Ten recipes for a “reset” in Western-Russian relations – how to avoid a new cold war

Dr. Andreas Rinke
Chief correspondent Foreign Affairs, Handelsblatt

When US-president Barack Obama announced the end of the plans of building an American missile shield in Eastern Europe on Thursday, 16th September, he made the most important step to “reset” the relations with Russia. For the first time there was a concrete proof that his promise does lead to more than words. At the same time Obama ended a plan which was always considered to be a mistake by a lot of EU-government.

The step is important, because after eight years of Bush-administration mistrust still reigns the American-Russian relations. Especially in the months around and after the Russian-Georgian war in summer 2008 there was the fear that the cold war could coming back – and that the best the West and Russia could achieve would be a “cold peace”. Russia’s new assertiveness of a new oil- and gas-financed strength combined with the missionary approach of Bush’s foreign policy created the environment for new tensions.

One year later though tensions have calmed down because of two reasons: The USA has a new president. And the economic crisis made Russian leadership feel the old weakness of the country again. Now both countries are at a crossroad. They have the chance to improve relations or to stick to old confrontational thinking pattern. Especially the Europeans hope that they will live up to this challenge. Here are some recipes how to handle old and new conflicts – and how to avoid a new cold war.

A: Don’t draw wrong conclusions: Most important is the warning to draw the wrong conclusions out of Obama’s stop of this missile-deployment to Poland. Yes, Obama stopped a mistake made by the Bush-government. But no, it was not a victory of Russian diplomacy. It is a step to save money and avoid tensions with some Nato-partners in Western Europe. The decision definitely does not mean that the United States or Nato will leave Eastern Europe to  a “Russian zone of influence”.  There might be replacement in form of Patriot-missiles or even more Nato-troops. Nevertheless it should be seen as an important step because it does take into account Russian worries. They same applies for the Russian proposal of a new European Security Architecture. Yes, the West should start a serious discussion about how Russia could be more integrated into a common security space. But no, Nato will not und should not be dissolved in the short and medium term because it is the only really working defence alliance in the world. 

B: Stop the egocentrist approach to foreign politics: The habit in Russia and sometimes the United States is to judge everything happening in the world in relations between the two big nuclear powers and in terms of victory or defeat. This only reveals their outdated way to view the world. For any third party – like the EU-countries – it is amazing and worrying to see how obsessed Russian and American politicians are with each other – at the same time lacking sufficient knowledge about each other. 

C: Think economics: The biggest problem of Russian politics is the difference between the selfperception of most politicians in Moscow and the real economic situation of the country. To be clear: The Russian GDP is slightly bigger than that of Spain, not that of a future great power. And economic capabilities always translate into military and political power after a certain time. The quick money out of oil- and gas-sales won’t help, because it is a very volatile income-basis for a state. Even worse: Money out of the sale of natural ressources very often strengthen the unproductive part of a society – why President Dmitri Medvediev is right to blame uninnovative managers in Russia. If the Russian industrial companies are not getting more efficient and if they don’t create new, competitive products, Russia will not become a great power again.

Interestingly enough, the situation of the economically much stronger USA is comparable in parts. The financial crisis had made clear that the superpower is financially and subsequently militarily overstretched already. It’s dependence on foreign creditors – including the future rival China – is enormous and might reflect one day in its design of foreign policy.  At lot of American key industries are outdated and will hardly survive against the competition of other party of the world, mainly Europe and Asia.    

D: Look through the eyes of your neighbours. Russians continue to complain about Western influence in former parts of the Soviet Union. But American influence and ambition are only one side – the eager attempt of many nations to get away from Moscow’s influence is another. Learn from small nations, why that is the case. Start looking through the eyes of your neighbours. The knowledge of their wishes and needs is the first precondition for understanding and future influence. By the way: It is something which the USA has to learn as well.       

E. Start to love shrinking: In a globalised world it is happening to all European nations and the States – their influence in the world will shrink at least in relative terms. New players like China, India or Brazil are more and more lobbying for influence around the globe.  Multipolarism does not only mean that the US can’t act unilaterally anymore. It also means that Russia has to compete with many more countries for influence and sympathy.  The United States still have a comparable advantage because their population will grow, whereas Russia still struggles to stop its shrinking. 

F: Forget the history! Governments should stop using the past as an excuse not to act itself in an accurate way. Prime minister Vladimir Putin is right to mention all the occasions when he was mislead by the West. But that does not mean that your Western partners can not change. Obsession with history and former experiences can actually make you blind to changes. To justify claims in territory or influence with “historical rights” is just stupid und baseless – weather in the near east, on the Balkans or around the Russian borders. By the way: Historical “parallels” very often don’t work anyway. They distort history and create new problems in the present and for the future – that applies for Polish warnings about a new “Rapallo” in German-Russian relations as well as for the Russian argument that they recognise the independence of Abchasia because the West recognised Kosovo

G: Think about history! That might sound like a paradox. But in the relations with other you do have to take into account THEIR view of history. Your hero can be the murder for others – and vice versa. One reason that Germany gets along with all its neighbours since 1945 is exactly the attempt to see history also through their eyes. It is easier to change your perspective if you belong to a nation which was defeated in war and committed horrible crimes. It is more difficult if you belong to a nation which won a war – and committed crimes. Russia as the “big neighbour” should tried to work on a common historical understanding with Polen, Ukraine – and even Georgia.

H: Define your long term interests.  As said, America and Russia have to adopt to the situation that their status as superpowers is gone or will go. It was an illusion of the Bush-administration that the States could keep up such a position longer than a few years. In reality there was an overstretch already in den years in which Neocons felt the existence of an American “Empire”. So define what is really most important for your country and population:  It is never a nationalistic attempt to restore old glory. The fight against Islamic terrorists and climate change, the non-proliferation of nuclear arms on the contrary  are common interests. Both countries will need stability to improve their economies - and prepare for an increased immigration pressure from the southern hemisphere. That unites both with the EU as well. 

I: Stick to your promises: That applies mainly to the West. Russia is right to blame several broken promises – from the move of Nato-installations eastwards after German unification to the promised  WTO-entry of Russia. Sometimes American and Europeans don’t realise how ideological their decisions are – and they don’t see the disastrous results on others when newly elected governments don’t stick to old promises. What they just see as a legitimate policy change and the right of a new government is considered by others as a betrayal. By the way: Russia is not the only country which feels betrayed – ironically Georgia feels that way as well. Beware: One broken promise damages your image for years. 

J: Learn to trust. What works in personal relationships works in foreign policy as well – it is as simple as that. Trust creates more trust. Suspicion creates more suspicion. It is as simple as that. Russia and the States now have the choice. Since they are the dominant nuclear powers in the world both government should be aware that whatever step they take, it will affect others as well.