Russia’s iron-fist president, Vladimir Putin, says of the collapse of the USSR in 1991, that it was the greatest strategic disaster of the 21st century for Russians. Well, never mind that little local difficulty, their unwise invasion of Ukraine in 2022 is turning out to be the greatest geopolitical blunder of the century. It could get worse. We may be witnessing the end of Russia as a military power. Whichever way it ends, it does not augur well for Putin, personally. He is either going to win big, by going nuclear, or he watches his army face a humiliating retreat, then, pay the ultimate price himself as a consequence. And, since the former is not an option, so, the latter appears to be what eventually happens, unless the West can provide a face-saving way out for him. But, why should they? Well, the West should, because a disorderly collapse of the Russian Federation is not in anyone’s interest. There is no guarantee that a Putin successor would be any easier to deal with. Let us remember, also, that one of the reasons historians adduce for the start of World War II in 1939 was the perception that Germany was ‘humiliated’ by Western Allies by the way in which World War I ended in 1919. Hitler, a recruit in the German army at the time, witnessed it and vowed to avenge that one day. This later played out in the extermination of millions of Jews during the Second World War.
Contrary to what some Russian apologists in the West say, there had not been a deliberate ‘provocation’ of Russia, prompting Putin to order the invasion of Ukraine. Western propaganda machines have been in full force masquerading as “non-governmental organisations” since the collapse of the Soviet bloc at the start of the 1990s. They have been present in all the former Soviet bloc countries, including Russia itself, drumming up support for “Western values.” The Russian state and its political leadership simply had no answer to that effort. They have not been able to match the tried and tested Western ‘messaging’ and influence-peddling methods in operation throughout the region. The European Union, for instance, had expended a lot of political capital in trying to influence the power brokers in Ukraine, at the onset of the 2000s, to accommodate and offer guarantees to its Russian minority population. This was being pushed as a major condition of any application by Ukraine to join the EU. The EU, through its agents in Ukraine, had been prodding and prompting the Ukrainian authorities to show tolerance of the Russian minority, many of whom had never tried to integrate into the Ukrainian society. Many of them born and bred in the country, preferred to live a separate life, insisting on holding on to their ‘superior’ Russian identity and Russian language. That is the background missing from the current narrative.
There is nothing more potent, more capable of riling people towards nationalism than an invasion of their homeland. If Ukraine was trying to play down nationalist sentiments in their politics prior to the invasion, the reverse is the case since the invasion. Everyone is a nationalist now. It is the opposite of what the EU had been preaching to them throughout the 2000s. What is more, running to the flag and embracing the motherland is what you do when you are under attack by a bigger power. That is precisely what has led the hitherto placid and “neutral” Sweden and Finland to be running for the NATO’s nuclear umbrella. The two countries have abandoned the neutral or “non-aligned” position they have taken for centuries and are now banging on NATO’s door for a quick and rapid admission into the fold. The invasion has struck a chord, forcing them to imagine themselves in Ukrainian shoes. Sweden has a prosperous population of 10 million, with a high per capita income of $52,000. And, it is the largest country in Northern Europe. It used to be part of the Swedish-Norwegian Union from 1814 to 1905. It is a stable constitutional monarchy, just as the UK is. Sweden is part of what is commonly referred to as Western liberal democracy whose economy has been aligned to that of the other Western European countries for a considerable period of time. It formally joined the EU in 1995 but has steadfastly opted out of any kind of military alliance with any bloc. It even stayed neutral during World War I and II. It is thus a seismic geo-strategic shift for Sweden to become a member of the strongest military alliance in the world. Nonetheless, for the country’s political elite, the train has already left the station on the idea of joining NATO.
Finland is smaller both in population (five million) and in size. In fact, Finland was captured and ruled by Sweden as a result of the “Northern Crusades” in the 13th century. It later fell in the hands of the Russians in 1809 until it declared its independence in 1917 following the Bolshevik Revolution. It was admitted into the United Nations in 1955 and immediately declared the policy of neutrality, although it has never pulled back from its embrace of Western values, which it demonstrated by joining the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development in 1969, then NATO “Partnership for Peace” in 1994, EU in 1995, Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council in 1997 and the Eurozone in 1999. The country’s main priority since the end of World War II has been rapid economic development built on a welfare state unrivalled by any other. It has an enviable gross domestic product of $48,000 and has consistently outperformed other countries in the field of mass education, economic competitiveness, civil liberties, human development index, press freedom, etc. It ranked first in every annual “World Happiness Report” since 2018. Lest people forget, it is the home of the much loved Nokia phone, once a colossal of the mobile telecommunication world.
Finland and Sweden’s application for NATO membership in May this year is not a kneejerk reaction to the Russian invasion of Ukraine last February; it is a logical step towards the inevitable. It is the outcome of a common destiny foretold. Neighbouring Norway has been a NATO member since its foundation in 1949. In other words, the invasion has merely accelerated the application as opposed to causing it. The only stumbling block to that effort is, of course, the negative reaction by the Turkish President, Recep Tayyip Erdogan. All current 30 NATO members must approve any addition to the Alliance unanimously or it does not happen. In 2019, both countries slapped an arms embargo on Ankara after its incursion into Syria. Because of its strategic location, Turkey is a key member of NATO. It has earned the right to bark on issues of additional members into the fold. The Nordic countries have provided a safe haven for various opposition groups they see as ‘freedom fighters’ from around the world, off from their neutral base in world geopolitics, over many decades. In the recent past, this has included a number of Turkish opposition groups: Kurdistan Workers’ Party, People’s Defence Units and the Gulen Movement, all viewed as “terrorists” by Turkey. President Erdogan blamed them for orchestrating a 2016 coup attempt in his country. Those groups will now become pawns on the chessboard of international diplomacy as it happens. They will not be allowed to stand in the way of the Finnish and Swedish entry into NATO. The two applications are a done deal. Russia only has itself to blame.
[email protected],com
Contact: [email protected]
Copyright PUNCH.
All rights reserved. This material, and other digital content on this website, may not be reproduced, published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed in whole or in part without prior express written permission from PUNCH.
Contact: [email protected]
