1

Saarinen
Daniel Saarinen

NATO/EU Enlargement and the Confrontation with Russia

Introduction

There is a connection between EU and NATO enlargement, and these two blocs

are a significant threat to Russia. In the eyes of Russia, these two acronyms are simply

the economic and military faces of the Anglo-American Empire. Membership in either

NATO or the EU has come to mean almost automatic membership in the other

organization as well. Russian responses to this include new generation ICBM systems,

and blackmail with energy. This causes men that rely on soft power to quake in fear.

After the dissolution of the USSR, Russia has been in a weakened position in Europe,

Central Asia and East Asia. Instead of reconciliation during the 1990’s, the western Cold

War military bloc expanded right up to the fragile borders of Russia, and the banking

oligarchs of the EU and United States tried to enslave Russia financially. The extreme

internal corruption of Russia was exploited instead of remedied. This has created a new

conflict with a different basis than the Cold War. This is a battle of 19th century Russian

Nationalism against the forces of Globalism.

Background
 2
Saarinen
Russia has traditionally been a conservative power throughout its history. It has

no natural geographical defenses on its frontiers, and the country stretches across eleven

time zones. Russia has historically adapted to this vulnerability by acquiring buffer

territories to provide even greater strategic depth for its defense. This vulnerability has

led to numerous invasions by great powers in the past. The Tatars, Napoleon, Charles XII

and Hitler all did their worst to the Russians. This history shapes the Russian soul to be

defensive and paranoid about potential danger on its borders. Russia never experienced

the Renaissance, Reformation and the Enlightenment. This has caused Russia to become

more culturally distant from the West since the 17th century.

In the West, there was a growing dislike of the naked tyranny of the Czars since

the Enlightenment, and even before. The totalitarianism of the East was viewed as a

grave threat to the commercial empires of the West. When Russia is strong, it is a terrible

enemy to face. This is why in the post-WWII era an entire defensive military alliance

was created to face down the singular power of Moscow.

Another part of the conflict is the different sources of power that the antagonists

draw upon. Russia controls the Central Asian Heartland, and is the predominant land

power on the Earth. America and its European satellites are the predominant commercial

sea powers of the Earth. This asymmetry leads both factions to take extreme measures to

counter the predominant strength of the enemy. The amalgamated financial power of the

banking elite in the West controls the commanding heights of the world economy. All

nations on the periphery of this control system are beholden to it, and do not participate

in the global economy on an equal basis. Russia knows this, and views the advance of

the European economic bloc with fear. They are determined not to be brought into the
 3
Saarinen
New World Order of NATO and the EU as a subservient client state of the financial

powers. After the South Ossetia war, the orders were given by the money masters to

attack Russian markets as punishment for its victory in the Caucasus. The Moscow stock

market was imploded on command, and lost over one third of its value. To counter this

form of strength, Russia is investing in its traditional mode of foreign policy: pure force.

Globalism vs. Realism

The problem of perception is almost insurmountable. Russia interacts with the

world on the basis of a sort of realism mixed with opportunism. They only seek

objectives that they can guarantee with force. NATO and the EU are pursuing policies

that only post-modern nihilistic powers would consider. The expansion of the blocs to

countries that are not suitable members causes alarm and confusion in Russia, because it

does not make any kind of strategic sense unless the goal is to surround and isolate

Russia. The inclusion of the Visegrad Four (Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic and

Slovakia) was reasonable, and made sense to the Russians and was not viewed as being

too threatening. These states were traditionally western, and had not been part of the

Russian sphere of influence except for during the Cold War.

The problem in the eyes of Russia is the expansion into the Balkans, South-East

Europe, and former Ottoman territories that have Slavic and orthodox peoples living in

them. Russia views itself as the guardian of Christendom and feels a paternal

responsibility towards the Slavic Christians in this area and has traditionally held great

influence there. Seeing these groups pulled into the Economic and Military blocs of the
 4
Saarinen
West has piqued the paranoid nerves of the Russian elite. This is not normal realistic

behavior on the part of NATO and the EU.

The problem for NATO and the EU is that for every action they take, threatening

or not in their eyes, Russia responds with force and blackmail. They don’t realize that

this is just the product of the asymmetry that exists between the West and Russia. Russia

cannot fight the West in terms of propaganda or economics, so all they can rely on is

force and the resources they directly control in order to enforce their will. The inability

to accept that Russia is motivated by nationalism is crippling the policy and planning of

the NATO and EU bloc. It is not reasonable to expect to be able to build military bases

right up to Russia’s borders, and have no response from them. All overtures that the

western bloc makes to Russia are interpreted as attempts to ensnare them into the

bottomless monetary pit of the Anglo-American Banking Empire.

The issue of deterrence has become the key to this confrontation. Russia has

recognized the weakness being introduced into NATO by bringing in these tiny Eastern

European states, and even more absurdly Georgia all the way in the Caucasus. The

United States is not actually willing to fight Russia directly over these meager “allies”,

and Russia has been convinced of that for decades. The demonstration of punishing

Georgia was to destroy the enthusiasm of the tiny Eastern NATO members to thumb their

noses at Russia, and to get revenge for the theft of Kosovo from Serbia.
 5
Saarinen
Mitigating Factors and Confidence Building Measures

NATO has included Russia as an observer in order to address some of the Russian

fears about NATO expansion and out of area actions. The NATO-Russia Council was

founded in 2002 and allows Russia to hear the discussions and to have their opinions

immediately heard by the NATO members. The creation of this mechanism has

decreased tension somewhat because there is less of a question about whether either side

understands what the other is doing or what the other wants. This is a mitigating factor in

the perception problem between the West and Russia. The importance of this should not

be over played though. As time goes on Russia sees that even though they have a voice

in the NATO structure and their opinions are known, they have no value.

Since the EU is an economic and political entity, communication with Russia is

easier. There are Russian Ambassadors in all of the EU states. The EU and Russia

entered into a Partnership and Co-operation Agreement in 1994 shortly after the creation

of the EU. This agreement normalized economic policy between the EU and Russia and

allowed for expanded trade and cooperation. In late 2008 the EU and Russia began new

negotiations at a summit about a new agreement that is yet to take shape. Russia will act

to exploit the cracks between EU economic needs, and the military demands of the trans-

Atlantic alliance. This gap is closing, and to the Russians this is more evidence of hostile

unified purpose.
 6
Saarinen
Conclusions

NATO and the EU are on a collision course with Russia. This conflict is not

about whether Russia is “good”, or if there is “democracy” in Russia. This is about the

grand schemes of the global banking elite that are using the United States and NATO as a

weapon to enforce their program around the world. The actions of NATO and the EU are

not within the bounds of realism, and invoke all sorts of fears in Russia. Some of these

are justified and some are not. If the western blocs are not acting rationally in the context

of history, the logical thing for the Russians to believe is that they are in danger. The real

way for the West and Russia to de-escalate the burgeoning conflict is for the West to

leave Central Asia and the Caucasus. Our presence there is unnatural, and very expensive

to maintain. Returning to a rational spheres of influence system of international relations

would give confidence and security to all the parties involved. The human energy of the

great powers could then be devoted to progress and development rather than destruction

and oligarchy.