One of the pre-conditions for the Cold War was the existence of nuclear weapons, and the knowledge of mutually assured destruction if they were used. Another of the pre-conditions for the Cold War was the resolute leadership (and populace) of the opposing post-World War 2 powers, the USSR and the USA.
In other words, the awareness of each other's nuclear capability acted as deterrent to outright hostilities, while each nation's depth of commitment to its political and social ideology meant that withdrawal or capitulation was not an option.
Nuclear weapons remain a potent deterrent, regardless of proliferation magnitude now or prior to 1991. Russia has replaced the USSR as one of the two powers, with greater strength than the USSR in some ways (no longer socialist, religious tolerance), but less in others (authoritarian leadership, loss of Soviet bloc nations in eastern Europe and central Asia). Russia certainly has resolute leadership. A cold war requires two antipodal powers though.
The USA's current presidential leadership under the Obama administration is weaker than that of any president during the Cold War years. Putin is described in many unflattering ways--as a thug and a former KGB agent--but never as effete or lacking initiative. Russia's Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov is intelligent and perceptive. He is a formidable counterpart to our recent secretaries of state, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton.
The Syrian Civil War and containment of ISIS cannot be a US vs Russia proxy war if US foreign policy is indecisive, slow-moving and undermined by the belief that Russia's need to retain its sphere of influence (even if primarily for purposes of its own domestic security) is "on the wrong side of history" thus should be ignored.
In other words, the awareness of each other's nuclear capability acted as deterrent to outright hostilities, while each nation's depth of commitment to its political and social ideology meant that withdrawal or capitulation was not an option.
Nuclear weapons remain a potent deterrent, regardless of proliferation magnitude now or prior to 1991. Russia has replaced the USSR as one of the two powers, with greater strength than the USSR in some ways (no longer socialist, religious tolerance), but less in others (authoritarian leadership, loss of Soviet bloc nations in eastern Europe and central Asia). Russia certainly has resolute leadership. A cold war requires two antipodal powers though.
The USA's current presidential leadership under the Obama administration is weaker than that of any president during the Cold War years. Putin is described in many unflattering ways--as a thug and a former KGB agent--but never as effete or lacking initiative. Russia's Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov is intelligent and perceptive. He is a formidable counterpart to our recent secretaries of state, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton.
The Syrian Civil War and containment of ISIS cannot be a US vs Russia proxy war if US foreign policy is indecisive, slow-moving and undermined by the belief that Russia's need to retain its sphere of influence (even if primarily for purposes of its own domestic security) is "on the wrong side of history" thus should be ignored.
Remember US State Department spokesperson Marie Harf? She said that shaming is half of our two-pronged response to ISIS.
Putin tests the waters. He provided support to the separatists in Crimea in 2014. Next, Russia annexed South Ossetia and Abkhazia in January 2015. Both are regions in Georgia, bordering Russia, see Russia’s Quiet Annexation of South Ossetia.
Putin tests the waters. He provided support to the separatists in Crimea in 2014. Next, Russia annexed South Ossetia and Abkhazia in January 2015. Both are regions in Georgia, bordering Russia, see Russia’s Quiet Annexation of South Ossetia.
.
Russia is now flying bombing missions with its own air force over Syria.
Russia is now flying bombing missions with its own air force over Syria.
 |
Purple region is South Ossetia. Image source: United Nations. |
The fact that Russia is using its own air force is significant! During the Cold War, Warsaw Pact states were guided by Soviet advisors. Direct intervention by Soviet military forces was uncommon and only used in crisis situations such as the 1956 Hungarian revolution. The situation in Syria has already progressed to the point of direct Russian involvement.
We can respond in various ways:
- defuse the situation with explicit support for the legitimate elected leader of Syria, Al-Assad, against ISIS;
- challenge Russia's extraterritorial use of military force through diplomatic channels of communication. Instead, we do nothing.
EDIT as of November 2023
I wrote the above in 2015. I have learned a lot since then! In the comments on my Quora answer, I wrote more, and want to preserve it here.
