Eagle and Bear: Who's a Hawk?

Russia’s big week in the headlines proved a mixed blessing.  The announced START nuclear arms reduction agreement represented new progress and cooperation with the United States and brought a renewed sense that Cold War clash of civilizations is forever past; meanwhile the graphic violence of the subway bombings demonstrated that Islamic terrorism‘s barbarism has radicalized even the most violent asymmetric conflict in the world with new methods of casual murder.  The stories critically inform one another: the juxtaposition reminds of the opportunities that lie in even slightly improving on policy currently executed counter-productively, even if that just means finding a crappy equilibrium rather than struggling deeper into the quicksand.

The START agreement finds profit in slightly improving the situation of the biggest waste of money in human history. That's not to say that nukes aren't massively useful- countries that have the bomb never fight each other (knock on wood)- but spending over five trillion dollars to force yourself not to do something is absurd.  Even assuming that in the direct aftermath of World War II, when such a war would have been conceivable, nuclear weapons were absolutely necessary to keep the US-Russian relations cold, one has to wonder if perhaps a less ambitious arms race might have been sufficient.  After the Cuban Missile Crisis, we never got particularly close to the red button again, yet both countries kept plowing resources into building better nukes.  The opportunity cost of taking all that money and literally burying it in silos boggles the mind.  Even today, just maintaining the existing nuclear stockpile costs billions of dollars annually.  Shrinking the arsenal to a fifteen hundred nukes each (imagine a scenario requiring the end of the world more than once) will save billions of dollars in maintenance for both countries.  Not doing this deal would have been like paying exorbitant interest on a credit card every month just in case the money in checking came in handy.  

START is a no-brainer, but Obama should still receive credit for fostering a climate conducive to US-Russo cooperation.  Russia will never be a close ally of the United States because with a history of animosity, cultural and political differences and conflicting regional interests make such an alliance unpalatable for both sides.  No doubt Russia will continue and forever act in its own interests at every turn, even if they run counter to those of the US.  However, cooperation of convenience can still pay dividends.  A coolly productive relationship with Russia is vastly more valuable than strong alliances with tiny wannabe U.S. client states.  

The spectacle of US provocation of Russia reached a sad nadir just before Obama's election when red faced and throbbing veined US politicians bitterly denounced Russia for its invasion of Georgia ignoring that Georgia actually invaded first.  On the heels of a missile defense system that wouldn't work but really pissed Russia off, we dangled NATO membership in front of Georgia and offered training and military support for a country of absolutely no strategic value.  The only time Russia did anything comparable was the closest we ever came to the end of the world.  Yet, US politicians sounded off with an indignation so furious that it could only be matched with a complete lack of action, which is appropriate because we aren't going to fight with Russia ever!  Russia paid a hefty economic cost for the lack of proportion in dealing with Georgia, but it was a fiasco  from our perspective as well.  Treating the Bear with cautious respect instead of flagrant disregard will strengthen our position on Iran, North Korea, European energy security, carbon agreements and pretty much any other hot topic international issue. Even if Russia ultimately does not go our way on many of these subjects at least they may not feel the need to play spoiler.

Meanwhile, while nuclear Armageddon seems less likely than ever, small weapons and the certainty that allows a person to kill indiscriminately and self destructively have replaced nuclear doom as the public’s omnipresent terror.  In both cases violence comes unannounced to everyday lives.  Once people lived under the possibility of a mushroom cloud snuffing out a city's routine, now we may be roused from our iPods and magazines on the morning commute by an literal explosions of hatred.  In both cases living bravely despite the possibility of undeserved death is the only antidote.  It is unlikely that we personally will suffer more than anxiety from terrorism and harsh reactions only spark furious retaliation.  Russia's brutal crackdown in the Caucasus has attracted terrorism like flies to shit.  Americans who defend "enhanced interogation techniques" and military solutions to terrorism should pause and consider who else thinks terrorism justifies brutal medicine.  We can work productively with Russia, but we shouldn't ever emulate them.