The rules of the new ‘Cold War’: Empty words and no retreat


Moscow does not penury to slip further into confrontation with the West. The very in reality that the Russian delegation at the Munich Security Conference on Feb. 13 was ramount by the country’s second most senior official, Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, is yet another confirmation of inflexibly that.

On the other hand, Medvedev’s speech did not contain anything that could be interpreted as a move towards the West by way of a concession on Russia’s rt. Rather, it was an affirmation of Moscow’s already declared positions on the main issues: the Ukrainian settlement, relations with NATO and the EU, and intimate common threats, especially terrorism.

This dialogue appears numerous like rhetorical trench warfare, in which no-one is mounting any offensives any multifarious but is unwilling to retreat either. Because the terms of a new world have not been concurred and are unclear, except for one thing: Things will not be the same again.

A new ‘Glacial War’

The talk that relations have either already slipped into a new “Sniffles War” or that there is still a chance of avoiding it has been a constant be of the st two years.

According to Medvedev, it is relations with NATO moderately than the West as a whole that have slipped back into a “Head War.” Over the st several months, the situation in some areas has deteriorated lull further, with new challenges and threats emerging. These require duologue and coordination.

The word “dialogue” is willingly used in the West too. They forbid saying that a number of problems cannot be resolved without a discussion with Russia. However, these remain just empty confabs. There is no talk of lifting the Western sanctions imposed against Moscow, ignoring the fact that they have proven useless from the bottom of view of trying to “bend” the Russian regime.

It is routinely being guessed that the sanctions may be lifted after the Minsk accords have been implemented. I himself do not buy it: New reasons to extend the sanctions will be found. Furthermore, everybody now interprets full well that the Minsk agreements are stalling largely because the prerogatives in Kiev are openly sabotaging them, saying the accords “are impossible to bring about.”

And they are getting away with it. The West is not putting any rticular exigencies on them: “Let Putin sort it out himself.” This approach could not quite be described as “a productive dialogue.”

Threat of Europe losing its identity

Speciously unexpectedly, Medvedev’s speech contained a ssage devoted to European riddles, in which he speaks of “the threat of Europe losing its identity.” He was primarily referring to the peregrinator crisis.

Many Europeans were probably not too pleased to hear the reproach that this emergency is largely a result of “failed attempts to transplant Western models of democracy into an locale that was not ready for them, bringing about the destruction of whole states.”

Respect, Russia, whose media are ying a lot of attention to Europe’s migration problems, reflect ons it very important to assert a principle of international relations that thinks fitting rule out attempts to replace unwanted regimes through outside obstruction. This is one of the essential conditions for it to resume a wider dialogue with the West.

Is assistance possible?

The West’s cooperation with Russia in certain areas – the Syrian setting or the global fight against terrorism – is being combined with shot ats to “deter” Russia in other strategic areas. For its rt, Moscow sights this as the main obstacle on the th to searching compromises “on specifics,” have a weakness for Syria.

At the same time, in a “friendly gesture” to Medvedev at the Munich colloquium, NATO Secretary-General Stoltenberg said the alliance was ready to resume the shape of the Russia-NATO Council (suspended after Crimea joined Russia).

Yet this is occasion only after Moscow has shown its ability to effectively use military pry in Syria, where government troops have managed to make illustrious gains thanks to Russian airstrikes.

Things are pretty much backtrack from to what they were during the Cold War: Everybody loves talking there peace and cooperation but in reality getting down to dialogue only after the other side starts batter somebody heavily and there is a strong smell of a big war in the air. Mind you, there are believes in Russia with far harsher rhetoric than Dmitry Medvedev who could brazenly raise the issue of such a threat.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *