Deafening Silence While the Guns Do the Talking

It was one of those get-togethers of experts in international security that have become a rare feature in today’s world. The „usual suspects“, as they refer to themselves, had been brought together by the quest for ways and means, media and channels of communication, or strategic dialogue between Russia and the West.

A seasoned diplomat, and for many years the chief US envoy to NATO, stated that during the past fifty years he had never felt that the superpowers had come as close to war as they are now. Nobody among the experts objected to his comment.

The seriousness of the current confrontation cannot be ignored by sensible people, nor should it be allowed to drift ever more out of the control of the leaders on both sides. The crisis that has been building for more than a decade (the Crimea conflict only goes to show that communications had been seriously impaired) can only be compared to the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Berlin Crisis half a century ago, in terms of what is at stake and what needs to be done as a means of crisis control and careful management. It should be remembered that the stand off over Berlin and Cuba had a double meaning: the superpowers looked into the abyss, and then agreed that they did not want to say „goodbye“ to the world. Moreover, the era of „Deterrence and Detente“, in the words of the Harmel Report, was initiated. This policy has saved the world from major disaster ever since, but now, possibly, has run its course. The old order – global, nuclear, and bipolar – has lost its organizing power. The US still claims the pivotal role; Russia describes its objectives in terms of „New Order, or No Order“, and the People’s Republic of China claims the mantle of the Middle Kingdom after centuries of being absent from world affairs.

The world in its entirety, and the major powers in particular, are passing through a defining moment, but they are doing so in different directions, with different destinations, and different strengths and weaknesses. The situation is fraught with strategic misunderstanding; leaders are hard of hearing. A new and, when it comes to global security, mostly inexperienced generation of leaders is at the controls. Strategic dialogue is being reduced to loudspeaker exchanges, and the subtlety that helped make the Cold War an exercise in self-restraint is no longer appreciated. Domestic pressures have an impact on the international balance not only in democratic countries like the US, but also in countries of authoritarian observance, like China and Russia.

In this situation of virtual non-communication while the world is in turmoil, accidents are bound to happen and strategic misunderstandings are likely to have dangerous repercussions. Leaders must deal with changes far beyond their experience while the law of unintended consequences looks for victims. There is an urgent need, therefore, to explore the new risks and dangers, starting with Cyberspace, but not ending with hybrid warfare, and to do it together, making use of conferences, publications, and meetings, like Sochi and the recent winter Olympics, or the meetings of leaders at Schloss Elmau in Bavaria this last spring. Not having to meet the antagonist simplifies matters, but it also aggravates an already conflict-driven situation. The starting point should always be that we are in this together and that we have only one world, no less and no more.

Government, diplomacy, intelligence – they all have a part to play. But it is in the thinktank world – or rather, the serious part of it – that some of the ground work can and must be laid once again, as it was during the crisis-driven months before and after the fall of the Berlin Wall. It was obvious then that the world was on a collision course, and it is obvious now, but with a less certain outcome. Therefore, to test and develop the new rules of the road for a post-bipolar system, while cyber-dynamics add to risk and unease, is of utmost importance. Bipolarity is over, and so is the role of the US as the sole surviving superpower. But the world is still a dangerous place, as the Pentagon used to describe the state of affairs after1990, and in need of enlightened and benevolent leadership. So far, Russia’s stabilizing role has been – mostly, but there are positive exceptions – conspicuous because of its absence.

Meanwhile, the rise of China is changing many established beliefs and assumptions, and, in fact, the global geometry of power. The earlier we understand these new – and dangerous – dynamics, the better the chance we will have to manage risk, uncertainty, and unpredictability. There is no substitute for constructive dialogue.

Views expressed are of individual Members and Contributors, rather than the Club's, unless explicitly stated otherwise.