“Each chapter I read made me more and more angry.”– Dr. Helen Caldicott, international leader of anti-nuclear and environmental movements, making reference to a book recommended below
The new Cold War is different from the original one. Ideological conflict no longer pits Moscow against today’s enlarged “West”… since Russia’s elite unashamedly embraced capitalism after 1991. The Kremlin has ceased to stand at the head of a rival economic and social system that challenges the U.S. false promise of individual freedom and global prosperity for one and all.
Today’s struggle between Moscow and Washington — corporate agendas and corrupt individuals on both sides blended into the mix — involves traditional nation-state competition for political and economic influence. The scope is no longer truly global: it is pretty much limited to areas bordering Russia — in Europe, the Caucasus and Central Asia — and since 2015 to parts of the Middle East. The struggle is asymmetrical: NATO and the EU have extended their political and military alliances to areas that used to be aligned with Moscow; Russia’s response has been to sustain proxy armed groups in Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine — ensuring that all three are stuck in frozen conflicts which reduce their chances of NATO membership.
Another difference from the latter half of the Cold War is that Russia is allied with China again, but their relationship is now pragmatic, not ideological. They see themselves as forming an axis of resistance to U.S. efforts at promoting regime change in foreign countries. While the U.S. has marginalized or ignored the UN in recent years, Russia and China have increasingly used the Security Council to defend state sovereignty and non-interference as indispensable principles of international law. This doesn’t mean that they haven’t violated or wouldn’t violate other countries’ sovereignty themselves on occasion — but neither state approved the U.S-led invasions of Serbia, Iraq and Libya, the last two of which produced catastrophes that are still unfolding.
The take away for readers must be that because the U.S. broke its promise to Russia to not expand into Eastern Europe, and because increasing tensions over the territories cited above are not slated to be reduced… activists must — because the nuclear stakes are so very high and the nuclear weapons dynamic so unpredictable on several scores — attempt to — post haste — waste no time securing influence on the gubernatorial level in the U.S. …to attempt to change attitudes and policies. The federal level in the U.S. is closed to that, will NEVER alter its long-standing suicidal stance vis-a-vis Russia or China. And what is still possible via the electoral arena and through open public discussion in the U.S. is not an option in either Russia or China.
We need concerned citizens to adopt a cold-hearted view toward U.S. nationhood. The dangers and the momentum being driven by U.S. hegemonic madness must be countered ASAP… without letting the equally nefarious and abominable Russian and Chinese policies off the hook.
By hook or by crook… as long as violence isn’t embraced as the means.
*The author recommends William Blum’s Killing Hope, if anyone doubts the thrust of the message about U.S. policies in this article; its excellent respecting documentation concerning the original Cold War, and Noam Chomsky calls it “far and away the best book on the topic.”
