This Commentary is co-published with the Latvian Institute for International Affairs.
The risk perception of Russian aggression largely differs in the West and in the East of Europe. While Russia was testing the patience of the international community with wars in Georgia and Chechnya, Western response has been tepid. The current invasion of Ukraine and the violation of the airspace of the NATO countries takes this threat to a new level. Therefore, all European continent must recognise that the danger of Russian military action is closer than it seems. This opinion piece presents historical and economic motivations to act now.
Where Western Europe was learning, the Baltic states were teaching. In Western European societies, the Russian full-scale invasion of Ukraine might have come as a surprise, but the Baltic states and Poland have been vocal about such a threat for decades due to their long history of cultural penetration, occupation, mass deportations, as well as continuous and stubborn hybrid warfare at the hands of Moscow. Reading War and Peace, listening to Swan Lake and admiring Russian ballet has successfully put a shadow of romanticism and innocence on imperialist ambitions, blurring the real military threat for the European continent. Therefore, it is vital to expand the discussion on why Russia threatens European security and what can we learn from the Baltics, to not let a tragic history of aggression repeat itself. While the Baltic call for help might sound inflated, there are logical and practical implications for the whole European continent, including Western states. Russia is a real economic and military threat, which should be handled at all costs, as proven by evidence.
Russian political and military personnel had been testing Western European alertness at least since the dissolution of the Soviet Union (USSR). In 1991 Russia had already started its unsolicited armed engagement in Georgia (South Ossetia and Abkhazia) and proceeded with wars in Chechnya. The reaction of the international community was rather confused: international organisations such as the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and Caritas Internationalis were providing humanitarian and medical support, while national political players – such as French President Nicolas Sarkozy – tried to nudge Russia into a ceasefire through diplomatic means. We can only speculate on what would have happened if the reaction of foreign leaders had been more damning, along the lines of the current measures pressuring Russia in its full-scale invasion of Ukraine: economic sanctions, advancing energy autonomy, and supplying the invaded side with weapons.
Among the actions taken by Russia which were most telling of its imperialist intentions was the 2014 occupation of Crimea followed by the war in the Donbas region, despite Vladimir Putin in 2008 claiming the recognition of Ukrainian borders and the absence of ethnic tensions in Crimea. At that time most of the democratic state leaders started speaking up about the urge to respect and maintain the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine. For example, then Foreign Minister and now Latvian President Edgars Rinkēvičs noted that such a violation of Ukrainian sovereignty closely resembled the occupation of Baltic states by the USSR in 1940. German Chancellor Angela Merkel meanwhile highlighted the Russian violation of the Budapest memorandum. Noteworthy, the Budapest Memorandum was signed in 1994 by Russia, the United States and the United Kingdom and was intended to prohibit signatories from threatening or using military force or economic coercion against Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan. Now we are in 2024, over two years since the start of the Russian full-scale invasion of Ukraine, with Russian troops not only in Crimea, Donetsk, and Luhansk but also Russian missiles in the sky of Kyiv, Kharkiv and Lviv. Russian missiles sometimes gain the same trajectory as Russian claims of Ukrainian sovereignty: incredibly vile and deceptive. Additionally, these missiles violated the airspace of Latvia and Poland. The Russian strategy of testing out Western patience is forthright in its intentions, snowballing since 1991 along with its curiosity on how far the military ambitions can reach before being entirely disabled by economic sanctions or Western military endeavours. Analysing the diapason of the Russian military action from nudging local South Ossetian separatists in 1991 to penetrating the airspace of the countries of the biggest and most influential military alliance in 2023-2024, the logical question arises: is Europe facing vast insecurity from Russia?
To answer this question, we might want to finally listen to the concerns of the Baltic states Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, who are well aware of how far occupation ambitions can go. For instance, the Latvian National Guard has seen an influx of volunteers to undergo military training as a measure of building capacity in case of Russian aggression in the Baltics. While being under the umbrella of the European Union (EU), the perceptions among the general public and public/political figures west from the frontline largely differ. While some European military staff such as the Dutch Army Commander Martin Wijnen and German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius admit the probability and need to prepare for war with Russia, to the general public the threat is deemed doubtful and distant. This can be seen in 23% of Dutch people electing the Partij voor de Vrijheid, whose leader Gert Wilders has been highly critical of providing military aid to Ukraine. In Slovakia, Peter Pellegrini, freshly elected president with 53% of votes, claimed that Putin has been “unfairly demonised”. The discrepancy in the perceptions of the Russian threat across Europe is enormous and seems to manifest itself as political negligence towards the Russian threat or as a popular paradigm underestimating the danger among the general public.
If the tragic experiences of past occupations do not unveil the reality of the Russian threat, perhaps the economic angle is another way to look at it. At the ignition of the Russian invasion, Europe found itself largely dependent on Russian resources, which was used as an effective tool for blackmailing. After Russia threatened to shut down the energy supply to Poland and Bulgaria, Europe committed to searching for alternative energy suppliers and diversifying energy sources. Another push came in the cost of military and arms, Europe now has experience recycling older systems and units, such as Germany delivering 18 Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine. Effectively, Germany eliminates its warehousing cost, utilising the stock to improve regional security, while receiving combat feedback on quality. In other words, the war in Ukraine provides an opportunity to deploy older weaponry, get feedback on its effectiveness in battle, and implement the improvements, thereby spending funds on advancing and building rather than washing the rust off tank tracks. Eventually, when one discounts the sunk costs, now is the moment when we can spend the least money on defence, as in the future the insecurity and costs of deterrents will only increase.
It is perhaps the last chance we have to heed the calls of those who have experienced something that we stubbornly deny. Sadly, the Russian ‘testing’ strategy has been moving ahead successfully. Such tests are not driven by democratic values, but rather by imperialist delusions to expand and conquer what never belonged in the first place. It is therefore complicated to predict where and how heavily the bear’s foot will step next. There are indeed no grounds to assume that the full-scale invasion of Ukraine is Russia’s last military crusade. While being largely diverse and heterogenous, all the EU countries are classified as democracies and, hence, uphold certain standards and values, which reduce our ability to see the new rising threat of war, occupation and genocide. Facing the countless disagreements and numerous opinions between the West and the East, we must stop trying to count the bear’s teeth and please him with ripe berries, but rather admit the danger and immediately act before it is too late.
Co-funded by the European Union. Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Education and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA). Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them.
Bear’s footprint: Past threat for the East or future danger for the West?
This Commentary is co-published with the Latvian Institute for International Affairs.
The risk perception of Russian aggression largely differs in the West and in the East of Europe. While Russia was testing the patience of the international community with wars in Georgia and Chechnya, Western response has been tepid. The current invasion of Ukraine and the violation of the airspace of the NATO countries takes this threat to a new level. Therefore, all European continent must recognise that the danger of Russian military action is closer than it seems. This opinion piece presents historical and economic motivations to act now.
Where Western Europe was learning, the Baltic states were teaching. In Western European societies, the Russian full-scale invasion of Ukraine might have come as a surprise, but the Baltic states and Poland have been vocal about such a threat for decades due to their long history of cultural penetration, occupation, mass deportations, as well as continuous and stubborn hybrid warfare at the hands of Moscow. Reading War and Peace, listening to Swan Lake and admiring Russian ballet has successfully put a shadow of romanticism and innocence on imperialist ambitions, blurring the real military threat for the European continent. Therefore, it is vital to expand the discussion on why Russia threatens European security and what can we learn from the Baltics, to not let a tragic history of aggression repeat itself. While the Baltic call for help might sound inflated, there are logical and practical implications for the whole European continent, including Western states. Russia is a real economic and military threat, which should be handled at all costs, as proven by evidence.
Russian political and military personnel had been testing Western European alertness at least since the dissolution of the Soviet Union (USSR). In 1991 Russia had already started its unsolicited armed engagement in Georgia (South Ossetia and Abkhazia) and proceeded with wars in Chechnya. The reaction of the international community was rather confused: international organisations such as the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and Caritas Internationalis were providing humanitarian and medical support, while national political players – such as French President Nicolas Sarkozy – tried to nudge Russia into a ceasefire through diplomatic means. We can only speculate on what would have happened if the reaction of foreign leaders had been more damning, along the lines of the current measures pressuring Russia in its full-scale invasion of Ukraine: economic sanctions, advancing energy autonomy, and supplying the invaded side with weapons.
Among the actions taken by Russia which were most telling of its imperialist intentions was the 2014 occupation of Crimea followed by the war in the Donbas region, despite Vladimir Putin in 2008 claiming the recognition of Ukrainian borders and the absence of ethnic tensions in Crimea. At that time most of the democratic state leaders started speaking up about the urge to respect and maintain the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine. For example, then Foreign Minister and now Latvian President Edgars Rinkēvičs noted that such a violation of Ukrainian sovereignty closely resembled the occupation of Baltic states by the USSR in 1940. German Chancellor Angela Merkel meanwhile highlighted the Russian violation of the Budapest memorandum. Noteworthy, the Budapest Memorandum was signed in 1994 by Russia, the United States and the United Kingdom and was intended to prohibit signatories from threatening or using military force or economic coercion against Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan. Now we are in 2024, over two years since the start of the Russian full-scale invasion of Ukraine, with Russian troops not only in Crimea, Donetsk, and Luhansk but also Russian missiles in the sky of Kyiv, Kharkiv and Lviv. Russian missiles sometimes gain the same trajectory as Russian claims of Ukrainian sovereignty: incredibly vile and deceptive. Additionally, these missiles violated the airspace of Latvia and Poland. The Russian strategy of testing out Western patience is forthright in its intentions, snowballing since 1991 along with its curiosity on how far the military ambitions can reach before being entirely disabled by economic sanctions or Western military endeavours. Analysing the diapason of the Russian military action from nudging local South Ossetian separatists in 1991 to penetrating the airspace of the countries of the biggest and most influential military alliance in 2023-2024, the logical question arises: is Europe facing vast insecurity from Russia?
To answer this question, we might want to finally listen to the concerns of the Baltic states Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, who are well aware of how far occupation ambitions can go. For instance, the Latvian National Guard has seen an influx of volunteers to undergo military training as a measure of building capacity in case of Russian aggression in the Baltics. While being under the umbrella of the European Union (EU), the perceptions among the general public and public/political figures west from the frontline largely differ. While some European military staff such as the Dutch Army Commander Martin Wijnen and German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius admit the probability and need to prepare for war with Russia, to the general public the threat is deemed doubtful and distant. This can be seen in 23% of Dutch people electing the Partij voor de Vrijheid, whose leader Gert Wilders has been highly critical of providing military aid to Ukraine. In Slovakia, Peter Pellegrini, freshly elected president with 53% of votes, claimed that Putin has been “unfairly demonised”. The discrepancy in the perceptions of the Russian threat across Europe is enormous and seems to manifest itself as political negligence towards the Russian threat or as a popular paradigm underestimating the danger among the general public.
If the tragic experiences of past occupations do not unveil the reality of the Russian threat, perhaps the economic angle is another way to look at it. At the ignition of the Russian invasion, Europe found itself largely dependent on Russian resources, which was used as an effective tool for blackmailing. After Russia threatened to shut down the energy supply to Poland and Bulgaria, Europe committed to searching for alternative energy suppliers and diversifying energy sources. Another push came in the cost of military and arms, Europe now has experience recycling older systems and units, such as Germany delivering 18 Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine. Effectively, Germany eliminates its warehousing cost, utilising the stock to improve regional security, while receiving combat feedback on quality. In other words, the war in Ukraine provides an opportunity to deploy older weaponry, get feedback on its effectiveness in battle, and implement the improvements, thereby spending funds on advancing and building rather than washing the rust off tank tracks. Eventually, when one discounts the sunk costs, now is the moment when we can spend the least money on defence, as in the future the insecurity and costs of deterrents will only increase.
It is perhaps the last chance we have to heed the calls of those who have experienced something that we stubbornly deny. Sadly, the Russian ‘testing’ strategy has been moving ahead successfully. Such tests are not driven by democratic values, but rather by imperialist delusions to expand and conquer what never belonged in the first place. It is therefore complicated to predict where and how heavily the bear’s foot will step next. There are indeed no grounds to assume that the full-scale invasion of Ukraine is Russia’s last military crusade. While being largely diverse and heterogenous, all the EU countries are classified as democracies and, hence, uphold certain standards and values, which reduce our ability to see the new rising threat of war, occupation and genocide. Facing the countless disagreements and numerous opinions between the West and the East, we must stop trying to count the bear’s teeth and please him with ripe berries, but rather admit the danger and immediately act before it is too late.
Co-funded by the European Union. Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Education and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA). Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them.
Continue Reading...