... instrumental in preventing war but it could be undermined by a single or limited use of nuclear weapons which will kill tens of thousands of people but will not lead to further regional escalation or global catastrophe. This is an extremely dangerous scenario,... ... consequently develop into a global catastrophe. This type of deterrence largely helped to preserve peace during the “mature” Cold War. The Soviet Union and China did not send their troops to Vietnam directly, fearing escalation. The United States and ...
... politicization of the world economy. Competitors constantly accuse Russia of massive use of economic weapons. Unfortunately, such accusations for the most part are false. We still do not have an adequate geoeconomic strategy dovetailed to foreign policy and the ... ... that may lead to relative destabilization of the continent. “Stable confrontation” like that during the previous Cold War, which many in the United States and Europe dreamt of when they started the crisis, cannot be stable in present-day Europe....
... Arctic possibly becoming a new area of confrontation and the most promising spheres of cooperation in the region.
Russia and the USA are having difficulties in bilateral relations, including cooperation on Syria. Do you see any possibility of the Arctic becoming ... ... the border. We are facing challenges right now, and we do all recognize those. The cooperation in the Arctic even back in the Cold War days was actually not bad, and I worked with colleagues from the Soviet Union on various things back in the 1980-s: we ...
October 1st began what could be one of the more interesting Chairships of the United Nations Security Council, with Russia taking over and being charged with a rather delicate balancing act: between conducting the numerous affairs expected to be covered by any standard Chair of the UNSC and deftly handling the ‘special’ relationship with the United States that has recently become woefully deficient. Even more intriguing, some of the most vivid recent examples of that degrading relationship...
... other’s actions. Many of these same failures are all too apparent in the ongoing NATO-Russia confrontation, in particular the lack of empathy and critical self-assessment.
Taking place as it did in a period of particular hostility between the USA and USSR, effective strategic communication relaying the scope and explicit purpose of Able Archer should have been paramount. Instead the report reveals that the US intelligence community routinely dismissed the concerns raised by the Soviet leadership ...
... internationally ready.’ If anything, this same weight is heavier on Hillary: not only must she fight the traditionally sexist accusations made against all women politicians as being ‘peacemakers’ and not ‘war-makers.’ She also must ... ... Hillary are old school members of the military, foreign policy, and security establishment that chronically view Russia with Cold War attitudes, regardless of evidence.[6] • During the Crimea crisis in 2014, Hillary tried to make a connection between ...
... the past, but the current crisis is deeper and more profound than the occasional downs we have seen over the decades. This iteration of the crisis is likely to be the longest as well, as an obvious near-term solution is nowhere to be seen.
A Second Cold War?
It has become fashionable lately speak of a new chapter in the Cold War in global politics and draw parallels between the current standoff between Moscow and Washington and the Soviet–U.S. confrontation that dominated the second half of ...
... as the SCO or BRICS. In sum, the world is gradually acquiring a bipolar shape, with the traditional divisions between “us” and “them”, global “good” and global “evil”, reminiscent of the decades of the Cold War. Needless to say, the United States and China appear to be the centers of gravity for this new polarization of global politics.
One might ask the question: is there anything fundamentally wrong about a bipolar world? Was it not the Soviet-US ...
... newcomers to the drone party will do what the U.S. has not is simply illogical. All of this consternation revolves around four fundamental questions that the United States has been unwise to ignore and the honest answers, based on previous American drone usage, probably carry some severe repercussions for American foreign and military policies: Who is controlling the weapon system? Does the system of control and oversight violate international law governing the use of force? Are drone strikes proportionate ...
There is no stronger example of the schizophrenic nature of American foreign policy toward Russia than comparing statements written in the formal National Security Strategy (NSS) of President Obama with actual testimony given by the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. In 2010 the NSS asserted that the U.S. would endeavor to ‘build a stable, substantive, multidimensional relationship with Russia, based on mutual interests.’ What’s more, the NSS called Russia a 21st century...
