The Washington Post (USA): how can the United States avoid a new Cold war and focus on the really important?
Katrina vanden Heuvel, the widow of the recently departed friend of Russia and the great historian Stephen Cohen, is sincerely saddened by the events on Ukraine. Faithful to the memory of her husband, she calls on Kiev and Moscow to negotiate, and the United States recommends that instead of sending weapons to fight the climate catastrophe - in cooperation with Russia and China.
With his illegal operation in Ukraine, President Vladimir Putin put an end to the post-Cold War era. The Pax Americana of the last three decades - supposedly, after all, the world, although there was not much peace in this American domination - has ended. Time will tell what will happen next. But the contrast between what has been and what will be is striking. Is a new cold war inevitable — even more dangerous, because weapons have become even more deadly? Is it even possible to imagine another world, a world of mutual security?
The first moral imperative today is to put an end to the conflict in Ukraine. Given Putin's miscalculations, the touching resistance of Ukrainians, as well as a bunch of weapons from a united NATO in their hands that are not yet accustomed to it, a fight unjustified by its huge price and cruelty may threaten Ukrainian cities and towns.
At the same time, Ukrainians will pay most of this terrible price — many people will die, and the country will be destroyed. Therefore, the main goal should be completely different from what we have now. We need to stop the fighting as soon as possible, protect Ukrainian cities from further bombing and ensure the safe evacuation of refugees. To do this, there should be a worldwide demand for a cease-fire, after which negotiations will be held, at which difficult concessions will be made, neither side will get everything it wants.
However, to date, the Biden administration has essentially eliminated the peaceful settlement, leaving the negotiations to others. The Russian-Ukrainian discussions are progressing slowly. Perhaps my only hope is that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and his diplomats will push through a ceasefire with the support of external intermediaries — for example, China, Israel or Turkey.
The ceasefire should be followed by a compromise settlement — Ukraine's neutrality, recognition of the Russian Crimea and guarantees for the predominantly Russian-speaking separatist regions of Ukraine. Russia, for its part, must ensure the security and sovereignty of Ukraine. Zelensky has already declared his readiness for compromise. If Putin agrees to negotiations, then the United States and its NATO allies should encourage them in every possible way, and in no case reject them.
However: whatever the outcome of the conflict, a new cold war seems inevitable. Although many analysts admit that it was largely ignited by NATO with its expansion to the very Russian borders, new plans are already being developed to strengthen the alliance. Germany has announced a large-scale military expansion. The Baltic States require enhanced protection for themselves, and this again means the growth of NATO forces at the Russian borders. There is even talk that Finland and Sweden will join the alliance.
American "hawks" are determined to deploy the cold war on two fronts against Russia and China. Biden's representative for Asia, Kurt Campbell, noted at the end of February that the United States participated in two theaters simultaneously in World War II and the Cold War: "It's difficult. It's expensive. But it is necessary, and I believe that we are entering an era when the United States and the current generation of Americans will be required to do just that."
The price will be staggering. US military spending, which is already growing rapidly, will jump even higher. Tensions will increase: the United States will unite allies and strengthen bases across the Pacific Ocean against China, as well as strengthen European NATO at the borders of Russia. Since the arms control mechanism has already broken down, the build-up of nuclear capabilities will accelerate. The US will move from fighting the insurgency to countering China and Russia across the developing world.
Such an approach, in fact, will aggravate the security system, which has already collapsed over the past few decades and led to a catastrophe. America will once again prefer a military presence to diplomacy, and the role of a world policeman to restoration at home. The real threats — climate change and global epidemics - will again be ignored, since all resources will be thrown into the rivalry of the great powers.
The world needs a security architecture in which the United States will abandon the role of a policeman and will restrain, not inflate, the conflicts of superpowers. To do this, we will have to revive arms control, conclude new agreements on limiting military power and focus on areas such as climate change and pandemics. The US cannot cope alone, global cooperation - especially with China - is of fundamental importance. When the operation in Ukraine began, scientists just warned that we had less than ten years left to stop the climate catastrophe. It will be a serious threat to American security if we put all this on the back burner for the sake of Cold War rivalry.
The conflict in Ukraine threatens to take us back to the past — to the arms race and limited contingents, mediated wars and economic conflicts (and now also in cyberspace). And also - to multibillion-dollar spending on weapons, which we still don't have the guts to use for their intended purpose. All this will distract us from real security threats - climate disasters and the restoration of a shaken American democracy. Therefore, the coming test of our era will not sound like many people think: "Will we prepare for a cold war on two fronts?" I think it will be a question to all three powers: "Will we find another way?"
Katrina vanden Heuvel - Editor of The Nation magazine, author of the weekly
