How The War Is Affecting The Geopolitical Stratosphere
EU and NATO are expanding and are reforming their aims, while other countries compromise humanitarian issues over their economical wealth.
As we enter day 45 of the war, what is evident is that it is affecting the structure of Europe, questioning the loyalties and ethics of countries, and shaping the geopolitical issues in the world. The ‘neutral’ status of some countries is now evolving, and not as Putin would like. Even the Austrian minister is making a symbolic visit to Kyiv next week, and for a country that has been invaded and occupied by Germany and the USSR, who were forced to maintain a neutral status, this is a show of support. Boris Johnson also makes a surprise visit to Kyiv to discuss further military and financial aid to Ukraine.
Sweden and Finland have always maintained a neutral stance, but both are willing to join NATO, knowing that Russia may have an eye on their territories. The public are also in favour of this, and this has redefined the politics, allies, and defences in Europe. Sweden made a public show of their air defences as a warning to Russia that they are armed and will defend their land. However, Sweden knows that it needs the support of their nordic neighbours should Russia decide to invade their land.
Finland shares a border with Russia, having been forced to cede land (Karelia and Sallo) to the USSR back in 1940 during the ‘Winter War’. Prior to that, the country was a principality of the Russian Empire, so there is history there that the Finns do not want repeated. The League of Nations deemed the invasion illegal and expelled the USSR. This sounds a little familiar to the current Ukraine and Russia situation, where the UN may have suspended Russia from the UN Human Rights Council, but that isn’t enough.
The Moscow Peace Treaty in March 1940 was signed due to the fact that Finland requested assistance from Sweden, France and Great Britain, and while the countries did support Finland, there was a lack of coordination in their plans, with France and Great Britain having a plan, that Norway and Sweden rejected. Finland took heavy losses while other countries were deciding on what support to offer and as the war broke out at the end of November until March, the harsh winter conditions affected the progress of the Finnish troops. Basically, the USSR ‘won’ by exhausting the Finns during winter and took advantage of the disorganisation of the allies who were also mounting defences against Germany as the Second World War had just begun. This is not unlike the Ukrainian situation where the allies are contradicting each other, hiding behind NATO statements, then other countries are choosing to act through their own sovereignty (Czech Republic gifting tanks) forcing others to act as well.
While the issue of the annexation by Russia is still a topic for discussion, Finland has stated because no Finns are there any longer (they moved into Finland) they have not pursued the return of the land from Russia. With such history, Finland has always been cautious of Russian interference and their movements. Zelenskyy spoke to the Finnish parliament yesterday, and it appears that Russia decided to fly over their airspace for a few minutes as a warning when Finland confirmed they were seeking to join NATO. In addition, there are claims that the government systems had been hacked. Perhaps Finland is right to defend themselves as soon as possible as a precaution, and the public opinion favours NATO membership.
Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia have all made applications to join the EU, and Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission has stated that the process should be completed by May. However, all EU countries must approve the applications. This is where Hungary becomes an issue, as the current government has been supportive of Putin in the past, and recently won an election by taking a neutral approach. The EU opted not to proceed with action against Hungary for breaching the EU rule of law until after the recent election, but had they done so earlier perhaps the result would have been different?
No one would have cared about the elections and politics in Hungary had it not been for this war, but as they are a border EU and NATO country to Ukraine, it places their position, and what they do under the spotlight.
As it happens, Brussels has now suspended funding to Hungary in a case that goes back to 2018. The EU tried to rein Hungary in but failed and court action was a last resort. The problem is most Hungarians probably weren’t aware that the EU was going to suspend funding to the country based on the actions of the government, and if they had, would they have voted for Orban? Countries such as Hungary are reliant on EU funding and benefit greatly from being in the EU, so to find that funding worth millions of euros will be withheld is not going to go down with the electorate who probably had no idea that they had voted in a government that was about to be ‘whipped’ by the EU.
As a fairly new entity that had never been challenged (for it was expected that all EU members had the same goals and ideas of what democracy was), Hungary was keen to push the boundaries with the attitude of ‘What can the EU do?’ as they can’t kick Hungary out of the EU, knowing that the EU like to give the public impression that everyone gets on. How will NATO and the EU deal with an uncooperative member state if it happens? Hungary did vote to remove Russia from the UN Human Rights Council, but would they have dared to abstain if the EU had not pursued them in the courts that led to a suspension of funding? They have breached the rule of law and now must do what they can to regain the necessary funds that they expected from the EU. Hungary has benefited from more than €20 billion in funding since they joined the EU, and this latest action from the EU could cost Hungary over €7 billion in funding, where the government has issues of corruption and conflicts of interest in how the public funds are used.
Hungary seems more of a burden than a useful member of the EU at present, where the EU needs to act because if Hungary gets away with such actions, then it opens the door for other corrupt member states to do the same. In times such as these, Brexit was the right decision given how the EU was evolving. Poland states that they will ‘freeze’ relations with Hungary over their stance with Ukraine, as Hungary appears to be isolating themselves within their protective alliances.
We now have to look at French politics, not because we are interested in who governs France, but as member of the EU, NATO, G7, and UN Security Council, they get a say in many of the decisions made. What France decides can affect the applications for NATO, the EU by other countries (as Sarkozy rejected Ukraine’s application for NATO in 2008), and Macron’s numerous chats with Putin have yielded nothing. The French are quite rightly concerned, and as a liberal country they expect the government to support Ukraine with more than fancy words. De Gaulle never hesitated to do what he thought was right.
Macron won the election last time through saying the things the electorate wanted to hear, but now he is up for re-election, as the first round of voting is due on Sunday, and the election is in May. The French have always been cautious about the far right (Marine Le Pen), who has softened her approach and she has won some of the votes from supporters who had voted for Macron last time.
Is Macron doing enough in terms of the Ukrainian situation according to the French? No one wants World War III, but is Macron doing what he can to avert war—is he chancing things by hoping he can sweet talk Putin, and convince Zelenskyy to take a deal? Is Macron willing to allow multiple deaths while Putin keeps stalling him with their chats, hoping that he can ‘save’ the situation with his silver tongue and be on record as the one who persuaded Putin to withdraw his troops? It would be arrogant of him to do so, but that is what I see each time we hear that Macron has spoken to Putin, with no results. Allowing the annexation of Crimea, and the Donbas region would only mean that Putin has won, and that he has opened a door for himself to take more.
We can also look at the how this war has shaped the politics and economics of other continents, mainly Asia who haven’t felt the effects of war just yet, nor do they want to, hence why a large number of countries who rely on tourism abstained in the recent vote to suspend Russia from the UN Human Rights Council.
You see, the sanctions imposed against the Russians, also affect destinations such as Thailand and Barbados that rely on rich tourists. Many who have yachts will have crew and they in turn will have their kickbacks, and so one good client can pay for the livelihoods of many people. Even in retail (where I used to work), people would get excited if the Russians and Saudis were in town as they are big spenders and people would achieve their targets (and gain commission) in a day.
Many Asian countries such as Thailand, and Malaysia have a lower cost of living, and so when tourists visit for extended periods of time, they are profit makers for those in the tourist industry. Therefore, to alienate a sector of the usual clients (Chinese and Russian) would lead to economic loss, and after Covid-19, where many of these countries who rely on tourism, businesses have struggled to stay open. The votes were motivated by economic greed/necessity, and a lack of knowledge on how westerners think and act, failing to understand that there might be economic consequences from their vote. Many do not grasp how western media works, and will not understand that if westerners see them abstaining from a humanitarian vote, that it may affect their decision to visit, say Thailand or not. This is how political issues cross the boundaries with a culture clash, because the media is more prevalent in the west than in many Asian countries, and thus the latter do not wholly appreciate how westerners think if it is not explicit, and there is a different set of political ethics.
It might be wrong to call the countries that abstained as ‘simple’ but they are protecting their own interests, failing to understand that support is a two way thing. If their country needed help due to war or a natural disaster, they expect the rich west to come to their aid without any obligation. All we wanted is for them to vote and do the right thing, yet many opted not to. There is a simple mentality in some of these countries, I recall when I visited Indonesia as a backpacker, where the locals tried to force me to pay to go on a guided tour—I mean there was guilt thrown at me, and they all yelled at me because I was from Europe I had money, and demanded that I should spend it so that they could have some of that money. Imagine a Russian tour group paying for a few tours a day, plus cash tips as the end of the day—they would make enough in a few weeks to feed their families for a year.
That is the vicious circle of wealth, where the wealthy will still survive but the people who rely on them spending their money will be the ones who suffer and who will lose out. You can’t feel sorry for the Russians who can’t get their Chanel fix, or the latest Apple gadgets, so how will the sanctions affect them really? Perhaps those who abstained failed to consider how the world at large would judge them? Look at the popular holiday destinations that abstained, Barbados, Maldives, Malaysia, Tunisia, Thailand, St Kitts-Nevis, and St Vincent-Grenadines, and while many may not take any notice of the vote, there will be those who do and who will silently choose to take a holiday elsewhere.
Day 45 (9 April)
Russia has expelled 45 staff at the Polish embassy in retaliation for expelling Russian diplomats. Similar action will take place in the Bulgarian embassy (two staff members to be expelled).
Finland is also expelling two Russian diplomats and will not renew the visa of another. This comes after Finland has stated they will seek to apply for NATO membership.
After being suspended from the UN Human Rights Council, Russia has announced it will close 15 NGOs that are involved with Human Rights, including Amnesty International. Russia claims that they have violated the law without stating which laws have been breached.
Activists in Belarus and Ukraine have compiled a database of all Russian looters, complete with all their personal information.
The Austrian Chancellor, Karl Nehammer arrived in Kyiv and Bucha on a solidarity visit. This is important, as Austria has maintained a neutral status in the international community and is showing support.
Apparently YouTube has blocked some Russian state channels that show parliamentary debates and interviews.
Russia has also stated they are seeking to ban Google from advertising in Russia due to YouTube spreading fake news about the special military operation.
In central Ukraine, an ammunitions dept has been attacked (Myrhorod Air Base) where aircraft were destroyed.
Odesa is under a weekend curfew as Russian shelling is expected.
Kostyantyn Ivashchenko, who was part of the Mariupol administration has been charged with high treason.
Boris Johnson visits Ukraine and meets Zelenskyy in Kyiv. The UK will send 120 armoured vehicles and anti-ship missiles.
10 humanitarian corridors have allegedly been opened to allow civilians to evacuate.
The Russians claim that Ukraine illegally withdrew from the USSR (which no longer existed) therefore, Russia has a right to invade. This is according to Yevgeny Fedorov (State Duma deputy).
What a comprehensive and scholarly piece of work EL. Thank you. It clarified so much.