Gorbachev: US could start new Cold War

#1
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...23/Gorbachev-US-could-start-new-Cold-War.html

Mikhail Gorbachev has accused the United States of mounting an imperialist conspiracy against Russia that could push the world into a new Cold War.
...
Delivering one of his most scathing attacks on the US, Mr Gorbachev told The Daily Telegraph that a US military build-up was under way to contain a resurgent Russia.

From Nato's expansion plans in the former Soviet Union to Washington's proposals for a bigger defence budget and a missile shield in central Europe, the US was deliberately quashing hopes for permanent peace with Russia, Mr Gorbachev said.
...
"We had 10 years after the Cold War to build a new world order and yet we squandered them," he said.

"The United States cannot tolerate anyone acting independently.

"Every US president has to have a war."
...
"Russia does not have enemies and Putin is not going to start a war against the United States or any other country for that matter.

"Yet we see the United States approving a military budget and the defence secretary pledging to strengthen conventional forces because of the possibility of a war with China or Russia.

"I sometimes have a feeling that the United States is going to wage war against the entire world."
...
"The Americans promised that Nato wouldn't move beyond the boundaries of Germany after the Cold War but now half of central and eastern Europe are members, so what happened to their promises? It shows they cannot be trusted."
So the last (and the only) president of the Soviet union expressed his point of view. Do you agree with him at least on some points?
 
#2
To fully understand why he thinks this you have to have an understanding of how Russians see themselves.

The are a very proud people who have for years wanted to be given the respect and stature of a world super power, but feel that this has always been denied to them by the way they are treated by certain countries. They have a deep resentment to the fact that their voice account for so little would wide when compared to that of the United States. This combined with the collapse of their state in the early 1990s and the increasing expansion of NATO they feel that the US has never shown them the respect they deserve.

With all this in mind you must wonder whether the US administration ever listen to their Russian experts and analysts, as they must constantly warn them that their current policy towards east Europe and Russia is destine to raise tensions. Though I do think the US administration is partly to blame Russians themselves aren't innocent either. By using gas and oil energy supplies as a tool to threaten neighbouring counties it has shown very publicly that it is willing to do anything to get what it wants. With tensions increasing over energy rights under the North Pole and an increase in military activity by a number of countries in that area I can only see things getting worse.

International politics is a complicated game and there are always going to be people who feel like they've been treated badly. So by looking at the recent history in very general terms I think you must agree or at least be able to understand where some of his concerns come from.
 
#3
I agree with him in that a lot more could have been done after the wall falling, but that thing called hindsight is a wonderful.

However, as much as the US has used the lack of another global power to throw its weight about it isnt the sole reason for a possible second cold war. Gorbachev speaks as though it is purely Americas fault for instability.

What about China providing cheap arms to the third world, including Zimbabwe and Darfur without much care. Or Russia selling nuclear reactors and air defence systems to Iran. Yes these can be put under the banners of global trade, but they go completely against the rest of the worlds worries about mass genocides and nuclear proliferation. Therefore responses of peaceful air defence and arms orders placed a year ago aren't exactly helping to promote the peace Gorbachev says should be happening. One of his main points is that the US is increasing its military spending due to the "uncertain paths of Russia and China", with such actions as above and not forgetting the incident of that new shiny Chinese sub popping up in the middle of a US navy exercise is it not possible to say that the problems revolves around the previous cold wars problem - a lack of two way understanding of intent and capability? For example America always said it would not use nuclear weapons in a first strike role, yet Soviet military leaders refused to believe this, as seen in the incident of Able Archer. The Kremlin proclaimed it was a cover to invasion from their ivory towers, yet their own western agents said it wasn't as they believed the west would not invade first.

Also peace is so high on the agenda for for the man who twice asked the USA to end the cold war and help them dismantle their nukes, then where is his concern over new military parades for Russian V-day? Promoting your military strength does not promote peace, promoting alternatives does.

Edit to add - Damn you hopper, bet me to it.
 
#4
It's simple, Russia isn't nearly as strong as it makes itself out to be. Yes, it has natural resources, but even considering that it's economy is smaller than that of the UK!

How can a country with an economy smaller than the UK with only 60 million people and a very small land area consider itself a superpower.

Therefore, there's no possible way to 'restart the Cold War' when Russia is so much weaker than their opponents.
 
#5
arko said:
It's simple, Russia isn't nearly as strong as it makes itself out to be. Yes, it has natural resources, but even considering that it's economy is smaller than that of the UK!

How can a country with an economy smaller than the UK with only 60 million people and a very small land area consider itself a superpower.

Therefore, there's no possible way to 'restart the Cold War' when Russia is so much weaker than their opponents.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7389913.stm

Mr Putin says it will overtake the UK in terms of gross domestic product (GDP) this year.

The UK currently has the world's sixth highest GDP, with Russia one place behind.
 
#6
Suprisingly I agree with many of those comments, however I dont think the US will want another war for some time (at least not until Iraq and Afghanistan are finished with). In the current situation I dont believe the US has the strength to take on Russia.

Although there will always be a bit of sabre rattling between the East and West partly because the cold war was not fully resolved (i.e. anactual war didnt break out).


p.s. Its nice to hear KGB_resident discussing his own nation, although I'm surprised you have not commented on the Medvedev.
The real question should be Sergey...do you agree with him (being Russian)
 
#7
Don't forget that a cold war is far cheaper than a hot war as all you have to do is point a few nukes at each other, send some more spies and take an aggressive posture towards your enemy. Any direct conflict usual only occurs in and between third party countries, this is where the original term "Third world country" comes from....
 
#8
Pfft Russian needs to sit down and re look at its policy of using its gas and oil as a weapon. If they keep doing it we will all just build loads of nuclear power plants (And the UK+French will sell them to everyone else) and Russia's economy will take a massive hit.

(Over simplification I know, but you get the gist of it)
 
#9
fusil89 said:
Suprisingly I agree with many of those comments, however I dont think the US will want another war for some time (at least not until Iraq and Afghanistan are finished with). In the current situation I dont believe the US has the strength to take on Russia.

Although there will always be a bit of sabre rattling between the East and West partly because the cold war was not fully resolved (i.e. anactual war didnt break out).


p.s. Its nice to hear KGB_resident discussing his own nation, although I'm surprised you have not commented on the Medvedev.
The real question should be Sergey...do you agree with him (being Russian)
Medvedev... He is short, young, well educated, intelligent, modern man, a lawyer. He is a fan of 'Deep Purple' (btw, the group gave a show in the Mosocw after his victory in the elections). He uses to say right words at the right place. But what is the cost of a word sounded by a politician?
Personally I didn't vote for Medvedev. For me he is still a 'dark horse'. Many... err, rather majority believe that he is Putin's puppets and in this sense I belong to the majority.

From my point of view Putin's era continues.
 
#10
KGB_resident said:
fusil89 said:
Suprisingly I agree with many of those comments, however I dont think the US will want another war for some time (at least not until Iraq and Afghanistan are finished with). In the current situation I dont believe the US has the strength to take on Russia.

Although there will always be a bit of sabre rattling between the East and West partly because the cold war was not fully resolved (i.e. anactual war didnt break out).


p.s. Its nice to hear KGB_resident discussing his own nation, although I'm surprised you have not commented on the Medvedev.
The real question should be Sergey...do you agree with him (being Russian)
Medvedev... He is short, young, well educated, intelligent, modern man, a lawyer. He is a fan of 'Deep Purple' (btw, the group gave a show in the Mosocw after his victory in the elections). He uses to say right words at the right place. But what is the cost of a word sounded by a politician?
Personally I didn't vote for Medvedev. For me he is still a 'dark horse'. Many... err, rather majority believe that he is Putin's puppets and in this sense I belong to the majority.

From my point of view Putin's era continues.
when i said do you agree with him i meant Gorbachev but thanks for clarifying your position on Mendvedev
 
#11
Do I agree with mr.Gorbachev? Yes and no.

The United States cannot tolerate anyone acting independently.
Of course the USA tries to preserve its position as a dominant force on the world stage, preserve its position as the only superpower.

But the USA can tolerate some countries acting independently and I believe this ability will be developed.

Every US president has to have a war.
As for previous presidents then it is true. But I believe that it is not forever.

The USA has to accept a position of simply a huge, very important state but not outstanding one. There is no alternative. And sober minded American politicians later or sooner will come to this conclusion.

Russia does not have enemies and Putin is not going to start a war against the United States or any other country for that matter.
Indeed Russia and the USA are not enemies but they are geopolitical rivals. A war between the countries is impossible.

I sometimes have a feeling that the United States is going to wage war against the entire world.
Absolutely disagree.

"Erecting elements of missile defence is taking the arms race to the next level,"
It's true.

Could the US start new Cold War? Of course it could but likely would not.
 
#12
Spacehopper said:
Any direct conflict usual only occurs in and between third party countries, this is where the original term "Third world country" comes from....
[Pedant]Actually, it stems from that small group of non-aligned countries in the immediate post-war period who adopted neither industrial capitalism nor state socialism. The Third World.[/Pedant]
 
#13
smartascarrots said:
Spacehopper said:
Any direct conflict usual only occurs in and between third party countries, this is where the original term "Third world country" comes from....
[Pedant]Actually, it stems from that small group of non-aligned countries in the immediate post-war period who adopted neither industrial capitalism nor state socialism. The Third World.[/Pedant]
Version I heard was:

First, there was the "Old World" (i.e. Europe) as referred to by the "New World" (i.e. the other side of the Atlantic, ready for colonisation, and Dvorak symphonies).

Everyone else was the "Third World". People armed with pieces of sharpened fruit, for the most part, just begging for a civilized influence for their own good...
 
#14
OK, OK. So there is more than one source for the term 3rd world but what I was trying to emphasise is the fact that if you look back at the last cold war most of the direct confrontations occurred between 3rd part groups. For example you had the soviet backed Afghan government and the American backed jihadists, there was no large direct action between USSR and US troops. This was repeated around the world.

Anyway I think there are just to many variable to say weather there is or is not going to be another cold war. What I would say is that there will likely be an increase in tension between the West and Russia before it gets any better.
 
#15
And just to clear things up I have referred to my brand new and shiny Oxford concise dictionary and it says the following:

"Third World" - Origin 1950s: first used to distinguish the developing countries from the capitalist and communist blocs.

So smartascarrots was the closest. Though I say it doesn't rule out the possibility of there being groups in thoughs countries fighting for one of those ideologies....
 
#16
If you forget the globaly raised tensions, the constent threat of conventional war and sudden nuclear annilation we must all agree that the Cold War was great for books and films.

I doubt the US has the resources, time or stomach to get invovled in another cold war stand off right now. With so much commitment in the ME they are in no position to defend half of Europe, I don't believe they even want as a lot of the political hawks in Washington feel betryed by nations such as Germany, France and Spain over their refusel to participate in the War on Terror.

Political arguments, and some naval saber rattleing, yes. A return to the dark days of Reds under the Beds, no.
 
#17
VarSity said:
Pfft Russian needs to sit down and re look at its policy of using its gas and oil as a weapon. If they keep doing it we will all just build loads of nuclear power plants (And the UK+French will sell them to everyone else) and Russia's economy will take a massive hit.

(Over simplification I know, but you get the gist of it)
I just love these "Russia uses its oil/gas as a weapon" comments! Any examples? And PLEASE!!!!! don't mention Ukraine.
 
#18
Who is going to be the next US president, Clinton, Obama or McCain? How greedy and how sane are they?

Can US get invovled in another cold war stand off with greedy Clinton or insane McCain? Yes.
Obama -- ?..
 
#19
Domovoy said:
VarSity said:
Pfft Russian needs to sit down and re look at its policy of using its gas and oil as a weapon. If they keep doing it we will all just build loads of nuclear power plants (And the UK+French will sell them to everyone else) and Russia's economy will take a massive hit.

(Over simplification I know, but you get the gist of it)
I just love these "Russia uses its oil/gas as a weapon" comments! Any examples? And PLEASE!!!!! don't mention Ukraine.
Yep I agree. They are not using it as a weapon; they are aggressively marketing themselves. The Baltic Pipeline System to bye-pass Poland is supported by the UK and Germany, so the whole story is not as clear cut as most people imagine. The Russian oil and gas infrastructure is outdated and needs to be upgraded quickly. They used underhand tactics to gain control of some of the assets in Sakhalin (Health, Safety, Environment - and they didn't even fecking blush :D ) - however if we did it it would be Laissez-Faire capitalism. If these assets were in the UK I would hope we would do the same but given the current bunch of Numpties running the place ..........

However the UK would be stupid to place itself in a position where it relied too heavily on ANY fuel source so more nuclear please.
 
#20
rickshaw-major said:
Domovoy said:
VarSity said:
Pfft Russian needs to sit down and re look at its policy of using its gas and oil as a weapon. If they keep doing it we will all just build loads of nuclear power plants (And the UK+French will sell them to everyone else) and Russia's economy will take a massive hit.

(Over simplification I know, but you get the gist of it)
I just love these "Russia uses its oil/gas as a weapon" comments! Any examples? And PLEASE!!!!! don't mention Ukraine.
They are not using it as a weapon; they are aggressively marketing themselves.
.
:D Great!
 

Latest Threads

Top