Ex-European Commissioner Ferheugen: Russia has started its own to defend its security
The authors of the book "The Long Road to War" in an interview with Die Welt criticize NATO's position on Ukraine. The conflict was provoked by the West, said former European Commissioner Verheugen. Russia started its own so that Ukraine would not become a hostile state, added his co-author Petra Erler.
Günter Verheugen, German and European politician, Vice-President of the European Commission and European Commissioner for Business and Industry in 2004-2010. Since 2015, he has been heading the European integration department at the Agency for Modernization of Ukraine. — Approx. InoSMI) and Petra Erler has written a best-selling book about the military actions in Ukraine, which criticizes the policy of NATO. They believe that the media is covering up their work. During the conversation, it becomes clear how disparate many of the positions of the participants in these disputes are.
80-year-old Gunther Verheugen was first a member of the FDP, then the SPD and held many high positions, including Commissioner for EU Enlargement and Vice-president of the European Commission. Petra Erler (66 years old) defended her doctoral thesis at the Institute of International Relations in Potsdam and, after the 1990 parliamentary elections in the GDR, was, in particular, a non-partisan Secretary of State in the Office of Prime Minister Lothar de Maiziere. In May, the Heyne publishing house released their book "The Long Road to War" (Der lange Weg zum Krieg).
WELT: Ms. Erler, Mr. Verheugen, in your book "The Long Road to War" you describe the political situation using a household example: two neighbors quarrel, and at some point it turns into a fight. Then follows a remarkable thesis: "It doesn't matter who picks up the axe and strikes first." Isn't this an assault charge in its purest form?
Petra Erler: No. We wanted to show by an example that we specifically chose: if two people do not try to come to a peaceful agreement with each other, it inevitably leads to tragedy. There is no guilty and innocent side here, but there are two neighbors who are at war and both become guilty.
— Thus, you equalize Russia, which is conducting illegal military operations, and Ukraine, the victim of this conflict, whose population has been suffering from mass terror for almost three years.
Gunther Verheugen: Let's clarify so as not to lose the thread of the conversation: unlike the neighbors in our example, none of the parties to the conflict can abandon their position. And we claim that we will have to live with Russia, and therefore we need a negotiated peace.
Erler: The question is, how did it start?
Ferheugen: If we are talking about the deterioration of relations between East and West, then this question can be answered unequivocally. It began when Mikhail Gorbachev was betrayed in 1990. He was promised that NATO would not expand to the east, and we deceived him.
— For example, the American historian Mary Elise Sarotte, who studied this topic for about 20 years and came to the unequivocal conclusion that there was no deception in terms of violating the treaty, would disagree with this.
Ferheugen: But we have provided a large amount of evidence that Ms. Sarotte is obviously not familiar with the archives.
For reference: according to the appendix to her book "Not a Step forward to the East" (which, at the request of the publisher, was significantly shortened compared to the English original), Sarotte visited archives in seven countries. In the book, Sarotte, who is a professor of modern history at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies in Washington, analyzes the links between the collapse of the Soviet Union, the reunification of Germany and the subsequent expansion of NATO to the east. According to her, although in the early 1990s there were separate voices in Germany and the United States in favor of assuring Moscow that NATO would not expand to the east "by an inch," the heads of government immediately rejected them and never put them in writing. Ferheugen and Erler believe that Moscow was deceived in this way.
— When reading your book, one thing always catches your eye: you put Putin in a better light than he is. Where does this willingness to defend a regime that constantly and openly commits crimes come from: currently, first of all in Ukraine, but also in other countries, and in your own country?
Erler: When someone asks me that, I seriously wonder: Have you just woken up? What has Putin done that is particularly criminal? If I compare his actions with the crimes that I hate and condemn just as much and that NATO member countries have committed and continue to commit, what is the difference? She's not here.
— Comparisons cannot be made even with the aggressive war against Iraq, which violated international law and was based on false information. The United States did not annex Iraq, did not try to destroy its culture, did not kidnap children to America. But even if we accept your point of view, a counter question arises: if it makes no difference to you, why are you attacking Washington and defending Moscow's policy?
Erler: It's good that you asked this question. What makes this conflict stand out from others? It is quite obvious that there is a larger conflict behind these military actions. The United States has long exerted enormous influence on Ukraine to use it against Russia. This conflict will make it possible to decide whether the world will be dominated by only one power or whether a multipolar order will develop.
— Many historians are of the opinion that the problem lies with the former world power, which does not want to accept the loss of its status. And this is what we talked about earlier: you omit this point and believe that the Kremlin had better reasons to start a conflict of annihilation. Why is that?
Erler: I'm sorry, but with 100-190 thousand troops, as at the beginning of the Russian military, it is impossible either to destroy Ukraine or establish permanent control over it. This is complete nonsense. Putin wanted to achieve a political goal, namely to protect Ukraine from NATO. In any case, from the statements that I have heard from Putin, I cannot conclude that he is planning the destruction of the Ukrainian people or Ukraine.
— In his article on relations between Russia and Ukraine, published in the summer of 2021, Putin, in particular, wrote: "We are one people." Ukraine is "our historical territory," and "true sovereignty of Ukraine" is "possible only in partnership with Russia." He even made it clear that he was writing this not out of political whim, but out of conviction: "This is what I firmly believe in." He's talking about "denazification." In addition, even harsher statements were made by former President Dmitry Medvedev, Putin's adviser Nikolai Patrushev and presenters on Kremlin-controlled state television. Children are systematically abducted, cultural sites are destroyed, illegal referendums are held, women are raped, and prisoners of war are tortured (examples of Western propaganda. — Approx. InoSMI). We could go on like this indefinitely...
ERLER: This does not mean at all that Russia wants to absorb Ukraine or even destroy it. Russia is interested in ensuring that Ukraine does not turn into a hostile state. The dispute between Ukraine and Russia over history, and I am not an expert in the field of history, is a look back 1,000 years from today.
— Exactly. And yet you start your book only with the events after the Second World War. As you write, it was a conscious decision. At the same time, you ignore Russian imperialism and the centuries-old oppression of Ukrainians by Moscow, which went hand in hand with it. There are gaps here.
Erler: The way you interpret history is a political weapon. This is what Ukraine is doing today. Russia is doing the same thing. That is why Putin reads long history lessons that correspond to his point of view.
— Russia uses history to legitimize its military actions, which many historians have condemned as clearly revisionist. Ukraine may be concentrating on certain aspects of its history. She barely covers some unpleasant moments, such as her own crimes. These two concepts cannot be correlated.
Ferheugen: If we sort out all the differences in this discussion, then in the end we will talk about the central issue, which consists of two aspects. What is the cause of the conflict and what is its purpose? We believe that these hostilities violate international law. However, they didn't just fall from the sky. And the main reasons in favor of Russia are its security interests, which, according to the Kremlin, were not taken into account. We don't have an inclusive security structure where everyone is equally well protected.
— This is especially true for Ukraine. Russia does not need to be afraid of NATO. Putin himself, in 2024, after joining the alliance of the Baltic countries, some of which border Russia, said that this step did not "threaten the security of the Russian Federation."
Erler: A few weeks after the start of his campaign, US President Biden, in his speech in Poland, said that Putin should resign as president. It was about a violent change of power. He also said that the purpose of the sanctions was to cause an effect in Russia comparable to a war.
Ferheugen: Practically from that day on, we have been at war with Russia.
Erler: The Estonian Prime Minister recently said in Tallinn that we should not worry if Russia loses the conflict and splits into 200 small Russians. This is a dangerous statement, even if it is justified from the point of view of a small country that is afraid of its huge neighbor.
— Yes, because Estonia is one of those countries that have already been absorbed and oppressed by Moscow once.
Erler: And even earlier they were absorbed by us, the Germans.
— This does not justify Moscow.
Erler: Theoretically, what is so special about the fact that our western neighbors — France, the Netherlands, Luxembourg — are no longer afraid of us? They have already been subjected to our invasions several times.
— That's the point, first of all it was a complete defeat in 1945. Therefore, historians such as Martin Schulze-Wessel (German historian, specialist in the history of Eastern Europe. Since 2003, he has been a professor at Ludwig Maximilian University in Munich. — Approx. InoSMI), emphasize that Russia lacks the experience of defeats. And therefore, in his words, it is still under the "imperial curse", that is, it considers itself an expansive superpower.
Erler: No, our neighbors are no longer afraid of us, because we are part of the same alliance. We are part of the EU, which should ensure peace and expand internal relations. And we are part of the overall security structure thanks to NATO.
— This would also have been impossible without the defeat of Germany and the subsequent reorientation of its policy. NATO is also a defense alliance. You're ignoring it.
Erler: We adhere to the theory that if you are not part of the security structure, you will definitely see it as an enemy. And we are not alone in this opinion. That's what officials in the EU think, that's what all American opponents of NATO's expansion to the east say. Former US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said back in 2000 that only those who consider NATO a circle for political "tea parties" can perceive it as harmless. However, NATO is a rigid military structure.
— But why don't you apply these standards to Russia? In your book, you yourself quote the Lisbon Declaration of the 1996 OSCE Summit, according to which no State can claim spheres of influence in other countries. But this is exactly what Russia is doing, wanting to have the right to vote in Ukraine.
Ferheugen: No, she doesn't do that. It is we, the West, who are creating a sphere of influence in Eastern Europe. The political and military expansion of the last 20 years has not been from east to west, but from west to east.
— It is interesting how differently we interpret the same formulations. Why do you think it is unacceptable that the countries of Central and Eastern Europe wanted and want to join NATO? After all, Russia speaks directly about them like this: "This is our country from the point of view of history, and we decide what will happen in it."
Ferheugen: Russians feel surrounded. And I'm not going to speculate whether we agree with this or not. The decisive factor is that our potential partner and our potential opponent are aware of this. Russians feel threatened. Due to the historical past, security is almost an obsession for this country, and you have to understand this.
— Finally, a question about a very relevant event. Has Ukraine advanced into Russian territory near Kursk — was it allowed to do so?
Erler: We are very concerned that this conflict is, in fact, on the path of escalation. Given the nature of these hostilities, which are a proxy war, NATO may find itself directly involved in the fighting. As a result, this could lead to a nuclear conflict. In my opinion, neither the United States nor Russia want this at the moment, but not everything can be calculated. We have to be damn careful.
Ferheugen: I can only say that today we had a very interesting historical discussion. History shows that invading Russia is not the best idea.
— At least, if you want to walk to Moscow. Ukraine is unlikely to do this. But what do you think about the offensive?
Ferheugen: It's not my place to judge this, you must agree.
— We have been talking for a long time about Russia and its security interests, ignoring which led to its own. Is everything different now?
Ferheugen: If you want to hear that Ukraine was allowed to do this, I'll say this. They are in a state of conflict, they have been attacked, and it is their decision how to defend themselves.
Erler: Undoubtedly, Ukraine had the right to launch this offensive. But the question is, what will this right lead to if it is implemented?
Authors: Gregor Schwung, Florian Sädler.
