On Tuesday, he got the exact opposite.
Finland’s decision to join NATO reverses decades of military non-alignment. Since the end of the Second World War, Finland has sought to align itself with the West in trade and political terms - it has been a member of the EU since 1995. On security matters, though, it has maintained a neutral stance.
By invading Ukraine, Putin has pushed Finland to abandon this policy and run into NATO’s embrace. So, instead of reducing NATO influence in Eastern Europe, Putin has doubled the length of the Russia-NATO border in one fell swoop. Sweden, with its history of non-alignment, lies in wait to follow Finland’s example (pending appeasement of Turkey’s concerns).
Finland’s decision represents a momentous shift. And it shows how quickly opinions can change in the face of increased insecurity. Once proud of their non-alignment, Finns now support joining NATO by around 80%. Instead of fracturing the West, Putin has brought it closer together and enlarged it. I suppose we can thank him, though it is unlikely he would be appreciative.
Putin will use Finland’s pivot as twisted evidence of Western malfeasance. Once again, he will claim NATO expansion threatens Russian interests and shows that the West wishes for Russia’s destruction. This dangerous Russian myth has even begun to take hold in certain parts of Western Europe, not least in the pseudo-intelligentsia that populate its far-right parties.
Of course, the opposite is true. NATO does not force anyone to join. Prospective members must be democracies (although Turkey is a stretch in that regard). Whilst, in theory, NATO invites potential members, in practice, they ask to be invited first.
All this is to say that countries do not join NATO for no reason at all. It is almost always a reaction to increased insecurity. And which state has been the most destabilising on the periphery of Europe? No prizes for guessing.
Russia wanted less NATO influence. It got more. Hopefully, this will show Putin that he cannot bully his way to a compliant Eastern Bloc - though this lesson will likely go unheeded.
Benjamin Macintyre is a Research Assistant at The New Zealand Initiative. This article was first published HERE
Finland’s decision represents a momentous shift. And it shows how quickly opinions can change in the face of increased insecurity. Once proud of their non-alignment, Finns now support joining NATO by around 80%. Instead of fracturing the West, Putin has brought it closer together and enlarged it. I suppose we can thank him, though it is unlikely he would be appreciative.
Putin will use Finland’s pivot as twisted evidence of Western malfeasance. Once again, he will claim NATO expansion threatens Russian interests and shows that the West wishes for Russia’s destruction. This dangerous Russian myth has even begun to take hold in certain parts of Western Europe, not least in the pseudo-intelligentsia that populate its far-right parties.
Of course, the opposite is true. NATO does not force anyone to join. Prospective members must be democracies (although Turkey is a stretch in that regard). Whilst, in theory, NATO invites potential members, in practice, they ask to be invited first.
All this is to say that countries do not join NATO for no reason at all. It is almost always a reaction to increased insecurity. And which state has been the most destabilising on the periphery of Europe? No prizes for guessing.
Russia wanted less NATO influence. It got more. Hopefully, this will show Putin that he cannot bully his way to a compliant Eastern Bloc - though this lesson will likely go unheeded.
Benjamin Macintyre is a Research Assistant at The New Zealand Initiative. This article was first published HERE
7 comments:
it is not just Russia which needs fear NATO involvement. just as WW2 all Europe and US allies can easily be drawn into a major war between atomic waeponed nations.
You seem quite pleased about that Benjamin. For me it's between a very corrupt country and a country holding onto it's autonomy. Putin wins hands down.
Pseudo intellectual be damned just common sense I'd say.
NATO expansionism is everything about the US forepgn policy and that is to be the number 1 country. Quite frankly I've had more than enough of them over the past well since the second world war really but for me for the past 6 years it's become really obvious.
You have heard of the Cuban Missile Crisis?
The Ukraine war has been at it for the last nine years. Russia stepped in as too many people constantly being killed.
Mikhail Gorbachev was lied to by Kissinger and his crew that NATO wouldn't be a threat to Russian sovereignty.
The Fins as sweet as they are a sorry bunch easily misguided. Probably not his worry so much as the Eastern expansion.
This article contradicts itself in the first paragraph:
"When Putin started his illegitimate war in Ukraine nearly 14 months ago, he claimed it was for its “demilitarisation and denazification”. Almost all security analysts, however, rejected this ridiculous suggestion. One of the real motivating factors, along with reclaiming territory Russia once controlled, was to reduce NATO influence in the region."
So, on the one hand, Putin's operation in Ukraine is "illegitimate" while on the other hand, "reduc[ing] NATO influence in the region" is one of the "real motivating factors."
I completely agree with the NATO-in-Ukraine motivation, and it is also completely legitimate. Russia, like every other country, has legitimate security interests and regional spheres of influence. As such, Putin was completely justified keeping NATO out of Ukraine (and vice versa). Nobody likes war (except perhaps the United States, as suggested by their record post WW2), but Putin warned the US about his red line vis a vis Ukraine, and the US crossed it anyway. To blame the Ukraine war on Putin and delusional concepts of "Russian aggression" (i.e. unprovoked) is completely divorced from reality.
TJS
Imagine a situation where China moved its forces into Mexico, having already moved into most of South and Central America: the United States would invade Mexico before you could say "unprovoked Russian aggression."
The real elephant in the room is the US's illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003, a "war of aggression" if ever there was one, and what's more, half a world away from the United States, versus Ukraine being literally 6 feet away from Russia. The hypocrisy is breathtaking.
The criticisms of the article are misguided or at least reflect "sins of omission." On 5 December 1994 Russia, the US, the UK and Ukraine agreed on the Budapest Memorandum governing Ukraine's disposal of its nuclear arsenal and its accession to the Treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. This Memorandum saw Russia as well as the US and UK commit to "respect the independence and sovereinty and the existing borders of Ukraine". It also assured Ukraine that Russia, the US and UK would "refrain from the threat of or use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of Ukraine." The Russian signatory was Sergey Lavrov. Russia has violated this memorandum (to say the least!)
Furthermore, when attacked by Russia in 2014 Ukraine in no way was a threat to Russia. NATO itself was not a threat since NATO members such as Germany had run down their armed forces. Russia is entirely responsible for the war and as Ben has pointed out its aggression has misfired and led to NATO's expansion. Finland showed in the 1939-40 winter war that it is capable of standing up to Russia. Poland is expanding its military and has never forgotten that WW2 began with a joint German and Soviet attack on Poland.
Finally, it is worth noting that Russia has put a huge effort into undermining western democracies, including funding far right political parties, secession movements and interfering in US elections.
Commentators: does this mean there is no such thing as a Ukrainian identity let alone statehood and autonomy? That Ukraine is either the puppet of Russia or of NATO/US? And that Ukraine has no right to determine it’s own identity?
I know Madame. The situation is appalling. Thanks for your comments.
In Mexico AMLO is very cautious. Recognising that Russia is being pushed around and maintaining Mexico's good relationship with Russia while remaining close economically with the US. In a lot of ways Mexico is more akin to Russian values than of the US. The US has never been a fan of anyone around their vicinity having free will and if their is a way to exploit their neighbour they do. It's apparrant in the tourist that come here and apparrant in their foreign policy.
I wish I could write more but this phone and keyboard is horrendously hard to control whilst laying in my hammock.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.