Tag Archives: Cold War

Arts, History, Russia, Society, Soviet Union, United States

Short Essay: The Start of The ‘Cold War’

(1946-1948)

AFTER THE SECOND WORLD WAR the responsibility for supervising the defeated Germany was divided among the Allied victors. West Germany was occupied by British and American troops, while East Germany was occupied by Russia. Berlin, the capital of Germany, was also divided into East and West, but embedded within East German territory.

On 24 July 1948, Soviet troops set up a blockade, severing the road and rail links between West Germany and Berlin. It was a calculated act of aggression against the West, and was felt as such. The West came close to declaring war on Russia and was only put off by the thought of Stalingrad. In fact, it later turned out that Stalin did not have sufficient troops or equipment in the Russian sector (later East Germany) to launch a war on the British and American sectors (later West Germany). If the British and American troops had fought their way through the Soviet blockade, there would probably have been no further military action from Moscow, but at the time the level of risk was unknown.

The day after the Berlin blockade started an airlift began, with British and US aircraft flying in food and supplies for the people living in West Berlin – some 2million of them. The blockade continued and by September the aircraft were ferrying in 4,500 tons of supplies a day. The blockade was maintained for almost 18 months.

Relations between the West and the Soviet Union naturally cooled over the Berlin blockade. The US Presidential adviser Bernard Baruch described the situation as a “Cold War”, coining the phrase that would characterise the state of the world for the next half-century. The Soviets were not firing guns at anyone, but their behaviour was certainly hostile and intimidating.

This state of frozen hostility went on for over 40 years. It led directly to a dangerous arms race in which the latest atomic weapons were stockpiled. As the science of rocketry developed, America and the Soviet Union equipped their arsenals with rockets and missiles that could carry nuclear warheads right across the Arctic Ocean or from one side of Europe to the other. The cost of these intercontinental ballistic missiles (IBMs) was enormous, a huge drain on the economic resources of the countries involved.

A climate of fear was generated. Both sides wanted to test their latest nuclear bombs, and the bomb test explosions were in themselves intended to deter the enemy. By the late 1950s it was evident that dangerous levels of radiation were being pumped into the atmosphere by these test explosions, and anxious people were concerned their life expectancy was being shortened by the increase risk of serious illness. In the West, there was also a heightened fear that real, full-scale war would break out, a Third World War that might be shorter but far more violent than the two previous world wars, a war that could and probably would destroy both sides.

Perhaps in the knowledge that an old-style military war would probably annihilate everything and everyone, America and the Soviet Union played out their fierce rivalry in a Space Race. The competition to launch satellites, space probes and land men on the Moon was a kind of displacement activity, an acting-out of the Cold War in a contest of supremacy over space technology.

. Appendage

Cold War

Standard
Defence, Government, National Security, NATO, Politics, Society

Enlarging NATO will be problematic. But Poland wants new members…

NATO

At a conference in the Polish city of Wroclaw on 12 June, the Polish defence minister, Tomasz Siemoniak, said that Macedonia and Montenegro should be invited to join NATO at next year’s summit in Warsaw. The two former Yugoslav nations want to join the 28-country military alliance, but any move to do so could increase already high-tensions between the Western alliance and Russia.

Any invitation, however, is likely to draw scorn from Moscow. Since the end of the Cold War, Russia has opposed any expansion of NATO that includes the former communist nations in eastern and southeast Europe, claiming that it is a purposefully provocative move. Russia’s foreign minister has repeatedly warned against NATO approaching Bosnia, Macedonia and Montenegro, saying that NATO allowing those countries to join would be solely aimed at undermining Russia.

This type of disagreement – asking countries to choose allegiance to either the West or East – was the ideological barrier that fuelled the Cold War for more than 40 years and lies at the heart of the current conflict in eastern Ukraine. Some believe that the war in the contested region of Donbas, Ukraine, is deliberately designed to stop the country from being eligible for NATO selection, as the alliance does not typically allow nations to join while a conflict remains unresolved. Experts say this tactic, known as a ‘frozen conflict’, was used in the 2008 war in Georgia.

In 1999, former communist countries began joining NATO en masse, including the former Soviet states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania who all joined in 2004. In the Balkan region, Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Greece, Slovenia and Romania are members of the alliance.

Standard
Asia, China, Economic, Europe, Government, Intelligence, Middle East, Military, National Security, NATO, Society, United States

US Defence Strategy…

(From the archives) Originally posted on January 7, 2012 by markdowe

SHIFT IN AMERICA’S DEFENCE STRATEGY

On Saturday, 07 January, 2012, the Editorial of the Daily Telegraph focused on America’s shift in defence strategy, following Thursday’s announcement by President Barack Obama. The US is to focus less on Europe and more on Asia following the rising threat of China.

The Editorial states:

‘The Pentagon briefing room rarely hosts all of America’s service chiefs, let alone the president. Its use by Barack Obama to announce the conclusions of his defence review was designed to add a sense of drama – and the occasion certainly lived up to its billing. Future historians will probably conclude that this was the week when America’s entire foreign and defence strategy pivoted decisively away from Europe and towards the Pacific. More ominously, it might also mark the onset of a new, if concealed, arms race between the US and its aspiring rival, China.

First things first: America’s military dominance will remain unchallenged for the foreseeable future. Mr Obama might have announced spending cuts of almost $500 billion over the next decade, but this amounts to a light trim for a defence machine with an annual budget of $650 billion, amounting to 45 per cent of all military expenditure in the world. America is not axing capabilities in the foolish fashion of British governments; rather, its power is being focused on the great strategic challenges of the next century. These can be simply summarised: the struggle for mastery in Asia, home of the world’s most populous countries and fastest-growing economies, and responding to sudden crises. To this end, the US will reduce its presence in Europe, cut 90,000 soldiers and bulk up in the Pacific, with new bases in Australia and elsewhere. As for other flashpoints, few will be surprised that the US policy stresses the goals of containing Iran and guaranteeing free passage through the Strait of Hormuz.

On a purely military level, two points stand out. The US might be cutting its army, but it has ruled out reducing its fleet of 11 aircraft carriers, each of which packs more punch than the entire air forces of most countries. While China’s defence budget has recorded double-digit increases for the past decade, it has still launched only one carrier – an old Russian model of doubtful combat value. Second, Mr Obama stressed his determination to invest in “intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance”. Put simply, the US will seek to extend its lead in the most advanced combat systems: where scores of troops – and hundreds of support staff – might once have been required to dispatch a senior al-Qaeda operative, now one unmanned drone can do the job.

America’s new course could well be shifted by a strategic shock akin to the September 11 attacks. Nevertheless, this plan will have momentous consequences for Europe and Asia alike. For decades, the US has underwritten the security of the Atlantic as well as the Pacific, effectively allowing Europe a free ride and permitting a string of Nato members the luxury of running down their defence budgets. This era is rapidly coming to a close. Yet with a few honourable exceptions, such as Britain and France, European powers have failed to fund their armed forces adequately, or deploy them when needed. Germany, in particular, must overcome the burden of its history and face up to the responsibilities that go with being the Continent’s leading economic power.

Mr Obama’s address studiously refrained from mentioning China, the country that probably has most at stake. Beijing’s leaders will now have to make far-reaching choices of their own. As events in Burma have shown, China’s “peaceful rise” has alarmed many of its neighbours: for most countries in the region, American power and values remain far more appealing. Moreover, China has grown rich largely thanks to trade, not least with the US. Faced with the net of containment that America is quietly laying across the Pacific, China will search for the Achilles’ heel of the US Navy, perfecting a new generation of missiles capable of destroying aircraft carriers from hundreds of miles away, working out how to cripple the internet, and how to blind the US satellite network, on which all its military assets now depend.

The world will pay a bitter price, however, if this veiled arms race between America and China escalates. History shows that free trade and military rivalry – however disguised – make for uncomfortable bedfellows. Beijing has gained rapidly in both wealth and power. The manner in which it chooses to pursue them now will have consequences for us all.’ [sic]

 

MD responded:

Whilst the US has declared China as a threat and announcing Asia as a priority, America is also to invest in a long-term strategic partnership with India. India will become the new powerful Asian ally of the United States in the region. In rolling out its new strategy, the Pentagon has made clear that the fronts for potential conflicts are shifting towards China. The US says that all of the trends – whether that is demographic, geopolitical, economic or military – are shifting towards the Pacific and, that over the long-term, China’s emergence as a regional power will have the potential to affect the US economy and security in a variety of ways.

It shouldn’t be in any doubt that China has unsettled its neighbours over several years with the expansion of its navy and improvements in missile and surveillance capabilities. The Pentagon is anxious about China’s strategic goals as it begins to search for a new generation of weapons.

The US defence strategy followed a major diplomatic push by Washington to expand security partnerships with its allies in the region. Last month, the US, India and Japan held their first trilateral meeting in an attempt to counter China’s rising influence in the Asia-Pacific.

China has advanced its influence in the region, along with allies like North Korea, Pakistan, Myanmar and Sri Lanka. Over recent years it has established itself as a growing, and sometimes bullying power in the Pacific, particularly in East Asia. Most of the countries, though, in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) have festering territorial disputes with China. America’s new emphasis on Asia and the containment of China also stems from the fact that the Asia-Pacific region now constitutes the centre of gravity of world economic activity.

But is America’s new stance the beginning of something that could fan Cold war-style antagonism?

Standard