The Russia-Ukraine conflict warrants a new European security mechanism

Home>>

By Tom Fowdy (People's Daily Online) 09:20, March 23, 2022

A woman sits on a bus in Irpin, Ukraine, March 5, 2022. Photo: Xinhua

-A new European security mechanism must be one which takes the legitimate security concerns, perspectives and strategic realities of all countries into consideration.

The continent of Europe is facing arguably what could be its biggest crisis since World War II. The events in Ukraine have produced a significant human cost, upheaval and widespread uncertainty. The Russian Federation has argued consistently that the West, in pursing the expansion of the NATO alliance eastwards, did not adhere to Russia’s legitimate security concerns and has feared potential strategic and military encirclement, a move which concerning Ukraine provoked tensions and finally as of 2022, conflict. It is a sad moment for Europe, which has prided itself on unity, stability and progress.

This poses the question: how can European security be better guaranteed? As of present, the current European security order established through NATO may be historically successful for some countries, yet the alliance’s fundamental problem is that it is based on a zero-sum premise of ideological struggle and hegemony, or for that matter an “us vs. them” dichotomy, which believes in the absolutism of not just securing itself, but evangelizing its own values to the rest of the world. It is a security order, which as a result of its own outlook, promulgates insecurity precisely because it needs an “enemy” to vindicate itself.

NATO originated as an anti-Communist military alliance in the 1950s in order to check the power of the former Soviet Union, of which was subsequently balanced by the Warsaw Pact. When the original Cold War ended in 1991 and the USSR dissolved however, NATO continued to exist. Rather than being what was a “defensive” orientated alliance, it in effect became a “hegemonic” one as it moulded itself to the narrative that Francis Fukuyama termed the “end of history thesis”, which argued the premise that Liberal Democracy was the historically endpoint, and the ultimate and permanent outcome of mankind’s trajectory, and that great power politics and ideological struggle would be a thing of the past.

The bombed Radio Television Serbia (RTS) building is seen in Belgrade, Serbia, March 21, 2022. In Belgrade, there are many scars left by the NATO bombings. The NATO bombings of Yugoslavia started on March 24, 1999. During the 78-day military attack, 2,500 civilians were killed, and around 25,000 objects were damaged, including airports, hospitals, schools, cultural monuments and road infrastructure, according to the Serbian government. (Xinhua/Zheng Huansong)

Therefore, NATO’s institutional logic evolved to reflect the sentiment of universal ideological hegemony, that it was a “permanent order” and a “global policeman” of sorts. Therefore, it subsequently began to expand itself eastwards into the former Soviet sphere. This betrayed former promises with Russia by Western leaders that they would not make such a move. NATO’s trajectory of expansion and its bombing campaign in the Balkan Wars subsequently provoked distrust from Moscow, which was a key factor in the soaring of the post-Soviet relations of the 1990s between Russia and the West. Russia began to perceive its expansion as a threat to its own security, setting out on a long journey to the events of the present day.

Despite this being quite obvious, the West continues to deny that they could have possibly done anything wrong by expanding NATO, affectively reaffirming that such was their ideological right to do so and that Russia is merely a “bad” actor for opposing it. This again reflects the zero-sum ideological view of the West, reflecting global security concerns not pragmatically or materially, but through the normative lens of a binary struggle between good and evil which misrepresents the actions and decisions of states as if it were the script of a movie. This is neither realistic nor practical, and it is no surprise that such an arrangement does not in fact provide security for all, but only for some. It does not prevent conflict, it creates it.

As a result, a new European security mechanism must be one which takes the legitimate security concerns, perspectives and strategic realities of all countries into consideration. It cannot and should not be based on an ideological framework or a mentality of hegemony, but instead place a greater emphasis on what achieves the most workable results for all states. Whilst Ukraine, of course, has legitimate security rights and choices of its own, so does Russia.

The post-war system of Europe has had undoubtedly some successes over the years. But if it claims to have moved itself away from the politics of power and hegemony of which dominated the continent pre-1991, and even more drastically pre-1945, then it is mistaken. The logic on all sides that countries must be made to “choose” one bloc or the other is a pathological and zero-sum rendering of how international politics work, and it is precisely such a logic that starts wars. Now however, emphasis must be placed on ending one, and that cannot happen without a fairer and more equal security mechanism.

The author is a British Analyst of politics and international relations with a primary focus on East Asia. He graduated from Oxford University with a MSc. in Chinese studies.

The opinions expressed in this article reflect those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect those of People's Daily Online. 

(Web editor: Zhong Wenxing, Liang Jun)