IS IT ACCURATE TO DESCRIBE CURRENT TENSIONS BETWEEN RUSSIA, NATO AND THE EUROPEAN UNION AS A NEW “COLD WAR”?

Posted: January 5th, 2023

IS IT ACCURATE TO DESCRIBE CURRENT TENSIONS BETWEEN RUSSIA, NATO AND THE EUROPEAN UNION AS A NEW “COLD WAR”?

Student’s Name

Course

Professor’s Name

University

City (State)

Date

Is it Accurate to Describe Current Tensions between Russia, NATO and the European Union as a New “Cold War”?

Nations can best secure their own interests amid intensifying tension using careful, reliable policy measures. The debate surrounding the dynamics of the new tensions between the European Union (EU), Russia, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) debates whether they signify a “new Cold War” in the contemporary era. Recent events indicate that the states and NATO are replaying the Cold War era’s activities. The relationship between the three entities is of significant importance for all of them and regional security in a broader sense. The interconnecting remit of each of them is matching, providing a latently valuable method of mitigating contemporary technological, and military safety apprehensions (Smith 2020). Russia’s aggression has been cited as making the likelihood of a confrontation in Europe between nuclear-equipped adversaries terrifyingly real. Russia has had tension with NATO over various security issues, with the EU demonstrating strong support for NATO, reassuring Russia of its defensive intentions using actions and exact words encompassed in international law. However, it would not be completely fallacious to conclude that the tensions represent a new Cold War. Casually labeling the present confrontation between Russia, the EU, and NATO is an exaggeration since the level of aggression is not anywhere near that seen during the original Cold War era. Therefore, the present confrontation between the EU, Russia, and NATO symbolizes a new Cold War.

Background

While there have been significant conflicts between Russia, NATO, and the EU, three forms of tension stand out. First, there is disagreement among EU states and their influence on congealing a joint organizational stand towards Russia (Nitoiu 2016; Trenin 2016). The member states lack a common approach regarding how to handle Russia’s seemingly aggressive approach in European matters, which makes it more difficult for NATO to take concrete, justifiable action. In the ensuing period, Russia has been overly engaged in securing its borders and those of perceived allies while placing other states at risk of conflict. Its nuclear dominance and antagonistic foreign policy measures have been seen as a threat to nearby states’ safety, making them alert at all times (Monaghan 2006). Finally, the difference in the worldviews and values between NATO, Russia, and the EU have made the prospect of conflict virtually inevitable. Combining these three tensions and the lack of a foreseeable path of concurrence and cooperation has contributed to what could be referred to as the new Cold War. While the magnitude of the new Cold War has not yet matched that of the initial period, indications are that they could escalate as none of the entities is willing to make concessions (Nitoiu 2016).  Russia is perceived as the antagonistic party bent on causing conflict through its foreign policy, with NATO and the EU at a loss regarding how to comprehensively handle the tensions.

Literature Review

It is appropriate to label the present confrontation between the European Union (EU), Russia, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) as a new Cold War. According to Legvold (2014), the current crisis barely relates to the measure and seriousness of the rivalry that controlled the international arrangement during a significant portion of the 20^th century. Accommodating the possibility that the three parties are locked in such conflict could make legislators adopt unfitting, even hazardous approaches. Indeed, applying such a label is, therefore, a serious issue. Nonetheless, it is noteworthy to refer to things using their actual names, and the breakdown of connections between the EU, NATO, and Russia earns to be labeled as the new Cold War. As outlined by Legvold (2014), the hard truth is that whatever the outcome of the present crisis, Russia’s relations with NATO and the EU will not necessarily return to normal business as witnessed post-Russia-Georgian 2008 war. As evident 2008 nadir, the Obama government had managed to enhance its relations with Russia after the two entities established the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, which saw them concurring on endorsements against Iran, collaborations on supply paths for NATO’s Afghanistan war, and cooperated with Obama administration’s plan of securing nuclear components across the globe. The same could be repeated for the three entities using concrete policies, although the prospect is nowhere near reality.

Among the most attributed causes for the escalating tensions between the three entities is Russia’s regime. Putin’s aggressive stance has been attributed as a cause for concern, with its nuclear-powered military posing danger to any adversary (Sakwa 2008). The political nature of Putin’s two terms as president of Russia between 2000 and 2008 led to the aspect of the regime being questioned. Putin’s foreign policy could be termed as having significance to the question of the new Cold War because it took on an unmoving stance aimed at potentially silencing NATO and its EU allies. Whereas it is possible to deal with foreign policy solely from domestic restraints, the disintegration of foreign policy into the political system perspective is evocative of the essentialism that characterized controversy during the Soviet period. The trend represents one illustration of a way in which, applying a structural sense, Cold war trends of thinking have again surfaced within discussions regarding Russia and its part in global politics. Moreover, Putin’s second term in office in 2004 was supplemented by an ever more unrelenting suggestion that there existed an emergent Cold War in play.

Russia’s contribution towards the Ukraine crisis has raised significant concerns regarding the sprouting of a new Cold War within the European continent. In this setting, relations between the EU and Russia, as well as the West, have remained constrained, frozen, and charted on a path that potentially leads to confrontation. The breakdown of the peaceful and symbolic cohabitation between the two entities has been influenced by the reality that both have selected to ignore pertinent tensions that played out during their post-Cold War relations. The Ukraine crisis only managed to mitigate the tensions between Russia, the EU, and NATO marginally, which could not be maintained over the long term. Despite the possibility of future cohabitation being sought by the entities, there is a likelihood that it could be founded on unstable foundations characterized by the risk of tensions arising again at some point, leading to fresh, even more serious conflict.

The conflict of the worldviews and values between NATO, the EU, and Russia makes confrontation virtually inevitable. The development of tensions since 1991 demonstrates that none of the entities is willing to tone down on their actions and policies (Nitoiu 2016; Rice 2016). The progression of the three tensions thereon has led to the suggestion that both Russia and the EU have conspicuously selected to ignore them, which in turn implies that the possibility of finding a solution remains a mirage. Besides, the cohabitation that the EU sought to forge with Russia, especially in light of the Ukraine crisis, was merely symbolic, as opposed to pragmatic (Li 2020). When the crisis erupted in late 2013, the resulting tension caused by the split between the EU member states intensified, leading to the subsequent freezing of Russia-EU relations.

The emergence of the tensions and their perpetration could, on a larger scale, pose security issues to the European continent. The connections between the three warring parties are of importance to all parties and, generally, for security in the region (Monaghan 2006; Smith 2020). The underlying importance of each actor is complimentary, offering a latently beneficial approach towards addressing present soft and military security issues. From a historical context, there has been progress in achieving peaceful cohabitation, as was evident in the East-West conflict. However, contradiction and ambiguity between the three entities have marred the possibility of a “triangle” relationship being achieved, which has been augmented by concerns regarding conflicting interests. These two aspects have significantly slowed down the prospects of cooperation. Therefore, relations between NATO and the EU have remained problematical, with Russia and the West’s relations reaching a point close to no return. Despite the remarkable importance of addressing geopolitical security concerns in a mutually-agreed manner, little thought has been given to them as the three entities have simply selected to ignore the manifestation of the tensions. Yet, the recognition of a common theme has contributed to the strategic partnership between NATO and the EU, NATO and Russia, and Russia and the EU (Smith 2020). The partnerships have been founded on the premise that the parties face common challenges and share identical strategic priorities, for example, terrorism, theatre missile defense, civil emergencies and defense, the production of nuclear arms, peacekeeping, and maritime security, as well as a broad array of soft security concerns.

The tension between the conflicting sides may worsen with the U.S. being a major influencer of NATO. Carpenter (2018) informs that when historians assess the initial few years of the post-Cold War period, they are likely to wonder at the provocative and lumbering policies that the U.S. and its NATO affiliates pursued towards the Russians. Perspective analysists will argue that a multitude of unresponsive actions by those governments dampened relationships with Russia, and by the final years of the Obama reign, resulted in the beginning of new Cold War (Carpenter 2018). During Trump leadership, things became worse, and the emerging form of Cold War is threatening to become severe.

Conclusion

The manifestation of tensions between NATO, the European Union, and Russia are an indication of the progress of a new Cold War. Despite the present events not matching those of the Cold War in terms of scale and depth, they demonstrate the presence of an unspoken war where each of the actors has chosen to ignore the tensions. Russia has been seen as the antagonistic party, which is attributed to the form of the regime in place. Putin’s foreign policy has often been unrelenting and aggressive, implying that institutionalized frameworks by NATO and the EU cannot be utilized to bring about positive cohabitation. Even if, in the future, the parties make concessions and choose to cohabit peacefully, the agreement would have been founded on an unstable framework. All indicators are that there is a new Cold War, despite many scholars seeking not to label it as such.

Reference List

Carpenter, T 2018, NATO partisans started a new Cold War with Russia. Available from https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/nato-partisans-started-new-cold-war-russia

Legvold, R 2014, ‘Managing the new Cold War what Moscow and Washington can learn from the last one’, Foreign Affairs, vol. 93, no. 4, pp. 1-4.

Li, W 2020, ‘Why do we need to revisit the Cold War?’ China International Strategy Review, vol. 2, pp. 86–98.

Monaghan, A 2006, ‘Russia, NATO and the EU: A European security triangle’, Russei Nei Visions, vol. 10, pp. 1-22.

Nitoiu, C 2016, ‘Towards conflict or cooperation? The Ukraine crisis and EU-Russia relations’, Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 375-390.

Rice, M 2016, ‘NATO’s new order: The alliance after the Cold War’, Origins, vol. 9, no. 7, https://origins.osu.edu/article/natos-new-order-alliance-after-cold-war.

Sakwa, R 2008, ‘New Cold War’ or twenty years’ crisis? Russia and international politics’, International Affairs, vol. 84, no. 2, 2008, pp.241-267.

Smith, R 2020, ‘The ideological dimension of US-Russia relations’, Smith, N. R. A New Cold War? pp. 39-49.

Smith, R 2020, ‘The ideological dimension of US-Russia relations’, Smith, N. R. A New Cold War? pp. 67-76.

Trenin, D 2016, ‘Russia-NATO: Controlling Confrontation’, Politique étrangère, vol. 4, pp. 87-97.