The Lukewarm War…

The Cold War, to a great extent a farcical display of bumbling and brutality, was at least about something. The Soviet Union represented nationalisation while the United States defended the free market. The Soviet Union supported dictatorships while the US tended to advocate democracy. (I am of course aware of counterexamples in Chile or Iran but permit me this sweeping generalisation.)

Liberal hawks have struggled to impose similar narratives on recent tensions between Western powers and Putin’s Russia. One can feel that Pussy Riot and FEMEN have been treated harshly but it would be ludicrous to think their stunts represent flowering free expression against arid censorship. One can think the Syrian rebellion began with legitimate anger towards Assad’s despotic, autocratic tendencies but it would be absurd to claim the rebels, as they stand, represent liberal, democratic values. If our totems are exhibitionists dancing in cathedrals and “moderate rebels” who often turn out to be jihadists it is hard to see this as a conflict of values (or, at least, it is hard to think that we deserve to win).

Wary as I am of words that bear the suffix “phobia”, there have been Russophobic elements to our discourse. Tim Wise, comically an anti-racism activist, suggested that Russia’s contributions to the civilised world were, “Faberge eggs, autocracy and pogroms”.  Never mind Dostoevsky, Tolstoy and Bulgakov.

Yet there is a conflict. A geopolitical conflict. Putin does not want strong rivals challenging his interests and seeks to undermine the EU and the United States. This puts nationalists in the awkward position of advancing Putin’s aims. “Who cares?” say isolationists. I am not one of them. An isolationist, at worst, is a man sitting in his house, convinced that if he stays inside the fire sweeping his neighbourhood will not imperil him. Others are fearmongering about war to such a ludicrous extent that any criticism of the Russian president is portrayed as a thirst for nuclear Armageddon.

I have never supported intervention in Syria, though our policy of aiding the rebels enough that they can fight but not enough that they can win strikes me as a pathetic, cruel form of enablement. With little prospect of welcome replacements for Assad, and, if we’re honest, limited national interests in the region, this is not, I think, worth a clash of nuclear powers. But we should defend NATO, not because Russia is an enemy but as it is a rival, and a rival that intimidates our economic partners and cultural cousins. One need not believe that Putin is a latter-day Stalin to believe that he is cynical, dishonest and power-hungry, and a secure union of states discourages him from venturing out beyond his little Crimean annex.

About bsixsmith

I am a writer of stories and poems - published by Every Day Fiction, The London Journal of Fiction, 365 Tomorrows and Det Poetiske Bureau - and a columnist for Quillette, Areo and Bombs & Dollars.
This entry was posted in Europe. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to The Lukewarm War…

  1. Urlance Woolsbane says:

    I think the pertinent question is “At what point does a rival become an outright enemy?”

    I’d also argue that there is a definite conflict of values, despite it not being as overt as that between the USA and the USSR. Putin is a nationalist, and as such puts the advancement of Russia above all else. Americans, while divided on the extent to which their country should interfere in the affairs of others, generally view the state as subservient to its citizens and to basic human dignity. However, America is not isolationist, and will happily sally abroad in the name of human rights. As such, there exist two superpowers with two competing brands of interventionism. It seems naive to assume that they will peacefully coexist.


    • bsixsmith says:

      Granted, but we have to choose our battles. (Diplomatic, of course, rather than military.) Poland or even Ukraine are important than Syria – much as I hope there can be some kind of humanitarian solution.


      • Urlance Woolsbane says:

        Oh, I agree. I’ve been against intervening in Syria from the start, but it’s no surprise that’s it turning into a proxy war betwixt America & Russia.


  2. spottedtoad says:

    Yes, I agree with this. I imagine your position in Poland gives you a bit of insight into it, but admitting we (i.e., the US and the U.K.) have little reason to take a “side” in the Syrian conflict doesn’t mean Russian expansion and military intervention in Eastern Europe is not of worrying consequence.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s