In order to stop Europe’s slide into a major military crisis, vigorous efforts are needed to achieve a political settlement between Russia and NATO. An important basis for such negotiations should be a renewed quality of training for diplomats capable of conducting an in-depth analysis of the partner’s positions and constructive empathy, Valdai Club Programme Director Andrey Sushentsov writes.
Until recently, we believed that in 2015 the Russian-American confrontation had reached its peak. At the Senate defence budget debate, Democratic Senator Jack Reed, with great annoyance, said that American funds for studying Russian policy had fallen dangerously low. The senator stated that the US either misunderstands Russia’s actions, or it cannot interpret moves that should not be surprising and mysterious for America. Additional investment in this area is urgently needed.
After seven years, we have to admit that Russian policy is interpreted in the West very primitively. The Western narrative is that the Russian leadership is trying to recreate the Soviet Union and sees a need for constant expansion. A distorted interpretation of the motives of Russian foreign policy has led to the fact that the ground for a systemic crisis has arisen in Europe. The United States saw the main goal of its European policy as supporting the maximalist demands of the Baltic states, Ukraine, and Poland against Russia. The military-political interests of France, Germany or, say, Portugal turned out to be less significant than the complaints of Estonia and Lithuania toward Moscow.
However, is it possible to create a stable security system based on the requirements of small countries with maximalist demands? What will happen if Russia responds with a symmetrical argument? For example: “Cuba is our most important foreign policy priority. Until Cuba’s security is guaranteed, we will not discuss any other issues with the US.” This is exactly what the United States is doing now with respect to Russia. Moscow agrees that the security interests of small countries are important, but it is also important to consider the security interests of all participants within the system, including the largest ones. The history of the Cold War clearly shows that such a stable system of confrontation management and conflict resolution is possible.
Time after time, Russia’s proposals to create an inclusive security system in Europe were disregarded. One of the reasons for the inability to listen to Russian proposals is that, from the point of view of geopolitics, time is structured differently for Russia and the West. In the West, it is tied to domestic election cycles. The current administration in Washington does not feel bound by the previous administration’s promises. The cyclical change of national interests in Washington is exacerbated by inter-party struggle: the limits of reasonable interaction with Moscow for one party may be absolutely unacceptable for another. On the contrary, for Russia, geopolitical time is measured by epochs, the beginning of which coincides with major historical events — wars, peace agreements, political upheavals, etc.
The post-World War II era was based on several formal and informal agreements, such as the division of spheres of influence in Europe. Some of them were agreed upon orally and were never put on paper. This is the source of Moscow’s disappointment with NATO’s repudiation of its promises not to expand eastward: for Russia, the significance of the verbal agreements of the late 1980s and early 1990s was obvious, although the Western elites refer to the extraordinary nature of those events, referring to the rapid collapse of the bipolar world order. In the West, what happened in the early 1990s is viewed as a time when words did not carry much weight, because the West had “won the Cold War”.
The statement of the new German Chancellor Olaf Scholz that the security system in Europe cannot be aimed against Russia are fair and correct. Unfortunately, in recent decades, events have taken the opposite direction. In order to stop Europe’s slide into a major military crisis, vigorous efforts are needed to achieve a political settlement between Russia and NATO. An important basis for such negotiations should be a renewed quality of training for diplomats capable of conducting an in-depth analysis of the partner’s positions and constructive empathy. Of course, these negotiations should be held in conditions where the parties have an equal interest in achieving a result. It is no longer possible to pass on to future generations the solution of the main problem of European security.
