There is a dark specter visible today on the horizon of global relations, one nation whose future can endanger the security of the entire planet. This country is not a new threat; the Free World has feared it for years.

Its people suffered under totalitarianism for most of the last century, living in fear of all-powerful government. They have also been hit with extreme poverty over the past decade, with the despotic elite getting richer while the average citizen gets less and less.

It is a nation of both religious and political turmoil, rampant with terrorists and laden with a rich arsenal of “weapons of mass destruction.” One spark could set this nation, its region and the entire world into unprecedented chaos.

Iraq? Not even close. North Korea? Please. Any global conflict those two states could incite pales in comparison with the potential of the most frightening power in the world over the past 50 years: the former Soviet Union.

Since the surprisingly rapid end of the Cold War and the fall of communism in the Soviet bloc, the attitude of the American public toward Russia has been best expressed by the character of John Connor in “Terminator 2”: “Aren’t they our friends now?” Politicians and the public have paid sparingly little attention to Russia and its former satellites except when pushing them to accept American foreign policy in the Middle East, shaking their hands on largely symbolic weapons reduction or patting ourselves on the back for victory in the Cold War.

It’s time to wake up. We’re not out of the woods yet.

The fact that Russia is back in the news this week for a hostage situation ended in tragedy — over 100 hostages killed by the government’s own knock-out gas — merely highlights the fact that it never should have left the public eye of the West.

Russia still has more nuclear and chemical weapons than any other country, which is not dangerous in and of itself. The danger lies in who holds them. The Russian political situation is precarious at best, the Russian mafia makes Al Capone and John Dillinger look like the Olsen twins, and its terrorist opposition is at least as fanatical as Al Qaeda. With widespread poverty set alongside immense and often illegal wealth, violent threats lurking everywhere and a government that struggles to deal effectively with either problem, it is no wonder many Russians long for the return of some stability under communism.

The possibility of a fall back into totalitarianism remains; 11 years of living without communism is not long enough to change the mindset of many Russian adults. We do not forget the principles of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness we learned in grade school even when they are under assault — instead we defend them vehemently. Can we really expect Russians indoctrinated to believe in equality, suppression of rebellion and the ultimate authority of the state to embrace their newfound reality of vast inequality, terrorist rebellion and the ineffectiveness of the state to solve these problems?

Terrorism and the political situation in the Middle East are worthy topics of public debate, to be certain — I do not mean to argue otherwise. But perhaps our priorities in the arena of public debate are a little mixed up, like a homeowner hiring the Orkin man while his roof is about to cave in.

If the Middle East is a tinderbox, as our politicians will tell us, then Russia is a fuel tanker. Saddam Hussein with a nuclear weapon may be dangerous, but the United States would rather deal with an armed Saddam who has control over his small country than an anarchist Russia with thousands of warheads up for grabs. It would rather deal with a few rogue terrorists than a resurrected Soviet Union. And, I think, it would rather spend time with both problems than take care of the pests while the house falls apart.

Last week’s terrorism in Russia is just another wake-up call. Maybe it’s time to pay attention.

Matt Lynch ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in English and political science.