The current mass expulsion of Russian diplomats by the United States (US) and its European allies is reminiscent of the cold war era’s espionage skirmishes and diplomatic rows. Last Monday the US and its European allies expelled 100 Russian diplomats from their respective countries while the US went a step further closing Russian consulate in Seattle. The row is the reaction of alleged Russian involvement in the murder of Sergei Skirpal, a former Russian spy, in London. Though, the cold war era assumed a metaphorical importance and became an unavoidable reference period in international relations, the current alignments might not assume the characteristics of the Cold War era’s bipolar world. First, the emerging alignments lack political and religious ideological underpinnings and intensity of the 20th century. By and large Christianity and Islam were in unison in opposition to Communism. Therefore, that element of ideological glue is missing in this new alignment which is based on vested geo-strategic and economic interests necessitating containments of the adversarial powers. As was seen in the past, a majority of Muslim states bore a visible tilt towards the West. Secondly, Russia replaced the USSR whose former states in Eastern Europe are now members of NATO and European Union. Currently, Russia has one and half explicit allies, Turkey and Syria in West Asia and half in Europe, because Turkey straddles West Asia and Europe, while Iran, though presently its interests converge with Russia and Turkey in Syria, its position in other theatres like South Asia is not clear so far. If the US violates its hospitality in Afghanistan by prolonging its stay to control the Afghan foreign policy or reduces it to a launching pad for vested interests, it may also create unrest in future Thirdly, the new alliance between Pakistan, Russia and Turkey is being shaped by reactive diplomacy and shifting interests. About two years ago, similar to Pakistan, Turkey was firmly allied with the US and was supporting the US War on Terror particularly in Iraq and Syria. Turkey even went so far to shoot down a Russian aircraft fighter in 2016. Russia responded strongly to the incident by severing trade and economic ties with Turkey which badly affected Turkey, particularly its agriculture and tourism sectors. In case of intransigence, there was also a possibility of Russian support for the Kurds in the region. The adverse reaction by Russia forced Turkey to apologise which turned the tides. The US looked askance at Turkey’s changed behaviour. However, the abortive attempt of military coup against Erdogan in July 2016 proved the last straw to break the camel’s back. Erdogan smelt rat and directly blamed Fatehullah Gulen, a Turkish dissident based in the US. But the probability of the US machination behind the abortive coup was not ruled out either. Whispers and reports prevailed in the diplomatic circles of a possible Russian intelligence tip saving Erdogan. This pushed Turkey, a NATO member, closer to Russia. Much to the chagrin of the US and its European allies, currently there are reports that Russia sold S400 missiles to Turkey. This renewed cooperation between Russia and Turkey turned the game in Syria by supporting Asad’s regime to regain lost areas. Presently, as per reports 80 to 85 per cent is under his control. In fact, Russia began to assert its position and global status under Putin after coming out of the hangover of USSR’s dismemberment. More or less, Russia-US relations swing between cooperation and competition. Tensions surfaced with the debacle in Georgia and Crimea looked upon by Russia as a direct threat to its hegemony in the region. However, Russia refused to remain indifferent in case of Syria as it did during the first Gulf War in 1991, War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq after 9/11 and later toppling of the Qaddafi regime. Donald Trump’s policy speeches during the election campaign, particularly of reducing US military global non diplomatic engagements clearly articulated the US-first approach. Trump made it clear that instead of protecting other countries priority had to be given to the US. Perhaps that policy increased Russian expectations of Trump recognising the aspirant status of Russia, particularly in the region and areas of its immediate concern. Though, Trump won the election in face of stiff opposition by the US media, some also suspect the establishment role. But the ensuing controversies regarding the alleged role of Russia’s influence in the Trump presidential election of November 2016, perhaps forced him to revise his policy. Trump also revised his election campaign’s timeline regarding Afghanistan and adopted tough position on Afghanistan-Pak. Unequivocally and publically he talked tough on Pakistan’s adverse role in the current conflict in Afghanistan. Though, Pakistan already began to divert toward the East anchoring on China and extending an olive branch to Russia, the events of the last few years brought the erstwhile rivals close to each other. Unfortunately, the high level Russian military delegation visit to Pakistan and particularly to North Waziristan last year and the US army general’s recent allegations of Russia providing arms to the Afghan Taliban did not bode well for the region, especially Afghanistan and from North to South West Pakhtun region on this side of the Durand Line. The mindboggling question is, whether Putin will settle scores with the US by contemplating some sort of Syria like action in Afghanistan or will it restrict to the level of providing arms and military advice to the Taliban. What would be the reaction of the US? It has created fresh fear in the minds of conflict weary and affected Afghanistan as well as Pakhtun on this side of the Durand Line. If the US violates its hospitality in Afghanistan by prolonging its stay to control the Afghan foreign policy or reduces it to a launching pad for vested interests, it may also create unrest in future. But currently Afghanistan does not look to the presence of the US on its soil as they did to the Soviet intervention. The contours are diametrically different. The opposition to Afghan revolution was not widespread and across the board in Afghan society as was the case in Taliban’s archaic retrogressive regime. Moreover, the opposition to the revolutionary regime came from the religious extremists and tribal feudal reactionaries which was foreign instigated and sponsored. The Soviet intervention, opposed by both Noor Mohammad Taraki and Amin, further made the revolutionary regime vulnerable and provided excuse to western interference in the name of Jihad. However, a sizable portion of Afghan population in the form of PDPA, Parcham Parties and the Pakhtun nationalists on this side of the Durand Line had a soft corner for the Soviet. In contrast, Taliban’s regime opposed by majority of the Afghan, was not accepted even by the former so called Mujahideen leaders and was considered as a proxy regime. The US led action was later sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1386 (2001) against the Taliban regime was welcomed by the Afghans. However, blatant intervention by Russia supporting Taliban will affect Afghanistan and Pakhtun on this side of the Durand Line and runs the risk of alienating them completely. Now it is the responsibility of the citizens of the ‘civilised’ world, including Russia, to raise their voice against interventions by global as well as regional powers and to cease the inhuman game of proxy wars in poverty afflicted countries for vested geo-strategic interests, particularly in Afghanistan and adjacent Pakhtun region. The writer is Sawat-based political analyst. He tweets @MirSwat Published in Daily Times, March 30th 2018.