Russia is the largest state on the European continent but has been systematically excluded from the dominant European security institutions of the EU and NATO. This will inevitably lead to post-Cold War conflicts, says Glenn Diesen in his dissertation that he will defend at the Free University on 3 September.
Since 1991, the West has preferred to see Russia as a 'apprentice democracy', but in practice usually treated it as a threat. Russia, even after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, is still the largest and most militarily powerful state on the European continent, is not represented in the dominant European security institutions:the EU and NATO. An untenable situation, which according to political scientist Diesen leads to clashes.
Since the end of the Cold War and the fall of the Soviet Union, the EU and NATO have been so-called inter-democratic security institutions. Membership in both organizations is open only to free, democratic countries. The idea behind this has always been that the spread of democratic values is the best way to prevent war. Democracy and security go hand in hand in this way. After all, history proves that democratic countries do not wage war between themselves.
But the existence of these security institutions aimed at a strong Europe inevitably leads to conflict with Russia. Instead of guaranteeing European security through non-exclusive democratic institutions, such as the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE, where all Euro-Asian countries and also the US are members), Europe has increasingly started to regulate its security through the EU and NATO. Institutions to which Russia does not belong and given its flawed democracy and status as a (former) military superpower cannot simply be included. Glenn Diesen investigated the consequences of this post-Cold War stalemate.
Win or lose
Although essentially defensive in nature, both European security agencies have taken an offensive stance towards Russia since the end of the Cold War, Diesen said. In the case of NATO, this is evident, for example, from the construction of a missile defense shield in Eastern Europe without taking into account the possible security concerns of Moscow.
For example, NATO has made no effort to demonstrate that the shield is purely defensive, as the organization suggests. At the same time, the EU sees enlargement of the Union as the ultimate solution to every remaining security problem in Europe. Since Russia is working on its own political and economic union, according to Diesen, this leads to a situation in which there is only one possible 'winner' (zero-sum game or zero sum game).
Thus, in Moscow's view, the EU and NATO are pursuing a win-lose policy, in which, since Russia is not democratized, they cannot set aside the old contradictions from the Cold War. In addition, according to Diesen, the EU and NATO suffer from a form of 'ideological fundamentalism', which divides the world into right and wrong. The institutions are therefore blind to the security concerns of Russia, even after the fall of the Soviet Union still the largest and most powerful state on the European continent.
Teacher and student
An additional phenomenon is that the EU and NATO have never offered Russia more than 'observer status' within their organizations:it was allowed to watch, including at NATO meetings, but not to vote on European security issues. Great Russia therefore has no influence within European security policy. Russia is treated as a pupil by Western Europe and receives rewards and punishment for 'right' and 'wrong' behaviour. Such a role is untenable for a (former) superpower within Europe, says Diesen. Because of the war in Ukraine, Russia has not been invited to the upcoming NATO summit in Wales in November.
Incidentally, according to Diesen, there are certainly reasons to believe that Russia does indeed pose a threat. But the ideologically charged win-lose policy of the EU and NATO has made a friendly Russia an impossibility in their eyes. “Russian influence” then quickly becomes a “Russian sphere of influence” and can never be legitimate. The 'resurrection' of an 'aggressive' Russia is then always a threat.