Resurgence of Cold War

After the successful annexation of Crimean peninsula last month President Vladimir Putin outlined future strategy to combat US, EU and NATO's combined threat against Russia. Addressing the Russian parliament Duma, Putin said territorial integrity of Ukraine rests with the security of ethnic Russians living in Ukraine. He reminded the Ukraine leadership that annexation of Crimea would be followed by other neighbours and Russia will reserve the right to intervene anywhere (implying within former Soviet Union and neighbours) if Russian interests are threatened. Putin envisioned erstwhile Soviet bloc as archetypal to exercise his writ and sought acquiescence of the rest of the world. In other words, Putin intends to have unfettered influence in the region spreading from Caspian Sea to the Baltic Sea. In doing so, Putin has not discounted the "long range ballistic missiles" stationed by the US/NATO in Poland and Czech Republics. It seems the Soviet Union has been resurrected after twenty two years in the territory of Russia and Nikita Khrushchev has entered Kremlin reincarnated as Vladimir Putin. Cold War now looms large on the horizon.

Demonstrations in several cities in the eastern region of Ukraine demanding unification with Russia have taken place. Pro-Russian activists in Denetsk, Luhansk and Kharkiv have occupied government buildings, hoisted Russian flags and demanded referendum on whether to join the Russian federation as opposed to status quo. The Defence Minister of Ukraine warned that force would be applied should the recalcitrant elements continue to keep the public buildings under seize. Russian government warned dire consequences in the event Ukraine government resorted to force to quell the movement. The United States and the European Union have expressed grave concerns on the situation being unfolded in Ukraine and attributed Russian complicity behind the unrest. The NATO Secretary General accused Russia for mobilising 40,000 troops along the border with Ukraine and looking for pretext to invade Ukraine. Sergei Lavrov, Russian Foreign Minister, on the other hand, pointed fingers at the US agents in orchestrating the unrest. He dismissed invasion as unhelpful to Russia's interest.

Ukraine owes US$ 2.2 billion to the Russian Gas Company. The gas price has been increased to US$ 500 per 1000 cubic metres, an increase by 81 per cent since President Yanukovych was ousted three months ago. Moscow has instructed the Gas Company to supply gas only on prepaid basis. Kiev will now find it increasingly difficult to ensure gas supply to its citizens. US has approved US$ 1.0 billion loan to Ukraine this week which would bolster IMF assistance package to the country. Joe Biden, the Vice President of United States, is scheduled to visit Kiev next week to reiterate US commitment to the territorial integrity of Ukraine.

In this backdrop of heightened tension the US government has decided to impose the third round of sanction against the Russian government. The same mundane, ineffective and counterproductive mechanism is now being tried by Washington. Russia is neither at the economic levels of Iran or Syria nor politically maudlin as were Iraq or Libya that it would succumb to the sanctions.

Meanwhile, the US, Russia and European countries have agreed to meet together with the Foreign Minister of Ukraine on Thursday in Brussels. This might diffuse the tension to some extent but would not eliminate the danger of invasion. The question then arises: why would Russia like to invade Ukraine and integrate part of its territory to mainland Russia? How would the international community respond to thwart future invasion? Would the US and NATO be willing to confront Russia militarily? The answers could be found in the conducts of the superpowers during the Cold War era.

During the past two decades about twelve countries, which were either constituents of the former Soviet Union or neighbours aligned to Moscow, were made full members of EU or partners of NATO. Ukraine, as NATO partner (not full member), contributed troops to Iraq and Afghanistan. The expansion of EU and NATO to the doorsteps of Russia was not well received by Moscow. It felt, to some extent rightly, that it was being encircled by former adversaries. Georgia, following its debacle to integrate Abkhazia in 2008, remained in limbo with no possibility to join EU or NATO. Russian annexation of Crimean peninsula and further disintegration of Ukraine would extinguish its chances to get affiliated with EU or NATO for good. Moscow expects, after Ukraine, no other neighbours would attempt to be associated with a club unfriendly to Russia.

John Kerry, the US Secretary of State, admitted last week that the United States could do little in the event Russia decides to invade Ukraine. The geo-political situation is such that Germany, France and Britain, which have economic and trade relations with Russia, would not like to risk their economic interests for the sake of territorial integrity of another country. Europe could not get united while Hitler was on the conquest spree, it remained fragmented after the World War II was over and it is unlikely to forge strong alliance on the eve of Russia being resurrected as a mighty superpower.

In the event Ukraine falls prey to full-scale Russian invasion, it would send a shock wave all over the world, especially in Europe. The UN Security Council would be convened and transgression on the territory of an independent country would be discussed. But it would fail to bring redress to the victim of aggression without concurrence of veto-wielding Moscow. The former Soviet Union had sent its tanks to the streets of Hungary in 1956 and quelled the anti-communist uprising. A large number of Hungarians left the country and took refuge in its neighbouring countries. Czechoslovakia was invaded by the then Soviet Union in 1968 to neutralise the counter-revolutionaries led by Alexander Dubcek. Grenada was invaded by the US in 1982 and Iraq in 2002. The United Nations was unable to stop the aggressions. There is no reason to believe that the UN would be able to reverse the trend and put an end to foreign aggression in future. The superpowers responsible for invading these countries acted with impunity. The international community helplessly watched the ordeals.

The US government has a penchant for warfare. It got involved in the Korean War in early 1950s. The outcome remained inconclusive - Korea still remains bifurcated. In the name of resisting communism the US got involved in the Vietnam War that lasted for thirteen years and took the lives of 58,000 American soldiers. Following the US defeat, Vietnam emerged as a unified communist country in 1975. It has gradually distanced itself from communism and embraced mixed economy. Vietnam has now turned into an oxymoronic socialist country. Americans' experience in Iraq and Afghanistan are no less painful. The American people are no longer willing to be dragged into warfare - a recent survey has found that by a margin of 56 to 29 per cent, Americans voiced opposition against getting too much involved in Ukraine situation. This leaves the US and international community to apply diplomacy in settling international disputes.

The resurgence of Cold War era would make the search for solutions of issues more difficult. The superpowers would lose sight of the fairness of the issue and extend support to one of the parties of the conflict. Palestinian- Israeli conflict, Syrian civil war, Iranian nuclear debate, North Korea's belligerence are some of the issues that would be subjected to protracted negotiations for years. The arms race, on the other hand, would get a momentum. It would be interesting to watch how China, the emerging economic power, plays its role in the newly polarised international environment.

The author is a former official of the United Nations. darahman.chowdhury@hotmail.com