| 
			
			 Sadly, the demise of Cold War tensions unleashed a 
			flurry of regional animosities in other quarters that had been kept 
			in check earlier, and conflict zones emerged in the Balkans, in the 
			Middle East, and across international boundaries with the rise of 
			stateless terror organizations. Many of these emerging conflicts 
			tested the diplomatic wherewithal of the United States and some of 
			them necessitated an active military role as America became a global 
			policeman, but all of them constituted a burden that we chose to 
			shoulder. Today, facing an onerous debt, recognizing a global 
			footprint that is difficult to maintain, and reassessing its ideal 
			role as a global superpower, the United States understands the 
			limits of power that many great nations have had to ponder 
			throughout history. 
			
			 Although some might argue that the collapse of the Soviet Union 
			resulted from the failed moral bankruptcy of its communistic system, 
			the actual justification for that nation’s decline was the near 
			economic bankruptcy caused by Cold War era spending, a path that 
			proved to be unsustainable in the long run. In the wake of the 
			implosion of the old Soviet Union, the global community was left 
			with Russia—a pared down version of its former self, but still a 
			dangerous nuclear power with a penchant for autocracy. In many 
			respects, the past twenty-five years have provided Russia with an 
			opportunity to grow into its current role on the world stage. Like a 
			middle child that has to grow into the hand-me-downs of an older 
			sibling, we now understand that former Soviet-era apparatchiks have 
			crafted a state that once again seeks regional, if not global, 
			hegemony. Moreover, perceived limitations caused by the debt crisis 
			that the United States faces only serve to empower and embolden a 
			former adversary like Russia.
 Some anticipate that the current chill between the United States and 
			Russia is suggestive of a new Cold War that might be emerging, and 
			this could well be the case. As a result, we must ensure certitude 
			and consistency in all of our dealings with regional allies. The 
			United States has been well served by its NATO allies, and the bond 
			that formed in the aftermath of the Second World War has been 
			instrumental in keeping regional crises from escalating into 
			international conflicts. The power of this alliance is much more 
			than symbolic—it has proven itself to be real on several occasions. 
			It would be tremendously short-sighted of the United States to 
			pursue any course of foreign policy that would try to weaken or 
			diminish the role of NATO or alienate any of our long-standing 
			partnerships with our North Atlantic allies.
 
 The history of the Cold War era reminds us that great nations have 
			many tools in their repertoire of engagement that can be 
			tremendously effective at producing desired results. The potential 
			application of economic sanctions or technology embargoes could have 
			a profound impact upon Russian interests, especially in this era of 
			electronic banking and international business transactions.
 [to 
			top of second column] | 
			
			 There are many ways in which substantial pressure 
			can be made to bear upon a regime that is bent upon reasserting its 
			former presence in geopolitical affairs. As a sovereign state Russia 
			has a right to conduct its internal affairs as it sees fit, but 
			nations do not have the prerogative to disrupt regional peace and 
			security on a whim or because they have a penchant for resurrecting 
			imperial designs.
 There is a tremendous difference between steadfastness and 
			belligerence. The United States must always affirm that we stand by 
			our treaty obligations to assist and protect our allies in Eastern 
			Europe and elsewhere around the world. We cannot permit territorial 
			aggrandizement to go unchecked, nor can we allow Russian interests 
			to prop up the Assad regime in Syria and perpetuate one of the 
			greatest humanitarian crises of the modern era. We must be willing 
			to bring pressures to bear where we can prudently effect policy 
			solutions that serve our national interests. Being too risk-averse 
			is a sign of fecklessness that only enables our adversaries and 
			discourages our allies.
 
			Past related 
			articles [Text from file received] 
			
			 
			
			 |