A new cold war has begun. This is unanimously declared by both Russian and Western political scientists, who state a sharp aggravation in relations between the USA and the Russian Federation. At the same time, the United States acts on behalf of the entire Western world, as during the years of the first cold war, while Russia protects the legitimate rights of all states that have somehow suffered from the arbitrariness of the European and North American elites.
The contours of the second cold war: who is against whom?
The West has long shown aggression towards the countries of the “third world”. In 90, his actions were timid and unobtrusive - a test of strength. But over the past few years, the United States has noticeably intensified its policies in different parts of the world, and especially in those states of the Middle East and Eastern Europe that are directly adjacent to the Russian borders.
But why did the cold war start right now? After all, the conflict between Russia and the United States has always existed, and periodically passed into the acute stage.
The cold war involves not only political, but also economic opposition. Neither the Orange Revolution nor the war in Georgia became the starting points of the second cold war because there was no serious economic conflict. The date of the beginning of the new global struggle should be considered the day when the West imposed sanctions against Russia. And - pay attention - the Western leaders were the first to start the confrontation, as in the distant 1946 year.
In the course of the first cold war, the socialist countries entered one opposing camp, the other - the capitalist ones. Now the division takes place according to another criterion: on the one hand the barricades are world aggressors, seeking to recreate their lost empires, on the other - the state, defending from Western aggression and wishing to preserve their sovereignty. And the latter is clearly more than the first. In fact, the United States, along with its European allies, alone is challenging the entire world.
The goal of Washington and Brussels is a new reformatting of the world, a "rollback" in the era of colonial empires. It was not for nothing that the United States showed such stubbornness during military intervention in Libya, and France conducted Operation Serval in Mali. European capitals actively intervene in the domestic politics of other African countries, and dispose of them on the Black Continent as at home.
In turn, the goal of Russia and countries willing to take its side is the creation of a multipolar system of international relations. The world has changed a lot, and the United States can no longer claim absolute leadership around the globe. They must give way to new players. Such regional forces are represented in the informal clubs of the BRICS and the G20.
Interestingly, most of these countries support Russia, despite US attempts to win over to their side. For example, it became known that Washington is "working" on India and China, trying to force them to abandon cooperation with Russia. Recall that they abstained from voting on the anti-Russian resolution. America expressed disappointment with the actions of India and China, which have not yet manifested themselves in a global conflict.
Yes, the United States has set itself a difficult task: the historically vast Eurasian space is indivisible, and it is impossible to isolate one of its parts. Russia is an important trading partner of India and China, and they are unlikely to agree to the extreme measures proposed by the American envoys.
In addition to India and China, many other states abstained from voting. Representatives of some countries did not even appear at the meeting: apparently, this was done in protest against another economic war unleashed by the West.
In the future, these states may either join Russia or remain neutral. None of them wants to be led by the United States: the example of Egypt, when the Islamists overthrew the ruler loyal to America, makes us wonder. In total, 58 countries abstained from voting on the anti-Russian resolution. In their development potential, they are noticeably superior to the Western bloc and constitute a serious competition to it.
The stronger Barack Obama and the European leaders are trying to shame Russia, the more these neutral countries lean on her side. Moreover, the states of Western Europe are categorically against sanctions against Russia, and so far only by inertia they follow the United States. Most likely, if one of these countries is to abandon the confrontation with Russia, the western bloc will collapse. Only Eastern European countries, where Russophobic attitudes are traditionally strong, will remain the US allies.
The first effects of global confrontation
The new cold war has barely begun, and its short-term consequences are already noticeable. In addition to political changes, experts expect economic costs, expressed primarily in the weakening of the national economies of the states involved in the conflict.
So, according to economists, the state of the European economy will deteriorate. The decline in trade turnover between Russia and the European Union will lead to the fact that the Russian market will be closed to Western manufacturers. As a result, many Western companies will suffer losses estimated at eleven-digit numbers: today the trade turnover between the Russian Federation and the EU is about 335 billion euros.
The economies of countries not involved in the conflict will also suffer. Neutral states will begin to arm - just in case. Of course, defense spending will grow in rival camps. Fork over the army will have to reduce funding for social services and some sectors of the economy.
But modern Western states and so live in debt. The budget deficit has become commonplace in Europe, and governments struggle to find money to cover unforeseen expenses. Not the fact that Western countries will cope with the burden of the Cold War. The start of mass impoverishment of the population due to the reduction of socio-economic programs will inevitably lead to the emergence of large-scale protest movements. And it will not be a pitiful "Occupy Wall Street": think of the Paris May 1968 of the year or the campaign of pacifists on the Pentagon.
Difficulties will arise with the movement of capital across borders. You will need to make every effort in order to buy shares issued in another state. This will lead to the slow fading of such large international stock markets as, say, London, New York or Tokyo.
But lucky those countries that are of strategic importance. For example, the West will gladly finance the costs of the Kiev junta related to the struggle against supporters of the Eurasian vector of development. Rich injections are expected in the budgets of the Balkan republics. Greece, after the end of the Cold War, turned out to be on the verge of world politics, will rise again: in conditions when Athens, on the wave of mass protests, anti-Western parties may come to power, the European Union will quickly deal with the debt crisis, yes, it will also lend - just strategically important Greece has not left the zone of influence of Brussels.
The West will also remember the Middle East. Surely, regimes loyal to the United States and funded from the US budget will reappear there. True, Washington is still at a loss and does not know who to bet on: the rulers in the countries of the region are changing too quickly.
Also, America will try to do everything possible in order to lure to its side the powerful regional states. Or, as a last resort, at least to prevent their rapprochement with Russia.
At the same time, the West does not give up hope that Moscow will succeed in pushing diplomatically. Of course, before that, the Russian economy will be tried to strangle with sanctions, and along the borders of Russia they will place elements of a missile defense system and several squadrons of American fighters. But such is diplomacy in the understanding of American and European leaders.
Russia remains to defend itself and rely on the prudence of the regional powers of all continents of the world: will they go into the abyss after the West or will they choose a qualitatively new vector of development? Will they be subordinate to the White House, or will they try to gain maximum independence in order to independently manage their future?