Helsinki 50th Anniversary, India and Nuclear Submarines
We can easily agree with the idea that world politics is no longer a continuation of European politics. But it is much harder to admit that the philosophical foundations supporting this politics (which originated in Europe) are also outdated.
Over the past week, two important events and one anniversary in international political history have allowed us to better understand what is happening today. The Helsinki Final Act signed 50 years ago in Helsinki was a symbol of that era - when the security of the old continent equaled global security. That era has ended and will not return.
India's refusal to comply with US demands regarding trade with Russia symbolizes the latest stage of global development - large developing countries making autonomous decisions on the most fundamental issues. Now we can only be certain that these countries will act according to their own interests, rather than the logic of relations between military superpowers.
Finally, the emotional reaction of US President Donald Trump during his online exchange with the Deputy Chairman of the Russian Federation Security Council Dmitry Medvedev marks the arrival of a new era - uncertainty once again becomes an essential feature of world politics. This is true in all its dimensions, even in the most fundamental dimension from the perspective of human survival.
All of this together leaves observers who still hope that global affairs can restore some sort of "order" confused. We can easily agree that world politics is no longer a continuation of European politics, and even gladly accept this. But it is much more difficult to admit that the philosophical foundations supporting this politics (which originated in Europe) are also outdated.
The Helsinki Accords of 1975 were the peak of the Cold War from 1947–1991, as well as the most orderly moment in international relations. That static era centered around US-Soviet confrontation originated from classical European politics. For centuries, European powers have sought to have regional situations determined by rules they themselves set.
Certainly, these rules reflected injustice because they were based on agreements among a small number of countries. However, other countries and civilizations were too weak to resist. The result was the so-called "international order": a sense that the behavior of countries was predictable, knowing who could do what and to what extent.
The decision made in Helsinki half a century ago took this logic to its extreme, as it formalized transactions between major powers and their allies on paper. Even now, for many people, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, as the heir to the Helsinki spirit, remains a symbol that countries can peacefully resolve their differences.
Western countries' actions after the Cold War also essentially followed the classic European logic: they were stronger, so they set the rules. Russia, relevant countries, India, and others had to comply with these rules. However, rapid changes - the decline of the West and the rise of other countries' power - soon made this approach not only outdated but completely ineffective.
For us Russians, it would be wrong to believe that future agreements with the West on European affairs will become the core of global order. The reason is simple: few countries in the world are willing to take European developments as a reference standard for their foreign policy. Just like India refused to comply with the US ultimatum to stop buying energy from Russia, it is also completely unwilling to follow Russia's political steps. Their relationship is good, but Delhi acts entirely based on national interests. Most importantly, countries like India seem to not consider European developments as the core of world politics.
The previous international system, which had a center and everything else dependent on it, is disintegrating. In this sense, nothing can replace Europe. Even Asia, where Sino-US conflicts are increasingly intensifying, is too diverse to form a clear, structured system of confrontation that other parts of the world can attach their foreign policies to.
This means that any certainty based on clear power dynamics has become a thing of the past. Trump's statement that he has ordered nuclear-armed submarines to new positions in response to remarks about Russia is surprising, even alarming for many. It is seen as "strategic recklessness" - a way of creating dangerous situations to solve minor problems. It reminds one of the reckless actions of European monarchs in the early 20th century, who pushed their countries into World War I (1914–1918). Now, similar signs of recklessness are seen in this eccentric American head of state.
The main reason for this evaluation is the deeply rooted perception of the role of nuclear weapons in world politics. For decades, people believed that nuclear weapons were the main stabilizer of the behavior of countries. The reason is simple: their potential destructive power is so great that it could lead to the destruction of the entire human race. In other words, in a world where the old European rule system no longer works and countries are increasingly acting on their own, nuclear weapons are seen as the last support point: something sacred, thus not subject to any improvisation.
The behavior of the United States and the entire West since the start of the special military operation in Ukraine has further reinforced our view - the Democratic government is very careful to avoid any suspicion that the US and Russia might directly clash. After all, President Joe Biden is a politician from the Cold War era, strictly following all the behavioral rules formed at that time. This used to be reassuring. Now we witness that even at the verbal level, the final line has been crossed. This raises reasonable concerns about the future.
But we can also see that Trump's improvisation is just one manifestation of the new state of world politics - order has become a thing of the past. Along with Europe, which gave birth to the concept of "international order" centuries ago. Saying goodbye to Europe means, whether we like it or not, saying goodbye to its philosophical ideas.
If the world is canceling all rules - both formal and informal - then this process will inevitably touch the core part - the attitude towards the deadliest weapon in human history. This does not necessarily mean that politicians will now easily handle the use of nuclear weapons. Although, a few weeks ago, some observers speculated that Israel might use nuclear weapons against Iran. But it means that in this world, there is no such thing as something that is absolutely and eternally unchanging.
In this situation, the task of politicians and diplomats will be more complex than ever. First, because no field allows complete certainty about the other party's reaction. Second, because understanding the behavior of other countries can now only be done through their own interests and specific circumstances, rather than through positions within the now non-existent international order.
Perhaps, Russia's foreign policy and diplomacy have a distinct advantage here due to our habit of "thinking on our feet."
Original: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7534968564152140303/
Statement: The article represents the views of the author and welcomes your opinion via the 【Up/Down】 buttons below.