Is It 1914 or 1938? NATO Needs to Make Up Its Mind.
“I know it sounds devastating,” Poland’s prime minister, Donald Tusk, said earlier this year. “But we have to get used to the fact that a new era has begun: the prewar era.” Fresh from ousting national populists from power, Mr. Tusk is widely respected. Yet his words may come as a surprise. Considering the war in Gaza, Russia’s onslaught in Ukraine and conflict in Sudan, can we still speak of a prewar era?
Mr. Tusk, a former president of the European Council, could perhaps be accused of Eurocentrism. But his remark is right: We are not in a traditional war. Yet of all the conflicts currently playing out, the one in Ukraine — which pitches autocratically aligned Russia against Western-backed Ukraine — has the greatest potential to become a full-blown world war. For NATO members gathered this week in Washington, working out how to stop that from happening will be at the top of the agenda.
They’re unlikely to agree, though. For the two and a half years since Russia’s invasion, Western countries have pursued divergent, sometimes contradictory approaches to the war. Behind each country’s policy is a special perspective, informed by history. It’s like a pair of glasses, casting the war in a different light. As Vladimir Putin threatens nuclear escalation and Ukraine suffers further assaults, it’s essential that NATO members decide together how they should see the war in Ukraine — and how best to bring it to an end.
Some believe that we are on the eve of a wider war, experiencing an equivalent of something that happened 100 years ago. This is the view through Sarajevo glasses. There, on a hot summer day in 1914, a young assassin opened fire on Archduke Franz Ferdinand’s vehicle, setting off a chaotic sequence that led to World War I. That war, which was extraordinarily devastating, began somewhat by accident. The historian Christopher Clark has called the political class of the time “sleepwalkers.” Through a complex mix of emotions, offended honor and recklessness, they wandered unwittingly into war.
For those who see the situation through this lens, the conflict in Ukraine must not be allowed to become the equivalent of Ferdinand’s killing, the starting pistol of a world war. They speak in a pacifist tone: Attention, step by step we are heading toward a global, maybe even nuclear, conflict — even if no one actually wants it. The conclusion for them is simple. For fear of alarming Russia into an irreversible escalation, Ukraine’s military ambitions must be restrained and diplomatic negotiations sought.
These Sarajevo glasses seem to be worn most prominently in Germany. Since February 2022 Chancellor Olaf Scholz has strenuously made the case for supporting Ukraine, and his country is one of the most important exporters of material aid and weapons to Ukraine. Yet at the same time, with every new delivery, he repeatedly warns: At some point one drone, one plane may be too many. His emphasis is always on caution and the aim, ultimately, to find some sort of negotiated settlement. On the streets of Berlin during the recent European elections, posters bearing Mr. Scholz’s image promised to “ensure peace.”
