During the Cold War we knew where we stood. The Soviet and Western blocs squared off against each other with arsenals of nuclear weapons in a balance of terror. Yet the doctrine of deterrence – and fear of Mutually Assured Destruction – meant both sides stuck by rules. Although they fought proxy wars in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, the Soviets and the West largely respected the post-Yalta status quo in Europe.
Today, there’s uncertainty. After his military intervention in Georgia and Ukraine, nobody seems to know how far Vladimir Putin will go in his drive to extend Russian power. The foreign and defence policy of the incoming US president is a mystery. Donald Trump says he admires Putin and thinks NATO is obsolete. Under his watch will the US continue to provide deterrence in Europe? The European allies look weak and divided; few come close to meeting the alliance’s defence-spending targets. Foreign policy consensus has been undermined by populist politicians, spurred on by Russian propaganda.
Adding to the unpredictability is the risk of nuclear proliferation. North Korea has nukes and the ballistic capability to deliver them; the deal to restrain Iran from developing atomic weapons looks fragile; the danger of terrorist groups or other non-state actors gaining access to weapons of mass destruction is real.
How bad have things become? Is today’s geo-political disorder more threatening than the decades of nuclear stand-off during the Cold War? What’s the future for Europe’s security in the Putin-Trump era?
We had a comment from Jan who asked if the world is safer today or more dangerous than it was during the Cold War. To get a response, we spoke to Edward Lucas, senior editor at The Economist and a senior vice-president at the Centre for European Policy Analysis (CEPA). What would he say to Jan?
This is the most dangerous time since the early 1980s. Clearly there were points during the Cold War, like the Berlin Crisis and the Cuban Missile Crisis, where we were very close to a nuclear conflict and it’s not as bad as that. But we have lost a lot of the security architecture which we build up during the Cold War in terms of having a clear understanding of what each side wanted and was prepared to do, and what the other side would do in return.
We are now in a much more unpredictable era with an unpredictable Russian leader and an unpredictable American leader, and NATO – which was the most important pact for stability during the Cold War – is now looking very weak, with some countries having become quasi pacifist, a lot of countries not paying their way, and the most important country of all, America, with a president-elect who doesn’t really believe in alliances.
For another perspective, we put the same question to Kevin Martin, President and Executive Director of Peace Action, a California-based pressure group. What would he say to Jan?
The thing to me that’s most interesting is: who benefits from the perception of fear? Donald Trump in this country won the election – I hate to even say ‘won’ the election, he will become the president barring some unforeseen circumstance – with naked appeals to fear. We’ve seen that work in Europe and other places as well.
So, whether the world is safer or not, I could talk about certain issues: US triumphalism, NATO triumphalism, circling and isolating Russia and China, a new nuclear arms race, more countries with nuclear weapons. Those are all very dangerous things but, to me, people standing up against them saying ‘No, we want a safer world, we want a better world’ and calling out the people who are benefiting from fear, to me that’s the more interesting question than ‘Is the world safer, or less safe?’. I might say ‘less safe’ because of ongoing wars, US militarism, and the danger of a new nuclear arms race.
Picking up on the impending change of administration in Washington, we also had a question from Graça, who wondered what the global geopolitical order is going to look like under President Trump. We put her question to Edward Lucas.
Mr. Trump, with his very loose talk about allies, it’s clear that he doesn’t understand alliances in the way that every American president since Harry Truman, since Roosevelt, has understood them. He sees them as someone to do business with – somewhere between customers and suppliers – and he wants to drive a hard bargain. That, I think, is not a great way to run a business, and it’s a terrible way to run a superpower. So, I think we’re in an era where America’s global leadership is on the way down, perhaps irretrievably, and it’s going to be rather uncomfortable and, I think, quite dangerous while we work out what the new arrangements are going to be. I won’t call them a ‘new order’ because I’m not sure there’s going to be much order.
Finally, Clive from the UK raised an important issue about Russia. Under Putin, Russia looks resurgent… but in terms of GDP and even military spending it still lags way behind the West. Is Putin really restoring Russian power? We asked Edward Lucas for his thoughts.
This is not a story of Russia becoming a real superpower, but Russia’s ability to exert its influence very strongly in any bilateral arrangements. As long as we’re in a multilateral world, then Russia is heavily outnumbered. In any bilateral relationship, except possibly with America and China, Russia has the upper hand because of its land mass, its nuclear arsenal, and so on. And Putin is willing to do things to bust these multilateral arrangements that disadvantage Russia, which we aren’t willing to do in return: he’s willing to use force, we don’t want to use force; he’s willing to take risks, we don’t want to take risks; he’s willing to accept economic pain and we don’t want to accept economic pain; he’s willing to use a propaganda machine, which we don’t really have. That’s why Putin is several laps ahead of us.
Was the world safer during the Cold War? We’re not at the stage of a direct nuclear stand-off, but is today’s uncertain world more risky? Are we already in a new Cold War? And is Russia is winning? To what extent does the lack of political will mean that Europe and the West are under threat despite their economic and military strength? Let us know your thoughts and comments in the form below, and we’ll take them to policymakers and experts for their reactions!
192 comments Post a commentcomment
No.
Nope!
The number of countries with nuclear weapons has increased
and
the EU is led by a
‘basket of deplorables’quintet of ideo-fascistic ‘Beurocraps’and
Islamofascism is rife throughout the world.
Which one? The previous one? Are cold wars safe? Or just money makers for arms manufacturers?
One should not use the words “safe” and “war” in the same sentence!
A “safe war” is an oxymoron!
Which one? The previous one?
Are cold wars safe? Or just money makers for arms manufacturers?
One should not use the words “safe” and “war” in the same sentence! A “safe war” is an oxymoron!
.
Before the EU yes.
Before EU, europe was in war (at least 2)
About 100 million deaths in just the world wars, not counting the rest of our bloody history. No wars since the EU.
Sopi Andrei
NATO has kept the peace in Europe, your EU had nothing to do with it.
Not even warmongering Europeans are stupid enough to start a war with their neighbours with a million heavily armed troops from the free world based on the continent, but now you will have your EU army to threaten the world with so the world should be very afraid indeed.
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/1804/the_nobel_prize_should_have_gone_to_nato
@Sopi Andrei
NATO secures Europe, the EU has NO army and even if it did it would be too small, too weak and too dysfunctional to stand up to Russia without the USA.
If the EU has done such a great job of keeping peace in Europe, where is Kosovo? I thought that was in Europe? I honestly think the thing that kept peace in Europe after the end of ww2 was just exactly how many people remembered the effects of the war. Everyone knew someone or several someone’s who died in that charnel house of history and didn’t want to see it happen again. But the dangers the world faces today are not a European imperial powers going to war with each other and dragging their empires into it, the dangers are economical, they are radical groups with funding and black market wmd’s, they are through shear overpopulation resulting in more fierce competition for resources, they are from the constant changes in governments throughout the world. In many ways the political structure across the globe today is a new dark ages. Leaders/dynasties of like minded leaders are being changed too often for there to be any familiarity. Alliances are made and broken and replaced. Turkey and Russia is a good example of this, they were against each other now they are talking again. So much so in fact that also as a result of the EU/Turkey relations deteriorating, that I would feel compelled to question Turkish resolve to defend European NATO countries in light of a Russian attack, couple that with some of Trumps comments and that puts Pro defending Europe Nato troops down a significant number (maybe enough for Putin to feel he could win if it came to it). Moreover Russia was at one stage looking very friendly towards NATO, frankly it seemed on the cusp of joining it. That would have stabilised 80% of the globe, this return to unfriendly relations had the opposite effect, and for the life of me I don’t know what caused the U-turn.
Pyrinika…nuclears are safety to crazy minds i suppose???
If countries are against eachother it is because 1) it is an unfair system where one is missing out, so fair rules are required, 2) greed, where the one party doesn’t want to share wealth, so the majority must insist on fair rules or 3) theft, where a leader wants what another country has and uses force to steal it, where an alliance of countries is required to not allow this to happen.
Rubbish
Explain the rubbish, Tim
@António Espadaneira
Some countries are victims of their own cultures and always seek to blame their financial weakness on everything, everyone and anything but themselves.
@Julia Hadjikyriacou
1…Yes, life can be unfair BUT with hardwork and HONESTY…
2…Obviously, the poorer party is greedy as they want FREE money from the richer party.
3…I agree, many Club Med countries have political elites that practice theft as an art form.
The investment entities with big financial stakes in weapons manufacturing also own the media.
:D
[citation needed]
Research media groups and their ownership structures.
Not safer, but more predictable.
Exactly…..
Are you sure Cold War has finished?
Probably yes, the stupidest thing is that then the communists were trying to have world domination – now the “democracy” is doing the same and it is even worst! Nobody learn the lessons.
That’s not accurate. The cold war was capitalism vs communism. Both side wanted to dominate and capitalism won. (China’s communist politically, but capitalist economically, Russia is now capitalist). Also, the world hasn’t been “safe” since the first use of all out war. When cities full of people are considered a valid military target for bombing and shelling the world is not safe. It got less safe with biological and chemical warfare and even less safe with nuclear weapons. The cold war had enough nuclear material made into weapons that the world could have ended several times over. Sorry let me say that again, THE WORLD COULD HAVE ENDED several times over! That’s not safe! Nor is what we have today, but it’s not less dangerous than everyone in the world could die, there is no less safe than that!
Probably, but then there were only two “sides” and wars were “controled”. Now wars and terrorism have extended all over, mainly thanks to US & EU blindness.
We are possibly in a World War already where the digital landscape has made tanks and guns outdated. The war is being fought with tactics that are economic, ideological and demographic in its nature leading to political changes that look more like conquest by another name.
I believe you are correct.
In retrospect it was because the demarcation line was clearly and boldly drawn between the West and the Soviet Bloc. However at the time it often felt like we were living on the edge of a nuclear abyss.
Yes
No it was not safer.What we had was a balance of terror then. A recent study though claims that if you have many players, then it is m0re propable to tear apart one another- that means great trouble for the world.When you have one very strong player (souper power) then you have a balance.So if USA come closer to Rusia then I ithink that we will have a better stabitilty and less danger for unexpected events.
It was safer… emotionally. As Dominique Moise (Geopolitic of emotions) wrote, during the cold war, we knew our ennemy. This ennemy lived in one place, was totally different and accepted to negotiate. Now, in an era of terrorism, we feel weaker at home.
S,O,B΄ς from the american pentagon are the only responsibles for all the crisis,
Definitely!
You know what, screw you guys. There were millions of people struggling to survive on the wrong side of the Iron Curtain. Nowadays the life is much better and safer for them and their children, like me. You’re just high on memberberries.
You’re addressing a different issue than the one raised. Inevitably the question of global safety boils down to the likelihood of unlimited nuclear warfare. In this respect it’s rather trivial to advance the argument that the world was safer during the Cold War. Granted, we’re not yet at CMC levels but the trajectory is as ominous as it is inexorable.
Right, we talk here about global uncertainty, not about waiting 20 years to get a Trabant or not eating bananas. I’d stick to the old bipolar world without doubt, God knows if in another 20 years we’d be able to get a car or eat a banana at all.
Yeah, but the point is if we will have all that that you say in 20 years, it doesn’t change my point. And btw, go and talk about individual freedom to Kaczynski, Orban, Farage, Trump, the guys of ISIS, Le Pen, Putin, Duterte,…, I am extremely pessimistic about individual freedoms, so you, as young eastern european or me as southern european we might see the comeback of the worse kind of nationalism again to our continent and you,…, you might think that the trip to the EU and democracy was completely useless at the end,
I see a big bunch of polish banners in your profile. I might not have talked about Kaczynski and nationalism to the most appropiate guy, bummer!
Yes, because two major superpowers and the threat of MAD maintained a world order. If something was about to kick off there would have been plenty of warning because the rising rising tension between the US and USSR would nave been obvious.
These days there are lots of unstable countries and extremist groups causing havoc in the world and if one of these ever gets hold of a WMD the chances of it being used is extremely high and it would most likely happen with very little warning
Western medium and working classes where far better off, so in what directly concerns me, yes, the world was better off.
Yes, because even if there was this scare about ‘the Bomb’ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2EOSgmx-MA ) it was a quite stable and predictable world system, though now always that ‘cold’ in what was then still called the Third World. The initiative back then was also much more with states and regular defense systems, which is not the case now. Theses about ‘a new Cold War’ in Ukraine and Syria therefore don’t add up i.m.o.
In my opinion, the Cold War pattern did not end with the demise of the Berlin Wall in 1989 but with the revolution in Iran in 1978-79. Why? Because contrary to the way things went back then, the pro-Western regime which was toppled was not replaced with a socialist or at least Soviet-aligned one, but with something totally new, Khomeiny’s Islamic republic. Iran also showed that secularization was not irreversible.
07/09/2017 David A. Andelman, columnist for USA Today and commentator for CNN Opinion, has responded to this comment.
07/09/2017 Lassina Zerbo, Executive Secretary of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban treaty Organization (CTBTO), has responded to this comment.
The world has never been safer than now. You just read about more conflict because you’re better connected. Every statistic shows we are better off.
I’ve seen stats which back this up. its safer now than the last 100 yrs.
How is safety backed up in statistics?
No of course.Now is the same war going on but in a different way – economical and informational…oopppsss,wasn’t those the same methods used in the Cold war itself?
nuclear weapons, you did forget nuclear weapons. oh, and proxy wars.
Putin – frustrated from the loss of the Soviet Empire, wants to save face and be recognized as a contributor to peace making. His actions in Crimea and East Ukraine as well as in Syria , calculated risks based on the belief that the West will not intervene, aim at obtaining respect and inclusion among the Great Powers to keep the peace. If he is criticized, let alone ignored as a potential partner in world governance, he will continue to act “impredictably”. One way to break the ice might be to concede on Crimea (which was after all Russian), admit the mistake of pushing the Ukraine towards NATO (in contradiction with the Budapest understanding that its NATO membership was excluded in exchange for it renouncing to its nuclear weapons), and promote a confederation between East and West Ukraine, which would recognize a limited autonomy to the eastern part (after all it is mainly inhabited by Russians and was part of Russia until Khrushchev took what seemed at the time a decision of little relevance, transferring Ukraine East to the Kiev State government within the then Soviet Union). Trump might be the right person to try and do it, provided he is kept under control by those who understand about politics and military affairs. Unfortunately, this is not the case of his chosen candidates for the key, relevant positions, and those “who know” would probably be opposed to such a solution. America’s European partner might have been able to help (now without Britain), but has not reached the necessary integration stage in ESDP (partly due to British opposition) and requires a difficult agreement between the intergovernmental France and the federalist Germany. Like with the EDC in 1954, the biggest obstacle to a joint ESDP remains France. So, one has to enlarge the “directoire” to include countries such as Poland, Italy and Spain. The latter cannot be counted on as long as Germany imposes its austerity policy, in contradiction with IMF, OECD and common sense views, because they will end by being dominated by populist parties until the economy improves.
Read “The War State,” by Michael Swanson (on Kindle). There was no Cold War, it was an invention of the Military Industrial Complex, The State Department, and the Chiefs of Staff in Washington. It was the same persecution of Russia then as is happening today.
Not if you were a Plastic Soldier by the looks of it!We’ve never been closer to Armageddon than in those days! Still too many Nukes!
Yes not many muslims shouting there gobs off
The world was much safer during the Cold War. And Europe was much more unified vs USSR. Now, those squabbles between Poland against Germany are able to ruin the EU.
Kaczyński puts Poland at odds with Germany
These days everyone is distracted by Brexit, but as it turned out today Europe is shaking because of the growing tensions between Germany and Poland which simply can’t stay unnoticed.
This refers to the letter supposedly written by the vice-chancellor of Germany Sigmar Gabriel to the president of the European Council Donald Tusk with an open appeal to punish Great Britain for Brexit.
See more of this stuff here
https://medium.com/@VaalenImbis/kaczy%C5%84ski-puts-poland-at-odds-with-germany-ac97b5fc81e2#.um7knlfiv
29/08/2017 James Kirchick, American reporter, foreign correspondent and columnist, has responded to this comment.
06/11/2017 Kalev Stoicescu, former Estonian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of Defence official, currently a researcher at the International Centre for Defence and Security, has responded to this comment.
06/11/2017 Professor Andrey Kinyakin, from the People’s Friendship University of Russia, has responded to this comment.
The world was much safer during the Cold War. After that epoch there were many changes that made the world less secure. What I see now is that many minorities of all sorts, national, regional, religious or other want more independence or even own states http://www.ihorizont.cz/blog/kay-prokop/the-south-west-of-poland-has-been-hit-with-a-wave-of-provocative-graffiti-claiming
Hey, mouses, it is not called Soviet but Council, Advisers Union. :D Please change your ways because that flouride is not good for your health. :D
Politics is not the solution to the problems we face, Politics is the Problem as many politicans mainly care for thenselves and their inner circle, while the huge majority of the people suffer many hardships, because of the greedy few million in Europe and the World.
Safer ? Do you remember the Cuban missile crisis ?
https://www.google.gr/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction&ved=0ahUKEwjGoa2u_sPRAhVKbxQKHbsmBhMQFggcMAA&usg=AFQjCNEDUH9m4vALd16rM0xUxctMULyfdQ&sig2=SLotS3MhJ6122Gw0KGtPUQ
If i remember right,the ancient Roman quite was”if you want peace be prepared for war” meaning that everybody must be afraid of you and are capably of , in
Order to be in peace
What about now there are few countries ready to hit the “red button” and put end of the world and unfortunately those with more “unstable nerves” are the “developed” one that pretend for democracy…
Safer then the formation of a EU army
Eu army can’t work
Παυλος Χαραλαμπους Yup, you are damn right. EU army will work exactly like EU so we going to have huge army administration and eventually A soldier :) it can’t work indeed, but it will be nice to have it. :)
Unfortunately yes.
Yes.
No war is safe.
just the some. A question of devices
It was. The powerful countries were equally afraid of each other.
And the leaders were either smart, or well advised, or both
Ezek voltak aszep idok!
És nagy emderek!!!!
Ezek voltak aszep idok!
És nagy emderek!!!!
How were people safe when there were wars in other countries? Other people are still members of the human race. Also, when Putin gives press conferences he says he doesn’t want war and it is NATO & America who are the aggressors. What evidence has NATO & America provided as proof of the opposite-none. It is NATO & America closing in and provoking Russia from what the public sees. Show us real proof.
Rubbish just look what putins done in syria
Julia,Why do you close your eyes to Russian occupation of Ukraine? This is real provocation.
Why do people close their eyes to Turkish occupation of Cyprus? Lack of information. Post me links and I will read them. Also Ukraine should not be used as a justification for the EU, NATO and America to start a nuclear war and have millions of people die a horrific death.
Tina Lythe, Putin is in Syria legally by an invitation from the Syrian legal government. He is not violating international law. I am not a Putin defender, I don’t like any political leaders that serve billionaire oligarchs at the expense of people-which is all of them. However I stand by the truth and will always strive to find out the truth of any matter. Also, I am weary of NATO using excuses and justifcations to start a nuclear war with tax payer money and human mass murder and horrific deaths over a piepline! and so should all citizens on earth.
“when Putin gives press conferences he says he doesn’t want war”
Isn’t this true of pretty much every leader, everywhere? It’s not like Obama said he wanted war in press conferences, and yet…
Tamara Jegorov What occupation? Crimea is pure russian soil. The nazist regime of Kiev is creating problems. They think that they are still collaborating with the Axis as their Ukrainian fathers did during 2WW. These bastards shot down flight MH 017 and killed so many innocent people:
Hugh Treleaven Eldred-Grigg Putin gives press conferences to American journalists and none dispute what he says. Russia has not surrounded America with bases it is America and NATO that has and is provoking Russia for no other reason except economics. Research petro dollar and find out why a gold standard and trading oil with other currencies will lessen the petrodollar profits for the US. Then research the Saudi/Qatar pipeline vs the Russian Pipeline that Assad chose and now he has war, death and a mission to depose him. Do you want to die so oil giants make their profits? Do you want to die so America saves their petrodollar monopoly? It is an oil oligarch war for money, power and greed and both America & NATO are willing to fight to our death to win. And Putin will avoid it as much as he can but he is willing for us to die over it too if he is pushed. Please do your research and find out the factual truth.
How were people safe when there were wars in other countries? Other people are still members of the human race. Also, when Putin gives press conferences he says he doesn’t want war and it is NATO & America who are the aggressors. What evidence has NATO & America provided as proof of the opposite-none. It is NATO & America closing in and provoking Russia from what the public sees. Show us real proof.
Julia Hadjikyriacou Hitler said much the same thing in the 1930s
Hugh Treleaven Eldred-Grigg Putin gives press conferences to American journalists and none dispute what he says. Russia has not surrounded America with bases it is America and NATO that has and is provoking Russia for no other reason except economics. Research petro dollar and find out why a gold standard and trading oil with other currencies will lessen the petrodollar profits for the US. Then research the Saudi/Qatar pipeline vs the Russian Pipeline that Assad chose and now he has war, death and a mission to depose him. Do you want to die so oil giants make their profits? Do you want to die so America saves their petrodollar monopoly? It is an oil oligarch war for money, power and greed and both America & NATO are willing to fight to our death to win. And Putin will avoid it as much as he can but he is willing for us to die over it too if he is pushed. Please do your research and find out the factual truth.
Depends on where you were. Vietnam, China, Cambodia and Afghanistan were wont to be places that were rather hazardous to your health.
America’s imperial overreach after the Cold War ended has made everyone unsafe.
THIS COMMENT HAS BEEN REMOVED BY MODERATORS FOR BREACHING OUR CODE OF CONDUCT. REPLIES MAY ALSO BE REMOVED.
Of course it was safer… although leaders were not perfect back then, they were not as daft as Merkel who persists in her nonsense policy of open borders to all ILLEGAL immigrants.
During the Cold War borders were actually MORE open than today: ANYONE who came from the opposite block was AUTOMATICALLY granted asylum!
At the very end of the Cold War, West-Germany alone let in 17 MILLION East-Germans :D
There were valid reasons for those actions – and the system was not being abused as is the case today :)
The most powerful men on this planet have a deliciously nice life paid for off the backs of the masses. None of them want a nuclear war but they will use the fear of it to their own advantage to have us all controlled by Stockholm syndrome.
The world was safer before trump
…yes it was…
Ah, good old times. Nevermind the moment in history you live in, the past was always a better place.
In a way, yes, but now could improve with USA and Russia working together.
It was safer definitely… apart from the threat of nuclear bombs, terroristic acts all over Europe committed by IRA, ETA, RAF,… which costs thousands of people’s lifes and which were sometimes supported by the secret services from the other side, the pollution no one really cared about, smoking everywhere, abuse of alcohol,…
Safest times ever… really.
The Cold War era was not safe because it was based on a dreadful game of brinkmanship. According to some, after the fall of communist regimes domination of capitalism was supposed to provide increased safety. It did not. For me, it is this domination that creates inequalities that undermine safety. Instead of creating isolated “islands” of safety powerful actors should promote more inclusive attempts. It is for the long-term benefit of all.
No doubt cold war years were safer és more calculable. However, nations living behind the Iron Curtain paid havy price for that.
No doubt cold war years were safer és more calculable. However, nations living behind the Iron Curtain paid havy price for that.
yes
No
Chris J Dennett
Cuba, Jimmy Saville, IRA, Sus laws…. – sure was a lovely time
We knew who to aim the missiles at… and we knew we wouldn’t do it first…. (both sides in the we here)
It is certainly safer now that Killary Clinton didn’t get her wish ,because I think if she was elected President of America she would have started a war with Russia sooner or later at the behest of the Evil Rothschilds ,her masters ,and therefore W.W.3 would have kicked off.
If the Americans and Russians can come to a unified understanding and trust of each others super power and unite against the worlds enemies instead of each other. The world will then have to realise about what they keep saying and what are their Atomic threats. Yes North Korea, China, The Middle East for starters. Make them quake and stop thinking for one minute that America and Russia are going to Nuke each other. If they have a problem they are man enough to fly out to meet each other and sort it diplomatically. The world will think twice about taking these two on.
They were in an other “caliber”!
DOES IT MATTER DEAL WITH THE HERE AND NOW
Auf jedenfall sicherer als D. Trump noch den Frauen ungefragt in den Schritt greifen konnt …..
The world is safer without the islamic cult
Gorbacsov szabadkőműves volt!!! Megvették,utasították arra,amit tett!!!.:(
Gorbacsov szabadkőműves volt!!! Megvették,utasították arra,amit tett!!!.:(
I think so, because politicians on both sides knew what a ‘nuclear winter’ meant and came to realise that you can’t win a nuclear war
The cold war was the time to prepare people for the future. It is a program that runs. Amerika will not stop. They must have war. They need a Eurepean Union with no individual countries to implement easier their people at important positions, to rule the whole thing. That’ s the reason why nothing happens really. We are kept stupid. Immigrants are needed to mix populations to eliminate traditions and free will. Next country will be Iran. Then they controle the oil and the money flow. We must understand, that the biggest enemy for the free world is the USA.
havia o risco de guerra nuclear, mas houve menos mortes do que as que aconteceram durante os mandatos de obama, houve menos atentados, invasoes , tortura, isso diz muito acerca do regime do macaco
The bipolar world of last century was much safer of the unipolar world of today and led by the US, that is for sure.
Gorbacsov
Regen
Yes
NO WAR !
Well It must have been in some terms safer but on what price? All we onder Soviet occupation had lost our freedom.We couldn;t travel anywhere, we didn’t know what were the human rights… We had paid that price. Thanks to the leaders like Ronald Reagan, Iron Lady Margaret Tatcher and Pope Joa-Paul II who had made the wall to be broken down and now we are all Europeans. We know the price therefore we are going to fight not to lose it again.
Well It must have been in some terms safer but on what price? All we who used to be living under the Soviet occupation had lost our freedom. We couldn’t travel anywhere, we didn’t know what were the human rights… We had paid that price. Thanks to the leaders like Ronald Reagan, Iron Lady Margaret Tatcher and Pope Joa-Paul II who had made the wall to be broken down and now we are all Europeans. We know the price therefore we are going to fight not to lose it again.
The World was safer with Ronald Reagan as the American President!
You really think it depends on who’s President? They’re just puppets…
If they were just puppets, Russians wouldn’t have so much cared to support their candidate as they did for Trump.
Yes, because there were responsible human beings in charge.
good question again! Congrats Debating Europe!
It was safer in the Cold War than now as we had decent leaders who cared for the people along with a more open mindedness than today
Theres a less chance of a war between Russia breaking out with trump here but I’m not sure if trump is really a good thing
Nope
Unequivocally yes, nuclear weapons combined with two blocks comprising Western Europe and America on one side and Eastern Europe with Russian on another meant that for the most part industrialized nations, in conjunction with overt threat posed by nuclear weapons created a stalemate in which the civilized world was spared from the horror of modern total war. For the rest of the world not so much as they became the pawns in the great game of chess between the two blocks.
World was safer. There was a stalemate and nations worked to protect their citizens and not endanger them over political correctness. National interests where protected. Culture was strong. unlike now.
Sure, we had great strong leaders like Franco, Pinochet, Stalin, Castro, Pol Pot…
We did not have them…..also i was not speaking for communist countries
Safer for whom? USA kept warmongering even in the cold war(Vietnam and etc), USSR kept invading east Europe(Czech sping, Hungary and etc.) and west europe created the military union NATO which brought them peace but now many west europeans condemn because it provokes Russia.
.
There was no EU so of course it was safer.
Ivan Bullshit Burrows is at it again:
http://www.datagraver.com/thumbs/1300x1300r/2016-07/we-terrorism-1970-2015final.png
Imanuel d’Anjou (Troll)
Are you claiming the EU has stopped terrorism ??!
Here are the figures the last time a bunch of crazed ‘Europeans’ with a flag & a plan to unite Europe got into power.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties
Ivan Burrows Clap clap, compares terrorism to a World War. Get your comparison right dickhead !
Terrorism isn’t an open armed conflict it’s a state of constant threat through brutal and relatively frequent acts.
Ivan Burrows all you know to do is spread your rage about EU, even now your country is on the way out. Why is that for?
After WW2?
http://www.wrath-bearingtree.com/2016/08/world-war-ii-never-ended/
Yes! If We think about east european countrys, definetly, yes !
It’s even for us, a lot more peacefull in other parts of the world and the expectation of a world wide conflit between nations is almost virtually impossible.
What we’ll be seeing is occulted armed forces which’ll keep threatening societies.
You think Daesh is terrible, at the least we know where they are, where we can fight them but when they’ll scattered, we’ll all enjoy the freaking fireworks !
And meanwhile, we invest once again in a nuclear arsenal that has never been used in an open conflict (Nagazaki and Hiroshima are just little kids toys nowadays), isn’t properly secured or even can get lost, stolen ,bought, resell and might ends up between the hands of pure fanatics.
Situation is still pretty alarming, but thoses who think a major conflict will occure, are absolutely wrong !
Constantly on the edge of a nuclear exchange
There was a balance of power and dictators supported by both sides kept a lid on a lot of extremist ideologies. Safer maybe but less free
Νο
Nuclear weapons to both or more Big Powers is the real problem and fear for all of us. Not their fights for energy and Imperialism. Africa is in terrible situation. Million deads in middle east. Is this safe life or the hate of Spring of life?
Yes i heard that radiation is healthy for your skin
No, it was simply less complex.
forget the Cold War. Let’s call a spade a spade.
The world was safer before Bush and before Trump!
of course not – it was always life threatening, not for US citizens though
Well, Eastern and Western Europe as well as the North Americas were, the rest of the world not so much.
Question is, have we mentally even moved forward since then?
Unless the nukes started flying? Then again we still have the nukes. I think it depends. Maybe in much of the world, although here in Spain actually I think it is safer now, and even over the last decade things have gotten safer here. This may be exceptional, though. In France, Germany and Sweden the trend seems to be opposite at least from what people there say.
Wherever we are, though, it is undoubtedly safer now than before the Cold War, so let’s not go back to the bad old days.
Mutually Assured Destruction was probably the second best garanteur of peace and security known to history, after the free trade between nations
I think Russia balanced out NATO behaviour in some way, now it’s just out of control
Stability achieved through rigidity and… fear
Warmongering is a wonderful source of revenue for the weapons industry and their shareholders.
What do you mean “was”?
Cold War never ended. All countries keep increasing their military budgets, there is not a single week in year when somewhere military forces of any side not making some kind of training exercises i huge scale, armies of all countries dislocated all around the world and prepared to take actions at any given time, new kinds of weapons appears few time a year to show potential enemies what military power we have.
All we need is a spark and this “most peaceful time in human history” will become WWIII very very fast.
Before the pointless EU was invented ? yes defiantly.
You’re a fucking moron and don’t deserve acces to the internet.
The western world was united under the common threat. The eastern world was united under socialism. The east was paying cents for food, fuel and cinema + free hospitals and school. The west was getting ridiculous amount of money for salary but also everything else was 10-100 times more expensive to buy. Was it safer? There were two super powers commanding everything in this split in half world. Peace was assured easily. Now.. now we got chaos. Maybe controlled chaos but chaos.
People do not appreciate the times we live in.There will always be wars and violence but the present is still probably the safest time in history to live. So the answer is NO.
since weeks now: one stupid question after another!
Hi Dietmar Hartmann, what would you like to debate?
Debating Europe f.e. Would Merkel still be Chancellor,
if Hungary had not closed the border? :D
Debating Europe f.e. Would Merkel still be Chancellor, if Hungary had not closed the border? :D
Interesting question, thanks!
Social research has shown that when the player is only one (one super power) there is safety and piece(with all the negatives of a ‘monopoly’).When the superpowers are 2 there is a terror balance (like cold war) and when the players are more then there are lasting conflicts until some of them get out and the rest reach to a new stability through coalitions and alliances.
Safer? Well I think that the transition was not well done. But we can fix it. Russia is European and Ocidental and we must come all together because we have an common enemy. The Dictatorship of Islam.
Safer? Well I think that the transition was not well done. But we can fix it. Russia is European and Ocidental and we must come all together because we have an common enemy. The Dictatorship of Islam.
Safer? Well I think that the transition was not well done. But we can fix it. Russia is European and Ocidental and we must come all together because we have an common enemy. The Dictatorship of Islam.
Safer? Well I think that the transition was not well done. But we can fix it. Russia is European and Ocidental and we must come all together because we have an common enemy. The Dictatorship of Islam.
Safer? Well I think that the transition was not well done. But we can fix it. Russia is European and Ocidental and we must come all together because we have an common enemy. The Dictatorship of Islam.
Safer? Well I think that the transition was not well done. But we can fix it. Russia is European and Ocidental and we must come all together because we have an common enemy. The Dictatorship of Islam.
Safer? Well I think that the transition was not well done. But we can fix it. Russia is European and Ocidental and we must come all together because we have an common enemy. The Dictatorship of Islam.
Safer? Well I think that the transition was not well done. But we can fix it. Russia is European and Ocidental and we must come all together because we have an common enemy. The Dictatorship of Islam.
Safer? Well I think that the transition was not well done. But we can fix it. Russia is European and Ocidental and we must come all together because we have an common enemy. The Dictatorship of Islam.
Safer? Well I think that the transition was not well done. But we can fix it. Russia is European and Ocidental and we must come all together because we have an common enemy. The Dictatorship of Islam.
Safer? Well I think that the transition was not well done. But we can fix it. Russia is European and Ocidental and we must come all together because we have an common enemy. The Dictatorship of Islam.
I don’t know what you mean by “save”. Is it save when the communist police enter in your house ant takes your father , and you will never see him again. Is it safe when the tanks are on your street shooting innocent people, is it safe when your son goes to the army and never come back, is GULAK safer place to live – probably yes, but you can never quit. Was saver when in the West Ira , Batasuna, Bader Mejnhof and Red brigades made hundreds terroristic attacks, Cyprus war as long as Cyprus belong to Europe was safe with million of refugees or regimes in Greece , Spain and Portugal with political prisoners?
More predictible maybe.. How could you be safe when your neighbour could turn you down to secret service for listening a radio or making jokes about communism, attending queues for food as western countries did only on war times ? o.O
Please check also the picture on the right hand side, not only the one on the left when boss was paying so called “comrade visits”!
http://viatasanatoasa.biz/ce-mancau-romanii-pe-vremea-lui-ceausescu-o-jumatate-de-paine-pe-zi-un-litru-de-ulei-un-kg-de-zahar-pe-luna-si-pui-de-marimea-porumbeilor-2/
https://www.facebook.com/1565420357009474/photos/a.1568957603322416.1073741828.1565420357009474/1936351966582976/?type=3
From islamic terrorism for sure. Hint: You didnt allow freely bunches of this rascals in by then.
>Europeans want the USA army out out out of europe. dont need to apologise for ur crimes against ma people go away
Yes, the world was safer during the cold word than during the World War II.
No, starting from the fact we used to have the nuclear armage race, risk of fallout, compulsory military service in conflict areas, communism was still around, and of course, unwanted pregnancy. ;) But in terms of “Si vis Pacem, Para Bellum / if you want peace, prepare for war”, it kinda was safer in that point of view. – People Sleep Peacefully in Their Beds at Night Only Because Rough Men Stand Ready to Do Violence on Their Behalf – George Orwell said, and it’s getting pretty damn hard to find rough men nowadays, and going to get worse.
Yes, you are right Dionis, the men of these days are more worried with unwanted pregnancies than anything else :)
The cold war propaganda was a good cover for the financial robbery that was committed agains the impacted nations.
Half of it, yes.
The world ?….not if you were one of the casualies of the desot Pol Pot….or the untold numbers dying under Mao….or amongst the disapeared in Argentina….r
Probably the amount of violent death is similar to what we see today. Apart from a few flashpoints the cold war was like today.
absolutly not…
fear is need to control population, after the Cold War fear was finished, terrorism was invited for the same propose…
Terrorism always existed. Where did you study history my friend.
and if you want to know, all terror groups were funded by the same ones as today
the black hand, the late 1800 anarchist and the PLO all have the same funding?
Did the end of the Cold War make the world
safer?