Is Klaipėda worth a war?

Klaipėda is the largest port in Lithuania (a NATO member state) and a popular resort on the Baltic Sea. The question of Klaipėda being worth a war, or more precisely, will Article 5 of the NATO Treaty work if Russia decides to “help the fraternal Lithuanian people” by occupying the territory of Lithuania is deeply concerning to Lithuanians. Also, it troubles other nations that share a border with the “Russian Empire”, such as Latvia, Estonia, Sweden, Finland and Poland. However, the European Union, NATO and the United States are hesitant to voice an answer. It is easier to simply brush the question off.

End of history

In 1989, Francis Fukuyama’s essay “The End of History” was published in The National Interest and later evolved into a popular book. In Fukuyama’s view, the end of history meant the end of an era of ideological confrontations, global revolutions and wars. In 1991, despite the resistance of the US and its allies, the “evil empire” – the Soviet Union – collapsed. The golden age of western democracies thus began. The slogan of the new era was eloquently voiced by German Chancellor Angela Merkel with a discernible Russian accent: “Let’s trade.”

The Cold War ended, the shabby Russian bear retreated to some distant corner of the taiga, and NATO emerged victorious. The western world believed that threats no longer existed and went full throttle. Russia acquired a certain aura as a mythical country in the East, where bears with balalaikas walk the streets and pour vodka into matryoshkas, while good-natured locals exchange oil and gas for jeans and democratic values. Defence budgets were slashed and national security ceased to be a priority in politics. The democratic world embarked on an exciting journey to earn money with anyone and in anything. Politics turned into a championship of who could promise more social goods to the voters.

The West enjoyed two decades of relative peace and prosperity with cheap energy resources and no military expenses, while Russia spent 20 years on rearmament and preparing for invasion. Seeing how western politicians, businesses and expert circles eagerly embraced the financial needle, Vladimir Putin opened the floodgates. Money from Russia flowed like a river into western democracies.

Official sponsors of this unprecedented generosity were the Russian oligarchs, who remained loyal to Moscow and were greatly responsive in satisfying the desires of western elites. All these figures like Abramovich, Fridman and Vekselberg were ready to finance any humanitarian and social projects – a hint was enough. Think tanks, journalists and NGOs in Brussels, Berlin, London and Washington were swimming in Russian money. However, this was just the beginning of a new war.

Hybrid war

The Cold War was formally declared by Winston Churchill after the end of the Second World War. In reality, combat actions began in the 1920s with the appearance of Soviet representatives in the West and the active work of the Comintern. Just one hundred years ago, the sources of financing were looted treasures of “exploiters of the working people” and Ukrainian grain. Now it is income from oil and gas. Yet the principles of the NKVD/KGB/FSB operation remain unchanged, as do their methods. Western democracies were so intoxicated by the financial “drug” that they essentially created an entirely transparent house without coverings and load-bearing walls.

The new religion, hastily woven from democratic values, multiculturalism and hyper-tolerance, gained new followers on both sides of the Atlantic. Russia actively financed and promoted it among the masses with the goal of disorienting and dividing society. Freedom of speech boiled down to everyone being able to promote any narrative without facing any responsibility. And security services in national security matters found their hands tied.

After 15 years, the Russian empire decided that Europe had fallen into its hands. In 2008, Russia invaded Georgia. Western democracies allowed for this invasion – trading was more pleasant – only expressing deep concern. In 2014 this scheme worked again with Ukraine. Russia threw a multitude of narratives into the information field: about the historical fate of Crimea, the war in Ukraine, and the downing of Flight MH17 in Donbas. And again, the West took the bait. Sanctions were toothless, as trading was more pleasant. Thus began the era of fake news.

In all the eight years since 2014, Moscow has spent time challenging the vigilance of its democratic victims. Despite the sanctions, joint strategic projects with Europe still flourished. One of them, Nord Stream 2, speaks volumes today. Everything was done to destroy the western democracies’s ability to resist. The main weapon in this war has been the “friends of Putin”, whose main leitmotif became personal comfort above all. Comfort, which was masked by the apparent concern for national economies. The key was to ensure that the price of a glass of beer remained unchanged. Stability was paid for in the blood of Ukrainians, Georgians or Chechens.

By the end of 2021, Moscow decided that western democracies were completely incapacitated. The friends of Putin, led by Merkel, had done their job. And on February 24th 2022, the great war in Ukraine began. The state of the western establishment at that time is best seen in a statement made by the assistant to Olaf Scholz, the new German chancellor: “If catastrophe is destined to happen, let it happen quickly.” However, Ukrainians had a different opinion and gave western democracies a second chance, sacrificing the lives of soldiers, women, the elderly and children.

New hope

Meanwhile, Germany, France, Italy and the United States fail to notice that the war with Russia is already being waged on the streets of their cities. Moscow, claiming the title of the “Third Rome” or even the “Fourth Reich”, employs the old principle of divide and conquer, sowing discord and confusion in western societies. Everything is used to push democracies to the brink of civil war: radical movements of both right and left; pressure through migrants; protests by farmers and truck drivers, generously paid with Europe’s own petrodollars; rhetoric from opinion leaders among the useful idiots; and the escapades of “friends of Putin” like Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán or Slovakia’s Robert Fico.

This is all in line with the century-old methodologies of the NKVD/KGB/FSB. The main task is to divert the ordinary citizen’s attention to internal contradictions and introduce as many disagreements as possible between society and the political class. This is precisely what “democratic values” and the incompetence of intelligence agencies are being used for. Next, Europe will completely lose its existing comfortable world. A future of internal conflicts and absolutely fake democracies, like those in Russia and its satellites, await it. Orbán is already demonstrating a demo version of the “new Russian world” in Europe. Many are ready to follow in his footsteps.

Exploiting absolute freedom and permissiveness, with the use of financial support from Moscow, it is quite easy to win elections, even with a minimal advantage. Subsequently, with the aid of the same Russian funding and the utilization of the state apparatus, control is gained over opposition parties, media outlets and civil society. Threats from Brussels will have no effect on this. Similarly, almost 100 years ago, Europe allowed Adolf Hitler to come to power. And there were local “Führers” of a smaller calibre.

The theory of the “invisible hand of the free market” was once fashionable, promising to fix and regulate everything. However, in practice, it turned out that without government restrictions, the invisible hand leads to chaos and the rule of the strong over their prey. This is similarly true regarding the existing invisible war in Europe. Without government intervention and changes in national security policy, there is only a path to defeat. If the greatest extent that democracy can oppose Russian fascism today is a policy of non-interference and expressing deep concern, then tomorrow the Baltic countries and Poland will be drowned in blood, while Russian tanks will once again appear on the streets of Budapest and Prague. And in Paris, Madrid, Rome and Berlin, stormtroopers will march with torches in support of a new Franco, Hitler or Mussolini.

This apocalyptic scenario can still be changed. Ukraine, which the self-confident Russian bear underestimated, has given western democracies new hope. To begin with, it is necessary to realize that the West is already involved in a war, not in a “pre-war state”. And the only support it can rely on for now is the Ukrainian army, to which all efforts should be directed. Europe is currently unable to defend itself independently.

There must be a correction of mistakes and a change in the ruling elites’ attitudes towards internal politics and national security issues. Freedom of speech must be separated from the permissiveness of propaganda. The European Convention on Human Rights explicitly states that freedom of speech can be restricted if it contradicts national security. In the end, European democracies must stop financing media, NGOs and social and cultural programmes from Moscow. Otherwise, it turns out that for places like Bratislava, Russian money means more than the freedom of Slovaks. But, to begin with, the leadership of the EU, NATO and the US must answer the question: “Is Klaipėda worth a war?” They must now be willing to answer this question in the affirmative.

Oleh Dunda is a Ukrainian politician and member of the Verkhovna Rada, Ukraine’s parliament.

Baltic states, Russia, Russia's invasion of Ukraine, Ukraine