A New Cold War Is Unnecessary

by Gerard Emershaw

Vladimir Putin’s Teddy Roosevelt-like bellicosity and Russia’s intervention in Ukraine is inevitably going to make neocon Trotskyites, progressive Wilsonian hawks, and Military-Industrial Complex shills more belligerent than usual. There will inevitably be increasing calls for President Obama to act more like a cowboy like his predecessor in the White House. They will want President Obama to be even more of a warmonger than he already has been—if that is even possible. They will want him to be an alpha dog and best Vlad in some sort of international dog fight. They will lament that the Cold War has begun again or that it never really ended.

The truth of the matter is that the last thing that the United States should do is create a new Cold War with Russia. This is also the last thing that the United States needs to do. The first Cold War was essentially a dangerous waste of resources on the part of the United States. Those who believe that the Cold War was necessary have no faith in the free market. They are most likely not capitalists. Given that many of the war hawks and Military-Industrial Complex Rand Corporation type Dr. Strangelove stooges were far closer to being fascists than free market capitalists, this is no surprise. Similarly, those who believe that the United States must now get back on a war footing against Russia have no faith in the free market. Given that many of the new war hawks are closer to being Bismarckian statists and corporatists than free market capitalists, this is also no surprise.

Vladimir Putin is a tyrant. There is no doubt about that. He seems to be an unstable cross between a Stalinist inner party member of the 1950s Soviet Union, an early 20^th century Czarist nationalist oligarch, and a new era Russian gangster. Nevertheless, sometimes even the most unbalanced despots have reasons for doing what they are doing. Ukraine is Russia’s neighbor and former part of the Soviet Bloc. The political disintegration that is taking place in Ukraine obviously concerns Russia. If similar turmoil were occurring in Canada or Mexico, it is obvious that the United States would intervene militarily. Consider how often American presidents—particularly Woodrow Wilson—intervened in Latin America based upon the Monroe Doctrine. Wilson invaded Mexico on 11 separate occasions due to alleged political instability.

Even if Russia’s actions are not justified, the United States has no important interest in Ukraine. Ukraine is not a major political ally. Ukraine is not truly a democratic republic as its many disputed elections and recent events demonstrate. In reality, its government is closer to fascism. The United States is a trade partner of Ukraine’s, but there is no reason for this to change no matter who winds up controlling the nation when the smoke clears. Trade is what the United States should be promoting with all nations rather than entangling military alliances and rivalries.

Furthermore, the political situation in Ukraine is complex to put it mildly. To put it bluntly, it is a mess. Many in the Crimean region are more aligned with Russia than with the rest of Ukraine. While many of the Ukrainian protesters genuinely want freedom, political groups in that nation range from old school Stalinists to Neo-Nazis. The Obama administration has proven to be no more competent in foreign policy than any recent administration. Therefore, it is highly likely that if the United States were to forge some kind of alliance with a political faction in Ukraine, it would wind up being some Neo-Nazi group. Do not forget that the United States is politically in bed with Al Qaeda affiliated groups in Syria. Do not forget that the United States was aligned with the Mujahideen in Afghanistan in the 1970s and 80s. Do not forget any of the rogues’ gallery of despots such as Saddam Hussein that the United States has allied themselves with over the years. Also do not forget all the dangerous blowback that this has produced time and time again.

Even if there were a single reason for the United States to intervene militarily, economically, or politically in Ukraine, the truth of the matter is that Americans cannot afford it. The national debt is still $17 trillion and growing. The Bush/Obama wrecked economy is still in shambles. Any ratcheting up of Neo-Cold War tensions will just further exacerbate American economic woes. Even economic sanctions or an attempt to remove Russia from the G-8 will produce economic blowback. The United States does not need and cannot afford some new ill advised arms race with Russia. There is no reason to provoke an unstable dictator like Putin by placing some kind of missile defense shield near Russia’s borders. It is also wise to take a deep breath and realize that Putin’s actions have nothing to do with the United States anymore than United States intervention to prevent a civil war or a total Somalia-like disintegration in Mexico would have something to do with Russia.

Those who fear Russia have no faith in the United States, its people, its economy, or free market capitalism in general. Just as the Soviet Union’s communist economy was inevitably going to collapse even without costly American Cold War maneuvering, so too will Russia’s neo-fascist economy. Despite undeniable economic growth, the GDP of Russia is just over $2 trillion compared with the nearly $15.7 trillion GDP of the United States. More tellingly, according to Heritage, Russia’s economy is only 140^th in the world in terms of economic freedom while the United States economy is 12^th freest. In addition, Russia faces institutional corruption more on par with a banana republic than a world power and is experiencing a troubling “brain drain” in which half of all persons in some key financial and business sectors are leaving Russia. In many ways, Russia is a sick and decaying society. For example, life expectancy in Russia is only 69.85 compared with 78.62 in the United States. The Russian life expectancy level is on a par with impoverished countries.

The bottom line is that Russia’s statist controlled economy is doomed to collapse the nation. If Putin wishes to rattle a saber like he is the second coming of Stalin, then the United States should allow him to do just that. Militarism is expensive, and Russia cannot afford it. Any extra expenditures on defense will just make the Russian economy and government collapse all the more quickly. Either free market capitalism is better or statist centrally controlled economies are better. Those who wish to re-engage Russia in a new Cold War obviously do not believe that free market capitalism is better. Neocons and belligerent Wilsonian progressives have never had faith in free markets or in Americans in general, so it is clear where they will stand on the issue.

Many on the right lament the “welfare state.” However, the most disgusting “welfare state” is not the one which provides sustenance programs to Americans living in poverty. It is not even the one which provides corporate welfare to large corporations and wealth individuals. The most disgusting “welfare state” is the international geo-political “welfare state” by which wealthy European nations and other allies are provided free defense on the backs of American servicemen and women and American taxpayers. Europe, South Korea, Japan, etc. Why are these wealthy nations provided free defense when they can afford to do it themselves? In essence, American taxpayers are paying for the cradle-to-grave Nanny States in these nations. Because these nations can afford to spend so little on defense, they can have free socialized medicine, free college education, subsidized vacations, etc.

NATO is completely unnecessary and probably has been since at least the 1960s. By the time Western Europe rebuilt economically and arose from the ashes of World War II as a vibrant economic power, any costly military alliance with it was unnecessary. Especially a military alliance like NATO in which American military members do all the heavy lifting and American taxpayers foot most of the bill. The European Union taken as a whole has the largest GDP in the world. The United States no longer needs to protect it. And should the United States really risk World War III and atomic Armageddon for the likes of prospective NATO members like Georgia or Ukraine? Are American lives really worth risking for two borderline fascist nations with no important strategic or economic importance to American interests? Has the United States fallen so far that it is necessary for American morale to get the best of Russia on unimportant issues?

Isolationism? No, non-interventionism. Ignoring the hostile regional machinations of decadent European powers like Russia is the sort of thing that George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson preached and practiced. Intervening willy-nilly for no good reason is what William McKinley, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama preached and practiced. Which group of American leaders do you trust more? Many claim that the United States risks looking “weak.” Only the weak worry about looking weak. The strength of a nation does not come from militarism. If it did, then nations like Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan would be considered among the greatest nations in history. The true strength of a nation comes from its people and their economic productivity. Instead of empty threats and wasteful increases in military spending which a new Cold War would cause, the United States should show its strength by developing more useful patents, creating more great works of art, creating new entrepreneurial opportunities and more jobs, and again becoming a beacon of freedom around the world through example by following the Constitution.

In the final analysis, if you believe that a new hostile nuclear rivalry with Russia is necessary, then you probably are not a free market capitalist. You are probably not a deficit hawk or a fiscal conservative. You are probably not aligned with the ideals of the Founders.