The New Cold War (?)

You've got to wonder what world leaders would give to spend one day inside the head of Russian president V. V. Putin. For those of you who haven't really been up-to-speed on the whole thing, the United States is undergoing the early stages of extending an anti-ballistic-missile (ABM) shield over Eastern Europe. Russia is, predictably, kicking and screaming over the whole thing, since this is essentially their backyard. The U.S. wants to place interceptor bases and interceptor radar stations in Poland and the Czech Republic, ostensibly to counter missiles that, in the future, Iran or other nuclear-capable countries might launch at Europe.

Anyone with access to basic scholarly materials on American foreign policy should have serious doubts in the U.S. government's explanation for the new missile shield. Iran's most advanced missile, the Shahab-3, does not have the capability to reach the regions being brought under the U.S. missile shield (this according to a 26 May, 2006 article in the New York Times).

Some have speculated that within eight years, Iran could strike Western Europe. But why? Iran's quarrel is with the United States. Striking Western Europe would only convince the rest of the world that they are another nutty North-Korea-type regime, and that Bush was correct all along in calling them a part of the Axis of Evil. Likewise, what quarrel does Western Europe have with Iran? The possibility that any European countries would throw in their lot with a U.S. invasion of Iran is extremely low. Europeans are having enough trouble stomaching Iraq, even in the U.K. My conclusion from all of this is that the possibility of Iran having a reason to fire a missile at Europe is, at best, remote.

Iran does play a role in the construction of the shield, though. That connection runs through Moscow (a statement a former professor of mine has mad oh so many times). Given the Russians' historical ties with Syria, and their developing ties with Iran, it makes sense to me that Russia is trying to supplant, or at least counter, the United States' tenuous position in the Middle East. I believe that Russia is trying to do with Iran what the U.S. tried to do with Iran during the Nixon years. Nixon wanted "Twin Pillars" of Iran and Saudi Arabia. Russia seems to be adopting a similar strategy using Syria and now Iran. They are publicly helping Iran to construct a "civilian" nuclear plant, and have also sold Iran short-range missiles (and control systems) which are nuclear-capable.

Why would Russia do this? Well, if Russia were to establish a more powerful presence in the Middle East, it could start to develop an even scarier hold on the European energy market (more on the extent of this later). This grandiose maneuvering, especially involving the Middle East and oil/gas politics, is how the Soviets acted during the Cold War. Many (myself included) say this is evidence of Putin's desire to bring Russia back to superpower-style geo-politicking. Only Russia can no longer be a superpower in military terms. Their economy just cannot support it. Today, what they do wield is one very potent economic weapon -- oil and gas markets.

First, we all know that Russia is a major player in the European energy market: Germany imports 40% of its gas from Russia, Italy 33% (source). Second, Russia has proved it is willing to use gas prices as a political lever, most notably in Ukraine, where gas prices doubled after the pro-democracy government of Viktor Yushchenko took power. Third, the Russian government consistently bids to control the outputs of former states of the U.S.S.R. For example, instead of going across the Caspian, through the Caucasus and into Turkey, the gas from Kazakh and Turkmen fields (some of the world's largest reserves) will now be through Russia. Check out this BBC article, which explains it pretty well. Fourth, Russia is clamping down on domestic production, hassling international companies. According to a front-page article in the 6 October 2006 New York Times, the government has threatened foreign companies with increased "health and safety checks" which would slow shipments, and the revocation permits based on environmental threats posed by the extraction process (incidentally, Russia has an absolutely peachy-keen reputation for protecting the environment...).

What does all this have to do with missiles? Putin is obviously aware of the massive economic sledgehammer Russia has available to it he wanted a quarrel with the Western world. Russia's policies towards Iran and the rest of the Middle East are an extension of this. They already exert considerable control over the West's oil supplies. If they could gain enough clout in the Middle East to start influencing export policy, serious economic problems would be presented to the nations of the so-called Western Alliance. To me, it seems that this process has already started with the arms transfers and political maneuvering between Russian and Iran.

The United States, though, has military means to threaten Russia, and is doing so by installing these ABM systems. Reagan felt that the only way to deal with the Soviets was through hard-nosed military means. Given the character of the current administration, it does not seem far-fetched to assume that this military threat of an ABM shield is a Reagan-like response to Russia's economic chest-thumping in the energy markets.

The more I think or read about the issue, the more I realize that the missile shield isn't really about missiles. I don't even think the construction of this shield has much to do with threats of Russian missiles. Like so many things these days, it's about energy. The construction of the missile shield is an attempt by the U.S. to show Russia that any bid to grab Europe by the throat economically will be met by military force. I refrain from passing judgment on whether or not this is the appropriate way to address this problem. My purpose in writing is that I'm not sure what we hear on television and read in newspapers/magazines reflects a broad enough view of the situation. I'm not saying I'm right. If anyone wants to disprove anything I've said, I'd be smarter for having heard the argument. Just consider for a second that... gasp... the American government's statements are, as one person might say, highly dubious.

--That's the end of that particular string of thoughts. Here begins a different one.--

Putin responded to the U.S. plans by conducting a ballistic missile test launch. It was a new missile which was fired across the entirety of the Russian mainland, launched from Plesetsk (in the extreme north-west near Arkhangelsk) and hitting its target on the Kamchatka Peninsula (in the Far East). He says, according to the BBC, that this is a "response to maintain the strategic balance in the world," in a "new round of the arms race."

Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin. You cannot win. I mean, seriously...? A new arms race? I used to think Putin was a really smart, but sort of evil, guy. But this is retarded. First, guess what, the top Russian scientists are not in Russia any more. Under the U.S.S.R., you could keep them there. But now they're all gone. Though, who knows, it's very possible that the security services have provided "incentives" for scientists (and their families...) to stay. I have no evidence to support that, other than the general nefariousness of Putin's government.

Second, the economy can't really support this game of "play superpower," especially with the war in Chechnya. The Russian government isn't exactly swimming in money, and it has enough post-Soviet crap projects to finish -- simple shit like roads, power plants, and taking care of its hordes of geriatrics. Booting up the arms race again would be more than shooting yourself in the foot, it'd be like shooting yourself in the foot just as you got the casts off of two broken legs.

Third, as just discussed, Russians don't need real weapons. They have gas. And they could have Europe by the balls if they tried hard enough. So what's with the pissing contest?