The True Cost Of The Cold War

The True Cost Of The Cold War

Published September 16, 2011

Born in the mid-seventies, I probably belong to the last generation to have a clear memory of the Cold War. As a child, I remember looking in the basement for a place to hide in the event of nuclear attack. This was more than just paranoia. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, it actually did come to light that the Russians had four nuclear missiles pointed at Reykjavík, ready to go off in the event of war.
Iceland in the 1980s, although firmly in the capitalist camp, had some noticeably Eastern bloc elements. It traded proportionately more with the Communist bloc than any other NATO country. Like most Icelanders my age, I grew up eating Polish chocolate, watching Czech cartoons and my parents drove a Lada. In return, the other side imported Icelandic fish to such an extent that the United States reportedly at one point considered buying up all of Iceland’s fish exports to stop it from trading with the enemy. 
The decline of the empires
In 1986, the leaders of the two superpowers met in Iceland to bring about an end to the Cold War. The Soviet Union was in serious economic trouble by then; the US seemed to be doing somewhat better. Some people took a different view. A little film from Canada, ‘The Decline of the American Empire,’ was nominated as best foreign language film, but did not win. It was not this decline that was on everyone’s minds.
In 2011, I find myself living in Canada. Some say it was an event that took place here, and not in Reykjavík, that marked the true beginning of the end of the Cold War. When Gorbachev, on a visit in 1983, walked into a Canadian supermarket and saw the variety of consumer products on offer for the general public and not just party apparatchiks, he knew the Cold War was lost.
The cost for the Russians
My girlfriend works in a créperie along with people from all over the former Soviet Union: Moldova, Kazakhstan, Ukraine and Russia itself. One is a brain surgeon, another a nutritionist, none can find suitable work in Canada but still feel they enjoy a better standard of living than in their native country. They are not political exiles as they might have been during Soviet times, but rather victims of a failed economic policy. 
Meanwhile, the wealth of the motherland has been divided between a handful of oligarchs and the political system has slipped back into authoritarianism, if not outright totalitarianism, under Putin. Gorbachev’s policies were a blessing for the people of Eastern Europe, but in Russia, the results are more mixed, which is why he is still generally idolised in most of Europe, but disliked at home.
The cost for the Americans

The bill for the end of the Cold War came later to America, but it was also high. Reagan argued that you could cut taxes and that this would stimulate the economy enough to not only make up for the tax cuts, but also provide additional revenue for military spending. This proved false, and a bad habit from the Reagan years was nonchalance towards public debt that is now costing the United States dearly.    
True, the debt was brought under control by Clinton, but George W. Bush, inspired by Reagan, thought that debt did not matter as long as you won the war. Bush did not win his wars, but managed to run up a huge bill nonetheless. Had the Soviet Union not collapsed and the Cold War not been won, Reagan’s presidency would most probably have been viewed as a failure and the dangers of Reaganomics would have come to light earlier. Instead, the bill has to be paid now.
25 Years on from Höfði
In Montreal, I recently saw a comedy show, hosted by the Daily Show’s John Oliver, called ‘The Decline of the American Empire.’ The idea of the United States being in decline has gone from art house cinema to mainstream comedy.
An apocryphal story tells of an Icelandic translator for a German TV crew at the time of the Höfði summit overhearing the Germans remark, upon seeing the state of the Soviet broadcasting equipment, that the Soviet Union had five years left, the United States, twenty-five.    
I would still be mildly surprised if the United States would collapse before Christmas. A more conservative estimate would probably give them another half century before they finally give way to the Chinese. On the other hand, the Soviet Union collapsed far quicker than anyone, outside of the German TV crew, could have predicted in 1986. Twenty-five years on from Höfði, the state of the superpower that survived the Cold War seems more perilous than ever.



Mag
Opinion
<?php the_title(); ?>

Ungoo

by

[Continued from Ungoo: Part VIII] Combined, these faults admittedly sound like the joke about that restaurant: two friends go out for dinner; one complains that the food tastes terrible to which the other replies: yes, and the portions are way too small. The like-button is probably the greatest invention since the billboard, and just as inattentive to thinking. Facebook is fast, whereas most sources seem to agree that depth is slow. If Facebook is the way we converse and, thereby, think, then yes, our culture is probably pretty shallow. Our, as in: yours too, wherever you are from. We are

Mag
Opinion
<?php the_title(); ?>

Ungoo

by

[Continued from Ungoo: Part VII] Which brings us back to Facebook. You may or may not know that a government agency called Promote Iceland has based whole marketing campaigns on encouraging the country’s inhabitants to employ social media to lure visitors. If those plans received any criticism at all, most of that probably appeared as Facebook posts, which were then drowned in more life-affirming messages. Nonetheless, debates take place on Facebook. If an interesting article appears elsewhere, whether on Starafugl or in Fréttablaðið, Facebook is still where most of the following debate will take place. Facebook is a radically new

Mag
Opinion
<?php the_title(); ?>

Ungoo

by

[Continued from Ungoo: Part VI] The most recent attempt to create a common venue for cultural commentary and debate is Starafugl, a website started and edited by author Eiríkur Örn Norðdahl. It’s been around since last winter. As I have been involved in various ways, I am liable to be considered biased when I claim that Starafugl has had a convincing first few months. I claim it, all the same. Starafugl ran into trouble a few weeks back, when it received its first ever invoice. The invoice charged Starafugl for a photograph, that had been used to illustrate an article

Mag
Opinion
<?php the_title(); ?>

Ungoo

by

[Continued from Ungoo: Part V] Radio program Víðsjá, run by state broadcaster RÚV, is in fact a tower within Iceland’s cultural panopticon. Which might serve as a translation for the program’s name. It reports on events and publications, and leaves space for commentary, which at times has been among the best you’ll find: inspired and grounded, informed and enlightening, at times romantic, courageous when needed. Incidentally, if I’m not mistaken, radio host Eiríkur Guðmundsson, often credited for having made the program what it is, was also a student of the aforementioned Matthías Viðar. Notwithstanding repeated downsizing of RÚV programming, the

Mag
Opinion
<?php the_title(); ?>

Make Yourself at Home

by

Air-bnb has announced its future vision —and a new logo. Supposedly composed from a heart, a location marker and the letter A, the logo has already been the target of much ridicule, needless to repeat here. The logo is not the point. One of the its main virtues, according to the company’s announcement, is that it is easy to draw. This serves a function: people all over the world are offered to draw the logo on just about anything they are willing to share for a fee. As the company’s statement says, Air-bnb is not just about sharing spaces, but

Mag
Opinion
<?php the_title(); ?>

Democratic Principles —the Machiavellian B-sides

by

“The president will not discuss statements made in an election campaign, during his term in office.” So said the President’s spokesman in response to RÚV’s attempt to ask President Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson about his statements in 2012, that, if elected, he might seek to leave office before the end of his term. His fifth term, to be exact. The spokesman’s response has the structure of a reasonable, if not self-evident, principle, something any member of a functioning democracy would surely understand. Meanwhile, the content of the sentence may be considered somewhat less than democratic. In other times, the same content,

Show Me More!