© AI generated image
Look around world and assess its tensions and terrors, if you can bear to do so. As the Buddha supposedly told his disciples: “No-one saves us but ourselves. No-one can and no-one may. We ourselves must walk the path.” It’s a fine sentiment and very wise advice, but it may be more difficult to apply when some global powers visibly display a preference for armed conflict and a dislike for their neighbours that verges on the psychopathic. Walking the path would certainly be easier if it wasn’t strewn with land mines and traps. Self-interest and naked ambition are not easy to overcome, despite the seeming conviction of too many political leaders that they can only prove their leadership qualifications through committing acts of mass slaughter. Such acts, of course, convince those who don’t share that view that they, too, should take drastic action. As the great Greek tragedian of almost three thousand years ago once wrote: “Nothing has more strength than dire necessity.” Or, if you prefer, “difficult times make for difficult choices.” That’s why a number of European countries, responding to Russian President Vladmir Putin’s open aggression and provocation, are now preparing their people for war. Imminent war.
With much of the West showing sympathy and support for Ukraine, Russia now considers itself to be at war, presumably with the entire West. Clearly, it is what Putin has wanted all along, despite initially referring to it as a “special military operation”. It’s just a question of semantics, really. Meanwhile, Russia has now relocated its strategic nuclear arms to neighbouring Belarus, where they will be nearer to NATO’s borders. It really does begin to look as if, in a relatively peaceful world, Putin wants to invade and conquer the whole of NATO, bringing it under his control. The movement of the nuclear weapons, though, would seem to be nothing more than a gesture, bearing the message “don’t forget I’m here and I don’t like you”. After all, his nuclear arsenal could already reach any part of NATO territory; there was need for the move.

| SWEDEN AND FINLAND NO MORE NEUTRAL
Taking a look at the Nordic countries of Sweden and Finland, Russia seems to have achieved the exact opposite of its intentions. Both countries remained neutral outsiders until Russia invaded Ukraine, since when they have both joined NATO for their own protection against that country’s president, the seemingly kleptocratic Vladimir Putin, forever looking towards expansion. There is an old British patriotic song, Land of Hope and Glory, which contains words Putin would seem to like: “Wider still and wider shall thy boundaries stretch.” Putin has warned that hypersonic missiles could soon be fired at the West from Belarus, but the Belarussian president, Alexander Grigoryevich Lukashenko, has warned of severe consequences if Putin tries to annex his country. Still, Russia and Belarus have sworn their adherence to an alliance, which should presumably mean neither would invade the other. Probably.

Invasion of one sort or another, though, still seems to dominate a lot of thinking at present, with both Sweden and Finland issuing pamphlets to their people, urging them to stockpile baby clothes, bottled water, sanitary products and other thing that may be in short supply if a real war broke out. Millions of households have received the documents, which were first prepared and distributed during the Second World War. “The state of the world has worsened drastically in recent years,” warns the brochure. “War is being waged in our vicinity. Extreme weather events are becoming increasingly common. Terror threats, cyberattacks, and disinformation campaigns are being used to undermine and influence us.” New helpful ideas included in this latest version include advice about evacuation and such medical tips as how to stop bleeding, dealing with anxiety and proper care of pets. The two countries are clearly taking the Russian threat very seriously.
So is Poland, it seems. Russia has now closed the Polish consulate in St. Petersburg in retaliation for a Polish decision to close Russia’s consulate in Poznan. For those who thought that diplomacy was all about standing around at formal receptions, all dressed up in evening clothes and sipping vodka cocktails, this just goes to show they have the wrong idea. Meanwhile, the Russian Foreign Ministry has said that it was also declaring three of the Polish consulate’s diplomatic staff members “personae non gratae” and giving them a limited deadline by which they must leave Russia. Apart from Finland and Sweden, Norway and Denmark have also distributed wartime advice on how people should prepare for conflict. “Vengeance and retribution require a long time,” wrote the English novelist Charles Dickens. Perhaps, but he hadn’t reckoned with how someone like Putin may speed it up.
| THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE UKRAINE WAR

Among the members of the European Parliament there is concern about Russia’s territorial ambitions, but also fear that the entire thing could escalate into something else. Jaak Madison of the Estonian Centre Party has very firm views about what is happening. “Estonia’s rationale remains clear: Russia is a clear and present security threat to us.”
He said, setting out some of the historical background to the current events: “Historically, Russia has been an empire only when this included Ukrainian territory, and the loss of these areas to Russian control would thus equate to the rebirth of that empire, and which in turn would intensify the risk of war in Estonia.”
Mr. Madison is not alone in demanding a response. According to Mr. Madison, though, outright victory for Ukraine is not a realistic wish. “While President Alar Karis conceded that, behind closed doors, the major powers are discussing a possible peace deal or an armistice between Russia and Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelenskyy categorically denied that this was the case.”
That means that Mr. Zelensky is at odds with his most ardent backers. The fact is, he says, that the rest of Europe was too slow to respond to Russia’s aggressive ambitions, however clearly they were displayed.

“The objective reality is that Europe even now has not kick-started its defence industry, while in the first year of the war, Germany, quite knowingly, blocked the supply of urgently needed armaments to Ukraine.” According to Mr. Madison, it’s not always as clear as we imagine when talking about who is supporting whom and how. “Without a doubt, it is the duty of our state’s leadership and its diplomats to lobby for Ukraine and for increasing Europe’s defensive capabilities. The question is how convincing Estonia’s prime minister, Kaja Kallas, is in performing this task; a person whose family has benefited financially from business activities in Russia during the course of the war and has been caught lying to the public on this.” So he claimed. This is, of course, denied by Mr. Kallas, but it demonstrates what a messy business is war and the threat of war.
Arkadiose Mularczyk, of Poland’s Law and Justice Party participated a recent European Parliament debate about Ukraine, informing fellow-MEPs that according to a Pentagon spokesperson, some 11,000 North Korean soldiers are taking part in the Ukraine conflict, and there have been reports of other troops from Africa taking part on Russia’s behalf, along with illegal mercenaries. He told the Parliament that it suggests to him that Putin’s attack is weakening. He told colleagues that the war there requires: “further support from the European Union to Ukraine, further sanctions against the countries that support the Putin regime,” He also wants EU countries to: “send weapons, armaments and soldiers to Ukraine, and encourage more military support from South Korea,” going on to say: “As the European Union, we must give Putin a clear signal that the European Union will not lose its determination.”

Mr. Mularczyk is also concerned about Russia’s seeming disinterest in the damage it is doing to businesses in Poland (and elsewhere): “The EU, including Poland, is being flooded with cheap imported fertilisers from Russia and Belarus,” he told a debate at the European Parliament in Strasbourg, “produced using cheap gas from Russia, with which Polish and other EU fertiliser producers are unable to compete. The halting of fertiliser production has resulted in a lack of demand for sulphur from sulphur mining companies. As a result, Polish businesses, including companies from Grupa Azoty SA, are being forced to reduce their workforce through collective redundancies.” Wars can be fought on the commodity markets as well as on battlefields, and even in company boardrooms, where tactics are arguably the most dangerous and certainly most ruthless of all.
Then there is Cristian-Vasile Terheș, a Romanian politician and journalist, who serves as the leader of the Romanian National Conservative Party. He was born in Zalău and studied theology before becoming consecrated as a priest of the Romanian Greek Catholic Church. He was released from his priestly duties in 2019 when it became clear that they clashed with his political work. He has also urged the EU to be more pro-active in preparing to face a military foe. “Every country that wants to protect its citizens needs an army. A safe environment lures people. No strong country has a weak military,” he said, adding that it would be to NATO’s benefit. Certainly, he wants to see the EU taking a tougher line with Russia.

With regard to its war in Ukraine, Terheș said: “What Russia did was wrong, evil and violated the sovereignty of Ukraine.” He also pointed out that: “Ukraine was a nuclear power. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, it was persuaded by the West to give its nuclear arsenal to Russia in exchange for the Budapest memorandum.” Under it, Ukraine agreed to give up its nuclear weapons in exchange for security guarantees by Russia, the US and the UK. Now, Terheș has said, with considerable apparent justification, “Those Western countries have an obligation to defend the territorial integrity of Ukraine.” Basically, he is warning the West to honour its promises, especially because Russia seldom does. He has said that his ambition (or one of them, at least) is for Romania to be “powerful, safe and prosperous”, which sounds like a sensible plan.
Finland, also gearing up for an anticipated conflict (anticipated by much of Europe and looked forward to by Mr. Putin, it seems), has its own ideas for teaching Russia a lesson. One is to ban Russians from buying property there. At a press conference in Helsinki, chief of defence Antti Hakkanen told journalists that the new law would target both individual Russian house-buyers and also companies with strong Russia links, although it would not affect Russians with permanent residency status in Finland or another EU country. The idea certainly has the backing of Sebastian Tynnkynen of the populist right-wing Finns Party. “We are aware that this kind of legislation is contradictory to outdated international treaties,” he admitted, adding: “But under the urgent Russian threat, this kind of legislation must be done. I sincerely hope that the re-elected Commission President is ready to support the Finnish solution and is ready to broaden it to all border states with the Commission’s approval.” As it is, Mr. Tynkkynen has described the new development as “an excellent and crucial move” that will help to reduce the risk posed by an aggressive Russia. “As a neighbouring country to Russia,” he pointed out, “Finland especially needs to have strict measures to protect us from any Russian aggressions. Russian-owned properties in Finland,” he warned, “could be used for hostile purposes against us, and therefore this ban is needed.”

Mr. Tynkkynen’s career to date has not been without controversy. In January 2017, he was fined €300 for posting on Facebook: “The fewer Muslims in Finland, the better,” adding: “The less we see of Muslims, it is safer. We have to get rid of Islam before it is too late.” Not exactly an example of religious tolerance but probably unlikely to affect Finno-Russian relations much, if at all. It does suggest some hard-to-justify intolerance, however. In a written statement, he made plain his own views about Mr. Putin’s territorial expansion plans. “Russia is continuing its hybrid operations around Europe. On the Finnish border, Russia has instrumentalised migrants as a weapon and pushed them over our border.” Mr. Tynkkynen’s anger was plain to see, and he was not about to let it go. “To stop this kind of reckless act, Finland closed the entire border with Russia. As a legal tool, we started to develop our legislation. The new legislation just got accepted and it gives us the possibility in a threatening situation to stop taking in all the asylum applications.” He is aware, however, that it will not all be plain sailing. “We are aware that this kind of legislation is contradictory to outdated international treaties. But under the urgent Russian threat, this kind of legislation must be done. I sincerely hope that the re-elected Commission President is ready to support the Finnish solution and is ready to broaden it to all border states with the Commission’s approval.” He also talked about “even stricter measures to protect us.”
Yes, it seems Europe is no longer the cosy little club where everyone feels at home and at peace, and it’s entirely Russia’s fault that this is now the case, with the bonhomie replaced by fear and talk of war.

| NATO ALLIANCE WARNING ABOUT THE RUSSIAN THREAT
So it is that we are entering upon a new year that only Mr. Putin was hoping to see, accompanied by the sounds of exploding landmines, torpedoed ships, missile-struck aeroplanes and dying soldiers? Meanwhile, tyre marks on the deck suggest that China’s Fujian aircraft carrier is being prepared for more take-offs. Mr. Putin’s seemingly limitless ambitions seem to have changed our world – and especially Europe – for ever. I sometimes seems that he thinks a sufficiently ambitious and unrestrained attitude towards one’s neighbours could, perhaps, overcome any obstacle, and perhaps even install Mr. Putin himself as the overall head of the world. He probably wouldn’t like that: it would need him with no country to attack, although he could always decide to lay waste to Hawaii, Mauritius or even Antarctica, if he was in an attacking mood. There’s even a tropical paradise known as James Bond island, which he could conquer and re name Vladimir Putin Island, or perhaps Остров Владимира Путина, which I’m sure he’d prefer. The options are endless. It all depends, however, on him gaining the backing of a lot of countries and governments that are unlikely to grant it. I think I’d rather stay with the European Union, or the Европейский союз if you don’t mind.
But we had all better prepare ourselves, according to the NATO Secretary General, Mark Rutte. The head of NATO has warned the alliance is not ready for the threats it is soon to face from Russia in the near future and that it is time to adjust to a wartime mindset.
Mr. Rutte said NATO members had spent more than 3% of GDP on defence during the Cold War and argued future spending would have to be much higher than the alliance’s current target of 2%. “Russia is preparing for long-term confrontation, with Ukraine and with us,” he said during a speech in Brussels” We are not ready for what is coming our way in four to five years.