Combating the New Cold War:

An In-Depth Discussion of the United States Foreign Policy

Regarding Russian Military and Social Aggression
Chloe McFall
Justin Campbell
Mircea Cozmei
Betz Mayer
Gwendolyn Scott
Michelle Major
Eleanor Guthrie

Executive Summary

Combating the New Cold War 1

In making a decision about the future of United States and Russias

relations it is important to understand the impact held by previous actions on
the current situation. Russia throughout history has gone through periods of
expansion and regression on the map of Europe, the most recent regression
stemming from the end of the Cold War. In their effort to become a world
superpower again Russia has taken the Crimea back, the beginning of a new
age of expansion and conflict with other nations. In short, Russia has become
more volatile and has pushed the United States into a New Cold War.
The proposed solution to this problem is M.A.P.S.: military anticipation,
press, and sanctions. Regarding Russias recent military aggression the
United States needs to aid the former Soviet Bloc countries and be prepared
to take a more aggressive stance against Russia. In addition, the United
States, within itself, must promote and exhibit the appropriate ideals that
could aid Russias social crisis. Lastly, the United States has to implement
the economic sanction which best suits both the people of Russia and the
interest of the United States by targeting specific Russian officials. The
United States, if it chooses to utilize M.A.P.S., would hopefully be able to
avoid a long stalemate and end the New Cold War.

History Of Russian Military Aggressiveness

On March 3rd, 1918, the Russian government, led by Vladimir Lenin of
the Communist party, pulled out of World War I. The war caused supplies,
primarily food, oil, and medicine, to be diverted to soldiers fighting the

Combating the New Cold War 2

Germans on the battlefield causing mass protests. This event gave Lenin the
opportunity he was waiting for to push out the current Tsar, Nicholas II.
Lenins aggressive stance was clear from the very start of his reign. During
the revolution, Lenin said the Communist Party had to be the Proletariat:
controlled by the working class. He also stated that in the dictatorship of
the proletariat, our party must be the slaveholding class. Like all totalitarian
institutions, the people had little freedoms and were extremely repressed.
When Lenin was still alive there was a revolt within the party which he
suppressed through terror. During this time period, Lenin also tightened the
inner circle insuring no one had enough power to overthrow him. These
occurrences gave the communist party the opening it needed to continue
this reign of terror and insure no one could oppose them.
Joseph Stalin succeeded Lenin, shortly after his death, in 1929. Many
westerners thought Lenins policies were extreme; however, Stalin played an
even harsher game. He intended to gain absolute power by employing
police repression against opposition elements within the Communist Party
(Repression and Terror). By 1934 he had eradicated all opposition to his
rule and became the unchallenged leader of both party and state
(Repression and Terror). Propaganda was often used to further Stalins
interests. He used the secret police and threat of labour camps to force
artists, authors and journalists to create works that glorified himself. Stalin
wanted the people to see himself as the father of all Russians (Life in the
USSR) giving him the nickname Unkle Joe. Throughout the last part of the

Combating the New Cold War 3

1930s, assassinations and imprisonment remained high. In addition, many

of Russias most talented people were murdered during the purges (Life in
the USSR).
History was made in 1939 when Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler signed a
nonaggression pact and in essence, divided up the world. Soon after, the
Soviet Union invaded Poland from the east while Germany sent in troops
from the west. By October 6th, 1939 Poland had been completely crushed
and the nation ceased to exist. At the same time, Stalin claimed Romania,
Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania and launched an attack on Finland. Then, in
June of 1941 Germany broke its treaty with the Soviets. Hitler's army pushed
all the way to Moscow before the Russians finally turned the tides in the
battle of Stalingrad and pushed the German army out of the country.
Although Stalin eventually joined forces with the allies and successfully
defeated Hitler it was not without an agenda. He had a post war plan for the
Soviet Union which included keeping all the territories it gained in World War
II.
Although the exact figures are not known, it is estimated that under
Stalins rule at least 20 million people were brutally killed. Even after the end
of World War II the Soviet Union played a very aggressive role in foreign
affairs. It established Communist dictatorships in all areas under its influence
and even encouraged its allies to go to war, as was the case with North and
South Korea.

Combating the New Cold War 4

On March 5th, 1953, Joseph Stalin died from a stroke. The Soviet
Unions aggressiveness toward foreign countries was evident and extreme.
Its goal was to further Communism, and leaders, such as Stalin, didnt care
who died in the process. Today, over 60 years later, many parallels can be
seen from Communist Russia to Current Russia.

Connections Between Communist Russia and Current Russia

Communist leaders ruled the country with an iron fist. Vladimir Putin is
no different. He strategically uses political assassinations to ensure absolute
power. Anyone that opposes Putin or his policies find themselves charged
with treason, exiled and eventually murdered. Like Stalin, President Putin
uses propaganda to further his hold over the state. He uses state controlled
public media to portray himself as the ideal man by posing shirtless and in
dangerous situations. He even had a documentary filmed about himself
when he was just a low level bureaucrat.
Communist Russia and Putin also have many similar foreign goals.
Leaders like Stalin wanted to expand Russia into an empire stretching across
Asia and Europe with communism leading the way. Putin is no different.
Already, his aspirations can be seen starting with the invasion of Chechnya.
In 1999, Putin used a local incident involving bombs to forward his political
campaign by sending his armies into Chechnya when it had little proof that
the nation was responsible. As time passed many doubts sprang up

Combating the New Cold War 5

regarding who planted the explosives - Chechnyan terrorists or men following

Putin. This incident showed the world that the totalitarian leader of Russia
had no problem using blood and war to gain power.
In 2014 Russian soldiers were starting to be seen in increasing number
in Ukraine - specifically Crimea. Putin later ordered his army to attack and
annexed the area. His explanation of this was that he was protecting Russian
citizens in the region; however, this raises some concerns. Putin has often
spoken out about the poor treatment of Russian citizens in the countries of
Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia - all members of NATO. If Putin responds the
same way to these incidents it is quite possible that the rest of the world will
defend its allies and start World War III.
The similarities between today and the time leading up to Cold War are
too apparent. A New Cold War is underway.

United States Policy Towards Our Allies Regarding Military

Readiness
Russia is a threat not only to the United States, but to many of its allies
as well. Eastern Europe and the Baltic states in particular are under the
greatest threat. Vladimir Putin has already invaded and annexed sovereign
foreign territory and it is likely that he will do it again in order to restore the
former USSR if no solid preventive measures are taken. Putin's aggressive
actions should not be overlooked. There are too many parallels to the Cold
War for the United States to take an isolationist policy. The United States

Combating the New Cold War 6

policy towards the defense of our valued allies should be a proactive one.
Taking a strong stance in supporting the nations under threat is the best way
to honor our promise to come to their defense, to deter future Russian
aggression, and the best way, by extension, to keep America and its citizens
safe.
It is critical to know some recent history involving Russian aggression
towards our allies. Putin has not been shy to make wild territorial claims
especially in lands of the former Soviet Union. According to Putin the
dissolution of the USSR in 1991 was the single greatest geopolitical disaster
of the 20th century. Russia also sees the expansion of NATO, which was
formed after World War II in response to the Soviet-led Warsaw Pact
countries, as a serious threat to its own national security and interests. As a
result Russia has increased its buildup of armaments, moved troops closer to
the frontier, stepped up the frequency of its war games especially with
Belarus, and has sent warplanes closer to NATO airspace at an alarming
regularity to test NATO countries' readiness and reaction time. Russian jets
and bombers have been probing NATO airspace causing aerial defenses to
scramble more often than at any point in history. The record number of
Russian aircraft intercepted is only increasing. The most severe action taken
by Russia, however, was when Ukraine was directly invaded and the Crimean
peninsula was annexed by the Russian Federation on the 18th of March, 2014.
The United States current policy with Eastern Europe is on the right
track, but not enough. The truth is that Crimea was taken by surprise. The

Combating the New Cold War 7

Ukrainians had no possibility of preventing and dealing with an invasion.

Even in Eastern Ukraine government forces and supporters lost a lot of
ground and failed to put up enough of a fight against the rebels. This is due
to the fact that Russia is supplying the rebels who can then easily outgun the
outdated Ukrainian military. The Ukrainian military, as with many other
Eastern European countries, still uses Soviet era equipment and does not
have a capable modern force. Our past policy has been to send non-lethal
aid, such as Humvees, to the Ukrainian forces. The "decision to provide body
armor, night-vision goggles and communications equipment is welcome,
[but] overdue" (Pifer). If our allies are to put up an effective resistance, the
United States must make more decisive decisions when supplying its allies.
Lethal aid should be sent to fellow NATO members while non-lethal aid
should be sent to non-NATO members under threat. Sending lethal aid to
Ukraine would not work for example. "The Russians can just counter-escalate
and they can balance any increase in weapons that we give to Kiev" (Pifer),
but sending non-lethal aid would drive up the cost for Russia. There must be
a program to send the appropriate kind of supplies to each of our eastern
allies.
So far, NATO has played a large role in the current policy. The NATO
missile defense system, for example, is a system that can shoot down
Russian nuclear missiles. These missile shield bases are already functioning
in Romania and Poland, and a new facility will be opened in Germany next
year. These systems offer huge tactical advantages as Russia will have no

Combating the New Cold War 8

use for producing more nuclear weapons and will be less likely to use them
as a propaganda, yet the conventional forces of our allies are left helpless.
Besides war games and joint exercises between the United States and its
allies, there are few other ways in which the United States sends military aid.
Indeed there are United States military bases in Germany, the United
Kingdom, Italy, Bulgaria, Turkey, and the Iberian Peninsula; however, most
Eastern European countries are asking for a greater United States military
presence in their countries.
What the United States needs to do is build up its conventional forces
in the areas most under threat by Russia, namely Eastern Europe and the
Baltic States. The current war games with allies should continue and
preferably expand. Instead of the United States having many war games with
one country at a time, it would be best to organize larger war games with
more than just two nations participating in each one. This will lead to greater
cohesion between the United States and allied forces. Currently a "5,000strong rapid reaction Spearhead Force, which will be capable of deploying
across the continent within 48-hours of a military incursion"(VICE), is
established. Just one of these groups is not enough to fight an enemy with
such a large border and manpower. Also, the plans of sending 5,000 troops
and heavy armaments such a main battle tanks and other armored combat
vehicles should be seen through. This move by the Pentagon would
"represent the first time since the end of the Cold War that the United States
has stationed heavy military equipment in the newer NATO member nations

Combating the New Cold War 9

in Eastern Europe that had once been part of the Soviet sphere of influence"
(Schmitt). Although a small force compared to Russian forces, "it would serve
as a credible sign of American commitment, acting as a deterrent the way
that the Berlin Brigade did after the Berlin Wall crisis in 1961" (Neuman). Just
as Russia has done with its allies, the United States should reinforce its allies
giving special attention to those whose military has not yet modernized. This
will reassure NATO allies and deter any further Russian military incursions.
Not giving Europe a helping hand is a poor option. Poland has seen that
the United States was slow in response to the Russian involvement in
Ukraine, and so it has taken matters of defense almost completely in its own
hands. Poland has raised its "defense budget by 18 percent, achieving the
biggest increase in military spending of any country in Europe" (Day). Polish
citizens also took action by joining paramilitary groups. So far there are
"about 80,000 [volunteers]by comparison, the Polish Armed Forces are only
120,000 soldiers strong" (VICE). This is incredible considering that by
comparison, the German Armed Forces are 180,000 soldiers strong. People
are beginning to lose their trust in the United States commitment to come to
the aid of its trusted allies. Germany, afraid of a repeat of history, has
consistently not met the 2% minimum for the military spending required by
NATO. If the strongest economy in Europe is decreasing its military it is clear
that the United States must step up to carry the most weight.
The problems with this aggressive stance toward Russia has its
downsides, yet retaliation will not occur. Of course troop buildups near Russia

Combating the New Cold War 10

will be seen as escalation and further damage already strained relations. But
what if Putin executes the "Crimean takeover scenario in eastern Latvia or
runs over Lithuania to connect the Russian mainland with its Kaliningrad
exclave?" (Mierzejewski). Putin's main excuse to the public for his annexation
of Crimea was to protect ethnic Russians living there. What will stop him
from making that excuse again? By placing conventional forces in border
countries, NATO will have nothing to worry about. Putin realized that Ukraine
was not a part of NATO or the European Union, so he saw Crimea as fair
game. Not to mention that "control of Crimea gives Moscow continuing
access to the naval base at Sevastopol, home to Russias Black Sea Fleet"
(Schwartz). This is why aside from military buildup in border countries, it is
critical for the countries not currently a part of NATO or the European Union
to join as soon as possible; of course NATO would be preferred as the
European Union does not promise collective defense.

Social Injustices Forcing the United States into Cold War

Russia is not only an aggressive military force, it is also a socially
destructive and blatantly repressive entity. This entity, through their rising
number of human rights violations, along with the unfortunate death of a
free Russian press, is pushing the United States into another Cold War.
During the reign of the communist party in Russia, the Goskomizdat
censored printed material and barred private cooperatives from directly
publishing books. The ban [was] intended to reinforce the state publishing

Combating the New Cold War 11

monopoly in controlling what the public reads, (Clines). Similarly, the

Goskino was responsible for editing American-made films before releasing
them to the Russian public and censoring all motion-picture activity from the
outside world and within the country. This was discovered by an American
film producer in 1931, as he was prevented from filming life in Russia due to
bureaucratic restriction. These and other similar incidents ensured that
footage of everyday life in the USSR would not reach the United States, a
trend that continued until the end of the Cold War (Carter). Attempting to
control any and all media that existed within the USSR served two main
purposes: preventing citizens from questioning the actions of the Communist
government, and allowing government-endorsed truths to be indoctrinated
into the general population. When the state controls the media, they ensure
that all content portrays their country in the best possible light. Additionally,
they can spread lies or half-truths about enemies that are difficult to refute
when access to other newspapers are cut off. The Cold War era of media
repression created an intentionally negative view of the West, and the same
thing is surfacing today.
Following the fall of the USSR throughout the Yeltsin years, media was
more or less free, though who it ridiculed often depended on who was (or
was not) footing its bills. This changed under the rule of Vladimir Putin,
beginning with the Kremlin order [for the satirical puppet show] Kukly to
stop making fun of the head of state(Lucas) in 2000. This was followed by
an extensive overhaul of television and news outlets that left most of them in

Combating the New Cold War 12

the hands of Kremlin associates or people with close political ties to Putin.
The larger implications indicate that this is a classic tactic of closing the
country from the outside world, so as to better indoctrinate Russias citizens
into Putins lies about the world around them. With the re-seizure of media
outlets, Putin is ensuring Russias citizens do not perceive Russias decisions
within controversial issues as governmental failures. He also can spread antiAmerican rhetoric that was common throughout the Soviet era, blaming the
United States and its allies for any and all problems that the country faces.
Putin employs the West as a scapegoat for Russias problems, including
the decline of university-educated Russians who stay and work in Russia. A
claim such as this may seem far-fetched, yet recently Russian lawmakers
released a preliminary list of 12 nongovernment organizations that could be
banned under a patriotic stop-list in order to stop Western educational
influences that Putin believes are seeking to steal Russian talent (Roth).
Due to the foreign aid that these organizations receive, they are now being
forced to shut down, even though their ties to their contributors may be
slight at best. This level of paranoia and rejection of outside help or influence
is extremely telling in that it reveals a government that desires to be seen as
the best. However, it struggles to maintain this image. Even recently, the
Kremlin has been criticized for firing professors that were too liberal, which
discourages some professors from doing their best work, as they fear for
their jobs and their lives.

Combating the New Cold War 13

In addition to the restrictive actions taken by the Russian government

to limit free speech (therefore limiting freedoms), the Kremlin has also come
under the international spotlight for destroying food whilst citizens in the
countryside remain hungry. The USSR committed an uncountable number of
human rights violations during the Cold War. Following the end of World War
II, the United Nations, established by the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights (UDHR), intended to be endorsed by all UN members. However, when
the Declaration was signed in 1948, the USSR and several of its satellite
states abstained, likely due to the fear that signing the Declaration could
create a wedge for Western powers to spread their influence, as it
guaranteed Western-centric ideas of civil and political rights. While exact
violations were difficult to record, the horrors of Stalins rule were widespread. Internationally, it was well known that the Gulag, a governmental
agency in charge of forced labor camps, existed, and that any and all
dissenters mysteriously disappeared, or fled for their life. The Helsinki
Accords - especially the Declaration on Principles enumerating ten points
including respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, especially the
freedom of thought, conscience, and religion - proved to be an interesting
challenge to the Soviet Unions cover-ups of human rights violations. While
similar in language to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the
Helsinki provisions proved more damaging than its predecessor. Within a
year of its signing, a Moscow Helsinki Group was founded to monitor the
USSRs compliance with its standards. In fact, numerous watch groups

Combating the New Cold War 14

sprang up across the country and reported on the crackdowns performed by

Soviets as internal dissent rose in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Yet when
Western countries accused the Soviets of signing the accords in bad faith
due to their treatment of the dissidents, the Soviet government claimed that
the incidents were internal affairs and not privy to the outside world.
Within the past ten years, Russia has become increasingly active in
openly committing human rights violations, along with failing to address
previous outstanding ones. Disabled citizens of Russia still suffer due to lack
of adequate accessibility to buildings and employment, and though several
new measures of legislation have been passed in their favor, there have yet
to be any large changes within the lives of the actual people. Members of the
LGBTQ+ community are facing increasing amounts of violence from nongovernment groups with little to no repercussions for their actions. This
violence is combined with a 2013 parliamentary action that banned
propaganda of nontraditional sexual relationships from being distributed to
children, and equates homosexual acts with bestiality and pedophilia, which
is a commonly held perception in Russia, especially by the ultra-religious. In
regard to the ultra-religious, Putin has departed from his Communist
predecessors in that he embraces the Russian Orthodox Church, and in fact,
allows some ultraconservative groups to operate outside of jurisdiction.
Evidence of this can be found by examining the group Gods Will, which
damaged several pieces of avant-garde art in August of 2015 because they
believed the pieces were anti-Christian and anti-Russian (Khodarkovsky).

Combating the New Cold War 15

Putins regime has done nothing to stop or bring this increasingly violent
group to justice, providing an interesting juxtaposition between Gods Will
and the non-violent protest of Pussy Riot against Putin shortly after his
reclaiming of the presidency in 2012, members of which were sent to prison,
beaten, or fled in fear of their lives.
Ultimately, this would be unsettling but useless information, if not for
the fact that living in a society that exists in a state of distrust of any and all
thing different from the norm create several problems when a country has as
many different people as Russia does. Tensions between us and them
create the social culture within Russia similar to what happened during the
Cold War, where anyone who deviated was socially or politically persecuted.
Social differences between Western and Russian ideology in combination
with increased military aggression recreate Cold War tensions. There is very
little that the United States can directly do on the social front, beyond
ensuring that access to international courts are easy for Russian, Ukrainian,
and Crimean citizens, as this is often the only place that these people can go
to achieve justice. The United States should lead by example on issues of
equality and participation of the free press, but any direct attempts by the
United States to help the people of Russia will be seen as the United States
attempting to spread their influence in a country that is growing increasingly
anti-democracy and anti-United States.
Proposed Sanctions to Prevent a Continuous Cold War and Aid
Russian Citizens

Combating the New Cold War 16

It is clear that Russia is an increasingly dangerous and controlling force

in the world. If we want to prevent another extensive war, America must find
a way to break the country apart. This would allow for dramatic change to
occur and it would offer the public an opportunity to take control of the
situation themselves. This kind of nonviolent action has historically been
done through sanctions, whether they be economic, diplomatic, or military.
One of the most effective and still relatively peaceful type of sanction is
economic, which the United States should pursue in a more thorough and
serious way with Russia.
With the use of sanctions, the United States can dramatically change
the political atmosphere of a country. Stopping exports from the United
States and other Western countries can damage the stability of a country
and make its people desperate. It can also create a feeling of hatred towards
their own country for the actions they took that led to the sanctions.
Sanctioning has previously worked in Rhodesia, Vietnam, Italy, and many
other countries during the 20th century (Torricelli). However, sanctions did
not always work in their intended ways. Some aided in future conflicts, some
brought light to a corrupt ruler, and some simply changed the mood of the
people. They all made a change though, and what Russia needs is change
headed by the people, and fast.
Sanctions in Russia have had a reputation of being useless and
ineffective in changing the political climate. For example in August of this
year, Russia banned Western food products in retaliation for the sanctions

Combating the New Cold War 17

that Europe and the United States had placed on Russia (Kramer). Russia is
taking this ban seriously; they have burned over 200 tons of Western food
causing their food prices to double and in some cases triple. The food
shortage has caused the ruble to collapse, leaving their country increasingly
impoverished. In just the first quarter of 2015 the amount of people in
poverty in Russia has increased by about 3 million, reaching official critical
levels with 15.9% of the Russian population under the poverty line (Marcin).
With all this happening though, there has been little effect on the popular
opinion of their leader. Putins ratings remain at 89%, his highest ratings
during his presidency, as of June of this year (Birnbaum). This is the exact
opposite of the sanctions intended purpose. With this in mind it is hard to
tell whether or not any increase or change in sanctions will have the
intended political influence, it is also entirely possible that the United States
simply cannot see the changes they will bring about because the effect will
not be immediate. This type of effect can be seen with the sanctions against
Japan in the 1940s.
There is also a new type of sanction on the rise that may provide a
more direct approach to similar situations. On July 30th of this year, Obama
released a new list of Russian executives that will be targeted by economic
sanctions. Instead of targeting the population at large, these sanctions will
target specific people: those who have been helping the evasion of previous
sanctions, and those involved in the annexation of Crimea (Shear). These
new sanctions will help with the effectiveness of the previous sanctions and

Combating the New Cold War 18

will make sure that the effects are reaching not only the impoverished public
but also the members of the Russian and ex-Ukrainian government. This will
put Russia in a more desperate and challenged state. Hopefully, if the
Russian public realizes that the sanctions were placed upon them by western
countries because of their leaders actions in the Ukraine, Putins approval
rating will drop significantly. This could possible open many doors for the
Russian public to make the drastic changes in Russia that are needed in
order to create a safe political climate and prevent a New Cold War from
continuing.
A problem that arises with this, however, is the lack of free press in
Russia. No matter how many sanctions the United States put on them, or
how many government officials we drive into starvation, without a way to
communicate with the Russian public, the government can portray whatever
they want about the United States government and our country could
possibly lose all credibility. The United States would become the country that
is taking away their food and killing their families. There is no clear way in
which we can get information to the public of Russia except through the
internet, which is rapidly globalizing. In Russia 59.27% of the population has
access to the internet (Internet Live Stats). However, they have selective
censoring for political filtering (as of 2012), meaning that they do have some
censoring but not as extensive as the Chinese firewall. In this way many
people in Russia can only see a selective part of our news (Rininsland).

Combating the New Cold War 19

There is also a matter of trust. Many Russians do not have faith in

western countries and are already completely against our aid and objections
to their governments actions. From a Gallup poll in 2014, about 4% of the
Russian population approve of the United States leadership. This is due to
anti-United States propaganda which is still very prominent in Russian
culture and media (Adomanis). 42% of the Russian public also believes that
the internet is used by foreign countries against Russia. This is due to the
same government propaganda previously mentioned (Nisbet).
With all this in mind it is easy to see why sanctions, no matter how
strong and effective they may be in damaging the country, may be useless in
Russia. There is such a strong anti United States opinion in Russia that
anything we may do could be taken negatively by a large majority of the
country. There is little to nothing we can do about changing that belief.
However, sanctions still have a lot of promise.
Pros and Cons of United States Involvement
Many may argue that the current actions taken by Russia are not
significant enough to encourage United States involvement; however, where
there is conflict there is a need for resolution. Sometimes, the most
complicated issues are made worse by those trying to resolve them. With
Russias aggressive military, power hungry mindset, and history of paranoid
behavior, the United States might escalate the situation even more if they
were to intervene. The United States would not only benefit financially by not
intervening but would also avoid triggering a possible war with Russia. In

Combating the New Cold War 20

contrast, not intervening could encourage Russias superpower mindset as

well as create issues politically with other countries involved in the situation.
Russias unrest needs to be thoughtfully dealt with in order to ensure the
best possible outcome for those affected.
Russia portrays the image of being a strong, powerful, united nation,
when in reality the Kremlin is tainted with corruption, blinded by ideals of
dominance, and in bad relations with just about every other country. Russias
desire to be viewed by the world as a superpower is pushing Russia to attack
vulnerable nations in an attempt to prove their superiority. Ukraine,
weakened by reckless public spending, an indebted economy, the collapse of
most political intuitions and a near-revolution against the Ukrainian
president, makes them an easy target for Russia. Crimea, a region in
Ukraine, also holds historical significance to Russia. Crimea became part of
the Soviet Union in 1954 but gained independence at the collapse of the
Union in 1991. Crimea is also home to the Russian naval base Sevastopol.
Without intervention from the United States, the Ukrainians will have to fend
for themselves; likely resulting in defeat. This, however, may not be the
worst outcome for Ukraine considering their country is already a failing one
and they were at one time part of the Soviet Union. Additionally, the majority
of the population in Crimea already identifies themselves as Russians. In
addition, if the United States chooses not to intervene, other powerful
countries, such as Great Britain, may not do the same. This would mean the

Combating the New Cold War 21

United States would have to take a step back in political affairs and trust that
the other countries involved would be able to handle the mess.
America is known for meddling in other countries conflicts and issues,
but when it comes to the conflict with Russia the United States might be
better off focusing on their own issues on the home front. The money the
United States would use to aid the Ukrainians could be used instead to
benefit the citizens of the United States.. Also, lives of soldiers in the United
States military would be spared from war and allow the United States to keep
a strong defense at home in case of a future attack. Furthermore, not
intervening in Russia might be the safest option for the United States due to
already present political and economic tension between Russia and the
United States. Russia also has a strong dislike of western hypocrisy and
shallowness, as well as a long lasting grudge against the United States due
to Russias loss of power in the world at the end of the Cold War. If the United
States got involved and started sending troops to vulnerable countries such
as Ukraine and the Baltic States it could possibly anger the Russians into a
World War III.
In 1994 a treaty was signed in the Ukraine by Bill Clinton, John Major,
Boris Yeltsin and Leonid Kuchma that states the United States would protect
Ukraine in exchange for the return of its intercontinental ballistic missiles
(ICBM) to Moscows control. This puts the United States in a tricky place
because if Russia decides to cross Ukraines borders and invade then the
United States is expected to come to Ukraines aid. Therefore if the United

Combating the New Cold War 22

States chooses not to get involved then they would be going back on the
deal and would probably ruin their relations with the Ukrainians.
Considering Russia is equipped with nuclear weapons, the stakes are
much higher. Edward Lucas, author of The New Cold War, shares his fear
that, Paranoia and incompetence might lead to an accidental
conflagration,(103) in regards to the nuclear threat (103). Another
concerning factor recently brought to the publics attention is that the
Russians have been supplying Syria with weapons for quite some time.
Therefore, it is possible that, if the United States tried to stop Russia, Russia
would be backed by Syria. By abstaining from the conflict one could hope
Russias involvement in the ex-Soviet Union countries would prove to be
detrimental resulting in a much weaker, less threatening Russia.
However, not getting involved in Russia could have dire consequences
for not only the United States, but the world as well. Reflecting back on World
War II, one mistake made by the United States was entering the war too late.
In fact, the United States did not officially get involved until the Japanese
attacked Pearl Harbor in 1941. By that time, the German empire was already
out of control. The United States faces a similar situation with Russia today. If
the United States chooses not to intervene and ignores Russias invasions of
other nations, it could lead to rapid expansion as well as an increase in the
countrys power in the world. Russias actions mimic those of the Soviet
Union within the last Cold War. The over-confident and secretive persona of
the Kremlin government also raises a red flag. Lucas claims, The most

Combating the New Cold War 23

catastrophic mistake the outside world has made since 1991 is to assume
that Russia is steadily becoming a normal country (107). If one considers
this statement to be true, then the United States and its allies must
acknowledge the consequences of allowing a volatile country to become one
of the worlds leading super powers. The United States needs to weigh the
possible outcomes of military involvement versus turning a blind eye to the
situation.

Recommendations:
Throughout history, Russia has a tendency to repeat its past: a
continuous cycle of prominent leaders rising to power and expanding
national boundaries followed by a retreat. Similar to the beginning phases of
the Cold War, Russia is currently in the expansion stage. Putin is expanding
Russias control in Eastern Europe and is slowly making his move both
socially and militarily. It is the United States obligation to prevent this from
happening. The solution is M.A.P.S.: military anticipation, press, and
sanctions.
Military anticipation: the United States needs to aid former Soviet Bloc
countries and be prepared to take a more aggressive stance against Russia.
The United States needs to start building forces in Eastern Europe and the
Baltic States to protect those who are threatened more by Russias latest
movements. This should be done by sending military equipment to states
that were previously inside the Soviet Unions sphere of influence but are

Combating the New Cold War 24

now a part of NATO. Although this would be the first time since the Cold War
that the United States would station heavy military defense in these states it
would deter future Russian aggression and expansion. The United States
must be proactive and serve as the protector for these nations that are at
risk. Therefore, it is most logical to arm fellow NATO member states with
lethal aid such as weapons and heavy military equipment whilst aiding nonNATO members with non-lethal equipment. This would not only validate our
loyalty and devotion to our allies and imbue Russia with a hopefully deterring
fear but it would help countries such as the Ukraine (a non-NATO nation)
slowly start to rebuild and drain Russias resources. Avoiding all-out war is
top priority, but ending the current Cold War effectively and in the least
destructive manner is the goal.
Press: the United States must promote and exhibit the appropriate
ideals that could aid Russias social crisis. It is crucial that the people of
Russia see the corruption and repression they are currently facing. Many may
argue that Putins approval ratings display satisfaction within the Russian
population; however, it is a clear sign of ignorance on behalf of the Russian
people and the censorship on the Russian government. Putin drives fear into
his own people of outside influence (in particular, the United States) in order
to promote the Russia that he desires: a Russia that is dominant, strong, and
independent on the outside yet corrupt and completely under his own control
underneath. The only way in which the United States can prove this to the
Russian people is by setting examples. The United States must promote the

Combating the New Cold War 25

freedom of press along with the freedom of speech on the home front while
continuing to promote fair and equal trials within International Courts. The
citizens of Russia will hopefully begin to see the ways in which Russia could
improve and not take this as an offence. The key here would be to show that
the United States is not the enemy; we are willing to offer citizens freedoms
that the Russian government is not. This would hopefully expose corrupt
government officials and the unjust social situation that currently exists
within Russia. The truly ideal outcome would be if Russian citizens began
speaking up as well. Obviously there is a fear that the government would
retaliate. However, if the United States could set an appropriate example and
enough Russians protested, real change could occur. It is on behalf of the
United States press and the Russian people to be fearless and take action.
This option could and will take the longest of the three, however, once
people begin to speak out against corrupt authority, more will join and Putin
cannot imprison an entire population.
Sanctions: the United States has to consider and select the appropriate
sanctioning option that best suits both the people of Russia and the interest
of the world. This option is difficult to organize seeing as though the tipping
point between angering the Russian public and sparking anger within the
Russian public for the Russian government (while damaging Putins
authority) is small. It would be very simple to increase American hatred
within the population of Russia and increase Russian patriotism while simply
attempting to help those who live within the state. The key here is to

Combating the New Cold War 26

increase the amount of sanctions on the economic enterprises that only

benefit the select elite in Putins arsenal. This has already been done
minimally but if we increase the amount it is possible the United States
could bring the Russian populations attention to corrupt officials while
damaging their resources. What the United States must avoid is sanctioning
Russia in ways that hurt the Russian public further. It is key that the Russian
populus realizes the deep corruption and civil rights violations of its own
government and does not grow more hateful of the United States.
In conclusion, the United States needs to focus on M.A.P.S.. It is key
that the United States takes action and protects those who cannot protect
themselves against the threat that is Putins Russia. Exposing the Russian
elite for their injustices and protecting the citizens of Russia must also
remain a top priority. The New Cold War is upon the United States and it
must act now.

Works Cited
Adomanis, Mark. "Russian Opinion Of The United States Is At An All-Time
Low." Forbes.
Forbes Magazine, 23 July 2014. Web. 02 Sept. 2015.

Combating the New Cold War 27

Bio.com. A&E Networks Television, n.d. Web. 10 Sept. 2015.

Birnbaum, Michael. "Putins Approval Ratings Hit 89 Percent, the Highest
Theyve Ever
Been." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 24 June 2015. Web. 02
Sept. 2015.
Carter, Oscar M. No Film of Russia; American Producer Tells of Failure to Use
Camera in
Soviet Republic. New York Times 7 February 1932: X6, Print.
Clines, Francis X. Moscow Represses Freuds Slip Into Print. New York Times
2 May 1989:
n.p. Print.
Day, Matthew. "Poland Increases Military Spending in Response to Russia's
Belligerence."
The Telegraph. Telegraph Media Group, 31 May 2015. Web. 09 Sept.
2015.
Internet Users by Country. Internet Live Stats. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Internet Live
Stats. Web. 2 Sept.
2015.
IWB. "UKRAINE: 1994 Treaty Could Pull U.S. into War with Russia If Putins
Troops
Intervene in Ukraine!!!" InvestmentWatch. N.p., 28 Feb. 2014. Web. 8
Sept. 2015.

Combating the New Cold War 28

Khodarkovsky, Michael. Russian Thugs vs. The Avant-Garde. New York

Times 7
September 2015: n.p. Print.
Kramer, Andrew E. "Russia Destroys Piles of Banned Western Food." The New
York Times.
The New York Times, 06 Aug. 2015. Web. 02 Sept. 2015.
Lucas, Edward. The New Cold War: Putin's Threat to Russia and the West.
New York:
PALGRAVE MACMILLAN, 2014. Print.
Marcin, Tim. "Russian Poverty Has Reached 'critical' Levels." Business Insider.
Business
Insider, Inc, 15 July 2015. Web. 02 Sept. 2015.
Mierzejewski, Melanie. "The U.S. Policy toward Russia Isn't
Working."Washington Post. The
Washington Post, 26 Nov. 2014. Web. 09 Sept. 2015.
Neuman, Scott. "To Counter Russia, U.S. Mulling Tanks, Heavy Guns For
Eastern Europe."
NPR. NPR, 13 June 2015. Web. 09 Sept. 2015.
Nisbet, Eric C., and Sarah Mikati. "Russians Dont Trust the Internet and Its
Making the
Country Worse." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 18 Feb. 2015.
Web. 02
Sept. 2015.

Combating the New Cold War 29

Patenaude, Bertrand M. Regional Perspectives on Human Rights: The USSR

and Russia,
Part One. Stanford Program on International and Cross-Cultural
Education. Stanford,
Fall 2012. Web. 9 September 2015.
Pifer, Steven. "Ukraine, Russia and the U.S. Policy Response." The Brookings
Institution.
Brookings, 05 June 2014. Web. 09 Sept. 2015.
Pifer, Steven. "Would Arming Ukraine Discourage Russian Aggression or
Invite Escalation?"
PBS. PBS, 5 Feb. 2015. Web. 09 Sept. 2015.
Rininsland, ndrew. "Internet Censorship Listed: How Does Each Country
Compare?" The
Guardian. The Guardian, 16 Apr. 2012. Web. 02 Sept. 2015.
Roth, Andrew. Unlikely Targets in Cross Hairs as Russia Aims to Expose
Foreign
Influence. New York Times, 12 July 2015: A6, Print.
Schmitt, Eric, and Steven Lee Myers. "U.S. Is Poised to Put Heavy Weaponry
in Eastern
Europe." The New York Times. The New York Times, 13 June 2015. Web.
09 Sept. 2015.
Schwartz, Paul N. "Crimea's Strategic Value to Russia." Crimea's Strategic
Value to Russia.

Combating the New Cold War 30

CSIS, 18 Mar. 2014. Web. 09 Sept. 2015.

Shear, Michael D. "U.S. Names New Targets of Sanctions Over Ukraine." The
New York
Times. The New York Times, 30 July 2015. Web. 03 Sept. 2015.
Tavernise, Sabrina. A Moscow of Dancing Feed, Under an Iron Fist. New York
Times 8
August 2015: A1, Print.
Torricelli, Robert G., Fred Bergsten, and Leslie H. Gelb. "Sanctions Against
Rogue States: Do
They Work?" Council on Foreign Relations. Council on Foreign
Relations, 20 May
1998. Web. 2 Sept. 2015.
VICE. "Inside Poland's Independent Paramilitary Groups | VICE | United
States." VICE. VICE
International, 12 Aug. 15. Web. 09 Sept. 2015.
VICE. "The Russians Are Coming: NATO's Frontier | VICE | United States."
VICE. VICE
"Joseph Stalin." History.com. A&E Television Networks, n.d. Web. 12
Sept. 2015.
"Constitution." Constitution. GlobeScope, n.d. Web. 9 Sept. 2015.
"Geography." Infoplease. Infoplease, June 2015. Web. 8 Sept. 2015.
"Life in USSR under Stalin - History Learning Site." History Learning Site. N.p.,
n.d. Web. 12

Combating the New Cold War 31

Sept. 2015.
"Repression and Terror: Stalin in Control." Repression and Terror: Stalin in
Control. N.p., n.d.
Web. 11 Sept. 2015.
"Soviet Union Invades Poland." History.com. A&E Television Networks, n.d.
Web. 12 Sept.
2015.
"USSR Established." History.com. A&E Television Networks, n.d. Web. 10
Sept. 2015.
"World War I Ended With the Treaty of Versailles." World War I Ended With the
Treaty of
Versailles. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Sept. 2015.
"World War One - Timeline." World War One. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Sept. 2015.
"WWI - Timeline." ::First World War::. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Sept. 2015.