The concept of the Cold War is one which most of us only have a vague memory. It was 1989 when the Berlin Wall fell and CNN went live on cable television. The truth is before that, for most of us, in depth international news coverage about foreign affairs was nonexistent. What some of us may remember are the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Bay of Pigs Invasion, backyard bunkers, and school drills where children were coached to get under their desks in the event of a nuclear attack.
This article explores the Cold War Era and questions whether, in light of current events, whether it ever ended.
In April 1945, during the height of the World War II, during which between 65 and 85 million lives were lost, American and United Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR or Soviet Union) troops joined forces to defeat Adolf Hitler’s Germany. This was the first and only time that United States and either the USSR or modern day Russia have aligned with one another in an armed conflict.
As soon as World War II ended, the West and the USSR redefined the European boundaries between them as if they were the spoils of war. Thereafter, the Cold War began.
A cold war is characterized by a lack of trusting and translucent diplomatic relations, the use of propaganda, possession of arms sufficient to obliterate the other, and the use of proxy wars.
A proxy war is fought in other countries and is typically, but not always, characterized by one country covertly assisting a government or rebel group in another country based on the hope that its own ideology will be advanced[i].
History of the Cold War
The roots of the Cold War predate World War Two. What follows are a few of the relevant events.
In 1867 the U.S. purchased Alaska, starting a downward trend in diplomatic relations with Imperial Russia.
In 1917 the Bolshevik Revolution, led by Vladimir Lenin and Alexander Bogdanov, began. It was then that communist ideology emerged. The Imperial Russian Empire officially ended in 1917. By 1919, Lenin and Bogdanov had ‘declared war’ on the rest of world. In 1922, the USSR formalized a system of centralized Communist government. Fear inspiring terms like “the Reds are coming” and the “Red Revolution” were commonplace.
In the 1920s the U.S. was sympathetic to Japan sending troops to counter the Bolshevik Revolution in the Soviet Union’s Far East. Just years earlier, Japan was victorious over Imperial Russia, the predecessor state of the Soviet Union, in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05.
The first was the unexpected death of President Franklin D. Roosevelt in April 1945 who, even though there were post-war tensions, strived to maintain a positive relationship with the Soviet Union, while recognizing that the Soviet’s ruled over Eastern Europe. He was succeeded by then Vice President Harry Truman whose foreign policy initiatives were much more conservative.
The second event occurred nine months later, when the radical differences between the West and the Soviet Union were marked by three ideological manifestos[iv]:
- The “Long Telegram” sent on February 22, 1946 by George F. Kennan, the U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union, stating that the Soviet Union would remain a foe, based not only on ideological differences but on its expansionist policies. An advocate of the Cold War, Keenan described the Soviet Union as a fanatical political force requiring a policy of containment.
- Joseph Stalin’s March 1946 reelection speech in which he spoke of communist ideology; characterized by the use of terror and violence against the middle class bourgeoisie, collectivization of agriculture and industry, and a centralized government. In that speech, Stalin downplayed the West’s significance in ending World War Two, offending the West.
- On March 5, 1946 former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill condemned the Soviet Union’s policies in Europe, and by declaring that, “From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended across the continent,” he confirmed a Cold War.
Third was the spring 1947 Marshall Plan which made American dollars available to not only restore Eastern Europe to its prewar state but to stimulate Western economic growth. The Marshall Plan assumed that U.S. dollars would ultimately return to the U.S through the purchase of American goods.
Fourth was the 1949 creation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which, as discussed further below, has, to this day, proven an impediment to warmer relations between both the USSR and its successor, the Russian Federation, and NATO’s 28 member states and affiliates nations[v].
Fifth was the January 21, 1958 inception of the 28 member European Union.
Sixth the construction of the Berlin Wall on August 13, 1961 stood as tangible evidence of the impregnable wall between the two sides.
In sum, the USSR was communist and there was nothing the Western world feared more than the spread of communism[vi].
The Role of Nuclear Weapons
One other earlier event is considered significant; the August 6, 1945 dropping of the atomic bomb by the U.S. on Hiroshima, which Stalin perceived as threatening. While initially U.S. nuclear capabilities well-exceeded extended that of the Soviets; Soviet nuclear capability was more than sufficient to cause mass distraction in the West.
Thus, a key driver of the Cold War Era was that both superpowers knew that the other would not employ its nuclear capabilities. This is known as the Doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD), whereby neither country engages in direct military confrontation with the other. Rather, aggressions are taken out in proxy wars staged in other less powerful countries[vii].
The First Proxy Wars
Between 1945 through 1989 the proxy wars that were fought were based on the basic ideological differences that defined the geopolitics of the day[viii].
The first Cold War proxy war was the 1950 Korean War, in which the Soviets enlisted China’s help. While the United States prevailed in the four war, which ended in 1953, it came with a hefty price of over four million casualties.
The Vietnam War, also known as the Resistance War Against America, started in 1955 and lasted until April 1975. It too was a proxy war. Fought in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, it was a massive loss for the U.S. in terms of both casualties and morale. Estimates of the number of troops and civilians killed varies from 1.3 million to 3.7 million; with 58,200 U.S. troops killed and another 1,626 missing in action.
A Shift in Foreign Policy
President Nixon, with Henry Kissinger as his Secretary of State, inherited the Vietnam War. They wanted to “…demonstrate to the American public that we were very adamant that we were serious and that we had a concept of peace and international order[ix].”
Nixon advocated for a system of a gradual process in foreign policy rather than seeing each situation as definable and subject to a solution.
In the early 1970s Nixon became the first president to visit the Eastern Bloc countries, such as Poland, Romania and Czechoslovakia, in an effort to weaken the Soviet Union’s influence.
The first major shift in American foreign policy towards a communist country occurred in 1972 when Nixon and Kissinger flew to Beijing, China to meet with Chairman Mao, where they secured a détente[x].
Fearing the possibility of a Sino-American alliance, the Soviet Union soon yielded to a U.S. détente.
Together, Nixon and Kissinger forever changed the face of foreign policy by opening the door to relaxed diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union, the Eastern Bloc, China and other countries.
The Reagan Administration, 1981-1989, called the “Reagan Revolution”, was based on a political realignment towards more conservative domestic and foreign policy. President Ronald Reagan’s administration was outwardly anti-communist. It proactively sought the demise of the communist regimes in the USSR and its satellite countries.
On the defense side, developing a missile defense system to prevent a preemptive strike was a priority. Instead of “shoot first, die second” the priority was now “shoot first, die first”[xi].
When MAD lost its domestic credibility, the Reagan Administration promised to work toward Mutual Assured Security (MAS), a condition in which neither party has the intention or capability to exercise a unilateral advantage over the other[xii].
Reagan ultimately negotiated with Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev a substantial reduction in worldwide nuclear armaments[xiii].
But, overall, according to Kissinger, “Reagan felt the situation with the Soviets was hopeless[xiv]”.
The Classical View that the Cold War Ended
Some historians agree that the Cold War ended on November 9, 1989 when the Berlin Wall crumbled, while others say it occurred on December 26, 1991, at the beginning of the President George H.W. Bush’s administration, when the USSR collapsed signifying the end of communist rule.
In 1991 the USSR began dissolving into the Russian Federation (Russia) as each of its republics, except Kazakhstan, declared their independence, with the final blow being the loss of the Ukraine on December 1, 1991. The Ukraine was significant because it ended any possibility of the Soviet Union surviving. On December 25, 1991 Mikhail Gorbachev resigned as President of the USSR, declaring the office “extinct”. He was succeeded by President Boris Yeltsin.
“I think gradually the Soviets became aware of the unworkability of their system”, stated former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in response to the question of what brought about the end of the Cold War. He went on to say that, “I think they [the Soviets] were exhausted by the Cold War[xv].”
In March 1992 the U.S. Department of Defense released its Defense Planning Guidelines, which initially stated:
Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This… Requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile how are from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power. These regions include Western Europe, East Asia, the territory of the former Soviet Union, and southwest Asia.
While the language was subsequently softened, subsequent foreign policy reflected the original draft’s underlying intention.
The Ukraine and Crimea
If the Cold War was over, the crisis in the Ukraine was a tipping point towards a great chill in diplomatic relations between Russia and the West. Even though the Ukraine had voted to become an independent state, Russia has always behaved as if the Ukraine were still under its control.
The internationally recognised Ukrainian territory of Crimea acceded to the Russian Federation by a treaty signed by Crimea and Russia on March 18, 2014 leading to a termination of diplomatic ties between the Russia and the Ukraine.
The Ukraine and the West condemned this action as a violation of international law and the 1994 Budapest Agreement Russia’s annexation of Crimea and its destabilization of the Eastern Ukraine resulted in NATO suspending all civilian and military cooperation with Russia, while simultaneously stating that political dialogue would continue[xvi].
Fighting broke out in April 2014 in the Donbass region of the Ukraine. On September 5, 2014 the Minsk Protocol was signed by the Ukraine, the Russian Federation, the Donetsk People’s Republic and the Lugansk People’s Republic halting the fighting[xvii].
The Response by NATO and the West
Russia was suspended from the Group of Eight or G8, comprised of world’s seven of the world’s wealthiest nations and the European Union, and subjected to the imposition of economic sanctions, toppling the ruble[xx].
Dmitry Simes, a foreign policy analyst, stated that, “The economic sanctions imposed on Russia causing the decline of the ruble “…has Russia looking for scapegoats”[xxi].”
Additionally, the Ukraine’s request to accede to NATO in 2010 and 2014 were interpreted as a sign of open hostility towards Russia[xxii]. While the Ukraine has yet to accede the NATO, since 1994 it has been a NATO alliance partner, a relationship that, after 2015, was extended by NATO throughout the Baltic States[xxiii]. NATO’s involvement in the Ukraine and adjoining regions further strained relations between Russia and the West.
In 2012, the Ukraine requested member state status in the European Union. While not a member to date, the European Union opened trade with the Ukraine.
In March 2014 Russian President Vladimir Putin stated “In short, we have every reason to assume that the infamous [Western] policy of containment, led in the eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth centuries, continues today[xxiv].”
On November 10, 2014 Kissinger gave a “…chilling assessment of a new geopolitical situation taking shape amid the Ukrainian crisis, warning of a possible new Cold War and calling the West’s approach to the crisis a “fatal mistake.””
Kissinger said that the imposition of sanctions against Russia was “counterproductive.”
He characterized the tense relations between the West and Russia as exhibiting the danger of becoming “…another Cold War. This danger does exist and we can’t ignore it,” warning “…that ignoring this danger any further may result in a “tragedy”.”
Explaining that Ukraine has always had a “special significance” for Russia, he said that the West’s failure to acknowledge that relationship “was a fatal mistake”.
Kissinger went on to state that, “At the same time, I do not want to say that the Russian response was proportionate [xxv].”
Kissinger’s opinion was that the growing tensions should have brought about greater diplomatic efforts to resolve the crisis.
Those diplomatic efforts should have been based on the doctrine of MAS, but as one analyst noted, conditions never favored its full adaptation:
The problem with the U.S. position is that Russia is not confident that conditions for strategic stability are met, and therefore they are not. Since strategic stability is a condition in which both parties are confident that each retains a secure retaliatory capability, if either is not confident, the equation is at risk. To put it another way, it does not help in a crisis. If the United States is confident that no military strike could put Russia’s ability to retaliate at risk if Russia believes that it would have to preempt for survival. Because Russian analysts take this seriously, U.S. policy needs to take this seriously[xxvi].
In March 2015 Russia withdrew from the Joint Consultative Group on the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe, a cornerstone of the post-Cold War MAS security system, which set limits for the deployment of major weapons systems and heavy military equipment[xxvii].
According to a January 2016 Rand[xxviii] report, China, Russia, Iran, North Korea and ISIS are “…potential foes primed to test U.S. partnerships[xxix].” The U.S. should have been more proactive in working with its most-vulnerable partners to coordinate crisis management thereby minimizing the risk of unwanted escalation of incidents.
The Middle East and Southwest Asia
The Middle East and Southwest Asia were important because they were and are oil rich regions. The earliest development in the Middle East occurred when the U.S. and the European Union aligned with Israel, upon recognition of statehood in 1947; becoming one of only two Arab states to align with the West[xxx].
This foreign policy was the impetus for the other Arab nations to largely align with Russia, after which time the price of oil available to Western countries was radically increased, causing inflation and stagnation.
It was at this point in time, that terrorist groups and a generalized distrust of Islam entered the international picture, creating a whole new level of security concerns[xxxi].
“At the beginning of the Cold War, the threat was a global Communist movement led by a nuclear-armed Soviet Union; today it is a global jihadist movement striking against the West with acts of mass-casualty terrorism. In both cases, policymakers recognized that the United States and its allies were engaged in an ideological conflict that had to be contested across diplomatic, economic, military and psychological dimensions,” said Angel Rabasa, a RAND senior policy analyst, in a 2007 Rand report.
“The drafters [of the Defense Planning Guidelines] “…ignored the Islamist extremism that had been growing since the 1970s and (like almost everyone else) were blindsided by the September 11, 2011, attacks on the United States[xxxii].”
As broad parallels exist between the Cold War environment and the tensions in today’s Muslim world, the West should have learned from the way it addressed the Cold War spread of Communism. The United States, as well as other Western countries, had a vital role to play in understanding, not undermining, moderate Muslims, who were and are too often over-shadowed by the violent radical Islamists.
A global fear of terrorism and Islam peaked in the period directly following the September 11, 2001 destruction of the World Trade Center.
This set the stage for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. There were actually two wars in Afghanistan. The first one, the Afghan Civil War, extended from 1996 to 2001, and was a quintessential battle between communism and democracy. The December 1979 entry of the Soviet Union into Afghanistan prompted its Cold War rivals, the United States, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and China, to support the rebels fighting the Soviet-backed Democratic Republic of Afghanistan.
Osama Bin Laden founded al-Qaeda in the late 1980s to support the mujahideen’s war against the Soviets. Bin Laden arrived in Afghanistan in 1996 just prior to al-Qaeda’s 1998 bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Afghanistan. U.S. Special Forces, until the direction of the Central Intelligence Agency, then entered Afghanistan. The Taliban and al-Qaeda had become a common enemy of both the U.S. and Russia[xxxiii].
The next phase of the war in Afghanistan occurred directly after 9.11. This ‘war on terrorism’ was the longest war waged in U.S. history: 13 years. NATO entered this war in August 2003, after which time it took control of international forces and a portion of U.S. troops. Withdrawal of all troops occurred by December 28, 2014.
The Syrian War
The Syrian War, which has been ongoing for six years today, is another proxy war[xxxiv]. Originally, this war started in opposition to the continued governance of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. The situation escalated when the radicalized terrorists, going under the acronyms IS, ISIS, ISIL and Daesh, under the leadership of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, not only entered into the conflict, but aligned with groups not even sharing its ideology and made the former progressive city of Raqqa it’s second capital outside of Iraq. Factions involved are well in excess one hundred.
In 2015, both Turkey and Russia entered the Syrian War. Turkey, on July 24, 2015, under pressure from American led coalition forces, joined the coalition[xxxv]. It granted the U.S. access to a Turkish military airport. Turkey, however, has had its own Syrian agenda. It hopes to prevent the Kurds in northern Syria, along the Turkish border, who are the only ground forces acting in concert with coalition forces[xxxvi], from creating a separate state, causing conflict between Turkey and the coalition forces[xxxvii].
Russia, second only to the U.S. in the sale of weapons, had for many years been bolstering its relationship with Syria, Iraq and Iran. Russian President Vladimir Putin had forged a personal relationship with al-Assad, providing diplomatic and military support[xxxviii]. Thus, it was no surprise that, when Russia officially entered the Syrian War in September 2015, it did so without joining the coalition forces and without operating in concert with them, creating another proxy war.
Russia launched airstrikes conflicting with the coalition forces’ strategy, including in areas where civilians and hospitals are located; killing 4,408 people including 1,733 civilians[xxxix]. Many of these airstrikes have been in the area just outside of that controlled by the Kurds, driving more Syrians toward the Turkish border.
The Russian propaganda machine shifted from its Cold War tactic of promoting communism to generating a fear of the Islamic populations. In the last few months, Putin has gone so far as to make several negative statements about Islam[xl].
In November 2015, a Turkish missile shot down a Russian fighter jet that had momentarily entered into its airspace. As Turkey is a NATO member, NATO officials spoke out against any increase in tensions between the two countries. This could only have irritated Putin. This series of events fueled tensions between the Turkey and Russia, in effect, creating a separate proxy war between them.
Russia’s strategy towards the West extends well beyond Syrian or even Turkish borders. Russia’s military action in Syria have deliberately escalated the refugee crisis to the extent that the European Union is no longer able to process the influx of refugees causing dissension amongst its member nations.
The Munich Security Conference and its Aftermath
Speaking at the March 2016 Munich Security Conference, Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev cited several valid concerns about the state of diplomacy. “[W]e need to launch an intensive dialogue on the future architecture of Euro-Atlantic security, global stability and regional threats more than ever before. I consider it unacceptable that this dialogue has almost ceased in many spheres. The problem of miscommunication has been widely recognised both in Western Europe and in Russia. The mechanisms that allowed us to promptly settle mutual concerns have been cut off. Moreover, we’ve lost our grasp of the culture of mutual arms control, which we used for a long time as the basis for strengthening mutual trust[xli].”
The issue of Russia honoring the Minsk Protocol was raised by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and by General Philip Breedlove, NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander[xlii].
This started a volley of statements by various parties.
NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg stated that “Russia’s rhetoric, posture, and exercises of its nuclear forces are aimed at intimidating its neighbors, undermining trust and stability in Europe[xliii].”
Medvedev replied by stating that with respect to the Ukraine, “NATO’s policy with regard to Russia has remained unfriendly and opaque. One could go as far as to say that we have slid back to a new Cold War[xliv].”
Breedlove emphatically stated that, “We at NATO do not want to see a Cold War. We do not talk about it. It’s not what we want to happen or anticipate to happen… We’re a defensive alliance who are arraying ourselves to face a challenge … [from] a nation that has once again decided it will use force to change internationally recognized borders and so we take those appropriate actions to be able to assure, defend and deter.”
Medvedev went one step further, stating that the strained relationship between Russia and the West is “a new Cold War.”
“The question of war and peace has returned to the continent. We had thought that peace had returned to Europe for good,” stated German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier.
Medvedev concluded by stating, “Creating trust is hard … but we have to start. Our positions differ, but they do not differ as much as 40 years ago when a wall was standing in Europe[xlvii].”
Several days later, Lieutenant General James L. Clapper, the U.S. Director of National Intelligence, speaking to the Senate Armed Services Committee, said that, “I think the Russians fundamentally are paranoid about NATO. We could be into another Cold War-like spiral here[xlviii].”
Despite the differences, primarily concerning whether al-Assad would continue as President, a Syrian ceasefire agreement was negotiated at the Munich Security Conference to commence on Friday, February 26, 2016. The ceasefire was agreed to allow the parties additional time to reconvene as there is universal agreement that the Syrian War cannot be resolved by military intervention[xlix] and to allow humanitarian aid workers access to those in Syria lacking food, water and medical care.
During the first week of the ceasefire, Russia did not refrain from airstrikes and, although there were considerably less, they increased the number of Syrians displaced from their homes[l].
Breedlove said Russia and Syria were “deliberately weaponising migration in an attempt to overwhelm European structures and break European resolve[li]“.
Over the last two years the situation has rapidly evolved into an unfathomable humanitarian crisis as a full one half of all Syrians have fled their homes hoping to seek political asylum in Europe. The number of refugees in 2015 was 1,255,600, double that of 2014[lii].
At first, the European Union was able to accommodate the refugees. But, with the 2016 numbers showing no slowdown, tensions have mounted amongst the European Union members as to where the refugees ought to be relocated, whether borders can be closed[liii], and who’s to bear the cost. It is the worst humanitarian crisis the European Union has faced since World War II[liv].
Tensions heightened after the Munich Security Conference when Turkey announced that was refusing to allow additional refugees to cross its border until such time as it is granted funding above the 3 billion dollars originally promised by the European Union, accession into the European Union, and recognition for its citizens for visa free travel within the Schengen region[lv].
The situation only escalates from there as many European Union members, who are also NATO allies, are now at odds with one another[lvi]. During first week of March, Greece recalled its ambassador from Austria. Turkey is threatening to let the refugees pass through on their way to Greece. Members are building fences to keep refugees from crossing into their countries, other members are leaving their borders open to allow refugees passage to more affluent European countries, and still other member are refusing to honor quotas set by the European Union.
This has fueled talks amongst the European Union members who are striving to find accord amongst themselves[lvii]. Those talks make no provisions for Syrians who have yet to cross into Europe. As of today, tens of thousands of refugees are living in horrific conditions in Syria just outside the border with Turkey.
The Geneva Talks and Russian Withdrawal
Two days before talks were set to resume in Geneva, Syria’s Foreign Minister Walid Muallem ruled out any discussion of presidential elections[lviii].
This was followed by Putin’s unexpected March 14, 2016 announcement that Russia had achieved its military objectives in Syria and that it would be withdrawing an unspecified number of troops, while leaving its air and naval bases in Syria open to insure “aviation safety”[lix]. Putin stated that this action by no means diminished his support for al-Assad’s regime, signifying that Russia believed it had successfully assured that al-Assad would remain in power[lx], calling into question whether the peace talks would achieve their objective.
Salim al-Muslat, spokesman for the rebel high negotiations committee, responded by stating that “The political transition process has to be without Assad. You do not want to keep a murderer who has killed half a million people and destroyed a country. There is no place for Assad in Syria. He is not acceptable to the Syrian people… [stressing that Assad] “…could not be a member of any transitional governing body[lxi]”.
Responses from around the world, including Washington and Iran, questioned Putin’s motives in withdrawing troops from Syria[lxii].
“We will have to wait and see what this represents. It is Putin. He has announced similar concessions in the past and nothing materialised,” stated an unnamed diplomat attending the Geneva talks[lxiii].
The United Nations Envoy for Syria, Staffan de Mistura, described the ongoing Geneva peace talks as a “moment of truth”, warning that exists no “plan B” if the talks fail. The only alternative being a return to war[lxiv].
The Bigger Picture
Should an agreement not be brokered in Geneva, one must consider the effect on the West, especially within the European Union, which is stands divided over the refugee crisis.
Meanwhile, Russia-backed separatists began one their biggest Ukrainian offenses in February, concurrent with Putin’s agreement to participate in the ceasefire negotiations[lxv]. Related issues exist following the Ukraine, Georgia and Montenegro’s[lxvi] requests to accede to NATO[lxvii] as full member nations and NATO’s expansion into the Baltic region.
This is nothing more than the Russian’s revenge for its perception that it has not been fully acknowledged as a superpower in geopolitics, and most recently for the West’s role in the Ukraine[lxviii].
“I see parallels between Putin and almost any tsar I can think of…He reacts in a manner that Peter the Great would have understood,” stated Kissinger[lxix].
Despite a devastating financial crisis and an outdated military, calling into question whether it is still a superpower, Russia has strategically maneuvered itself as a disruptive player in the world of geopolitics starting another or, perhaps, even continuing the Cold War[lxx].
About the Author
Cynthia M. Lardner holds a journalism degree, she is an attorney, and has trained as a therapist. As a thought leader, her philosophy is to collectively influence conscious global thinking understanding that everything and everyone is subject to change given the right circumstances; Standard Theory or Theory of Everything.
Having relocated to Den Hague or The Hague, she is currently seeking a challenging position that will fully utilize her collective skill set. She is particularly interested in foreign policy and social justice.
[i] Borghard, Erica, “Proxy war can have dangerous consequences”, July 25, 2014, Washington Post, as found on the www athttps://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/07/25/proxy-war-can-have-dangerous-consequences/ (“Proxy alliances typically involve the provision of money, arms, materiel and/or training by states to non-state groups in exchange for the latter fighting on behalf of the former’s interests. These alliances are particularly appealing to states because they are informal, covert, and operate in the shadows of the international system. This allows states to plausibly deny involvement in conflicts where the political or material costs of more direct intervention are perceived to be exceedingly high. Historically, a wide range of states — democratic and autocratic; more and less powerful — have formed proxy alliances and engaged in proxy warfare.”) (Erica D. Borghard is an assistant professor and director of the Grand Strategy Program at the United States Military Academy at West Point.).
[ii] See gen Naranjo, Roberto, “Historical analysis of the Cold War”, Ohio State University, as found on the www at https://ehistory.osu.edu/articles/historical-analysis-cold-war.
[iii] “From Coalition to Rivalry: The Soviet Union and United States at the Beginning of the Cold War”, November 4, 2014, Council on Foreign Relations, as found on the www at http://www.cfr.org/russian-federation/coalition-rivalry-soviet-union-united-states-beginning-cold-war/p35813.
[vi] The most noteworthy example of the fear evoked in Americans can be no better illustrated than by the 1950s McCartney Era.
[vii] “Henry A. Kissinger Looks Back on the Cold War”, November 12, 2014, Council for Foreign Affairs, as found on the www at http://www.cfr.org/history-and-theory-of-international-relations/henry-kissinger-looks-back-cold-war/p35816 (In the opinion of Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger had there not been nuclear capabilities, the two countries would more likely than not have engaged in a conventional war between the two countries.).
[viii] There were many lessor known proxy wars; many of which were based on guerrilla warfare. The U.S. prevailed over the Soviet Union in proxy wars fought in the Philippines, Indochina and Malaya. Other proxies during that time period were won by the Soviet Union in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Other incidents in which a conflict was averted were the 1961 Bay of Pigs Invasion and the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis during the President Robert F. Kennedy administration.
[ix] “Henry A. Kissinger Looks Back on the Cold War”, Infra Endnote vii.
[x] This opened the door to an economic relationship between China and the West; with China joining the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. It also served as a guarantee that China would never again join ranks with the Soviets; such as it did during the Korean War. The long term impact of a rapidly growing Chinese economy is discussed in the following paper: insert my AIIB
[xi] This is the reason why the North Korean missile launch in February was and is so significant. See Fifield, Anna, “North Korea says it can fit nuclear warheads on ballistic missiles”, March 8, 2016, Washington Post, as found on the www athttps://www.washingtonpost.com/world/south-korea-imposes-new-sanctions-on-north-tells-pyongyang-it-must-change/2016/03/08/15b0d29e-490a-4697-9742-3c81dde5eb5f_story.html (“North Korea has been able to make its nuclear warheads small enough to fit onto ballistic missiles, the state media claimed Wednesday in Pyongyang’s latest boast about improvements in its weapons capabilities.”).
[xii] Wallander, Celeste, “Mutually Assured Stability: Establishing US-Russia Security Relations for a New Century”, July 29, 2013, Atlantic Council, as found on the www at http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/publications/issue-briefs/mutually-assured-stability-establishing-us-russia-security-relations-for-a-new-century citinghttp://www.atlanticcouncil.org/images/publications/Mutually_Assured_Stability.pdf.
[xiii] The Treaty on Open Skies, United States Department of State, as found on the www at http://m.state.gov/mc26157.html (“The Treaty on Open Skies [signed on January 1, 2002} establishes a regime of unarmed aerial observation flights over the territories of its signatories. The Treaty is designed to enhance mutual understanding and confidence by giving all participants, regardless of size, a direct role in gathering information through aerial imaging on military forces and activities of concern to them. Open Skies is one of the most wide-ranging international arms control efforts to date to promote openness and transparency in military forces and activities.”).
[xiv] “Henry A. Kissinger Looks Back on the Cold War”, Infra Endnote No. vii.
[xvi] Masters, Jonathan, “The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)”, February 17, 2016, Council on Foreign Relations, as found on the www athttp://www.cfr.org/nato/north-atlantic-treaty-organization-nato/p28287(“Moscow has viewed NATO’s post–Cold War expansion into Central and Eastern Europe with great concern. (As of 2016, twelve Partnership for Peace members have joined NATO.) Many current and former Russian leaders believe the alliance’s inroads into the former Soviet sphere are a betrayal of alleged guarantees to not expand eastward after German reunification in 1990—although some U.S. officials involved in these discussions dispute this pledge.”).
[xvii] This followed a five day 2008 skirmish in Georgia.
[xviii] Sanchez, Roy, “Russian PM Medvedev equates relations with West to a ‘new Cold War'”, February 14, 2016, CNN News, as found on the www athttp://edition.cnn.com/2016/02/13/europe/russia-medvedev-new-cold-war/(“Referring to the conflict in the Ukraine, Kerry said earlier that Russia’s choice in the matter was simple: Either fully implement the Minsk agreement or face economically damaging sanctions.”).
[xix] “Ukraine crisis: NATO top general says truce ‘in name only'”, September 21, 2014, BBC News, as found on the www at http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29299092 (“NATO Supreme Commander General Phillip Breedlove said the ceasefire between Ukraine and pro-Russian separatists currently exists “in name only”…. NATO has plans to bolster its military presence in countries bordering Russia, including the Baltic states, which used to be part of the Soviet bloc.”).
[xx] Masters, Jonathan, “The Russian Military”, September 28, 2016, Council on Foreign Relations, as found on the www at http://www.cfr.org/russian-federation/russian-military/p33758.
[xxi] “U.S. Policy Toward Russia”, April 8, 2009, Center for Foreign Relations, as found on the www at http://www.cfr.org/world/us-policy-toward-russia/p34542(Maurice Greenberg, a member of The Commission on U.S. Policy toward Russia, said “I think for the first time in many years we can have a constructive relationship with Russia. Part of the problem, I think, is that those in the west keep on thinking that Russia is the Soviet Union and those in the Soviet Union keep thinking that they’re in the Soviet Union. I think it’s important that we get that straight and that they get that straight. It could make a big difference.”).
[xxii] Sharkov, Damien, “UKRAINE TO STAY OUT OF EU AND NATO FOR 20 YEARS, SAYS JEAN-CLAUDE JUNCKER”, March 4, 2016, Newsweek, as found on the www at http://www.newsweek.com/ukraine-stay-out-eu-and-nato-20-years-jean-claude-juncker-433388 (“Fighting with Russian-backed rebels in eastern Ukraine has bled into a low-intensity war inside Ukraine, NATO has been helping Kiev’s military adopt Western standards. But the help has not extended to providing combat support.”).
[xxiii] Progress on either request was shelved until February 2014, following a change in the Ukraine’s government resulting in greater adherence to rule of law and democratic values.
[xxiv] Masters, Jonathan, “The Russian Military”, Infra Endnote No. xx.
[xxv] “Kissinger warns of West’s ‘fatal mistake’ that may lead to new Cold War”, November 10, 2014, Reuters News, as found on the www athttps://www.rt.com/news/203795-kissinger-warns-cold-war/. See also Zeese, Kevin, “Chomsky And Kissinger Agree: Avoid Historic Tragedy In Ukraine”, February 14, 2014, Mint Press News, as found on the www at http://www.mintpressnews.com/chomsky-kissinger-agree-avoid-historic-tragedy-ukraine/201839/ (““A threatening situation” Chomsky has described Ukraine as a “crisis [that] is serious and threatening,” further noting that some people compare it to the Cuban missile crisis of 1962. In discussing Russia and Crimea he reminds readers that, “Crimea is historically Russian; it has Russia’s only warm-water port, the home of Russia’s fleet; and has enormous strategic significance.” Kissinger agrees.”). See gen Borghard, Erica, Infra Endnote No. i.
[xxvi] Wallander, Celeste, Infra Endnote No. xii.
[xxvii] Masters, Jonathan, “The Russian Military”, Infra Endnote No. xx.
[xxviii] Rand is a U.S. Department of Defense funded think tank.
[xxix] “United States Needs a Collaborative Approach to Manage Its Adversaries and Strengthen Partnerships Abroad” January 5, 2016, Rand Corp, as found on the www at http://www.rand.org/news/press/2016/01/05.html via @RANDCorporation (““The United States now faces at least five potential adversaries at a time when defense budgets are declining,” said Hans Binnendijk, the report’s author and an adjunct political scientist at RAND, a nonprofit research organization. “To meet these challenges, the United States will need to defeat ISIS, deter North Korea, dissuade Russia, constrain Iran and engage China. The question now is how to do all this in the context of the United States’ changing global partnerships. A new strategic approach is needed.”).
[xxx] The other non-NATO Arab state to align with the West was Egypt.
[xxxi] See gen “Corporatized Terrorism”, (“ISIS Gone Corporate”), Game of Thrones, January 17, 2014, as found on the www at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/isis-gone-corporate-cynthia-lardner-deverouxcleary-1, https://cynthiamlardner.wordpress.com; andhttp://cynthialardner.blogspot.com/2015/01/isis.html?m=1.
[xxxii] Morris, Ian, “Why the West Rules – For Now”, pg. 551, 2010, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York: New York.
[xxxiii] “Russia and Afghanistan”, Institute for the Study of War, as found on the www at www.understandingwar.org/russia-and-afghanistan (“Moscow fears the rise of Islamic extremism among Russia’s substantial Muslim population, in addition to separatist movements among certain ethnic groups, particularly the Chechens. The Kremlin views these forces as a severe threat to the state, and thus it willingly supported the U.S.-led overthrow of the Taliban—a movement which had provided aid to these groups. Moscow has also used its participation in America’s “War on Terror” as an excuse for heavy-handedness in its crackdown on Islamist and separatist movements in Chechnya and elsewhere.
Outside its borders, Russia is concerned about the growth of Islamism and terrorism in its traditional sphere of influence or “near abroad”—the Balkans, the Caucasus, and Central Asia. Many militants from these areas have significant ties to the Taliban, al-Qaeda, or other groups in Afghanistan, and therefore Russia does not want to see a Taliban comeback in Kabul or a failed state emerge in Afghanistan. While the Kremlin may disapprove of NATO’s presence along its southern frontier, it does not want to see Afghanistan become a safe haven for a separatist, terrorist, or Islamist forces.”).
[xxxiv] Beehner, Lionel, “How Proxy Wars Work, And What That Means for Ending the Conflict in Syria, November 12, 2015, Foreign Affairs, Reuters News, as found on the www at https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2015-11-12/how-proxy-wars-work.
[xxxv] Lardner, Cynthia, “As Tensions Mount: Türkiye”, February 28, 2016, as found on the www at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/tensions-mount-t%C3%BCrkiye-cynthia-lardner.
[xxxvi] “Syria conflict: Turkey shells Kurdish militia”, February 14, 2016, BBC News, as found on the www at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-35571663 (“The US has so far ruled out a ground invasion of Syria, while Moscow has warned against such a development, saying it could lead to a world war.”).
[xxxviii] Masters, Jonathan, “The Russian Military”, Infra Endnote xx.
[xxxix] Wintour, Patrick and Walker, Shaun, Supra Endnote lx; “Syria conflict: Pressure grows on Russia over civilian bomb deaths”, February-3, 2016, BBC News, as found on the www at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-35568692.
[xl] Putin: Turkey ‘will regret’ downing Russian bomber in Syria, December 3, 2015, BBC News, as found on www at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-zone (On December 3, 2015, Mr. Putin stated, “…probably Allah alone knows why they did it. And evidently Allah decided to punish the ruling clique in Turkey, by depriving it of any reason or logic. Mr. Putin distinguished between the elite Turkish leadership and Russia’s “many longstanding and reliable friends in Turkey”.).
[xli] Medvedev, Dimitry, “Speech by Dmitry Medvedev at MSC 2016”, February 13, 2016, Voltaire, as found on the www athttp://www.voltairenet.org/article190255.html. See also Sanchez, Roy, “Russian PM Medvedev equates relations with West to a ‘new Cold War'”, February 14, 2016, CNN News, as found on the www athttp://edition.cnn.com/2016/02/13/europe/russia-medvedev-new-cold-war/; Rising, David, Russian PM: West is rekindling the Cold War, February 14, 2016, Philly.com, as found on the www at http://www.messenger-inquirer.com/news/national/russia-s-medvedev-nato-rekindling-the-cold-war/article_9ec9a59e-afd8-5870-b3bc-88d00bc49f5a; and Johnson, Chris, “Russia PM warns of ‘new cold war’ amid Syria accusations”, February 13, 2016, The Guardian, as found on the www atwww.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/13/russia-warns-of-new-cold-war-amid-syria-accusations-munich.
[xlii] “Russia has yet to fully implement Minsk deal on Ukraine: NATO official”, February 25, 2016, Reuters News, as found on the www athttp://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0VY150 (“Ted Whiteside, NATO’s Assistant Secretary General for Public Diplomacy, said that Russia persists with efforts to undermine Ukraine’s political aspirations and has yet to live up to the full implementation of the Minsk agreements.). See also Grady, John, “Expert on NATO Calls for Permanent Alliance Military Presence in Baltics As Hedge Against Russia Military Action”, February 16, 2016, USNI News, as found on the www athttps://shar.es/1C64EO (An analyst on NATO policy called for the alliance to place a permanent military presence in the Baltic states to counter a more active Russian military.).
[xliii] Rising, David, Russian PM: West is rekindling the Cold War, February 14, 2016, Philly.com, as found on the www at http://www.messenger-inquirer.com/news/national/russia-s-medvedev-nato-rekindling-the-cold-war/article_9ec9a59e-afd8-5870-b3bc-88d00bc49f5a.
[xliv] Medvedev, Dimitry, Infra Endnote xl. See also Masters, Jonathan, “The Russian Military”, Infra Endnote No. xx. (“Russian leaders acknowledge that there is now little threat of a large-scale NATO land invasion—a top concern during the Cold War—but they repeatedly condemn the bloc’s eastward expansion, including its plans to roll out a ballistic missile defense shield across Europe.
Moscow also fears that Western powers are working covertly to undermine its interests in the region. Russian leaders believe the United States and its allies orchestrated the so-called color revolutions—a series of popular uprisings in former Soviet satellites in the early 2000s.”)
[xlvi] Masters, Jonathan, “The Russian Military”, Infra Endnote xx (“The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, a Cold War cornerstone of transatlantic security, has significantly recast its role in the past twenty years. Founded in 1949 as a bulwark against Soviet aggression, NATO has evolved to confront threats ranging from piracy off the Horn of Africa to human trafficking in the Mediterranean. But while the modern NATO is generally more recognized for its role beyond rather than within Europe, Russian actions in recent years, particularly its 2014 intervention in Ukraine, have refocused the alliance’s attention on the continent. Recent developments have also exposed unresolved tensions over NATO’s expansion into the former Soviet sphere.”).
[xlvii] See also Doctorow, Gilbert, “Russian documentary film aims to avert nuclear war but Western media still busy demonizing Putin”, January 2, 2016, Russian Insider, as found on the www at https://newcoldwar.org/russian-documentary-film-aims-to-avert-nuclear-war-but-western-media-still-busy-demonizing-putin/ (The Commission on U.S. Policy Toward Russia issued a 17-page report entitled ‘The Right Direction for U.S. Policy toward Russia’. The centerpiece was a ‘reset’ as defined in the state papers signed in London was renewal of the 1994 Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (START) that was scheduled to expire in December 2009. It also called for organizing “contacts between our two governments in a more structured and regular way”. And it went on to urge greater cooperation between societies: more cultural exchanges, student exchanges, scientific cooperation, cooperation between NGOs. With respect to democracy promotion in Russia, the Commission members called for the volume of criticism of Russia to be turned down. They also called for a show of decency by Americans in their dealings with Russia.) (Gilbert Doctorow is the European Coordinator of the American Committee for East West Accord (ACEWA).).
[xlviii] Marcus, Jonathan, “Oh, what a lovely (cold) war!”, February 16, 2016, BBC News, as found on the www at http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35578716. See also Doctorow, Gilbert, Id. (“It bears stressing that today’s situation is still more threatening than in 2008. Against a background of shrill Information Warfare between Russia and the West, the denigration of the Russian leadership and of the country in general by the occupant of the Oval Office and by leading members of Congress has advanced to levels unequaled in the worst days of the Cold War. Meanwhile Russia’s strategic military capabilities in both nuclear and conventional warfare have advanced incredibly from the levels of 2008, when Western military observers expressed their satisfaction that the performance of the Russian military did not seem much improved over the days of the ill-fated Afghan war that brought down the Soviet Union.”) AccordBinnendijk, Hans. Friends, Foes, and Future Directions: U.S. Partnerships in a Turbulent World: Strategic Rethink. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2016, as found on the www athttp://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1210.html (“In general, however, the United States may need to follow a more collaborative approach in which it seeks greater collaboration and burden sharing from strong partners who have until now not been pulling their weight. To further reduce risk, the United States should seek to prevent deeper security ties from developing between China and Russia. It should work closely with its most vulnerable partners not only to reassure them, but to coordinate crisis management with them to limit the risk of unwanted escalation of incidents. And it should sponsor new trilateral efforts to draw together partners in both Europe and Asia that face similar security, political, economic, societal, and environmental problems. Only by working together across regions can many of these challenges be effectively managed.”).
[xlix] Behner, Lionel, Infra Endnote No. xxxiiii.
[l] Rosenberg, Steve, “Can Russia help build the peace in Syria?”, March 4, 2016, BBC News, as found on the www at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-35724986; “Turkey shells Syrian Kurds, Russia says will keep bombing anti-Assad rebels,” February 14, 2016, Reuters News, as found on the www athttp://mobile.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSKCN0VN0MA (“But the Kremlin statement made clear Russia would continue bombing raids against Islamic State and “other terroristic organizations”, an indication that it would also be targeting groups in western Syria where jihadists such as al Qaeda are fighting President Bashar al-Assad in close proximity to rebels deemed moderate by the West.); and “Kerry: ‘Critical that Russia’s targeting changes’ in Syria”, February 13, 2016, BBC News, as found on the www at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-35569341 (The US Secretary of State, John Kerry, has said Russia’s choice of targets in Syria must change, if it is to stick to an agreement to try to create a cessation in hostilities in a week’s time.).
[li] “Migrant crisis: Russia and Syria ‘weaponising’ migration”, March 2, 2016, BBC News, as found on the www at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35706238. See also Doucet, Lyse, “Syria: A different country after five years of war,” March 14, 2016, BBC News, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-35789827 (Food, water and medicine have also been deployed as weapons.).
[liii] Lardner, Cynthia, “Closing Borders: A Crime Against Humanity, November 2, 2015, as found on the www at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/closing-borders-crime-against-humanity-cynthia-lardner;http://cml.gamesofthrones.us/2015/11/closed-borders-crime-against-humanity.html; https://cynthiamlardner.wordpress.com/2015/11/05/closing-borders-a-crime-against-humanity/; http://cmlardner.blogspot.com/2015/11/closing-borders-crime-against-humanity.html.
[lvi] “How is the migrant crisis dividing EU countries?”, March 4, 2016, BBC News, as found on the www at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34278886 9”Big fault lines have opened up across the European Union – both east-west and north-south – because of the migrant crisis.”).
[lvii] “Migrant crisis: Angela Merkel condemns closure of Balkan route”, Infra Endnote No. liii (“The EU and Turkey, from where migrants reach Greece, have set out a plan to ease the crisis.
Under the proposals, hammered out at a summit in Brussels on Monday but still to be finalised, all migrants arriving in Greece from Turkey would be sent back. For each Syrian returned, a Syrian in Turkey would be resettled in the EU.”).
[lviii] Syria conflict: Damascus under pressure ahead of peace talks, March 14, 2016, BBC News, as found on the www at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-35798128.
[lx] Wintour, Patrick and Walker, Shaun, “Vladimir Putin orders Russian forces to begin withdrawal from Syria”, March 16, 2016, The Guardian, as found on the www at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/14/vladimir-putin-orders-withdrawal-russian-troops-syria.
[lxiii] Wintour, Patrick and Walker, Shaun, Infra Endnote No. lx. See also “Syria conflict: Russia’s Putin orders ‘main part’ of forces out”, March 16, 2016, BBC News, as found on the www at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-35807689; “Russian President Vladimir Putin To Withdraw Majority Of Troops From Syria”, March 16, 2016, NPR News, as found on the www athttp://www.npr.org/2016/03/14/470427645/russian-president-vladimir-putin-to-withdraw-majority-of-troops-from-syria; and “Iran Calls Russia’s Syria Withdrawal ‘Positive’”, March 15, 2015, Wall Street Journal, as found on the www at http://www.wsj.com/articles/iran-calls-russias-syria-withdrawal-positive-1458022062.
[lxiv] “Syria conflict: Russians prepare for withdrawal after Putin surprise move”, March 16, 2016, BBC News, as found on the www athttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-35809087.
[lxv] Herbst, John, “Ceasefire in Syria Turns Putin’s Eye on the Ukraine Once Again”, February 29, 2016, Newsweek, as found on the www at
http://europe.newsweek.com/ceasefire-syria-turns-putins-eye-ukraine-once-again-431465 (Moscow’s decision to increase hostilities in Ukraine’s east is related both to the war in Syria and the situation in Ukraine and Europe.).
[lxvi] Masters, Jonathan, “The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)”, Infra Endnote No. xvi. (“In December 2015, NATO invited Montenegro, a former republic of Yugoslavia, to begin ascension talks that are expected to take about a year to complete. Montenegro would be the first new NATO member since 2009. The Kremlin responded by warning that NATO’s eastward expansion “cannot but result in retaliatory actions.””).
[lxvii] Sharkov, Damien, Infra Endnote No. xxi (“Ukraine will definitely not be able to become a member of the EU in the next 20-to-25 years, and not of NATO either,” said European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker. But see“Poroshenko Signs Law Ratifying NATO Representation Status in Ukraine”, February 26, 2016, Sputnik News, as found on the www athttp://sputniknews.com/europe/20160226/1035393983/ukraine-nato-status-diplomatic.html#ixzz420ybskoI (“Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko signed a law on the ratification of an agreement with NATO on founding a diplomatic mission in Ukraine.”).
[lxviii] Spaulding, Hugo, “RUSSIAN MILITARY ACTIVITY: OCTOBER 27-NOVEMBER 3, 2015”, Institute for the Study of War, as found on the www athttp://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-military-activity-october-27-november-3-2015 (The U.S. should not pursue Russia’s operations in the Middle East are part of a larger effort to expand Russia’s military presence and political influence at the expense of the U.S. and its allies to an extent not witnessed since the end of the Cold War.).
[lxix] “Henry A. Kissinger Looks Back on the Cold War”, Infra Endnote No. vii.
[lxx] Birnbaum, Michael, “Vladimir Putin finds much to celebrate about Russia’s role in Syria truce”, February 25, 2016, Washington Post, as found on the www athttps://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/vladimir-putin-sees-good-reason-to-cheer-russias-role-in-syria-truce/2016/02/25/e856d992-da79-11e5-8210-f0bd8de915f6_story.html. See also Benitez, Jorge, “Alliance at Risk | Strengthening European Defense in an Age of Turbulence and Competition”, February 26, 2016, Brent Snowcroft Center, Atlantic Council, as found on the www at http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/#.VtVjGSaHeg8.mailto (“The broader transatlantic community faces a new and dynamic security environment, which includes a newly assertive Russia intent on altering the European security order in its favor and a turbulent and violence wracked Middle East and North Africa that has, among other things, spawned the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) and refugee flows not seen since the end of World War II. Europe’s security climate is arguably at its worst in over twenty-five years… As NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg emphasized; “We are facing the biggest security challenges in a generation. They are complex, interrelated and come from many directions. . . . So now is the time to invest in our defense.””); Harem, Amos, “The Cold War is warming up again – in Syria”, January 12, 2016, Haaretz, as found on the www at www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/.premium-1.690253?v=ACEB548551E3F0F225FD1BC2BD8A94EA (“The war in Syria, along with the monumental human suffering it has brought in its wake, to some extent reflects a return to the days of the Cold War. It involves a network of intrigues, shifting alliances and plots that could have easily been found in the decades following World War II Vienna, Berlin or Saigon.”); Andrej Krickovic and Yuval Weber “Why a new Cold War with Russia is inevitable”, September 30, 2015, Brookings Institute, as found on the www at www.brookings.edu/blogs/order-from-chaos/posts/2015/09/30-new-cold-war-with-russia-krickovic-weber; Frum, David, “The Cold War Never Really Ended” July/August 2015, The Atlantic, as found on the www atwww.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/07/cold-war-never-ended/395243/ (“As the relationship between Russia and the West has deteriorated, some have hastened to blame the United States and NATO for starting a new Cold War, while others entirely blame Putin himself. There is, however, another way to think, both more plausible and more troubling: the question is not “Has a new Cold War started?” but rather “Did the old Cold War ever end?””); and Richards, Susan, “The west talks about a new cold war. For Russians it has already started”, May 14, 2015, The Guardian, as found on the www at www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/14/west-cold-war-russia-west-ukraine#img-1 (“And yet when it came to defence we did not behave as though we were facing the end of history. Rather than disbanding our cold war defence arrangement, NATO, we reinvented it as an alliance that could be construed only as being arrayed against Russia. We kept expanding it ever eastward, closer to Russia’s borders. In response, Russia turned aggressive – first in Georgia, then in Crimea and Ukraine – at this intrusion into its sphere of influence. Russia’s sense of its identity, poised on the edge of Europe in a borderless landmass, has always been pathologically insecure. Identities are tangled, allegiances split.”).