The More Things Change, The More They Remain The Same

Throughout the 20^th Century, Europe has constantly maintained a reality centered on conflict or the threat thereof. Does the creation of the EU give hope for a more peaceful future in Europe?

The 20^th Century was, undoubtedly, the most physically catastrophic and psychologically intense period in human, particularly European, history. Two world wars, the Cold War, and all manner of social and political unrest in between, coupled with three separate genocidal actions (Ukrainian, Jewish, and Bosnian) have deeply reflected the historical fact that Europeans appear to have a deep-seeded cultural inclination do perpetrate violence upon one another. With the creation of the European Union, an existence that has been suggested and pushed by European thinkers since the more “innocent” times preceding The Great War, greater Europe has found itself in a mutually beneficial reality with economic, political, and military advantages. It would appear that the old animosities have been set aside, and the collective conscience of Europe is surging ahead to a cooperative and peacefully self-determined future. However, the cooperative equation still contains the unpredictable variable: Russia.

According to the European Commission’s website, http://ec.europa.eu/external_relations/russia/index_en.htm, the Russian Federation has entered numerous cooperative agreements with the EU in regards to economic trade, the environment, and the upholding of human rights. While this appears to be a positive thing, it still means that Russia maintains autonomy from membership and acts in only limited accordance to the overall aims of the collective partnership. Two wars in Chechnya and the invasion of Georgia prove that the “Russian Bear” is only partially tamed. The velvet glove of democracy still covers the (albeit rusty) mailed fist of Russian Communism. One might be lulled into the belief that the democratic capitalist system is alive and strong in the former Soviet Union, until closer scrutiny is paid to Vladimir Putin. Having served two terms as President and currently serving in the office of Prime Minister, Putin has experienced the top levels of democratic power. However, having been born and raised during the ideological height of the Cold War in addition to being an active member of the KGB until the fall of Communism, one would be remiss to think that new found democracy is enough to wash away the indoctrination received during the highly formative years of his life. Such may be the way of many Russians. Communist ideology is part of modern Russian heritage and culture, and to shake such a defining element of one’s national identity is no small task.

While the former Soviet Union comes to grips with its ideological past, it continues to benefit from the infusion of free-market capitalism, much touted by the West. This “victory,” however, is a double-edged sword. Over the course of the class debates, the fall of Communism, particularly Soviet Communism, was attributed to the dual factors of unsustainable ideology and a crumbling military-oriented economic infrastructure. Essentially, the Soviets were extremely capable of producing military goods like tanks and assault rifles, but could hardly produce adequate common goods like stoves, clothes dryers and razor blades (those produced were of radically inferior quality, by Western standards). With the fall of the Communist regime came the capitalist economy, but NOT the negation of Soviet military potential. This reality poses a critical question for the future of Europe and the West: As cooperative measures between Russia and the EU continue to strengthen the Russian economic infrastructure while at the same time allowing it to maintain massive military potential, what happens when the Russian economy reaches a level of self-sufficiency?

More problematic is the seemingly continued impotence of Western European power. Throughout the 20^th Century, European diplomatic cooperatives have failed to provide a firmly decisive hand in unfolding times of crisis. The League of Nations failed miserably to deal with the rise of Fascism and Nazi Germany, while the United Nations acted in a minimalist fashion when wrestling with Serbian genocidal aggression in Bosnia. Unlike their Russian counterpart, the western democracies of the European Union (with the exception of Great Britain) have grown, for lack of a better term, “soft.” The intellectualization of a century of death and destruction on European soil has left the West with little stomach for blood-shed. While this is completely responsible and both morally and ethically inspiring, it does present possible problems down the road. The Ukrainian Oil Crisis in January of this year, when Russia cut-off the energy supplies it provides to the European Union, revealed a frightening reality of the security threat an invigorated Russia poses. EU leaders recognized the situation, but evaluated it as such:

January’s events strengthened our resolve to continue this work. We do not want to supplant Russia – which will remain a prime supplier for the medium and probably long term. But we need to be clear-headed about the situation. There’s much talk about our energy dependence on Russia, but it’s more accurate to talk of energy
interdependence. The EU may depend on Russia for 25% of our gas and oil supplies, but 70% of Gazprom’s revenue comes from us. This gives both sides powerful incentives to put our energy relations on a firm and predictable basis. The principles of reciprocity, transparency and proportionality are key. We want to strengthen our energy dialogue with Russia, bringing it to accept binding arrangements based on these principles, including in the new EU-Russia Agreement we are negotiating. (http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/09/100&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en)

This response to a serious breach of international relations and security eerily echoes the calls of Neville Chamberlain and his policy of Appeasement. Diplomacy, while being the sensible course of action, may only serve to stave off the inevitable.

The European continent is far from seeing its last taste of bitter warfare. While the formation of the European Union and the capitalization/democratizaton of the Russian economy and political structure serve as stabilizing influences, old tensions continue to permeate the collective reality. The old guard of Communism has undoubtedly remained active below the surface while ethnic tensions continue to exist throughout the continent. Western and Central Europe, despite being unified, strong, and capable, has shown itself to be (potentially) as indecisive/ineffective as it was almost a century ago. At the same time, Russia has repeatedly shown that, despite collaboration and collective bargaining with the EU, it is more than willing to play by its own rules and follow its own agenda, for better or for worse. The creation of the EU and the fall of Communism have simply provided the means with which to extend the timeline of conflict. Given the history of the continent and essentially the nature of man, Europe has simply entered another period of “when,” while the time of “if” still sits somewhere beyond the horizon.