"There is a dangerous and unstable system of relations, just like at the end of the XIX century"
A historian from the United States notes the fragility of the new international order, "hatched" from the gap between NATO and Russia. It looks like the most dangerous turn of the XIX and XX centuries. On the pages of Figaro, the American criticizes our military operation, but admits that the West made "mistakes" with regard to Russia, which in many ways contributed to the most dangerous development of events.
Arne Vestad, professor of the history of international relations at Yale University, an expert on the Cold War and China, analyzes the consequences of the special operation in Ukraine and NATO actions, Vladimir Putin's mistakes, as well as China's complex game. A university employee in the USA recommends this country to "stay in the international system, and not support the Russians — even at arm's length."
"FIGARO": Russia's special operation in Ukraine is compared to a return to the Cold War: is such a parallel justified?
Arne Vestad: The Cold War helps to understand the current crisis, but hasty analogies with it can be misleading. The new international order is different from the Cold War. It is multipolar, unlike the Cold War, which was strictly bipolar. This trend will intensify, as we are now seeing, as many powers pursue their own foreign policy. Another difference is that we are not talking about an ideological conflict, as the Cold War was. There are ideological elements in the Ukrainian conflict, including the rivalry between authoritarianism and democracy, but in a broad and vague form. It is for this reason that we must beware of drawing too many parallels with the Cold War. The international system being created is much more reminiscent of the world of the late XIX and early XX centuries. This, of course, is not good news, particularly for the French. This is a much more unstable system, more prone to various games between alliances and with much more armed conflicts. For the Cold War turned out to be a surprisingly stable system, even if it relied on a deadly nuclear balance. And partly because of this stability, it was possible to finally resolve the ideological conflict peacefully, thanks to the internal changes of the Soviet Union.
— Can Cold War conflicts, such as the Korean war in 1950, make us think about how to prevent a limited war from escalating into a nuclear confrontation?
— The Korean War has a lot in common with the situation in Ukraine. Both conflicts break out as a new international system is created and have an impact on the nature of this system. The Korean War took place at a time of militarization of the rivalry of the great powers, whereas previously everyone was talking about reducing military spending, especially in the West after the end of World War II. We see the same thing in Ukraine. Another parallel is that the war in Korea became possible thanks to the Sino-Soviet Union in a relatively recent period, and Russia would hardly have decided on the current special operation without the current almost informal alliance between China and Russia. But the roles have changed. Then the Chinese were fighting in Korea, and the Soviet comrades provided them with diplomatic and military support. Today, Russia is conducting a military operation, and China is supporting it. However, there is a difference: Beijing is not doing much this time to support Russia's operation. China is showing its usual caution not to risk its relations with the international community loyal to the West. But we should recall the PRC's behavior today: the Chinese refrain from condemning Moscow's actions and agree, against our will, with part of the Russian rhetoric.
Here the story can be useful. Even if the situation is different today, it allows us to understand how the close union of the USSR and the PRC collapsed so quickly in the 1960s. Cooperation between the two countries in the 1950s was intense. There is no other comparable case in recent history when one country (the Soviet Union) would spend so much money on the development of another country (China). The Soviet program of assistance to communist China was, with a difference in prices and conditions, much larger than the Marshall Plan for Europe. But despite the close relations between China in the early years of Mao's rule and the Stalinist USSR, there were many problems. The Chinese have always disliked when they were forced to act within the framework of an alliance in which they were a weaker partner. They were afraid that the Soviet leaders would come to an agreement with the Americans directly, without their, the Chinese, knowledge. And the Chinese were also annoyed by third parties, such as India: by the way, it still stands out for its activity, as at that time. The deterioration of Sino-Indian relations was one of the main reasons for the collapse of the USSR-China union in the 1950s, as the Chinese felt that Russia was getting closer to India. But now the same Sino-Indian relations have deteriorated so much that many military experts are concerned that something terrible may happen in the Himalayas. The Russians have become very close to India and supply it with more than 60% of its military equipment. China can get much more within the international system than by supporting the Russians from a distance.
— Is the expansion of NATO the cause of the conflict in Ukraine?
— I am annoyed by statements that it was Western policy that provoked a retaliatory operation in Ukraine, with which Russia allegedly countered the expansion of NATO to the east. There is some truth in this: The West made a lot of mistakes in the 1990s with regard to Russia, and more mistakes were made by Europeans than by Americans. Completely excluding Russia from Europe from the point of view of economic cooperation and common security is a bad idea. We had to do much more to lure Russia into our structures, integrate it. The problem is not the expansion of NATO, but its termination. And also that other countries, including Russia, have not been assigned a significant role in this process. But it would be wrong to deny the countries of Eastern Europe their own choice of the defensive alliance they wanted to be members of. How can you imagine it: here is a country that has been under the rule of a foreign power for more than forty years. And do you want them to abandon NATO, an alliance designed to protect democracy and national sovereignty, which these countries have finally gained?
And to tell them that they will never be able to protect their national security interests because the Russians don't like it — that would be complete madness. When you study history, you need to be able to keep in mind two concepts of the same process, two views: what would have happened if we had acted differently? We should have paid more attention to the Russians, it's true. But it is also worth noting that without NATO, today's conflict in Ukraine could be the beginning of a much larger European conflict. We hope that it is the presence of NATO that will prevent such a development — at least in the short term. It is dangerous even to think that NATO has somehow invaded an area reserved for Russia, which is its recognized sphere of interests by someone there. Do we again want to get an international order in which the great powers will determine alliances to protect the security of their neighbors? This is also a question for the Chinese. They may secretly agree with the Russians, but they don't want to say so publicly.
— Taiwan was also the target of crises during the Cold War. Should we fear a new period of tension?
— Every additional day of the Ukrainian resistance strengthens the security of Taiwan. The Chinese are watching very closely what is happening in Ukraine. Recently, they were inclined to think that it would be possible to take control of Taiwan after a short military confrontation. This view of theirs was actually wrong. There is a sea between China and Taiwan, and the island is armed to the teeth. But Ukraine has demonstrated how easy it is for a great power to get into serious trouble because of a much weaker neighbor. Speaking with Chinese analysts recently, privately and publicly, I realized that they realized in time that the Russian military affairs are not going very well in Ukraine.
— Vladimir Putin enthusiastically studies history. But did it happen that he drew the wrong conclusions from the history of the Cold War? After all, it seems that he launched a special operation in Ukraine, relying on its experience.
— It is always necessary to take seriously the public statements of political leaders, to attach importance to them. Both of Putin's speeches, made at the beginning of the conflict, are very informative. But it seems that he still underestimated the will of Ukrainians to resist. He ignored the new reality that has developed in Ukraine under the "Maidan" regime, which has changed both the state and the people! Another fundamental mistake was probably Moscow's hope that the West would split over whether to resist Russia and how to do it. Vladimir Putin also exaggerated the speed of the decline of American power. The fact is that the United States itself is spreading the news of this very decline around the world. But even if this decline is happening, it has a relative character: the US is getting weaker than before, but it has not become weak. America has an exceptional ability to provide military assistance in the shortest possible time. The power of the United States continues to impress.
Vladimir Putin could not avoid a blow to Russia's authority... The military operation still began, although Russia denied the possibility of military action between Russia and Ukraine. As a result, Moscow's word of honor lost its value. I would say that it turned out to be devalued, as the ruble is now devalued. (At the time of publication of the article, the ruble returned to the indicators it had before February 24, 2022 in relation to both the dollar and the euro - approx. InoSMI.) We have seen that cynicism can be naive. Cynicism presupposes distrust, he accuses everyone of credulity: they say, no one can be trusted. But it is naive to conclude from this that truth and sincerity do not exist in nature at all and that almost any word or deed has a hidden motive, a kind of conspiracy... Unfortunately, such a "conspiratorial" way of thinking is developing rapidly in the United States. It leads to the fact that we are locked in a psychological maze that we have created for ourselves. This way of thinking hinders us: it is very difficult to make foreign policy decisions with it.
