The Future of World War II Cold War

The global conflict between America and its allies on the one hand, and China, Russia and a number of countries in the world on the other hand, is supposed to have entered into a Cold War, or rather the “Second World Cold War”, ten or fifteen years ago. This is after the First World Cold War, which broke out after the early fifties of the twentieth century, between America and its allies on the one hand, and the Soviet Union and the socialist “camp” on the other hand, was resolved.

The First World Cold War was expected to end with a Third World War to decide the fate of the world, as was decided after the Second World War. But the comprehensive nuclear annihilation prevented that, which made its character a crazy race to possess nuclear weapons, and similar weapons of mass destruction, and then the race moved, as imposed by America, to what was known under the title: "Star Wars", meaning the possession of anti-nuclear missiles, which achieves decisive superiority.

Some attribute the Soviet Union's mistake to its drift into the race within the "Star Wars" strategy, which costs money and preparation beyond what Soviet capabilities can afford, compared to what America possesses in terms of financial and technical capabilities.

This mistake was likely to be repeated with the signs of Russia’s return under Putin as a major nuclear power (2000-2010), equal to the American nuclear destructive power in terms of the possibility of destroying the Earth even once, while America’s ability to destroy the Earth exceeds four or five times (there is no difference, of course).

Putin pointed out that he did not need to repeat the Soviet Union's mistake, by being able to produce more nuclear bombs and missiles than the "Star Wars" anti-missiles, or what is known as the "Iron Dome", can possess.

It was also able to produce anti-missiles, which keeps the possibility of hitting the opponent available. Production in this case does not require the expenses required to compete in "Star Wars", and there is a possibility of double production at lower costs: (mass production, or wholesale).

Which means that the Second World Cold War that the world is facing today has different characteristics from its predecessor in several aspects and aspects.

First: From the perspective of America and its Western allies (Europe), there is no change compared to America and its allies in the First World Cold War. The victory on its part was a resounding victory, and some considered it the “end of history” (F. Fukuyama), meaning that history was decided in favor of Western control over the world.

If something is different for America and the West, it has to do with aging, or the defeats that occurred there, such as Vietnam, for example, in the previous Cold War, or with international Islamic and Third World variables.

Second: The No. 1 adversary state in the Second World Cold War is China, with its economic, technological and military development, which bridged the gap that existed between America and the West on the one hand, and the Soviet Union, which remained economically, financially and technologically backward.

China is now in a position to replace America as the No. 1 major power in every respect, except political influence and “modern culture.” But it has a superior approach and capabilities in managing conflict, and unlike the Soviet Union, it has dropped from the beginning the ideological conflict between what was known as capitalism, individual freedom and democracy, and what was known as socialism and communism.

Third: America has lost its ideological weapon, and the economic system is no longer a subject of conflict. China's ideological weapon has nothing to do with capitalism or social justice, but rather with a global system that respects international law, treats international poles equally, and is based on the United Nations Charter, while respecting the interests of peoples who decide their choices and determine the type of their systems. This contradicts unipolarity and the hegemony of America and the West over the global system.

From this perspective, Chinese (and Russian) goals are stronger politically and ideologically, and more responsive to the interests of the world’s peoples, even if the focus is on multipolarity. This includes consideration of the interests of the major powers over the interests of the world’s peoples as a whole, but of course, it remains less severe than unipolarity and Western dominance.

Fourth: There is a dilemma that has begun to emerge and worsen for America in its Cold War with China and Russia, in particular. It is a dilemma that is not referred to because it is related to what American Zionism and the governments of the Zionist entity are trying to impose as a priority for American policy. The gist of it is to give priority to the Middle East in a way that achieves the Zionist entity’s control over it, or to the conflict with China and Russia, so that other policies are subject to it?

This was practiced during the eras of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, up until the Biden era, with the exception of the Obama era, which called for giving priority to the conflict with China and giving it priority in American policies.

This dilemma was resolved in favor of giving priority to the American international strategy under the slogan of reshaping the “Middle East” by subjecting it to the strategy of the Zionist entity (1992-2010), under the pretext of complete control over the Arab and Islamic countries (Iran and Turkey), then moving to giving priority to China.

Clinton's experience in the 1990s and George W. Bush's experience in the first decade of the twenty-first century led to their failure to rebuild the "Middle East", and they also led to neglect of China and Russia, in addition to the tremendous development in these two countries, which made America, at the level of international conflict, in a state of decline and imbalance of power in the face of both China and Russia.

This was blatantly repeated with Joe Biden during the year from October 7, 2023 to November 2024 (a year and a month), when priority was given to saving Netanyahu from defeat by continuing the war. The result was military failure, international isolation, and a sharp internal contradiction in the American presidential competition. As for China, it began to step aside, looking at America’s involvement.

This dilemma in determining the priority in the American strategy will, in the future, constitute an important factor in America’s loss in the Second Cold War, in contrast to what happened in the previous global Cold War, in which it maintained the priority of the international conflict with the Soviet Union and the socialist countries, and did not oscillate between it and any other priority. This is by determining where the real and most serious danger facing America is and threatening its control and the control of the West in general with falling.

The so-called “Middle East,” despite its importance, is not given priority when calculating the struggle of the major powers for global control. So how can it be given priority and end in failure as well?

Here America and the West must note that they have lost their claim to democracy and human rights, in exchange for "totalitarianism", after providing military support for the war of extermination in the Gaza Strip. This will have an impact on who will prevail over the other in the Second World Cold War.

*Quoted from Al Jazeera Network