[Part 6]One of the most peculiar and fascinating anecdotes from the Cold War era involves the 1975 Apollo-Soyuz Test Project, a joint space mission between the United States and the Soviet Union. At the height of the Cold War—a time marked by espionage, nuclear brinkmanship, and ideological hostility—two enemy superpowers decided, against all odds, to meet in space.On 17 July 1975, American astronauts and Soviet cosmonauts docked their spacecraft in orbit, shook hands through a hatch, exchanged gifts (including a tree seedling and commemorative medals), and conducted joint experiments. The handshake in space was broadcast live, symbolising a brief thaw in relations known as "détente." What made it so extraordinary was that while both nations were still spying on each other and arming to the teeth, they managed to share oxygen, data, and even jokes beyond Earth’s atmosphere.One Soviet engineer famously remarked, “It’s easier to cooperate in orbit than on Earth,” highlighting the absurdity of Cold War politics—where nations would rather risk mutual annihilation on the ground than admit shared humanity in space.The Cold War was not a conventional war marked by soldiers clashing on battlefields, but rather a prolonged period of geopolitical tension and ideological rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union, lasting roughly from the end of World War II in 1945 to the early 1990s. It was called "cold" because it never escalated into a direct, full-scale military conflict between the two superpowers. Instead, it unfolded through proxy wars, nuclear arms races, espionage, propaganda, and political manoeuvring across nearly every continent.Each side championed a contrasting vision of the world: the United States promoted capitalism and liberal democracy, while the Soviet Union propagated communism and a centrally planned economy. Nations were drawn into this polarised struggle, often having to choose sides or suffer consequences. The Cold War created massive military build-ups, the threat of nuclear annihilation, and cultural divides that shaped everything from international alliances to Olympic rivalries and Hollywood films.What made it especially bizarre was how ordinary life went on under the shadow of global destruction. Children in American schools practised "duck and cover" drills as if hiding under a desk could save them from a nuclear bomb. Meanwhile, Soviet citizens queued for bread while their government bragged about building missiles that could reach New York in minutes.The Cold War emerged in the aftermath of World War II, not because of territorial disputes or traditional military ambitions, but due to deep ideological, political, and economic differences between the United States and the Soviet Union. These two superpowers, once uneasy allies against Nazi Germany, quickly became bitter rivals once the common enemy was defeated. The Americans viewed communism as a threat to freedom, individual rights, and capitalism, while the Soviets saw Western liberal democracy as exploitative, imperialistic, and dangerously destabilising.It was called the "Cold" War because it lacked the direct military confrontations that define traditional wars. Instead, it played out through psychological warfare, propaganda, covert operations, espionage, and proxy wars—conflicts in other countries where each superpower supported opposing sides. This war was about influence, ideology, and domination of global systems, fought in parliaments, classrooms, movie theatres, and even outer space.What made it chilling was not just the name. The constant threat of nuclear war—of mutually assured destruction—hung over the world like a mushroom cloud. This wasn’t a war with bullets and bombs on the frontlines, but with spies, secrets, and a terrifying sense that one wrong move could end civilisation itself.The Cold War did not occur in a single location like traditional wars—it was a global conflict of influence that touched almost every corner of the world. It began shortly after the end of World War II, around 1947, and lasted until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Rather than open battles between armies, the Cold War was fought through proxy wars, economic pressure, propaganda campaigns, espionage, and technological competition.The main players were the United States, leading the Western bloc—which included Western European countries like the United Kingdom, France, West Germany, Italy, Canada, Japan, and members of NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization)—versus the Soviet Union, leading the Eastern bloc, which included communist allies like East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Cuba, North Korea, North Vietnam, and China (until the Sino-Soviet split in the 1960s).The background of the Cold War lies in ideological conflict. The US promoted capitalism and liberal democracy, while the USSR pushed for communism and a centrally planned economy. After WWII, both superpowers emerged as dominant global forces and began vying for influence over decolonising nations, global trade routes, military alliances, and technological prestige (like the Space Race).The Cold War ended in 1991, largely due to the internal collapse of the Soviet Union. Factors included economic stagnation, the failed war in Afghanistan, widespread public dissatisfaction, and the reformist policies of Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, including glasnost (openness) and perestroika (restructuring). These reforms weakened the USSR’s grip over its satellite states, led to the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, and eventually dismantled the Soviet Union itself.The dramatic collapse of the Soviet Union, a colossal political entity that once spanned a vast swathe of the globe, was a multifaceted process driven by a confluence of internal weaknesses and external pressures. By the late 1980s, the centrally planned Soviet economy was in dire straits, struggling to keep pace with Western technological advancements and facing widespread shortages of consumer goods, which led to deep public dissatisfaction. The costly and protracted war in Afghanistan had further drained resources and morale, exposing the limitations of Soviet military power.Mikhail Gorbachev, who ascended to power in 1985, attempted to revitalise the ailing system through his policies of Glasnost (openness) and Perestroika (restructuring). While these reforms aimed to introduce a degree of political and economic liberalisation, they inadvertently unleashed forces that ultimately accelerated the Union's demise. Greater transparency allowed for public criticism of the Communist Party's failings, and the economic reforms, rather than stimulating growth, often exacerbated existing problems, leading to further social unrest.Crucially, Gorbachev's loosening grip on the satellite states in Eastern Europe emboldened nationalist movements within the various Soviet republics. These republics, many of which had distinct ethnic and cultural identities, began to assert their sovereignty, demanding greater autonomy or outright independence from Moscow. The failed August 1991 coup attempt by hardline communists, intended to reverse Gorbachev's reforms and restore central control, proved to be the final nail in the coffin. The coup was swiftly thwarted, largely due to the popular resistance led by Boris Yeltsin, then President of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic. This event significantly undermined Gorbachev's authority and cemented the shift of power towards the republics.Following the coup's collapse, a domino effect of independence declarations swept through the remaining republics. On 8 December 1991, the leaders of Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus signed the Belovezha Accords, effectively declaring the Soviet Union defunct and establishing the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). This act formally marked the end of the USSR. On 25 December 1991, Mikhail Gorbachev resigned as President, and the Soviet flag was lowered from the Kremlin for the final time, replaced by the Russian tricolour. The following day, the Soviet of the Republics, the upper chamber of the Supreme Soviet, officially dissolved the Union. From the ashes of the Soviet Union emerged 15 independent nations, with the Russian Federation, under Yeltsin's leadership, becoming the primary successor state and inheriting much of the former superpower's territory, diplomatic standing, and nuclear arsenal.Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union in December 1991, fifteen new independent states emerged from its vast territory. These nations, each with its own unique history and aspirations, were: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan.According to The Cold War: A New History by John Lewis Gaddis (2005, Penguin Press), ideas, leaders, and ideologies were not mere background elements—they were the engines that drove the Cold War forward and made it one of the most perilous chapters in modern history. Gaddis, often referred to as the "dean of Cold War historians," argues that the Cold War wasn’t just about territory or economics; it was a grand clash of visions about how the world should be organised. On one side stood the liberal democratic ideal of freedom, markets, and individual rights, promoted by the United States. On the other was the Marxist-Leninist vision of a classless society controlled by a vanguard party, enforced by the Soviet Union.Leaders like Joseph Stalin, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, Nikita Khrushchev, and later Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev, each played out these ideologies on the global stage—not just with military or economic power, but with words, symbolism, and calculated postures. Gaddis shows how personalities influenced history: Stalin’s paranoia intensified repression; Kennedy’s charisma redefined diplomacy; Reagan’s rhetoric of “evil empire” reignited tensions, while Gorbachev’s openness ironically dismantled the system he tried to save.The Cold War mattered profoundly because it was not merely a competition between two powerful nations, but a struggle over the fate of the entire world—a battle of ideologies that determined how billions of people would live, work, and think for nearly half a century. Gaddis emphasises that the Cold War was the first global conflict in which human extinction became a real possibility—not because of traditional warfare, but because of the sheer destructive power of nuclear weapons.The world came dangerously close to nuclear catastrophe on multiple occasions, the most famous being the Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962. Gaddis explains that this 13-day standoff between the United States and the Soviet Union brought the planet to the very edge of annihilation. Soviet nuclear missiles were stationed in Cuba, just 90 miles from the American coast. The U.S. responded with a naval blockade and full military alert. One misstep, one misunderstood signal, could have triggered a nuclear exchange with devastating consequences.Gaddis underlines how fortunate the world was that restraint—however fragile—prevailed. He credits a combination of leadership, luck, and communication for saving humanity from disaster. The Cold War, in his analysis, is not just a historical episode, but a cautionary tale: it reminds us that when ideology blinds reason, and when fear drives policy, the world teeters on the edge of destruction.In Gaddis’ view, it was not inevitability, but choice, that shaped the Cold War. Leaders had agency, ideas had consequences, and ideologies turned into battlegrounds not only on land, but in the hearts and minds of people. The Cold War was dangerous not because missiles were launched, but because they could have been, had the ideas that justified their existence spiralled out of control.In Iron Curtain: The Crushing of Eastern Europe, 1944–1956 (2012, Allen Lane), Anne Applebaum meticulously documents how the Soviet Union imposed totalitarian control over Eastern European countries in the aftermath of World War II. Drawing on previously secret archives, testimonies, and memoirs, Applebaum exposes a systematic, multi-layered strategy designed to eliminate dissent and erase the possibility of independent thought.She reveals how the Soviets began by taking over radio stations, newspapers, schools, and youth organisations—essentially seizing control of every institution that shaped public opinion. Free press was suffocated, education was rewritten to glorify Stalin and communism, and organisations like the Young Pioneers were used to indoctrinate children from an early age. Political opponents were harassed, arrested, or simply disappeared. Show trials were staged not to deliver justice, but to intimidate society into submission.Applebaum also describes how fear was weaponised. Secret police infiltrated neighbourhoods, workplaces, and even families, creating a culture of suspicion and silence. People turned on each other not just out of loyalty to the regime, but out of fear of being reported. This wasn't just a political takeover—it was a psychological occupation of everyday life. She makes clear that this wasn’t accidental or chaotic; it was coldly calculated and brutally efficient.Through Iron Curtain, Applebaum illustrates that totalitarianism doesn’t arrive overnight with tanks, but rather creeps in by erasing the ability to think freely, communicate honestly, and trust one another.While the Cold War demonstrated how geopolitical rivalries could reshape the world without direct military confrontation, it also reminded us that the threat of war—especially nuclear war—was always present, looming just beneath the surface of diplomacy and ideology. This raises an essential question: what, exactly, is war, and how should it be understood? To answer this, we must turn from the global chessboard of Cold War politics to the timeless battlefield of military theory, where thinkers like Carl von Clausewitz offer foundational insights. His exploration of the principles of war helps us grasp not just how wars are fought, but why they occur, how they escalate, and what makes them succeed or fail.
Principles of War by Carl von Clausewitz, is a concise summary of his larger and more famous work, On War. Though written in the early 19th century, its ideas remain profoundly influential in both military strategy and political philosophy. In this shorter manual, Clausewitz presents basic but enduring truths about the nature and purpose of war, distilling his more complex theories into accessible principles for military students and practitioners.At its core, the book explains that war is not an isolated act, but rather an extension of politics by other means. Clausewitz argues that warfare should always be guided by political objectives—without a clear purpose, military action is senseless and destructive. He warns against glorifying war as heroic or romantic, insisting instead that it is a dangerous, chaotic, and unpredictable instrument of policy.Among the key ideas in Principles of War is the importance of moral forces—such as courage, leadership, discipline, and public opinion—which Clausewitz believes are just as decisive as numbers and firepower. He also stresses the need for flexibility: while planning is essential, no strategy survives first contact with the enemy. Therefore, successful commanders must adapt rapidly to changing circumstances.Although Principles of War is far more straightforward than On War, it retains Clausewitz’s profound message: that war is a deeply human endeavour, governed not only by reason, but by fear, chance, emotion, and uncertainty. It’s not a mechanical science—it’s an art of judgement in the face of chaos.Unlike his more philosophical and expansive work On War, this shorter text was written specifically for military instruction and outlines practical guidelines that a commander should follow. Clausewitz doesn’t lay them out as a rigid list like commandments, but rather as interconnected elements that reflect how war functions in reality.In the realm of warfare, several core tenets underpin effective military strategy. Foremost among these is the primacy of political purpose, underscoring that conflict must invariably be a servant to a political objective. Without a clearly defined political aim, military endeavours risk becoming reckless and devoid of direction.Another crucial principle is the concentration of force, which dictates that triumph often hinges on marshalling superior strength at pivotal points rather than dissipating resources thinly across a wide area. This is closely linked to the need for simplicity and clarity in planning and execution; intricate plans frequently unravel amidst the chaos of battle, making straightforward, adaptable strategies far more effective.Furthermore, one must never underestimate the moral and psychological dimension of war. Elements such as astute leadership, unyielding courage, prevailing public opinion, and the morale of the troops themselves wield a profound influence, frequently outweighing sheer material strength. This is compounded by the inherent unpredictability of war, often referred to as 'friction'. No battle plan, however meticulously crafted, truly survives contact with the adversary. Consequently, adaptability and sound judgement under duress prove far more valuable than strict adherence to rigid doctrine.Finally, while a defensive posture may offer inherent strength, initiative and offensive action are typically indispensable for securing a lasting victory. Seizing the opportune moment to take the offensive is often the decisive factor.
[Part 4]
