Let’s talk, but not about a war that ended long ago

Sergei Karaganov suggests that the Cold War is not over, it has merely lulled. He is entitled to his view, the view of a Russian with professional interests in politics, but it is not one that is much held in the West. The Cold War was between the Soviet regime and the democratic world. On one side were a group of nations that valued individual liberty and the rule of law. On the other was the Soviet regime, a dictatorship with a policy of enslavement – of individuals, societies and nations. When the Soviet Union finally collapsed in 1991 the Cold War was over. It was as simple as that.

Karaganov says that the West claimed victory. But there was little triumphalism in the West, more a feeling of relief, and expressions of magnanimity towards the old enemy, which had ended up broken and poor.

In support of Karaganov’s contention that the Cold War is unfinished, he sees NATO as the prime cold warrior. It is true that the downfall of the Soviet empire has in no way affected the determination of NATO countries ‘”to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilization of their peoples”. While the Soviet threat led to the emergence of NATO, it had long been preceded by a western alliance held together by traditional democratic values combined with a common interest in security. New candidates, by their very desire to join NATO, reaffirm its relevance and that they are willing to participate in the defence of the values it stands for.

Karaganov proposes a new “peace” treaty between Russia and Europe. The weakness of this proposal is that it presumes the existence of a latent “cold war” that could quickly become a warm war or even a hot one. Russians may believe this, others may dismiss it as nonsense.

The reality in Europe is that it is at peace, a condition that it has not enjoyed for centuries. The EU countries are no threat to one another or to any other country. I am surprised that Karaganov does not mention the European Union as a provider of security, where a policy of self-limitation for the sake of common benefits has created an environment that favours the formulation of political and legal arrangements rather than the gun. The security provided by the EU and NATO is the magnet that has attracted new members.

It is perfectly understandable that Russia does not feel comfortable on Europe’s periphery. No one likes to be an outsider. That’s the reasoning behind the idea of “new security architecture“ in Europe. And it should be said that talks, under whatever fanciful heading they take place, are often productive and at least are unlikely to do harm.

Russia is no longer broken and poor and understandably aspires to be one of the leaders of today’s world. To gain that status and be respected for it the Kremlin needs to re-think its future. First, Russia should cease to view NATO and the EU as its rivals. Second, it should acknowledge that the overwhelming majority of European states are attached to four fundamental principles: 1) that the United States’ long contribution to the security of Europe must be maintained; 2) that NATO is indispensible and complementary to the EU; 3) that every European state is free to choose its alliances; and 4) that privileged spheres of influence are unacceptable.

Russia is more than welcome to subscribe to these core principles for security in Europe. Talks with Russia? Fine, but not against the background of a “war” that ended long ago.