18.1.2022 **** Etusivulle

Finnish NATO enthusiasts are losing their grip on reality

By Tapani Lausti

A television series in Finland has thrown up a new debate about Finnish-Soviet relations known as “Finlandisation”. This refers to the period when a common claim was that Finland was almost totally in the grip of Soviet censorship. Now the claim is that Russia is a threat to Finnish security. To my mind, what is odd about the debate is that the participants have a very vague understanding about the US' role in the new Cold War and the way this might affect Finland's situation. They pretend to be very knowledgeable about Russia's “aggressive” role, but show no real understanding about what is happening in international relations.

One of the best observers of Russian politics was the late Stephen Cohen. He described the background to the new Cold War in a very illuminating way. He wrote that the US media and political elite cannot find enough words to declare examples of Russian aggression. Cohen looks at examples of these aggressions and finds a different kind of truth. How the New Cold War developed is more of a result of US actions than Vladimir Putin's schemes. These include the “decision to expand NATO to Russia's border, to bomb Moscow's traditional ally Serbia, withdraw unilaterally from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, carry out military regime change in Iraq and Libya, instigate the 2014 Ukrainian crisis and back the coup against the country's legitimate president, and considerably more…”

Let me follow further Cohen's analysis. He reminds us that during the previous Cold War there existed a “Parity Principle” – “the principle that both sides had legitimate interests at home and abroad, which was the basis for diplomacy and negotiations, and symbolized by leadership summits – no longer exists, at least on the American side.” Whilst the US has hundreds of military bases around the world, Washington thinks that any Russian idea of spheres of interest of its own is illegitimate. The American establishment refuses to acknowledge any Russian part in world affairs, except as a “threat” to American interests.

America 's dangerous game

Another knowledgeable commentator is Diana Johnstone, an American living in Paris. She writes: “Whatever one thinks of Russia and Putin's intentions, it is clear that the US has been playing a very dangerous game that could trigger a world war. Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the US had invested over five billion dollars to ensure Ukraine “the future it deserves”, that is, pulling it into the Western camp. Detaching it from Russian influence has been a long-term goal; it could then be brought into NATO, in order to gain control of Russia's Black Sea naval base in Sebastopol, Crimea. Imagine American reactions if Russia had similar plans near US territory.”

When Russia annexed Crimea after a referendum in 2014, the West was outraged. In fact Crimea was given to Ukraine by Nikita Khrushchev without any debate in parliaments. And Crimea had been part of Russia for 200 years. But anything Russia did now was described as aggression. The demand to return Crimea to Ukraine means that the East-West relations are in a hopeless deadlock.

In Finland, NATO enthusiasts joined in blaming Russia for destabilising international relations. Pro-NATO Finns do not tire of talking about “Western values” and the “solid democracy” in the US. They do not see the constant deterioration of democratic ideals in America. Elements of fascism are rising and even calmer commentators acknowledge that the US and other leading Western nations are not supporting humanitarian values in the world. They are pursuing geopolitical interests. In this contest the US is more aggressive and ruthless than Russia. Naive imagining of Western values pushes Finland closer to conflicts that have nothing to do with Finnish security.

The Baltic area depends on peace

Risto Volanen, a former high-ranking government official, has pointed out that the everyday welfare of the 90 million people living in the Baltic area depends completely on stable peace conditions. A military crisis would also be an economic crisis for the citizens of the area's ten nations. At any moment of the day there are nearly 2000 ships in the Baltic Sea responsible for the area's exports and imports – in Finland 's case that means almost 100 per cent.

About 40 per cent of Russian exports and the country's oil exports are taken through the Baltic Sea. Thus the whole Russian economy is dependent on this traffic not being disturbed. Volanen asks who seriously believes that Vladimir Putin would tell Russian generals to shoot at their own feet by triggering a crisis in the Baltic area. This would collapse the Russian economy, especially in the St. Petersburg area.

Realism about Finnish-Russian relations has, however, been waning. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Finland started to turn more and more towards the West. Exaggerated tales of Finnish humiliation in the face of Russia during the Soviet years became a favourite theme for people who wanted Finland to join NATO.

Americans are coming

Mysteriously, often without advance knowledge of the parliamentary defence committee or even the president of the republic, American fighter jets have recently been participating in Finnish war games near the Russian border. In this way one of the pillars of Finnish security policy has been allowed to almost collapse. This doctrine said that no foreign military forces would be allowed to use Finnish territory for their military offensives. This principle was re-established in the post-Soviet 1992 pact on Finnish-Russian relations.

Esko Seppänen, a left-wing politician, journalist and ex-MEP, has written forcefully against the trend to get ever nearer to NATO. Seppänen writes: “When NATO, that is the United States, surreptitiously approaches with its armed forces the Russian border, this has a dramatic effcct on Finland. Shall we really allow NATO to approach Russian borders also through Finland ?”

Unlike in other ex-non-aligned countries like Sweden, Austria and Ireland the Western orientation has been smuggled into Finnish politics without any parliamentary debate. Finland joined the NATO peace alliance in 1995 by then-president Martti Ahtisaari's decision. The next big step was taken in 2004 when Finland signed the host country pact. Already before that, though, Finland had let NATO know which Finnish airports and harbours Finland would allow NATO to use in case of “a need”.

Debate about Ukraine

Look at the Finnish debate about Ukraine. Many political commentators accuse Russia of using force in its geopolitical interests, as if the US wasn't doing this on a much bigger scale. The impression is created that only Russia ignores international law. At the Munich conference on the Ukrainian crisis Finnish President Sauli Niinistö said “that Russia could not be allowed to break international law without consequences.” Ex-President Martti Ahtisaari recently denied that the EU and other Western countries had provoked Russia during its current involvement in Ukraine and Crimea. In Ahtisaari's view NATO is the best peace-keeping organisation in the world.

Compare this to how the American professor of history Alfred W. McCoy sees the international scene: “Washington, more than any other power, created the modern international community of laws and treaties, yet it now reserves the right to defy those same laws with impunity.” According to McCoy, the United States as the planet's last superpower “has in these years repeatedly ignored international law, following instead its own unwritten rules of the road for the exercise of world power.”

There is a growing trend among some Finnish commentators to emphasise the importance of Finland being a part of the West. Talking about “neutrality” is part of the language of Finlandisation, it is claimed. Many like-minded Finns rhapsodize about “Western values”. We are told that internalising these values is essential for a feeling of national security. The ultimate aim is to join NATO. The West's crimes against international law and human rights are ignored.

 

Sources:

Stephen F. Cohen, War with Russia? From Putin & Ukraine to Trump and Russiagate. Hot Books 2019.

Diana Johnstone, Circle in the Darkness: Memoir of a World Watcher. Clarity Press, Inc. 2020.

Alfred W. McCoy, The Unwritten American Rules of the Road , TomDispatch.com, 24 February 2015.

Risto Volanen, Yhdysvaltojen ja Naton sotaharjoitukset Suomessa, Risto Volasen blogi 6.6.2016)

 

Archive: Finland, Finland's political history , Russia , United States, NATO

 

[home] [archive] [focus]