Leszek Miller, former Prime Minister of Poland (2001-2004) and leader of the «Polish Left» Alliance

The Cold War can be described as an era in international relations, beginning in 1946, a year after the defeat of Nazi Germany, and ending with the collapse of the Soviet bloc in 1989.

The meaning of the Cold War differed for strategists and for millions of ordinary people. The former wanted to maintain the balance of power between the two blocs, whereas the latter tried to lead a more or less normal life in the shadow of the atomic bomb. Hence, there are two views on the Cold War period – one is geopolitical and strategic, while the other is humanitarian and cultural.

The conflict started with the German issue, and spread to the rest of the world in the form of a competition for political, ideological, military, and economic influence. The wall separating the two parts of Berlin became a gloomy symbol of the Cold War. The city played a special role for the Soviet Union and the United States. As Nikita Khrushchev once aptly put it: “Berlin is the genitals of the West, and we squeeze it when we want the West to yell.”

Relations at that time can hardly be described as peaceful. They were largely similar to wartime relations. The sides were irreconcilable enemies, bent on defeating each other. This was not so much a competition as a struggle, and also a powerful ideological war. The arms race became its distinctive feature. Indicatively, both blocs were optimistic about its outcome, and hoped that their great power would allow them to win. But they were haunted by fear of each other’s nuclear attack.

The post-Cold War period is also interesting, and probably even more important that the Cold War itself. Can we say that in 2009 the Cold War is still going on, or that a new Cold War has begun?

I believe the answer should be negative for three reasons. First, despite certain tensions, and a long list of mutual grievances, neither the West nor Russia is resorting to confrontation to obtain their objectives. The fundamental condition for a state of war – embedded hostility and an obvious desire to harm each other, does not exist. There are no dangerous conflicts, either. Up until now, the war in Georgia has been the only serious crisis.

Second, despite ideological challenges, there is no room for a clash of ideologies, which was a typical feature of the Cold War.

Third, although the process of military buildup in the last decade may be a source of concern, it is hardly reminiscent of the arms race during the Cold War. Nor is there hysteria at the prospect of nuclear war.

Those who are accusing Russia of starting a new Cold War refer to the war with Georgia and the use of the “energy weapon”.

But this weapon is double-edged. The West will remain Russia’s leading economic and political partner for a long time. Russia has set itself ambitious development plans, and for these plans to become reality it needs cooperation with the West. Energy blackmail would destroy such cooperation.

The war in the Caucasus was not a dispute about values. Americans continue to support President Mikheil Saakashvili. Supporting him out of geopolitical considerations does not mean accepting his version of events, which portray Georgia as a bridgehead of Western democratic values and Russia as an evil empire, again undermining American and West European values. I have not heard such assessments from officials of the Barack Obama administration.