Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Are we now in a new cold war?

With a few exceptions (the Cuba crisis, Able Archer, etc.) the Cold War was mainly stable, as the world settled around a bipolar division of the planet between two powers, one which was obviously much more powerful than the other.

We are now moving into a time of turbulence and uncertainty which has no real precedent in human history. It may not even be a "multipolar" world as such, as the persistence of multiple poles of power and hegemony (presumably across different regions) presupposes at least some degree of (relative) stability.

Then there's the global environmental crisis, which not even that mighty force the Green Party seems able to stop. That's going to be the wild card in all this.

It wasn't that stable in: Vietnam, Laos, Afghanistan, Angola, Namibia, South Africa, Mozambique, Chile, Korea, Argentina, Italy, Nicaragua, Congo, El Salvador, Cambodia, Greece, or Indonesia.
 
tim the alliance for progress, the murder of che guevara (one of the more useless guerrilla leaders imo, he never really understood why they won in Cuba and his stupid foco theory sent many guerrillas to their deaths across Latin america), the Ukrainian nationalists sent to their deaths etc etc
 
One factor is what happens when a republican loon gets into the white house, likely they see Putin as an ally.
 
It wasn't that stable in: Vietnam, Laos, Afghanistan, Angola, Namibia, South Africa, Mozambique, Chile, Korea, Argentina, Italy, Nicaragua, Congo, El Salvador, Cambodia, Greece, or Indonesia.
It was stable because the superpower rivalry was displaced into countless proxy wars in those countries, and others. The proxy wars of the Cold War lead to millions of death, and the ruin of countless countries (Cambodia being the worst example there, probably), but they were actually integral to the stability of the system. Can any such "safety valve" be identified today, even at the cost of millions of lives? I doubt it, somehow.

Oh, and Pickman's model - I never said it was bloodless, just that it was stable!
 
It was stable because the superpower rivalry was displaced into countless proxy wars in those countries, and others. The proxy wars of the Cold War lead to millions of death, and the ruin of countless countries (Cambodia being the worst example there, probably), but they were actually integral to the stability of the system. Can any such "safety valve" be identified today, even at the cost of millions of lives? I doubt it, somehow.

Oh, and Pickman's model - I never said it was bloodless, just that it was stable!
it's often said how it was bloodless, when what they mean is no, or very few, russians or americans died fighting each other
 
It was stable because the superpower rivalry was displaced into countless proxy wars in those countries, and others. The proxy wars of the Cold War lead to millions of death, and the ruin of countless countries (Cambodia being the worst example there, probably), but they were actually integral to the stability of the system. Can any such "safety valve" be identified today, even at the cost of millions of lives? I doubt it, somehow.

Oh, and Pickman's model - I never said it was bloodless, just that it was stable!
It was also clear what people were supposed to be fighting about. Now both Russia and the US are much more unpredictable places, and what they imagine they're in conflict about with each other more opaque. Much of the world, understandably given their experiences, can't take seriously the US's rhetoric about 'freedom,' and sympathises with Russia at one or another level. Many US Republicans are also largely in agreement with Putin's social conservatism if not his foreign policy, and are locked into permanent conflict with a Democratic establishment which is in its own way equally dogmatic. Both sides add fuel to a fire which, it seems, can never be put out as long as the US remains politically stable, with neither side able to impose a decisive victory. But with the way the world is looking the time will come, as long as a worldwide conflagration doesn't consume everybody.

Meanwhile, Russia's future is almost impossible to predict, and all we can conclude is that the outcome will almost certainly not contribute to a stable and predictable world situation.

As said many times before, the naive western hopes of 1989-91 are dead and buried, and the worst is yet to come.
 
I suspect that this article hardly scratches the surface with regard to the worldwide instability to come. With Europe, as in the Cold War, the 'theatre.'



'Yet, as former members of the USSR aligned themselves with the EU and NATO, and the winners of the Cold War repurposed their military’s technological advantage into commercial advantage, flooding Russian homes with high-tech products the like of which no home-grown company could match, we barely noticed the growing, smouldering, anger of the Russian political class and security apparatus.
Russian influence seeped into every corner of Europe’s economic and political landscape. Few questions were asked as the money poured in – communism had been defeated so what was the threat?
As the first evidence of the return of ghosts of Europe’s brutal past emerged in the Balkans as ethnic and religious conflicts tore apart the previous communist dictatorship in Yugoslavia, NATO snubbed Russia. Acting unilaterally in what Russia saw as its sphere of influence, it attacked its allies the Serbs.'


'Fuelled by hubris, the expansionist liberal democracy project defeated itself in Iraq and Afghanistan. In the aftermath, it became clear the world was a more complex place. It is not binary, but multipolar: a complex web of competing nations tied together by the threads of global trade, financial systems and – with most fragility – the rule of international law.
Writing in 1989 John Gray claimed, “the waning of the Soviet system is bound to be accompanied by a waxing of ethnic and nationalistic conflicts – just the sort of stuff history has always been made of.”
Stalin had ruthlessly dislocated entire peoples, relocating them without regard to their histories. As the USSR collapsed Gray saw that “age-old enmities and loyalties” were coming back to the surface after decades of totalitarian suppression. It was “not, then, the end of history, but instead its resumption – and on decidedly traditional lines.” '
 
Last edited:
Joy. Not a good sign.

Russia's parliament took the first step on Tuesday towards revoking ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and its top lawmaker warned the United States that Moscow might even abandon the pact altogether.

Russia says the aim is to restore parity with the United States, which has signed but never ratified the 1996 treaty, and that it will not resume testing unless Washington does.
 
As in the quote in my previous post signed but never ratified.
America’s politics is weird they hardly ever ratify international treaty’s as congress has a say. Congress makes the House of Commons look intelligent and rational😱.
Some see any international law as communism or tyranny 🙄
 
Parts of the world seem to think we're not in a cold war but a hot one.


Most people in non-Western countries want Russia’s war on Ukraine to end as soon as possible even if it means Kyiv ceding territory, according to a global poll published by the European Council on Foreign Relations.

“There remains a clear preference in China, India, and Turkey (and obviously Russia) that the war should end as soon as possible, even if Ukraine has to relinquish control of some of its territory. Our new poll shows that this is also the prevailing view in Brazil, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, and South Africa,” according to the think tank’s report.

“But this does not mean people in those countries think the war in Ukraine is an occasion to push against the Western dominance of the world; this argument remains popular solely in Russia and nowhere else.”

The report is based on a public opinion poll of adults from September and October 2023, across 11 European countries, and 10 non-European countries. There was a total of 25, 266 respondents.

“Majorities in China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey believe the US and Russia are at war,” the report said.

“People in the US and Europe are joined only by those in India and Brazil in having a prevailing view that the US is not at war with Russia (though there are countries in Europe where the opposite view prevails).”
 
Ignore the clickbait title this is fascinating about Russias new allegiance with CHina, NK and Iran, full of facts figures and history........ the irony is the more the war has been deliberately prolonged by Biden the more its creating this alliance. Hard to see a way back from this.

 
Ignore the clickbait title this is fascinating about Russias new allegiance with CHina, NK and Iran, full of facts figures and history........
That was interesting, thanks. On the one hand, three of the four have nuclear weapons, yet their combined conventional military is no match for the USA.
the irony is the more the war has been deliberately prolonged by Biden the more its creating this alliance. Hard to see a way back from this.
It's an unstable fragile alliance. China will sell out Russia for continued access to USA and European markets.

The video, I know, couldn't cover everything, missing out India and Pakistan is big omission.


India–Russia relations. 17 October 2024 https://archive.ph/NYhMV
https://www.chat hamhouse.org/2024/10/india-russia-relations <broken link>
 
Back
Top Bottom