The opinions and views expressed in the article below are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of IPB.
The West is much closer to war with the nuclear power Russia than to the resumption of cooperative relations with this largest country on earth. The structural economic crisis in Europe, with the apparent way out being a military Keynesianism, will not necessarily lead to war. But its probability cannot be underestimated.
An arms race reminiscent of the worst times of the Cold War in many European countries, including Germany, will lead to profound economic and social upheavals.
The world in which we live and work
The European security order that developed at the end of the Cold War and was intended to become a pan-European compass, with the ‘Charter of Paris’ of 21 November 1990, has been destroyed. Its passing began with the beginning of NATO’s eastward expansion, and more recently with Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine which violated international law. The war in Ukraine certainly did not begin in 2022 with Russia’s full-scale invasion, but in 2014, as former NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg confirmed. The West/NATO bears a significant share of the responsibility for this war due to NATO’s eastward expansion and its disregard for Russia’s security concerns. The destruction of the European peace order thus began at the height of the period of cooperation in the early to mid-1990s with NATO’s decision to expand eastward. That expansion was marked by U.S. and Russian violations of treaties and agreements, and by the subsequent termination of arms control agreements (from ABM to INF) by the United States. Since the NATO summit in Wales in 2015 if not before, Russia has been the declared enemy of the West.
Now, all elements of an inclusive security structure in Europe based on cooperation have been sacrificed on the altar of confrontation. Arms control, confidence-building (see the 1999 OSCE agreement in Istanbul,) and disarmament have been discarded in favour of unbridled rearmament.
Inclusive civil security mechanisms such as the OSCE have lost their power and abilities to shape policy. The focus is now exclusively on the NATO military alliance, which, through its expansion, particularly into Asia, has become ‘Global NATO’, the largest military alliance in the world and in history. NATO’s policy of confrontation and preparations for war with Russia or China now define the global disorder. there is much talk of Russia’s military superiority – reported even by research institutes associated with NATO, contrary to reality. Contrary to the assessment of all US intelligence services, irrational fears that Russia is already in attack mode and virtually ‘standing in our front yard’ have become the discourse that fuels the dangerous and counterproductive race to create a European military superpower. The comprehensive militarisation of EU-European societies, from so-called civil defence “homeland security” to healthcare, school education and universities, as well as increasingly undemocratic practices and restrictions on freedom of expression and information, are central components of a war-oriented policy. The fact that this also promotes nationalism and right-wing extremist forces across Europe is being increasingly accepted.
The EU, which is in a deep economic, moral and structural crisis* is a significant driver of these militarised developments, particularly through its complete rejection of dialogue and détente policy and with the development of an EU-based European arms industry – contrary to the EU’s founding treaties. The word diplomacy has become foreign to the EU Commission as well as to the Kremlin
The Trump/MAGA undermining of trans Atlanticism, has profound implications for the EU-Europe. The resulting EU-European crisis results from the U.S. will to dominance and its protectionist and imperialist policies. It drives militaristic ‘EU autonomy concepts’, exacerbates global militarisation, increases the risk of regional proxy wars, and leads to the dominance of military logic.
Cooperation for a peaceful future
In view of global war and crisis scenarios, the alternative of ‘cooperation’ currently seems unrealistic; it is denigrated as enemy propaganda because it contradicts the threat narrative.
Cooperation refers to two deeply intertwined political traditions that have a historical precedent, not least in Willi Brandt’s policy of détente and the Charter of Paris:
- Cooperative relations between Russia and Germany
- Cooperation between Russia and Europe with a special focus on Russia and the EU.
The visions, philosophy, strategy and instruments for cooperative relations are in place and have been tested historically: they are called ‘common security policy’..
The central challenge for a new European security order is to return to the policy of common security based on the fundamental Olof Palme Report of 1982 and its successor, Common Security 2022: ‘For Our Shared Future’, of April 2022. Both are clear that the security interests of all states must be taken into account. Common security is based on cooperation, dialogue and negotiation, on the recognition of the legitimate security interests of all. It is therefore oriented towards balance and compromise. The security of one country is unthinkable and impossible to achieve without the security of others, including rivals. Security and meaningful peace policies ultimately require the recognition of the legitimate interests of both sides. Common security includes arms control and disarmament, economic and ecological cooperation, and diverse relationships between societies and people.
We are miles away from common security in summer 2025.
The development of such a European peace architecture based on common security is a new Herculean challenge. It cannot be achieved without the active engagement of social movements, in particular, peace movements.
This cooperative security order is also indispensable for solving the global challenges and threats facing humanity, especially for achieving climate justice and climate sustainability.
What are the requirements for a new peace and security architecture?
While we must be realistic about the actual speed at which a new European peace order can be achieved, it must nevertheless be conceived, strategically developed, and made politically viable through initial steps. Resistance from the political forces driving us towards war will be immense – as will be the resistance of popular forces once they have recognised our collective peace’ interests. Even Willi Brandt’s policy of détente was not achieved without a struggle by people on the streets, at the ballot box, and in diplomatic areas. Let us not forget that Willi Brandt was almost ousted as Chancellor by reactionary and revanchist forces eager for war.
However, we can also build on historically positive experiences when developing new ideas:
- The German government’s Ostpolitik in the 1970s, which made history as a successful ‘policy of détente’.
- The process that led to German reunification and the Charter of Paris, which also included arms control and disarmament treaties. The 1990 Charter of Paris, like the 1975 Helsinki Final Act, is a blueprint for a new policy of détente.
Trump’s America First policy of dominance including wars puts the need for European understanding even higher on the agenda.
What is needed is a fundamental shift in political understanding alongside with political action. As Albert Einstein put it: “We cannot solve problems with the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.” Jürgen Habermas formulated it in February 2023 the “Süddeutsche Zeitung” as ‘a plea for friendship with our neighbours’.
Politically, socially, and ethically, what is needed is a fundamental change of course away from the logic of war towards the logic of peace.
In the view of those in power who are driving us toward war, we have no alternatives, there is no other option. This new drive to war must be opposed and changed by popular forces and pressure ‘from below’. People’s actions and peace movement forces are indispensable. This process toward winning a new peace policy is beginning at a time of dramatic, rapid, even tectonic changes in world politics, a new international constellation in which the nations of the Global South – especially the BRICS+ countries – are comprehensively demanding a new, anti-colonial and anti-hegemonic order in international relations. The old colonial West, including the United States, is clearly no longer the world’s political and economic determinative force.
The dynamics of international change currently make it impossible to conceive comprehensive building blocks or precise roadmaps; this would be politically misguided and illusory. The goal remains to achieve a new, inclusive peace and security order in Europe. The path to this goal will be diverse, with many forks in the road and also setbacks.
A policy of common security and confidence-building
Based on the principles of the ‘Common Security Policy’, the main task today is to develop entry points and to open doors to counter in stark terms the devastation of people, civilisation, and nature with a peaceful perspective.
In doing so, we must focus on something essential that has been lost: trust-building at all levels of interstate diplomacy.
The aim is to find common solutions based on the interests of the various sides. Hardly anyone has put this more clearly than Egon Bahr: “International politics is never about democracy or human rights. It is about the interests of states. Remember that no matter what you are told in history class.”
The interests of all sides – not just one’s own – must be regarded as legitimate and worthy of discussion, and compromises must be considered to be politically sensible and necessary. Trust also means respecting the other side as difficult as that may be at times and recognising that they too want and need to find solutions. Internationally, mutual security interests must be recognised in a legally binding manner. Dialogue and exchange, as well as a willingness to reach agreement, rooted in transparency and reliability, are the central instruments for building trust. This also requires a social climate in which the projection of enemy stereotypes is ruled out, stereotypes are avoided, and deliberately fabricated ‘fake news’ is prevented in the media with insistence on respect for the principles of professional journalism. Double standards and fraud are impermissible. Sincerity and truthfulness, including personal integrity, are essential to create a climate of trust.
Before genuine confidence-building measures can be achieved, small steps are therefore needed: limiting further escalation, protecting minimum humanitarian standards, initial technical cooperation in areas such as disaster control and cyber security, and the resumption of diplomatic contacts. Only when such foundations have been laid can trust grow and the way be paved for a new European security architecture. Public discourse and debate on security policy are also critically important.
Trust-building has various political and social levels and actors:
- The level of ‘high’ national and international politics
- The level of political institutions such as parliaments
- The level of scientific, cultural and professional contacts
- The level of social organisations such as trade unions and churches
- The level of civil society, such as peace movements
- Personal, individual contacts between people
These levels can overlap but also complement each other.
However, it is necessary and indispensable to exert pressure on governments that resist processes of dialogue. This is a necessity and a central task for the peace movement’s activities.
Steps towards building trust
So, what can and should be done now in amidst the Ukraine War and the situation of entrenched confrontation in the EU?
- Working for a Ukraine War ceasefire and just peace negotiations
- Maintaining and expanding dialogue with Russia at the level of civil society
- Reviving academic and other contacts with Russia. Severing these relations in an institution such as the EU, which is committed to international cooperation, was irresponsible. Einstein would be turning in his grave. The same applies to trade unions and churches
- Restoring comprehensive cultural exchanges: European and Russian literature, music and painting are historically closely linked through mutual inspiration
- Expanding personal contacts
Many people, especially in eastern Germany, have these contacts and maintain them. Even now, men and women can go on holiday to Kaliningrad, Lake Baikal or Kamchatka. The reintroduction of direct flights would be a step towards reviving contacts. Reviving initial – courageous – confidential contacts at the political level, even contentious discussions can build trust.
Contact between parliamentarians should follow soon.
Economic contacts with the Soviet Union opened doors to political contacts in the 1960s. The almost complete breakdown of economic cooperation is damaging to both sides and should lead to new steps towards cooperation. The need for cheap energy cries out for cooperation, or do Europeans want to be dependent forever on dirty fracking gas and Mr Trump’s tariffs? European companies still operating in Russia can certainly open doors. Sanctions that harm one side more than the other are not only useless but violate international law. They are harmful and should be lifted. There must be objective investigations into the benefits of resuming economic cooperation between the EU and Russia, particularly with regard to raw material supplies from Russia and technology exchanges.
Those who believe in the strength of democracy and dialogue are not afraid of discussion: media exchanges. Public discussions with ‘the other side’ and the most comprehensive media coverage possible on all sides can lead to understanding, reflection, mutual understandings, and change. It is certainly also necessary to revive sister city twinning, which has been a solid building block for cooperative relations for decades.
Contacts in the ecological sector at bilateral and multinational levels will be more important than in the 1970s. These are imperative in view of the global dimension of man-made climate change, especially in light of Trump’s catastrophic policies.
There is a need for a rational debate about Russian politics and leadership that overcomes historically connoted enemy stereotypes and unhelpful demonisation.
Analyses of developments based on facts, with the aim of identifying common ground and initiating discourse processes for controversial points of view are essential.
These first necessary steps should be accompanied by an ‘action of hope’: a meeting of all CSCE heads of government on the 50th anniversary in Helsinki. This meeting could open the way to greater understanding. Advocacy and work for this ‘summit of hope’ could put the idea of cooperative security back on the political agenda. A goal worth working for!
Arms control and disarmament
Agreements on arms control and disarmament are indispensable components of a new policy of détente. It is a central task of the peace movement and a revitalised peace research community to insist on resumption of arms control and disarmament diplomacy.
This includes, among other things:
- The revitalisation of arms control agreements
- A ban on the deployment of medium-range weapons
- Demilitarised zones and the destruction of offensive weapons
- Nuclear-weapon-free zones and states
- Contractual agreements on cyber security and AI
- A freeze on armaments
Ultimately, the goal is comprehensive disarmament agreements that drastically reduce nuclear dangers and reductions in arms spending in favour of social and economic development solve urgent global challenges.
The war in Ukraine must be ended through negotiations, a ceasefire and a peace agreement based in international laws, that ensures Ukrainian neutrality and excludes Ukraine’s membership of NATO while protecting territorial integrity. It will need to include peace and security guarantees for all parties involved and is essential for progress towards common security. Establishing a process of peace, reconciliation and reconstruction with and for all those involved in the conflict is an international, but also a particularly European responsibility. Of course, all final outcomes must be decided through negotiations.
Europe is part of a rapidly changing world moving towards multipolarity. Because of confrontational policies, this leads to policies of détente in many parts of the world, including the USA vs. Russia, as well as Japan, China, South Korea, and India, which will not leave Europe unscathed. It will have a positive influence on a new drive for détente. More significant changes in the balance of power and a trend towards greater cooperation in crucial parts of the world will not bypass Europe.
The reverse is also true: the European peace order of the future will have to be Eurasian. Essential elements of peace and economics will also have to be oriented towards Eurasia.
Nothing without a peace movement
Nothing on this recognisably rocky and thorny path will happen without international and national civil society action – especially by peace movements. They provide the inspiration, driving force, avant-garde and also necessary companion for the path to détente, peace and disarmament.
Its actions and activities are indispensable in preventing the looming catastrophe of a major war and opening the door to the vision of a just and peaceful world.
Co-Authors: Reiner Braun and Joseph Gerson
*(see Draghi paper)
The opinions and views expressed in the article above are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of IPB.