T’his is a critical moment in U.S-Russia relations. The civil war in Ukraine is settling into a mutually hurtful stalemate; a workable nuclear deal with Iran has been concluded; Russia is ramping up its presence in Syria, which has undoubtedly increased the possibility of confrontation with the United States but has also opened up the potential for cooperation against the Islamic state. The Syrian battleground has taken a new turn, one that is also strangely familiar. Syria could become like a number of countries during the cold war, split between two superpowers. An obvious confrontation exists between Russia and the west, and it is a confrontation that defies resolution through either military action or diplomatic channels. Most surprising is the way this confrontation has taken the form of cold war-style proxy war. Back in the 1980s, Moscow and Washington armed rival groups fighting countless civil wars in Angola, Mozambique, Nicaragua and elsewhere, always careful to avoid a direct confrontation for the fear of starting a nuclear war. The parallels between the cold war and the current U.S – Russia conflict are striking. Even the details match, creating a distinct feeling of Deja-Vu. Cuban military officials are considering sending experts to Syria because their troops are skilled at driving Russian tanks. This episode might not be at par with the infamous ‘Cuban Missile crises’, but it definitely portends towards a not so stable future. Even today’s diplomacy resembles that of the early 1980s, with each side making increasingly public diplomatic moves, not with the aim of reaching a political consensus but with an aim to further confound the enemy.
Winston Churchill in his famous “Iron curtain” speech of 1946 said “From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an Iron curtain has descended on the continent”. This famous speech marked the starting of the first cold war. Ashton carter, the current Pentagon chief in quite a similar fashion gave a remark that had distinct echoes of the aforementioned speech. He said that “From the Kamchatka peninsula through south Asia, into the Caucasus and around to the Baltics, Russia has continued to wrap itself in a shroud of Isolation.” Although, the speech of Winston Churchill and the remarks of Ashton carter are separated by a period of half a century, they sound like the lyrics of the same song but just from different verse. Whatever happens today has its roots in the past and one could easily understand the actions of present world leaders through the lens of history. Russia, humbled in 1990s, offers fertile soil for nationalism- and the more Mr. Putin is criticized by the west, the higher is domestic ratings. But even with all this support and nationalistic fervor, Putin knows what can happen when an autocratic leader falls from favor, case in point being Muammer Gadaffi. This time, threats of nuclear holocaust do not spring to Russia’s lips as quickly as it did during the days of the cold war. Russia has developed from a communist into an authoritarian capitalist economy. Authoritarianism and market economics can be found elsewhere too, in countries that are far more successful than Russia in diversifying their economies. Russia has no allies, save for a crumbling client state in what is left of Assad’ Syria.
To say that the current situation is as bad as that of the cold war would be a hyperbole but to overlook the possibility that the current situation could degenerate into one, would be foolishness. For instance, the news that Russian submarines and spy ships are lurking near the vital undersea cables that carry almost all global internet communication, raises the old specter of cold war when bot the countries used to routinely tap each others’ vital communication lines. During the cold war era, tapping or cutting of communication lines affected the government or military at most, but in the current era, such a move could easily debilitate the entire global communication system. Such an event would not only affect the countries but it could bring the whole financial system to its knees. Thus, a cold war 2.0 would not only affect the two giants but it would inadvertently suck the whole world in a conflict which is largely bipolar. During the last cold war, the buzzword was ‘’N-Bomb” which guaranteed mutually assured destruction (MAD) and at the same time forced sanity to prevail. The new buzzword in the 21st century cold war would be “E-Bomb” an electronic bomb which could destroy all digital circuits, while keeping the physical infrastructure intact. This will be a far bloodier and much more covert cold-war, where physical boundaries of nations would count for nothing. Anything and everything available on the electronic grid would be a fair game and countries might not have the option to sit this one out, like they had the last time (Non Alignment Movement).
Management Canvas 