Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Hans Boserup, Doctor of Law 🇩🇰's avatar

Brilliant analysis Chris.

But I still don't understand what NATO's European leaders are afraid of. Is it possible that they don't believe that their populations will back them?

As in most coalitions, there are brave but also naive optimists.

I haven't read the European Gallup figures. But is there a survey or statistics on the population's attitude to what should be done in relation to Russia?

Are there really solid statistics that the population does not understand that Russia only respects power?

I can perhaps understand that countries geographically far from Russia dare to live with the risk. But the closer the countries are geographically to Russia, the better they understand the risk that Russia poses on various levels.

Even the historically peaceful, cold-hearted Nordic countries realise that Russia is continually testing their will to resist in cyberspace, at the borders, in the air, on and under the sea. And these countries seem to stand firm in the belief that Russia only respects an active and powerful response.

I am still very pleased that the Nordic countries were so quick to bring the Baltic countries into our military and economic alliances. Perhaps it would not have been possible today?

Russia is not Nazi Germany, but the overestimation of their own importance seems to be made of the same stuff and dreams.

80 years without war in Europe have led to a stronger economy, better understanding of each other's culture and differences in culture. Understanding that individual countries cannot do without membership in coalitions. But at the same time, the aversion to the brutal use of force has grown. We have become more civilised and more empathetic. That in itself is a great progress. But it was not only the Roman Empire that collapsed because the inhabitants and soldiers were softened by the Pax Romanum. I, however, doubt whether that is the whole truth.

Russia knows that, and therefore it is realpolitik when Russia wants to test and weaken the alliances of civilised people. But relativism and understanding are not acceptance of real threats. When our civilisation is at stake, we must act resolutely, soberly, and with - if not cynical - cool reason. We must fight for all that we hold dear. Die, if necessary. We know that mountains can be blown up, and a river can be forced. But a people can never perish unless it accepts it itself.

The lack of respect for the individual's need for happiness, peace, and stability shown by the Russian Tsars, the Soviet leaders, and Russia's ditto, is difficult for civilised people to understand. And again, understanding is not acceptance.

But European civilised people, plus the inhabitants of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, should know from experience that respect for individual rights has a price.

The longer we wait to actively protect individual rights, the higher the price in human lives, in economic decline, and in general deterioration and welfare will be.

We do not have soldiers for decoration. We have them for active defence of individual rights. If the defence of individual rights requires the lives of soldiers, then the soldiers must sacrifice their lives.

We can mechanise war to a great extent, but ultimately only human active presence on the battlefield can ensure peace at all levels against aggressive countries like Russia.

Civilised people also know that boots on the ground lead to brutalisation of those people who abhor brutality. To avoid or reduce brutality, soldiers must pay the high price that soldierly life in war entails.

Nuclear weapons? Useful as a threat but so highly polluting of land, seas and air that only suicides will use them.

Kennedy knew this and risked it during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

If the leaders of civilised countries are not afraid of the attitudes of their populations, are they afraid that the civilised institutions that civilised people have built to protect civilisation will judge them as uncivilised?

That risk is important enough in the public interest to take.

History will usually be skeptical and critical. But humans are now only mortals who cannot foresee the entire future.

And now is the time to go as far as we can see. And then we must see how far we can go. That is what civilised people have elected their leaders to do.

Expand full comment

No posts