Cold War 2 is Possible, But Not Inevitable
We are not zombies predestined to sleepwalk through history making the same mistakes in different ways over and over again.
History doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme, this is an old maxim often attributed to Mark Twain. This maxim seems to work quite well in all sorts of arguments about international history. If we analyse international political events with such a historical lens we will likely come to conclusions that seem, by default at least, to be somewhat predetermined. For example, we can argue that because we had sleepwalked into World War I, it seems, in retrospect, somewhat inevitable that having ultimately failed to make the world safe for democracy or to have found a lasting peace in our time during the inter-war years, we were somehow back at it again just two decades later in World War II.
The Second World War was not a repeat of the First World War, but it did rhyme. Despite the different contexts and specifics, there were recurring motifs in the latter war, such as aggressive nationalism and territorial grievances, that echoed or mirrored those of the former. Unresolved issues in international politics always seem to find a way to come back and haunt us, even when more information exists about the consequences of not resolving them.
The Cold War, which pretty much defined international politics for the second half of the 20th century, grew out of the outcomes of the Second World War. The world found itself in a new conflict but with a familiar rhythm. The Cold War emerged as a result of new power balances and ideological clashes. International politics effectively became divided into two main poles led by two new superpowers competing for global influence, the U.S.-led Western bloc and the Soviet Union-led Eastern bloc. Some countries, particularly in the Third World, choose to remain non-aligned. However, new advances in nuclear technology meant that a hot war of mass destruction between the two new superpowers could not be won and should not be fought.
That’s not to say that a hot war between the nuclear superpowers could not possibly break out. It could have happened in 1962 over the placement of Soviet missiles in Cuba. Luckily, the skilful diplomacy of a few managed to save the day. With the prospect of a directly contested hot war too risky, strategic competition between the Western and Eastern blocs manifested itself in indirect ways, such as proxy wars, trade embargos, an arms and space race, espionage, and propaganda.
The two blocs were different worlds, one capitalist, the other communist. In this less globalised era, the Eastern and Western blocs were isolated and separate spheres with limited interaction or exchange, like two silos cut off from each other. There was no McDonald's to be found in Moscow or not much chance of finding an original Russian doll in Washington, at least not until the dying days of the Cold War in the early 1990s.
If it is true that the march of history inevitably rhymes with its earlier self, then, absent a change in the course of history, our future seems destined to remain somehow predetermined by our past. If this really is a credible line of reasoning, then, there is an argument to be made that as Cold War 1 once dominated our politics and for so long held its sway, it should only be a matter of time before Cold War 2 finds its way into the light of day. It may very well be the case that since the early 1990’s we have in fact been living in what could now be reunderstood as the inter-Cold War years, a relatively benign period, which may seem to be now coming to an end.
Our contemporary international relations are incredibly complex and really do require more than simple binary answers to today’s biggest political questions. Moreover, we are now living in a highly globalised interconnected world which has been undergoing something of a transformation recently. However, some Western historians over the last few years have already suggested that we may now be at the start of a new cold war or have even argued that Cold War 2 is happening now, with the prospect for escalation very likely, or that “this new cold war will be far worse than the first”.
It could well be the case that it is déjà vu all over again, with a second Cold War a real possibility. Still, that does not mean it is an inevitability. History is, without doubt, a useful, indeed vital, context in which we can and should make sense of today’s events. It is better to address an issue with knowledge of its history than not. But the real point of studying history is to learn from it, not to be a prisoner of it. History at its best should be a reliable record of the past, not a self-fulfilling prophecy for the future. The factor of time is not static in international relations, it has many dynamics. We are not zombies predestined to sleepwalk through history, making the same mistakes in different ways over and over again. We have the power to think for ourselves and decide what political future we really want, to chart a new course.
Human agency is what changes the course of history. Sometimes people just have enough of the old ways and the old narrative and decide to create something completely new. That is why the American and French revolutions happened. That is also why the Soviet Union collapsed. The ability of human agency to override the expected rhyming of history and construct a new course also explains why most if not all Soviet analysts and international relations experts were caught by complete surprise when the Cold War abruptly ended. They could not see what had been politically created in front of their eyes, a world beyond the Cold War paradigm.
So, there are limitations to predicting future political shifts solely through historical parallels. Politics is about choices, nothing is inevitable. Changing the course of history requires consistent political vision, leadership, and most importantly decisions. It requires a constant determination to do things differently from that of the past. Reagan and Gorbachev clearly had what it took to end the Cold War. However, both leaders are no longer with us, and the distribution of power in the international system is different to what it was in their time.
The U.S. is of course still a superpower given its military, economic and cultural capabilities. Russia still has a lot of nuclear weapons. China, the Soviet Union’s junior partner during the Cold War, is now an emerging new superpower and a potential challenger to the U.S. in multiple international spheres. It has a growing arsenal of nuclear weapons and has also significantly expanded its wider military capabilities. Russia, in some respects, is arguably now China’s new junior partner. What both countries seem to share is a dislike of the American-led liberal international order.
There are other countries and regions in the international system beyond these powers that also have different degrees of influence and agency, such as the European Union as an economic actor. Avoiding the inevitability of a second Cold War, at least looking at things from a Western perspective, really depends a lot on what course the political leaders of these countries, particularly the U.S., China and Russia, decide to take. A change of leader can also change priorities. But it should not be overlooked that medium and smaller-sized countries that have influence in the international system are also a factor.
In our highly globalised world, there are, today, global threats such as climate change, pandemics, and artificial intelligence that were not factors in the second half of the 20th century, but in the 21st century are major global issues that will require global cooperation. As the impact of these threats transcends national borders, it really is in all countries' interests to do so. There are some areas where even the biggest geopolitical rivals already do so. The U.S., China, and Russia are signatories to the Paris Climate Agreement. Should they follow through on their commitments, that would be a new departure for international cooperation.
Alternatively, it is also possible that one or more countries could decide that it is somehow not in their national interest to cooperate on these issues and use some or all of these factors as ways to strategically compete with each other. It is also important to consider the role and impact of non-state actors, such as terrorists, which have increased their presence and influence in the international system and have the potential to trigger events. Given the nature of these threats that could make things much worse than the original Cold War.
There really are many complexities and differences to consider in determining harmonies with the previous Cold War. The economies of the U.S. and China are strategic competitors, but these days, despite frictions, they also remain highly interconnected. It is not certain that they could be successfully decoupled if that became the ultimate goal. De-risking seems more plausible. Without a catastrophic event, it seems very unlikely or even possible to return to an earlier historical international system defined by isolated and separate blocs cut off from each other. A lot of technological innovation and learned knowledge would somehow need to be reversed. It should go without saying that nobody wants a catastrophic event.
Earlier this month, Chinese President Xi and U.S. President Biden met in California.
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Kevin Unscrambles to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.