A Wake-Up Call: Facing the New Challenges for Europeans and Americans
By Senator Joseph I. Lieberman
Delivered at a conference sponsored by the Aspen Institute
Prague, Czech Republic
June 10, 2014
Im delighted to join you here in Prague to celebrate the 25 th anniversary of the fall of the Soviet Union and the liberation of hundreds of millions of people from Communist repression. There are only a handful of years in modern history with a claim to as much significance as 1989. But they were years of terrible bloodshed. 1989 stands alone as the year in which peaceful, principled uprisings achieved political transformation that can only be described as miraculous. The greatest credit for this triumph belongs to the people of Central and Eastern Europe who suffered for so long and arose so courageously. But, I hope you also know how much the people of America and successive generations of our national leadership identified with your cause and rejoiced in freedoms triumph in 1989. As I look back on my twenty-four years in the U.S. Senate, there is nothing that gives me more satisfaction than the work I was privileged to do to extend economic assistance to the newly independent nations of the former Soviet Union and to work for the admission of each of your countries to NATO as quickly as possible. But, as we often say in America and as recent events in Ukraine make clear, freedom is not free.
If this conference had occurred on the first day of 2014, it would have been a purely joyous occasion. We would not have asked, with any justification, whether the miraculous achievements of 1989 were permanent. Yet the unforeseeable has happened again. The peace of Europe is threatened. The fight that so many of you fought and won in 1989 is not yet finished. It was conventional wisdom just a few years ago that Europe had arrived at the end of history, that Europeans had moved beyond geopolitics, and that, after being ground zero of the great and grisly strategic contests of the 20th century, the continent was pretty much "fixed." The greatest danger for Europe, in this view, was its own growing irrelevance to the "real" strategic center of gravity for the 21st century -- presumed to lie somewhere off in the Middle East and Asia. Hence the calls for NATO to go "out of area or out of business," because the continent was on the cusp of perpetual peace, other than a few loose ends in the Balkans and Eastern Europe -- which presumably would go away as the magnetic balm of European integration eventually cured them. And this in turn also meant that Americans were free to stop thinking strategically about Europe. This view was and is dangerously wrong. In fact, the relative peace, prosperity, tolerance, and security achieved from Lisbon to Tallinn is by any historical measure not the natural state of the European continent. On the contrary, this has been a part of the world that has proven unusually prone to conflict --
which is perhaps not surprising, given how diverse its people are and how fragmented political power historically has been. To the extent that Europe has moved in the direction of being whole, free, and at peace, it is not the preordained result of some dialectic of history or irreversible evolution of Europeans towards a higher plane of geopolitical existence, but because of a remarkable combination of events, heroic and idealistic leaders like Havel, Walesa, and Gorbachev, popular support for change, and moral and tangible backing from the United States and other Western nations. That is exactly what the people of Ukraine need now. Today the bell tolls for Ukraine but it also tolls for the rest of Europe and the United States. The political order we have built over the last 70 years--first by defeating fascism in World War II and then by collapsing Communism in the Cold War--is under genuine threat. The values of liberty and law are at the heart of the Euro-Atlantic Alliance but values alone are not self protecting or self-perpetuating Political will and military strength are as necessary in Europe as anywhere else. There is no European exception to this truth that history teaches. The threats we confront today in Europe have their origins in Vladimir Putins belief that 1989 should never have happened, that it was an annus horribilis, not an annus mirabilis. But Mr. Putins campaign of intimidation
cannot succeed unless it is facilitated by the complacency of the nations that once stood together to resist Soviet expansion. A dictator an aggressor is never satisfied with what he has. The timidity and complacency I see on both sides of the Atlantic will only encourage him to take more. And so, while we celebrate the events of 1989 here this week we also need to confront the new Russian threat and revive the understanding we had about how to defend peace and freedom from a dictatorship that respects neither. The problem we face today is not a Cold War mindset in the West, but the persistence of the Cold War in the mind of the Russian president. It is still possible to avoid a protracted conflict with Russia that seems like another regional Cold War if we act together with strength, clarity, and fearlessness. To overcome todays Russian challenge, I believe we must take at least three steps: eliminate the current, local advantage of the Russian armed forces, follow through on the threats to quarantine the Russian economy in case of further Russian recalcitrance or aggressions, and remain publically committed to our best political values and ideals, the foremost of which is freedom. To accomplish the first, Europe must reverse the decline of its military capabilities. I know that is a familiar plea from America,, one that has long been ignored. I make it again because the Russian seizure of Crimea confronts us all
with a new strategic reality. Every member of NATO must take immediate steps to meet the alliance-wide commitment to invest 2% of GDP in their armed forces with an emphasis on mobile deployable forces that can rapidly respond to a Russian buildup or campaign of subversion. The United States must also do more and that will require reversing the ongoing cuts in our military for budget that would make it easier for America to do what we should do--return at least two combat brigade teams to Europe and forward deploy them with other NATO troops to NATOs eastern borders. This will require Presidential and Congressional leadership in an America that is today not eager for more international involvement, it can and must be done. Together, we in NATO must be ready to meet all reasonable requests from Kiev for economic assistance and for support to defend themselves, and that means more than ready to eat meals and night vision goggles. I would go one step further, applying the lessons of the years after 1989. If the people of Ukraine decide that they want to join NATO, we should begin the process of accepting them. The third necessary response to Putins threat to the peace of Europe must be ideological and moral. Throughout the Cold War, you and we were driven by the ideal of freedom. That was what the triumph of 1989 was all about and it is what we must make clear is at risk again now. The Ukrainian peoples courageous
decision to choose European democracy over Soviet repression and state sponsored corruption is what started this crisis. Not only the Ukrainian people, but the Russian people must know that what motivates us most is our values. With his seizure of Crimea, Putin has fanned and exploited nationalist emotions in Russia that have made him more popular there than he had been. For now this has made him more popular at home, but lets remember that Russians led by people like Navalny were filling the streets of Moscow just a few months ago in protest of the corruption and thuggishness of the Kremlin under Putin. I am confident that before long they will return to the streets to secure their freedom and their future. As we did during the Cold War, we should face Putin with confidence and not in fear and support his opponents in every way we can as we supported the opponents of the Soviet Union. The Russian people recognize the moral and material bankruptcy of the regime that is ruling them. Thats why Putin is turning to nationalism. He has so little else to offer his people. And that indeed is probably why Ukraine is so threatening to Putin, and why it is so important for him that Ukraines move to democracy is derailed and discredited. Putin fears that a successful democratic revolution in Kiev will inspire the same in Russia. I believe, hope, and pray he is right.
There is a well-known story from American history about Benjamin Franklin emerging from the Constitutional Convention in Independence Hall in Philadelphia in 1787, to be greeted by a crowd that had been waiting anxiously outside to find out what had been decided in the secret meetings inside: A woman in the crowd shouted: Mr. Franklin, what have we got--a Republic or a Monarchy? Without hesitation, Franklin responded: A Republic if you can keep it. And so it is with Europe today. Europe will be whole, free and at peace if you and we can make and keep it that way.