June 27, 2008 |  7 comments |  Print this Article | E-Mail Your Opinion  

Heinrich  Bonnenberg

Russia's Western Border is a Sensitive Issue

Heinrich Bonnenberg: To Russia, its current western border is a border that stands for loss and dishonor. This border is an open, bleeding wound on the Russian body. The security pact that the Russian president recently presented in Berlin could be helpful in overcoming historical grievances and bringing Western Europe and Russia closer together.

Russia's western border of today is almost identical to the western border of the muscovite Empire, at the beginning of the reign of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, known as "the gentlest", and the father of Peter the Great, in 1645. From 1645 to 1949, the Tsars and Stalin acquired great areas of land as provinces, autonomous republics and satellites for Russia. This took place over 300 years. The catastrophe for Moscow is that all the territories that were gained in the West were lost within only three years, from 1989 to 1991, together with all the other non-Russian republics of the Soviet Union. It is a geopolitical loss, and with the diminishment of nearly all non-military industry, also an economic one. This is the reason why the western border is perceived as a symbol of historical loss.

Additionally, today's western Russian border is nearly identical to the border that the German Empire forced as victor upon Russia with the Brest-Litovsk peace treaty on March 3, 1918, a border that Lenin, however, likewise accepted for the implementation of his revolution. Russia's current western border is therefore, for several reasons, also a dishonouring border.

It is very difficult for the Russian spirit, and for the self-esteem of Russians, to further experience this border of loss and dishonour through the fact that the US-led NATO is increasingly trying to make it into its border.

Why do Western, and especially American, politicians have no understanding for Russia's bleeding wound? Why is Russia being offended once again and without due consideration? What is the intention? Should Russia be further weakened?

I advocate showing a little more political, or indeed historical, empathy when dealing with Russia. Russia belongs to Europe and whoever forces Russia into the arms of another is acting against Europe.

The suggestion the President of the Russian Federation, Dmitri Medvedev, made during his latest visit to Berlin, to negotiate a security treaty on equal terms, especially between the European nations, should be taken up. This would also represent a historical parenthesis relating back to the Briand-Kellog Pact of 1928, a historical fundament for peaceful development of the world, the long-term efficacy of which was compromised by Hitler's Germany-a German wound. According to the Russian president, the proposal could also be useful for the development of a European civilisation on the basis of occidental values and under consideration of national particularities.

Let's thank President Dmitri Medvedev for making his proposal precisely in Berlin! The proposal heals the wounds of Russia and Germany, and helps Europe, and therefore the world.

Dr. Heinrich Bonnenberg was advisor of the Administration of the President of Ukraine by order of the German Minister of Finance from 1997 to 2003.

Related materials from the Atlantic Community:

  • 5
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this Article! What's this?

 
Tags: | European Security | Russia | EU |
 
Comments
Unregistered User

June 29, 2008

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Very pro-Russian article. That's all. But I understand the intentions very well: a peace and cooperation between Germany and Russia understood as a the greatest states of Europe should be the foundation of European relations and policy, making new hegemony.
Tags: | Europe |
 
Marek  Swierczynski

June 30, 2008

  • 2
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Empathy driven international policy is what the Author outlines above as the recipe for world’s peace and well being. However, his version of empathy is one-way only: towards the Big Ones, whose wounds should be healed and whose pain should be eased for the greater good. To call Russia’s western border „a border of dishonor” is an insult to history and to the memory of the fallen in WWII. It is also indelicacy towards the nations, who suffered under the Soviet yoke or faced Russian aggression before the war. „Acquisition” of land by Tsars and Stalin, the term the Author uses, was nothing more than conquest. I do not know the specific motives behind the article, but the views expressed above seem biased to the extreme and expressed with disregard of the views of a number of European countries and actually with disregard of historical facts. Few borders in Europe are „clean” in terms of who gained and lost territory. If empathy is what should drive international order, why not be empathic to Hungary, who lost serious bits and pieces of its territory to different countries, or Turkey, who lost almost the whole of Balkan Peninsula. Why not regret Poland for the loss of Trans-Olza Silesia or half of Ukraine? Why not feel sorry for Great Britain for losing half of the world? I’ll stop at the moment with any further examples, but anyone could see what I have in mind. Following that pattern of thinking leads to absurd conclusions. Building international policy on it is a recipe for disaster. Not everything that serves Germany and Russia serves Europe and the rest of the world. History proved that many times before.
Tags: | empathy | Russia | Germany | history |
 
Donald  Stadler

June 30, 2008

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
funny, Marek, I was just thinking about another border - one which Russians might not view as an insult - but the Chinese might. The Chinese frontier with Siberia. The Chinese have claims on large chunks of Siberia I believe.
 
Marek  Swierczynski

June 30, 2008

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Sure, Don, empathy could span as wide as to Asia, couldn't it? Think about Pacific islands!!!
 
Vitalii  Martyniuk

July 1, 2008

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
A border of each state is a sensitive issue. As Russia’s Western Border is sensitive for Russia as Ukraine’s Eastern Border is sensitive for Ukraine. Ukraine is ready to solve problems on the Russian-Ukrainian border in the Kerch Strait (the last unsettled part of the border) but Russia poses new conditions and slows the process down. Why? First, Russia wants to change the line of the border in the Kerch Strait on its benefit. Second, Russia wants to have an unsolved problem with Ukraine as a tool for pressuring it. Third, Russia wants to hinder Ukraine to research and develop gas and oil underwater fields in this area. Forth, Russia needs unstable Crimea for political reasons. I would like to be wrong. I might be wrong. But why does Russia slow the process of settling the Russian-Ukrainian border in the Kerch Strait down?
Tags: | Russia |
 
Heinrich  Bonnenberg

July 4, 2008

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Thanks for the comments.

We need in Europe, in all Europe, among all countries the vice versa respectful understanding of each country’s history, characteristics, strengths and weaknesses, interests and mainly each country‘s sensitivities and we need the willingness for forgiveness and to abandon prejudices, all basic values of European culture, regrettably often violated.
Of course, all that needs enormous ability and intellectual vitality. Do we have those capacities? We shall have them as we have to have them.
I am sure, the youth will go this way in order to establish a successful and unviolable future of Europe, of all Europe.

I shall study the situation in the Kerch Strait.
 
Till H. Hennig

October 22, 2008

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
The recent belligerent attempt of an implementation of strategic interests in the formerly mainly Russian zone of influence is considered inter alia by some to be intolerable, by some to be disproportionately, by some to be consistent and by some to be successful.

One can not brush aside in every case the argumentations belonging to those judgements as being surrealistic, but nevertheless some European, American, other and Russian fears attract attention, which are untenable, because they have their source or their end mainly in the emotional sphere.

It is, for example, bizarre to fear, that an objective of good old Europe could be to aid states in an ethnically as sensitive region as the Caucasus in nuclear arming; e. g. because one suspects a hostile power – let’s call it Republic Purple – to pursue its imperialistic works there.

One way or another - weighing between the European-Atlantic community and the German-Russian relations, for a demoscopically notable majority (http://www.faz.net/s/Rub594835B672714A1DB1A121534F010EE1/Doc~E0AD92...) last-named relationship causes a stronger emotional rejection.

However, there are others, who are aware of a European weakness having been emphasized in a peculiar manner by the North American side (http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/3460246.html), which now seems to base serious hopes on French-German action in the Caucasian conflict.

All in all it should become unquestionable, that a Russian assessment of Europe is not to be founded excessively blue-eyedly on the results of Soviet education. The maxim of trust, which seems to be quite underdeveloped in nowadays German-Russian relations should become evident straightly in succeeding Russian actions of foreign and defense policy.

Of course the dilemma is obvious: There are difficulties concerning the implementation to a sufficient degree by the Russian side, as long as in central Europe decisively public personalities are distinguished by a view with a scanty continental perspective.

By the mutual consciousness of subset Russians and subset Europeans, that their (national) histories were interwoven in welfare and woe since periods of time, relations could be, nevertheless, fostered in an as critical as rational way.
Tags: | Russia | Germany | Caucasus |
 

Create Comment

Type the characters shown in the image below into the textfield.
Captcha

What are tags?