Prof. Richard Sakwa: “We are standing on the brink of a return to the Cold War.”

Prof. Richard Sakwa. D.R.

Mohsen Abdelmoumen: To what extent has the expansionism of Western institutions (such as NATO) accelerated the alignment of non-Western powers?

Prof. Richard Sakwa: I have long argued that after 1945 a Political West came into being, as not only a security alliance but even as a distinctive representation of ‘Western’ civilisation. It was shaped by Cold War thinking and the zero-sum logic of that conflict, including the denigration of the adversary. After 1989 this collective West radicalised, not only claiming to be universal, but also to represent the only viable form of modernity. This liberal globalism challenged the principle of sovereign internationalism, the core idea at the heart of the UN-based Charter International System, and the whole body of international law that it has generated. In response, a Political East is gradually taking shape, with Russia and China at its core. It stands in defence on international law and the UN system. It has allies associated in the BRICS+ association and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation; but its normative challenge is broader – opposing the Political West’s claim to be universal.

Is the decline of the West primarily economic, or is it a crisis of internal political legitimacy?

The internal coherence of the Political west is rapidly eroding. It was a security policy – to maintain its hegemonic dominance (in the guise of the rules-based order), and now simply in raw power terms; but it lacks a vision of the future. Since at least the global financial crisis of 2007-08 living standards have stagnated, and the crisis of state capacity across the West has become evident.  The response has been the rise of left and right ‘populism’, although the term is too dismissive. The established parties have failed to address the issues that are of concern to voters – and in particular, liberal globalism had a devastating impact on national economies, the dignity of labour and the ability of elites to understand popular concerns.

How is the Global South redefining the concept of sovereignty in the face of the liberal international order?

The GS is not so much redefining the concept of sovereignty as reaffirming the established principle, the one outlined in the UN Charter of 1945 and numerous subsequent documents. In other words, the GS – and the nascent Political east – stand in defence of Charter principles, hence are conservative and status quo in normative terms. It is the West that has become revisionist – challenging the fundamentals of the international system established in 1945.

According to your concept of a “revised Cold War,” how can a pivotal state like Algeria maintain its traditional doctrine of nonalignment in the face of the current polarization between the West and the Sino-Russian bloc?

The principle of non-alignment and neutrality is more important now than ever before. If the model outlined above has any validity, it means that non-alignment stands in defence of the UN Charter and thus has a common cause with the Political East. The danger is not so much of being caught in the middle, but of ensuring that any country – including Algeria – takes a principled stand on Charter principles and says so explicitly. This does not preclude a multivector foreign policy – but it should be based on principle rather than opportunistically blowing in the wind; or giving way to alignment with a declining and increasingly erratic Political West. Good relations, but the PW by definition Is based on double standards – and hence at the level of international politics it takes skilled statecraft to navigate in these treacherous waters.

In what ways does your concept of “cold peace” fundamentally differ from the traditional “Cold War,” beyond the absence of communist ideology?

The cold peace reflects the inability to resolve the problems posed by the end of the Cold War. In Europe it lead to a 30-year hiatus, in which the PW expanded, and Russia retreated; until it stopped retreating. A cold peace reflects a stalemate in international politics, where one side claims to the entirety of virtue, and therefore dismisses the concerns of the adversary. It represents a period in which the conflict is suppressed rather than acknowledged. It means the continuation of a cold war logic and cold war practices, but without an overt recognition of conflict. It is also a liminal period, that is ultimately either resolved through negotiation and dialogue, or result in the return of Cold War. That is where were today.

You contrast the liberal international order (led by Washington) with the international order based on the UN Charter. Is a compromise between these two visions still viable?

The PW represents a model of world order. It was constrained by the existence of an alternative model represented by the Soviet Union and its socialist allies across the world. Both models were initially committed to the Charter principle of sovereign internationalism. With the collapse of the Soviet alternative model of world order in 1989-91, the PW radicalised. Up to then it had been entirely compatible with the Charter system (apart from its militarism and regime change operations); but in the 1990s the ideology of liberal globalism, and its attendant false universal, triumphed. The Political West went rogue and began to subvert Charter norms. It used various terms – the liberal international order, or the rules-based order – to justify its hegemonic ambitions, there have now been exposed as hollow and unsustainable. We are witnessing now the crisis of liberal globalism. Trumpism is one response, the creation of regional alternatives (of middle powers, as Mark carney advocated) is another. The Political West as a collective cannot be reformed; but its component member states can. The sooner NATO is dissolved, and the EU transformed the better. I am not holding my breath!

Interview conducted by Mohsen Abdelmoumen

Richard Sakwa is Professor of Russian and European Politics at the University of Kent (United Kingdom), where he has been teaching since 1987. A leading specialist in Soviet and post-Soviet politics, he is the author of numerous reference works, including Frontline Ukraine: Crisis in the Borderlands (2015) and Russia against the Rest: The Post-Cold War Crisis of World Order (2017).

He has conducted research stays at Moscow State University and worked for two years in the Russian capital. He is Honorary Professor at the Faculty of Political Science, Moscow State University, and was Associate Fellow of the Russia and Eurasia Programme at Chatham House (2002-2020), as well as Senior Research Fellow at the Higher School of Economics in Moscow (2014-2024).

His work focuses notably on relations between Russia and the West, which he analyzes critically, particularly regarding NATO expansion and the dynamics of the new Cold War.

Published in my Substack account: mohsenabdelmoumen.substack.com