Welcome, Finland!

Welcome to the most powerful—and feckless—military alliance in the history of the world.

Finland joined NATO today and the BBC therefore published what ought to be an entirely superfluous story: “What is Nato and why is Finland joining?”

I’m not sure whether this remedial bit of “explainer” journalism reflects the most poorly on the BBC’s editors, its audience, or its editors’ view of its audience, but any English speaking person who doesn’t already know what NATO is or why Finland might be joining it right now probably isn’t much of a reader to begin with.

The article does a fine job of answering the questions asked by its headline.

“The organisation's original goal,” it explains, “was to challenge Russian expansion in Europe after World War Two.”

Straight up.

Two items at the end of the article are worthy of note.

A section entitled “Why won’t Nato countries give more help to Ukraine?” explains:

Nato countries are not sending their troops to Ukraine, or imposing a no-fly zone over the country, again for fear of provoking a direct conflict with Russia.

And the final section, entitled “Why isn’t Ukraine in Nato?”, explains:

If Ukraine was made a member, Nato countries would technically have to go to war with Russia.

(Technically?)

Let’s review what we’ve been told:

What’s the purpose of NATO? To defend the west against Russia.

Why isn’t NATO doing more to help Ukraine? To avoid war with Russia.

Why isn’t Ukraine in NATO? Because then we’d be at war with Russia.

There are some questions the article doesn’t ask or answer.  One of them is: why does the BBC call the North Atlantic Treaty Organization “Nato?”  It’s an acronym. NATO.

Another unasked and arguably more relevant question deserves more attention that it seems to be getting from anyone: specifically, why didn’t NATO prevent Russia from invading Ukraine? 

The answer is obvious enough: to avoid war with Russia.

That’s how it played out, after all.  We were so desperate to avoid war with Russia that we did nothing to prevent them from launching a war on Ukraine even though the build-up took months and we all saw it happening.

Avoiding war with Russia is a noble aim, but had the west really believed in 2021 what it claims to believe now—that the territorial integrity of Ukraine is of vital strategic interest to the west—then “avoiding war with Russia” would have involved providing all the weapons we’re supplying so belatedly now long before February 2022. 

In April 2021, Reuters ran an article stating that:

More than 100,000 Russian troops have massed on Ukraine's border and in annexed Crimea, the office of the EU's top diplomat Josep Borrell said after EU foreign ministers were briefed by Ukraine's foreign minister.

In a press conference on Monday, Borrell had originally spoken of more than 150,000 troops, and declined to give a source for the figure.

His office later corrected the number to more than 100,000 troops without giving a reason for the change.

That was ten months before the invasion was launched.

Anyone old enough to be reading this is old enough to remember those ten months. 

Two days after the Reuters article above was published, Vladimir Putin addressed the Russian Federal Assembly:

Those who organize provocations against Russia will come to regret it as they have regretted little else, warned Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday.

Addressing the Federal Assembly, Putin said “the meaning and content” of Russia’s policy in the international arena is “to ensure peace and security for the well-being of our citizens, for the stable development of the country.”

But he added pointedly: “Russia has its own interests, which we defend and will stand for within the framework of international law, as do other states of the world. And if someone refuses to understand this obvious thing, does not want to conduct dialogue, chooses a selfish and arrogant tone, Russia will always find a way to defend its position.”

Putin’s remarks came as Western powers raised alarms over some 150,000 Russian troops amassing at Ukraine’s eastern borders, some six years after annexing the country’s Crimean peninsula, a move Russia is still sanctioned for.

Putin’s remarks were a calculated gamble that paid off.

We’ll never know whether or not it was a bluff because we didn’t call him on it.

We didn’t call him on it because, as the BBC article makes clear, it’s NATO policy never to call a bluff: that bring about a war with Russia and that’s the one thing NATO was designed to always avoid.

NATO didn’t act when Russia invaded Georgia because that might have brought us into direct conflict with Russia.

NATO didn’t act when Russia swallowed Crimea because that might have brought us into direct conflict with Russia.

And NATO didn’t act when Russia massed more than 100,000 troops on the border of Ukraine because, as I’m sure you remember hearing, that would have been a “provocation.”  And provoking Russia always means running the risk of war with Russia.

I’ve heard sound and sober people whom I respect, and who agree with my assessment of NATO’s general recent fecklessness, arguing that while it’s unfortunate for Ukraine that we couldn’t do more for them, NATO is still formidable enough to protect us.  Putin wouldn’t dare infringe on the border of a NATO country, they say, because he knows NATO would then have to act.

Is that really what he “knows,” though?

Isn’t he possible he knows we’d only technically have to?

Are Americans really ready to go to war with Russia over a “minor incursion” into Estonia or Lithuania?  Because we all know the burden of a NATO war with Russia would fall most heavily upon the United States. (The general who’s second in command of the Danish army recently acknowledged that the Danish army is essentially useless. The other armed forces of the continent probably aren’t in much better shape, although their generals may be more sanguine about it.)

Which is fair enough, frankly, insofar as it was the American president who telegraphed the information that a Russian invasion would invite nothing more aggressive than economic sanctions.  Putin was obviously preparing an invasion for territorial conquest and the leader of the free world, the commander in chief of NATO’s load-bearing member, vowed that he would issue fines.  Really big ones. Seriously. (Putin will “never have seen sanctions like the ones I have promised will be imposed.”) 

Neither Biden nor any other NATO leader ever once said flatly and plainly, “Mr. Putin, if you invade Ukraine you will release the whirlwind and you will pay the price.”

That’s simply not the kind of language one uses in diplomacy.  It’s not comme il faut.  No, that’s the kind of belligerent talk reserved exclusively for harassing American Supreme Court justices.  NATO can’t talk like that: it’s too provocative.  It could bring us into conflict with Russia, and it’s NATO’s whole mission to avoid doing that.

As the BBC has so helpfully pointed out.

Be all that as it may, however, Finland’s entry into NATO is being hailed as a great triumph for the west and a grave defeat for Putin.

“The Latest: War in Ukraine: Finland Deals a Blow to Putin as It Enters NATO,” says the New York Times.

“Finland is now officially a member of NATO — a big giantic Putin own-goal, says (Danish Foreign Minister) Lars Løkke (Rasmussen),” says TV2 News.

“Finland becomes 31st NATO member as Russia rages,” says the Times of India.

Yes, it’s certainly a red letter day: there’s now one more country that must never provoke Russia for fear of bringing the west into direct conflict with Russia.

So welcome aboard, Finland.

Here’s hoping you never need the insurance policy you just signed up for.