UPDATED ON:
Thursday, September 18, 2008
17:17 Mecca time, 14:17 GMT
FOCUS: ANALYSIS
Who's afraid of a new cold war?

Is the Russian military as strong as Vladimir Putin, the prime minister, believes it to be? [AP]

Dmitrii Medvedev, the Russian president, says he is not afraid of a new cold war. 

Should anyone be? 

The recent conflict in Georgia and the surging rhetorical battle between Moscow and Western leaderships have revived ugly twentieth-century memories. 

But it is perhaps worth recalling German unification chancellor Otto von Bismarck's warning that Russia is never as strong or as weak as it looks. As we approach the spectre of a new cold war, however, we can rest confident that Russia's strength is of the exaggerated quality. 

Last week, Russian bombers landed in Venezuela. After mauling its former colony of Georgia, Russia is now reaching out to a Latin American well-wisher, whose leader spoke positively of its actions and just severed diplomatic relations with Washington. 

Ugly shadows of the Cuban Missile Crisis, we are told, loom over the tranquil Caribbean.

One would have to read far into most news stories, however, to learn that Russia's "power projection" consists of just two Tu-160 bombers, which were entered into service in 1987. 

Almost as old as the classic film Top Gun, their stated purpose is to train over neutral waters for a few days and then return to Russia. 

Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan president and a former air force general himself, plans to fly "one of those monsters," as he calls them, and excitedly announced that "Yankee hegemony is finished."

Pale reflection

Obviously, this is no Cuban Missile Crisis. In 1962 Nikita Khrushchev, the Soviet leader, secretly sent nuclear missiles to communist Cuba.  American U-2 spy planes discovered the deployment. 

In a tense moment, the US blockaded Cuba to prevent more missiles from arriving and presented solid evidence of the existing missiles to the United Nations. 

Within a few days the Soviets backed down and withdrew their weapons in exchange for a US promise to remove outmoded missiles from Turkey. 

Two years later Khrushchev's colleagues removed him from power, blaming him for having both brought their country to the brink of nuclear war and backed down in what they called "a humiliation".

Last week's flight to Venezuela is a pale reflection of that cold war flashpoint. 

It falls more safely into the "stunt" category – potentially dramatic, but lacking both substance and lasting effect. In a few days the twin Tu-160s will be back in Russia. 

Given Russia's current military potential, stunts of this type and invading small neighbours will likely remain the limit of its activity.

Seventy per cent of Russian military personnel are still terribly underpaid conscripts.  Forcibly enlisted new soldiers are subjected to violent hazing (a harassing initiation ritual), which kills hundreds of them every year (292 in 2006) and seriously injures thousands more. 

Faltering Russian hardware

 The Russian navy has been downsized since the Cold War [EPA]

Soviet-era equipment will not be phased out of use until 2020. Most of Russia's navy has rotted in port since the collapse of the Soviet Union. 

Only 26 of Russia's 50 remaining submarines (compare to 170 in 1991) are currently operational, and the Russian Navy plans to reduce that number to 20. 

Like the Tu-160s in Venezuela, Russia's combat aircraft are for the most part decades old. 

Only 15 of Russia's latest and most sophisticated fighter jets, the Sukhoi-35s, are in active service. Russia's tank arsenal is still dominated by the antiquated T-72, which entered production in 1971 and was the backbone of Iraq's ill-fated army in 1991 and 2003. 

Despite significant increases, Russia's defence budget is less than one-tenth the amount of annual US military spending. 

According to a Russian Defense Ministry spokesman, the Tu-160s that just flew across the Atlantic were even "escorted" by NATO fighter jets.

Nato supporting Georgia

Closer to home, Medvedev and Vladimir Putin, the prime minister, face the reality of US and Nato support pouring into Georgia even as their own forces complete their withdrawal from Georgian territory. 

Their warnings to Western powers to steer clear of the crisis have been dismissed.  The Caucasus pipeline continues to pump oil outside the Russian state monopoly that once controlled all former Soviet energy exports to the West. 

Mikhail Saakashvili, the Georgian president, who is pro-Western and George Washington University-educated, remains firmly in power, more than a month after Russia's foreign minister bluntly said "he has to go". 

Medvedev and Putin will soon have to live with deployments of anti-missile defence systems in Poland and the Czech Republic - deployments accelerated by the Georgia crisis. 

They know that a majority of Ukrainians now favour Nato membership, whereas only a few weeks ago the issue was divisive in that country. They can be reasonably certain that their evolving peaceful relationship with Nato and the civilian nuclear-sharing agreement with the US are now, effectively, dead. 

Financial upheaval

The recent financial crisis has hit energy-driven Russian markets particularly hard [AFP]
So is their long coveted inclusion in the World Trade Organisation, from which they have withdrawn their membership bid rather than face the humiliation of having it vetoed. 

They must wonder about the nature of their relationships with China and the ex-Soviet Central Asian republics, which, despite Medvedev's begging at an emergency meeting of Shanghai Cooperation Organisation last month refused to support Russian policy and instead backed the French-sponsored ceasefire. 

Finally, Russia's leaders will have to deal with the $500 billion drop in market values following their attack on Georgia, most of which represents hastily withdrawn foreign investments and domestic capital flight abroad. 

These figures were current before the catastrophic economic news of earlier this week, when high energy price-dependent Russian markets fell even further and registered their worst losses since the financial crisis of 1998. 

Trading had to be suspended on Monday and Wednesday, and the biggest losers were government-controlled energy companies, Russia's only serious hard currency earners. 

The Kremlin may secretly wonder whether more than half a trillion dollars is the right price to pay to be able to call the shots in Tskhinvali (pre-conflict population: 30,000), but so far its major move has been for Medvedev to announce increased military spending while trying to reassure a roomful of nervous oligarchs who know better that there is no financial crisis.

A history repeat?

In Venezuela, Chavez will soon be back to worrying about his precarious domestic position.  Less than a year ago he lost his own referendum, which would have amended Venezuela's constitution to eliminate term limits on his presidency and vastly expand his government's economic powers to control banking and expropriate private property. 

He plans to leave office in 2013 in accordance with the pre-referendum requirement.  Like Putin, he may try to replace himself with a hand-picked successor who, like Medvedev, will have to campaign for election. 

Karl Marx famously wrote that "history repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce."

The last cold war was tragic for much of the globe. If there is another one, it will almost certainly be a farce for Russia, which, in addition to the problems outlined above, has tried to replace its lost ideology with a grasping obsession with the "order" and "security" that its ex-KGB functionaries imagine to have been benefits of their Soviet experience. 

Whether or not a new cold war comes, Medvedev already has a lot to fear within his borders.

Just across the border, Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, and Radek Sikorski, the Polish foreign minister, recently celebrated the signing of a bilateral missile defense agreement by drinking Georgian wine over dinner.

Paul du Quenoy is a professor in the Department of History and Archaeology at the American University of Beirut. He lived in Russia every summer from 1999 to 2007 and was a Fulbright scholar there in 2003-2004.

 Source: Al Jazeera
 
Topics in this article
People

Country

Feedback Number of comments : 30
 
hahahahaha
Israel
18/09/2008
the writer forgets one crucial thing!
that syria will stand on russia's side! hahahahahahaaaa

J Donovan
United Kingdom
18/09/2008
It only takes one missile to destroy a city so what differance does it make who has the most missiles, cold war? no thanks.

glen roberts
United States
18/09/2008
cold war games?
The pic of Bush and the half-smart sycophant who thinks the U.S. can take Russia is frightening. International relations aren't a damned football game. This kind of idiocy underscores the need for the next U.S. president to join the UN. Glen Roberts, nottalkradio.com

Lehman
Switzerland
18/09/2008
Whos afraid of a new cold war?
Hopefully, the US and Russia will knock each other out and make the world more multi-polar.

Dylan
Canada
18/09/2008
du Quenoy WAY off base
There are so many errors in this editorial that du Quenoy is either seriously ignorant or willfully lying: 1) The Tu-160 is not obsolete, it is newer than the B-1 and only two years older the the B-2 (these are the newest US strategic bombers 2) The conflict in Georgia already led to the collapse of the Ukrainian government, this has not accelerated Ukraine's membership in NATO 3) The slowdown in the Russian stock market is no where near the magnitude of the US market crash currently unfolding

Kamil Bangash
Canada
18/09/2008
Historical Nonsense!
Du Quenoy has quoted, but not heeded, the warning of Otto von Bismarck, by assessing Russia's strength solely on the quantity and quality of its arms. Hitler had committed the same error of judgment. If that were the real criteria of strength, the supposedly highly technologically-advanced super US army would have annihilated a bunch of cave dwellers in Afghanistan long ago. Russian strength lies in Russian people's character. Is this 'analysis' a result of not spending this summer in Russia?

Veleski Milan
Macedonia
18/09/2008
Geo-strategy
What really counts are the efforts of countries that were left in shadow by a rising military giant to plan for themselves and be independent, in the widest meaning of that word. I highly appreciate the call for action against every monopolization of the world. Such a thing led to greatest disasters in mankind's history: England's world domination (15-19 th cent.), Napoleon's war, Nazi terror... Ask the people struck by the disaster they had done, what have they brought?-Poverty and slavery.

MB
Canada
18/09/2008
Russian figures
Does the military of the US have better equipment? Yes. But the training is about equal on both sides, and Russia has a few things going for it: 1) Bigger military in sheer numbers. 2) More nuclear warheads. 3) Treaties of mutual assistance with Iran and PR China. 4) As many resources as NATO, but spread out more (not all concentrated in Northern Canada) and therefore harder to capture. Long story short: in a cold war, US prevails. One missile gets fired, though, and Russia wins.

fzshah76
Canada
18/09/2008
Missiles
hmm, the professor forgot Russian missiles, which are in huge numbers and can have devastating effects on the receiver and cheap to make compare to submarines or fighter planes with multiple war heads, so I think the western world is under estimating Russia's abilities and another factor in war is planning and intelligence

Jordan Pearson
Japan
19/09/2008
One of the worst articles I have read in a long time
This is one of the worst, most biased articles I've read in a long time, and easily the worst I've ever read on Al Jazeera. The distorted and inaccurate narative regarding the conflict in Georgia is presented as fact Russia painted as the agressor. Add to that dumbass lines like the "tranquil Caribbean" one of the most impoverished areas in the world wtf? Isn't Haiti in the Caribbean? It's a sad day when Al Jazeera too, starts publishing articles like this...

Sharmad
United States
19/09/2008
Interesting
It is true that Russia's military is still vastly inferior to that of the US, but does that really matter? Russia doesn't need the best equipment to assert itself and cause problems for us. This is because Russia doesn't need to directly confront the US in a toe-to-toe fight, something both sides will avoid at all costs due to each having the ability to destroy the earth several times over with nukes. Russia can and will use political and economic warfare of which it has many tools to use.

Obi One Canobi
Afghanistan
19/09/2008
Yeah
all we need is "countries like Venezuela, Iran and others" that would be "multipolar" world of demagogs, dictators and communists against anyone with REASON . . .

Ice thought for the new cold war
Antarctica
19/09/2008
Financing NATO with Wall Street?
As we speak of a farce and a new kind of cold war, shouldn't we ask if the financing of NATO runs through Wall Street? Two additional summers in NYC may help the article's author have a more insightful view on the matter!

Che
Australia
19/09/2008
Whos afraid of a cold war
On the one hand you may have old but reliable equipment (Russia)as opposed to new unreliable equipment run on vista (USA) that makes the odds about even. In reality any hot war with Russia will entail the second use of nuke weapons. In this scenario my bet is on Russia's nuke arsenal. In the end Europe knows this, Russia stands for peace the USA for global control that nobody wants-see south america, asia. Let us hope the world does not see a nuke exchange between this 2 nations.

Adam Mutari
Ghana
18/09/2008
New cold War
Russia like every other nation have their fair share of post-cold war problems.The US and their allies feel stronger because of NATO.I will love to see Russia champion the formation of a parallel body for military cooperation like the NATO to provide accomadation for countries like Venezuela,Iran and others who are standing out in the cold. We need a multipolar world!!!!

Alex
Canada
18/09/2008
a top...
This article belongs in the spin file... Paul stick to Archaeology, journalism just isn't your thing.

Luis
Mexico
18/09/2008
new cold war
This is a sign that world is changing and it is extremely necessary to have a multipolar world north americans have always shown a advantageous and destructive imperialism because of the large amount of weapons that have accumulated, so it is very important to have a balance on this planet, Russia is an example of this world may have more balance.

Viscount
United States
18/09/2008
Whos Afraid of a New Cold War?
I am, for one. The world does not need another war front, and all machinations to open one must be discouraged by all peace-loving citizens. The "historian" has given his assessment of Russia's military situation, compared to the West however, he omitted the weapons that count most, WMDs still owned by both Russia and the West. I do not believe Russia is looking for war, but no one expects them to turn blind eyes to encroachments into their back yards either.

Mary
United States
18/09/2008
The author also forgot that Russia has the world's third largest gold and hard currency reserves and a budget surplus of more than $ 87 billion. I am sure they have enough resources to upgrade their military, if necessary while US gov't is spending about 6 billion/month in Irag alone!

Julian
United States
18/09/2008
The author appears to have been mistaken when it comes to certain issues. The old Western stereotype that Russia is a weak nation with no defense ability is as outdated as NATO itself. And Ukraine is not a majority of NATO supporters, quite the opposite. Why did the coalition government collapse there then if there was such unity. And the opposition in Georgia is having a field day in compromising Saakashvili's grip on power. He hasn't long to rule. These Western biased opinions are very false.

usa all the way
United States
18/09/2008
Russa is a joke ! They are a world power only in there minds. They better hope the rest of the world lets them back to the table or they might end up like venezuela.

Davo
New Zealand (Aotearoa)
19/09/2008
Whose afraid of a new cold war
This article is very dismissive of Russia. While in US terms the Russian defence budget is much smaller than US they get a lot more for their money. Also Russian are often superior to US especially rockets. Also the majority of Ukraine do not support NATO membership.

dave
United States
19/09/2008
as an american it is time for us to mind our own business. we need a leader who will say. "lets worry about us" why do we have to argue with russia, lets worry about ourselves! maybe we need a good ass kicking to put us in our place

tony
Canada
19/09/2008
This professor is really out....He forgets that the US is 13 Trillion dollars in debt?? He also forgets that Russia has enough nuclear weapons to destry the world 10X over with Hipersonic Missiles, who is fooling who. Their equipment is being modernized yearly with more sophisticated weapons. How is the US going to hold Russia if it's unable to hold Iraq...Who is seriously in trouble?? The professor needs to be realistic not in denial

DrP2P
United States
19/09/2008
Dr. Quenoys opinion
It is amusing to read a slanted article from a supposed authority. Dr. Quenoy failed to mention the economic World War that is now underway with the main ‘target’ being the United States Federal Reserve System, perpetrated in part by Russia. To argue that Russia is in a position for or against a "Cold War" is fatalistic at best. Russia holds the upper hand in the battlefield of economics, one they will prevail upon. Quoting Bernanke, "We cannot stabilize the dollar. We cannot control commo

KP
India
19/09/2008
Biased World
I dont understand why the world is so biased. Most of the condemnation was brought by US and their allies. They are silent when US is bullying other nations. Dont forget the battle of stalingrad and russias patriotism. it may not be well equiped as NATO but it still can give u a headache.

hajro
Slovenia
19/09/2008
propaganda
this article is so biased and untrue that i just cannot believe aljazeera published this... first thing, when we talk about weapons you have to have in mind nukes...they surely garantee the victory. second thing is that america is more isolated than russia...i think that their demand for multipolar world and their security is legitimate...at least they dont use pretext like "georgia has WMD and is harbouring al Qaida...". Im sure everione agrees that West is not in moral position to critisize

Omar Nadir
Mexico
19/09/2008
new cold war?
Well the fact that we are all saying something from all these countries means that something is differente. But, no money at wallstreet, and no fear y the old communist countries is substantially different for the new scenario. I dont think US is going to win this one, but we all have to fight our own struggle now... by the way, the article was lousy and the author know less from russia and latin america than the average journalist... i propose myself as aljazeera´s analyst

Niyi
Nigeria
19/09/2008
new cold war
Ideologically i believe the author missed the course and effects of cold war,militarily russia connot not be defeated by the US and it allies, in reality the world will ease to exit,caution should be the word for america,russia is not Irag,russia is a super power.

Mo
Canada
19/09/2008
Whos afraid of a new cold war?
wow, profesor, you should stick to your archeology, as you have no idea about the realities of todays world... specially current financial crisis. if russian market is paying the price for georgia invasion, what is european markets paying the price for? how about asian market? US? Canada? Australia? we live in global economy, it's not the ancient times profesor!

 
ARTICLE TOOLS
 Email Article  Email article
 Print Article  Print article
 Send Feedback  Send feedback
 Share article  Share article
Aljazeera.net/english 2003 - 2010 ©
Designed & Developed by Aljazeera IT