“It is my duty, however, to lay before you certain facts about the present position in Europe.” – Winston Churchill 5.3.46
Each person, each politician and even each country has a different world view. The skill of the diplomat is to work on where common interests overlap and use that as a basis to find ways of conflicting interests either being resolved or gotten to a position where both sides can live with their differences for a prolonged period.
Intelligent politicians of skill understand this and have to make difficult pragmatic choices. In 1942 Churchill recognized this need enough to visit Stalin in Moscow to cement the coalition that would eventually win the War. Just as important were the meetings later in Tehran, Potsdam, Moscow and finally in Yalta where the overlapping interests of peace in Europe and how the peace would be won and maintained was agreed.
Peace is the ultimate overlapping interest and usually costs more than War and requires far greater diligence.
“This War is not as in the past: whoever occupies a territory also imposes on it his own social system.” Joseph Stalin 11.4.45[i]
On the 5th of March 1946 Winston Churchill delivered what is often called his “Iron Curtain” speech at Westminster College, Fulton, Missouri. It was much later called the Iron Curtain Speech and was repeated in Parliament. In the speech he identified the cost of peace as, “A shadow has fallen upon the scenes so lately lighted by the Allied victory.” Churchill had met Stalin, understood him, and fully understood the politics of Russia and its historical context. He had made difficult trade-offs throwing some to the wolves (or perhaps more appropriately in Russia’s case the bears) for the greater good of peace. He proceeded in this speech to describe the “iron curtain” that had descended across the continent and the countries caught under the domain of Russia and the rise of Communism in those countries.
It is telling that whilst condemning Communism Churchill showed a respect for Stalin and the Russian people and the sacrifices they made in the War. Showing respect does not legitimize a regime or show weakness, but rather a strength of character. Hence you see various world leaders shaking hands with all sorts of dubious people as an act of diplomacy.
“A real diplomat is one who can cut his neighbour’s throat without having his neighbour notice it.” Trygve Lie [ii]
The problem with most people’s view is that they find it re-enforced by the naturally polarized and divisive nature of social media. As a result they see us living in a world of good people and bad people with neither view seeking to empathise with the other, or at the very least understand a different view. Such is the nature of American politics in particular, and too much of British politics risks following the same route.
Now is a time of leadership skill that is lacking in most nations of the world and we have a need for the awareness that John F. Kennedy illustrated in his speech at a news conference in Paris in June 1961:
“ Consultation does not always, regardless of how long it may go on, does not always provide unanimity at the end of consultation. But there is a more precise understanding of the reasons for positions which may be taken on which there is no agreement.”
We see clear wrongs, the poisoning of Viktor Yushchenko a pro-European President of Ukraine; the invasion and annexation of Crimea and subsequent invasion of Ukraine. But do we take off the blinkers caused by seeing these clear and unequivocal wrongs and consider the Russian point of view?
Sergey Lavrov is an extremely experienced and skilled diplomat and foreign minister and it is my considered opinion that he will have used those skills to get a view across that Trump and JD Vance would find appealing. It has to be noted that he would not focus on Russian aggression, but portray Russians as victims and seek to legitimize the “breach” of the Budapest memorandum of 1994.
“Let me have men about me that are fat.” Julius Caesar Act 1 Scene2[iii]
I have no doubt that Lavrov would portray the European Union as economically aggressive with an implied potential for a rejuvenated unified Germany at its centre capable of becoming more. This view could easily be endorsed by Trump and Vance as their polarized view of the world is in keeping with the echo chambers of our times. The problem is this view is not without an element of truth. Quotas, and to a substantially lesser effect, tariffs are economically aggressive. If, in Russia’s case, you add to this sanctions you see one of the greatest economically aggressive tools being used.
From Russia’s point of view economic aggression can be matched with political expansionism. In 1993 Austria, Sweden and Finland moved to join the European Union. Austria is highly significant because Russian withdrawal from its sector of Austria in 1955 was subject to Austria retaining neutrality and this being written into its constitution. For anyone that argues that Austria seeking EU membership did not affect its neutrality need to consider that it was an issue debated within Austria and externally questioned by Russia at the time. The building blocks of military capacity are economy, industry and personnel, usually in that order. When you add to this the Central European countries that used to be in the Soviet Union that joined the EU you see a pattern of expansion to the Russian border.
“The two European countries which could constitute serious threats to our strategic interests are a resurgent Germany and Russia……” British Military Planning Staff July 1944.[iv]
If you then add to this German reunification you see a Russian leadership at that time, under Gorbachev, seeking a demilitarized East Germany with no NATO presence. This was conceded by Gorbachev on the strict understanding there would be no further expansion.
Senator Bradley illustrates this in this speech
In 1999 Poland. Hungary and the Czech Republic joined NATO followed by seven more countries in 2004. NATO with the blessing and agreement of all its members expanded Eastward.
Thus we see both economic and military expansion to Russia’s borders. Who really benefits from this expansion – not Russia, and questionably not America. The largest winner is Germany. In peace time Germany, like the prophet[v], achieved more in peace-time than in War – the formation of a large unified European Nation.[vi] Germany is the largest beneficiary of Eastward expansion in terms of access to resources, people and energy and its desire for a stable and accessible Eastern Europe had to be served at all costs.
“The only solution which will prevent a return to the unstable pre-War system …….is to integrate Germany’s Central and Eastern European neighbours into the West European post-War system……….If European integration were not to progress Germany might be called upon, or tempted by its own security constraints, to try and effect the stabilisation of Eastern Europe on its own and in a traditional way.” [vii]
Germany was the prime driving force behind enlargement and when Mediterranean countries, especially Greece and Spain objected the German Foreign minister, Klaus Kinkel, was heard to say that he would “break the backs of the Spaniards to get an agreement” to expand the EU.
Germany has long courted EU expansion into Ukraine largely influenced by the needs of its industrial ambitions, but this is extremely problematic. The populist European view has low regard for ethnic Russians. That Ukraine is a separate country was recognised by Russia as Soviet Ukraine as codified by Stalin. Note the word “Soviet” is important as it translates inexactly in English, but perhaps “concord” or “harmony”. Stalin enforced harmony with the 1930’s seeing the starvation of Ukraine by Soviet Russia, forced colonisations of Russians displacing Ukrainians and, much like the English colonisation of Ireland, the seeds of division were there to be fed by the wounds of atrocities. Wartime saw Ukrainians forced to side with Russia as occupying Germans press-ganged Ukrainians to join their army resulting in further displacement of people after the War, many split forever from their families. However, throughout the post War Soviet era the Ukraine was developed supplying food, energy and resources to the Soviet Empire. It is telling that Ukrainian language was preserved and protected so that 60-70% of the population retained Ukrainian as a primary language, although there was major persecution and bias in favour of Russian. In this period Russian was obligatory whereas Ukrainian was optional.[viii] The Ukrainian constitution of 1996 overturned this making Ukrainian the state language and subsequent laws saw an increasingly aggressive de-Russification of language – despite the fact 20% of the population still used Russian as its first language. Such actions invoke conflict as we have seen with the English suppression of its regional languages in Ireland, Wales and Scotland. In 2017 this was concentrated further by the Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko defending the latest law permitting secondary level students and above to only be taught Ukrainian and European languages but not Belarusian, Yiddish or Russian. Like it or not this smells of European Nationalism. This was an aggressive nationalistic act that ignored, or worse still, sort to avenge wrongs of prior generations by minimising the primary language of a fifth of the population. Many European countries were highly uncomfortable with this. Sergey Lavrov was understandably most vocal and this was deemed an attack on ethnic Russians.[ix]
“Black and white thinking can be a symptom of personality disorder – if that’s the case most of the people on social media are mentally ill.” Anon
Here is my point – we increasingly appear to favour clear rights and wrongs, but suppression of identities, both Russian and Ukrainian is inbuilt in this conflict. Indeed, you can go back further to the Tsars and see Russia controlling printed language to suppress Ukrainian/Lithuanian texts. At the core of this is identity and culture. Hence when Russia grabbed Crimea, strategically vital to its interests, you saw reports of Crimeans welcoming Russians and seeing their presence as a welcome source of stability.[x]
So, we see a War that has been enabled by opposing neighbours – Russia on one side and Europe on the other. But, we should not kid ourselves that Zelensky rules over a unified country, for this is simply untrue, even if we regard Russia as an undermining meddler.
“Never before have we seen a presidential campaign that fell so far short of constitutional standards.” Golos statement on the 2024 Russian election.[xi]
Crimea, under Russian control, held a referendum – this was not recognised in the West. I have spoken to an experienced political analyst of the time that has been to Crimea and she considered it highly likely that the pro-Russian vote, whilst unlikely to have been free and fair most likely represented the majority of Crimea. Sergey Lavrov sought recognition of this whilst at the same time making three fundamental proposals:
- Constitutional Federalism (this would enable an area such as Donbas to have an element of self-governing whilst remaining in Ukraine and would protect ethnic Russians)
- Recognition of linguistic minorities
- That Ukraine be a non-aligned state (Russian desire would be for this to be economically, politically and military)
This last point was vital – remember JFK’s words I quoted earlier about understanding the reason for which decisions are taken. Russia perceives NATO as expansionist and aggressive. The neutrality of Ukraine with no economic or military, especially military, alliances is a necessity to Russia. At the same time Lavrov made it clear, “I am convinced that all serious and honest politicians know perfectly well Russia will never attack a member state of NATO. We have no such plans.”[xii] The subsequent invasion of Ukraine was deemed necessary to prevent Ukraine joining NATO (although note it is not an invasion but a “special military operation” in their words).
Is fear of NATO totally unfounded?
In the early 1970’s Portugal found itself criticised for having NATO branded armoured vehicles in Angola. It was outside the treaty area of the Tropic of Cancer. In 1997 Milosevic was committing War crimes against ethnic Albanians in Kosovo. The UN Security Council gave no “specific” authorisation for action, but resolution 1199 mentioned the need to avert humanitarian disaster. NATO used this as a pretext. For NATO to act in Kosova was certainly stretching the legality of the “defensive” treaty, even if it was the right thing to do. Russia objected, but at the same time took a pragmatic approach.
It needs to be noted that NATO defines its responsibility in Article 6 as “only member states’ territories in Europe, North America, Turkey and the islands of the Atlantic north of the Tropic of Cancer.” Yet, we see NATO in Afghanistan from 2001 and in Iraq under NATO Mission Iraq from 2018. You see NATO openly in Africa supporting the African Union as well as its own operations in Libya and Somalia. How might a young African population view the presence of historic colonial powers interfering in its Continent and Country. Is this the activity of a “defensive” organisation? Is NATO committing over-reach as well as expansionism? View this from a Russian perspective. I am sure Sergey Lavrov has wasted no time extolling the idea to the lokes of President Trump and his vice-president. I am sure he has added his view that if left just to Europe without American involvement peace in Ukraine will be rapidly obtained.
We should be under no illusion that America looks after its own interests first and NATO exists and acts with its consent. The Suez crisis in 1956 was resolved how America saw fit with it using its financial clout upon Britain and France. Charles de Gaulle was very aware of this and in 1966 withdrew France from NATO’s military command structure and had a vision of Europe not dominated by the United States of America. Indeed if he had not returned to power and France had formed a Communist government diplomats of the era were under no illusion of the potential use of American force to prevent this. [xiii]
NATO is a reflection of the old Cold War era with an internally cohesive Europe as a guard against Communist encroachment. In the post-War period Europe rebuilt itself with the US funded Marshall Plan. American leaders repeatedly encouraged European integration. However, the economic might of an expanded European Union and especially German industry fuelled by cheap Russian gas was a challenge to American business. For America to act as an “arsenal of democracy” may be beneficial to the US economy, but its even more beneficial if the US is not footing the bill.
“I feel a personal stake because I got them (Ukraine) to give up their nuclear weapons. And none of them believe that Russia would have pulled this stunt if Ukraine still had their weapons.” Bill Clinton to Irish broadcaster RTE in April 2023[xiv]
With the collapse of the Soviet Empire came a growing independence of Ukraine which had inherited the third largest nuclear arsenal in the world. On 5th December 1994 Ukraine, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States of America signed the Ukrainian Budapest Memorandum. It had six commitments:
- to respect independence, sovereignty and borders of Ukraine
- an affirmation to not use force or threat against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine
- “to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus secure advantages of any kind.”[xv]
- All parties agreed to provide assistance to Ukraine in the event of it becoming a victim of an act of aggression.[xvi]
- Russia, UK and USA reaffirmed their commitment not to use nuclear weapons on a non-nuclear state.
- All parties agreed to consult if these commitments were under question.
Clearly Russia binned this memorandum and now America, in seeking mineral agreements, is close to wiping its arse on it.
The problem of this agreement is that it overlooked problems caused by economic weapons and the supranational political ambitions that were held by Europe. The EU’s talk of a move to have a unified defence with German industry at its core on top of all the neighbouring countries, together with the potential vast resources of Ukraine enabled Putin to play on fears generated by the European history of Hitler[xvii] or Napoleon before him. Add to this the fact that both Putin and Trump see the EU as economically aggressive.
Now it is very easy for bloggers like me, or more famously Dominic Cummins, to sit pontificating in our hermitages on the Northumberland coast, or for Europhile Liberals like Alistair Campbell and Rory Stewart to deliver imperious podcasts but in the meantime the “Sinews of Peace” are being stretched and we should take note of Winston Churchill’s words:
“From what I have seen of our Russian friends and Allies during the war, I am convinced that there is nothing they admire so much as strength, and there is nothing for which they have less respect than for military weakness. For that reason the old doctrine of balance of power is unsound. We cannot afford, if we can help it, to work on narrow margins, offering temptations to a trial of strength. If the Western Democracies stand together in strict adherence to the principles of the United Nations Charter, their influence for furthering those principles will be immense and no one is likely to molest them. If however they become divided or falter in their duty, and if these all-important years are allowed to slip away, then indeed catastrophe may overwhelm us all.”
[i] Stalin said this to the Yugoslav Milivan Djilas invoking a principle behind the Treaty of Westphalia ‘Cuius regio, eius religio’ i.e. Whoever rules the territory imposes his religion upon it.
[ii] Trygve Lie was a Norwegian politician and First Secretary of the United Nations from 2nd Feb 1946 to 10th November 1952 He is regarded by many as a failed diplomat in reality he was possibly subject to a succession e
[iii] Shakespeare portrays Caesar as surrounding himself with people that will not oppose him and Caesar views himself as being greater than all whilst fearing those with ambition. It does not end well for him.
[iv] Source “Britain’s Policy for West German Rearmament 1950-1955. Saki Dockrill 1991 page 6.
[v] The prophet Mohammed achieved more unification and growth of nation after defeat than he achieved in War.
[vi] The European Union has surpassed its “economic union” origins and is widely accepted as a “supranational political union” and currently has observer status without voting rights at the United Nations. It openly seeks “social and territorial cohesion”. If it looks like a duck can be clearly argued…..and disagreed with. But German economists of the third Reich would undoubtedly approve.
[vii] Reflections on European Policy Document presented to the CDU/CSU parliamentary group in the Bundestag 7th September 1994.
[viii] The most significant protection of Ukrainian that was conceded in Church and religious texts.
[ix] Common language is a glue of a country’s culture, but there is a fine line between ensuring this glue is in place for the benefit of all and the suppression of minorities.
[x] Interviews and reports by Western journalists at that time can be easily found. “This does not feel like an invasion, but a liberation.”
[xi] Founded in 2000 Golos is the only Russian electoral watchdog independent of the authorities. Russia disputes their credibility branding them a “foreign agent” since 2013.
[xii] Sergey Lavrov News Week interview 7th July 2016
[xiii] The Drums of Memory – Sir Stephen Hastings chapter 11
[xiv] I used to shoot with a bomb disposal officer that was involved in decommissioning the rocket units of some of these nuclear weapons. It was his opinion that these were so badly maintained that the risk of accidental detonation was high. Furthermore corruption and disorder were so great that there was a high risk of nuclear warheads or material ending up in terrorist hands at some stage in the future. So perhaps Bill Clinton’s regret is misplaced.
[xv] In my opinion both Russia and bizarrely now USA have breached this
[xvi] It is noted that China (understandably) and France (prudently) did not sign up to this making separate declarations supporting nuclear non-proliferation
[xvii] It is no accident that funding of WW” movies made in Russian has grown throughout the 21st century
Comments