Putin's Master Plan. Douglas E. Schoen

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ one has taken a keener interest in the West’s weakness than Vladimir Putin. He has seized the opportunity that Western vulnerability presents, driving internal and external crises, leveraging Russian advantages, and rebuilding the Kremlin’s global power and importance. Putin has struck at the core of the transatlantic alliance, breeding Euro-skeptical parties that want to do away with the EU and encouraging anti-American politicians who advocate for the dissolution of NATO. Putin has fostered and fomented crises from Syria to Ukraine and beyond, starting fires faster than the West can put them out, while exhausting our resources and willpower. Putin has even gone after American and European allies, cutting arms deals with Washington-aligned Arab nations and rekindling old Soviet connections in Latin America and Africa. Putin and Russia have launched nothing less than a full frontal assault against the transatlantic alliance.

      Of course, Russia faces many challenges of its own, not least of which are the demographic implications of a shrinking, graying population and the persistent challenges of an economy that depends almost entirely on oil and gas exports. In many ways, Russia remains, per German chancellor Helmut Schmidt’s famous formulation, “Upper Volta with missiles.”² Putin is a strongman dictator who has short-circuited Russia’s democratic system, ruling over a deeply troubled and divided society that has used petrodollars to paper over the unresolved political, economic, and psychological scars of the Soviet collapse. At a fundamental level, America and Europe are far-stronger societies with considerably greater resources, stability, and potential than Russia. But far from being a comfort, this disparity should make us even more concerned that we have been unable to confront Putin’s propaganda, warmongering, and aggression. It raises troubling questions about the consequences of Western peace and prosperity and whether we have become so complacent in our success that we no longer understand the need to defend it—let alone possess the nerve or courage to do so.

       THE WESTERN INHERITANCE

      The situation was not always so dire. At the turn of the millennium, the transatlantic community seemed reinvigorated and poised for a century of success. The shocking events of September 11, 2001, shattered the post–Cold War peace but gave new purpose and a sense of mission to institutions that had floundered in the 1990s, bereft of the Soviet foe that they were built to oppose. Victory over the Soviet Union had seemingly enshrined the West as the unchallenged political and economic leader of the world community; now the threat of violent Islamic extremism represented a new opportunity for NATO to flex its muscles against an enemy that only understood force, while leaders in Europe and America banded together in defense of human rights and universal values. When America invoked Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty on October 4, 2001, obliging other NATO members to join in its response against al-Qaeda and the Taliban, no one was eager to go to war. But the Western allies understood the seriousness of the threat and stood shoulder to shoulder in support of common values.

      Indeed, in the early 2000s, we possessed so much clarity of purpose that the very definitions of “the West” and “the transatlantic community” expanded to include historically Western countries that had been trapped behind the Iron Curtain but earned their way into our community through hard-fought political reform, tough economic sacrifices, and unwavering dedication to replacing Communism with liberal democracies. Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic became NATO members in 1999 and were joined by Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia in 2004. All these countries went on to join the European Union, with integration efforts ongoing today.

      The process of including former Communist countries in Western institutions has frequently been contentious, but debate and indeed profound disagreement are all hallmarks of open, democratic decision making. When NATO and the EU opened their doors to the countries of the former Eastern Bloc, no one expected a painless integration process. But the United States and its European allies put in the work to get it right, confident that Western values were worth defending and promoting. Today, this commitment is no longer evident. Putin has noticed our wavering devotion to Western values and our lackadaisical defense of core Western ideals.

      America and Western Europe share many political and cultural values and a deep generational bond forged in the fires of twentieth-century history. Even today, any American or European crossing the Atlantic for business or pleasure senses the closeness between our societies. It is a remarkable outcome of history that a Wisconsinite can travel thousands of miles to Germany and find values, churches, and even beers that are familiar. Similarly, a culturally minded resident of London, Paris, or Milan feels at home in the chic cafes and arthouse cinemas of Manhattan’s Greenwich Village. This common cultural expanse of the West, internally diverse but profoundly united, underpins the transatlantic project. As important as the political and economic institutions of the West are, we must remember that they are not ends in themselves: they exist to preserve and protect our civilizational values. It is worth reminding ourselves what these values are and what they mean.

      First and foremost, these values transcend the Left-Right political divide, excepting the radical fringes on both sides. Western values are the arena within which our political discourse occurs. Indeed, the values themselves make democratic politics possible.

      Human rights are the foundation of all the other rights. The most succinct, direct explication of these rights is found in America’s Declaration of Independence: “All men are created equal, . . . endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Jefferson’s words, over two centuries old, were revolutionary not only for their assertion of these rights but also for their contention that they were God given, not government created; governments could not give or take them away. What governments could do, and what they continue to do today, is fail to observe these rights. Recent years have seen Vladimir Putin’s contempt for human rights and liberties, whether through shooting down a plane full of civilians, jailing journalists and activists, or outlawing free speech for homosexuals. A similar disregard for human dignity is shown by the North Korean, Chinese, and Iranian governments, as well as by ISIS, al-Qaeda, and Boko Haram, among other flagrant violators of human rights around the world. The West must remain committed to promoting these rights and defending vulnerable people and populations, from imprisoned journalists to persecuted minorities.

      Free economies—allowing individuals to trade, contract, and create with one another on their own terms, for their own benefit, and in whatever role or capacity they choose—are another cornerstone of Western societies. In Europe, the many varieties of a free economy have yielded democratic-socialist societies in Scandinavia, entrepreneurial capitalism in Poland and the Baltics, and resilient industrial societies in Western Europe. In America, we have built the wealthiest society in history through a spirit of restless invention and innovation. But in corrupt petrostates like Russia, government elites and Kremlin-dependent oligarchs control the nation’s hydrocarbon-dependent wealth, while entrepreneurs and the highly educated flee to the West, where their talents can be rewarded.

      Liberal democracy ensures popular control of government, holds public officials accountable to the citizenry through free and fair elections, and sets clear limits on the power of the state to interfere in the lives of private citizens. The forms liberal democracies take vary, from two-party republics like America’s to multiparty parliamentary monarchies like the United Kingdom’s. In these societies, governments exist for the sake of the population they represent, not for the sake of preserving and perpetuating their own rule. The ultimate good is considered the good of the people, rather than the preservation of a royal family, the enrichment of oligarchs, or the creation of an ideological utopia. Churchill famously said that democracy was the worst form of government except for all the others, and this remains the case. To be sure, democracy rarely produces results quickly or resolves disputes decisively or neatly—and over the last decade or so, political discontent in the West, including in the United States, has led many to doubt the integrity of governing institutions and even the future of democracy itself. Clearly, Western citizens and political leaders must work to improve the political institutions that ensure representative government and open societies. СКАЧАТЬ