The full story behind the famous dismemberment of the former Soviet Union has never really been told. Very few are inclined to probe Mikhail Gorbachev, the eighth and last General Secretary of the Communist Party, to ferret out his compulsions. It was about democracy, as we were told. Yet it was a democracy to which Gorbachev was destined never to return to. Having achieved the break-up he no longer had the appetite to steer his country ahead. He chose, ironically the safe haven of the United States.
Vladimir Putin's inevitable re-election as President of Russia, slap-bang in the middle of the most serious diplomatic kerfuffle since the Cold War, gives rise to more questions than answers. Putin has stated publicly that to get the 'Soviet Union' together would be desirable. Times and events have changed and even he knows that status-quo cannot be returned to. The allegations of Russian interference in the US and UK elections, unproved as of yet, could well have signalled an attempt to do to them what was done to the Soviet Union. The key suspects are clearly identified.
Following twenty-three tit-for-tat diplomatic expulsions by UK and Russia, over an alleged attempt on the life of double agent Sergei Skripal and daughter Yulia using nerve agent, Russia faces a major issue of deciding on a response to sixty expulsions from the US and a smattering of more from European countries. In the process three disturbing issues have surfaced. A handful of countries do possess dastardly chemical weapons. Then there is the admission that governments 'live' with the prospect of foreign intelligence agents operating from under the veil of diplomatic immunity. Of greater concern is the suggestion that the nerve agent used was taken from apparently secure locations. Mr. Putin ignored a British deadline but has stated it was ridiculous to suggest Russia had a hand behind it. What he did not say but that what was stated by Russia's Ambassador to the UK is that any such nerve agent could have been pinched from a British lab or storage facility. Ms. Theresa May in setting a deadline for a response, was clear in saying either the Russian government was behind it or, without its knowledge, the agent was pilfered from a Russian installation.
Perhaps there's nothing new about that. The open admission certainly is. The US President has gone a step further in saying nearly 100 Russians at the UN are spies. No doubt, his proclivity to tweeting will result in another 'Fake News' post should Russia retaliate similarly, as is bound to happen. Unlike Russia, media in the UK and the US have decidedly more freedom. When they raise concern about the safety of 'their' men, who might be named and identified, they raise a point. It goes beyond the James Bond bravado of 'there are more like me who will come'; it brings focus to individual lives notwithstanding the utter disregard for the lives lost in senseless military intervention that question the very basics of sovereignty. Nonetheless, one cannot see any prospect of US adventurism to take out Russian targets. Even a belligerent Mr. Trump will know where the stake in the sand is.
To his credit, Mr. Putin has displayed restraint, not least in not retaliating for a Russian plane shot down by Turkey. He may laugh off the sanctions imposed on his country but there's no question they have cut deep. Further sanctions, if they do follow will test his resolve and his restraint. He will have to decide on grinning and bearing it - something alien to his character or take a more belligerent posture. A trade war beckons between the US and China. An international diplomatic row, out of control has repercussions the world can do without. But then, Mr. Putin is calm and composed, never ruffled. It's a good quality, fraught with dangers.
