The so-called “cold war” between the Western powers and the USSR did not end with the collapse of the Soviet Union. One of that war’s objectives was to defeat communism and the capitalist powers achieved a notable success which translated into a victory over the communist movements in Europe and Latin America.
Juan Diego García
From that perspective, capitalism emerged victorious and in so many ways it could be said that the cold war ended and that the hegemony of the West’s and its allies’ capitalism inaugurated a new period of peace.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The cold war was reborn in other ways, highlighting that the previous one, in addition to combating socialism, had among its central objectives the same colonialist purposes as in the past.
The said purposes consisted of a ferocious struggle between the powers to ensure their particular capitalisms had raw materials, control of markets and of communications links and a political supremacy that served as a useful instrument for these purposes.
The same thing happened with the cold war as with traditional colonialism: it changed its appearance but retained its central objective: capital’s economic interests.
Now as in the past, there are no direct conflicts between the powers. The so-called “nuclear balance” made, if not impossible, at least absurd, a direct confrontation between these powers since the benefits would be almost nil and there would be virtually total planetary destruction. Seemingly, the nuclear powers have developed so-called “mini-atomic bombs” which could be used without resulting in such a global tragedy. But it is not certain that such a thing is feasible.
At the moment, everything indicates that now as in the past the cold war strategy remains and that an indirect confrontation persists between the great powers who use periphery countries as military instruments and direct actors.
The great powers facilitate weapons and funding for the wars in progress, boosting allies (the local oligarchies) who suit their interests. Those allies provide the necessary labour (troops) and suffer the majority of these wars’ human and material tragedy.
After the experience of two world wars the capitalist powers seem resolved to increase that strategy of leaving the greatest risks and sacrifices of conflicts in the hands of third parties. This is demonstrated by recent cases. Since the Korean and Vietnam wars the number of metropolitan troops has been reduced to the minimum, leaving the dirty work to local allies. They also leave that work to mercenaries who increasingly often appear as key actors in these conflicts, without the West having to be a direct actor, at least not officially.
This is the current format of the cold war pitting the Western powers and their allies against the emerging powers, China in particular.
The current military conflicts, one way or another, are no more than pieces in the global chess game that is the new cold war.
It has to be understood that in the Russia-Ukraine war, after all the rhetoric from the West and its allies, there is no other objective than ensuring control of Russia’s immense natural resources.
It is also clear that in the Palestine conflict there is no other goal than ensuring the warring powers’ oil and gas supplies, as well as other notable objectives such as ensuring communication links for the West’s and its allies’ trade. Similar motives explain the harsh conflicts in Africa. The same argument is also useful for understanding the conflict between the West and its allies and the new powers in Asia (India and Iran, especially) where this game of interests between the West (and its allies) against China, in particular, is already evident.
Of course, Latin America and the Caribbean are not exempt from these new forms of the cold war. The New Continent now has the open presence of NATO and of the subversive activity of dozens of espionage agencies, mercenary outfits and diplomatic bodies themselves. These appear as the protagonists of different sorts of intervention ranging from so-called “soft coups” against governments not aligned with the West to open interventions in violation of all the rules of international law.
This strategy of harassing and bringing down governments that are uncomfortable for Washington and its allies is being repeated now with Venezuela and, to a lesser extent, against other governments in the region, and kept up against Cuba just like at the worst points of the cold war.
In this new version, the cold war prolongs its traditional forms even though it is no longer about “stopping soviet communism” (although that is also used as an argument) but preventing new powers like China continuing to win space in the region.
If the Socialist Camp was decisive for the Cuban revolution, today the emerging powers are generating new margins for action for progressive governments through mechanisms like the BRICS and the regional integration process.
China’s decisive role helping Venezuela recover its oil industry, collapsed by Washington’s sabotage, is a good example.
The conflict in Ukraine seems to be playing out in Russia’s favour and Kyiv’s current offensive is just a manoeuvre aimed at not arriving too weak at a possible negotiating table.
Militarily, Israel seems to be winning the war against the Palestinian people but at too great a cost.
Although it continues to have the governments’ of the West’s support (though not that of the vast majority of the world’s population), Zionism is turning Israel into a new expression of Nazi terror. Therefore it is no surprise that within Israeli society itself opposition to Netanyahu’s government’s policy is growing.
Not all wars won militarily equate to political triumph; the opposite can be true. This must have occurred to General De Gaulle when he realised that the National Liberation Front in Algeria had not managed to defeat militarily the very modern and well-equipped French army, but that the Algerians had won the battle for independence and the intelligent option was to withdraw and agree a peace pact. Hopefully a similar process will take place in Israel and the consensus will be that the civilised option is for there to be a single state made up of people of all beliefs (including atheism) with equal rights and duties. Gaza and, in reality, the whole of Palestine, are not far from being new concentration camps.
(Translated by Philip Walker – Email: philipwalkertranslation@gmail.com) – Photos: Pixabay
.jpg)
