GELFAND’S WORLD-It's interesting to compare the events of 1914, 1938, and the present. In June of 1914, a single assassination led to the bloodiest conflict in the history of the world. In 1938, the western European countries gave in to Germany over the annexation of part of Czechoslovakia, one major step towards the advent of WWII.
This week, the Russian Federation invaded and annexed Crimea, previously a part of Ukraine. Putin seems to have adopted the old role of "strong man" that we have seen in so many other places over the past century. The question facing us is whether this will lead to a war, to a new cold war, or to nothing much at all. It's not really clear what the long term outcome will be, but at least we can rule out some options.
Putin's excuse for taking over the Crimean territory has its closest analogy in the takeover of part of Czechoslovakia by Germany through the infamous Munich Pact of 1938. Instead of a German speaking population in Czechoslovakia, there is the Russian speaking population of Crimea.
Perhaps the major difference is that Germany was going through an expansionist, imperialistic phase, whereas Russia faced the loss of empire a mere quarter of a century ago. The countries making up the Warsaw Pact countries no longer provide a buffer between Russia and the western alliance. Worse yet from the Russian perspective, the Warsaw Pact has largely become the eastern flank of Nato. Even if Russia did not suffer from a national paranoia based on a millenium of invasions and counterinvasions, this turnabout of their one time satellites would be a shock.
The immediate danger from the Russian standpoint is that Ukraine was considering joining Nato, which would have put the western alliance right up on the Russian border. Perhaps we might compare Putin's reaction to our own when Cuba allied with the USSR and allowed Soviet missiles to be imported. At the time, the news was full of fearful pronouncements about Russian missiles and troops 90 miles from our shores. Ukraine shares a border with Russia, and a Ukraine aligned with Nato would put several countries along the Russian border, countries who have made clear that they hope to be protected from Russia, not from the rest of western Europe.
Russia invading and annexing a neighboring country is a big turnaround in what we have been thinking of as a post Cold War world. The fact that Putin is using much the same excuse as the Germans did in 1938 is enough to make the rest of the world nervous.
So what's going to happen now? In the old days of the 20th century, we might have seen troop and tank buildups along the frontier separating Russia from the rest of Europe. It would be the precursor to WWI all over again, or maybe a mirror image of WWII. Most likely, such buildups would lead to Cold War II. There would be no major breakouts with extended land battles like the ones fought in 1943-5, but there would be an extended period of international tensions.
This of course depends on some of the newer Nato countries joining the cause. Lithuania and Latvia? They are now members of Nato and due west of Moscow. Ukraine is a ways from Moscow but not that far from the Volga River and its cities. Nobody imagines Ukraine invading Russia anytime soon, but allowing the opposition a foothold on your own border is something that makes any long term military planner concerned. Obviously the big question involves the mobilization and militarization of Ukraine itself, not sometime in the indefinite future, but right now. For example, Ukraine could make a deal with Nato more or less immediately, and thereby ratchet the tensions up another couple of notches. It might be the strongest western reaction short of war.
So what's different in this post-1945 world? An obvious answer would be that both Russia and several Nato countries have deliverable nuclear weapons. In other words, we don't see going to war with Russia as a rational response to anything short of a full scale invasion of western Europe, and that idea pretty well died with the dissolution of the USSR. Putin may not enjoy being the semicolon on the end of the Soviet sentence, but that's really all he is. He can't mount an invasion of Germany and France, and western planners no longer have to worry about such things.
In this post-1945 world, we also have made a few changes in the way international relations are carried out. As much as the UN is vilified by the far right wing in this country and laughed at by most everybody else, it does provide one useful function from time to time. When tensions increase, it's existence gives everyone a little time to think. Sometimes it allows for some murky, partial solution to form.
The beginnings of a murky, partial solution came with the UN resolution to reject the Crimean vote to leave Ukraine and join with the Russian Federation. The Russians vetoed it and the Chinese abstained, allowing the Russians a little face saving room, but at the cost of international recognition that the Russians are the aggressors.
In this post-WWII and post 9/11 world, the west has gradually moved towards economic sanctions as its chief weapon. The Russian people went through a long century of hardship and poverty, and the prospect of going backwards is not something that will be viewed happily. This depends on the Russian people understanding that the annexation of Crimea will result in their economic loss, no matter how much it brings fond reminders of Soviet military might.
There is of course one other substantial difference between the present day and the bad old days pre- and post-WWII. We have all the elements of modern communication, including cell phones and the internet. Perhaps Stalin and his inheritors could keep the lid on the Russian population in spite of the Voice of America, but it's hard to imagine that the Russian people will remain completely ignorant of world opinion in the current environment.
Of course there is a lot more to economic reality than cell phones and western sanctions. As every pundit has managed to point out, the Russians have made themselves useful to western Europe as a supplier of oil and natural gas. There is no easy answer to this, other than to consider reality. In the long run, Russia may ultimately suffer because the western Europeans will reason that Russia is not to be trusted, even in times of relative peace, and in so reasoning, will continue their efforts to replace fossil fuels with solar power and biodiesel. The world is actually a lot further along in these efforts than most people realize, and we can expect to see solar electric panels going up all over Europe.
In the short run, the civilized countries have figured out that another world war is not an enticing option. That's why we built the UN and created Nato. We try to keep local conflicts local. The problem of course is that Putin never got the message. The solution is for the Russian people to replace Putin and the corruption of government that he represents. It's an iffy process to be sure, but if and when Russian plutocrats recognize that their country is losing economic ground without really achieving a new Russian empire, they will have the ability to change things.
I would like to think that the world has actually matured, at least somewhat. The parallels between the present situation and the buildups to two world wars, and the fact that the western world is not reacting the way it did back then, point to this happy realization. Even the UN has some usefulness.
(Bob Gelfand writes on culture and politics for CityWatch. He can be reached at [email protected])
-cw
CityWatch
Vol 12 Issue 24
Pub: Mar 21, 2014