What do you think?
Rate this book
Return to Cold War
The 2014 crisis in Ukraine sent a tottering U.S.-Russian relationship over a cliff - a dangerous descent into deep mistrust, severed ties, and potential confrontation reminiscent of the Cold War period.
In this incisive new analysis, leading expert on Soviet and Russian foreign policy, Robert Legvold, explores in detail this qualitatively new phase in a relationship that has alternated between hope and disappointment for much of the past two decades. Tracing the long and tortured path leading to this critical juncture, he contends that the recent deterioration of Russia-U.S. relations deserves to be understood as a return to cold war with great and lasting consequences. In drawing out the commonalities between the original cold war and the current confrontation, Return to Cold War brings a fresh perspective to what is happening between the two countries, its broader significance beyond the immediate issues of the day, and how political leaders in both countries might adjust their approaches in order, as the author urges, to make this new cold war "as short and shallow as possible."
In this incisive new analysis, leading expert on Soviet and Russian foreign policy, Robert Legvold, explores in detail this qualitatively new phase in a relationship that has alternated between hope and disappointment for much of the past two decades. Tracing the long and tortured path leading to this critical juncture, he contends that the recent deterioration of Russia-U.S. relations deserves to be understood as a return to cold war with great and lasting consequences. In drawing out the commonalities between the original cold war and the current confrontation, Return to Cold War brings a fresh perspective to what is happening between the two countries, its broader significance beyond the immediate issues of the day, and how political leaders in both countries might adjust their approaches in order, as the author urges, to make this new cold war "as short and shallow as possible."
144 pages, ebook
First published March 28, 2016
12 people are currently reading
74 people want to read
About the author
Robert Legvold
15 books16 followersRobert Legvold is Professor of Political Science at Columbia University.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
September 6, 2016
This is a remarkably even-handed analysis about how the Cold War, which ended late in the last century, has reappeared in this century. Robert Legvold contends a new Cold War exists, though it clearly differs in some respects from the first Cold War, and that both sides contributed to this conflict over the quarter century since the collapse of the USSR.
The poisoned relationship prevents cooperation on matters of mutual interest, such as defeating ISIS, controlling nuclear arms, and addressing climate change, among other things. It also creates greater risk of full blown strategic rivalry and of military confrontations that spiral out of control.
While nationalists in the United States and Russia see the conflict in black and white terms, and apportion blame accordingly, Legvold assigns blame and credit to both sides. A professor emeritus at Columbia University, he argues that improving the relationship between the two countries requires each side to recognize how it has contributed to the conflict. It’s always easier to cast stones, however, than to accept responsibility. On the other hand, understanding what one’s side could have done differently “offers insight into what might yet be done better.”
Legvold offers examples of steps each side took that contributed to rising tensions, and where alternative policies could’ve accomplished goals without undermining trust. On the Russian side, annexing Crimea was “a historic mistake.”
On the U.S. side, he notes that “major powers do not respond graciously to hostile alliances pushing up to their borders.” (Recall the American reaction to Soviet weapons in Cuba.) The U.S. and its NATO partners were meddling in Ukraine, with the prospect of extending the alliance there, as had been done with Poland and the Baltic states. The famous American diplomat George F. Kennan described this NATO expansion as the most dangerous foreign policy decision that the US had made since the end of the Second World War. “It shows so little understanding of Russian and Soviet history. Of course there is going to be a bad reaction from Russia.” Expansion will certainly “inflame the nationalist, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion.”
Legvold explains how the conflict can be defused, but only if both sides take the necessary steps. While he is not optimistic that the new Cold War will end soon, a potential change agent is Donald Trump, whose flattering words for Putin are unprecedented coming from leaders in either of the two political parties. Mitt Romney, the GOP nominee in 2012, called Russia the number one strategic threat to the USA, while John McCain has repeatedly called for stronger measures against Russia.
Yet the Trumpian call for cooperation with Moscow has not aroused opposition among rank and file Republicans, (though it has from the GOP foreign policy establishment). Trump supporters I have conversed with express willingness to follow their candidate’s proposal for reconciliation with Russia. I can’t help suspect they would be more reluctant if the call for cooperation had come from a Democrat.
This book contains an informative analysis of what caused the first Cold War, and what led to its end, with Gorbachev getting the most credit. It also offers a roadmap for defusing the new Cold War, if and when both sides see the imperative to do so. It also will require American leadership to recognize the validity of Legvold’s words:
“It is the natural inclination of every major power both to assume that it is entitled to pride of place within its region and, when possible, to enforce it. This is historically true of the United States” -- The Monroe Doctrine comes to mind – “and will be of China and India in coming years. And so too is it of Russia.” ###
The poisoned relationship prevents cooperation on matters of mutual interest, such as defeating ISIS, controlling nuclear arms, and addressing climate change, among other things. It also creates greater risk of full blown strategic rivalry and of military confrontations that spiral out of control.
While nationalists in the United States and Russia see the conflict in black and white terms, and apportion blame accordingly, Legvold assigns blame and credit to both sides. A professor emeritus at Columbia University, he argues that improving the relationship between the two countries requires each side to recognize how it has contributed to the conflict. It’s always easier to cast stones, however, than to accept responsibility. On the other hand, understanding what one’s side could have done differently “offers insight into what might yet be done better.”
Legvold offers examples of steps each side took that contributed to rising tensions, and where alternative policies could’ve accomplished goals without undermining trust. On the Russian side, annexing Crimea was “a historic mistake.”
On the U.S. side, he notes that “major powers do not respond graciously to hostile alliances pushing up to their borders.” (Recall the American reaction to Soviet weapons in Cuba.) The U.S. and its NATO partners were meddling in Ukraine, with the prospect of extending the alliance there, as had been done with Poland and the Baltic states. The famous American diplomat George F. Kennan described this NATO expansion as the most dangerous foreign policy decision that the US had made since the end of the Second World War. “It shows so little understanding of Russian and Soviet history. Of course there is going to be a bad reaction from Russia.” Expansion will certainly “inflame the nationalist, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion.”
Legvold explains how the conflict can be defused, but only if both sides take the necessary steps. While he is not optimistic that the new Cold War will end soon, a potential change agent is Donald Trump, whose flattering words for Putin are unprecedented coming from leaders in either of the two political parties. Mitt Romney, the GOP nominee in 2012, called Russia the number one strategic threat to the USA, while John McCain has repeatedly called for stronger measures against Russia.
Yet the Trumpian call for cooperation with Moscow has not aroused opposition among rank and file Republicans, (though it has from the GOP foreign policy establishment). Trump supporters I have conversed with express willingness to follow their candidate’s proposal for reconciliation with Russia. I can’t help suspect they would be more reluctant if the call for cooperation had come from a Democrat.
This book contains an informative analysis of what caused the first Cold War, and what led to its end, with Gorbachev getting the most credit. It also offers a roadmap for defusing the new Cold War, if and when both sides see the imperative to do so. It also will require American leadership to recognize the validity of Legvold’s words:
“It is the natural inclination of every major power both to assume that it is entitled to pride of place within its region and, when possible, to enforce it. This is historically true of the United States” -- The Monroe Doctrine comes to mind – “and will be of China and India in coming years. And so too is it of Russia.” ###
July 12, 2016
Return to the Cold War by Robert Legvold covers the status of US and Russian relations vis a vis the framework of the Cold War that ran from the middle of the 20th century until the end of the 20th century. He assesses the things that made that a Cold War and looks at how today reflects those scenarios. As he points out if this is a new Cold War we are in the early stages and it can still be aborted although that looks unlikely based upon the way the states are currently interacting. This is a very thoughtful analysis that does read like an academic book so it is not for your casual reader but anyone who is a student of IR will appreciate the application of theory here. Ukraine is the main flashpoint focused on but it also covers the expansion of NATO, possible other trouble spots for NATO and Russian clashes, the middle east and the US policy missteps that have been interpreted by Russia. Ultimately it also rests on Putin’s Cold War mindset that is showing this course back towards Cold War. The book also recognizes that at the moment Russia is a regional power and not a global super power but given that it is a regional power in the area where the US has a main interest Russia must be engaged with. A pretty quick read that frames the conflict with Russia in classical terms and makes the case very soundly that we are returning to a state of Cold war with Russia.
June 1, 2024
Interesting and educational to view the renewed Russia vs. the West paradigm through the detritus of the Cold War. The recommendations for renewed cooperation were already unlikely, not least due to the (unacknowledged in this book) difficulty in cultivating trusted relations with a mafia state, now much more so in the aftermath of Russia's attack on the 2016 US election.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews