[Salon] Are Cold Wars Always Bad?



Are Cold Wars Always Bad?

March 30, 2022

By Haviland Smith

 

Only in today’s bizarre world could any sentient human see circumstances during the Cold War as somehow preferable to the chaos that reigns today.  And yet, the struggle between the USSR and her allies with NATO and the democratic western countries during the Cold War was in many ways far less threatening than what we have on hand today.

 

The disaster in Ukraine has given us a pretty good look at management on both sides of that struggle.  On the Russian side we have an extraordinarily self-involved man who wants to be the new Tsar and clearly seeks to return his world to all its pre-1991 glory, power and influence.  He has been quoted as having threatened to use “chemical and nuclear weapons” in Ukraine, and presumably elsewhere.  On the western side we see a manager who simply talks too much.  He unnecessarily denigrates his Russian foes and, in doing so, is in the process of weakening the coalition he represents. 

 

Quite apart from initiating a truly horribly dangerous conflict in Ukraine, Vladimir Putin has said that the death of the Soviet Union was the greatest political tragedy ever.  Joe Biden has referred to Putin as a “war criminal” and a “butcher” and recently said "For God's sake, this man cannot remain in power."

 

The Cold War, as new and terrifying as it was for us, at least had leaders on both sides who, given the existence of nuclear weapons, wanted to avoid military conflict at all costs.  An excellent example of that was the Cuban Missile crisis in October 1962.  During its 13-day duration, the Soviets began to install missiles in Cuba, under 100 miles from the America coast.  It quickly became apparent to both sides that a disastrous war would likely follow if the situation did not change.  As a result, and largely because cooler heads prevailed, the missiles were packed up and returned to the USSR. How does that solution compare with the constant Russian attack on Ukrainian civilians and non-military infrastructure?  And how does Joe Biden’s rhetoric against Putin affect the overall situation?

 

There is no way to excuse the Russian attack, but it can be better understood.  For openers, Kyiv (Kiev in Russian} has an extremely important cultural and religious meaning for Russia that goes back centuries.  In addition, Russians will never forget that after World War II they were assured that their former satellite countries in Eastern Europe would never be taken into NATO.  Under Clinton and Bush, most of them were in a program which ultimately included them in NATO.   America was heavily involved in this act which has reinforced contemporary negative Russian attitudes toward the west.  We may not like it, but we must understand past realities.  Russian concern that Ukraine might join NATO played a major role in their decision to invade.

 

We have little influence on Russian policy, except that our sanctions and our support of the Ukrainian military effort have made their lives far more difficult,

 

There are several things America can do that would increase the possibility of a favorable outcome for Ukraine.  We could supply them on a far more regular and generous basis with our most advanced anti-tank and, particularly, anti-aircraft missiles.  We are not going to provide Ukraine with a no-fly zone, but there are weapons in our arsenal which, if provided to Ukraine, would have a similar effect by making it far more dangerous for the Russians to fly over that country.

 

Finally, we have been extremely fortunate that most of western Europe and the west in general have signed on with us on our anti-Russian policies.  Putin clearly hoped that his invasion would cause a major rift in the western alliance. But it turned out to be exactly the opposite.  Joe Biden’s early script was so appropriate and engaging that just about everyone signed on.  NATO had never been more unified.  It was when he went “off-script” with his personal attacks on Putin that things went a bit awry and some of our allies on the Ukraine issue began to question our motives.  Perhaps he could be convinced to drop his proclivity for off-the- cuff remarks and thus reinforce NATO and European unity.

 

If all of these changes were made, we might be able to wrench the Ukraine situation back to the danger level of the Cold War.

 

Haviland Smith is a retired Cold War CIA officer who focused professionally on the recruitment and handling of Soviet and East European sources.



This archive was generated by a fusion of Pipermail (Mailman edition) and MHonArc.