In Edward Lucas’ The New Cold War: Putin’s Russia and the Threat to the West, a journalist assesses what threat the rise of Russian power may have to the west as it continues to rise in power and cause noise in its region. The book is timely, written by an Economist journalist who has been engaged with Russian activities on the ground. U.S. and Europe has sought how to answer Russia’s provocative behavior in places like Georgia and the Ukraine. Lucas has been covering Central and Eastern Europe for over a quarter of a century and wrote this book in 2008. At the time of writing it seemed to be an alarmist account, however, as events in the region have unfolded further, Lucas’ recognition that Putin and the West may be on a course for a showdown is prescient. Although he is not so bold to equate the new Russian geo-political behavior as rekindling of Stalinist Soviet Union, or the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War, he does make bold claims early on. He writes, “Twenty years after Mikhail Gorbachev started dismantling communism, Russia is reverting to Soviet behavior at home and abroad and its contemptuous disregard for Western norms.” (7) While this may seem like a bold statement in equating new Russia with the loathsome American enemy of the Cold War, he does not simply contend that Russia is a reincarnation of the Soviet Union. He does acknowledge the brewing tension but his book goes about it in a subtle way, qualifying and adding layers to his examination of Stalin’s Russia.
He begins by qualifying his assertion and nothing that Russia has changed a great deal since its Soviet days. A bureaucratic capitalism has replaced communist idealism in what the author calls a “hybrid regime,” of managed capitalism and democracy (9). Lucas thus situates Putin’s regime with a foot in both worlds. It still retains much of its Tsarist, nationalist ideology but has transformed and funneled this nationalism and energy toward pseudo-democratic and capitalistic society. However, he uses the terms democracy and capitalist very loosely as he still sees Putin’s regime as one built on KGB cronyism and a far cry from western liberalism. He writes that Putin’s government continues Soviet style repression at home; murdering journalists and dissidents while internationally asserting itself against Western norms by posturing its neighboring, former Soviet republics.
He characterizes Putin’s government as “neo-tsarist,” and an authoritarian regime ruled by a small ruling clique of former KGB agents (14). While the initial book goes through the steps of building a foundation for what Putin’s regime is, who it is ran by and how it continues to resort to brutal authoritarian rule despite claims otherwise, the main topic of the book is to situate Russia internationally and assess its potential behavior trajectory for those in the West. The book has a warning for the West and gives the author’s view of how they should respond to a growing Russia: warning them to not be passive toward Russia. He in fact criticizes the West for what he sees as over passive, calling the West, “inattentive and complacent, partly due to greed and wishful thinking, and partly due to greed and wishful thinking, and partly because of its serious distractions elsewhere.” (39) Thus, Lucas is very early on critical of how the West is responding to the West, seeing them as aloof and to distracted by other international affairs. He points to places like the Middle East where U.S. forces are bogged down and are unable to divert energy to Russia. Wishful thinking is another trait of American foreign policy. He argues that American policy makers are merely hoping that Russia as a threat will go away on its own and they will not have to address a major power like Russia while they are trying to deal with more non-militant groups in its war against terror. Lucas does not just examine America’s role in it though and also focuses on European behavior. He points out Italy in particular and other powers in Europe that have tried to make deals with Russia in hopes that their aggression will be curbed, and according to Lucas, sacrificing the interests of Russia’s regional allies. He considers this naïve, arguing that Russia will not merely stop once it gets its way in the region and a human rights violation in sacrificing the interests of sovereignty and self determination of Russia’s regional allies like Georgia. Lucas’ account surely rings familiar to any student of history, as he seems to frame his writing in a way similar to those that were critical of Chamberlain for appeasing Hitler during World War II. Perhaps Lucas sees himself similarly as a voice in the wilderness like Churchill was, warning those in policy-making spheres that they must do their best to stop Putin now and make a firm stance before he continues to act against international and western norms.
However, Lucas is sober in his appraisal of just how much of a threat Russia can pose to America in the recent future. Much of his work is devoted to giving details of the poor state of the Russian military, arguing that a military Cold War is unlikely due to this. Russia is simply unable to spread too far beyond its borders and assert itself too strong in the region because it does not have military or financial means to do so. He gives the example of an incident in Georgia where the weak Georgian was able to shoot down Russian planes with its backward military technology. However, Russia does wield other power that may allow it to continue to grow in power. According to Lucas, it is domestic control, oil and gas money and unwillingness for Western powers to do anything that may pave the road for Russia to rise in power. He notes that Putin has an extremely high popularity rate, a fact that is not understood by many outside of Russia. Those who Putin goes after domestically are unpopular oligarchs that are disliked for being overly rich and exploitive toward Russian people and thus his repressive policies are not seen akin to a Stalinist police state. The other reason that Putin is so popular is that many Russians are living under a higher standard than they ever had before and are afforded the ability to travel abroad and have prospects for higher material wealth than maybe ever before in Russian history. Putin has forged himself into a Russian nationalist leader, according to Lucas, and has drawn on recent history to show that the West, painting himself as a savior of sorts, has victimized Russia. While all of these factors have allowed Putin to consolidate his power, the foundation of Putin and Russia’s power is economic, according to Lucas. Russia has vast reserves of oil and gas that they are using to gain power. They use these reserves not just to make money but as a bargaining chip which it can use as leverage to smaller nations, bringing them over to the Russian side through a soft diplomacy. This was seen most prominently in Russia’s decision to shut off oil to the Ukraine when it felt that it was acting unruly, doing so in the middle of a cold spell that cause many businesses and schools to shut down in the Ukraine just based on the whim of Putin. While these types of actions violate international law and can be seen as exploitive human rights violations, the West has been hesitant to quickly jump in.
After putting forth this foundation of what has made it possible for Russia to continue to rise in power, he gives his prescriptions for how the West should act. He argues that there must be a united “trans-Atlantic” front between America and Europe that curbs Russian power. They also must above all else recognize that Russia has aspirations and start to strategically address them, rather than to be too overly preoccupied with other regions like the Middle East. Europe and America remain divided along their own nationalist interests and it is creating a space for Russia to assert itself and grow.
Overall, Lucas’ book is well written and his decades of experience covering the region are apparent throughout the entire book. It is well informed and he bases his arguments and ideas on solid data. However, like many other “alarmist,” books that are warning people to heed a warning, only time will vindicate just how accurate Lucas is. Every generation has countless books written that give speculations about what country will collapse when, who is a threat to America and who could be a potential ally. One wonders if Lucas is just playing on a still fresh fear in American politics that has spent much of the twentieth century fearing the Russian threat. Russia is an easy target and much like China, people around America continue to harbor suspicions toward former Soviet countries. How accurate is Lucas? I think that Russia may be a threat to its direct region, as has been seen in the Ukraine and Georgia, however, as it grows into a world power it will also have to live according to the rules that it rises within. Rather than form alliances to exclude Russia from international politics, much like China, Western powers should invite Russia into the fold knowing that once they acquire strength it will be necessary that they act within the constraints of international norms in order to maintain it.
