The Badger Herald

OPINION & EDITORIAL

Russia revisits Cold War policy

Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.

Also by Joe Trovato:

Conservative voice needs recognition (November 9, 2007)
Ethno-political lobbying anti-American (October 24, 2007)
Ahmadinejad invite unpatriotic insult (September 26, 2007)
Play ball now: UW deserves baseball (September 12, 2007)
Personal responsibility lacking in U.S. (May 8, 2007)

by Joe Trovato

Tuesday, February 20, 2007

At a trans-Atlantic security conference held in Munich Feb. 11, Russian President Vladimir Putin harshly attacked the United States and its unilateral foreign policy. Putin's criticism seemed to refer to a hard-line Cold War mentality not seen since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991.

Seven years ago, when Putin took office, President Bush and the Russian leader seemed to have a close relationship, in which both were committed to fighting terrorism and the spread of nuclear weapons. This is now a distant memory.

As of late, the Russian state has tried to reassert itself as a major player on the global stage, making projections of power in Europe, the Middle East and Central Asia.

According to The New York Times, even a top Russian general warned that "Russia could withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty," which Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev hammered out in 1987.

Russia's newfound power stems from high energy prices that have the world looking to exploit Russia's vast reserves of natural resources. Thus, Putin has been able to be more aggressive in advancing his own agenda in areas of American interest — such as the Middle East — using his energy resources as a foreign policy tool.

President Putin also complained about America's unilateral approach to foreign policy that began under the Clinton Administration and continued under President Bush. Referring specifically to NATO's war in Kosovo, Putin claimed that this unchecked American power in the '90s led to a complete disregard for Russian feelings. During the Cold War, the peace was reliable because of the fear of mutually assured destruction. "Today it seems that the peace is not so reliable." Putin said.

Just last month, The New York Times reported Russia "provided Iran with $700 million worth of TOR-M1 anti-aircraft batteries." These weapons are basically intended for deployment against U.S. fighters and bombers in the event of conflict, just as Russian anti-tank weapons "were used against Israeli forces fighting Hezbollah in Lebanon last year."

Putin defended these Russian arms sales to Iran, which is under pressure from the West to terminate its nuclear program, saying "We don't want Iran to feel cornered." This is mysterious, for Putin had long been committed to stopping the spread of nuclear weapons. This appears to be another power projection to show that Russia is once again a major power that the West — which has largely disregarded Russia since the collapse of the Soviet Union — can no longer overlook when shaping its foreign policy.

Russia and the United States are increasingly finding themselves on the opposite sides of policy all around the world. Whether it be in Iran, Iraq, Georgia, Lebanon or Kosovo, it almost seems that the two nations are back to playing a Cold War-like game of global chess. The New York Times reported that both countries were now "openly competing for influence in Europe, the Caucasus and in Central Asia."

Russian concerns over NATO's courting of nations such as Ukraine and Georgia, historically part of the Russian spheres of influence, and the Bush administration's hope to build missile defense systems in Poland and the Czech Republic were also central to Putin's criticisms.

The United States is of course concerned with the sale of arms to Iran and Syria and Russia's threat to withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, once such a symbol of the partnership between the two nations. According to The Washington Post, President Bush has continually tried to "prod (Putin) to recommit to democracy and better relations with his neighbors".

It is clear that Putin's criticisms of the United States in the post-Cold War world are part of a Russian attempt to reassert itself as a global player that the West must deal with. While the United States is certainly not free of blame in the rocky relationship that has thus developed, Putin's attack is both unwarranted and unnerving. Sen. Joe Lieberman even said that Putin's address was mostly "Cold War rhetoric" and that his position on Iran was both "outrageous" and "provocative."

Russia and the United States are obviously historical opposites, but this renewed tension is most likely the result of Russia's newfound power stemming from its energy resources, and its hope for retribution after a decade and a half of sole American supremacy in the post-Cold-War world.

Joe Trovato (jtrovato@wisc.edu) is a freshman majoring in journalism.

Feedback

Show all comments

Hide anonymous comments

Anonymous (February 20, 2007 @ 7:23am):

At least with Russia we know where to target the ICBMs.

Anonymous (February 20, 2007 @ 10:32am):

A resurgant Russia. Just what we need. Anyone feel like this wouldn't be as much of an issue if we didn't have billions of dollars and the entirety of our reputation tied up in Iraq?

Anonymous (February 20, 2007 @ 12:07pm):

During the cold war Iran was our ally against the USSR, while Iraq was a Soviet client. Then that idiot Mr Peanut stabbed the Shah in the back and bowed to the Ayatollahs in Iran. Carter's cowardice in the face of Iranian treachery went a long way in convincing the Islamic fundies that the USA was a paper tiger.

Now Iran is backed by Russia and the Dems call for surrender in Iraq.

Bah!

Anonymous (February 20, 2007 @ 12:46pm):

Paper tiger? What would give anyone that idea? Like the way we burned through $500,000,000,000 and received no benefits and no victory? I guess we now know that "the paper" of the paper tiger is green.

Anonymous (February 20, 2007 @ 1:35pm):

We should have let Saddam keep Kuwait and take Saudia Arabia too. Then OBL would have been after him instead of the USA.

If we'd put the money toward pebble bed nuclear power plants we wouldn't need to burn oil or import a single drop.

Anonymous (February 20, 2007 @ 2:57pm):

If i had a choice we would stop the war in Iraq just like the liberals want and wait for more attacks. When the attacks come we should not retaliate. We should just wait this thing out. Maybe i will live through most of the attacks, maybe not, but as long as we stop fighting maybe they will too. Seemed to work on 9/11.

Anonymous (January 30, 2008 @ 7:57am):

We need to focus on being friends not foe, espically with Russia, who one paired with North Korea, WILL blow us up. We need to pull out of all of our current wars and review our future goals.

Add a comment

We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.