The idea of a “strategic containment” of Russia may morally satisfy those in the West who still see Moscow as an “eternal enemy.”
However, this approach fails to recognize a fundamental geopolitical reality: the era of American global dominance has ended.
The world has already transitioned into a multipolar age, where the United States can no longer impose its positions either in Europe, or in Asia, or in the Middle East.
The dead end of the “containment” policy
The so-called policy of containment reproduces the logic of the Cold War: it treats Russia as an uncontrollable power with “imperialist ambitions” and believes that if Moscow is isolated and weakened economically, it will eventually be forced to transform into a pro-Western “democratic” state.
This policy views Russia as a permanent threat that must be “trapped” through economic sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and military encirclement.
It is a repetition of the Cold War logic of George Kennan — a logic that may have made sense in a time of bipolar confrontation, but today is historically obsolete.
Supporters of this strategy believe that if Russian “expansionism” is blocked, the Russian state will weaken internally and eventually transform into a “democratic,” pro-Western power.
But history teaches the opposite.
Every time Russia was pressured, encircled, or humiliated — from Napoleon to Hitler and the Cold War — it returned stronger, more united, and more determined to defend its sovereignty.
This policy may offer moral satisfaction to Western elites, but it is strategically self-destructive.
Instead of bringing peace to Ukraine, it prolongs the war, preventing any realistic diplomatic solution.
It creates a new frontline of confrontation in the heart of Europe, leading to economic and social exhaustion for both Ukraine and Europe.
And most importantly, it undermines the prestige of America itself.
Because a power that refuses to accept the limits of its strength loses both its moral and strategic legitimacy.
It is a dangerous illusion.
A hundred years of Russian history — from the fall of the Romanov dynasty to the dissolution of the USSR — prove that Russia does not change through external pressure but through internal evolution, notes the academic and founder of the Department of Russian Studies at Yale University (USA), Thomas Graham.
Sanctions, propaganda, and military encirclement have not broken the Russian will; on the contrary, they have strengthened it.
This policy may satisfy the “moral purity” of the Western elites, but it ignores the real consequences: prolongation of war, further destabilization of Europe, and the destruction of Ukraine, which has turned into a tool of geopolitical competition between Washington and Moscow.
The realistic alternative: Competitive coexistence
Russia is not a “violator” of the international order — it is a co-architect of it.
It possesses an independent culture, geopolitical identity, and legitimate security concerns.
A strategy of competitive coexistence recognizes this reality.
It does not seek the “defeat” or “transformation” of Russia, but the responsible management of a permanent rivalry among great powers.
Within this framework, Ukraine should adopt neutrality, with security guarantees from both sides.
It does not need to be a forward outpost of NATO, but a bridge between East and West.
Russia, in turn, could commit to limiting military forces along its borders, under an agreement based on reciprocity rather than submission, notes Graham.
As for the territories under Russian control, the solution cannot be imposed by Washington or Brussels.
The residents of Donetsk, Lugansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhia, which were annexed by Moscow, chose by overwhelming majority in the 2022 referendums to become part of the Russian Federation.
And this is something that the West must finally respect.
The principle of self-determination of peoples prevails: the inhabitants of these regions decided democratically about their future, under international supervision and with respect for their historical and cultural identity.
The peace of imperfection – Realism instead of idealism
Critics of realistic competitive coexistence claim that it “rewards aggression.”
In reality, it does the opposite: it prevents the suicide of idealism.
Peace in Europe will not emerge from declarations of moral superiority, but from agreements that take into account the interests of all sides.
History teaches that the most durable peaceful balances are those based not on idealism, but on power and reciprocity.
That is how postwar Europe was built; that is how it can be reborn again.
New World Order with a multipolar system
The policy of “containment” rests on a nostalgic fantasy — the era when the United States could dictate terms to the planet.
But that era has irreversibly passed.
Today, Russia, China, India, and other emerging powers are shaping a multicentric global architecture, where the unipolar dominance of Washington has no place.
In this context, Moscow is not a “revisionist” power but a pillar of balance, seeking a fair distribution of power and respect for state sovereignty.
It plays the role of regulator and stabilizer.
From Syria to the Caucasus, from Central Asia to the Arctic, Moscow has proven that it acts as a balancing factor — not as a blind conqueror, but as a power that prevents the chaos left behind by Western “interventions for democracy.”
“Competitive coexistence” is not a concession; it is the wisdom of realism.
It does not reward aggression — it prevents total confrontation, emphasizes Graham.
In the nuclear age, true victory is not the crushing of the opponent, but the preservation of peace through balance.
From unipolarity to global balance
The West faces an existential choice:
Will it continue to chase the illusion of “moral superiority,” driving Europe into permanent crisis, or will it accept a world where Russia is an integral and necessary part of European security?
The answer for the 21st century does not lie in confrontation, but in coexistence through balance, observes Graham insightfully.
Russia does not demand submission; it demands respect, reciprocity, and equality.
True peace will not come from the victory of one camp over another, but from the acceptance of coexistence.
Whoever understands this does not “surrender” to Russia.
On the contrary, they surrender to the logic of survival in a world where power without realism leads only to destruction.
The era of American omnipotence has ended.
The era of balance through coexistence has just begun.
www.bankingnews.gr
Σχόλια αναγνωστών