OT? A New Cold War

[Raellus]

"History doesn't repeat itself but it often rhymes." -misattributed to Mark Twain

I find the evolving dynamic between the Russia and the West (NATO et al) fascinating. As a Cold War kid, historian, and T2K enthusiast, I see unsettling parallels between the current strained relationship between Putin's Russia and Europe/the U.S.A. I also see significant differences.

In the past two weeks, Russia sent several flights of combat aircraft into NATO airspace, tested a new ballistic missile, and may have snuck a submarine into and out of Swedish waters. Why The following article does a good job of explaining why Russia may have initiated these fairly significant provocations.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-10-30/why-russia-is-buzzing-natocmpid=yhoo

Where is all of this going It's fairly clear that Russia is attempting to reestablish a layer of protective buffer states between itself and NATO. Russia likely sees the West as an existential threat, social, economic, and or military. Is fear causing Russia's aggressive disregard for contemporary international norms Is Russia simply trying to reestablish its lost status as a world superpower

Either way, the continuing escalation in provocative behaviors between Russia and NATO could very well lead to a shooting war. A pet project of Rainbow Six's and mine is rebooting the T2K concept by bringing it into the near future, incorporating history (since v.10 and v2.2), current events, and projections based on careful analysis of such.

I intend to use this thread as a clearinghouse for articles dedicated to developments in this "New Cold War", for those of you interested in current events, modern military science, and possible ramifications thereof in a near-future T2K scenario. Feel free to post your own links and/or make your own comments.

[RN7]

I'd say Putin is doing his best to expand Russian political influence over the former Soviet republics, and as the article states how independent are the former Soviet states from Russia in reality There are at least 15 million ethnic Russians still living in these countries and their economies are still closely linked and dependent on Russia. Particularly through Russian energy exports to them, and Russia's guarantee of their security through its strategic nuclear forces and its air defence capabilities. However there is also a lot of resistance to Russian interference in their affairs for example the Ukraine, the Baltic States and Georgia, and Russia has its own troublesome ethnic minorities such as the Chechens.

However beyond the old Soviet borders Russia will have a lot of trouble regaining the political influence that the Soviet Union once had. In Europe most of the old Warsaw Pact nations are now part of NATO as are the Baltic States, and Germany is united. All of Europe's neutral countries are Western democracies, and the only ally that Russia has in Europe is Serbia although there may be some lingering pro-Russian sentiment among the Eastern Slav's and Orthodox Christians in Eastern Europe. Also Russia is not much of an economic power. In 1985 the Soviet economy was about 55% the size of the US economy. In 2013 the Russian economy was still smaller than the Soviet economy was in 1985 and is about 13% the size of the current US economy. In Europe the Russian economy is the same size as the Italian economy, and smaller than the economies of Germany, France and Britain. Russia still has the world's third largest defence budget, but China spends twice as much and America spends seven time as much, yet Russia is still trying to keep up with America and China in numbers.

Russia's economy is also dependent on energy and arms exports. China, India and others buy a lot of arms and technology from Russia, but they do so because they can't afford Western arms or because the West won't sell them arms (China). Many countries are also still dependent on Russian oil and gas, notably the former Soviet Republics, China and Europe, and Putin has used Russian energy resources as a tool to bully them. But oil exports are dependent on the price of a barrel of oil, and that can and has been manipulated in the past.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/11181297/Oil-slump-leaves-Russia-even-weaker-than-decaying-Soviet-Union.html

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/mar/13/michael-reagan/ronald-reagans-son-says-his-father-got-saudis-pump/

Today America doesn't need Middle Eastern oil anymore because of its shale resources. Imagine the economic harm that it could do to Russia now

[Raellus]

An interesting article on Poland's role in the current dynamic- quite a change from the old Cold War days.

http://www.businessinsider.com/poland-is-preparing-for-a-russian-invasion-2014-10

[Raellus]

A fairly concise and fair-minded analysis of Russia's attempt to enlarge and modernize its military, and the obstacles that it will likely face along the way.

http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/russias-military-back-9181

[Raellus]

Fissures in NATO

Potential fault lines within the NATO alliance.

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/grave-threat-the-nato-alliance-its-not-russias-military-11661

At least some NATO member nations are taking the Russian threat seriously.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-13/russia-threat-prompts-nordic-governments-to-prepare-for-worst.htmlcmpid=yhoo

[rob]

Take russia with a grain of salt

Take the verboseness of Russia with grain of salt. Their land forces are still draft based, loaded with corruption, have many out dated systems from the 1980s. Don't get me wrong here, they do have some good stuff, not just enough of it. What NATOs problem is since the winding down in Afghanistan, NATO members have not been keeping the forces current. Right now, in dealing with Russia, the use the economic method. Russia trades sells oil which is bought and sold in US dollars, as is gold, with oil prices down, their economic situation is not good.

[Raellus]

Rob, your point's well taken. However, with Moscow increasing spending on defense, and the U.S. cutting defense spending, the qualitative gap is starting to close. And in some military categories, like armor, the Russians have a quantitative advantage.

My point is that the Russians aren't pushovers. 10-years ago, probably. Today, not really. 10 years from now, if these defense spending trends continue, even less so. I don't want the West to make the mistake of underestimating ta potential adversary.

[Raellus]

Moscow still has a few friends.

http://news.yahoo.com/russian-troops-hold-drills-serbia-162814039.html

[kato13]

My point is that the Russians aren't pushovers. 10-years ago, probably. Today, not really. 10 years from now, if these defense spending trends continue, even less so. I don't want the West to make the mistake of underestimating ta potential adversary.

I agree in general but Russia has short and long term issues which will probably break those trends.

1. The aggressive posture seems to be the result of a cult of personality. If Putin is removed from the equation (perhaps his shirt allergy flairs up ) I believe Russia would not maintain its current stance.
2. Demographic issues related to the age of the populace I have discussed before.
3. Their economy is a one trick pony (energy) and crude futures are down 6% this week and 29% annually. Also the energy strangle hold on Europe is weakening with the first LNG transports from the US arriving in Lithuania last month.

A populace will accept a reduction of freedoms (as Putin has done) if there is a dynamic economy. The crash of the Ruble (down over 30% since the beginning of the year) should put a bit of a damper on Putin's tightening control and his military buildup which is riddled with graft and corruption.

I am not saying I don't think the USA is in bad shape compared to a decade ago, but fundamentally I think China is positioned better to be our primary opposition over Russia.

[Olefin]

Keep in mind too that the effective Russian Army is actually quite small compared to their whole force. Most of their forces are still not that well trained, motivated or equipped. In many ways their army is more like the early WWII model right now - a core of well trained and well equipped men with the vast majority being little better than militia, albeit decently equipped militia. The question is will Putin have the time and the money to be able to make that mass of ineffectives into something like what the Soviets had in the early 80's

[Raellus]

You guys both raise a lot of good points, and I don't disagree with most of them. Kato, your shirt allergy comment made me LOL. But that's why I'm so troubled. I think Putin is very realistic about Russia's limitations. If you read the articles, Russia is actively trying to rectify its military shortcomings. It probably won't succeed to the point where those major, endemic weaknesses are completely cured, but it's trying. Likewise, Putin has shown that he is an opportunist and is ready to take aggressive action when he sees an advantage or opportunity arise. Russia is clearly testing the waters of expansionism now in the Ukraine and Moscow's learned that aggressive, expansionist behavior is not being adequately punished, not to any degree that has deterred said behavior. Recent reports suggest that active Russian military involvement in east Ukraine is actually increasing. Putin appears to be learning the same lessons that Hitler learned from his earliest land grabs: the West talks a big game but isn't willing to back it up.

My fear is Putin realizes Russian limitations and, at some point, events will reach an event horizon where Russia feels like the time to reclaim the old Soviet break-away republics is now or never. There are a number of factors that could trigger Russian aggression. I see those weaknesses that you pointed out Kato, especially the economic ones, as being pressures that will actually encourage increased aggression. For example, if Putin senses that he is losing control due to domestic disatisfaction in a weakening economy, it might increase his aggressive behaviro. The Argentine Junta did this in the Falklands in 1982.

I can definitely see him trying to pull a Crimea in Latvia and or Estonia. I can even see an outright military invasion of the Baltic Republics. Sure NATO could probably kick them out, but would they really try They've taken a very soft stance regarding Crimea and Eastern Ukraine- the vibe NATO's been putting out there is that they probably wouldn't risk all-out war to defend the sovereignty of a few tiny nations. Granted, that's a worst-case scenario, but I really can see it happening. Heck, according to a couple of the articles, Estonia and Latvia, and even Poland, are afraid of being ditched by NATO if Russia were to attack.

[kato13]

If you are saying you think Putin is a major threat in the near term (say 3 years), I fully agree with you.

The longer term is where I have less concern.

Full disclosure regarding the shirt joke: Credit should belong to "The Daily Show".

[Olefin]

The real question is will Putin make the same mistake that Hitler made

Hitler got his way in the Rhineland and Austria and Czechoslovakia and planned to fight the West between 1942-1944

So he figured he could easily invade Poland, get what he needed there and then build up for the really big war - instead he miscalculated and got his big war right there and then - and in the end he lost

[Webstral]

George Friedman has some interesting observations about Russia and a second Cold War in The Next 100 Years. He called the Ukraine when he wrote the book. While I don't agree with everything he writes, the book is very well worth reading.

http://www.amazon.com/Next-100-Years-Forecast-Century/dp/0767923057/ref=sr_1_1ie=UTF8&qid=1416012495&sr=8-1&keywords=the+next+100+years

[Raellus]

The real question is will Putin make the same mistake that Hitler made

Hitler got his way in the Rhineland and Austria and Czechoslovakia and planned to fight the West between 1942-1944

So he figured he could easily invade Poland, get what he needed there and then build up for the really big war - instead he miscalculated and got his big war right there and then - and in the end he lost

He got several months of "Sitzkrieg" as French and British forces sat on their hands watching the final stages of the partition of Poland. In the meantime, he conquered Norway and the Low Countries. After that, he steamrolled through France in about a month and sent the BEF across the Channel in tatters. At that point, things were looking really good for Nazi Germany.

By far, his biggest strategic mistake was invading Russia, and doing so before Great Britain could be knocked out of the war. Second to that, in terms of colossal strategic blunders, was declaring war on the U.S.A. Imagine how he could have complicated things between the U.K. and the U.S. by refusing to officially declare war on the U.S. The American public, who were already baying for Japanese blood, would have had a very hard time with a unilateral declaration of war against Germany when Japan was perceived as the more legitimate, imminent threat. Congress likely wouldn't have backed the the Germany First agreement. Hitler signed his own death warrant when he held true to the Tripartite Pact and declared war on the U.S.A.