It is a fact of history that powers rise, fall, and are replaced, this cycle can create tension between existing and rising powers usually resulting in hostilities. The Cold War of 1947-1991 between the two great powers of the United States of America (USA) and Soviet Union/USSR (of which Russia was the driving force) dominated the foreign policy of countries around the globe, while it could be considered that such foreign policy along such distinct geopolitical lines are a thing of the past, there are arguments amongst academics and commentators, some state this is no longer the case while others argue that there is no such war emerging and that using terminology like ‘cold war’ is no longer relevant or useful. This essay shall examine the foreign policy of the various state actors involved, namely the USA, Russia, China, and parts of the rest of the world. This essay shall demonstrate that on the surface the world may look like it is heading towards a new Cold War but once events, posturing, and policies have been examined closer the argument is not so clear cut but rather the resounding conclusion is that there is not a ’new Cold War’ and that to constantly use such terminology is outdated and unhelpful.
Firstly, we must define what foreign policy is, and also define and discuss the term cold war. Foreign policy can be defined as ‘a policy pursued by a nation in its dealings with other nations, designed to achieve national objectives’, effectively it refers to relations between states and their policies and posturing towards one another. Moving on, what is meant by ‘cold war’? It can be defined as ‘a conflict carried on by methods short of military action’, a war but not in the conventional way we know it. Of course cold war is best known and understood through the Cold War between the capitalist United States and allies and the then communist Soviet Union and allies. The West represented popularly elected multiparty government, free economics, and support for individual rights while the East represented single party politics, strict controls on individuals, and highly regulated economics. While the two sides never came into direct military combat it is seen that it was a military and ideological struggle. Put simply it was a state of mutual hostility, distrust and rivalry and when there was military conflict in was done through proxy wars where the two superpowers supported and aided opposing sides. The commonly agreed starting point for the Cold War is 1945 with the end of the Second World War, the end came in 1991 with the collapse of the USSR. James Arnold and Roberta Weiner have noted how the Cold War militarised everyday life in the West and East, how the rest of the world had to effectively choose sides, and that the conflict touched the lives of people around the world on an unprecedented scale, three very important observations.
Next we shall look closer at the widely quoted term ‘new Cold War’ which is disputed amongst academics, commentators, and observers. Immediately, we would think of a new rivalry between the current dominant power, the US, and Russia, formerly part of the USSR; however the situation truthfully is a lot more complex. While the world is arguably unipolar, dominated by the US, there are rising powers, not just Russia but others including China, who are challenging the American status quo. Arguably, the debate has become very confused: all agree America is the main superpower in the argued ‘new Cold War’ but there is disagreement over America’s advisery, there are those who state it is Russia – Richard Sakwa and Robert Legvold – and others state it is China – Bill Powell. Conversely, there are some, such as Andrew Monaghan, who claim there is not a ‘new Cold War’ and some go as far as to say that it is unhelpful to use such terminology and language in the 21st century, an argument that carries great logic. Richard Sakwa has argued bipolarism is a thing of the past that that Russia is just one of many potential powers which could challenge American hegemony. Monaghan has identified the term ‘new Cold War’ is a decade old and has its origins in 2006 but came to prominence in 2014, and also argues new Cold War thinking traps western thinking of Russia in the 20th century and is automatically and unthinkingly used, he offers an alternative title to revived western-Russian tensions, ‘clash of Europe’s’. Unlike the previous cold war, there are no fundamental conflicts of ideologies in the debated new war, for example, Russia no longer claims to be the centre of an alternative ideology or geopolitical bloc. When it comes to discussing a new Cold War with Russia, Monaghan is clear, he argues the ‘new Cold War metaphor is corrupting our understanding of today’s Russia’, a compelling argument because while Russia does appear to retain some Soviet traits the two are not the same and to keep thinking of Russia as the enemy is to create a never ending cycle where Russia is nothing but the enemy. On the other hand there are those who believe China is the adversary of Cold War 2.0, Bill Powell writing for Newsweek claims there is or will be a prolonged geopolitical struggle between the US and China and claims any such conflict would be very different to its predecessor, but what is to say that China’s rise cannot be peaceful. Despite this, Powell’s argument is potentially very convincing, as shall be examined later on. China is becoming hugely important in global affairs and a superpower in their own right, but it could be argued that cold war thinking has led many to believe any rising power is something to be seen as a threat, and today’s thinking warrants any alternative to American hegemonism to be demonised.
The USA was one of the two superpowers in the bipolar world of 1945-1991 and ever since has had a secure position as the world’s most dominant superpower. America is a part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) which began as a Cold War institute to defend against Soviet aggression, recently NATO has expanded eastwards in Europe towards Russia to include Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, all the Baltic States with Ukraine and Georgia expected to join. Edward Lucas has argued that western policymakers have failed to appreciate the deep conviction amongst Russians that the West is attempting to encircle their country, especially after NATO’s assurance that it would not expand into former Warsaw Pact countries, this effectively means the West is partly responsible for revived hostilities. Today America and NATO are still prepared for acts of Russian aggression in Eastern Europe demonstrated in 2009 when NATO drew up contingency plans for new eastern member states and in 2013 when NATO practiced its rapid reaction forces in Operation Steadfast Jazz with the aim to sure up the Baltic region through increased land, sea, and air presence. Military operations like these are reminiscent of those Europe practiced through the 1945-91 Cold War, to have similar operations based on countering Russian aggression could point generously to concluding that there is indeed a new Cold War. Moreover, it can be argued since the end of the Cold War America and the West have become complacent and have disregarded any future Russian threat, western budget cuts are resulting in loss of institutional memory and knowledge of the former USSR and Russia which is crucial in understanding the Russian threat today. Worryingly, in May 2014, Alexander Vershbow, deputy NATO secretary-general, asserted Russia should be seen as ‘more of an adversary than a partner’, again, something which would not look out of place in the latter half of the 20th century.
One major feature of the Cold War was military struggle and to have and to maintain greater military capability. America is truly ahead in its military expenditure, its 2014 expenditure amounted to $571 billion (3.5% of GDP), hugely ahead of China’s $129.4 billion, and amazingly America outspent Russia by 25:1 in 2014 and to this day maintains the most advanced weapons arsenal. Interestingly, America unilaterally left the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty in 2001/2 so it could begin building a high-tech antiballistic missile shield around the US which greatly concerned both Russia and China who saw this as a direct threat to their nuclear strategies which relied on mutual deterrence. With greater defences America has the capability to be more aggressive in foreign affairs. In addition, Walter LaFeber has noted that America relies on its military superiority to deal with unpredictability, for example recently on October 27th 2015 the American navy sailed within 12 nautical miles of the contested Subi Reef where China has been constructing artificial islands, a clear indication of America’s opposition to China’s actions evoking a strong and immediate Chinese response. This takes us back to our definition of cold war, the existence of mutual hostility, meaning that arguably American-Chinese relations sometimes display cold war traits, however this is not a definite sign nor evidence of an America-China cold war. Similarly, we have seen tough US government rhetoric towards China with the Obama government making it clear that it would undertake military measures to counter Chinese threats to American interests in the Asia-Pacific region. A major feature of the Cold War was the existence, growth, and potential use of nuclear weapons which threatened total destruction, today the US is understood to have nuclear superiority over Russia and China with the capability to soon be able to destroy the long-range nuclear arsenals of both countries in a first strike. Furthermore, America’s unilateral abandonment of the aforementioned 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty and 2007 plans to deploy missile defence systems to Poland and the Czech Republic can hardly advocate peaceful relations between America and other superpowers, but again this is not evidence of a new Cold War.
In respect to China, American perceptions of China as communist and undemocratic remain stable to this day, as argued by Matthew Hirshberg. Additionally, Hirshberg has identified the ‘American patriotic schema’ where there is a close relationship between the US, freedom, democracy, and good which opposes communist oppression. Arguably, during the Cold War these two opposed each other and therefore it could be argued that as China is communist that this model could be applied to any future Sino-American cold conflict. However, it should be noted that there has not been any American anti-communist rhetoric towards Chinese communism on the scale there was towards the USSR but the US remains staunchly anti-communist. Despite this it is apparent that America is concerned with the rise of China as demonstrated in 2006 when then President Bush moved to counter China’s surging power by signing an agreement with China’s Asian competitor, India, in which the US would aid India’s nuclear programme and work towards improving relations generally. Furthermore, it has been noted that America is uncertain about China’s long term objectives, speaking in Japan in March 2005 Condoleezza Rice spoke of China as ‘a new factor’ and ‘has the potential for good and bad’ demonstrating America’s uncertainty. Robert Sutter has claimed that after 1992 the US has: stepped up measures to curb Chinese growth; issued stronger support for Taiwan, Tibet, and Hong Kong; put pressure on Chinese trade and economic practices; placed restrictions on the transfer of military related and other high technology to China; and warned against Chinese assertiveness in Asia.
Russia now operates in place of the USSR as an antagonist to the West and its foreign policy displays similar features to that of its Soviet predecessor, in fact former President Medvedev is on record as saying that he was not afraid of a ‘new Cold War’. Many observers have noted how Russian aggression towards the West has increased over the last two decades. Lucas argues the label of ‘New Cold War’ refers to a new era of uneasy confrontation between the West and the Kremlin and has noted that Russia has waged war with Georgia, menaced Poland and the Baltic States with military exercises, and most recently occupied part of Ukraine as part of its wider chief foreign policy objective of menacing the West. The fall of the USSR was catastrophic for Russia and it appears in recent times that Russia strives to reverse this humiliation with a terrifying prospect that it will make moves on former Soviet states. Undoubtedly, there is a western complacency which believes Russia to be happy with the post-1991 political order, this could not be more wrong. Interestingly, Lucas has noted an asymmetrical relationship between Russia and the West, while the West is stronger than Russia, Russia is willing to use force while the West is not. Russia seems to have gone all out to undermine the US, for example it sells arms to anti-American countries including Venezuela which bought $3 billion worth of arm including 53 helicopters, 24 fighter jets and 5 submarines, furthermore Russia has sold short-range missiles to Iran and helped Tehran build nuclear power stations, Iran being a part of Bush’s ‘axis of evil’.
The Russian military is increasing in size and capability and Russia itself remains a military superpower because of its nuclear arsenal alone, which currently totals an estimated 7,200, a few hundred short of America’s total, and yet it is still unable to match American firepower. However, one crucial point is while the West’s military budgets and capabilities are shrinking, Russia’s is increasing, something not too dissimilar to the huge expansion of arms seen during the Cold War. Monaghan has noted how Russia is going about adjusting, preparing, and training its military systems, reequipping its armed forces and planning to modernise 70% of its military equipment with more plans to enlist half a million soldiers by 2020, all of which could lead to a substantial threat to NATO. Moreover, Russian military exercises have been identified as threatening Eastern Europe namely Zapad exercises in 2009 and 2013, and on Good Friday 2013 Russian warplanes carried out dummy nuclear attacks on two Swedish military targets. Furthermore, in 2007 Russia resurrected, after 15 years, the Soviet practice of regular long-range warplane patrols which fly into NATO airspace to test their reactions and it has recently returned a naval presence in the Mediterranean. In 2007 Russia warned of the possible deployment of missiles to its Kalingrad enclave and after NATO expansion into the Baltics it began to fortify its Western Military District. It is understandable that some claim there to be a new state of cold war between Russia and America after examining what we previously just discussed; however, the levels of hostility between the two has nowhere near reached levels seen during the Cold War. But perhaps this new era of confrontation is fundamentally different to what was seen in the Cold War and again we see how cold war thinking clouds the arguments, as Monaghan stated.
Russia has recently come together with the other focus of this essay, China, to form an uneasy partnership. The role of China in this ‘new Cold War’ is one that it open to debate, as shall be discussed later on, what will be examined now is the mutual anti-West relationship that Russia and China seem to have created. This relationship manifested in 2001 with the creation of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) which had Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan as founding members and was designed to ‘quietly reduce American political and military presence’ in central Asia. In 2006, despite claims it would not expand, SCO made Iran, Mongolia, India, and Pakistan full members, parallels can be drawn with NATOs expansion eastwards. Furthermore, in 2015 nine Chinese and Russian warships came together in the Mediterranean for joint naval exercises. Nevertheless, despite this increased cooperation to achieve mutual goals both Russian and Chinese leaders do not allow Russian-Chinese assertiveness to get in the way of their respective interests in maintaining relations with the West. This crucial point is a stark contrast to what occurred in the Cold War where the two sides maintained very frosty relations at best so to see both Russia and China actively protect their relations with the West can lead us to conclude there is certainly not a new Cold War in existence today.
While America and Russia were the two actors in the previous cold conflict, the world is arguably shifting from a formerly bipolar and now unipolar world to greater multipolarity in which China is a dominating power. There are multiple views on the rise of China: firstly, it aims to dominate Asia and undermine the US throughout the region; secondly, it aims to improve its own position in Asia with a focus not on the US; thirdly, it aims for greater cooperation, a peaceful rise. This is where the issue lies when it comes to China, there is no understanding of whether its rise to dominance is a threat or something to be welcomed. Sutter has examined Chinese foreign policy in depth and has noted Chinese leaders have continuously tried to demonstrate that rising Chinese economic, military, and political power and increasing global influence should not be viewed as a threat but rather an opportunity, and in 2005 a white paper titled ‘China’s Peaceful Development Road’ released by the Chinese state assures that Chinese development will never pose a threat. However, Sutter has also noted that their advanced military and increasing voice will lead China to take coercive measures if necessary to achieve national goals and that in private there is fierce opposition to hegemonism, particularly American hegemonism. Similarly, China wants to stay on good terms with America and its allies but also want to weaken America’s overall power and influence in central Asia and in the longer-term create a multipolar world. Additionally, China is hugely critical of American policy, it opposes the US national missile defence system and American missiles abroad, it also opposes the expansion of NATO, enhanced America-Japan relations, and US policies and practises dealing with Iran, Iraq, and Cuba. These arguments and perspectives highlights the confusion around Chinese intentions, Sutter himself identifies how China wants to project an outward perception of a peaceful rise yet works against American interests in the region and works to affect a move away from the unipolar world of today to a multipolar world in the future.
China’s greatest concern is American presence and strength in Asia and the America-Japan alliance yet, ironically, America is its most important partner. To combat current and increasing American presence in central Asia, China has rapidly modernised its military and developed ballistic and cruise missiles with the wider aim to keep its periphery as free as possible of potentially hostile great powers. China can claim to be the strongest military power on continental Asia and no country, except maybe Japan, can challenge its naval and air power in Eastern Asia. Alongside strengthening its armed forces, China has highlighted its long-range nuclear weapons capability to deter the US and other potential adversaries by demonstrating its ability to launch a retaliatory second strike. It also has plans to increase its arsenal to include 1500 short- and intermediate-range missiles and short-range cruise missiles and to modernise its longer-range nuclear missiles so they are capable of hitting continental US and also develop submarine launched missile capability. China has regularly stated its rising global prominence should not be seen as a threat; however it’s ever increasing military strength and increasingly aggressive rhetoric is hardly a reflection of the peaceful intentions that China makes claim to. In fact, a People’s Liberation Army colonel and strategist, Liu Mingu, has written that China and the US should ‘fight to become the champion among nations’.
Lastly, one of the predominant features of the last Cold War was that the world was truly bipolar, the world was separated into two opposing factions headed by the US and USSR. There has been activity which could be argued is proof of another global alignment into opposing geopolitical groups but this argument is very thin. For example, China has invested heavily in Africa and Latin America but this is expected behaviour from the second largest economic power. Specifically, as of 2010 total Chinese investment in Africa stood at $9.3 billion, this investment, as with Chinese investment in Latin America, is designed to encourage multipolarity, a policy clearly aimed to undermine the American hegemony but such action cannot be seen as splitting the world along geopolitical lines like before. Furthermore, Europe remains prone to siding with the US on global issues, due to their close history and present day alliance through NATO; however, China is interested in the EU in particular economically resulting in the EU surpassing Japan and the US to become China’s largest trading partner in 2004 with China becoming the second largest EU partner after the US. Much of Eastern Europe is particularly concerned with apparent Russian aggression, which has very recently dismembered Ukraine, and questions its western ally’s willingness to intervene. While there appears to be some form of factionalism today, it is nowhere near cold war levels, yet are we really to expect such stark geopolitical blocs or would a new Cold War not create such a divided world like before, all important yet unanswered questions.
In conclusion, it is has been demonstrated that the idea of a bipolar world has vanished entirely and the unipolar world as we know it today is disappearing at an accelerating pace. No longer is the world dominated by the US and USSR like in the dark days of the Cold War, neither is it a unipolar world dominated by the US, the world is increasingly moving towards multipolarity. This new era of multipolarity is widely associated with the rise of China to the main international stage, furthermore with an increased number of major powers comes a natural increase in competition for dominance. Such competition has led some academics and commentators to label this increasing competition as a ‘new Cold War’ with some stating it involves America and Russia, others state America and China but very few seem to entertain the idea of a cold war involving multiple powers, something which is entirely feasible. On the other hand, some have argued the application of cold war thinking is extremely unhelpful and outdated which is incredibly logical as any likely future cold conflict would be distinctly different to that of 1945-91. These arguments are highly credible and very logical, to compare today’s and last century’s context seems illogical as the world is dramatically different today, it is more interconnected and globalised meaning a world divided along such distinct geopolitical lines like before is highly unlikely. The arguements of Monaghan are the most compelling, new Cold War thinking has indeed trapped the West in a 20th century thought process, while Russia and China are arguably a threat to the current world order, who is to say that a change towards multipolarity is a bad thing.
 Dictionary.com, ‘Foreign policy’, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/foreign-policy (accessed 14th November 2015)
 Robert Allen, The Penguin English Dictionary (London: The Penguin Group, 2002), p.163
 James R. Arnold and Roberta Wiener (eds.), Cold War: The Essential Reference Guide (Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, LCC, 2012), p.ix
 Ibid, p.ix
 Ibid, p.ix
 Ibid, pp.ix-x, xxix
 Richard Sakwa, ‘New Cold War or twenty years’ crisis? Russia and international politics’, International Affairs, 84:2 (2008), pp.241-267 (p.266)
 Andrew Monaghan, ‘A New Cold War? Abusing History, Understanding Russia’, Chatham House Royal Institute of International Affairs (May 2015), p.1, 3, 4; Sakwa, ‘New Cold War or twenty years’ crisis? Russia and international politics’, p.245
 Sakwa, ‘New Cold War or twenty years’ crisis? Russia and international politics’, p.245
 Monaghan, ‘A New Cold War? Abusing History, Understanding Russia’, p.14
 Bill Powell, ‘A New Cold War, Yes. But It’s With China Not Russia’, http://www.newsweek.com/2015/05/29/ us-china-cold-war-333948.html (accessed 14th November 2015)
 Edward Lucas, The New Cold War: Putin’s Threat to Russia and the West (London: Bloomsburg Publishing Plc, 2014), p.172
 Ibid, p.xiv, 259
 Lucas, The New Cold War: Putin’s Threat to Russia and the West, p.xxviii, xxx
 Monaghan, ‘A New Cold War? Abusing History, Understanding Russia’, pp.11-2
 Robert Legvold, ‘Managing the New Cold War’, Foreign Affairs, vol. 93, vol. 4, issue 4 (July/August 2014), pp.74-84
 Forbes, ‘The Biggest Military Budgets As A Percentage of GDP’, http://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2015/06/25/the-biggest-military-budgets-as-a-percentage-of-gdp-infographic-2/ (accessed 14th November 2015); Lucas, The New Cold War: Putin’s Threat to Russia and the West, p.246
 Walter LaFeber, America, Russia, and the Cold War, 1945-2006 (New York: The McGraw-Hill Companies, 2008), p.439
 LaFeber, America, Russia, and the Cold War, 1945-2006, p.449; The Economist, ‘An American warship sails through the disputed waters in the South China Sea’, http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21676983-long-awaited-freedom-navigation-operation-sure-anger-china-american-navy-sails-through (accessed 15th November 2015)
 Robert G. Sutter, Chinese Foreign Relations, Third Edition: Power and Policy Since the Cold War (Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc., 2012), p.150
 Sakwa, ‘New Cold War or twenty years’ crisis? Russia and international politics’, p.255
 Ibid, p.255
 Matthew S. Hirshberg, ‘Consistency and Change in American Perceptions of China’, Political Behaviour, vol. 15, no.3 (September 1993), pp.247-263 (p.252)
 Ibid, pp.250-1
 LaFeber, America, Russia, and the Cold War, 1945-2006, p.449
 Sutter, Chinese Foreign Relations, Third Edition: Power and Policy Since the Cold War, p.8
 Ibid, pp.54-5
 Lucas, The New Cold War: Putin’s Threat to Russia and the West, p.195
 Ibid, p.ix, xiv, 4
 Ibid, pp.x-xi
 Ibid, p.xi
 Lucas, The New Cold War: Putin’s Threat to Russia and the West, p.248; LaFeber, America, Russia, and the Cold War, 1945-2006, p.432
 Federation of American Scientists, ‘Status of World Nuclear Forces’, http://fas.org/issues/nuclear-weapons/status-world-nuclear-forces/ (accessed 15th November 2015)
 Lucas, The New Cold War: Putin’s Threat to Russia and the West, p.ix, xxv
 Monaghan, ‘A New Cold War? Abusing History, Understanding Russia’, p.13
 Lucas, The New Cold War: Putin’s Threat to Russia and the West, p.xxviii
 Ibid, p.13, 246
 Sakwa, ‘New Cold War or twenty years’ crisis? Russia and international politics’, p.255; Legvold, ‘Managing the New Cold War’
 LaFeber, America, Russia, and the Cold War, 1945-2006, p.446
 Ibid, p.446
 Powell, ‘A New Cold War, Yes. But It’s With China Not Russia’
 LaFeber, America, Russia, and the Cold War, p.269
 Sutter, Chinese Foreign Relations, Third Edition: Power and Policy Since the Cold War, p.p.147-8
 Ibid, p.2, 4
 Ibid, p.3, 11
 Ibid, p.29
 Ibid, p.143
 LaFeber, America, Russia, and the Cold War, p.441; Sutter, Chinese Foreign Relations, Third Edition: Power and Policy Since the Cold War, p.18
 Sutter, Chinese Foreign Relations, Third Edition: Power and Policy Since the Cold War, p.29, 59
 Ibid, p.115
 Ibid, pp.116-7
 Ibid, pp.116-7
 Powell, ‘A New Cold War, Yes. But It’s With China Not Russia’
 LaFeber, America, Russia, and the Cold War, p.448; Powell, ‘A New Cold War, Yes. But It’s With China Not Russia’;
 Sutter, Chinese Foreign Relations, Third Edition: Power and Policy Since the Cold War, p.319, 324
 Ibid, pp.288-9, 292
 The Guardian, ‘Poland’s warning to Europe: Russia’s aggression in Ukraine changes everything’, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/10/poland-warning-europe-russia-aggression-ukraine-smolensk-plane-crash (accessed 16th November 2015)
Arnold, James R. and Wiener, Roberta (eds.), Cold War: The Essential Reference Guide (Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, LCC, 2012)
LaFeber, Walter, America, Russia, and the Cold War, 1945-2006 (New York: The McGraw-Hill Companies, 2008)
Lucas, Edward, The New Cold War: Putin’s Threat to Russia and the West (London: Bloomsburg Publishing Plc, 2014)
Sutter, Robert G., Chinese Foreign Relations, Third Edition: Power and Policy Since the Cold War (Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc., 2012)
Hirshberg, Matthew S., ‘Consistency and Change in American Perceptions of China’, Political Behaviour, vol. 15, no.3 (September 1993), pp.247-263
Legvold, Robert, ‘Managing the New Cold War’, Foreign Affairs, vol. 93, vol. 4, issue 4 (July/August 2014), pp.74-84
Monaghan, Andrew, ‘A New Cold War? Abusing History, Understanding Russia’, Chatham House Royal Institute of International Affairs (May 2015)
Sakwa, Richard, ‘New Cold War or twenty years’ crisis? Russia and international politics’, International Affairs, 84:2 (2008), pp.241-267
Dictionary.com, ‘Foreign policy’, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/foreign-policy (accessed 14th November 2015)
Federation of American Scientists, ‘Status of World Nuclear Forces’, http://fas.org/issues/nuclear-weapons/status-world-nuclear-forces/ (accessed 15th November 2015)
Forbes, ‘The Biggest Military Budgets as a Percentage of GDP’, http://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2015/06/25/the-biggest-military-budgets-as-a-percentage-of-gdp-infographic-2/ (accessed 14th November 2015)
Powell, Bill, ‘A New Cold War, Yes. But It’s With China Not Russia’, http://www.newsweek.com/2015/05/29/us-china-cold-war-333948.html (accessed 14th November 2015)
The Economist, ‘An American warship sails through the disputed waters in the South China Sea’, http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21676983-long-awaited-freedom-navigation-operation-sure-anger-china-american-navy-sails-through (accessed 15th November 2015)
The Guardian, ‘Poland’s warning to Europe: Russia’s aggression in Ukraine changes everything’, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/10/poland-warning-europe-russia-aggression-ukraine-smolensk-plane-crash (accessed 16th November 2015)
Matthew Cella is currently reading a Masters degree in Security Intelligence and Diplomacy at the University of Buckingham after obtaining a degree in History at the University of Chichester. His career goal is working for the government in some capacity working on policy formulation. This piece of work was first submitted to University of Buckingham.
Cella is also a guest writer under our “Bamboo Shoots Scheme” which endeavours to help young IR students make their appearance in academia.
Featured image: http://www.wired.com/2015/07/secret-cold-war-maps/