The Roots of the New Cold War: A Missed Opportunity for Global Peace

 The 1990s marked the end of a five-decade standoff between two global superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union. After years of espionage, nuclear brinkmanship, and political propaganda, the Cold War began to thaw. Images of U.S. President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev discussing peace symbolized hope for a new era. The Berlin Wall fell, armies stepped aside, and global optimism surged. Some even dubbed this moment "The End of History," believing liberal democracy would now lead humanity into an age of unprecedented peace and prosperity.

But history took a different course. Today, nations are once again preparing for war, severing ties, and engaging in a geopolitical power struggle reminiscent of the Cold War. What went wrong? Could this renewed tension have been avoided? And if so, who is to blame?

In the political West, much of the blame is placed on Russia and China, accused of undermining the U.S.-led rules-based order. However, this narrative omits a critical perspective: the role of Western policies in shaping the current global climate. Exploring this alternative view reveals important lessons about diplomacy, power, and the missed opportunities for lasting peace.

The Post-Cold War Promise

In 1991, the Cold War ended largely thanks to Mikhail Gorbachev, the final leader of the Soviet Union. Gorbachev championed peace, emphasizing the need to move beyond an era defined by nuclear threats. The Soviet Union dissolved, and Russia emerged as its largest successor state. The West celebrated, seeing the collapse of communism as a victory for democracy and capitalism.

However, Russia did not view itself as a defeated nation. Moscow sought to join the post-Cold War order as a partner, not as a subordinate or a loser. Gorbachev envisioned a new system based on international laws and collaboration, transcending the old model of military alliances. In his words, "There are no winners in a Cold War—only losers. But there are only winners in ending one."

The Debate Over Russia's Role

As the United States began shaping the post-Cold War world, a critical debate unfolded in Washington: Should Russia be treated as a defeated adversary or embraced as a partner in building a new global system?

One camp argued for skepticism and containment, emphasizing NATO’s expansion as a safeguard against potential Russian aggression. Another camp, composed of seasoned diplomats and experts, warned that isolating Russia would sow resentment, destabilize its fragile democracy, and reignite tensions. George Kennan, a respected U.S. diplomat and Cold War strategist, described NATO expansion as a "fateful error," predicting it would provoke nationalist and militaristic backlash in Russia.

Despite these warnings, President Bill Clinton prioritized NATO’s expansion into Eastern Europe. Political calculations, including the need to secure Polish-American votes, and concerns over regional instability drove this decision. While NATO enlargement was rational from a security standpoint, it came at the cost of alienating Russia.

A Rules-Based Order—For Some

The post-Cold War world held immense potential for peace through a rules-based international order. This vision had its roots in the aftermath of World War II, when nations came together to create institutions like the United Nations. The idea was simple: replace power-based politics with a system of laws that all nations, regardless of size or strength, would follow.

However, for such a system to succeed, even the most powerful nations—particularly the United States—needed to adhere to these rules. Instead, the U.S. pursued an order in which it acted as both the architect and enforcer, while remaining above the rules it imposed on others. This double standard bred resentment among countries like Russia, China, and others who felt excluded or marginalized.

The Rise of Resentment

NATO’s expansion, coupled with Russia’s economic struggles, fueled nationalist sentiments and set the stage for leaders like Vladimir Putin to rise to power. Initially, Putin expressed interest in cooperation with the West, even suggesting Russia’s inclusion in NATO. But as NATO grew to Russia’s borders and Western actions ignored Moscow’s concerns, Putin capitalized on the growing anger among Russians.

George Kennan’s grim prediction came true: NATO expansion inflamed anti-Western sentiments, restored Cold War dynamics, and pushed Russia toward militaristic policies. The missed opportunity for genuine partnership in the 1990s has haunted global politics ever since.

A Missed Opportunity for Peace

The United States and its allies had a rare chance to redefine global politics after the Cold War. Embracing Russia as a partner could have paved the way for a cooperative international system. Instead, the West prioritized self-interest, fueling the conditions for a new era of rivalry.

This history is not about assigning blame but understanding the complex dynamics that led to the current geopolitical landscape. By reflecting on these events, we can glean insights that may help prevent future conflicts and move closer to the elusive goal of lasting peace.