Matt Yglesias

21 Responses to “The New Cold War”

1. Ottoe Says:
   November 5th, 2008 at 10:14 am

   I think it is supposed to be a joke/pun/allusion. Arctic = cold, jockeying for territory there = cold war. Get it? It’s cold up there!

   Not that the Heritage Foundation paper isn’t idiotic. It’s just that they’re not really saying this is the new cold war in world historical terms.

2. kid bitzer Says:
   November 5th, 2008 at 10:19 am

   not true, ottoe;

   sarah tells me that you can see russia from parts of the arctic.

3. James Gary Says:
   November 5th, 2008 at 10:22 am

   Toe-to-toe with the Russkies in Alaska? Happy memories of my board-game-geek childhood:

   http://www.trollandtoad.com/p128506.html

   Alas, combat hovercraft still remain in the realm of flying cars.

4. ostap Says:
   November 5th, 2008 at 10:45 am

   You mean the paper that says:

   Reach out to Canada, Norway, Denmark, and—wherever possible—Russia. Diplomacy and cooperation with Canada and European allies with interests in the region will be required to prevent conflict with Russia and to maintain the special relationship with Canada. The U.S. needs to work with Canada to develop a mutu­ally beneficial framework for the commercial exploitation of Arctic hydrocarbons.

   So, do you disagree with both the quoted passage and the notion that we should exploit potentially massive energy sources in the Arctic region?

5. Chris B Says:
   November 5th, 2008 at 10:46 am

   I find it interesting how they minimize the LOST treaties, signed by all the other Arctic nations (Canada, Russia, Norway, Denmark…). This would be the best avenue to amicably settle things in the Arctic, but of course the US would not sign on.

   And really, it is likely that the LOST group will determine that the Lomonsonov ridge belongs to Canada or Denmark, which Russia will dispute. In that case, will the US support its NATO allies? And if so, given that they did not participate, will they have any clout? Or will the US add a second dispute and claim these far north territories for themselves? Or will they (belatedly) come to their senses and join with the rest of the northern nations and ratify the treaty?

6. Forminlikevoltron Says:
   November 5th, 2008 at 11:01 am

   Well, we could allocate defense funds and build AT-ST and AT-AT walkers and have our own real-live Battle of Hoth somewhere in Siberia or Wasilla.

7. Ed Smithe Says:
   November 5th, 2008 at 11:12 am

   I agree that this is way over the top, but what should the U.S. do instead? Russia isn’t going to simply allow the U.S. (or Canada) into these areas under LOST…That’s the type of wishful thinking that the U.S. needs to stop doing.

   It seems to me that the Russians are pushing, looking to see where the U.S. will give in, and where we won’t. Frankly, if we’re not going to drill up there, then someone should. But ceding that over to the Russians just gives them more and more money and control to do pathologically stupid things like take back the Crimea.

   It’s one thing to criticize, but it’s another to come up with alternatives. LOST ain’t gonna cut it…What do you do instead?

8. Guy Yedwab Says:
   November 5th, 2008 at 11:26 am

   I’m okay with a New Cold War over oil in Antarctica. You know why? Nobody lives in Antarctica to have their lives messed up by distant foreign powers jocking for power. No chance that in two or three decades we’re going to find ourselves bogged down in an intractable war attempting to sort out serious social problems partly prompted by our own over-involvement.

9. Chris B Says:
   November 5th, 2008 at 11:30 am

   Ed – why do you say so categorically that LOST won’t cut it. Is there evidence of LOST not cutting it? or, are yu saying that to support your proposal (viz. use force?).

   By all appearances LOST IS working. And it would be working better if the US was on board. What evidence is there of Russia reneging on an international agreement of this sort? LOST has a very fragile legitimacy and if it doesn’t work, the blame will largely be laid at the feet of the one Arctic nation that did not sign on.

10. Ed Smithe Says:
    November 5th, 2008 at 11:46 am

    Chris,

    Hold on a second, I never supported (or said anything about) using force here. I’m not a neocon. But the evidence that LOST isn’t going to cut it with the Russians over this territory is pretty evident. The way they’re approaching this territory is to say that it is a part of Russia…That it’s linked geologically. Under LOST that’s an issue that has yet to be adjudicated. Do you think that if the U.S. signs LOST that the Russians are going to just take their ball and go home…stopping the development that they’ve already begun? Judging by energy prices and their recent behavior, I’d say no.

    So my question is, what does one do instead? Are there other deals that we can cut with them? Do we care whether or not they develop and drill in this area?

    I’ve been arguing for the past few weeks that a Wilsonian return to the White House does this country no favors. This is a prime example of Wilsonian wishful thinking to assume that LOST will solve this issue.

11. Chris B Says:
    November 5th, 2008 at 11:54 am

    Ed – sorry to mischaracterize your post. But, I think you misunderstand what LOST is trying to do. All the parties are trying to state geologically that this area is linked to them. Canada is saying the same thing, as is Denmark, and even Norway. The treaty gives a deadline of some number of years after ratifying to submit your scientific evidence as to WHY you think the Arctic is geologically contiguous to your existing territory. It will then go to a scientific panel to sort out the claims and award the territory.

    I mean nobody was upset earlier this year when Canada made the identical claim as Russia (that Lomonsonov is linked to the Canadian mainland).

    I think that LOST is the best way to approach the current impasse because at least it is fair and transparent. That is better than backroom diplomacy between Russia and the US – after all, are you just going to cut Canada and Denmark out? All the US really loses by not participating is a chance to “win” in an internationally accepted multilateral regime. And if the US loses, well, then the President can decide what to do.

12. Jay Severin Has A Small Pen1s Says:
    November 5th, 2008 at 12:07 pm

    Sound like you missed the point.

    The real race…

    Fight against global warming warnings
    Melt the glaciers
    Get the minerals and oil deposits
    Continue spiral downward.

    Sounds like the next James Bond movie.

13. Ed Smithe Says:
    November 5th, 2008 at 12:11 pm

    Chris,

    No problem…It’s been a long eight years and we realists (many of whom support LOST) are used to that.

    When you take a look at the Russian claims versus the Canadians or the Danes, the Russians were first to argue that “their” territory extends to the whole of this range…The Canadians and the Danes were never prepared to go that far…and it wasn’t until the Russians submitted their evidence that this became a free for all.

    But just because the Russians haven’t received a final word from the commission doesn’t mean that they intend to wait. Just last month, Medvedev started talking about ‘marking’ the Russian territory…in other words, daring anyone to object. The reasons for this aggressive policy are both security and economics related (the latter being more important these days).

    Take a look at this excellent piece http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1849705,00.html

    My point is that if the Russians keep doing things like this, they’re really going to do something stupid. I don’t think that you shut out other powers in terms of a deal, but I just don’t think LOST is going to cut it.

    I suppose we’ll wait and see since this administration is probably going to sign onto it.

14. viagra Says:
    March 1st, 2009 at 5:49 am

    viagra
    Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.

15. viagra Says:
    March 11th, 2009 at 4:44 am

    I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!

16. brand viagra Says:
    April 2nd, 2009 at 5:23 am

    Incredible site!
    buy cheap viagra

17. viagra brand Says:
    April 3rd, 2009 at 4:16 am

    It is the coolest site,keep so!
    cheap brand pfizer viagra

18. cheap viagra Says:
    April 9th, 2009 at 6:23 am

    Very interesting site, Hope it will always be alive! viagra