Cold War part deux

[Sendo]

A quick glance at BBC Europe headlines today. Oh boy, the US has put itself directly on a course for nuclear standoffs once again. I think we can now officially say the US and Putin/Mevdemev are in a cold war. Missile sites, threats/counterthreats, alliances (NATO and maybe ALBA now?), polarization of 3rd parties, resource competition, nuclear stockpiles, sphere of influence competition, and, oh yeah, a PROXY WAR in Georgia.

By all measures we have started a new cold war with Russia of all people. Not Iran, perhaps, b/c there is a good chance we'll attack Iran anyway or will do so as a proxy war. Either pres. candidate is going to be the same as Bush in this respect. I mean McCain, since as long as the polls are neck and neck and the votes get rigged in Ohio and Florida, it'll be him. (Check out Hacking Democracy. Now fast-forward to today: NONE OF THE VOTING PROBLEMS FROM 2000 OR 2004 HAVE BEEN FIXED).

Anyone feel like watching Red Dawn?

[spartan]

Well let's see what's been happening recently.

We have Russia arming "rogue states" (according to the US) such as Venezuela, Iran (who have been arming the Iraqi insurgents and Hezbollah who are enemies of the US and US ally Israel respectively) and Syria (who also arm anti-western groups in Lebanon and are enemies of US ally Israel) with their latest weaponry (usually air defence and anti-tank weapons), as well as also helping Iran with it's civilian nuclear program and restarting their nuclear bomber missions over the Atlantic for the first time since they were stopped after the collapse of the USSR!

Oh yeah then there is also their sending their latest bombers to "stop off" in both Cuba and Venezuela, and just recently saying that they will be sending their navy to conduct a joint exercise with the Venezuelan navy (who are set to become the largest navy in Latin America thanks to purchasing Russian submarines) in the Caribbean, which is largely seen as a response to American ships being sent to the Black sea to deliver "humanitarian aid" (in your latest warships?) to Georgia.

So with this in mind (as well as the recent conflict in Georgia which Russia are being criticised for even though Georgia was clearly the aggressor and thus the one in the wrong) and yes I would agree that something's a foot.

[DancingLarry]

There's a fundamental existential difference. Despite every effort on the part of the US to goad the Russians, they have resolutely refused to be lured back into the dark game of (nuclear) brinkmanship, which is the characteristic that defined the Cold War. We don't go to bed each night aware that a single political miscalculation or military misinterpretation could lead to worldwide nuclear armageddon before breakfast. So that fundamental, existential defining characteristic is absent.

I'm kind of tired and am not up to a long dissertation at the moment, but simply put, the US/NATO have used the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and Soviet Union to continue to pursue eastward the old Cold War doctrine of containment and encirclement, with an unhealthy dose of triumphalism and the usual messianic exceptionalism that we expect from American foreign policy. The Russians, OTOH, have adopted a changed approach, harkening back more to 19th century great power politics, balances of power, spheres of influence, etc than to the politics of global proxy confrontation that they pursued in the Cold War.

As for those so-called Russian bombers that flew to Cuba. First of all, the Tu-95s are not the newest elements of the Russian Air Force, but rather one of the oldest airframes in their inventory. And while yes, the Tu-95 was first designed as a strategic bomber, and some remain configured for that purpose, I guarantee that the planes that flew to Cuba were NOT configured as bombers. Just because the US government and the corporate media tell you there are bombers doesn't make it so, the US govt has a propaganda interest in lying about that, and the media simply parrots whatever the day's hegemonic narrative out of the Pentagon is. I absolutely 100% guaranty you that the Tu-95s in question are unarmed signals intelligence collection platforms, and the US flies similar missions around the Russian periphery every single day. How do I know this? Because back in the 1970s, from the age of 17-21, I served in US Air Force signals intelligence doing exactly that, and those same Tu-95s were flying the same route doing the same things back then, too. Hearing about them on the news was, in a strange way, like hearing from old friends. Bombers, pshaw.

[spartan]

As for those so-called Russian bombers that flew to Cuba. First of all, the Tu-95s are not the newest elements of the Russian Air Force, but rather one of the oldest airframes in their inventory. And while yes, the Tu-95 was first designed as a strategic bomber, and some remain configured for that purpose, I guarantee that the planes that flew to Cuba were NOT configured as bombers. Just because the US government and the corporate media tell you there are bombers doesn't make it so, the US govt has a propaganda interest in lying about that, and the media simply parrots whatever the day's hegemonic narrative out of the Pentagon is. I absolutely 100% guaranty you that the Tu-95s in question are unarmed signals intelligence collection platforms, and the US flies similar missions around the Russian periphery every single day. How do I know this? Because back in the 1970s, from the age of 17-21, I served in US Air Force signals intelligence doing exactly that, and those same Tu-95s were flying the same route doing the same things back then, too. Hearing about them on the news was, in a strange way, like hearing from old friends. Bombers, pshaw.
Perhaps the ones that flew to Cuba weren't the latest models but a recent flight to Venezuela was done by their TU-160 supersonic, variable-geometry heavy bomber which is the latest model as far as I know.

The TU-160 is similar to the US B1-Lancer but has far greater speed, range and payload.

The TU-160 can also carry the "Father of all Bombs" which was the thermobaric bomb recently demonstrated by the Russians as an "enviromentally friendly bomb".

The bomb is so powerful for a non-nuclear bomb that it is set to replace smaller nukes in the Russian arsenal.

[Raúl Duke]

I agree with "DancingLarry"

We may, for now, not be having a nuclear arms race as it was in the past.
Also, Russia does not have an imperialist foreign policy that extends to "the whole world" as in the USSR days but focuses more on certain areas (ex-CIS/WarsawPact, neighboring nations, countries near ex-CIS territories, etc).

The U.S., however, did not change much in terms of their imperialist foreign policy (still have a world-wide focus).

However, I'm not sure what to think about the Russian-Venezuela navy/airforce training.

[Guerrilla22]

Sure tensions have escalated, almost entirely due to US encroachment in Eastern Europr, however, nothing that is happening now comes close to the scale of tensions during the actual cold war. A large amount of alarmism seems to be happening, which isn't unusual, however I wish people would relax, especially on the left because alarmism makes one seem ignorant to international relations.

[BIG BROTHER]

Sure tensions have escalated, almost entirely due to US encroachment in Eastern Europr, however, nothing that is happening now comes close to the scale of tensions during the actual cold war. A large amount of alarmism seems to be happening, which isn't unusual, however I wish people would relax, especially on the left because alarmism makes one seem ignorant to international relations.

I seccond that.

and plus seeing that both Russia and the US are both imperialist nations they also have common interests.

[spice756]

They may be in a semi-Cold War now what is going on in the news.

But here is the thing do you support a other Cold War? A other country to challenge the US imperialist powers ?

Could Russia get back to support Cuba and Venezuela ? Or is Russia too far gone to support them.

[bcbm]

But here is the thing do you support a other Cold War? A other country to challenge the US imperialist powers ?


Well I mean, the last one worked out pretty awesome for everyone so why not?

[Sendo]

Well, obviously it won't be like THE Cold War, since Russia has nowhere the same capabilities.

I should have put "Is the US in cold war?"

I meant, are we in a situation of tension with foreign nations, with the threat of a breakout of war, and proxy wars? I'm not saying this is like "hide under the desk when the h-bomb comes" days by any means, or that anything approaches the scale of even the 1980s right now.

I felt that we are in a condition/state of cold war. I thought it would blow over, but i seems like "standing up to Iran/Russia/Bolivia/Venezuela/this/that/etc" seems to be "a la mode" right now. It seems that tensions are there and it coincidentally parallels the last one on some superficial levels. (NATO; USSR/Cuban missiles -> Russia/Venezuela)

[bcbm]

I don't think we've seen any significant difference in US foreign policy in the last 60 odd years. There has been a consistent war-mentality and whether the enemy was the USSR, drug dealers, terrorists, rogue states, ethnic cleansers or whatever the actual guiding forces have remained the same- protecting US hegemony. Since the collapse of the USSR they've been making moves into Eastern Europe, but that was happening well before that anyway. All of the principle imperialist powers make these maneuvers with each other and will continue to do so. The idea of a cold war doesn't seem very accurate to me, given that all of these maneuvers have been pretty "hot" for at least one imperialist state. I think we'll just see more of the same. That another state can offer some challenge is a change of pace for the last 20 years or so, but not really anything that will significantly impact the direction things are taking... I hope.

Sorry if that was a bit rambling... drugs wearing off.

[Sendo]

oh, and Palin wants sanctions on Russia.

[spice756]

Well, obviously it won't be like THE Cold War, since Russia has nowhere the same capabilities.


Well Russia is still strong may be not like before but they still have a good army.

[Colonello Buendia]

Not quite, while there are clearly tensions there isn't quite the same level as it was in the second half of last century. plus there isn't the same ideological stand off. I'd say that if things don't go well we could have a clod war but at the moment the situation is simply worth monitoring.

[ComradeOm]

A more apt analogy might be the return of 19th C Great Power diplomacy as Russia seeks to stake out its traditional sphere of influence in the face of encroaching Western interests. But then that's not as sexy as Cold War headlines

[spice756]

Not quite, while there are clearly tensions there isn't quite the same level as it was in the second half of last century. plus there isn't the same ideological stand off. I'd say that if things don't go well we could have a clod war but at the moment the situation is simply worth monitoring.

Well Russia does not have any ideology it is fight over imperialism than ideas of who is right or not.

The US wants imperialism control and Russia wants imperialism control .That is the problem.

[redarmyfaction38]

Well Russia does not have any ideology it is fight over imperialism than ideas of who is right or not.

The US wants imperialism control and Russia wants imperialism control .That is the problem.
yep, and both sides are dressing it up as protecting "national self determination".
the truth is, both imperialist powers are doing what imperialist powers do, looking to extend their "spheres of influence", defend their supplies of raw materials and energy etc. and at the same time, trying to con the rest of us that is in our interest they are doing it.
it's the same old, same old.
it's ww 1, it's the us invasion of iraq, the russian repression of independance movements throughout the former soviet union, it's money and oil.
as revolutuionary lefts we are are wise to these con jobs, we adopt an independant and worker based stance.
we do not acept the naked imperialist ambitions of the usa or the capitalist russian federation, we will support neither, we will work to establish a worldwide party that serves only the workers interest in the long term, and, in the short term will defy the capitalists, the fascists and imperialists by exposing their agenda etc. etc.:blushing:
i will now sing the internationale, the red flag and go off to bed.:).
soz.
but you know what i'm getting at.

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

Although modern Russia is a imperialist and capitalist state too, I welcome it in its struggle against the tyranny of the USA.

[BraneMatter]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3152/2929745066_98a4aff40e_m.jpg

A U.S. intelligence operative in Cuba secretely shot this photo of a recent fireworks display in the skies over Havana.

The photo was then shown to the members of the UN Securiy Council by Condoleeza Rice as proof positive that Cuba was developing short-range ballistic missles that could strike the U.S. mainland -- with a good wind blowing in the right direction, that is.

Such missles, Rice said, could also be fitted out to smuggle Cuban cigars into Florida. :scared:

[Comrade Stern]

Although modern Russia is a imperialist and capitalist state too, I welcome it in its struggle against the tyranny of the USA.

i agree, i presented this in my political science class today and i was called an "idiot" by the senior class president... which i in turn ignored and continued but he has nevertheless been reduced to petty insults i will confront him at another time when the time is right

[Trystan]

Ah well, even if it does start up again, we can look forward to more some hilarious clips like this:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooy0GFMYafY


But on a serious note, America's hegemony has been seriously threatened by the failure of the Iraq war. Russia is a long way from becoming another subject of US imperialism (like most European nations), and I wouldn't count out an alliance with China should things heat up.

[ComradeOm]

Russia is a long way from becoming another subject of US imperialism (like most European nations), and I wouldn't count out an alliance with China should things heat up.Why? What does Russia have in common with China aside from being rival powers of the US?

[Comrade Stern]

sorry double post

[Comrade Stern]

a russian-chinese alliance would only occur in times of drastic need like a war for instance...otherwise they have no ties except bordering each other... but china would for sure ally with russia before they would ally the usa... they each seem to have their own personal agendas though of political expansion

[Trystan]

Why? What does Russia have in common with China aside from being rival powers of the US?

I figure this could be enough.

[ComradeOm]

I figure this could be enough.Again, why? Why is the US such a threat to both nations that they would put aside their mutual disagreements (present and historical) to face down a power that does not really present a threat to either?

[piet11111]

a russian-chinese alliance would only occur in times of drastic need like a war for instance...otherwise they have no ties except bordering each other... but china would for sure ally with russia before they would ally the usa... they each seem to have their own personal agendas though of political expansion

they have a defensive (also trade and energy) alliance they conduct joint military exercises russia sells a lot of military technology to the chinese and they heavily cooperate economically.

its not the warpac but they do have a lot of economic muscle.

[ashaman1324]

i voted chill the fuck out.
georgia and south ossetia brought the US and russia to confront each other seriously for the first time since the cold war. but is this another cold war(yet)? of course not. a few more georgia like confrontations would probably do the trick, though.
id say were on a path to cold war part 2, not there yet.

[Mather]

There's a fundamental existential difference. Despite every effort on the part of the US to goad the Russians, they have resolutely refused to be lured back into the dark game of (nuclear) brinkmanship, which is the characteristic that defined the Cold War. We don't go to bed each night aware that a single political miscalculation or military misinterpretation could lead to worldwide nuclear armageddon before breakfast. So that fundamental, existential defining characteristic is absent.

I'm kind of tired and am not up to a long dissertation at the moment, but simply put, the US/NATO have used the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and Soviet Union to continue to pursue eastward the old Cold War doctrine of containment and encirclement, with an unhealthy dose of triumphalism and the usual messianic exceptionalism that we expect from American foreign policy. The Russians, OTOH, have adopted a changed approach, harkening back more to 19th century great power politics, balances of power, spheres of influence, etc than to the politics of global proxy confrontation that they pursued in the Cold War.

I more or less have the same view as this.

Not the Cold War, but what we will see from now is geo-political struggles by large nations such as Russia, China, India, Brazil and others, who wish to flex their strength and extend their influence, both politically and economically, at the expense of the USA and the countries of Western Europe/the EU.