Prime Minister Medvedev in his speech in Munich said that Russia and the West have slipped during the cold war – and from both sides at once, there were statements that no one wants such a confrontation. Paradox: the opposition is, and there is no term for it. Is it really so dangerous the cold war, the 70th anniversary which will be celebrated in three weeks?
At the conference in Munich the Russian Prime Minister said, in General, banal thing “can be said more sharply: we have gone, in fact, during the new cold war”. He laid the blame on the Atlanticist – “almost every day we announce the most terrible threat for NATO as a whole, separately for Europe, America and other countries (colleague, Mr Stoltenberg is also just demonstrated), remove the frightening films in which the Russians begin a nuclear war. I do sometimes think, we in 2016 or live in 1962?”
“Now an alternative to the cold war is not “cold world”, and quite a hot war”
Indeed, speaking before Medvedev NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg was speaking about deterring Russia – here’s how the Prime Minister then explained his perception of the speech of the Secretary General:
“He was talking about? He said Russia had to be limited to the contingent increase, to defend on all borders, all boundaries. But if it’s not preparing for the cold war, then what? This is the reality.”
Medvedev then said: “I never said that began a new cold war, but I was talking about that the decisions of NATO are pushing for the emergence of a new cold war”.
Clarification was needed because in the Anglo-Saxon press immediately with accusations Medvedev that he announced the beginning of a new cold war. However, Western politicians themselves immediately stated that he understood the Prime Minister’s exactly the opposite – as a call to avoid a new cold war.
“We’re totally not in the situation of the cold war. I think the one who this morning listened attentively to Prime Minister Medvedev, who, in contrast to reports of news agencies which I read, too, understood it differently. We realized so, what he wanted to say that we must avoid the situation which leads us to the cold war”, – said the Minister of foreign Affairs of Germany Frank-Walter Steinmeier. “In the last days I have not felt the climate of the cold war”, said the chief of European diplomacy Federica Mogherini.
As Supreme allied commander of NATO forces in Europe General Philip Breedlove said that “we in NATO want the onset of the cold war… We don’t talk about it. We don’t want her to come, and do not anticipate its occurrence”.
Himself Jens Stoltenberg later said that “we must respond to threats from Russia when she decides to change the borders in Europe, as was the case with Ukraine and Crimea. But at the same time, we do not seek confrontation, we don’t want a new cold war… We are not in the situation of the cold war, but it is not a partnership”. The Secretary General stated and that “we must avoid escalation, so we are interested in the continuation of the political dialogue with Russia – to the already complicated situation becomes even more complicated.”
While Stoltenberg immediately repeated two fiction, which in themselves confirm the statements by Moscow that NATO escalate the situation – he said he will not name Russia as an enemy, unlike Putin, who made this statement addressed to NATO. But Putin never said that NATO is an enemy of Russia – we see hostile action, but the President has never used the term “enemy” against those whom he sarcastically continues to call “our partners”.What is the relationship between the military capabilities of Russia and NATO
The second assertion Stoltenberg as far-fetched – answering the question of whether NATO fears Russian nuclear weapons, he said that “at least Putin has already threatened (this feature)”. That is, the words of President Putin that for the protection of the Crimea at the time of his return to Russia when threatened with the use of the NATO armed forces, he was ready to give the order to bring in the state of readiness of our nuclear forces is treated (and not for the first time) as waving the nuclear club.
What turns out? The mere mention at a high level about the cold war created mutual assurances that no one wants – in this case, the demonization of Russia on the part of Atlanticists continues. As the embargo policy of Russia, while Washington periodically suggests that he never set himself the task of isolation of our country and wants to work with them on mutually beneficial issues. Conversations about the cold war become common place in the mouth of though not officials, but politicians, analysts and the press. Moreover, often speaks about what the world is drawn into a third world war, and even that it in fact takes (including spoke about this and the Roman Pontiff).
Indeed, the war in the middle East could potentially become the trigger at least a very big war, which will seriously involve all the great powers. Yes there potentially is even now observed as an attempt by Erdogan to play a card of the us-Russian global and regional contradictions have led to dangerous balancing on the brink of clashes in Syria, Russia and Turkey, a member country of NATO. Against this background, the friendly assurances of the Western politicians that the cold war no and they don’t want look even not as disputes about the terms and as an attempt to ignore reality.
But things are not so simple – in fact, the reluctance to admit the obvious due to the fact that the West still hopes to retain its global leadership, the project of globalization and its unique hegemonic position in the world. To recognize the cold war means to accept that come the new rules of the game, building a new global architecture of global security.
It’s not that she will repeat the one which occurred after the Second world war, a bipolar world is now impossible, and that, as then, it will be built on the balance of forces and interests. Will not be the main determining all the player who can no one to be – namely a model of the Atlantic world tried to impose after their victory in the previous cold war. The victory, which was not there – because the cold war was a way of maintaining world peace, preventing global conflict. And here’s what the end – made possible by exiting the game of the USSR – was seen by the West as its own victory, and became the reason of sharp growth of world turbulence and actually put mankind on the brink of another world war.As rising global military expenditures
The cold war in the ‘ 40s began as a recognition of the impossibility of conservation between former allies partner-friendships. And just to avoid a new war parties differed on politico-military camps, the very existence of which prevented the world from global war. Now we have entered a period of a new cold war is to keep mankind from the great war at a time, until they will form a new system of international balance of power. That is to be achieved, the conditions under which strong and sustainable world. It will take ten, maybe twenty years – but now an alternative to the cold war is not “cold world”, and quite a hot war.
What was the previous cold war lasted four decades? It is the maintenance of the world – primarily in Europe, which was then the center of the confrontation between USA and USSR. There were concentrated striking force of the armies of the two countries, including nuclear weapons.
It is considered that the cold war started 70 years ago, on 5 March 1946, it was Fulton speech of Churchill. The former Prime Minister said about the fallen in the midst of Europe “an iron curtain”, that in Eastern Europe now there is no true democracy and totalitarianism that Russians have a requirement for Turkey, and Persia, and the whole “this is certainly not the liberated Europe we fought. This is not what is necessary for a permanent peace”. But the United States has allegedly been on the top of world fame, and “fraternal Association of Englishspeaking peoples” (Britain with its dominions, from Canada to Australia) at this point in history is “the only tool able to prevent the war and to resist tyranny”.
In fact, it was then politically and was proclaimed the concept of building “peace in the Anglo-Saxon” and globalization. When her opponent was declared the Soviet Union – with whom Churchill had offered not to fight, but to speak from a position of strength.
“I reject the idea that a new war is inevitable… I do not believe that Soviet Russia wants war. She wants the fruits of war and the unlimited expansion of their power and ideology… From what I saw during the war to our Russian friends and colleagues, I conclude that nothing they admire more than strength, and they don’t respect nothing less than weakness, especially military weakness. Therefore, the old doctrine of balance of power is now unjust”.
That is, Churchill did not offer to fight with Russia, and to force her to peace. He really feared that the USSR might take the Straits and reach the Indian ocean. And although the decision to dismantle the British Empire had already been taken, this did not mean that the Anglo-Saxon strategists were reluctant to give up control over key geopolitical sites.
Simply functions of the global Manager moved from London to Washington and it was important to prevent further expansion of the zone of influence and so greatly increased Russia – that Churchill and worried. However, the States possessed atomic weapons, and his presence instilled confidence in the former Prime Minister, although, of course, in Fulton he did not speak publicly about that at this same time, discussed with the American leaders the possibility of a nuclear strike on Russia. Nuclear strike before 1949 when the bomb appeared in the USSR – States to cause not decided, but the fact that they have such weapons, of course, were considered by Stalin when he heard of Churchill’s reasoning about what should be done to prevent a new war: “To do this under the auspices of the United Nations and on the basis of military power of the English Commonwealth to find common ground with Russia”
It is clear that “finding common ground” “on the basis of military force” was read in Moscow and as a barely veiled threat. It is not surprising that a few days later Stalin compared yesterday’s ally with Hitler, stating that “Mr. Churchill begins a work of war, too, racial theory, arguing that only Nations speaking the English language, are full-fledged Nations, called to sway the destinies of the world. The German racial theory brought Hitler and his friends to the conclusion that the Germans as the only full-fledged Nations should rule over other Nations.”
From this moment on, former allies became enemies. But if Churchill thought that the Anglo-Saxon world will be able to force the USSR to accept the rules of the game that containment will work, then I did not. The world was divided into two camps – the Anglo-Saxons and became the leader of the whole world, but only part of it. After Eastern Europe became red China, the USSR was one of allies in Asia and then in Africa. Cohesive the Atlanticists within NATO, the West moved to defense – and until the late 50’s he wasn’t even sure that he will be able to hold countries such as France or Italy.
Key in Anglo-Saxon strategy was the intention to prevent the extension of the sphere of influence of the USSR. This sphere of influence still extended – so, already in the 70s it became the countries of Southern Africa. But with all the geopolitical confrontation of the war the two superpowers did not happen – were the proxy war, as in Korea or Vietnam. Both sides suspected the enemy in the desire to unleash a major war – and the Kremlin have been for good reason, considering how the existing plans of the American first strike, and the fact that until the early 60’s States had the undeniable advantage of the missile over the Soviet Union.
By the mid 60’s formed a balanced system of international relations in which, despite the U.S. war in Vietnam, it became clear that no collision between the two powers is not – first and foremost, it reassured Europe. By the early 70s is formed in a discharge – when were found to have normal relations with Moscow, Germany, and then with the United States. Since 1972, for the first time began regular U.S.-Russian contacts at the highest level – and almost to the end of the 70s everything went more or less normally. The struggle for spheres of influence continued, but no one by and large did not consider Europe as a field of future battle.
But she became more and more an area of competition between Anglo-Saxons and the USSR. Strengthened economic ties with Western Europe by Moscow, and the United States relied on the destabilization regimes of Eastern European, primarily Polish. Against this background, began a new phase of the arms race – the Americans decided to deploy new missiles in Europe, and along with the crisis around Afghanistan and Poland relations between the two countries again fell open to the cold war. Sanctions, a boycott of the Olympics, the coming to power of Reagan with his “star wars” and “the evil Empire” – the first half of the 80s was in active confrontation, but again without any risk a real military confrontation. Under Gorbachev the USSR adopted a unilateral exit from the game is the cold war was officially declared over in December 1989 in Malta, during the meeting of Bush and Gorbachev.
The Atlanticists were celebrating “the end of history” – victory in the cold war they regarded as its full triumph, and a carte Blanche to world hegemony. As he wrote Zbigniew Brzezinski, “from a geopolitical point of view the result of the defeat of the USSR in the cold war recalls the year 1918. Defeated Empire is in a stage of disassembly. As in the process of termination of the previous wars, there has been clearly a moment of surrender.”
That is, he compared the exit of the USSR from the cold war with the surrender of Germany – which, incidentally, were imposed is so unjust conditions of the world that they themselves have programmed the attempt of German revenge in the 30th. And the remaining from the USSR, Russia has not just tried to push to the margins of world policy, she was denied even the right to integrate the disorganized Russian and post-Soviet world. The winner in the cold war decided to take all – that is, until the Ukraine. The response of Russia in the Crimea showed that the retreat is over. A new cold war has begun.
However, it really started in March 2014 and several years before that – in the period between 2007 with Putin’s Munich speech and the 2011 attack on Libya, there were only weak attempts to slow her down. But a new cold war was programmed not just the return of Russia and rise of China, and the collapse of the Atlantic project, and the growth of regional centers of power. It’s not the cold war between Russia and the West is the cold war few world civilizations that try such a peaceful way to find a new balance of forces and the equilibrium point global security architecture. This “war” certainly better trigger, for all the world to disaster American.Related posts: