Follow us on social

Why Ostpolitik with Russia runs along East-West Euro divide

Why Ostpolitik with Russia runs along East-West Euro divide

France and Germany are disenchanted with U.S. sanctions, but Poland and the Baltic states are far from ready for rapprochement.

Analysis | Europe

One of the most moving and courageous acts that took place during the four decade long cold war between the Soviet Union and the West took place on December 7, 1970 when, in an overdue but necessary act of contrition for the barbarous crimes committed by Nazi Germany, West German Chancellor Willy Brandt traveled to Warsaw and knelt before a memorial to the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising.

Brandt’s “eastern policy” or, Ostpolitik, was based on the idea of “change through rapprochement” with the communist states to the east: East Germany, Poland, and the Soviet Union. His attempt to initiate a thaw in the Cold War was anticipated by the policies pursued by French president Charles de Gaulle, who pursued a normalization of relations with both China and the USSR. It was from de Gaulle, after all, whom U.S. president Richard Nixon borrowed the term detente to characterize his own policy towards the communist powers.

And today, developments in both France and Germany suggest their desire to return to a policy of Ostpolitik. On June 23, The Financial Times reported that “German chancellor Angela Merkel hopes that the European Union will consider inviting the Russian President to participate in a summit with EU leaders, an initiative supported by French President Emmanuel Macron.”

Encouragingly, the overture was welcomed in Moscow, where Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters that Putin supports “creating mechanisms for dialogue and contacts between Brussels and Moscow.” Yet the Franco-German proposal was quickly rebuffed at a meeting of the European Council on Friday. Led by Poland and the Baltic States, the Council rejected Merkel and Macron’s call for a Russia-EU summit and instead issued a series of demands, some of them utterly unrealistic, that Russia must meet before any summit take place.

Merkel expressed her frustration at the outcome, noting, correctly, that “even during the cold war…we always had channels of communication."

The effort by the French and German leaders came only days after Merkel and German president Frank-Walter Steinmeier marked the 80th anniversary of Germany’s invasion of the Soviet Union at the opening of an exhibition in Berlin titled  “Dimensions of a crime. Soviet prisoners of war in World War II.” In his remarks, Steinmeier, acknowledged that “only those who learn to understand the traces of the past in the present will be equipped to help shape a future which avoids wars, rejects tyranny and makes possible peaceful co-existence in freedom.”

Armin Laschet, who has been tapped by the CDU as its nominee to succeed Merkel this September, signaled that, if elected, he would attempt to defuse the two front cold war with China and Russia so favored by the U.S. foreign policy establishment. Laschet has said that the West should try to “establish a sensible relationship” with Russia. In an interview with the German media outlet DW, Laschet observed that, “When things get difficult, you have to talk more, not less.” 

For some years this line of thinking has been a cornerstone of Macron’s foreign policy which, like de Gaulle’s, is aimed at an assertion of European “strategic autonomy.” In a speech to the NATO, U.S. government, and defense industry-funded Atlantic Council this past February, Macron made it clear that he does not share the Council’s predilection for cold war saber-rattling. Instead, he laid out a mature, sensible vision, no doubt lost on his hosts, of how one might begin to undertake great power diplomacy on the continent. 

Said Macron:

…I think you have to deal with your history and your geography. Russia is part of Europe from a geographical and historical point of view. And I think this is very important, whatever happens, to include Russia on this part of the horizon, big part of the world. And clearly, the history of President Putin and a lot of leaders, is completely a European one. They have common values, history, literature, culture, mindset. And we have to take that into consideration.

Second, we have our geography. It’s impossible to have peace and stability in Europe, especially at our borders today, if you are not in a situation to negotiate with Russia. And for different reasons, largely due to the Russian [aggression] and the NATO expansion, we created a situation where we pushed our borders to the maximum place at the east, but we didn’t manage to decrease [potential for conflict] and threat at this border.

In the end, a revival of Ostpolitik can be attributed to France and Germany’s disenchantment with America’s heavy handed sanctions policy, which earlier in the year targeted the Nord Steam 2 pipeline; its reckless disregard for European security in arming quasi-fascist elements supported by Kiev in the war in eastern Ukraine; and the realization among western European leaders that the American policy, begun under the Obama administration, of isolating Russia, has made the region more, not less, dangerous. 

French and German political figures such as Steinmeier, Laschet, Merkel, and Macron, seem to understand (as American foreign policy proxies in the UK, Poland, and Baltic States do not) that there cannot be a happy future for Europe so long as ties are frayed with its giant and restive neighbor to the east.


Vladimir Putin, the President of Russian Federation visits the German Chancellor Angela Merkel in 2016. (shutterstock/photocosmos1)|
Analysis | Europe
Mark Levin
Top photo credit: Erick Stakelbeck on TBN/Screengrab

The great fade out: Neocon influencers rage as they diminish

Media

Mark Levin appears to be having a meltdown.

The veteran neoconservative talk host is repulsed by reports that President Donald Trump might be inching closer to an Iranian nuclear deal, reducing the likelihood of war. In addition to his rants on how this would hurt Israel, Levin has been howling to anyone who will listen that any deal with Iran needs approval from Congress (funny he doesn’t have the same attitude for waging war, only for making peace).

keep readingShow less
american military missiles
Top photo credit: Fogcatcher/Shutterstock

5 ways the military industrial complex is a killer

Latest

Congress is on track to finish work on the fiscal year 2025 Pentagon budget this week, and odds are that it will add $150 billion to its funding for the next few years beyond what the department even asked for. Meanwhile, President Trump has announced a goal of over $1 trillion for the Pentagon for fiscal year 2026.

With these immense sums flying out the door, it’s a good time to take a critical look at the Pentagon budget, from the rationales given to justify near record levels of spending to the impact of that spending in the real world. Here are five things you should know about the Pentagon budget and the military-industrial complex that keeps the churn going.

keep readingShow less
Sudan
Top image credit: A Sudanese army soldier stands next to a destroyed combat vehicle as Sudan's army retakes ground and some displaced residents return to ravaged capital in the state of Khartoum Sudan March 26, 2025. REUTERS/El Tayeb Siddig

Will Sudan attack the UAE?

Africa

Recent weeks events have dramatically cast the Sudanese civil war back into the international spotlight, drawing renewed scrutiny to the role of external actors, particularly the United Arab Emirates.

This shift has been driven by Sudan's accusations at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against the UAE concerning violations of the Genocide Convention, alongside drone strikes on Port Sudan that Khartoum vociferously attributes to direct Emirati participation. Concurrently, Secretary of State Marco Rubio publicly reaffirmed the UAE's deep entanglement in the conflict at a Senate hearing last week.

From Washington, another significant and sudden development also surfaced last week: the imposition of U.S. sanctions on the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) for alleged chemical weapons use. This dramatic accusation was met by an immediate denial from Sudan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which vehemently dismissed the claims as "unfounded" and criticized the U.S. for bypassing the proper international mechanisms, specifically the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, despite Sudan's active membership on its Executive Council.

Despite the gravity of such an accusation, corroboration for the use of chemical agents in Sudan’s war remains conspicuously absent from public debate or reporting, save for a January 2025 New York Times article citing unnamed U.S. officials. That report itself contained a curious disclaimer: "Officials briefed on the intelligence said the information did not come from the United Arab Emirates, an American ally that is also a staunch supporter of the R.S.F."

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.