A brief historical perspective
Cold War was the period succeeding WWII until the late eighties and early nineties. It involved a de facto separation between the East (led by the former Soviet Union) and the West (led by the industrial World and U.S as a superpower). The idea of the "Iron Curtain"; a line drawn to mark the borders between the two worlds revealed what the separation meant. Many wondered about the transition of the East into a global player with the objective of integrating into an economic system able to compete in the global market. However, the order of the events took a completely new direction, different from what the world perceived on the verge of the 1990s anti-communist revolutions.
While the West - after WWII- strengthened the market economy, kept a pluralist political system, the East centralized the economy, the state, and relied on Marxism as the trajectory line of ideology, and as the foundation of the political and economic system.
During the Cold War - pushed by an out of control weapon and military race, we see a -completely new world order, a highly divided world, ideological wars, new zones of influence, and new markets. The hybrid system, the political power, and the planned economy marked the downfall of the economic and political systems of Eastern Europe.
I referred to the systems as hybrids because of a mix of state power and international cooperation through the Warsaw Treaty that dictated the ideological path. Whereas the West relied on their own economies, trade, alliances, and competition.
In fact, the new world order did not encourage elements of globalism, nor did it promote a form of colonialism or exploitation. The bottom political line was competition, military superiority and keeping the zones of influence, partnerships, and alliances rather than high levels of mercantilism.
Needless to say, the division created a climate of political uncertainty. The type of globalism that blew out of proportion after the 1990s, had to do more with imposing a new order, but the aim was strictly economic and corporate growth. The big players during the global age such as China and India were developing countries during the post-WWII. China experienced economic stability and experimented with a few ideological schools, but it always kept a balance and a systematic growth.
Cold War was nothing short of a battle for world power and unipolarity hegemony. URSS served as a proxy in a few conflicts and so did the West led by U.S. However, we saw a more complex pattern in the Eastern Bloc during the Cold War. Elements of nationalism and identity were overshadowed by international ideologies and especially Marxism. To this end, the imagined communities (states and former Soviet Union Republics and former satellite countries) had a common enemy and that was the West led by the U.S. But since these communities were not bound by language, ethnicity, and a shared historical past, they dissolved after the 1990s and created their own image and identity, yet most of them remained faithful to the former Soviet Union ideology and the dream of dominating the world, at least in a pervasive way. In other words, globalism in this scenario does not apply. As a matter of fact, seeds of instability were planted during the first transition years, and nowadays, many of the Eastern Block countries have suffering economies, corruption, and oligarchical patterns of state. Some of these countries are hoping to attach themselves to the European Union in a different way of globalism where they are willing to assume a submissive role, dictating economic policies, in exchange for the continuing lack of state and funds.
Today's globalism “disaster” is none other than the result of trades that the West (mainly U.S) signed with the developing countries with tremendous capacities, resources, and a great labor market. In conclusion, the key players during the Cold War are not dominating the global market more so than claiming the territories they lost after the collapse of the URSS. Yet their form of unipolarity relies mainly on their military “might” and dominating whether by force or by diplomacy the former republics. In other words, The East has kept the same profile after 1990 as it had been during the Cold War; the political dominance more so than economic superiority.