It seems the U.S. military may have acted prematurely in preparing to award medals to Cold War veterans. The war now looks set to break out anew.

The heads of Russia's military and diplomatic departments have been making statements of unprecedented harshness, recalling the days of fierce standoffs between the U.S.S.R. and the West.

The friction between Russia and the West has been growing all year. It began with the NATO operation against Yugoslavia. Russia was indignant that its protests were ignored and went a stage further than breaking off contacts with the NATO "aggressor bloc."

The Russian military asserted that Western nations might undertake an airborne campaign against Russia like that carried out against Yugoslavia. They initiated maneuvers whereby strategic bombers flew over the Atlantic within range of a nuclear strike and simulated the launch of winged missiles against American territory.

At the same time, the Russian State Duma (lower house of parliament) finally buried the START-II treaty, under which Russia and the United States were to have cut their nuclear arsenals by half.

The U.S. Congress forced the country's administration to begin work on developing a national anti-missile defense system. The order undermined the ABM treaty, which was the basis of all agreements on strategic defense. This was yet another sign that Washington now intends to ensure security by means of force, rather than treaties.

Until recently, it seemed that it would be possible to stop the return to the Cold War. The slide to confrontation was reversible so long as the two sides were asserting their national interests rationally, albeit harshly. Cooperation in the military-political sphere prevented confrontation because it was beneficial to both sides.

The Nann-Lugar program, for example, provided improved security for Russian nuclear arsenals, and cooperation between Russian and NATO forces in Bosnia and Kosovo. The situation changed fundamentally when both Russia and the West began to behave irrationally, acting on inveterate suspicions and fears. The catalyst was the Russian anti-terrorist campaign in Chechnya.

The West did not see this operation as Russia's only chance of putting an end to a rebellious republic. Rather, it felt that Russia remains an empire like the Soviet Union, which on the verge of the 21st century is ensuring the submission of its colonies by force of arms.

Moscow's answer was just as irrational. Defense Minister Igor Sergeyev, speaking at a meeting of senior staff of the armed forces, said that, "The national interests of the U.S. correspond to a scenario in which an armed conflict is constantly smoldering in the North Caucasus." This is essentially a direct accusation that Washington is intentionally impeding Moscow in its fight with the rebels.

This comment was by no means an error. A few days later, speaking at an international conference organized by the Russian Diplomatic Academy, Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Avdeyev stated that Russia is approaching a conflict with the United States. Anatoly Kvashnin, head of the General Staff, saw in the West a "growing readiness to use military force in its direct, most crude form at various levels."

He told his amazed listeners: "The operations in Kosovo and Iraq only herald this readiness. We must assume that it may extend to other, including former Soviet, territories."

Previously, one had the consoling thought that such statements were made by military officers brought up in the Communist Party's tradition of "a spirit of hatred of imperialism." An irrational and ideological interpretation of the West's actions is clearly becoming mainstream Russian policy. It is telling that its mouthpiece is Sergeyev, possibly the most rational member of Russia's military, who up to now had not been associated with confrontational statements.

A television interview with Prime Minister Vladimir Putin dispelled all doubt: He himself demanded that the minister take up a clear position. If the first Cold War began with Churchill's words that an iron curtain was separating Eastern Europe from the rest of the world, the second one may begin with Putin's forceful statement that, "We don't need any sniveling generals."

Instead, we need generals, Putin is saying, to threaten the West. If this is so, it is a grave mistake: It is precisely in the area of military security that the West most values its links with Russia. The West can tolerate the nonsense written and spoken by Russian politicians, but when people in uniforms falsely interpret its actions, it gets nervous.

A little more of this, and the United States and Western Europe will take these statements in earnest and begin arming themselves. Russia will then try to keep up, to retain its ability to seriously frighten the West. But if the country is militarized, it means the end of democracy.