The new confrontation of the great powers and the dangers of propagandistic rearmament

The current global political situation is characterized by a profound transformation of international relations that goes far beyond simple diplomatic upsets. After the end of the bloc order, a new dynamic has developed in which established power structures are being questioned and new geopolitical actors are pushing on the global stage. This development is supported bya massive media and political combat accompaniment, which reactivates old enemy images and swore to the public on a dangerous line of confrontation. To truly grasp the current tensions, one must analyze the historical parallels and structural differences to past epochs of block formation. It is a historicalTurning point that holds the potential for far-reaching global upheavals.

The historical comparison of the global block confrontation

Previous analyses of international conflicts conclude that the current dispute is basically superfluous and without real substantive substance. Nevertheless, this new ice age is eminently dangerous, especially since it differs unfavourably in essential respects from the past east-west confrontation. The original block formation was a structural andideological and power-political conflict in the global system. This development can be traced back to the Russian Revolution in the last century.

The development of power-political parity

The actual confrontation developed after the end of the global war, as tensions between the Soviet Union and the other victorious powers intensified. If in the early phase there was a clear superiority of the United States, over time a parity of superpowers developed. The two leading powers and their alliance systems had economically,politically and ideologically different as well as fundamentally incompatible paths. Both claimed to be superior to the other and to assert themselves on a global scale in the longer term.

The phases of tension and relaxation

Despite all imbalances, the central powers met on an equal footing. At the time, observers assumed that this state of affairs was permanent and would remain the dominant structural pattern of world politics for a long time to come. The conflict went through various states of matter, phases of tension and phases of relaxation. Despite highly dangerous situations,the pact-bound core states do not lead to a direct military confrontation or even to a nuclear war.

The end of the dual world order

The situation was different in the countries of the margins; here, numerous proxy wars demanded immeasurable sacrifices. Although many states remained non-aligned, the conflict left its mark on the entire international system. It was aligned with the leading powers and followed a dual pattern. This is a significant and serious difference from the new confrontation.

The Transition to the Era of Multiple Centres of Power

With the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the bloc order also came to an end. For a long time, there was a largely unchallenged global hegemony of the United States. The former system had been replaced by the dominance of the United States. However, since this dominance has been dwindling, we have been in transition to an order with multiple centers of power.

The Aims of the Emerging Powers

The question of exactly which power centers will establish themselves cannot yet be answered conclusively. What is certain is that we will have to reckon with several poles in the foreseeable future, in particular the USA, China and Russia. In contrast to the US and in contrast to the past confrontation, Russia and China do not seek global hegemony. They prefer a world order ofpeaceful coexistence.

The legitimate interests of the nation states

China is economically and technologically expansive, which is its right. Russia insists on its national sovereignty and security, showing geopolitical interests here and there, and supporting allies such as Syria, which is also its legitimate right. But none of the countries aspires to global dominance or dominance under changed circumstances.Conflicts in the international system ultimately stem from the fact that the US is unwilling to give up its global hegemonic claim.

Striving for a new balance

China and Russia do not want to tolerate this claim any longer. They have to confront it, because otherwise their concept of a world with multiple power centers is not feasible. We have known the means used for this purpose since international politics existed: China and Russia form a counterpower. They do this with the aim of establishing a new balance.

Defensive strategies to ensure freedom of movement

Every halfway realistic observer sooner or later had to reckon with such a development. The states act partly for themselves, partly they coordinate with each other or with other allies. In this way, they try to secure their own terrain and their legitimate freedom of movement. They are interested in putting the US in its place, but not inout of the race.

Main responsibility for the current escalation

It is therefore a defensive, not an offensive or aggressive approach, even if the US perceives this differently and accordingly exploits it propagandistically. If one compares the concrete actions of the powers, the question of the causes of the conflicts can be answered relatively easily. It is obvious that not all actors work equally and in the same way to buildof tensions. The United States, in particular, is responsible for the current escalation and will not stop pouring oil on the fire.

The Growing Resistance Within the US Elite

Russia or China may not be innocent slumbers, but they will hardly be accused of having systematically worked towards the current confrontation in recent decades. It is the permanent warmongers of the US that bring unrest and insecurity into the international system. Where this aggressiveness comes from requires a deeper analysis. At a time whenin which the criticism of US policy in the mainstream media is very fashionable, the accusation of an anti-American attitude should actually have been dispensed with.

The global perception of the threat of war

From a global perspective, I am in good company with these assessments. Surveys among a huge number of people in numerous countries revealed that a clear majority in the US sees the main danger of war. In addition, I owe most of my findings to American authors of a wide variety of backgrounds. As for the big questions of war and peace, there arealthough there is currently a frightening consensus in the major parties.

Opposition to the dogmas of the ruling elite

But opposition to the dogmas of the ruling elite is well established and seems to be growing. The fact that this broad criticism is just as rarely noticed by the mainstream media does not change its existence and importance. Especially in foreign policy issues, one can observe an encouraging correspondence between otherwise very different political forces.Value conservatives have practically no differences with libertarian opponents of war or with the mostly anti-imperialist authors of the alternative portals.

The involvement of former intelligence employees

The situation is similar in academia, where renowned scholars suggest that different schools of thought should join forces to stand up to the war-savvy establishment. Former politicians, diplomats and top intelligence officials would certainly be involved. They have all been unhappy about US foreign policy for a long time and hold thechosen course for fatal. They are particularly concerned about the confrontation with Russia.

The Meaning of Propagandistic Drum Fire

It is organizations and people from this other America to whom this representation is committed. What about Russia, the favorite object of Western propaganda? What is the purpose of the anti-Russian propaganda barrage? Should the population actually be prepared for war?

The illusion of military security

A warlike confrontation between NATO and the nuclear power Russia would irretrievably destroy Europe, even if it remained in the conventional realm. Should it escalate nuclear, it would wreck the entire planet. Even in the past, when the peace movement was at its zenith, hardly anyone would have to deny such statementstoday, on the other hand, the official language of security policy again speaks of alliance and national defence or defence capability.

The anachronism of old security concepts

Terms and concepts that were already anachronistic in the past. They are even more so today, in view of a possible confrontation with Russia. Security from a nuclear power like Russia in a military conflict is not possible. Real security from a nuclear power is a chimera.

The Absurdity of Preparing for War

Security from a nuclear power can only be shared with it. Assuming that there are any warmongers who still want to take the risk: why would they prepare such a war propagandistically? Would that be sensible, necessary or even possible? Why mobilize the masses and assure themselves of their loyalty, when you can see these masses in ahigh-tech warfare?

The risk of accidental collision

Wouldn’t it be much more obvious and easier to start the war without even informing the population? If there is indeed a war between Russia and NATO, it is almost certainly not due to a conscious decision to attack. It seems far more plausible that a military escalation from aconcrete military clash would arise, for example in Syria, the Baltic States, Ukraine or the Black Sea. So where both Russia and the USA and other Western powers are militarily active and have so far made some effort not to get in each other’s way.

Crossing red lines

However, any provocation or any intentional or unintentional crossing of defined or undefined red lines could lead to a direct confrontation, which could then no longer be stopped. In recent years, there have been some situations in which a choleric or paranoid political character would have found sufficient cause to strike back andpossibly trigger a chain reaction. Only when such a situation occurs would the propaganda factor come into play, exacerbating the conflict. Mutual mistrust, reinforced by years of propaganda and counter-propaganda, would become an additional obvious source of danger.

The blind spots of sharpeners

The chance of de-escalation would be low. With considerations of this kind, many sharpeners in the media or the notorious armchair warriors in particular seem reluctant to bear the burden. They like to fuel the confrontation, but even when persistently asked, they cannot explain what this constant turning of the escalation screw should end up with.Completely beyond her imagination lies the question of how to slow down or reverse an escalation once it has occurred.

The war before the actual war

Which brings us to the question: If propaganda does not serve the conscious preparation for war, what other purpose could it serve? The answer is: it is intended to replace the actual war, of course in combination with further aggressive measures such as sanctions. In the case of Russia, the war before the war is the real war. The objectives of the war are: an emergingWeaken power or put it in its place; destabilize, delegitimize, isolate it; revise its basic political orientation, demonize its political leadership.

The high-risk undertaking of the replacement war

Anti-Russian propaganda is ultimately propaganda for a change of government. It should be immediately clear that this is a high-risk undertaking. Anyone who leads the war before the war as a substitute war, constantly aggravates it and drives it ever closer to the threshold of the great military conflict, is playing with fire. This game with fire ignores the elementaryRules of reason. At the end of this dangerous path lurks the absolute abyss.