From the Hope of 1989 to a New Cold War

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.

Facebook
Twitter
Email
Flipboard
Pocket

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.

Thank you for reading The Nation!

We hope you enjoyed the story you just read. It’s just one of many examples of incisive, deeply-reported journalism we publish—journalism that shifts the needle on important issues, uncovers malfeasance and corruption, and uplifts voices and perspectives that often go unheard in mainstream media. For nearly 160 years, The Nation has spoken truth to power and shone a light on issues that would otherwise be swept under the rug.

In a critical election year as well as a time of media austerity, independent journalism needs your continued support. The best way to do this is with a recurring donation. This month, we are asking readers like you who value truth and democracy to step up and support The Nation with a monthly contribution. We call these monthly donors Sustainers, a small but mighty group of supporters who ensure our team of writers, editors, and fact-checkers have the resources they need to report on breaking news, investigative feature stories that often take weeks or months to report, and much more.

There’s a lot to talk about in the coming months, from the presidential election and Supreme Court battles to the fight for bodily autonomy. We’ll cover all these issues and more, but this is only made possible with support from sustaining donors. Donate today—any amount you can spare each month is appreciated, even just the price of a cup of coffee.

The Nation does not bow to the interests of a corporate owner or advertisers—we answer only to readers like you who make our work possible. Set up a recurring donation today and ensure we can continue to hold the powerful accountable.

Thank you for your generosity.

Ad Policy
x