woman Sarotte, 1989, have been studied in West-Berlin. What is your memory of the turning point 30 years ago?
Unfortunately, I was in the night that the wall came down on 9. November 1989 in Berlin. So I had to write a book, in order to compensate for my absence! In retrospect, I’m grateful that I was able to experience the last days of the Cold war in Berlin. When I got there, no one thought that the wall might fall soon. I traveled a lot in the GDR, Czechoslovakia and Hungary. As a result, I learned more about the Warsaw Pact. I was later glad that I had done that.
Also Vladimir Putin was in 1989 in Germany, he was a KGB Agent in Dresden. Shaped his policy today?
Yes. There is the theory of the operational Codes of the US-political scientist Alexander George. With this he means that leaders have an inner sense of direction or rules, is determined by your experiences as a 20 to 30-Year-old. If you come later in the Power, you can apply these Beliefs. They serve as a mental map, to the you behave. I believe that the experience of the people’s uprising in the divided Germany has shaped the operational Code of Vladimir Putin. This theory helps to explain his lack of tolerance towards any Form of disagreement between the people and the leadership. Putin knows since his time in Dresden, that protests can get out of control.
“Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, I consider as the end of the period after the Cold war.”
After the fall of the Berlin wall began in an era of optimism. At the latest since the annexation of Crimea in 2014, this is no longer the case. Putin is personally responsible for it?
As a historian, there is only one phenomenon that I’ve never watched, this is the mono-causality. Putin has obviously played a big role in the alienation between Russia and the West, but there are other important factors, such as, for example, the de-democratization of Russia and the corruption. Already under Boris Yeltsin, left the White house, the seat of the Russian government, serving food, and the war in Chechnya began, the distance to the West. Putin, by contrast, the United States supported after the attacks of September 11. September 2001.
Why a deterioration in the relationship anyway?
The so-called colored revolutions ( 2003 in Georgia, 2004 in Ukraine, 2005 in Kyrgyzstan, the Red. ) have broken the relationship beyond repair. For Putin, these uprisings had been instigated by the West, rather than that he would have recognized the inner origins. In particular, he resented the protests in Kiev, since he never accepted that Ukraine, Russia had separated. The final break came with the annexation of Crimea in 2014, which I consider to be the end of the period after the Cold war. It was a violent change of borders, which was the consensus after the Cold war incompatible.
Mary Sarotte, a historian and author
The perfect English-speaking American Mary Sarotte is a Professor at the Johns Hopkins University. In addition, she teaches in Harvard. She has written several books, including “The Collapse: The Accidental Opening of the Berlin Wall” and also to the turning point, “1989: The Struggle to Create Post-Cold war Europe”. The “Financial Times” awarded both works as the “book of the year”. Sarotte belongs to the think tank Council on Foreign Relations.
Was the West naïve or arrogant in his assumption that Russia will give the Status of a regional power is satisfied, as US President Barack Obama in Moscow attested to?
What concerns the relations between the United States and Russia, I think it is the Best to concentrate on factual statements and facts. Russia has a strategic nuclear Arsenal, making it a global and not just a regional Power. I would not describe Russia as a regional power.
What the West has done wrong, after the wall had fallen?
Let me, colleagues, Odd Arne my quote Westad: It is “clear that the West should deal with Russia after the Cold war better,” not least because “Russia would remain due to its sheer Size, in all circumstances, a decisive state in any of the international System”. But it is difficult, alternative ways.
How, specifically, the West should deal with Russia?
In Europe after the Cold war, the ultimate challenge is to find a way to integrate Russia as a constructive component, not as a confrontational Challenger. A solution seemed to offer the partnership for peace (PfP), one of the Nato connected to the security organization, which still exists today and belongs to Switzerland. Until 1994, the United States preferred that potential new member States joined initially the PfP as a sort of test run before they were fully included in the Nato.
“I am concerned that we have lost the INF Treaty, the intermediate-range missiles.”
What happened in 1994?
the victory of The Republicans in the US mid-term elections, has marginalized the PfP in a critical Moment. The “contract with Americans” the Republicans called for a full Nato enlargement. The Clinton government set out to change this. The partnership, however, should more time be granted to develop. You would not need to replace the extension, but you would have been able to help ensure that Russia accepts this process better. At the same time, however, is already in the Helsinki final act of 1975 that States are free to choose its military alliances.
there Were other chances that were not used? Theoretically would have been possible that the Nato developed in a pan-European security organization. However, U.S. President George H. W. Bush and the German Chancellor Helmut Kohl pursued after the fall of the wall, another strategic objective, namely, to continue the Nato and the organization for security and cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the European security should be in the focus. This decision was reasonable. Bush and Kohl had in this project, the support of the German citizens, as the elections showed, in 1990.
How would you judge this in retrospect?
That decision led to the Europeans of the United States remained dependent on what concerns the security. Today this is problematic, since Donald Trump again and again the future of Nato in question, which I think is a mistake. Even if it is in the past, opportunities to change the Alliance, the current climate is a dramatic change is not favorable. In other words: If your house is on fire, don’t you start with a kitchen renovation.
“There are worse things than a global Cold war, namely a global hot war.”
Russia and America to test launch missiles. A new arms race can equip still turn away?
in the Short term, unfortunately, is not. It is a tragedy that the arms control agreements of the Cold war exist. I am especially concerned that we have lost the INF Treaty. This Treaty led to the elimination of a whole class of nuclear weapons, intermediate-range missiles. Their use is possible again, and that would be a disaster.
Has started a new Cold war, while we the end of the old party?
It is clear that we are in an Era of new conflicts. Russia has changed the borders with violence, and carries out cyber-attacks on Europe and the United States. Despite trump’s personal fixation on Putin and the political Establishment in Washington, Moscow again, as a big opponent. Therefore, the Form of the new Cold war emerges, albeit without the ideological component of the previous Version, an important difference. At first glance, the tragedy seems to be, but a new Cold war would not be actually bad. That would be better and more bearable than many other scenarios.
weep for the Cold war?
no! I shed no longing for the dangerous nuclear standoff of my youth and the blood that has taken place. But we should not underestimate the achievement of the Cold war. There are worse things than a global Cold war, namely a global hot war. A new Cold war would be an Era of diminished expectations. In decades of conversations would have to be arms control agreements negotiated. Unfortunately, Washington and Moscow have been torn, separately or together, the barriers of the past low. But we need to return to such agreements. There is no Alternative to the laborious process to open the doors again.
30 years of the fall of the wall – series at the turn of 1989 part 1: An introductory graphics part 2: civil rights activist Marianne Birthler, part 3: the double agent Oleg Gordijewski part 4: John Sununu, chief of Staff of George H. W. Bush part 5: Horst Teltschik, an adviser to Helmut Kohl, part 6: Mary Sarotte, US-historian
Created: 07.11.2019, 23:41 PM
