Denis MacShane: The mood has darkened across the whole of Europe
Wednesday, 20 August 2008
After eight years of division within Europe on geo-political strategy, is the Russian Prime Minister, Vladimir Putin, building a new sense of purpose in Europe and between the EU and the US?
Yesterday's Nato meeting saw the hitherto pro-Russian German foreign minister agreeing with the firm line taken by Britain's David Miliband about Russian behaviour both in launching the land, sea and air assault of Georgia and the cynicism with which the Kremlin has ignored its pledges to pull out its tanks and troops.
Far from being a chess match in which the Russian grandmaster knocks a pawn off the board, all of Europe is looking hard at what the Putin doctrine means and it does not like what it sees. Last week, President Sarkozy was patting himself on the back after his high-speed shuttle between Moscow and Tbilisi, while Berlin believed its decision to block Georgia's access to Nato was the correct policy.
Today the mood has darkened. Mr Sarkozy now says Russia must withdraw completely from all of Georgia. Mrs Merkel says Georgia can join Nato. Poland rushes to sign a deal with America on missile defence. Ukraine now moves to the frontline as Kiev looks west to Nato and the EU in Brussels for support, rather than north to Moscow for orders.
The Putin doctrine was summed up avant la lettre by America's post-war expert on Russia, George Kennan. He noted that Russia sees its neighbours as vassals or enemies. Neither Ukraine nor Georgia will accept vassal status. When Poland and the Baltic states sought to join Nato, they were told it might make life awkward for relations with Russia. They joined Nato, then the EU, and have never looked back.
Putin apologists in the West like to blame America and the Bush-Cheney years for worsening relations with Russia. Yet Senator Obama will not allow himself to be outflanked with accusations of being soft on the Kremlin. Putin has given the American arms industry and Democratic as well as Republican neo-cons a perfect opening to launch a new Cold War.
The Kremlin wants to drive a wedge between its neighbours and other European states, and between America and Europe. And in its version of Euroscepticism, Moscow wants to disaggregate EU member states into competing nations that reject EU unity.
How should Europe and Britain respond? David Miliband is seen on the Continent as leader of the EU nations that want firm language. He should now take a lead in forging EU unity on the basis of a policy that could be called Kennan-plus. George Kennan developed the concept of containment in place of the confrontation and "roll-back" advocated by hardliners after the Soviet occupation of half of Europe.
Today we need a containment and co-operation policy with Russia. As Charles Grant of the Centre for European Reform points out, Russia is weaker than Putin's rhetoric implies. It has an unhealthy shrinking population the size of Bangladesh and a GDP per capita lower than Equatorial Guinea.
To be sure, Europe needs Russian oil and gas and Russia needs European investment under FDI. So co-operation aimed at drawing Russia closer to European norms of an open market economy should remain policy. David Cameron is wrong to say visa restrictions should be enforced against Russian businessmen.
But on the political front, it is time to admit that efforts since the early 1990s to be friendly to Russia have failed. Far from the West seeking to humiliate Russia, the doors of every western institution have been opened to Moscow. Her generals sit as observers at Nato meetings. Russians have been made welcome at the Council of Europe.
Russia is European by culture and it is in Europe that the bulk of Russians live. It took many patient years of containment before Sovietism expired. Sadly, Russia has refused the chance to become a full, open, partner of Europe on the basis of democracy, rule of law and respect for European norms and values. A new policy based on as much containment as necessary and as much co-operation as possible is needed.
Conservative neo-con language is as useless as those who find excuses for Putin's doctrine of anti-West aggression. Russia has insisted on asserting national interests and defied international institutions and rules. Britain should fashion a containment-cooperation policy but do so as part of Europe. If not, the sabre-rattlers in both Moscow and Washington will resume their old game.
The writer is a Labour MP and Europe minister, 2002-05
-
Print Article
-
Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2008 Independent News and Media Limited

Comments
53 Comments
i live in amerika the jews are killing us here they have total control of our economy and government we are doomed
Posted by darryl | 24.08.08, 17:19 GMT
"The way to politically and economically out-route Russia at it's own game is to make yourselves not energy dependent on it. If, countries put more emphasis on having an adequate energy policy that doesn't rely on foreign resources, then the UK and the rest of Europe will be able to play political hardball when Russia steps out of line. Until then, I don't see how much can be done, other than make alot of useless noise, while the Russian run laughing all the way to the bank with your money in their pocket to fund whatever little military adventures they see fit." (R)
Sure, I agree completely. But as long as the west, and especially the USA, continues to use hydrocarbons with such prodigal wastefulness, Putin and his henchmen will continue to rake in the money. They have no incentive to change their system. Ordinary Russians may be much poorer than under communism, but the elite is living very well. A drop in oil prices might unseat them, but the Texans wouldn't like that.
Posted by John Davies | 21.08.08, 08:46 GMT
The way to politically and economically out-route Russia at it's own game is to make yourselves not energy dependent on it. If, countries put more emphasis on having an adequate energy policy that doesn't rely on foreign resources, then the UK and the rest of Europe will be able to play political hardball when Russia steps out of line. Until then, I don't see how much can be done, other than make alot of useless noise, while the Russian run laughing all the way to the bank with your money in their pocket to fund whatever little military adventures they see fit.
Posted by R | 21.08.08, 05:00 GMT
All MPs who voted for the war in Iraq like zionazi Den are drenched in blood and should shut up and go away.
Posted by SB | 20.08.08, 23:41 GMT
Gus,
I agree in principle. But caught between neo-con lunatics in the USA who feel entitled to start wars with anyone they disapprove of (regardless of whether they have the capacity to win such wars; just look at the unedifying spectacle of the world's superpower bogged down in the sands of Iraq by a bunch of irregulars!), and on the other hand a bunch of corrupt brutal post-soviet authoritarians in Russia, Europe's options are limited.
There was a window of opportunity in the years immediately after the collapse of the Soviet Union. But since then attitudes have hardened in both Russia and America, and it may now be too late.
And by the way your strategy has its dangers. Do you think either Russia or the US would really like to see a European superpower emerge? Do you think they are likely to assist in the emergence of such a powerful rival? Or might they obstruct it? And if so, what is "obstruction" likely to mean in practice for us?
Posted by John Davies | 20.08.08, 23:25 GMT
European nations (the UK included) need to grow the guts to create a new (European) superpower. A strong Europe that will not need the US to exert strategic leverage.
Only a new Europe peaceful but decisive and agile, diplomatic yet able to present a credible strategic deterrent can bring real prospects of peace to the world and avoid the likes of Putin, Bush and others plunging us into world war 3. Europe if unified, will have the means and capability to stand for its own, it only lacks the will and (shameful to say it) the guts. Let us start a second European Renaissance!
Posted by Gus | 20.08.08, 22:58 GMT
Georgia was in the wrong. They struck the first blow, and gave Russia a golden opportunity. But Russias rulers really are not nice people, and they dont run a nice regime.
Elections are nominally free and contested, but the political parties merely act as fronts for the elites. Most of the elites are ex-communist officials, so the same people are still in charge. The economy is as much of a mess as it was under communism. Some free markets exist, but much industry remains in the hands of corrupt networks, much as in the Brezhnev years. The main difference from late communism is that the elites have become enormously richer, and ordinary Russians have become enormously poorer. Birthrates, life expectancy and population are all falling. The whole ramshackle system is propped up by oil revenues. But Putin has chosen to spend the money not on modernising the economy, education or the political system, but on rebuilding the army. Is it any wonder the Poles dont trust them?
Posted by John Davies | 20.08.08, 21:53 GMT
I think we should take a class action against the American neocon government and its paid minions for subjecting us to psychological torture. I mean how long can anyone cope with having reality turned on its head?
Posted by SillyMilli | 20.08.08, 18:01 GMT
Errol Flynn
At last some true perspective.
And also I will add to the Kosovar connect the Israeli-Lebanon caper of last, as it seems that some Russian humor took it on...near exactly the same language and deeds, with the difference that the Hizb didn't fold like Georgians did...and no last minute peppering (yet) of mines towards further civilian colaterals..!
Posted by aribra | 20.08.08, 14:40 GMT
James G | 20.08.08, 11:47 GMT
Apart from never once mentioning money in my piece, or indeed neo-liberalist thinking, I do have to question the reasoning behind your rant at me - it was neither factual or related to my posting, but simply another left winger reverting to type - when challenged with fact or questioned about their ideology, all hope of sensible comment is abandoned in favour of emotional outbursts on the righteousness of their cause, without any redress as to the methods it deploys or its abuse of the funds it takes by force to exercise its 'benign' influence upon us - the world is not a fair place my friend and even less so when the very subjective idea of fairness dreamed up by champagne Marxist intellectuals and their army of gerrymandered state employees is pushed upon us by force and social engineering. And still you did not answer the quandry of how Labour deal with a regime whose history and past ideology many of its members still hold in awe
Posted by Bryan | 20.08.08, 13:30 GMT
53 Comments