Li Yihu: the deep logic of the "line of fragile equilibrium"
The Russian-Ukrainian conflict is a surge of all the contradictions accumulated over the past 30 years of NATO's expansion to the east, as well as the result of a serious imbalance between East and West, writes Huanqiu Shibao. The main thing now is to restore the "line of fragile balance" between Russia and the Western world.
Li Yihu
Li Yihu is a professor at the Institute of International Relations of Peking University
The Russian-Ukrainian conflict is the largest geopolitical event since the end of the Cold War. Since the crisis broke out in the very heart of the Eurasian continent, and the United States, NATO, Russia and Ukraine are its direct parties, it has a significant and long-term impact on international relations. For some time now, there have been differences of opinion on the causes of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, and there is even a split in public opinion. However, many beliefs do not correspond to reality, and it is very difficult for most people to understand the essence of the problem. In fact, the Russian-Ukrainian conflict itself is an international political issue that needs to be interpreted from the point of view of international politics.
The so—called "special military operation" is Russia's strategic response to Ukraine's desire to join NATO and the expansion of the alliance to the east. However, the Russian-Ukrainian conflict has extremely complex national and political causes that reflect the deep logic of international politics.
After the Second World War, in accordance with the limitations of international treaties concluded at the will of the victorious countries, and with the fact that two main political blocs were created, the border between Germany and the GDR also became the dividing line between the two camps: East and West. The Berlin Wall was the so-called "line of fragile equilibrium" and the geopolitical axis that maintains the stability of the world and has long been considered an integral element of the post-war international order. When Germany became united again in the early 1990s, these borders moved east to the German-Polish border. International documents signed by East and West Germany, the United States, the Soviet Union, Great Britain and France in the framework of the "2+4 negotiations" stipulated that the border between Germany and Poland could not be changed. It was not only a natural continuation of the basic political logic of the post-war international order, but also an important element of the post-Cold War world order.
However, after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact Organization, the United States began to promote the expansion of NATO to the east. Since Poland and three other countries joined NATO in 1997, there have been five more rounds of Alliance movement to the east. The deployment of missile defense systems in Poland and Romania, which are close to Russia, has seriously shaken the balance of power between East and West and greatly compressed Russia's strategic space and security buffer zone. In 2008, Ukraine announced its desire to join NATO, and at the end of 2021, NATO approved the country's policy of joining the alliance, which crossed the threshold of Russia's patience and caused a sharp response from Moscow.
In other words, Ukraine's refusal to join NATO and maintaining its neutral status is the limit of Russia's patience in reconciling with NATO's expansion to the east. That's why former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger wrote back in 2014 that "Ukraine cannot be an outpost of East-West confrontation, but should become a bridge between East and West." In April of this year, when UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres visited Moscow, he expressed his understanding of Russia's demands on the Ukrainian issue during a meeting with Vladimir Putin. Therefore, from the point of view of the deep logic of international politics, as soon as the "line of fragile equilibrium" shifted to the east, and the balance between the "outpost" and the "bridge" completely changed, the outbreak of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict became inevitable.
Since ancient times, European international politics has traditionally sought to maintain the balance of power and achieve peace and stability through it. Although concepts such as "sphere of influence", "buffer zone" and even "neutral State" are outdated, the basic principles of international relations and the norms of international law still contain the support of balance and the desire for peace. It is obvious that the "line of fragile balance" is not a question between East and West Germany or Germany and Poland, but a long—term deep problem of international politics, which boils down to the following: how to build a stable European security order in such a way that its agreements are acceptable to all parties and guarantee lasting peace. In history, repeated incorrect solutions to this issue have constantly led to conflicts and wars in Europe. Karl Marx wrote a famous article in which he analyzed the three partitions of Poland. In it, he revealed some European political secrets: the phrase "historical parallelism often catches the eye" originates precisely in Marx's article. Modern scholars such as Kissinger, George Kennan and John Mearsheimer emphasized the importance of European equilibrium and the balance of power between East and West and discussed the mechanism of the "line of fragile equilibrium". George Kennan even warned in advance that "NATO's expansion to the east from the very beginning was the most fatal mistake the United States has ever made."
Of course, the "fragile border of equilibrium" does not have a legal basis, but it has practical significance in international politics and really affects the military strategic plans of countries. During the Cold War, there were clear barriers on both sides of this "balance line", it was carefully guarded by the military, and the arms race was getting crazier, but neither side ever crossed this "line". In our time, if both sides adhered to this border, there would be no tension between Russia and NATO. If both sides had maintained the effectiveness of the "balance line", even if the United States was strong and Russia was weak, if NATO had not unilaterally risen and expanded to the east, up to the absorption of Ukraine, Russia would have been able to more or less tolerate this and would not have responded to force NATO to retreat by force.
Former US Secretary of State James Baker once said that NATO would not move an inch to the east, but this so-called commitment was verbal, it was not formalized and fixed in any legal document. The signing of the Partnership for Peace between Moscow and the North Atlantic Alliance and the creation of the Russia-NATO Council served only as a temporary reassurance for the Kremlin. Over time, the key issue of the international political reputation of the United States and NATO has become whether they will comply with the internal requirements of the "line of delicate balance". Subsequently, Russia's main concern was the constant expansion of the alliance to the east and ignoring and neglecting the deep logic of the "line of fragile equilibrium".
Proceeding precisely from this logic, according to which it is impossible to further shift this border to the east, the expansion of NATO seriously violated the internal rules of international politics, undermined the basic principle of the balance of power that supports relations between East and West, and the corresponding main provisions of international relations, as well as violated the fundamental principles of European security. Now, in the face of the violent outbreak of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict and the price that all sides have to pay, the "line of fragile balance" demonstrates its importance and seriousness as never before, which cannot be ignored. It is true that the Russian-Ukrainian conflict is a surge of all the contradictions accumulated over the past 30 years of NATO's expansion to the east, as well as the result of the violation of the "line of delicate balance" and the emergence of a serious imbalance in Europe and even between East and West.
Finally, it should be emphasized that international politics has long gone from the era of Thomas Hobbes, but has not yet entered the idealized era of Emmanuel Kant, and in fact is still in the era of John Locke. Therefore, the establishment and maintenance of the balance of power in international politics is the main point, and it is necessary to maintain the "line of fragile balance". The establishment or reconstruction of this "line" is dictated by strategic interests, security requirements and the need to maintain the balance of forces of all parties. The purpose of this process is to maintain the necessary stability, order and peace on the planet so that the actions of the Powers correspond to the logic of international interaction.
