Red alert: blueprint for a new cold war

AS PART of its attempt to take on the role of world policeman, Washington has recently announced plans to deploy anti-ballistic missile systems in Poland and the Czech Republic. This is part of a dangerous strategic game, involving the encirclement of Russia in a move which has intensified speculation of a new cold war.

Officials in the United States government claim such systems would protect Europe from nuclear ballistic missiles fired from Iran and North Korea. Is this a genuine argument or are these plans simply a continuation of what Western powers have been engaged in since the 19th century — the attempt to place a cordon sanitaire around Russia? From a historical and modern-day geopolitical perspective, the latter view undoubtedly carries more weight.

The heartland theory of Halford John Mackinder is as pertinent today for Eastern Europe as it was throughout the 20th century: “Who rules east Europe commands the heartland. Who rules the heartland commands the world-island. Who rules the world-island commands the world.”

Western attempts to contain Russia have their roots in the 19th century. The Crimean War of 1854-1856 was fought by Britain and France to ensure the Ottoman Empire remained as a bulwark to perceived Russian expansionism in the Balkans. In 1902, London formed an alliance with Tokyo with the intention of preventing a feared southward Russian advance in the Far East. Throughout the original Cold War, the American Government took over from Western Europe in attempting to limit Soviet influence — a strategy known as “containment”.

The collapse of Soviet communism in the early 1990s left some political commentators believing this policy was redundant. However, the blueprint for how Nato has now expanded along Russia’s borders can be traced back to the Pentagon’s “Defence Planning Guidance” of 1992 (supervised by Paul Wolfowitz). This cited Russia as the sole country capable of challenging American global hegemony as “it is the only power in the world with the capability of destroying the United States”. While paying lip service to the notion of a multi-polar world, the reality is that Washington will pursue any avenue to ensure Pax Americana prevails.

US policy makers fear Russia’s economic resurgence under President Vladimir Putin, its increasingly political use of its massive oil and gas reserves and its retention of some superpower aspects. The Russian armed forces are now receiving funds that its generals have been yearning for since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Sergei Ivanov, the First Deputy Prime Minister of Russia and head of the military-industrial complex, stated recently that the “combat readiness of the [Russian] army and navy is currently the highest in the post-Soviet history”. This year’s defence budget for the Russian military is $32 billion (£16.2 billion) - 23 per cent more than in 2006, although still 25 times smaller than that of the US.

In his last address to the State Duma as Defence Minister in February, Ivanov unveiled a plan to modernise and expand Russia’s massive nuclear and conventional forces over the next eight years. This will cost $200 billion (£101.60 billion). This year, the Russian Strategic Missile Forces will receive additional Topol-M ballistic missile systems and the navy will in due course be in receipt of the R-30 Bulava ballistic missile. Both are impervious to any existing missile defence system. The increase in the Russian military budget is largely a response to the US aggressively pursuing a foreign policy objective of safeguarding and strengthening its global supremacy. As Gleb Pavlovsky, the Kremlin’s most prominent spin-doctor, stated: “We should be aware that Russia has been placed [by certain elements in the US] in the group of targeted nations.”

In order to maintain its dominance in world affairs, Washington has embarked on a dangerous course of action which is ultimately aimed at containing Russian power and influence. Along with expanding Nato to Russia’s borders, in 2002 the US withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, moved its largest sea-based missile defence radar from Hawaii to the Aleutian Islands (not far from the Kamchatka Peninsula of Russia), and invited Ukraine and Georgia to join Nato. Now there are the plans for a shield defence system in Poland and the Czech Republic.

This last move has serious ramifications for world peace. Many military commentators believe that a deployment of a US missile defence system in central Europe could upset the nuclear balance between Russia and America in favour of the latter. In Russia, political and military figures have denounced the plans and warned of the consequences. In February, Putin lambasted American missile defence plans: “It is evident that the process of Nato expansion has nothing to do with modernising the alliance or with ensuring security in Europe. On the contrary, it is seriously eroding mutual trust. Why do they have to move their military infrastructure closer to our borders? Is this connected with overcoming global threats today?” Putin pledged to deliver a “highly effective” response to an American missile defence system.

Russian military commanders have also reacted angrily. In a clear warning to the US, General Yury Baluyevsky, chief of the general staff, stated that Russia may unilaterally quit the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty signed by Moscow and Washington in 1987. He noted: “What they [the Americans] are doing at present, building a third missile defence ring in Europe, is impossible to justify.” Baluyevsky stated that Russia has all the means necessary to resume production of intermediate nuclear and conventional ballistic and cruise missiles. This warning has been reinforced by Colonel-General Nikolai Solovtsov, commander of Russia’s Strategic Missile Forces, who said that Russian missiles will be targeted at Poland and the Czech Republic if they host a missile defence system.

Talk of a new cold war emerging between Russia and the West has naturally intensified among political observers. It has been fuelled further by what the US Defence Secretary, Robert Gates, told the House Armed Services Committee in Washington: “We need the full range of military capabilities. We don’t know what’s going to develop in places like Russia and China, in North Korea, in Iran and elsewhere.”

Commenting on this, Pavlovsky argued: “This surely is the beginning of an arms race, in some sense.” And recently, the Security Council of the Russian Federation announced plans to revise its military doctrine and has identified Nato, rather than global terrorism, as constituting the greatest threat to Russian security.

Attempts to encircle Russia are dangerous on a global scale. After all, the Russian Federation is a nuclear superpower and possesses more nuclear warheads than the rest of the world (including America) combined. Russia has as much right as any other country to pursue its own course of domestic and foreign policy.

Given how the US has used unauthorised military force to impose its will in the former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq, it is understandable that the Kremlin is now increasing its military capacity. The fear is that attempts by the Americans to establish a uni-polar world may lead to another nuclear stand-off between Russia and Nato in Europe.