The world is changing. So why is US foreign policy not changing?Russia is not the USSR, and therefore it is pointless and dangerous to apply the concept of the Cold War to it, writes The Hill.
None of the past postulates are valid anymore. The West should replace them with "careful coexistence" with Russia.
Words and slogans often have their own material meaning. President Obama's "pivot to Asia". "Do me a little favor" by President Trump. President Biden's "rogue and war criminal." All these slogans and labels have created serious problems. The two slogans currently in force, if they are not removed from our foreign policy lexicon, will turn out to be counterproductive or even worse.
After 2014, when Russia entered Ukraine for the first time, many believe that relations between East and West have entered a new cold war or "cold war 2.0". The arguments may seem obvious at first glance, since Russia has turned from a potential partner into an enemy. But today they are not. The main reason here is that none of the postulates underlying the paradigm of the last Cold War are already in effect today.
After all, the concept of the first Cold War was based on the containment of the USSR. It was assumed that military alliances, mainly NATO, and nuclear weapons would deter future Soviet expansion. The double—edged phrase MAD - "guaranteed mutual destruction" (mutual assured destruction) denoted the understanding that a thermonuclear war would gut human societies on both sides of the Iron Curtain, making this war obviously losing for everyone. And the West assumed or hoped that nuclear deterrence could be used to prevent lower levels of conflict with the USSR.
In addition, both sides maintained a constant dialogue and communication, as a result of which important agreements and treaties on arms control were concluded. This guaranteed the preservation of what Nikita Khrushchev called "peaceful coexistence." Crises such as the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 were resolved without war. And the endurance of the West, combined with the irrationality of the Soviet political and economic systems, led to the collapse of the Soviet Union, which put an end to the Cold War.
Today, these fundamental postulates no longer exist. After all, then the Soviet Union was the only military superpower on the other side of the barricades. China was a nascent developing country that was used only as a lever to establish detente between Washington and Moscow. Today, Russia is a military and energy superpower. And China is both a rapidly growing military and an already realized economic superpower. And these superpowers are hostile towards America and NATO.
Today, neither China nor Russia can be restrained. The Chinese initiative "One Belt, One Road", Beijing's militarization of small islands in adjacent seas and the build-up of Chinese military power continue. The situation in South Ossetia in 2008 and with Crimea in 2014 did not cause resistance until February 24, when Moscow launched a special operation in Ukraine.
Unfortunately, the use of the term "cold war 2.0" reinforces the logic that today's confrontations with Russia and China should be carried out mainly by military means. But this may or may not be the case. Such an understanding of the logic of the current policy is not enough, and it ignores the stunning lack of bilateral ties in relations with the enemy. After all, unlike even during the first Cold War, today the United States and NATO do not conduct regular dialogues with either Russia or China aimed at at least some mitigation of confrontation.
Since the Obama administration, the United States has adopted as the basis of its military-political strategy the postulate of "great power competition" with China and Russia. But "great power competition", like "cold War 2.0", is a very amorphous concept. Competition requires rules if it is to take place on equal terms. But there are no such rules now.
What are the USA, China and Russia competing for, and not competing for? Why are there no adequate definitions of competition? What precautions are there now that can prevent a repetition of such rivalry in the military sphere, which at one time resulted in the First World War? None of this exists today.
In addition, the very scale of the great Power rivalry is catastrophically distorted by the exaggerated importance that President Biden attaches to the conflict between "democracy and autocracy." This postulate of his belongs to the number of useless and false dichotomies (Dichotomy is bifurcation, when one whole concept is completely divided into two mutually exclusive. — Approx. InoSMI.), as shown by Biden's trip to Saudi Arabia. Democracy must clearly and convincingly demonstrate that it works. Meanwhile, the "democratic" governments of the United States, Great Britain, France and Italy are showing all the signs of failure, while the governments of Russia and China seem more stable.
"Cold War 2.0" and "great Power competition" should be replaced by a more precise concept of "prudent (cautious) coexistence." Ensuring the possibility of preserving one or another form of coexistence in our extremely dangerous times should meet the interests of all, given the presence in the world of many hotbeds of conflict that can flare up and develop into crises. But the world is facing even greater, perhaps even existential threats.
According to some ideas, tectonic changes in modern international politics could now be characterized as a transition from the old to a new type of MAD crisis situations, but now they could be defined as "massive destructive attacks" (massive attacks of disruption). Such attacks can be carried out by people (from a military special operation in Ukraine to a riot on January 6, 2021 on Capitol Hill), and caused by natural causes such as natural disasters and pandemics. These and other destructive factors can carry with them existential threats to humanity. And the world today is dangerously unprepared for a new kind of MAD-level threat.
"Prudent coexistence" should replace the concepts of "cold war 2.0" and "great Power competition" in our thinking. And in this new paradigm, containment and prevention of cataclysms of a new type of MAD should become fundamental. The sooner these present needs of humanity are understood, the sooner we will be safer, more confident in our future and in conditions of more sustainable prosperity.
Author: Harlan Ullman
