Why Mikhail Gorbachev is worrying about US-Russia nuclear war

In an opinion piece for Time, Mikhail Gorbachev expressed concern about increasing militarization and called for renewed political dialogue between the United States and Russia.

Ivan Sekretarev/AP/File
In this photo taken Friday, Dec. 9, 2016 former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev speaks to the Associated Press during an interview at his foundation's headquarters, in Moscow, Russia. In an opinion piece for Time on Thursday, Gorbachev expressed concern about the increasing militarization of politics and called for the US and Russia to take the lead in ensuring global security.

The threat of nuclear war is a familiar one to Mikhail Gorbachev. And in today’s world, he sees many of the same challenges that confronted the US and the Soviet Union during the cold war.

In an opinion piece for Time on Thursday, the last Soviet premier described the “new arms race” as the most urgent problem facing the world today. He writes that the "world is preparing for war," and as in the past, Europe is becoming increasingly militarized, while politicians and pundits employ divisive rhetoric that only heightens tensions. Mr. Gorbachev also lamented another parallel: while military spending rises seemingly without limit, countries are cutting essential social services that many citizens rely on.

But if the problem is the same as during the cold war, Gorbachev suggested history may also provide the solution: dialogue between the two countries. Improving relations between the US and Russia might not only defuse a complex and high-stakes political situation, but also make it easier to address other global challenges.

“One of the main freedoms is freedom from fear,” Gorbachev wrote, quoting President Franklin D. Roosevelt. “Ridding the world of this fear means making people freer.… Many other problems would then be easier to resolve.”

During the late 1980s, Gorbachev and US President Ronald Reagan worked together to reduce the two superpowers’ nuclear weapon stockpiles and limit the possibility of nuclear war. That cooperative effort allowed for a drawdown in nuclear weapons, to the point that 80 percent of the warheads accumulated during the arms race have now been decommissioned and destroyed, Russia and the United States reported to the Non-proliferation Treaty Review Conference.

As relations have cooled in the ensuing decades, Gorbachev has repeatedly called for reviving the same approach that made that drawdown possible. In 2014, with tensions running high over Ukraine, he advocated that US and Russian leaders hold a summit to “unfreeze relations.” In October, for the 30th anniversary of the Reykjavik Summit with President Reagan, he called for the two countries to “renew dialogue.”

In today’s political context, the lessons of the cold war seem particularly relevant. On Thursday, scientists from the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists reset their symbolic “Doomsday Clock” to 2.5 minutes before midnight, the closest it has been to midnight since 1953 (the year the arms race began).

President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin share much of the responsibility for improving relations, Gorbachev wrote, a view shared by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. And dialogue may have potential, some Russian observers suggest.

“I can't tell you how many times over the years I've heard Russians say that our two countries are the world's biggest, and if they could just get together we could solve all the problems,” Russian broadcasting legend Vladimir Posner recently told The Christian Science Monitor’s Fred Weir.

The two countries’ leaders, however, haven't yet shown much interest in taking lessons from the past. On MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” in December, Mr. Trump suggested that he would increase the United States’ nuclear weapons arsenal, saying, “Let it be an arms race.” And unlike Soviet leaders during the last years of the cold war, who actively sought to improve relations with the US and Europe, Mr. Putin “seems to favor maintaining a certain level of tension,” Matthew Evangelista, a professor of history and political science at Cornell University, previously told the Monitor.

Trump and Putin may find common ground in the fight against Islamic terrorists, such as ISIS. In fact, Moscow seems to be keeping a seat open for the US at the table of the latest effort at Syrian peace talks. But Gorbachev's says that's not enough.

There is a view that the dialogue should focus on fighting terrorism. This is indeed an important, urgent task. But, as a core of a normal relationship and eventually partnership, it is not enough.

Gorbachev’s favored approach – a bilateral dialogue across a range of issues – may not come to fruition. But calming the bellicose rhetoric of politicians on both sides might be a first step toward countering fear and improving relations.

“I cannot hope for [a] real 'reset'" now,”  Ivan Kurilla, a professor at the European University at St. Petersburg who focuses on Russian-American relations, told the Monitor in October. “But I do hope that the dangerous 'Cold War style' rhetoric will give place to realistic exchanges.”

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Why Mikhail Gorbachev is worrying about US-Russia nuclear war
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today