Follow us on social

google cta
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
google cta
google cta

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)|
google cta
Analysis | Europe
Did the US only attack Iran because of Israel?
Top image credit: President Donald J. Trump holds a joint news conference at the White House with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Feb. 4, 2025. (Shutterstock/ Joshua Sukoff)

Did the US only attack Iran because of Israel?

QiOSK

In the months that led up to the Iraq War, the Bush administration went to extraordinary lengths to convince the world of the need to oust Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. Leading officials laid out their case in public, sharing what they claimed was evidence that Iraq was moving rapidly toward the deployment of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. When U.S. tanks rolled across the border, everyone knew the justification: the U.S. was determined to thwart Iraq’s development of weapons of mass destruction, however fictitious that threat would later prove to be.

In the months that led up to the Iran War, the Trump administration took a different tack. President Trump spoke only occasionally of Iran, offering a smattering of justifications for growing U.S. tensions with the country. He claimed without evidence that Iran was rebuilding its nuclear program after the U.S.-Israeli attack last June and even developing missiles that could strike the United States. But he insisted that Tehran could make a deal with seven magic words: “we will never have a nuclear weapon.”

keep readingShow less
Iran says ‘no ship is allowed to pass’ Strait of Hormuz: Reports
Top image credit: A large oil tanker transits the Strait of Hormuz. (Shutterstock/ Clare Louise Jackson)

Iran says ‘no ship is allowed to pass’ Strait of Hormuz: Reports

QiOSK

Hours after the U.S. and Israel launched a campaign of airstrikes across Iran, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps is warning vessels in the Persian Gulf via radio that “no ship is allowed to pass the Strait of Hormuz,” according to a report from Reuters.

The news suggests that Iran is ready to pull out all the stops in its response to the U.S.-Israeli barrage, which President Donald Trump says is aimed at toppling the Iranian regime. A full shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz would cause an international crisis given that 20% of the world’s oil passes through the narrow channel. Financial analysts estimate that even one day of a full blockade could cause global oil prices to double from $66 per barrel to more than $120.

keep readingShow less
Ro Khanna Jon Fetterman
Top photo credit: Ro Khanna (creative commons/WebSummitt ) and Jon Fetterman (shutterstock/EB Photos)

Fury and fanboys: US, world leaders react to US-Israeli war on Iran

QiOSK

The reactions are already coming in following the early morning attacks on Iran by U.S. and Israeli forces in what is being called "Operation Epic Fury." The reports are fluid, but as President Trump announced on his Truth Social, the U.S. is taking aim at Iran's military and senior leadership and hopes to raze both so that the Iranian people can take over. "When we are finished the government is yours to take. Your hour of freedom is at hand."

For some, like U.S. Senator Jon Fetterman, a Democrat who represents the people of Pennsylvania, this is the greatest thing to happen since the last time the U.S. and Israel attacked Iran in June. "President Trump has been willing to do what’s right and necessary to produce real peace in the region. God bless the United States, our great military, and Israel."

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

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.