By Matija Šerić
International relations in the contemporary world are marked by dynamism, unpredictability, and unconventionality. In the early 1990s, it seemed that the world, on the threshold of a new millennium, was ready to enter an era of peace, prosperity, and stability under the leadership of the Western world, above all the United States. With the collapse of the USSR and the end of the Cold War, some analysts proclaimed the “end of history,” since there was no longer an “Evil Empire,” as Ronald Reagan had labeled the Soviet Union in 1983.
The Peak of Unipolarity
During the 1990s, it appeared that a unipolar world led by Washington had no alternative. The American and European dream was at the height of its popularity. Russia was faltering amid chaos, misery, and poverty, facing the risk of disintegration. China, although the world’s most populous country and territorially vast, remained largely poor and incapable of conducting an active foreign policy. And the world indeed was unipolar, dominated by the United States—but far from peaceful and prosperous.
The Decline of American Power
However, changes began about a decade ago. In early 2014, even mainstream Western analysts started to acknowledge that a new Cold War between the West and the East had begun, meaning that American unipolar hegemony was irreversibly waning. On one side stand the United States and NATO, and on the other Russia and China. In fact, many experts argue that the Cold War never truly ended—a view once expressed by the ousted Syrian president Bashar al-Assad.
Possible Outcomes of the New Cold War
Cold War II is a political reality of today, whether we choose to acknowledge it or not. This new confrontation between East and West brings numerous specificities. The conflict between Washington, Moscow, and Beijing carries threats, dangers, and problems, but also opportunities to forge a better world out of political and socio-civilizational conflict. The most pessimistic scenario would result in nuclear destruction of planet Earth, while the most optimistic would lead to lasting world peace. These are the two extremes within which the outcome of the new Cold War will be determined.
The Arab Spring
The renewed competition among global powers began in the early 2010s with the outbreak of the Arab Spring. Whether spontaneous or influenced by external forces, a strong revolt of Arab peoples erupted in many countries, but Libya and Syria became the arenas where Cold War–style superpower rivalry was most pronounced. The Americans outmaneuvered the Russians when a no-fly zone over Libya was approved by the UN Security Council, leading to a NATO intervention in 2011 that overthrew Colonel Muammar Gaddafi’s regime. This was a major American success.
In Syria, policymakers in Washington were so desperate to overthrow Assad’s rule that they overlooked the fact they were supporting radical Sunni jihadist organizations such as ISIL and al-Nusra, which turned against their Western sponsors in the summer of 2014. Russia managed to counter the United States in Syria, and without Russian support for the Syrian state, a Libyan scenario would likely have occurred as early as 2012. Finally, at the end of 2024, the former al-Qaeda affiliate Hayat Tahrir al-Sham took control of Syria. Some claim this was part of a deal—Syria for the U.S., Ukraine for Russia. And here we arrive at the key point of the conflict.
The Ukrainian Crisis
The definitive start of the conflict between America and Russia began with the Ukrainian crisis, that is, the Euromaidan revolution and Russia’s annexation of Crimea in early 2014, and continued through the broader Ukrainian crisis that culminated in Russia’s invasion in early 2024. According to many experts, the Ukrainian crisis represents the greatest geopolitical crisis since the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. On both sides are nuclear-armed states—Russia and the NATO alliance. Although Ukraine is not a NATO member, the alliance provided massive support to help it endure, and many called for direct intervention to block Russia from the Ukrainian direction.
The Beijing–Washington Confrontation
The conflict between America and China officially began in 2013 due to Chinese expansion moves in the South China Sea (unofficially, it started earlier) and was deepened by tense situations in the East China Sea and on the Korean Peninsula. The real reason for the conflict is the rapid strengthening of China’s economic power and political influence from the Far East across the Pacific to the Americas. China ceased to be merely a cheap manufacturing hub for American and other Western goods and has developed into a superpower in political, economic, demographic, and every other sense.
Key Flashpoints
It is clear that the Baltic states and other border areas between NATO and Russia, as well as Ukraine, Georgia, the Middle East, the South and East China Seas, and the Korean Peninsula, are key flashpoints of the new Cold War. A conflict in these regions could transform into a global (“hot”) war. However, the Cold War is being waged worldwide through information warfare, trade wars, cyber warfare, and other forms of conflict.
U.S. Strategy
American Cold War strategy—and foreign policy more broadly—regardless of the administration in power, can most easily be described by a quote from Henry Kissinger: “America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests.” At the center of U.S. foreign policy strategy is the need primarily to contain and isolate Russia and China (along with Iran, North Korea, and other undesirable states), emphasizing the promotion of human rights and democracy as key “weapons” used to denounce political adversaries (though this occurs less during Donald Trump’s tenure). Western states use moralizing rhetoric about human rights, democracy, and freedom to “whip” their opponents, interfering in their internal affairs in an effort to force them to conform to Western standards.
Eastern Strategy
The strategy of the Eastern bloc is different. A quote by Chinese President Xi Jinping from the summer of 2016 best reflects Chinese and Russian plans: “The world is on the brink of radical change. We see the European Union gradually disintegrating and the American economy collapsing. This will end in a new world order. Therefore, in ten years we will have a new world order unlike anything seen before, in which the alliance between Russia and China will be crucial.” Today, a decade later, we see that Xi was right. The EU and the United States indeed face numerous problems, while China and Russia, as allies, are benefiting. Russians and Chinese do not criticize any country in the world for violations of human rights or democracy, considering these internal matters for each nation to decide and believing it is up to each society to choose its political system.
Ideological Conflict
Although it is often emphasized that contemporary international relations are driven solely by interests and not ideology, this is not entirely true. Yes, interests matter, but the West and the East also confront each other ideologically. Ideology has always been and remains important. The United States and the European Union advocate liberal democracy and neoliberal economics, while Russia and China maintain authoritarian, illiberal political systems and state control and intervention in the economy. In Russia’s case, this means the authoritarian rule of a single man; in China’s, the dictatorship of the Communist Party. West versus East. Liberalism versus conservatism. Free markets versus state regulation.
Multipolarity
The new Cold War is multidimensional—that is, multipolar. Alongside the two opposing poles or axes, Washington–Brussels and Moscow–Beijing, there are other major and mid-level powers seeking their place in the sun. Brazil, South Africa, India, Indonesia, Turkey, and Japan are rising powers whose growth and development are remarkable and whose importance in global affairs increases year by year. Brazil and India, in particular, have the potential to become new superpowers. In the new confrontation between East and West, these rising powers are not a priori aligned with either side, but position themselves to extract the greatest benefit—although political similarities may draw individual countries closer to a particular superpower. Due to similar worldviews, for example, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Vladimir Putin have grown closer.
