Install

Get the latest updates as we post them — right on your browser

Today's paper. Last Updated: 05/28/2012

The West's Cold War Victory 20 Years On

The demise of the Soviet Union 20 years ago is usually seen as an event that profoundly changed the fate of the people who lived within the historical Russian Empire — from Estonia to Armenia to Turkmenistan. And, of course, it is a turning point in Russia's own history. The implications of the end of the Soviet Union, however, are far less often seen from a global perspective. Much of that is history, such as the end of Soviet meddling in the Horn of Africa or in Central America. Much is taken for granted and considered natural, such as the unity of Berlin, Germany and Western and Central Europe. There are things, however, that are less obvious and more relevant to this day.

The abrupt withdrawal of the Soviet challenge to the Western world has not only allowed the tearing down of the hideous barriers that divided the European continent. It also presented the leaders of the then-Free World with a new challenge: leading an effort to create a Europe whole and free. Twenty years on, this business is only half-finished, with Europe as a whole enjoying only wary peace and having to put up with imperfect security. Those who pride themselves in winning the Cold War have done only a mediocre job organizing the peace that followed.

The removal of the U.S.-Soviet rivalry in the Middle East initially offered a prospect for a peace settlement between Israel and the Palestinians. This prospect, however, has proved elusive. Having come within inches of a solution that would have created a recognized Palestinian state and provided secure borders to Israel, the two sides have recoiled, and the mediators lost their drive. The U.S. forcible insertion into the region during the Gulf War in 1990-91 to liberate Kuwait — which was dramatically enhanced in the wake of 9/11 with the invasion and occupation of Iraq — made the Middle East more divided and more perilous.

The defeat of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan became a cause for celebration in the West and the Muslim world alike, but the forces that were unleashed by the anti-Soviet resistance were never properly understood, much less harnessed. Moreover, the operation of Western forces in Afghanistan, coming a dozen years after the Soviet withdrawal from the country, met with some of the same problems that bedeviled Moscow. The forthcoming departure of U.S. and allied troops from Afghanistan is threatening to create a major security problem for Central and South Asia.

The real issue is that the end of the Soviet Union and Soviet communism meant an end of hard peer-to-peer competition — in both geopolitics and ideology. Unconstrained power tends to corrupt those who wield it, while unopposed orthodoxy breeds narrow-mindedness and complacency. Those whose job is to lead and strategize follow the daily polls. The elites, who in the past used to rule, have concentrated on money-making. Those who make serious money have less time than ever for ethics. Those leaders, analysts and commentators who shape global opinions are often guided by the rules of political correctness.

To mourn the passing of the Soviet Union and its ideology is not the point. U.S. and European leaders should detect the faint scent of their own brand of Brezhnevism around their polities and amend their policies accordingly. For example, the United States is dangerously overextended abroad, and its political system at home has become too dysfunctional. Meanwhile, the European Union is in danger of losing the European project unless it rediscovers leadership and provides it with new legitimacy.

Cracking down on democracy and human rights in the name of efficiency is not the way. Authoritarianism is being challenged in Russia and will not survive forever in China either. Democracy needs a new model that is more applicable to the 21st century — and, above all, in the countries that gave birth to its 19th- and 20th-century versions. Democracies everywhere need to gain a global perspective. Those who claim leadership in the world need to gain a better understanding of it and become more global-friendly.

Citizenship, in the sense of civic duty and responsibility, needs to be fostered and promoted as the central pillar of politics, as well as in society at large. Protecting workers' outdated social benefits and the elite's excessive, newly acquired material gains must be held in check. In addition, leadership needs to acquire a broader and more secure base — for example, those who benefited from globalization and are looking for ways to spread those benefits even wider. Otherwise, past victories — like the one over communism 20 years ago — may pave the way to a defeat 20 years from now.

Dmitry Trenin is director of the Carnegie Moscow Center.





This article has 4 comments on TheMoscowTimes.com and 2 comments on Facebook.

Leave a comment


Discussion
The Moscow Times welcomes your comments and invites you to discuss topics with other readers. Your comment will be posted automatically to enable a live discussion. If you aren't familiar with our comments policy, you can read it here.

If you're a registered user, you can start typing your comment below. If not, take a moment to sign up. and then return to the article.

If your comment doesn't appear, contact us by using our web form.

Comments



Paul Shelton

Dmitri -- your last two paragraphs cry out for clarity and expansion. They contain a jumble of ideas, each needing a separate discussion. I invite you to email me so I can ask you a handful of meaty questions. I'm very interested in your thinking. Paul Shelton, Seattle, pgshelton@w-link.net

Piccola Bee

In One Brilliant Speech in 1963: JFK laid the framework for the path to substantive peace between the US and the Soviet Union. I wish it was the foundation for the current negotiations between NATO and Russia. There is a way forward through mutual respect and cooperation, and I hope our current leaders have the wisdom to embrace it. "Peace need not be impracticable, and war need not be inevitable. Best wishes, PicoBee http://www.jfklibrary.org/Research/Ready-Reference/JFK-Speeches/Commencement-Address-at-American-University-June-10-1963.aspx John F. Kennedy at American University — Part One http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AG2PwhT0TDc John F. Kennedy at American University – Part Two: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oY3rktMNHTs John F. Kennedy at American University – Part Three: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6zFdwetzo4

Russell Willis

1 Timothy 6:9, 10 ( KJV; 1611 EDITION ) read as follows: "But they that wil be rich, fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish & hurtfull lusts, which drowne men in destruction and perdition. For the loue of money is the root of all euill , which while some coueted after, they haue erred from the faith, and pierced themselues through with many sorrowes." The reference to making "serious money" is a problem in this world. The apostle Paul ( see 1 Timothy 1:1 ) teaches in 1 Timothy 6:10 that it is a sin to love money. Sincerely in Christ, Russell E. Willis P.S. — Please read Proverbs 23:23.

Matt Colton

Perhaps the problem was the west never reaaly planned for the collapse of the communist block and instead had made the cold war a cornerstone of our very existence. The leaders never had a vision of a psot-Soviet world or at best simply assumed the Eastern Europeans would adopt western-style democracy as a natural consequence and that the rest of the world that relied on Soviet aid would turn to the west as their only choice. I also believe that without the spectre of communist world domination focus was lost and replaced by only a focus on making profits at the expense of even the facade of improving the lives of the common people of the world.

Report Inappropriate Comment




Comments via Facebook



Also in Opinion

There's Just One Nationality — Mathematician

Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind."

Russia's New Propaganda Minister

After Monday's announcement that historian Vladimir Medinsky was appointed the culture minister, critics quickly labeled him the new propaganda minister. Medinsky's academic ethics and historical distortions may raise serious questions, but for the Kremlin, he has three important attributes that are much more important: He is a model United Russia leader, a firm Putin loyalist and a skilled sophist.

Spinning Medvedev's Government

Were this 2008 and not 2012 — and had Dmitry Medvedev been named prime minister without having first served a full term as president — then the composition of his new government might have created a generally positive impression.

New Government Faces Old Problems

A longstanding platitude shared by both the Kremlin as well as domestic and foreign analysts is the need for Russia to diversify its economy away from energy dependence and reduce its non-oil budget deficit.

Putin's Postman Delivers Nothing at the G8

In the mid-1990s, former President Boris Yeltsin fought hard for the right to sit as equal at the same table with the leaders of the world's seven leading democracies. Using a lot of political wrangling, Moscow finally secured permanent membership in this elite club where the real heavyweights are supposed to solve the world's most pressing problems.

Russia Stays Home

Just three days before his return to the Kremlin as president, Vladimir Putin met behind closed doors at his residence in Novo-Ogaryovo, outside Moscow, with U.S. National Security Adviser Tom Donilon, who was there to transmit President Barack Obama's renewed determination to strengthen cooperation with Russia.



print


Comments

This article has 4 comments on TheMoscowTimes.com and 2 comments on Facebook.

Leave a comment


To Our Readers

The Moscow Times welcomes letters to the editor. Letters for publication should be signed and bear the signatory's address and telephone number.

Letters to the editor should be sent by fax to (7-495) 232-6529, by e-mail to oped@imedia.ru, or by post. The Moscow Times reserves the right to edit letters.



Most Read
MarketGid