Publisher: Polity-September 18 2020, Pages: 140, ISBN-10: 150954321X, ISBN-13: 978-1509543212
In the foreword to his book What Is At Stake Now, Mikhail Gorbachev writes:
“My political activity came at a time when my country and the whole world were ripe for colossal changes. We have risen to the challenges. We misjudged some things and made mistakes. But we have initiated changes of historic proportions, and we have done so peacefully. I think that gives me the right to think about the future as well.”
Until his death, he reflected on the present from historical contexts and thought about the future. On page 58 he summarizes his assessment of the world situation in condensed form:
“The great challenges and problems of the modern world are closely intertwined. For me, there are two main threats (…): on the one hand, the danger of a new, devastating war and, on the other hand, the widespread destruction of our living conditions as a result of accelerated global warming, which is undeniably man-made.”
What’s at Stake Now was released in Germany in 2019. With a clear mind, great foresight due to a complex view of history and world politics, he put his assessment of the situation on paper with a correspondingly emphatic warning of future consequences. To anyone who wanted to get involved with Gorbachev’s thoughts, they had to appear – according to their own perspective – as clear as day, comprehensible, or at least worth considering. Little to nothing we heard about it in the western media. They did not find their way into the so-called “public discourse”. Which is somewhat astonishing, since our (quality) media contribute their own self-perception as “objectively” and “pluralistically” as possible to the formation of opinions and between the years 1985 and 1991 they could not report often enough about the “light figure” Gorbachev.
It is not insignificant to keep an eye on this phenomenon from the point of view of what reasons could lie behind this apparent change from great media interest to more or less neglect.
On page S167, Gorbachev describes a similar perception of the situation that I have felt since 2005 at the latest:
“For a few years now, however, the German press has seemed transformed to me. If you pick up an article about Russia, you’ll often find that it was written by a journalist acting like an accuser. (…). What happened? Journalists are free, there is no censorship or any restrictions. But only a few dare to write against the mainstream. Today, it seems to me, the German media shows no sympathy for the Russians, what’s more, they don’t even want to understand them. Although this is exactly what one should expect from the Germans. (…) They not only attack Russia and the Russians, but also those Germans – whether journalists or politicians – who advocate trying to understand Russia first before making a final judgment on the country. Anyone who dares to publicly represent such positions is threatened with ostracism.”
A few pages earlier, he provided possible explanations for this phenomenon:
“The interaction of politics and business, especially big business, with the media is a complex and particularly acute issue today. The fact is that there is a certain dissatisfaction in society with the picture of reality presented by the modern media. More and more people are being overcome by those doubts that the Russian director Stanislavsky famously expressed to his actors: I don’t believe it!”. The disappearance of the boundary between objective information and subjective opinion (…) self-censorship, superficial reporting, an irritating abundance of pseudo-information and at the same time the silence about really important events, the phenomenon of invented, fake news, the hysterical talk shows (…), the overload of the electronic and printed media with advertising – none of these are new phenomena, but in recent decades they have led to the media increasingly reflecting a distorted picture of reality. Who benefits?” (page 133)
Yes: who benefits from it, or to put it another way: in which direction has the (political) wind of prevailing opinion in Western countries started to turn?
“Three decades ago nobody doubted it: the end of the Cold War was our common victory. It came about through dialogue and negotiations (…) Instead of acknowledging this, the West declared itself the winner… and decided (…) to further expand its own military power, to enforce its own will, to create a unipolar world, an American empire. The consequences are well known, in the Middle East as well as in North Africa, in Yugoslavia, as in Ukraine, where the US is actively interfering in domestic political processes. In Europe, that is, on the continent that experienced two world wars! This is unforgivable” (page 24).
Consequently, he asks on the next page:
“What can we do? First of all: do not remain silent, but sound the alarm, argue with those who ignore the danger. Refuting the arguments of those who see the use of force as the path to peace.”
Even back in 2019, “refuting the arguments of those who see the use of violence as a way to peace” was no longer an issue in the public discourse in the leading German media. The situation today is even more incomprehensible: anyone who “keeps silent” instead of joining in the enthusiastic unison war cry becomes suspect. People who dare to argue from a pacifist attitude (which has existed for centuries) can now be publicly ridiculed as “naive”, “cynical towards the Ukrainian people”, “sissy”, “slacker”, “unapologetic”, “yesterday’ or, quite naturally, labeled ‘Putin-friend’, slandered, shouted down and singled out of ‘democratic discourse’.
“Is there a way out of the current situation? The only sensible solution is negotiations. Everything must be done to end the mutual accusations, the bellicose rhetoric and the arms race and to start a serious dialogue” (p. 29).
As was and is not difficult to see from their realpolitik, since the mid-1990s the USA and its “NATO partners” had never dreamed of merging with Russia, which had emerged from the Soviet Union (neither under Yeltsin’s presidency nor under Putin’s presidency) ever to think about a reconciliation of interests or even to negotiate. Why? In Gorbachev’s view
“The United States is dominating world politics, relying on its military superiority – this is the impression, looking at current events. The US wants to marginalize the United Nations and Security Council and replace it with a military alliance that not only expands its own territory, but also increasingly seeks to expand its “sphere of responsibility” – anywhere in the world.”
Aggressive wars (Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya) described as “humanitarian actions”, permanently increased armaments expenditure, NATO eastward expansion, rockets aimed at Russia in Romania and Poland, and as a summit the “invitation” to the ex- Soviet republics of Georgia and Ukraine to join NATO. Please try to change perspective: imagine the US reaction to a “free decision” by a freely elected Argentine government to become a member of a Russian-Chinese “economic and defense alliance”… Or one size smaller: months of mass protests on the Place de la Constitución in Mexico City, where exposed Russian and Chinese government politicians and secret service heads can be seen, making rousing speeches.
Can’t you compare everything? Oh well… then you have a damn short historical memory, or none at all. Ever heard of September 11, 1973 in Chile? (An example of very, very ,many…).
S108: “But using these new opportunities would have been possible only on the basis of an equal dialogue, and only if Russia’s interests were taken into account, especially in building relations with our neighbors, with whom we have shared a complex history for centuries history are connected. At this point, the leaders of the EU neither showed enough political wisdom nor did they have a longer-term vision. This was particularly evident in the way the EU negotiated the association agreement with UKRAINE: the EU did not even half-heartedly include Russia in the negotiations and in the end simply presented it with a fait accompli. (…) I see no other way but to return to the idea of a common home for all Europeans.”
S146: “In general, one has to say that Putin’s attempts to achieve constructive cooperation were not honored in the West, which wanted neither dialogue nor Russia to make concessions on vital issues. I mean the expansion of NATO, the problems of strategic stability and missile defence, trade and economic relations and Europe’s energy supply. Every step Russia took was viewed with suspicion in the West, and we were unjustly accused of wanting to revive the Soviet Union and take geopolitical revenge. Russia had every reason to criticize its Western partners, as President Putin did at the February 2007 security conference in Munich. I read that speech again and cannot understand the Western criticism of it. It neither reveals anti-American or anti-Western attitudes, nor is it adamant or aggressive, let alone a declaration of war, as some have suggested. On the contrary: I find them smart and sensible. Putin is being asked to unilaterally and unconditionally accommodate the West. At the same time, images of enemies reminiscent of the Cold War have been fueled in media campaigns for years. Amazingly, the media reports are absolutely one-sided about Russia. They create an atmosphere of hostility and hostility. An enemy image is revived.”
S158: “In the relations between Russia and the West there is a lack of willingness to understand each other. In any case, our partners don’t try to do that. It is obvious that relations with its neighbors, such as Georgia or Ukraine, are objectively much more important for Russia than for any other country, including the United States.”
S159: “Neither the Western media nor the political leaders had any serious interest in thoroughly analyzing the history and background of the Crimean crisis.”
Let’s turn the tables: anyone who does not want to take note of the decades-long assessments of important contemporaries such as Gorbachev, Brandt, Bahr, Kennan, Chomsky, etc. and at least include them in his/her considerations when assessing the scenario of his/her (expansive) policy is suspect and the accusation that the current situation (war, mass deaths, danger of a nuclear conflict in Europe) was either not taken into account, i.e. “naive”, “irrational”, i.e. in any case “irresponsible” or worse: exactly this prepared for the situation, planned it and longed for it, so to speak.
The life and thoughts of Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev have accompanied my life since 1985 to this day. His person is a critical role model and a critical reflection of my own convictions with regard to the fundamental possibilities of shaping politics towards a peaceful, cooperative, participatory and economically and ecologically compatible world order.
I was born in Germany, I am a child of the cold war. Due to my family biography, I experienced both the western and the eastern side intensively, because I lived in both the FRG and the GDR.
I got to know different worldviews, was in the fortunate position, for this reason, from childhood on, to keep different perspectives and related different truths in different realities beyond “definitely good” – “definitely bad” as the natural way of perceiving the world. In the spirit of Gorbachev, I had high hopes for a world of “warm peace”.
I represent a basic pacifist attitude without any ifs and buts – for reasons of conscience, for spiritual reasons, for rational reasons. I try to live it, as good as I can.
I’m allergic to dogmatism, opinion snooping, moralizing and at the same time bigoted value chatter and the hypocritical commitment to “free speech” as long as it is ensured that “everyone” around me has the same opinion.
I hear the nuances more than the loud, bold and fashionable ones.
I am interested in content, i.e. in context and background and not in slogans, headlines and announcements. I reserve the right to be very skeptical about “social media” and its consequences.
I’ve always had a problem tuning into the big (permissible, expected and safe) canon (on the playground, at school, in the techno world, in political groups, … in short: in considering social conditions and my relationship to them in the general).
I was born in Germany and live in Germany. This is reason enough to deal profundly with questions of (world) politics and my own responsibility. It moves me deeply how Gorbachev appealed to us Germans on the last pages of his last book.
S165ff: “The Germans were deeply aware that their contribution to overcoming the Cold War was only possible with us, but not against us. However, starting in 2014, Germany gradually joined the Western chorus and attitudes toward Russia changed. (…) The notorious image of the enemy is reviving, which we had hoped would be buried with the Cold War. In Germany there are highly professional media. A number of newspapers and magazines made a significant contribution to transforming Germany into a true democracy after the war. They were distinguished by their independent judgement.”
S184: “I would like to express my wish, yes, give my advice to the Germans: Think about the past and the present. Consider where it may lead if we continue along the present path of hostility. I am not asking anyone, including the press, to refrain from criticism. But criticism is one thing, reviving an enemy image is quite another. Anyone who incites nations against each other behaves like the Pied Piper from the famous fairy tale. Today, such a Pied Piper can lead all of humanity to a point of no return.”
S185: “One last word. We can and must ensure normal, good relations between Russia and Germany. Our guides are especially in demand here. But there is also a responsibility that lies with each and every one of us. The well-being of Europe depends on it, and in today’s global world, that of the entire planet. Quite practical experience from recent history proves that we can really change our relationships for the better. We just have to make an effort to achieve that. We must recognize that this is our responsibility. Let’s say to ourselves: we can! We must!”
In view of the current situation and the corridors of opinion and decision-making (“Times of Change”, Olaf Scholz/German Chancellor, “We must ruin Russia”, Annalena Baerbock, German Foreign Minister) and the assessment that this orientation will predetermine and shape the historical and political course for decades to come, I have put to Gorbachev’s last words over all my bewilderment, desperation and the current hopelessness:
“Let’s say to ourselves: We can! We must!”
Works in English
1996 Memoirs–Doubleday
2005 Moral Lessons of the Twentieth Century: Gorbachev and Ikeda on Buddhism and Communism B. Tauris
2016 The New Russia–Polity
2018 In a Changing World
2020What Is at Stake Now: My Appeal for Peace and Freedom –Polity