Is a new great war inevitable? Lieutenant General (of Norwegian Army) Robert Mood floats the idea of Russia joining NATO.

5 comments

  2. Google translation:

    **Is a new great war inevitable?**

    *Without innovation, we are likely to steer towards conflict and war in both the short and long term.*

    In 1918, World War I ended. New technology such as aircraft and tanks did not give decisive victories on the battlefield. A static endurance test with big losses. The war that politicians in 1914 stumbled into and thought would be over quickly never seemed to end. Nevertheless, it was the conclusion of peace in 1919 that laid the main foundation for the ensuing world war (1939-45).

    *The national humiliation*

    In Versailles, France and Britain took the opportunity to put all the blame on Germany. The country was subjected to major war reparations. It also had to relinquish land and restrictions on its military forces were dictated.

    The national humiliation was an important reason for the election victory of National Socialism in 1933. Adolf Hitler was a soldier during the First World War. He himself felt the humiliation and was motivated by it.

    After World War II in 1945, the victors were allowed to dictate peace again. They were allowed to define the causes and what constituted war crimes. Despite the crushing defeat, or perhaps precisely because of it, the losers were treated with respect. They were quickly invited into the good company.

    The victorious states established a number of institutions that were to administer supranational rules of conduct for financial stability. It should get the economy in order and ensure that the world “never again” experienced similar disasters.

    The occupation of Germany ended in 1955. The country became a member of NATO while Japan gained its sovereignty in 1952 and UN membership in 1956. New institutions and the involvement of former enemies created stability.

    *Personal feelings*

    So what has happened since the end of the Cold War in 1991? Some claim the United States won. Others believe that the Soviet Union only crumbled because the socio-economic model did not work.

    Myth says that former US President Ronald Reagan defeated the evil empire with money and power, but it was first and foremost Reagan’s personal relationship and dialogue with Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev that opened the way for major changes and the end of the Cold War.

    30 years later, Russia is still outside the good company.

    It is not surprising that NATO enlargement to the east is provocative and humiliating. As a soldier during World War I, Adolf Hitler experienced personal humiliation. Russian President Vladimir Putin experienced something similar. He was a KGB officer in Dresden in 1989 during the fall of communism. Putin is often quoted as saying: “The collapse of the Soviet Union was the greatest disaster of the twentieth century.”

    We should not underestimate the extent to which personal experiences and emotions also affect national leaders.

    *Western solitude and vengeance*

    Few new institutions were established after the end of the Cold War. The Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE) later The Organization for Co-operation and Security in Europe (OSCE) was the only exception. It did not succeed in resolving political conflicts by peaceful means. Existing institutions were not reformed either.

    The last 30 years have not been characterized by mutual respect and involvement. It is characterized by Western loneliness, American hubris and vengeance after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

    What about the dialogue? The NATO-Russia Council does not appear to be an engaging forum for dialogue and joint decision-making. That despite the ambitious purpose. NATO makes the decisions. In the Council meetings, the countries then almost ritually criticize Russia, and then try to convince that NATO’s decisions are good and must be accepted.

    Which of course is experienced as a humiliating canoeing more than dialogue and community.

    *The cultural expression of the West*

    National humiliations, groping institutions and leather processes aside. The storming of the US Congress in the United States on January 6, 2021 showed that the world’s leading democracy with by far the strongest military power can actually collapse and become a dangerous country.

    I also do not remember seeing a single movie or TV series where Russians are the good and Western characters the bad ones. The cultural expression of the West promotes the United States and Western Europeans as good. It cultivates the image of Russia and Russians as evil, simple villains.

    There is a lot to criticize Russia for. But we distort reality when we portray Russia as the great villain, while the United States and the West are flawless defenders of democracy.

    Russia may experience the national humiliation as real. It is possible to understand. While NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg must insist on states’ right to choose their own alliance membership. The hawks applaud and recommend sanctions. A Gordian (difficult) knot.

    *Break out of habitual thinking*

    We must ask ourselves: Is it possible to see a way past the Russian red lines that also safeguard the states’ free right to choose? We use the experiences from the last century as a basis. Mutual respect, personal diplomacy and involvement were the recipe. Then we must break out of habitual thinking and challenge both hawks and pigeons.

    For example, is it possible to envisage new institutions or fundamental reforms of existing ones? Is it possible to envisage a more defensive NATO that is open to everyone, including Russia? And where members renounce bases and nuclear weapons outside their own territory?

    Without innovation, we are likely to steer towards conflict and war in both the short and long term.

    *Technological breakthroughs*

    Today and tomorrow it is about deescalation in Eastern Europe . In the slightly longer term, these are major changes and more complex security challenges than those that led us into the First World War in the aftermath of the Industrial Revolution.

    International breakthrough times, technological breakthroughs, economic and social upheavals and pandemics were there 100 years ago, as they are today.

    The difference is that the changes come faster, with autonomous weapon systems and artificial intelligence in the driver’s seat. The British intelligence MI6 has recently pointed out that the world will experience technological breakthroughs before 2030 that will have greater consequences than the industrial revolution.

    *Stability and lasting peace*

    It is obvious to warn against habitual thinking which in turn can cause us to stumble into war as in 1914. The end in Afghanistan is another reminder that hubris and self-righteous indignation make it easy to start wars and decide interventions, but even harder to end them so that it provides stability and lasting peace.

    In this context, too, it is appropriate to recall His Majesty the King’s reflection in the New Year’s speech 2021 : “If we allow ourselves to be touched, it affects the way we think and act. It is crucial that we take the time and effort to listen to other people’s experiences. With a desire to understand. Both in our close relationships and in large communities. “

  4. The only goal of Russia when being in NATO would be to ruin it from inside – to destroy it.

    That is directly in opposition to the goals of other NATO members.

  5. Every attempt to “understand Russian perspective” was being treated as a sign of weakness by Russian government and convince it to push it’s anti-Western agenda further by using even more bold and shameless means.

    We were naive and we wake up in a world of Real-Politik again where not a single of our opponents will ever try “understand our perspective” but to use every possible attempt to gain an advantage over us. Time to grow up.

Leave a Reply