Cold War all over again? With America and Russia locking horns over Ukraine, a familiar waft of the Cold War is hanging in the air. President Barack Obama, aware of the emotive resonance of the confrontation, said that disagreements with Moscow over Syria and Ukraine were not a throwback to a “Cold War chessboard”. Analysts, concerned over the escalation in Ukraine, took Obama's words with a pinch of salt. A “Cold War”, a term coined by Walter Lippmann in 1947, denotes a state of confrontation skillfully managed so as not to break into all-out hostilities. The two superpowers, while averse to confront each other in the battlefield, arm client states, back rival governments, and pile up weapons to a level that deters either from contemplating direct assault on the other. And yet, some found the Cold War a much more secure, even predictable, era than that which we experienced since America emerged as a strategic soloist for the post-Soviet Union world. The Cold War, because it featured rivalry between nearly two equitable powers, allowed greater manoeuvrability for Third World countries and a wider range of political ideologies and aspirations to play out. Also, conflicts remained localised for the most part, for the two superpowers couldn't risk a direct confrontation that may lead to mutual assured destruction. Today, the Arab region is experiencing much of the old symptoms of the Cold War, minus the close monitoring and the self-preservation that characterised US-USSR rivalry. The proliferation of arms, religiously motivated fighting, and a host of other afflictions are visited upon us, without the tempering effect of bipolar modalities. Many attribute the post-USSR world's tribulations to America's unbridled unilateralism, the ideological foundation of which can be found in the Wolfowitz Doctrine. Published in the spring of 1992, when Paul Wolfowitz was undersecretary of defense, and revised by then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney, the doctrine was viewed by many as a blueprint for US policy for decades to come. The document, aiming to secure US global hegemony through pre-emptive action, had to be re-edited to assuage European concern over what was considered a blatant imperialist approach to international politics. But there is already indication that America, irrespective of Obama's soothing rhetoric, is still faithful to the Wolfowitz vision. In its actions around the world, Washington's first impulse seems to be confrontational rather than conciliatory. American officials, such as Victoria Nuland, assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian Affairs, seem be more interested not in containing international flashpoints, but in containing Russia. In her conversations with the US embassy in Kiev, Nuland was clearly trying to block a compromise solution on the Ukraine, thus foiling efforts by the Russians and the EU to keep the situation from escalating. Now it seems that Washington, instead of trying to keep world peace, was actually trying to keep Russia at bay, by expanding NATO all the way to Kiev — something that everyone knows Moscow cannot possibly allow. The quick expansion of the EU was tactic that the Americans used to keep their global dominance. By allowing formerly East European countries into the EU, Washington is making sure not only to contain Russia, but to water down Europe's rise as a cohesive player on the international scene. The quick expansion of the EU, and ultimately NATO, to the east may be advantageous to the US, at least from the point of view of the new cons — whose policies remain in place despite Obama's claims to the contrary — but it is not exactly in Europe's advantage. The situation in Ukraine is a case in point, for while some Ukrainians — with US prodding — may want to join the EU, the ethnic Russian community in the country has other views. The Europeans are aware of the perils involved, and so far they have offered the Ukraine a partnership deal, rather than full membership. Moscow, meanwhile, may not be able to allow the Western encroachment on its vicinity for long. As the Cold War is once again played out on Russia's western borders, the ripples are felt in this part of the world. If the neocon-created ideology of world domination — current denials by Washington notwithstanding — continues unabated, this region is not going to be spared. Ukraine is a watershed. If the crisis there is allowed to get out of hand, other bits of the “chessboard” will materialise: proxy wars, regime changes, ethnic trouble, and arms races. And soon, it will be the same old déjà vu, the familiar paraphernalia and more. Before long, we may be engulfed not only in the aftermath of the Arab Spring, but also in the onset of a high-stakes global game.
