{"id":303,"date":"2007-06-06T14:05:12","date_gmt":"2007-06-06T19:05:12","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/profcutler.com\/wordpress_blog\/?p=303"},"modified":"2007-06-06T14:05:12","modified_gmt":"2007-06-06T19:05:12","slug":"cold-wars-are-not-what-they-used-to-be-they-never-were","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/profcutler.com\/wordpress_blog\/?p=303","title":{"rendered":"Cold Wars Are Not What They Used To Be (They Never Were)"},"content":{"rendered":"
Thank heavens the President of t<\/title>Thank heavens the President of the United States relates on “a first-name basis” with the President of Russia.<\/p>\n<p>Watching Bush discuss US relations with Russia, one almost gets the sense that the President of the United States is convinced that personal “friendship” will prevent Russian President Vladimir Putin from appreciating the growing tensions between Washington and Moscow.<\/p>\n<p>Here is <a href=\"http:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2007\/06\/06\/world\/europe\/06prexy.html?em&ex=1181275200&en=4a69c978ef91f58c&ei=5087\"> Bush in Prague<\/a> on Tuesday:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\u00e2\u20ac\u0153My message will be, Vladimir \u00e2\u20ac\u201d I call him Vladimir \u00e2\u20ac\u201d that you shouldn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t \tfear a missile defense system,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d Mr. Bush said during a morning appearance \twith the leaders of the Czech Republic at Prague Castle, high on a hill \toverlooking the city.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>And <a href=\"http:\/\/ca.today.reuters.com\/misc\/PrinterFriendlyPopup.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=uri:2007-06-06T164352Z_01_L06903608_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-G8-SUMMIT-SHIELD-COL.XML\"> Bush in Germany<\/a> on Wednesday:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>“I will continue to work with President Putin — Vladimir Putin — to \texplain to him that this (the missile shield) is not aimed at him,” Bush \tsaid.<\/p>\n<p>Asked if the meeting with Putin would be tense, Bush said: “I’ll work to \tsee to it, that it’s not (tense).”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Perhaps <a href=\"http:\/\/www.iht.com\/articles\/ap\/2007\/05\/31\/europe\/EU-GEN-G-8-Sergey-and-Condi.php\"> personal chemistry between “Condi and Sergey”<\/a> will work similar wonders.<\/p>\n<p>Does all this chummy warmth have any political meaning?\u00c2\u00a0 Maybe amidst all the talk of a <a href=\"http:\/\/www.reuters.com\/articlePrint?articleId=USL3149493320070606\">new “Cold War,”<\/a> there are pro-Russia forces pressing the President to tone down the hawkish rhetoric.\u00c2\u00a0 According to the <em> <a href=\"http:\/\/www.ft.com\/cms\/s\/245f305c-138b-11dc-9866-000b5df10621.html\"> Financial Times<\/a><\/em>, the Russia hawks at the Jamestown Foundation seem worried:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>But Glen Howard, president of the Jamestown Foundation, a security \tthink-tank, noted Mr Bush\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s invitation to Mr Putin to become the first \tforeign leader to visit Mr Bush in the family home in Maine in early July. \tUS policy was not hardening, Mr Howard said. \u00e2\u20ac\u0153It is just the opposite…”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>The “family home” in Maine belongs to Bush Sr.–<a href=\"http:\/\/www.jewishworldreview.com\/cols\/gaffney122700.asp\">long criticized by Russia hawks like Frank Gaffney<\/a> for being soft on Russia.<\/p>\n<p>But the <em> <a href=\"http:\/\/www.ft.com\/cms\/s\/245f305c-138b-11dc-9866-000b5df10621.html\"> Financial Times<\/a><\/em> also reports on fears among self-proclaimed Russia “realists” that Russia hawks are gaining ground inside the Bush administration:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Dimitri Simes, president of Washington\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s Nixon Center think-tank… noted \tthe \u00e2\u20ac\u0153hardline\u00e2\u20ac\u009d speech on Russia given last week by David Kramer, a State \tDepartment official.<\/p>\n<p>Mr Simes said the departure of Thomas Graham as senior Russia director in \tthe national security council in February had led to a lack of \u00e2\u20ac\u0153realistic \tthinking\u00e2\u20ac\u009d in policy. \u00e2\u20ac\u0153There is no alternative voice in the administration \tnow,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d Mr Simes said, describing the more dominant role played by \u00e2\u20ac\u0153hawks\u00e2\u20ac\u009d \tDaniel Fried and Mr Kramer in the department.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>In truth, the “new” Cold War began <a href=\"https:\/\/profcutler.com\/wordpress_blog\/?p=207\">even as the “old” Cold War was ending<\/a>.\u00c2\u00a0 The only difference today is the increasingly harsh tone of the rhetoric.<\/p>\n<p>On Wednesday, <a href=\"http:\/\/timesofindia.indiatimes.com\/Cold_Wars_over_says_Bush\/articleshow\/2101763.cms\"> Bush insisted<\/a>, “The Cold War is over.\u00c2\u00a0 It ended.”<\/p>\n<p>In a way, he is right.\u00c2\u00a0 <em>Soviet Communism<\/em> is dead… so the Cold War must be over.<\/p>\n<p>Some folks–like <a href=\"http:\/\/www.thenation.com\/docprint.mhtml?i=20061225&s=cohen\">Stephen Cohen<\/a>, a writer for the <em>Nation<\/em> and partner of its publisher, Katrina vanden Heuvel–seem to think the “new” Cold War was always about Communism and, indeed, still about Communism.<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Alluding to that myopia on the part of people who had sought the \tdestruction of the Soviet state, a Moscow philosopher later remarked \tbitterly, “They were aiming at Communism but hitting Russia.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Similarly, Cohen <a href=\"http:\/\/www.thenation.com\/docprint.mhtml?i=20060710&s=cohen\">seems dismayed<\/a> that during the post-Cold War era, “US policy has fostered the belief that the American cold war was never really aimed at Soviet Communism but always at Russia.”<\/p>\n<p>The advent of a “new” Cold War <em>should<\/em> foster the belief–a crucial revisionist project–that for many elements of the foreign policy establishment, the “old” Cold War was never really about Soviet Communism so much as Russian empire.<\/p>\n<p>Perhaps the “crisis” of the Soviet Union was not so much the Soviet part but the “Union” that allowed Russia to win control of Eastern Europe, Central Asia, etc.<\/p>\n<p>Stephen Cohen’s view of the Cold War is, in some sense, overly <em>ideological<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p>But even the “ideologues” have long recognized (even as they regretted) that much of the Cold War was about the old fashioned power politics of the Great Game rather than ideology.<\/p>\n<p>Norman Podhoretz, in his 1999 <em>Commentary<\/em> essay, “<a href=\"http:\/\/www.commentarymagazine.com\/cm\/main\/viewArticle.html?id=9100\">Strange Bedfellows<\/a>,” expressed the disappointment of ideological true believers:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Of course, Kissinger and Nixon were themselves strong anti-Communists as \twell as devotees and practitioners of Realpolitik. Yet it was realism that \twon out over anti-Communism in the most spectacular example of their efforts \t(in Kissinger’s words) to “seize the initiative and control the diplomatic \tprocess.” This was the opening to China. From the realist perspective, it \twas a great triumph, driving a wedge between the two major Com munist \tpowers; even many hardline anti-Com munists, to whom an alliance with \tCommunist China against the Soviet Union was analogous to the one we had \tmade with the Soviet Union in fighting Hitler, applauded it as a \tmasterstroke.<\/p>\n<p>But other hard-liners, I among them, saw matters differently…<\/p>\n<p>In the American policy of holding the line against any further expansion of \tSoviet power, no one, up until that moment, could easily distinguish between \tideology and power politics…<\/p>\n<p>However, in allying itself with Communist China (even if, for diplomatic \treasons, the word “alliance” was never used), the United States was in \teffect announcing that the enemy in the cold war was not Communism but \tRussia. This being the case, the methods of Realpolitik were best suited to \tdealing with it. Those of us who disagreed-who, in other words, saw the cold \twar as a struggle against Communism, not against Russia as such-feared that \tthe new turn of events would confuse public opinion about the true nature of \tthe enemy, and that the willingness of the American people to go on \tsupporting the struggle would thereby be undermined. For we had no doubt \tthat this willingness had always been based-as our own was-on a moral and \tideological opposition to Communism rather than to Russia as a nation.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Today, Russia hawks like <a href=\"http:\/\/www.aei.org\/publications\/filter.all,pubID.26303\/pub_detail.asp\"> Anne Applebaum<\/a> at the American Enterprise Institute try to muster some of that “moral and ideological opposition.”\u00c2\u00a0 But it rings hollow and they seem to know it:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Last week, I found myself in Dom Knigi, the very largest of all the very \tlarge Moscow bookstores, staring at the history section.<\/p>\n<p>Spread out over an entire wall were books of a sort I’ve never seen in such \tquantities during 10 years of visits: endless glorifications of Soviet \tfighter pilots, Soviet war heroes, even Stalin himself. Stalin: the Author \tof the Great Victory was one title; others had cover illustrations featuring \tred stars, or hammers and sickles.<\/p>\n<p>I don’t think this new publishing trend heralds a new period of Stalinism, \tor not exactly. But it does illustrate a growing Russian \tfascination–encouraged and manipulated by the Kremlin–with Russia’s \timperial past.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Cold Wars are not what they used to be.\u00c2\u00a0 Indeed, they never were.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Thank heavens the President of tThank heavens the President of the United States relates on “a first-name basis” with the President of Russia. Watching Bush discuss US relations with Russia, one almost gets the sense that the President of the United States is convinced that personal “friendship” will prevent Russian President Vladimir Putin from appreciating […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[25,23],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/profcutler.com\/wordpress_blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/303"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/profcutler.com\/wordpress_blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/profcutler.com\/wordpress_blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/profcutler.com\/wordpress_blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/profcutler.com\/wordpress_blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=303"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/profcutler.com\/wordpress_blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/303\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/profcutler.com\/wordpress_blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=303"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/profcutler.com\/wordpress_blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=303"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/profcutler.com\/wordpress_blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=303"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}