Thread: Impact of the second Cold War.

Tolerance is and always will be the most important part of human communication when it comes to agreement. So, I'm sure we have all noticed the rise of Russia's economy and resources, along with China's ever increasing economy as well, leaving only time left until they become the worlds largest super-power.

Since the Georgian conflict, pondering has become very important in understanding the situation. Relations between Britain for example, and their relations with Russia has not recently been all that great ever since the Alexander Litvinenko incident not a while back. That along side with President Dmitri Medvedev stating that he is not afraid of anything, not even another cold war coupled with the secret moving of arms into Georgia under guise of humanitarian aid lately (which caused Britain to request a European coalition against the agression of Russia in this particular incident).

Relations with China should last between the West due to the amount of imports many countries have with China. However, if the possibility of complete breakdown with Russia occurs with the West, that leaves a very delicate situation to unfold with Russia on the rise. This coupled with China if they support Russia in their doings, could lead to a serious situation. So I present this question:

If there were a 2nd cold war between the West and the East (excluding Japan), would there be any major (or minor) impacts to our current world in the 21st century?


I myself can think of this situation, at least the most obvious:

Russia supplies the West with a lot of gas and a lot of oil. I know that Georgia and the West have always had good relations because Georiga supplies some resources. But it would be very easy (and most probably would occur) for Russia to simply cut off resouces to the West; that alone is a major impact. Can anyone think of any others? Or the severity of this situation? We all know the alarm was raised once or twice last time, and we all knew the stakes, but could this time mean it is taken furthur?

sorry, I can't go that far, a Second Cold war would go against all logic, specialy economical logics as you pointed out.

I think Second Cold war is used by media to create attention.
An effect of sensasionnal.

Russia and China will definitly rise up economicaly. They will probably try to control their surrounding Islands (China) and countrys for (Russia).
I guess they want to take part now in the world and let us know they are here and powerful once again.

Let's not forget, for example in China, during Japan invasion they were running away from Japaneses like chicken running away from massacre. It must be quite a black spot on their pride.


I need to add this. I though it was really funny, last night when I saw Vladimir Poutine speaking to media.
He told them Georgia conflict was commanded by the states in order to affect the US presidential elections in one way; it was of course denied by the states
http://www.france24.com/fr/monde (french - yesterday's 20 min)

Anyways, for a politician to say this, it needs quite some

But you are very right to speak of Oil.
It is very interresting now, to see that Oil belongs now
18% - To internationnal coorporations
72% - To governement who want to keep an hand on oil supplies
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2008/0602/120.html

So oil will become more and more affected by politics and conflicts could create huge economic crisis so diplomatic crisis.
All-ready Europe is backing down on Russia not to create any conflicts that would make big Economic disasters.

Diplomatic stability and will come when we will depend less on oil and gestion better basic resources such as water.

One of the errors that the American people, and a significant proportion of American politicians and strategists, made in the middle part of the last century was in thinking they were fighting communism when they were in fact fighting Russian Imperialism. Russia has been trying to expand their frontiers since the twelfth century, usually successfully. The Russian leadership is immersed in that paradigm.
The setback of the fall of communism is a temporary setback, from their perspective. Recall that Putin views that as the greatest disaster of the 20th century, not because of the end of communism, but because of the break up of the Russian Empire.

Sodo you think we are looking at the 'a leopard never changes its spots scenario? Or is that a little bit too far thinking. If I may say so, I believe Russias latest behaviour clearly states they don't care what the UN thinks and are using this as a power symbol, a demonstration if you will.

The relation to oil (commodities) and the GDP of individual nation is somewhat a allusion. First, these commodities are the lifeblood of many countries and need to be sold. Iran for instance produces 4 million barrels per day (4th) yet has a GDP of 400 Billion per year, well down the list in a worlds GDP of 54.3 Trillion annual. Second, internal consumptions limit the value to the countries economic value, since its meaningless as it becomes their usage or close to it. The US produces 8 billion b/d, but the economy suffers a 600 billion dollar expense annually, which draws from the economy. Third, today Russia and the business in Russia are supported on the worlds financial markets. Stocks/Bonds of most are traded and held by investors around the world.

The GDP's of the EU (17 Trillion), US (4th), each dwarf Russia's 1.2 Trillion and comparable to Canada or Mexico, both about a trillion or India and Brazil also a little over a trillion. Russia IMO, then needs the world, much more than the world needs Russia.

Diplomatic squabbles are going to happen and governments react differently to each, probably in accordance to their peoples. Short of Russia backing into some form of dictatorship, any idea of a world war or conflict is highly unlikely, IMO.

On the Georgia thing; The US is under treaty with Georgia as is the EU for protection, no different than many other small countries. I would disagree with the US Administration on the need to place DEFENSIVE missiles in Poland, which I believe the motivating principle for the problems in Georgia, but then I am not privy to any, much less all the reasons they feel this is necessary.

As for American Politics; People in the US are not divided on honoring treaties or to protecting sovereign national interest. The divide comes from how this is done and in rare occasions are our national interest involved.

Georgia. Let's put current events into context. Georgia is not unlike former Yugoslavia in that it's balkanized into autonomous ethnic regions. The regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia have been fully independent states for over a decade in every way except they yet lack legal recognition as sovereign states within the UN. They have their own government, taxation, armed forces, police, border security, etc.

Now we have this quandary regarding Georgia. On the one hand, is the traditional position supporting integrity of state sovereignty above all else, at all costs even to the destruction of separatist movements. On the other, is the modern "responsibility to protect" which means third parties are morally obliged to intervene on behalf of groups who the sovereign cannot protect or even acts to destroy.

So South Ossetia and Abkhazia have been kinda muddling along in legal limbo all these years, independent states in practice but legally unrecognized by Georgia (of course) and the UN (because the UN is structurally resistant to diminish sovereignty of member states).

Aug 8th while the world's eyes were turned to Beijing, Georgia launched an all-out blitz of South Ossetia, with tanks, artillery, bombing, the works. Georgia attempted to reclaim the independent region by force. Georgia also began shelling Abkhazia but quickly stopped advancing at Russian/UN peacekeeping posts. Russia responded by reinforcing its "peacekeeping forces" in both autonomous republics, driving back the Georgian armed forces.

The people in these regions now say there is absolutely no way they will ever return to Georgian rule, after what happened.

So whatever Russia's motives here, I think the situation easily satisfies the "responsibility to protect" threshold. Efforts (by EU, USA, UN) to support Georgian authority in these regions will end badly.

How low can we go to block two more pro-Russian seats at the UN?

Originally Posted by Pong

Aug 8th while the world's eyes were turned to Beijing, Georgia launched an all-out blitz of South Ossetia, with tanks, artillery, bombing, the works. Georgia attempted to reclaim the independent region by force. Georgia also began shelling Abkhazia but quickly stopped advancing at Russian/UN peacekeeping posts. Russia responded by reinforcing its "peacekeeping forces" in both autonomous republics, driving back the Georgian armed forces.

Pong, I understand the Russian counter argument and would considerate it, if the Russians had simply stopped the aggression, IF INDEED HAPPENED, at the boarders. The problem is Russia, in an alleged protection of a people from a so called ethnic cleansing, had been building up to the event including building an infrastructure for an attack, well beyond those boarders. I won't get into the passport/visa "giveaways" to establish a Russian presence, but think your over blowing, actual events. Peace enforcement, never involves invasion...

I agree the Olympics were a ploy, but suggest it may have been planned by the Russian Government, not Georgian. At any rate, whether under UN understanding or that of the Georgian Government, the US and the EU are obligated to the protection of Georgia, Russia knows this, and had other choices if indeed a grievance was in order...

Originally Posted by jackson33

Peace enforcement, never involves invasion...

Where rocket and artillery is firing into towns, yes, yes it does. The Russian-made "buffer zone" was illegal but I think one can understand the spirit of it. Anyway, Russia is asking European countries to place their own observers there.

Originally Posted by jackson33

I agree the Olympics were a ploy, but suggest it may have been planned by the Russian Government, not Georgian.

Russian agents secretly manipulated Georgian army to sneak attack? I guess that wouldn't be the world's first conspiracy. Can you flesh out that hypothesis?

Originally Posted by jackson33

the US and the EU are obligated to the protection of Georgia, Russia knows this, and had other choices if indeed a grievance was in order...

That is true in retrospect. Legally, Georgia exists and those independent republics do not. Georgia can stomp those people into submission if it likes because technically they are separatists.

I assume the swift Russian response was pre-planned. In other words the generals already had this as one possible scenario in the books so when Georgia triggered it they just followed through. One can imagine an equally rapid military intervention by US if say, Haiti suddenly attacked Dominican Republic. The marines would be in there within four hours, even while Washington slept.

Pong; Israel has missiles tossed into its people on a regular basis, with UN peace keepers all over the place. On rare occasions Israel, not the US, will go into the disputed areas, destroy the culprits and get out. The US in the meantime talks...

Russian forces literally destroyed the infrastructure of Georgia, even taking US vehicles, computer parts acting like common looters. I see no excuse for any of this, based on what I personally know....

I am not advocating anything, do believe there will be US diplomatic/economical response and that Russia will accept the discipline, with a mild reaction, saving face with their citizenry.

As for the future of the three societies, its IMO, up to them and I assume the UN feels this can be worked out or maybe should be. In the US we have disgruntled segments of society, based today on Illegal Immigration, border control, abortion and a host of sociological problems. Riots have happened, people killed and IMO after this years elections (Nov. 4th), there will be many such events. If the Fed or local police need to act, I sure don't expect any foreign military activity will be tolerated or should it be...

Originally Posted by jackson33

If the Fed or local police need to act, I sure don't expect any foreign military activity will be tolerated or should it be...

From your position re Georgia and that above statement you clearly side with state sovereignty vs. self determination (e.g. separatist movements). Since Georgian actions make clear South Ossetians must choose succession as last resort to survive as a people, your position is rather extreme. We're close to genocide here! And the fact South Ossetia has been functionally autonomous for a decade, made the Georgian blitz look very much like invasion of one country by another.

At this stage the peaceful solution demands international recognition of South Ossetian sovereignty. However some powers that do not want peace are gonna play this conflict out for all its worth. Additionally, some states bottling separatist movements of their own will not like the precedent.

Are you really gonna stick to this policy in other cases? What if the alliances re Russia were inverted? :wink:

The point I wanna make is that one can argue responsibility to protect (separatists, oppressed minorities) or one can argue integrity of state. These are antithetical arguments and either can be taken to an extreme. Because Russia neighbors a practically infinite number of countries struggling with the conundrum, we're going to see this root problem as in Georgia again and again. Then, to be perfect hypocritical asses anti-Russians should support whatever side of the issue seems most opposed to Russia.

The problem with national sovereignty is that government rights apply to land/territory, not people so much. If the people from these semi-sovereign republics wanted to migrate off of their land, and move onto Russian land, nobody would stop it.

The problem is that they want to take their land/territory with them. It's when people fight over land that we worry about nuclear wars happening. That's why internal genocides are usually allowed, but changing of borders by warfare is not.

Originally Posted by Pong

Originally Posted by jackson33

Peace enforcement, never involves invasion...

Where rocket and artillery is firing into towns, yes, yes it does. The Russian-made "buffer zone" was illegal but I think one can understand the spirit of it. Anyway, Russia is asking European countries to place their own observers there.

I usually tend to trust whoever is asking for observers. The easiest way to tell who's lying/stretching the truth is by listening for what they don't say, or what evidence they don't offer to put on the table.

Originally Posted by Pong

How low can we go to block two more pro-Russian seats at the UN?

It's funny it can be that easy to get more seats at the UN. Maybe we should break the USA into some smaller countries. .... We could just take a few square miles out of every border state, declare it a republic, and see if the UN accepts them.