A Lesson From 1754

Mar 2 2025

In the 18th century, when Finland was still part of the Kingdom of Sweden, a number of coastal fortresses were built along the Finnish and Swedish coast, and one of them was the sea fortress Sveaborg outside Helsinki. It was built on the islands directly south of the city and protected the entrance to the city port.

Russia and its growing power was the obvious reason why these fortresses were built, and Finland was the eastern edge of the Kingdom of Sweden and thus of the Western European cultural and religious sphere. Russia was a Slavic nation and the dominant religion there was Greek Orthodox Christianity, i.e. in one word: foreign.

The sea fortress known then as Sveaborg is now called Suomenlinna, the Finns changed the name when they gained independence in 1917. The original name translates to Castle of Sweden and the new one to Castle of Finland, both equally misleading since there is no castle, it is strictly a military fortress.

The original main entrance is called The King’s Gate, since that is where a Swedish King entered the fortress during the construction phase. The gate was finished in 1754, and on the sides are four decorative stone tables, two on each side.

One of the stone tablets has a message for future generations engraved on it. It is by Field Marshal Augustin Ehrensvärd, the designer of the fortress, and the commander of the Swedish Archipelago Fleet and it reads in 18th century Swedish:

Eftervärd
stå här på egen botn
och lita icke på främmande hielp

For those who do not understand 18th century Swedish this roughly translates to:

Future generations,
stand here on your own two feet
and do not rely on foreign help

This was good advice, more than 250 years ago, for the Eastern edge of the Western world, against emerging Russia. And by the way, years before the US gained independence.

And it is good advice for Europe, in 2025, when the US is turning inward and becoming isolationist, and when Russia is again trying to muscle its way into the heart of Europe.

Enlarging NATO

Mar 2 2025

For obvious reasons, there has recently been a lot of talk about Ukraine joining NATO.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 prompted Finland and Sweden, both previously neutral countries, to apply for NATO membership. Finland joined in 2023 and Sweden in 2024. Sweden had actually been neutral for over 200 years before joining NATO, that should say something about the situations in Europe now.

Ukraine and NATO discussion will go on for a long time, but what about Ireland, Austria, Malta, and Cyprus? They are all in the EU, but are not full members of NATO. Why not join NATO, especially now that the US seems to have joined the might-makes-right club of countries. The thing is they have historically all subscribed to the principle of neutrality; but so did the aforementioned Finland and Sweden.

I do understand the idea of neutrality, and in principle, it is a very good idea. But in practice, in the real world of 2025, with a major war on European soil, it is really not a feasible position to be in anymore.

Neutrality works when the really big powers, who are not neutral, largely play by the rules, but when they break those rules, neutrality becomes a liability.

Sometimes in life we are faced with a situation that is so far outside the norms that we just have to pick sides. If you have not noticed it yet, Europe is facing one of those moments, the historical situation has changed. So, like it or not, it is time to pick sides.

In addition to the countries mentioned above, Switzerland is also neutral, but probably a slightly different case. Maybe it is because a lot of people, from all over the world, who are in powerful positions, keep their assets in Swiss banks, or use them in their business, and no-one wants to mess with their own money. Also, the country is landlocked, relatively small, and the mountainous terrain makes the country a nightmare for an invading army, and at the same time perfect for a local guerrilla force. So not worth the trouble.

So, what about the four neutral countries who are in the EU but not in NATO?

Cyprus is already on the path to join NATO, but has obvious political and historical complications with the division of the island. And that issue needs to be solved before full membership is possible.

The Ukraine war has changed the security environment, and this presents a good opportunity to solve this decades old dispute between the Greek and the Turkish Cypriot sides. Besides, both Greece and Turkey (or Türkiye as it is officially called) are NATO members, as is the UK, which has two military bases on the island, Akrotiri and Dhekelia.

Cyprus is in a very important strategic location in the eastern Mediterranean; close to the Suez Canal and the Middle East, and the two Russian bases in Syria, Tartus and Khmeimim. Their future is uncertain with the new regime in power in Syria, but Russia is negotiating and will obviously try to keep them, since they are the only bases Russia has in the Mediterranean.

My message today would be, wake up to new reality and smell the great Cypriot coffee, and face the fact that the real enemy is Russia, not the other Cypriots on the island. So, solve the issues, unite the island, and join NATO.

Malta despite being neutral, is in the NATO Partnership for Peace programme, which means it is already leaning towards NATO. It is in the EU, has a democratically elected government, and has historical ties to the UK. It is part of the cultural western world.

The island is in a perfect strategic position in the middle of the Mediterranean, and served as an important base for the UK in WWII. In addition to the Ukraine war, there is the issue of migration from north Africa, and Libya to the south is not exactly a well functioning state at the moment.

Malta is a small country, and needs friends and alliances, that is why it is in the EU. Looking at this from the outside, Malta joining NATO is a no-brainer.

Since the US seems to be withdrawing from the alliance, why not use this opportunity to make a strong statement on the world stage in support of the rule of law and join NATO?

Austria like Malta is also in the NATO Partnership for Peace programme, and has strong ties with the West. Austria’s neutrality is enshrined into its constitution, thanks to the Soviet insistence of neutrality during the talks to end the Allied occupation after WWII.

Austria is in the EU, cooperates with NATO, and participates in peacekeeping operations. Austria’s military expenditure as percentage of GDP, does not reach the level of NATO requirements, it is somewhere around 1%, but not all NATO countries reach that level either at the moment.

Austria is also one of the European countries which still has military conscription, so it has a sizeable army, a functioning training system, and obviously good reserves. Having conscription also means the military is a normal part of society, so Austria is militarily in a better position than some other countries.

Austria’s neutrality is enshrined in the constitution, but constitutions can be amended. If Austria wanted to make a statement for the rule of law, this would be the time to do it.

Ireland not being in NATO is kind of weird, since NATO is short for the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, and Ireland is an island in the North Atlantic.

For historical reasons Ireland has had a traditional policy of military neutrality, it even stayed neutral in WWII. But today Ireland is in the NATO Partnership for Peace programme, and in 2024, joined NATO's Individually Tailored Partnership Programme as well. This was done to increase its capabilities at protecting undersea infrastructure, and countering potential threats to it.

Talking about potential threats, the Russian “oceanic research vessel” Yantar, just last November was escorted out of the Irish sea from an area which has energy and internet infrastructure on the seafloor. And this was not the first time Russia was looking for vulnerabilities in European infrastructure, and it will definitely not be the last.

Ireland’s military is small, and has traditionally focused on protecting fisheries, peacekeeping operations, assisting the police, and in other civil defence tasks such as search and rescue, assisting in natural disasters, and maintaining essential services.

Ireland’s Air Corps and its Naval Service are geared towards patrolling and protecting its territorial waters and exclusive economic zone. They are not a Blue-water navy, and the Air Corps does not have fighter jets, so they cannot defend Irish airspace in the usual sense.

But, not having a huge navy or modern fighter jets is not as bad as it sounds. The good thing about not having a large navy or an air force, is that you do not have to pay for maintaining them. And you do not have legacy issues with ageing equipment.

Drone technology has changed the way wars will be fought, and if I was upgrading the Irish military today, I would concentrate on all kinds of drones and drone related technology. Not only would I support Ukraine, I would also cooperate with them, so they could sell their expertise and their drone technology to others. They do have the best expertise in drone warfare at the moment.

Upgrading a military obviously takes a lot of money and resources, but building and maintaining a military which is heavily reliant on drone technology is much cheaper than building and maintaining a purely traditional one. Also drones are based on IT, and Ireland has the IT industry which is needed to develop the drones of the future.

Obviously Ireland would need fighter jets and naval forces for protection, but those could be provided by other NATO countries, after all NATO is an alliance, and that is what alliances do. But to get that protection, Ireland would have to join NATO.

Ireland supports Ukraine, and has a long history of supporting a Palestinian State. Now that the US seems to turn inward, does not push for the two state solution in Palestine anymore, and is talking about stopping aid to Ukraine; what would be a better time for Ireland to make a statement of where it stands on these issues and join NATO?

Obviously it is up to the individual countries to decide if and when to join NATO or other alliances, it is just that Europe, and the World, are now at a crossroads, and it is time to make fundamental decisions on where you stand in this world.

*****

Update March 3rd The New York Times

A Thousand Snipers in the Sky: The New War in Ukraine

“Drones … inflict about 70 percent of all Russian and Ukrainian casualties…”

“Now, drones rule the battlefield. They have far surpassed conventional arms as the war's most lethal weaponry.”

European Defense

Mar 1 2025

So, if it already wasn’t obvious before, it is now; Europe cannot rely on the US on defence matters anymore.

Now is the time to re-build the armies of Europe, and while you are at it, make NATO more European.

European countries need to spend more on defense, and build an industrial base that can produce military materiel in quantities needed for a prolonged war. And not just production of existing tech used today on the battlefields. Research and development of new technologies is vital to this effort, so Europe can produce tech that will help it prevent, and if needed, win the wars of the future.

Drone warfare is the obvious example here, Ukrainians are using drones to great effect, and they have changed the way wars will be fought in the future.

So, what Europe needs to do is to invest in research and development, and build an industrial base which can build existing and new weapons at scale. To paraphrase General Pershing; Tactics win battles, but logistics win wars. And the basis for war-winning-logistics, is a well functioning industrial base.

Yes, it takes a lot of money and time and resources, but what exactly is the option?

George Orwell said this about pacifists during WWII: Pacifism is objectively pro-fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side, you automatically help out that of the other.

I have said the following before, but it is worth mentioning again: government is basically an insurance company with a military. Government gives people social security, takes care of infrastructure, funds basic research, provides education, and does numerous other things that benefit the people and the society at large.

If you are one of those people who think that money and resources would be better spent on the things mentioned above, rather than on military stuff designed to kill people, maybe you should look at the issue from a slightly different angle as well.

If the government is an insurance company with a military, then the military, as part of the government, acts as the insurance for all the positive things the government does.

Unfortunately we do not live in a perfect world, and until we do, we will need a military to protect our homes, schools, hospitals, power grids, factories, cities, roads, and all the things that make our societies livable. A strong and reputable military, purely by existing, will make most aggressors think twice about starting a war with your country.

And you do not have to join the military, just fund them and let them do their work, there will be plenty of other people willing to serve, especially in countries under threat.

Spend More on Defence

Feb 1 2025 The BBC & Feb 3 2025 The New York Times

BBC
EU foreign policy chief says defence spending must rise
NYT
I’m the Foreign Minister of Poland. Europe Has Got the Message.

Some Nato countries have not yet reached the 2% of GDP defence spending level, agreed already in 2014, after Russia seized Crimea and parts of eastern Ukraine. There has been progress, but there is still much to do. And now, the EU foreign policy chief is calling for a 3% defence spending level.

Russia is spending 9% of GDP on defence, so Europe needs to keep up with it, it is that simple. We do not need to go to 9%, but we do need to spend more.

This is simple math, spending more on defence is expensive, but fighting a war will be exponentially more expensive. Spend a bit more now voluntarily, so you will not be forced to spend much more later.

*****

If you don’t like the idea of spending money on “military and defence stuff”, think of it as a payment for insurance for the things, I assume, you think it should be used for; education, healthcare, social welfare, infrastructure, and other good things your society provides for you.

In war all those good things will be totally vulnerable, just think about the maternity hospitals Russia has bombed in Ukraine.

Paul Krugman has described the government as "an insurance company with an army." Well, if an army is part of the insurance company, it is part of the insurance, right?

Si vis pacem, para bellum - If you want peace, prepare for war.

*****

BTW - Paul Krugman may have popularised the "an insurance company with an army," in a piece in 2011, but he says it is from Peter Fisher, undersecretary of the Treasury, in 2002.

Ceasefire in Gaza

Jan 25 2025 The BBC

Gaza rescuers face toll of their work: 'I have become afraid of my own memories'

To the unknown child: I tried to save your young life in a Gaza hospital. Now your face haunts me Jan 24 The Guardian

Goodbye to the lost children of Gaza. You were loved, you are remembered, you did not deserve it Jan 27 The Guardian

As a surgeon in Gaza, I witnessed hell visited on children. It shames me that Britain played a part in it Feb 2 The Guardian

*****

Fighting has finally stopped in Gaza after 15 months, but that does not mean that the war has ended. The fighting may erupt again, as it has many times before, but that is not exactly what I mean here.

Those who experienced this war, or any war for that matter, will carry the war with them, in one way or another, for the rest of their lives. The war will become part of the collective memory of the people, part of the fabric of society, and it will be carried on to the next generations, even if you do not want that to happen.

*****

After fifteen months of war: at least 47.000 confirmed dead, an estimated 10.000 more under the 37 million tons of rubble, and over 111.000 wounded, some with amputations and other life changing injuries.

And, in addition to these horrible immediate results of the war, there will be the long term psychological damage people will carry with them.

*****

We humans have coping mechanisms which help us in crisis situations, but once the danger is over and the adrenaline wears off, there will be a price to pay. We cannot un-experience what we have gone through, or un-see what we have seen, or actively forget something which is seared into our memory.

The quote “A mind that is stretched by a new experience can never go back to its old dimensions.”, is usually mentioned in a positive sense, like gaining a new perspective to life, but it works both ways.

We cannot just push the negative away and go on as nothing has happened. We can try, but deep down, we know it will not work.

So, in order to keep on living, we, humans, will have to deal with the negative somehow, it won’t go away by itself.

*****

The question here is; how will this be done in Gaza? The hospitals are barely functioning, and those that are, are obviously by necessity, focused on saving lives and treating physical injuries.

Unfortunately, it is far easier to fix a fractured bone, than it is to fix a fractured mind, but that does not mean that we should not try.

So, we should do everything we can to help the people in Gaza to rebuild their lives and their society.

If we, for any reason, decide not to help, we will just be perpetuating the cycle of violence and sowing the seeds of the next war.

In this years long reconstruction of Gaza, the homes, the roads, the hospitals, and other physical things are necessary and important, but we should not forget the humans who lived through the war; after all, no one should “be afraid of their own memories”.

New Glasses to look through

Jul 9 2024 The New York Times

The West Needs New Glasses

The beginning of a wider war vs. appeasement vs. waiting for the surprise attack?

Historian’s view on 2024.

Eradicating Hamas

Nov 7th 2023 The Guardian

Israel’s attempt to destroy Hamas will breed more radicalisation, UN expert says

A fact: Hamas attacked Israel.

Another fact: Of course Israel has the right to defend itself, everyone has.

And another fact: Israel can kill a lot of fighters, probably even everyone in Hamas, but killing on that scale would breed more radicalisation, and create many more fighters. And the idea of resistance and a Palestinian state would still live on.

“Half the infrastructure of Gaza has been destroyed. 9,000 people have been killed, 3,500 of them are reported to be children, over 1,000 of them are still under the rubble. How on earth is that going to lead to peace?”

What this looks like to me, is sowing the seeds of the next war.

Children - the silent victims of war

Oct 27 2023 Gordon Brown in The Guardian

Children on both sides are the silent victims of this war – why doesn’t international law protect them?

There is a growing admission that existing guidelines are inadequate, with no single body to adjudicate the gross violation of children’s rights,

Sins of the fathers

Mar 22 2022

Exodus 20:5
”Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me.”

The lonely funeral of a young soldier in Ukraine

A 21-year-old Ukrainian soldier died on the third day of the war near Kherson, and was buried in Lviv. His body could not be transported home to his village near Sumy, because it is cut off from the outside world, due to Russian shelling. His parents and younger brothers could not attend the funeral, they are stuck at home, and the phone lines are cut. The only mourner attending his funeral was his friend from another unit.

Ukrainian mother seriously wounded while shielding baby from missile strike

A young mother was feeding her six-week-old baby, when a missile hit and sent glass and shrapnel flying across her room. She was wounded in the head and when her blood covered the baby, she thought the baby was hurt. Her husband had to tell her that she was hit and that the blood was hers; the baby was unharmed.

In Mariupol, children bear the brunt of Vladimir Putin's war

A boy, not yet three years old, in a hospital bed with shrapnel wounds in his belly.

In the bed next to him a 15-year-old girl, with her right leg amputated. She couldn't mentally handle what had happened, would not eat or drink for days, and had to be fed intravenously.

A six year old boy, with shrapnel in his skull, watched his mother burn to death in their car. Two days later he said 'dad buy me a new mum, I need someone to walk me to school'.

*****

Physical wounds will heal in time, but the psychological trauma will live with survivors for the rest of their lives. Their children and grandchildren will hear these stories, and the stories will become part of their family history, part of their inherited memory. Being a child of someone who has experienced war like this will affect you one way or another. You will carry the legacy of loss, trauma, and injustice with you.

… upon the children unto the third and fourth generation…

*****

On the other side, if you were one of those responsible for inflicting these deaths, injuries and injustices to other people, you will also be affected, and carry a burden with you for the rest of your life. And that burden will affect your children as well.

Stories of the horrors of war are biased, it is easier for victims to tell them, than for those who committed them. Telling the stories creates collective memories, not being able to tell them, creates collective voids, and voids will be filled with doubt, guilt, sadness, or anger.

… visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me.

*****

“Only the dead have seen the end of war”, but wars do not end when someone dies, they linger on, for generations.

There are no winners in wars.

When a bomb falls, its impact is felt for generations

Mar 18th 2022 The Guardian

Jonathan Freedland writes about the inherited memory of war.

When a bomb falls, its impact is felt for generations. I know that from my own family’s trauma

Every time I look at the pictures of Mariupol or Kharkiv, I see a corner of Whitechapel in east London. I reacted the same way to images of Aleppo and, before that, Falluja and, before that, Grozny, because buildings crushed to rubble have a sad habit of looking the same. It brings back a memory – or rather something fainter: an inherited memory, one that was passed to me.

Universal National Service

Apr 5th 2021

I do not mean conscription, or the draft or military service for everyone, but a universal national service which every citizen, men and women, would do. A year of service to the society you live in.

The traditional idea was that national service, serving the nation, meant military service for young men. Implicitly this meant that the service women did for the nation, their national service, was having children, and raising the next generation. A very traditional view of different roles in society.

Traditionally societies used to be more homogeneous, national identities were more clearly defined and the world was not as global as it is today.

Among other things, immigration, legal and illegal, and refugee settlement have changed societies, and globalisation and the digital revolution have shrunk the world. In developed nations, education levels have gone up, people spend more time studying and start families later, and the birthrate is lower and family size is getting smaller.

World is not the same as it was before, so why would national service remain the same?

What I am talking about would not be focused on military service, but on what a society in general needs from its citizens, and what would be beneficial for the citizens. Military service would be a part of the package, but most would do something in the civilian society. Besides, no current military organisation would be able to handle the amount of recruits, if everyone wanted to serve.

This universal national service could be care work, taking care of the elderly, helping them with everyday chores, being a daily human contact. Environmental work could include cleaning beaches, restoring waterways, planting trees, greening cities, and so on. Some could work in disaster and emergency preparedness, and those interested would do military service. The service could also include work in developing countries in education and infrastructure projects. The possibilities are endless.

The national service does not necessarily have to be compulsory, but it should be tied to some future benefits from society, free college or university education for a few years is a good example (in societies where higher education is not free). Or getting extra points in your university admission test for your service.

Though not compulsory, the service should be expected, the basic idea being that every citizen takes part in the common project. The service should be a part of growing up, and a part of life, just as education and work are.

This should not be just a duty for young people, but also an opportunity for them. Opportunity to get experiences and training, opportunity to meet and work with people who are not like you, opportunity to expand your horizon and forge relationships with people from different backgrounds.

The service would create opportunities to have common experiences and common reference points. People from different economic, ethnic, religious and cultural backgrounds would work together to solve problems together. They would be exposed to each other’s thinking and culture, and see that there is vastly more that connects us, than there is that separates us. They would learn to trust and respect each other.

What better way is there to bridge gaps between different groups in society and reduce tribalism? What better way to build trust and social cohesion in society in general?

This would obviously cost a lot of money, but the benefits for individuals and society as a whole would be worth it. And this investment in human capital and intangible infrastructure would pay for itself by better integrating individual citizens into society, by making that society more cohesive, and by giving a sense of ownership of the common project to its citizens.

* * * * *

In the US, The Brookings Institution has some really good ideas on this in a piece called “A New Contract with the Middle Class”. It is a long piece and national service is talked about in the third part “Relationships”.

Also the retired US General Stanley McChrystal has talked about national service on many occasions and is the Chair of the Board of Service Year Alliance which, in their own words; “is working to make a year of paid, full-time service — a service year — a common expectation and opportunity for all young Americans.”

A good piece by Stanley McChrystal in The Time:
Every American Should Serve For One Year