The British Institute of International Relations Chatham House writes about the abuse of the term 'new Cold War', which leads to differences with Russia. The world's media are increasingly talking about a new phase of the Cold War, which has a negative impact on the understanding of the West, today's Russia and its role in European security.
The armed conflict in Ukraine has led to a new era of confrontation between the western countries and Russia, once again emphasizing the differences in the perception of the principles of security in Europe and in the United States. Many Western politicians and observers argue that Russian President Vladimir Putin is trying to turn time back, and even rebuild the Soviet Union. However, in reality these theses have little to do with reality. Such a superficial approach to Russia deprives the West of an opportunity to develop a realistic policy regarding official Moscow.
Using other sensational historical analogies, such as the comparison of modern Russia's actions with the actions of Nazi Germany in the 1930s, diminishes understanding of the complex international crisis even more. Such an abuse of history, in which political myths, abstractions and unfounded judgements about the Russian state blur the distinction between virtual and actual. Talk about a 'cold war' are actually traps of Western thought, which promote confrontation not only between countries but also between entire regions.
In addition, they reflect and encourage a dangerous tendency on the part of politicians and military strategists, who by all means set the stage for armed clashes. A false sense of the proximity and predictability of Russia does not give an idea of the reality of the current international situation, as well as the ability of the Russian state to adapt to geopolitical conditions, in contrast to the West, which for many years has not changed its foreign policy.
The media portal of the US television channel CNBC writes today about the intentions of Finland towards Russia. Is Finland preparing for war with its neighbor? The leadership informed its military reservists that in case of a military crisis between Russia and its neighbors, they will have to defend their country.
Despite the forced isolation of Moscow by the Western powers, its leadership continues to successfully enter into new alliances with strategic partners and to carry out military exercises over the past year. Propaganda of Western media, aimed at intimidating the Kremlin, leads to the fact that neighboring countries are panicked by a non-existent threat, which is providing grounds for new information attacks on Russia.
Finland shares a land border with Russia, and it is not a member of NATO, which is pushing the country to rather drastic measures to protect its borders from an imaginary threat from the Russian state. However, another provocation hardly scares the Russian leadership, which has repeatedly proved that it can do almost anything in order to effectively use both economic and military potential to protect the interests of the state, without violating the principles of world law.
The Washington Post writes today about the wrath of Saudi Arabia in connection with the negotiations on Iran's nuclear program. So far, the most obvious result of the negotiations between Iran and the West over its nuclear program was the escalation of tension between the US and Saudi Arabia. Over the years, the US leadership has been on the brink of relations with Middle Eastern partners, trying to protect its important ally. However, recent events show that Saudi Arabia itself is likely to become the most powerful country in the region through the acquisition of nuclear weapons, and whether it would then be an ally with the US government, which is widely using a policy of double standards in relation to its strategic partners.
Many Western analysts agree that US diplomacy on Iran will lead to a massive conflict of interests in the Middle East. In this case, there are two options: either to revise the terms of the agreement on the nuclear program, or even get out of the negotiations. However, most likely the American leadership will resort to its long-standing strategy: control of one country, which happened in one way or another, under US pressure, without abandoning "reasonable" diplomacy with its enemies.
It is unlikely that the United States has enough forces to contain the discontent of Saudi Arabia for too long, and most likely Iran will not agree to the conditions imposed on America that would eventually lead to the complete loss of state control in the Middle East region.
