russia’s concerns over American meddling in its traditional sphere of influence are, and that Washington had better start treating it like the great power it still is.
Russia as a superpower may be an overstatement however, for reasons pointed out by the Economist:
Russia’s ideology today (if directed democracy is considered an ideology) may be different than in Europe and the US, however, it is highly unlikely that any new walls will be built separating Russia and the West. This is because Russia’s main driver is profit, which is tied to trade, which depends on minimal barriers between countries. Russia.Inc is dependent on the West. J Clive Matthews argues just this at the blog Nosemonkey’s EUtopia:
With this in mind, Russia's invasion into Georgia proper comes across as the ultimate sign of weakness – when it could not get what it wanted, Russia stamped its foot like a frustrated child. However, as the recently signed US-Poland missile defense deal and Georgia's continued interest in NATO membership demonstrate, Russia's actions are not increasing its influence, but rather pushing its neighbors further away.
Sound policy starts with a sense of proportion. Contrary to some excitable first reactions, Russia’s ability to crush the minuscule Georgian army does not make it a superpower, and its aggression in the Caucasus need not mark the start of a new cold war. To put things in perspective, America’s GDP is ten times bigger than Russia’s and it spends at least seven times more on defence. Russia’s economy would fall off a cliff if energy prices slumped and its population, racked by ill-health and inequality, is shrinking by up to 800,000 a year. Russia can make mischief, but it cannot project military and ideological power all around the world, as the Soviet Union did during the cold war defences (ostensibly against a future threat from Iran) on Polish territory.Given Russia’s relative weakness, calling it a superpower seems a stretch. Concerns of Cold War II also may be ill-founded. To start, the Cold War was pitted on competing ideologies – the Soviet Union lost because its ideology failed.
Russia’s ideology today (if directed democracy is considered an ideology) may be different than in Europe and the US, however, it is highly unlikely that any new walls will be built separating Russia and the West. This is because Russia’s main driver is profit, which is tied to trade, which depends on minimal barriers between countries. Russia.Inc is dependent on the West. J Clive Matthews argues just this at the blog Nosemonkey’s EUtopia:
Russia was on the losing side in the Cold War - hell, Russia WAS the losing side in the Cold War. Russia is now weak, with a shaky economy that relies largely on the money of her erstwhile enemies. She has lost large chunks of her former territory... Meanwhile, her old enemies in NATO are pushing ever closer to her borders, sucking in former allies and making new treaties with countries that used to be Russia’s friends.The biggest sign of Russia’s weakness is the fact that countries like Georgia, Ukraine, Poland, Estonia and many more actively pursue NATO membership of their own accord. These countries fight for NATO membership; the West is not forcing Georgia to choose sides – in fact, acceptance into NATO requires years of costly reforms from applicants, on top of dealing with Russia's ire. These countries want to join NATO's sphere of influence and leave Russia's.
With this in mind, Russia's invasion into Georgia proper comes across as the ultimate sign of weakness – when it could not get what it wanted, Russia stamped its foot like a frustrated child. However, as the recently signed US-Poland missile defense deal and Georgia's continued interest in NATO membership demonstrate, Russia's actions are not increasing its influence, but rather pushing its neighbors further away.
Comments
Display comments as Linear | Threaded
quo vadis on :
T.Ado on :
John in Michigan, USA on :
Pat Patterson on :
Patrick B on :
Scott on :
Pat Patterson on :
John in Michigan, USA on :
Pat Patterson on :
Brad on :
Pat Patterson on :
Pat Patterson on :
quo vadis on :
Jerry on :
silvian on :
Pat Patterson on :
Pat Patterson on :
joe on :
Tom on :
silvian on :
Tom on :
Jim on :
Anthony on :
Pat Patterson on :
Ted on :
Ted on :
Pat Patterson on :
Ted on :
Pat Patterson on :
Ted on :
Pat Patterson on :
joe on :
Pat Patterson on :
joe on :
joe on :
Pat Patterson on :
togga on :
jogga on :