Only a “common home” will bring peace to Europe

In a speech to the Council of Europe on July 6, 1989, Mikhail Gorbachev, First Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, presented his project for the construction of a “Common European Home”¹ which would include Russia but would have no hostile military alliance within (i.e. neither the Warsaw Pact nor NATO).  On December 17, 2021, Vladimir Putin submitted for negotiation two proposals² for a pan-European mutual security treaty, one between Russia and the United States, and one between Russia and NATO.
  The legitimate security concerns and proposals for security guarantees put forward by the two leaders, at an interval of 32 years, were ignored by the West³ in the most arrogant and irresponsible manner, with the predictable result that we see today.
  Approximately one million people have died or been injured⁴ and a country (yet another one!) lies destroyed ... for nothing. This war, like many others, was entirely predictable and therefore avoidable.

‘To save succeeding generations
from the scourge of war’⁵

Diplomacy for peace is the policy of choice for anti-militarists and for all those who fight for social justice, for whom the priority is the well-being and security of peoples, wherever they may be, bearing in mind that their respective governments rarely represent their interests, particularly when waging wars. Given the real threat today of nuclear escalation, diplomacy for peace must be re-established as the absolute and immediate priority for governments of all colours, in accordance with the UN Charter.
  Diplomacy for peace implies addressing the concerns of an aggrieved country or an aggressor country, through negotiation in order to avoid war – irrespective of “who started it”. As we have seen over the past three years in Ukraine, diplomacy for peace has not simply been absent from the discourse of Western leaders, it has been, more or less disallowed. This is yet another illustration of the disrespect for democratic principles since people in Western Europe – when consulted – are overwhelmingly in favour of peace.
  To avoid war in Ukraine, it was imperative to know what Russia wanted,⁶ and what Ukraine (not the USA, nor the UK nor the EU) was prepared to accept. The answer to the first question is very simple: that this country remains neutral (as promised) and that the Minsk Agreements (signed by Russia, Ukraine, Germany and France) be respected (autonomy for Donbass within Ukraine). The answer to the second question: Zelensky (not Biden, nor Johnson, nor von der Leyen) repeatedly expressed his preference for a solution that would avoid loss of lives, whether through neutrality or loss of territory.⁷ Moreover, Kiev and Moscow were very close to an agreement several times; negotiations were halted by Washington and London.⁸

Gorbachev adulated but betrayed;
Putin loathed and rejected

Some historical context is in order. The fall of the USSR took place without violence. The countries of Eastern Europe were able to free themselves without resistance; their right to independence was recognised. On the other hand, Gorbachev and all Russian leaders since then insisted on the importance of the neutrality of neighboring countries, especially Ukraine and Georgia. Promises were indeed made to Gorbachev. Basically, a united Germany could join NATO, but in return there was to be no eastward expansion.⁹ Since he came to power in 2000, Putin has made dozens of attempts at rapprochement with the West. He even suggested that Russia could join NATO!¹⁰ All his attempts were snubbed and rejected with scorn. A serious mistake in terms of diplomacy.

Putin’s response to NATO expansion
was somewhat restrained

Despite the betrayal of promises, Russia expressed no (explicit) objections when the first three countries (Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic) joined NATO (1999). It even accepted the entry into NATO (2004) of seven other Eastern European countries, including the Baltic states.
  It was not until 2007¹¹ that Putin expressed strong objections: “NATO enlargement represents a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust […]. And we are entitled to ask ourselves against whom is this expansion intended? What has become of the assurances given by our Western partners after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact?” It was Putin, at this event, who was described as a provocateur, a belligerent […] rather than Bush (junior), who “announced” (in 2008) that Ukraine was joining NATO, against the advice of his senior advisors and numerous analysts. 

What did Russia propose
in December 2021?

On December 17, 2021, two documents were submitted by the Russian Foreign Ministry to the United States and NATO members for negotiation, respectively: a draft Treaty between the United States and the Russian Federation on Security Guarantees, and a draft Agreement on Measures to Ensure the Security of the Russian Federation and the Member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Russia’s proposals were immediately rejected by the West as unacceptable, provocative and even scandalous.
  The content of the texts received little media coverage and was summarised as follows: no further expansion of NATO towards the East, and no military bases on the territory of former Soviet states that are not members of NATO (Article 4 of the Treaty). In reality, the two documents go well beyond these two points towards a substantial disarmament/demilitarisation project and a pan-European mutual security structure.
  Are we really so far from the vision of Gorbachev and others, including de Gaulle, Vaclav Havel and, for a time, Macron, of a sovereign Europe – at peace – with an autonomous defence strategy? Or even the “Euro-Atlantic community stretching east from Vancouver to Vladivostok” proposed by the USA in 1991 and welcomed by all parties?¹² 
  For citizens whose first priority is to avoid war, the two documents seem to provide, at the very least, a basis for negotiation. For those who see NATO’s eastward expansion (from 12 members in 1998 to 30 in 2022) and its continued existence since the fall of the USSR, as an unnecessary provocation and a threat to pan-European security, they seem reasonable. Still today, they represent possibly the best hope for long term, sustainable peace and security across Eurasia.

The media, including Le Monde and
the Guardian, misrepresented the texts

The media “informed” the public that the proposals were “unacceptable” but provided no explanation. The texts were misleadingly presented as a set of unilateral demands from Russia, when in fact, with the exception of Article 4 of the Treaty (see above) between the USA and Russia, the obligations apply to both parties.
  Some key points were misrepresented even in respectable newspapers. The Guardian, for example, reported that (in the draft Agreement) Russia demanded “that NATO remove any troops or weapons deployed to countries that entered the alliance after 1997, which would include much of eastern Europe including Poland, the former Soviet countries of Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, and the Balkan countries.”¹³ This is correct, but it omits the essential point that the obligation also applies to Russia.¹⁴ 
  Le Monde headlined that “The two treaties presented propose in particular to prohibit any further enlargement of the Atlantic Alliance, as well as the establishment of American military bases in the countries of the former Soviet space”.¹⁵ By omitting the end of the sentence, which reads “which are not members of NATO”, Le Monde misleads the reader as to the content of Article 4 of the Treaty, which concerns the establishment of US military bases in Ukraine and Georgia, not in any of the 14 states surrounding Russia that joined NATO since 1999.
  Such omissions are significant. They undoubtedly served to justify the categorical rejection of the proposals by most Western leaders, and to persuade public opinion that Russia offered no basis for negotiation.

Endless (proxy) wars or a mutual security
structure for sustainable peace?

As far back as 2022, the New York Times observed: “A decisive military victory for Ukraine over Russia, in which Ukraine regains all the territory Russia has seized since 2014, is not a realistic goal. […] In the end, the Ukrainians must make the hard decisions”, since they are the ones “fighting, dying and losing their homes”. Real negotiations will involve “painful territorial decisions” that must be based on “a realistic assessment of […] how much more destruction Ukraine can sustain”.¹⁶
  Indeed, it is up to the Ukrainians to decide, bearing in mind that this country is deeply divided – if only on the question of NATO. In 2019, the Ukrainian population’s support for the country’s entry into NATO was around 40%.¹⁷
  Acknowledging the legitimate security concerns of all countries, including Russia, now encircled by member states of a military alliance openly hostile to it, would be a first step towards sustainable peace.  It is worth noting that Putin is not asking any country to leave NATO. Gorbachev, still adulated in the West, wanted to dissolve it.  It is worth noting also, that Gorbachev approved the annexation of Crimea, a territory he regarded, with quite some justification, as Russian.

Welfare not Warfare¹⁸ 
in a Common European Home

Europe is currently being propelled towards massive rearmament and quite possibly, nuclear war, by bellicose leaders, rejected and scorned by their erstwhile “protector” and frantic that they may now be deprived of the spoils of war in the form of Ukraine’s strategic minerals.
  The vast majority of European citizens want neither rearmament nor war and there is growing opposition to von der Leyen’s 800-billion-euro project to rearm Europe. This is the perfect opportunity to present and promote lasting peace and security through a Common European Home from Brest to Vladivostok – with no hostile military alliance within. •

¹ https://perspective.usherbrooke.ca/bilan/servlet/BMDictionnaire/1644
² https://mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/rso/nato/1790803/?lang=en
³ By every US president since Clinton. Bush (senior) respected them
⁴ Bojan Pancevski. The Wall Street Journal of 17 September 2024; https://www.wsj.com/world/one-million-are-now-dead-or-injured-in-the-russia-ukraine-war-b09d04e5
⁵ Opening words of the preamble to the United Nations Charter
⁶ Acknowledging the illegality of the Russian invasion does not preclude or prevent attempts at appeasement
⁷ Interview with Zelenski in the Economistof 27 March 2022
⁸ Glenn Diesen. The Ukraine War & the Eurasian World Order. Clarity Press 2024
⁹ Philippe Descamps. «L’OTAN ne s’étendra pas un pouce vers l’Est». In: Le Monde Diplomatique, September 2018
¹⁰ Hélène Richard. «Quand la Russie rêvait d'Europe». In: Le Monde Diplomatique, September 2018.
¹¹ Munich Security Conférence, March 2007
¹² www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1991/06/19/baker-pledges-allied-support-for-e-europe-soviet-reforms/91629820-bbaf-4a1f-abcc-d52fb8ebd2a2/0
¹³ https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/17/russia-issues-list-demands-tensions-europe-ukraine-nato
¹⁴ “The Russian Federation and all the Parties that were Member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization as of 27 May 1997, respectively, shall not deploy military forces and weaponry on the territory of any of the other states in Europe in addition to the forces stationed on that territory as of 27 May 1997.”
¹⁵ https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2021/12/17/la-russie-presente-ses-exigences-pour-limiter-l-influence-de-l-otan-et-des-etats-unis-dans-son-voisinage_6106489_3210.html
¹⁶ Editorial Board. The war in Ukraine is getting complicated and America isn’t ready. New York Times, May 19, 2022.
¹⁷ Volodymyr Ishchenko. "Towards the Abyss". In: New Left Review 133/134, January/April 2022
¹⁸ Stop ReArm Europe: Welfare not Warfare. This growing coalition includes the Transnational Institute, International Peace Bureau, Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, Attac Spain, Stop the War Coalition and many others. www.stoprearm.org

*  Alison Katz worked for the World Health Organization for 20 years as a writer. She is a member of the People’s Health Movement, an international association of health professionals promoting the social justice and human rights-based approach to health, and trying to bring the World Health Organization back to its original constitutional mandate. She was centrally involved in Independent WHO, which held a vigil in front to the WHO building every working day for ten years (2007-2017) protesting the WHO’s subordination to the International Atomic Energy Agency, which prevents the international health authority from acting independently in relation to the health and environmental consequences of nuclear power (civil and military). Notably, the WHO is complicit in the cover up of the health consequences of Chernobyl and Fukushima. She has dual nationality UK and Switzerland and has lived in Geneva since 1979.