From the Hope of 1989 to a New Cold War

From the Hope of 1989 to a New Cold War

Thirty years after the Berlin Wall’s collapse, alternatives do exist to the deep divisions in Europe.

Copy Link
Facebook
X (Twitter)
Bluesky
Pocket
Email

EDITOR’S NOTE: Each week we cross-post an excerpt from Katrina vanden Heuvel’s column at the WashingtonPost.com. Read the full text of Katrina’s column here.

On November 9, 1989, East German border guards opened the Berlin Wall and changed the trajectory of history. The fall of the wall marked the beginning of the end of the Cold War. It was also a moment of hope and possibility. Even before the wall came down, Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev was making the case for a “common European home” in which the United States and the Soviet Union would both play a role, winning cautious praise from Western leaders. “I think we have come out of a period of cold war, even if there are still some chills and drafts,” Gorbachev said in June of 1989. “We are simply bound to a new stage of relations, one I would call the peaceful period in the development of international relations.”

Thirty years later, those “chills and drafts” are intensifying. The United States and Russia are now locked in a new Cold War that represents a grave danger to humanity. Together the two countries possess nearly 14,000 nuclear weapons, about 1,800 of which are kept on hair-trigger alert. According to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the risk of “destroying our world with dangerous technologies of our own making” is at its highest level since 1953. And, unlike in 1989, there is little hope that tensions will thaw any time soon.

President Trump claims that he’d like to “get along” with Russia, but his administration has increased the level of nuclear peril. This year, the United States withdrew from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty signed in 1987, a move that nonproliferation experts warned could lead to a new arms race. Now, it appears that the New START Treaty, set to expire in February 2021, could be the next to go. The New York Times reports that the Trump administration “intends to let it expire unless it can be broadened” to include China, which is “not interested.”

Read the full text of Katrina’s column here.

Take a stand against Trump and support The Nation!

In this moment of crisis, we need a unified, progressive opposition to Donald Trump. 

We’re starting to see one take shape in the streets and at ballot boxes across the country: from New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani’s campaign focused on affordability, to communities protecting their neighbors from ICE, to the senators opposing arms shipments to Israel. 

The Democratic Party has an urgent choice to make: Will it embrace a politics that is principled and popular, or will it continue to insist on losing elections with the out-of-touch elites and consultants that got us here? 

At The Nation, we know which side we’re on. Every day, we make the case for a more democratic and equal world by championing progressive leaders, lifting up movements fighting for justice, and exposing the oligarchs and corporations profiting at the expense of us all. Our independent journalism informs and empowers progressives across the country and helps bring this politics to new readers ready to join the fight.

We need your help to continue this work. Will you donate to support The Nation’s independent journalism? Every contribution goes to our award-winning reporting, analysis, and commentary. 

Thank you for helping us take on Trump and build the just society we know is possible. 

Sincerely, 

Bhaskar Sunkara 
President, The Nation

Ad Policy
x