To Beat Putin, West Needs More Armor, Not Empathy (Frankfurter AllgemeineZeitung, Germany)
"To meet aggression with empathy is to give into aggression - which means you lose. But who does that? Well - we do. ... If Moscow wouldn’t listen before the annexation of Crimea, what would bring it to listen now? What we have here is not a problem with the political atmosphere, but with security policy. Security risks cannot be addressed with measures to improve the atmosphere, but with armor. The good years are over, and the West must upgrade its military."
We
have to put ourselves in the position of others - even in politics. Then one
can better gauge what actions to take and assess what might happen. That also
protects us from gross errors, provides us with a more unbiased view, freer
hands and a freer head. But if empathy starts to turn into false justification,
and when this ultimately leads to a disregard for oneself and one’s own
interests, then all of these advantages are again nullified. That's right - one
is then worse off than before, worse off than one would be without such an
excess of false empathy, or in other words: If someone hits me, I first have to
get him to stop. Why is he doing it? I can think about that later. To meet
aggression with empathy is to give into aggression - which means you
lose. But who does that? Well - we do.
Since
Moscow’s seizure of Crimea and the Black Sea Peninsula via an illegal
referendum and military force, Germany has once again been swarming with Russia
sympathizers. Since then, statements about how right Putin was and that the
West drove him to it have been frequently made in Germany. The E.U. and the
West are to blame for Putin’s political aggression. One really must be contorted
into knots to believe this, especially since at first glance, it is obviously
wrong. Yet like houseflies, such ideas are flying in through the open window,
the latest being when Stern Magazine
published the allegation that the West had promised Gorbachev that NATO wouldn't
expand if his empire fell apart. This was reprinted everywhere as if proven
historical fact. This is simply nonsense.
Have
we in Germany forgotten that not long ago, the Federal Republic's membership in
the Western military alliance was the biggest obstacle to reunification? At the
time, the SPD [Social Democratic Party] brought a
touch of Stalin, so to speak, back into play: We thought out loud about whether
a unified, alliance-free Germany could be created, as the Soviet dictator suggested
in 1952. The Social Democrats were no strangers to such considerations, and
since the seventies were quite inclined toward the idea of neutrality. This was
called the "second phase of political détente.” During the eighties, there
was even a trend toward neutrality among national conservatives. So why not pay
the price for reunification that we wanted anyway and once and for all, get out
of the East-West conflict and be bloc-free?
But
reunification came the way it came, because Gorbachev did what he did - and
what many hardly thought possible: He accepted the expansion of NATO. Because
of this, Magnus
Enzensberger considered him among the “heroes of
retreat.” On a more basic level, one can say that Gorbachev was a realist. He
was aware of how exhausted and weak his country was. So the whole of Germany
became part of NATO - and Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, the
Czech Republic, Hungary, Croatia, Bulgaria, and Romania. Now in Germany, however,
a quarter of a century later, a legend is taking hold that the Russians had
been promised something quite different. Why is that? Do Germans love the
Russians so much that for Crimea, they would rewrite their own history?
Not
really. If that were the case, they would for example more often vacation in
Russia than in America. No - Germans are afraid of the Russians. Like manure on
a bed of beets, such fear sustains these legends, and stories like this are so
soothing. If we, or better yet, the E.U. and the Americans, are to blame for
what the Russians are up to in Ukraine, then basically all is well. This is business
as usual. We can all sleep peacefully.
After
two terrible wars - wars lost in disastrous fashion, it’s no wonder that
Germans have a deeply-rooted fear. After the war crimes Germans committed in
Russia, and the war crimes Russians committed in Germany, fear of the Russians
is just as unsurprising. But What of it? Thoughts meant to dissuade us from fear
are the wrong thoughts, and decisions made to alleviate our fears bad ones. One
must look at things the way they are and make the right decisions, and as it
stands, there is considerable cause for concern.
Putin’s
actions in Ukraine are warlike. He marched onto foreign territory. He continues
to tyrannize the country. He hasn't made good on his promise to withdraw his
troops from the border. He is using natural gas to practice extortion. His
volunteer forces destabilize Ukraine with torches in hand. Toward its neighbor
Ukraine, Russia is imposing a policy of aggression contrary to international
law. It isn't the West, but the Kremlin, that is responsible for this. All of
this is dangerous for the simple reason that Putin’s policy has succeeded. People
no longer talk about taking away his booty, and if a person succeeds, he will
persist in that behavior.
Russia
is the largest country in the world, but it is in no way as strong as it seems
when viewed through the eyes of its tiny neighbors, or when seen through the
lens of fear. It is, strictly speaking, a weak country with a strongman at the
top. The world knew just how strong and overbearing Putin was when, with
commendable regard for the constitution, he installed Medvedev as president for
four years so he could get himself reelected. It would be nice if Putin really
were such a flawless democrat.
But
Russia is not a perfect democracy. The country is pitifully weak. It’s possible
that relatively speaking, present-day Russia is even weaker than the Soviet
Union at the time of its collapse. That's because economically, Russia cannot
be described as a middle level power - certainly not if we set aside the main
source of its all-too-low level of prosperity, commodity exports. Nothing
against selling your own treasure, but this in itself isn't a sustainable
business model, and the lack of one is what makes the situation in Russia so
miserable. Unlike the countries Russia exploited and oppressed during the
Soviet era, Russia didn't improve itself after communism's collapse. Furthermore,
Russia’s relative power has been further reduced by China's continuing economic
growth.
The
result of this is: alarm. Because a weak Russia has now embarked down a
successful path that promises a return of lost strength and pride. Putin is the
avatar of this pride, its incarnation. And that is, once again: dangerous - for
Russia’s neighbors, of which we are one, and for the world. What should we do? We
certainly shouldn’t sing lullabies. Talk to the Russians? Sure, that sounds
good.You cannot kiss all by yourself. But
if Moscow wouldn’t listen before the annexation of Crimea, what would bring it
to listen now? What we have here is not a problem with the political
atmosphere, but with security policy. Security risks cannot be adequately
addressed with measures to improve the atmosphere, but with armor. The good
years are over, and the West must upgrade its military.
