Tag Archives: Cold War

Economic, Europe, Government, History, NATO, Politics, Russia, Society, United States

America has a role in supporting Europe. It isn’t about to turn its back…

AMERICA & EUROPE IN COUNTERING THE THREAT FROM RUSSIA

A European crisis has, once again, brought the ambitions of a second-term American president into the sharp light of day. Mr Obama could never have wished that he would land in Europe with the sole task of rallying some of his country’s oldest allies against the expansionist threats posed by Vladimir Putin of Russia. And yet, this is precisely the situation Barack Obama finds himself in.

Mr Obama arrived in The Hague and described Europe’s idiosyncratic collection of comatose economies as the ‘cornerstone of America’s engagement with the world’. His presence was enough to underline the realities of a new and emerging Cold War message: one to which America remains the ultimate guarantor of European security.

Whatever the intrinsic American wishes are, America cannot abdicate from that role. While history may reflect back the words of Franklin Roosevelt who pledged that America would never send US troops to fight in Europe, or even during Mr Obama’s own reign in office when he pronounced America’s ‘pivot’ and orientation towards Asia, Putin’s provocative stance and actions in Crimea has made such a profound difference to how the US reflects upon Europe. The United States accepts that the threats posed by Russia are serious and interconnected, and is turning away from the Pacific to behave in a way that every president from Truman to Reagan would have recognised.

Predicting what Putin will do next to enhance and strengthen his Russian Federation is difficult to determine. As a former KGB officer, he knows the high value placed on keeping his intentions as mysterious and covert as possible.

Psychology is also at play. The flint-eyed incumbent of the Kremlin strongly believes that Mr Obama is a president motivated far more by what is happening in the Pacific. To Mr Putin’s eye Barack Obama is a leader that is fundamentally uninterested in Europe and viscerally reluctant to use force of any kind. The Russian leader observed how Mr Obama steered clear of intervening in Libya by allowing Britain and France to claim the credit for toppling the Gaddafi regime. America’s role in that campaign was leadership from the back, rather than the front dynamism many would otherwise have expected.

And no-doubt the Kremlin hardliner would have taken special note when Bashar al-Assad made a mockery over Mr Obama’s ‘red lines’ and gassed hundreds of innocent Syrian civilians without paying a military price.

Mr Putin may even have thought this was an American president who could be pushed around. The disarmament treaty with Moscow, signed in 2010, for example, imposed far greater cuts on the US arsenal than was made to the Russian inventory.

Russia has remained committed in driving a wedge between Europe and America. Along with its actions in Ukraine, Russia has demonstrated the compelling necessity of NATO and the Atlantic Alliance. Such miscalculations may even impel Europe to realise the mistakes of continuously running down its defences.

America and Europe seem certain to respond with skill and resolve. Such a partnership can only make the world a safer place.

Standard
Britain, Government, History, Intelligence, Military, United States

RAF Cold War missions over the former Soviet Union…

COVERT FLIGHTS

The RAF flew covert spying missions over the former Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War.

After decades of secrecy, CIA documents show British pilots were involved in the U-2 flights in 1959 and 1960.

These missions gathered vital intelligence which was regarded by the American intelligence services as being worth ‘a million dollars’.

Until now the Ministry of Defence has neither confirmed nor denied the participation of the RAF in the controversial missions, a position it will no longer be able to maintain.

The first U-2 flights over the Soviet Union started in July 1956, but despite the valuable information gathered, President Dwight Eisenhower was concerned about the ramifications of such a flagrant breach of Russian air space if they were discovered.

Unfortunately for the Americans, even though the high-tech U-2s flew at more than 70,000ft, the Russians were still able to track the planes.

The Soviets sent a strongly worded protest to Eisenhower, who developed second thoughts about the missions and suspended such flights in December 1956.

But the CIA was extremely keen for the spying missions to continue and looked for ways, in the words of one CIA document, ‘to increase the possibility of plausible denial’.

The solution was to use British pilots for the sensitive missions. During the spring of 1957, negotiations took place between the CIA and the chief of MI6, Sir Dick White, who saw the immediate benefits for Britain.

By the summer of 1958, Prime Minister Harold Macmillan had given his authorisation, and four RAF officers, Squadron Leader Christopher Walker and Flight Lieutenants Michael Bradley, John MacArthur and David Dowling – all of whom were in their twenties and single – were sent to train on flying the U-2s in Texas.

Flying the U-2s, however, was not without risk, and on July 8, 1958, Walker was killed when his plane crashed. The cause was never definitively established, but it is believed the aircraft disintegrated at high altitude.

He was immediately replaced by Wing Commander Robert Robinson. By 1959 all four men had finished their operational conversion to the U-2 and were sent to a secret air base in Turkey. From there they launched their flights over the Soviet Union and the Middle East.

In order to emphasise American denials of the operation, the U-2 planes were formally transferred on paper to the British Government. Eisenhower wrote to Macmillan, stating: ‘British missions are carried out on your authority and are your responsibility.’

And the flights remained a secret in Britain, too. The pilots were no longer paid by the RAF, but by MI6, and the public was told the airmen were engaging in ‘high-altitude weather-sampling missions’.

The first mission was flown by Wing Commander Robinson on December 6, 1959, over the Kapustin Yar missile test range and a squadron of long-range bombers in the Ukraine.

The missions proved to be hugely successful and proved the Soviets did not have as many bombers as they claimed – a vital piece of intelligence at the height of the Cold War. The head of the CIA referred to photographs taken by Wing Commander Robinson as being worth ‘a million dollars’.

The second British U-2 mission over the Soviet Union was flow by Flight Lieutenant John MacArthur the following month. Although his brief was to look for missile sites around the Aral Sea, he ended up uncovering a new type of Soviet bomber called the Tupolev Tu-22 at Kazan.

The Americans later resumed their involvement in the U-2 missions, but this came to an abrupt end in the wake of the Soviets shooting down and imprisoning US pilot Gary Powers in May 1960. The British ordered the RAF officers to leave Turkey immediately.

The following year, all four British RAF pilots received the Air Force Cross, although their citations in the London Gazette did not mention exactly why. After more than half a century, the truth has now been revealed.

Standard
Economic, Government, Politics, Russia, Society, United States

Bilateral relations between America and Russia…

RUSSIA ISN’T WHAT IT ONCE WAS

At the pinnacle of the Cold War, leaders from both Russia and America would meet on fairly equal terms to bargain over the fate of the world. If either titan refused to meet the other, that generally signalled a cast chill over humanity.

Yet, the idea that Barack Obama and Vladimir Putin remain genuine peers today is a delusion and remnant left over from the era of superpower confrontation. For all the bombastic rhetoric emanating from the Kremlin, the inescapable reality is that America possesses a widening advantage over Russia on every possible measure of national power: from economic strength to its military might.

The decision by Mr Obama to cancel a proposed summit with Mr Putin in Moscow next month, ostensibly because of the furore surrounding Russia’s decision to grant the US fugitive and whistleblower Edward Snowden asylum status, was both inevitable and eminently sensible. Washington’s justified response to the posturing of a weaker rival was credible because Mr Snowden offered himself as a convenient antagonist to needle the United States.

The White House, of course, has not escaped criticism from some quarters at home. Some are asking why, when the U.S. and the Soviet Union managed to hold summits even during the depths of the Cold War – when the divide separating the rival superpowers was even greater – why President Obama, who has regularly stood by his faith and doctrine in resetting relations with Russia, could not have gone through with the September Summit?

Any historical comparison, though, is false; the Cold War ended almost 22-years ago, and America has always been perceived as the silent victor. But as Mr Obama has rightly pointed out, the Kremlin acts as if it continues, almost reflexively, to take the opposite point of view to Washington on every conceivable problem of the moment. Putin’s nationalistic approach to a domestic audience may play well at home with some, but one may wonder whether the Russian President has even noticed how much the world has changed since the demise of the Soviet Union in December 1991 when the red flag with the hammer and sickle was hauled down for the last time from the Kremlin towers.

No one should doubt that the global balance of power is turning against the West, but Russia cannot be classified as being among the world’s rising powers. For one, the country’s population is in remorseless decline. Poor health, alcoholism and emigration are steadily reducing the number of Russian citizens. The UN has forecast that by 2050 the country will have lost some 36 million people, reducing its overall population to 107 million – Uganda, a country whose territory is less than 2 per cent the size of Russia, has a population not much above 103 million.

Compare and contrast America, with a populace of more than 300 million people – or even Britain, which now has the fastest growing population in Europe. The UK adds about 400,000 people every year, which is close to the annual rate at which Russians are dying off. While some Britons remain uneasy over the scale of immigration on these islands, it is true that fewer people make a weaker economy.

And another reason for Russia’s long-term decline is due to its actual economic health. Today, the American economy remains eight times bigger than Russia’s. Remarkably, too, is that Russia’s gross domestic product is still 30 per cent smaller than Britain’s. Its economic strength has been artificially inflated by high oil prices and the vast energy reserves it has at its disposal. Despite that, Russia’s customers are increasingly turning to shale gas from fracking, and future oil prices will become an uncertain indicator for economic health.

Whilst it is true that Russia can act as an obstructionist on a range of international issues (Syria being one such example) one should seek to understand whether Mr Putin is deliberately irritating the U.S. rather than being a competitive rival to the West.

Today, military might and the size of a country’s nuclear arsenal count far less than its economic prowess, its entrepreneurialism, competitiveness and how central it is to the global trading system. With neither the EU nor China having the desire to send fleets and armies to the opposite ends of the earth, the United States remains the autonomnous military superpower having achieved that position largely by default. Despite Mr Putin’s bluster, Russia no longer has the capacity it once had in challenging America as a superpower.

Economically, Russia is a mid-sized power, with a GDP that is barely a 10th of that of the US. Russia is often quoted for its corruption, its scant respect for the rule of law and its continued dependence on raw materials, particularly oil and gas.

Had September’s summit gone ahead, Mr Obama would have been on a hiding to nothing as Vladimir Putin’s obstructionist style would have seen to that. Such summits are not spontaneous, one-off occasions, but are carefully choreographed and prepared; usually communiqués are worked out well in advance. Presently, however, apart from the evident dislike between the two men, the differences appear unbridgeable – on Syria’s continuing bloody civil war, missile defence and Mr Putin’s internal repression, to name but a few of the issues. Moscow’s granting of asylum status to Edward Snowden would have been the last straw. Had Mr Obama attended the summit in Moscow and returned empty-handed, as was all but certain, he would have been pilloried at home by Republicans as being weak and over-trusting.

With bilateral relations as low as they are, it isn’t inconceivable to say they will remain that way so long as Mr Putin is on the world stage.

Standard