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.
![](http://archives.lincolndailynews.com/2016/Oct/29/images/ads/current/maskeauction_sda_022614.png) 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] |
![](http://archives.lincolndailynews.com/2016/Oct/29/images/ads/current/graue_preowned_102416.png) 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]
![](http://archives.lincolndailynews.com/2016/Oct/29/images/ads/current/Martin_Farms_daily_sda_2015.png)
![](http://archives.lincolndailynews.com/2016/Aug/26/images/ads/current/ldn_medical_directory_small_2016.png) |