Hat tip to Vilhelm Konnander for pointing this out and apologies for the cut and paste from his blog.
You can find the Economist Debate Hall here.
The West must be bolder in its response to a newly assertive Russia."
This is the proposition made for the upcoming The Economist debate series, setting off on 9 September. The opposite argument holds that this position is made erroneous by Western misperceptions of Russia, based on renewed reminiscences of an increasingly distant Cold War era.
Speaking for the pro side is Anne-Marie Slaughter, Dean of the Princeton University Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. Representing the con argument is Dmitri V. Trenin, Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment Moscow Centre.
Thus, Slaughter initiates the debate by the following argument:
The West should be bolder in confronting a newly assertive Russia, but bolder in a way that understands and manipulates the realities of 21st-century politics rather than plunging us back into a 20th-century stalemate.
In his rebuttal, Trenin starts out opposing this statement accordingly:
Those who argue that the West should be bolder in its response to a newly assertive Russia are trying to use their memories of the past to deal with a very different present and a highly uncertain future.
The debate will span over the period 9-19 September with rebuttals on the 12th and closing arguments on the 17th. The winner will be announced on the 19th, and topics covered be open for discussion and comments until 26 September.
Registered users will be able to vote surreptitiously for either alternative during the ten day debate. Following the Oxonian tradition, "members of the House will be thus allowed to "cross the floor" by such vote if arguments are convincing enough to turn their opinion. Questions to the contrahents may be sent in via the Chairman, viz. moderator, who will act as arbiter in selecting those of relevance for further dissection in debate.
The Economist presents the following background for the debate:
Russia’s incursion into neighbouring Georgia has Western governments worried about renewed Russian assertiveness. The diplomatic frost between America and Russia remains at a level not seen since the cold war, leading to predictable results: Russian/NATO joint military exercises cancelled, private energy co-operation agreements withdrawn, foreign ministers returned home.Is Russia’s intention to upset the current international order, or is it responding directly to the widening sphere of American influence in former Soviet countries (for example, the promise of eventual NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia)? Can the European Union speak with one voice and take the diplomatic lead? Or must America protect the world order by standing up to Russia to prove that any form of aggression comes at a cost? Finally, are we witnessing the dawn of a second cold war, in which the West should resist the lure of appeasement?
For myself, I certainly welcome a debate about knee-jerk cold war reactions and the new assertive Russia. It rather depends on what you mean by bolder: bolder in the sense of stronger reactions rather than weaker, or bolder in the sense of more imaginative and/or creative to get out of the old stereotypes. The weakness of the opposing statement is it seems to imply that no reaction is necessary, which can't be true. Ignoring Russia cannot be the answer to a country looking for more recognition.
.
You can read Vilhelm's view here
