Everybody might know about the cold war during 1941-1991 which was a state of geopolitical tension after WWII between U.S and Soviet Union. The term "cold" is used because there was no large-scale fighting directly between the two sides, but they each supported major regional wars known as proxy war.
Now, regarding to poisoned to Russian agent Sergal, the relations between the U.S, the western countries including UK and Russia becomes strongly heading to negative impact.
Some political scientists think that they worried about the cold war becomes again.
What of your opinions?
I really like how you used the phrase "lense of history". Speaking cohesively about the cold war - there have been many historical viewpoints such as The Orthodox View, The Revisionist View, The Post-Revisionist view among others which propose critical analysis's about the events which enfolded - what's your opinion on the use of historiographies?
I think it is fair to call the current tensions between Russia and the US and UK a cold war. However, as we now look back on the aforementioned period in the 20th century as a cold war, I believe that we will only be able to accurately label these events through the lense of history.
To a greater extent, The Cold War saw the formation of a tri-polar world: The United States of America; The People's Republic of China; and The USSR. However, it also saw the rise of Cuban style of communism, Vietnamese style of communism, and many developments in the Eastern European countries - including Berlin being the center of all tension.
What is your opinion about the recent developments in these countries? Do you believe the world today is still a tri-polar world? Or with recent developments in BRICS countries, and other Middle-Eastern countries, the balance of power is slowly shifting?
I'd love to hear your perspective :)