Seventeen years have passed since Russia first sent the signal that it deplores the post-Cold War security architecture and is ready to change it. Vladimir Putin’s speech in Munich in February 2007 was a turning point in Russian foreign and defense policy. He not only declared his dissatisfaction with the global order, but also began an assault on the West.
Despite Putin’s blunt message, the western reaction was mild enough to continue with politics as usual, despite the speech being clearly provocative. Putin’s words were full of Cold War rhetoric and presented a new model of relations with Russia as a road towards sustainable peace in Europe. The model insisted on the non-escalation of international relations, non-irritation of Russia and continuation of business with Russia.
No one in the West was ready to say, “We heard you, Mr. Putin. We will alter our strategic plans and policies according to your message.” Nor did anyone do anything to get ready for what could come next. The West continued with wishful thinking that it was always right since a new war in Europe was too distant to imagine. Instead of continuing to deal with Russia as if nothing happened, we should have stopped for a moment and tried to think like the Russians did: The rules-based order is over, and a game without rules is approaching. And the next question the West had to ask was: How do we adapt to the new reality?
Who should have done that? Of course, the leaders of Western great powers. Former U.S. President George W. Bush had to say “no” to Putin in Sochi in the spring of 2008 when discussing Georgia’s future. Former German Chancellor Angela Merkel had to say “no” to Putin at the Bucharest North Atlantic Treaty Organization summit in 2008 when he tried to exercise a veto over providing the Membership Action Plan, a path to membership into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization for Georgia and Ukraine.
I was present at the Bucharest NATO summit. I was under the impression that Putin had come to Bucharest to orchestrate the decisions of NATO leaders instead of being just a participant in the NATO-Russia Council meeting. Before the council meeting started, all heads of NATO states, foreign ministers and defense ministers had to wait about 40 minutes for Putin to arrive. Surprisingly, this awkward situation did not inconvenience anybody in the meeting room.
As Putin spoke, nobody took him seriously when he, in essence, declared that Ukraine is an artificial state, that Ukraine has no right to exist and it could be easily divided. Note that he said divided, not annexed to Russia. Putin delivered his speech in Russian. Since the vast majority of those present did not understand Russian, something was lost in translation and in the notetakers’ interpretations. Since I was born during the Soviet occupation of Latvia, I am fluent in Russian. I understood the message as Putin had intended it. What shocked me most was that he used the same terminology that was used about Poland before World War II.
To my mind, the Bucharest Summit and the following NATO-Russia Council meeting were the lowest points in NATO’s entire history. Most Western leaders strongly believed in the principles observed in East-West relations after the 1962 Cuban missile crisis and the 1975 Helsinki Final Act. They had no clue that things might drastically change because someone was using a different paradigm. This someone was Putin, sitting as a partner with us at the same table.
This situation reminded me that personalities matter a great deal in leadership. I have met four U.S. presidents. They are elected by the same people under the same constitution but their education, life experience and leadership skills differ greatly. The next U.S. presidential election will matter not only for the U.S. but also for many global friends and partners of the U.S. The choice of the American people can shape the future of its friends and partners significantly.
The belief that in geopolitics one can strike a deal in any situation, because one knows how to make a deal, is a delusion. Making deals and running a country like a business enterprise is far from the most effective practice. Let us take a few examples from the second half of the 2010s: North Korea, Russia and the Middle East — big noise, but only minor deals and insignificant results. When these deals failed, we did not even see disappointment because, in business, deals are expected to fail. In international affairs, it is important to see the whole process of complicated global issues, and often, only step-by-step efforts may bring the world to sustainable results.
In the present situation, where Russia shows no sign of stopping its war in Ukraine, only a few political leaders outside Russia can change the course of the war. Quick, one-deal solutions may make the situation even worse. The way Americans vote in the upcoming presidential election will have an effect throughout the world. This is the right time to remember what Former President John F. Kennedy said in 1961 in his inauguration speech: “Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” That is what Americans and all democratic people must do, together without hesitation, for the future of mankind.
Valdis Zatlers is the former president of Latvia and wrote this Op-Ed in cooperation with the Center for Geopolitical Studies Riga.