The precipice is close to falling without remedy, but while steps can be taken in the opposite direction, it is necessary to explore all the options, since world security depends on it. That seemed to be the motto of the Russian administration.

In spite of the expectations created after the announcement by Moscow of the withdrawal of the bulk of its contingent from Syria, when defeating the terrorist movement Islamic State (IS), Washington began the year with the greatest presence in the Levantine country.

In fact, the reality in the field of an IS cornered everywhere in Syria seemed to accelerate or multiply the search by the White House of how to revive the extremists, whose existence pretends to justify the US presence.

Russia openly exposed US plans and even led to analysis in the UN Security Council the need for US troops to remain illegally in Syria, where they were never called by Damascus.

On the other hand, the United States continued with its harvest of new pretexts to apply restrictions against Moscow, because another front of confrontation was opened from the objective that Washington seems to have considered: to sabotage the Russian economy.

This happened more strongly when the Russian president, in his speech before the Federal Assembly, the Government and religious, scientific and military representatives, presented his plan for the development of the country until 2026 and in some cases until 2030.

One of the topics that most worried the United States was that of technological advances in the military sphere. Putin showed videos and graphics of the new armaments, mostly without equivalent in the world.

Among the conclusions that the White House seemed to draw at that time was the symbolic effect of the unilateral sanctions applied until that moment against Russia, for which it was necessary to strike more sensitive spheres for its economy.

Washington took advantage of the London campaign to accuse Moscow of being behind an alleged chemical attack against the former Russian military intelligence agent Serguei Skripal and his daughter Julia, without presenting any kind of concrete evidence.

That does not play any role for the United States, the important thing was to have a new argument, in addition to the overused accusation of the alleged Russian interference in US domestic affairs.

For the summer, precisely when there was the first and only formal meeting of Russian President Vladimir Putin and his US counterpart, Donald Trump, in Helsinki, instead of reducing the harshness, others less hopeful emerged.

Moscow denounced that the USwas determined to stop the Russian military industry, which outlined contracts for the sale of its modern anti-aircraft systems S-400 to Saudi Arabia and Turkey while winning contests to sell fighters to India.

Therefore, among the new sanctions were companies of the Russian military industrial complex and related research centers.

Another important area, energy, also became the target of sanctions. At the time, several Russian politicians, including Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, agreed to denounce that the United States applies pressure methods for economic purposes.

Instead of adhering to the precepts of the free market that defended and taught other countries of the world to comply, the United States presses and plays dirty when competition is not its strong point in some areas of trade; it is considered in the Kremlin.

One of the points of friction is the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline project that would take some 55 billion cubic meters of gas per year, from stations in Siberia to Germany, across the Baltic Sea, without intermediaries.

The United States, in addition to applying sanctions for another cause (the alleged violation by Russia of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, INF), against Russian gas companies, said that the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline threatens Europe. The White House publicly speaks of a danger to Europe's energy security, but in parallel, it proposes its compressed gas in this market, with a much higher cost.

In the midst of this dispute, Putin and Trump intended to hold formal meetings, first in Paris, in the framework of the celebrations for the centenary of the end of the First World War, in mid-November. But then they had to reduce it to a brief contact.

Another meeting was planned that same month in Buenos Aires, as part of the summit of the Group of 20, but after the Ukrainian provocation near the Kerch Strait, Trump decided to cancel that appointment.

All this occurred in the middle of the dispute between Moscow and Washington over the White House announcement of its withdrawal from the INF and its accusations against Russia for alleged violation of that agreement.

The year 2018 leaves in suspense, like the most appreciated films of horror, the concrete consequences of the deterioration of the relations between both nuclear powers.

* Prensa Latina Chief Correspondent in Russia.