As we remember the fall of the Soviet Union 20 years ago, it seems fitting to recall the words of Winston Churchill.
Some may find it appropriate to reach for his defining speech in Fulton Missouri 65 years ago when he added the phrase 'Iron Curtain' to the common lexicon.
But, from the articles we have in this edition, I was more reminded about his bons mots on education. 'Many of us wish to learn,' he said, 'but few of us wish to be taught.'
As we remember the fall of the Soviet Union 20 years ago, it seems fitting to recall the words of Winston Churchill.
Some may find it appropriate to reach for his defining speech in Fulton Missouri 65 years ago when he added the phrase 'Iron Curtain' to the common lexicon.
But, from the articles we have in this edition, I was more reminded about his bons mots on education. 'Many of us wish to learn,' he said, 'but few of us wish to be taught.'
Perhaps it is this dynamic that lies at the core of the relationship between NATO and Russia. Both have a lot to offer. And both sides know it.
The two sides have made major progress in practical cooperation. But nonetheless, the relationship still doesn't seem to have settled who leads and where. Nor even if there is a need for a single leader.
In a way, looking at Russia and NATO like similar partners is like comparing apples and pears.
- Russia's history stretches back centuries. NATO is just 62 years old.
- Russia is a sovereign nation state. NATO is an alliance.
- And Russia has defended itself successfully from attacks ranging from Napoleon's armies to Hitler's Panzers. No NATO country has ever been invaded after joining .
But Russia was the centre of a key old empire, the Soviet Union. And NATO was the West's counterbalance.
Since the end of the Soviet Union, both sides have clearly stated that neither is the other's enemy. Both sides have increased cooperation. But, the question remains, even 65 years after Churchill's speech in the US - does the shadow of their previous relationship still hang over today's?
Paul King