EDITOR'S CORNER: Is a New Cold War Already Here?

It is hard to escape the fact that the world is being shaped by the great superpowers: Russia, China and America. Despite the European Union being a great economic power, or Africa a mighty continent filled with billions of people, they still don't influence geopolitics as much as the top three mighty countries. Even India, with its 1,47 billion people and expanding economy doesn't have half the clout that the other mighty countries have. 

In this blog post, we have a look at a pertinent question for our time: is a new Cold War here? Will things escalate further? 

 

WHAT DEFINED THE ORIGINAL COLD WAR?

The Cold War was, at its core, a structured conflict. Two superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union, dominated a bipolar world. Their rivalry was not just geopolitical, but ideological: capitalism versus communism, liberal democracy versus centralized authoritarian rule.

This competition played out across multiple dimensions. Proxy wars erupted in distant regions. Nuclear deterrence created a fragile equilibrium built on mutually assured destruction. Alliances were formalized and rigid, with blocs such as NATO and the Warsaw Pact defining clear spheres of influence.

Despite the tension, there was a kind of order to the system. Lines were drawn, and while they were often contested, they were broadly understood. This does not mean that these lines were not crossed occasionally, or that there were not miscommunications to the point of near misses. However, it was a much more organised and clear world. 

MODERN TIMES,  A MORE FRAGMENTED REALITY

Today's geopolitical landscape is far from organised and tidy. The world is ripping apart into multipolar factions, instead of the old, bipolar order. This multipolarity means that several major actors pursue overlapping and sometimes conflicting ambitions. The United States is still the most dominant power, but this role is no longer unchallenged. The rise of China, especially after the second Trump election, has fundamentally reshaped the balance of power. In the meantime, Russia slowly plots how to get away with doing the most destruction while suffering the least amount of consequences. 

At the same time, regional and middle powers, from India to Türkiye to the European Union, complicate the picture further. These actors are not simply aligned with one bloc or another; they often pursue independent strategies based on shifting interests. Canada is also a leader in such a movement. It has become clear that the middle powers of the West don't feel comfortable and safe in USA's shadow anymore. They look elsewhere for trade, and often also form their own defence pacts outside of NATO. 

Globalization adds another layer of complexity. Economic interdependence ties rivals together in ways that would have been unthinkable during the Cold War. Competition and cooperation now coexist, often uneasily, within the same relationships.

A WAR BY A DIFFERENT NAME

Beyond shifting alliances, the rise of hybrid warfare has fundamentally altered the nature of conflict. After witnessing the devastation and economic toll of the war in Ukraine, most nations recognize that large-scale kinetic warfare is no longer a viable or profitable path in today’s interconnected world. Instead, states increasingly rely on hybrid tactics: covert, hostile actions that fall short of open war and are often difficult to attribute or prove. These include economic coercion, cyber operations, and other forms of indirect aggression.

Russia is perhaps the most prominent example of this approach. While engaged in a costly conventional war in Ukraine, it simultaneously exerts pressure on Europe through less visible means. These range from cyberattacks and sabotage of critical infrastructure to alleged assassinations and acts of terrorism. In parallel, it deploys extensive disinformation and propaganda campaigns, using media, culture, and even sports to shape narratives and sustain domestic and international support.

Such methods are not entirely new. The Cold War was defined by similar covert strategies, espionage, proxy conflicts, and psychological operations. Actions that blurred the line between war and peace. Nuclear deterrence also remains a central factor. The persistent threat of nuclear escalation continues to discourage direct confrontation, effectively shielding nuclear-armed states from full-scale retaliation. In Russia’s case, this deterrent posture helps explain both its strategic latitude and the relative security of its leadership despite ongoing conflicts.

SO....  ARE WE REALLY LOOKING AT A NEW COLD WAR?

In many ways, the present era echoes the tensions of the Cold War, but it is also defined by a constant emergence of new threats. While familiar patterns of rivalry and deterrence remain, modern technology has introduced more complex and unpredictable dimensions. The growing use of drones and the rapid development of artificial intelligence add an extra layer of danger, enabling conflicts to be conducted with greater distance, precision, and deniability.

When warfare was largely confined to trenches and clearly defined front lines, its dangers were already immense. Today, however, conflict is far less visible and far more diffuse. It can operate under many different labels—cyber operations, economic pressure, proxy actions—and extend far beyond the borders of any single aggressor. This evolution allows hostile actions to reach across the globe, targeting infrastructure, institutions, and even civilians with little warning or clear attribution.

Looking ahead, this trend is likely to intensify as technology continues to evolve faster than international norms or regulations. Autonomous systems, deepfake media, and AI-driven cyber capabilities could further blur the line between war and peace, making it increasingly difficult to determine when a conflict has truly begun, or who is responsible. As a result, the challenge for states is no longer just defending territory, but navigating a persistent, borderless landscape of risk where conflict is continuous, ambiguous, and potentially everywhere at once.

CONCLUSION

What we are witnessing may not be a return to the past, but the emergence of a new geopolitical era. One that lacks the clear structure and familiar terminology of the Cold War. It is defined by competition without firm boundaries, where cooperation and rivalry are often intertwined, and uncertainty has become a constant condition rather than an exception. The real danger is not that history is repeating itself, but that we are entering something fundamentally different: a form of conflict that can operate in plain sight while still affecting millions of people and causing widespread disruption and damage.

Yet despite this shift, we continue to interpret these developments through the lens of the past. We rely on outdated frameworks and language to make sense of a reality that no longer fits them. This mismatch risks blinding us to the true nature of modern conflict, leaving societies reactive rather than prepared, and struggling to fully grasp the scale and subtlety of the changes unfolding around them.