There is no turning back now since no single incident has changed the continent more deeply since the conclusion of the Cold War. ALASKA — Finland's President Saul Niinistö said: "Today the masks are off. A year ago, on the

The Ukrainian Conflict Has Permanently Changed Europe

There is no turning back now since no single incident has changed the continent more deeply since the conclusion of the Cold War.

ALASKA — Finland's President Sauli Niinisto said: "Today the masks are off. A year ago, on the day that Russia invaded Ukraine and started a horrific European ground war, there is no hiding anymore. There is only the icy face of battle to be seen.

 

In keeping with a Finnish strategy of pragmatic outreach to Russia, a country with which it shares a nearly 835-mile border, the Finnish head of state, in power for more than a decade, had met with President Vladimir V. Putin numerous times. Yet all of a sudden, that strategy was in ruins, along with Europe's delusions that things would continue as usual with Mr. Putin.

Such illusions had a long history. Throughout several decades, the 27-nation European Union was created with the primary goal of promoting peace on the continent. Even in negotiations with an increasingly antagonistic Moscow, the idea that economic exchanges, commerce, and interdependence were the best safeguards against conflict permeated the postwar European consciousness.

Even after the invasion of Crimea in 2014, it was nearly hard to comprehend in Paris or Berlin that Mr. Putin's Russia had turned belligerent, imperialist, revanchist, and violent — as well as resistant to European peace policies. Russia may swim, quack, and seem like a duck, but it does not mean it is a duck. Russia is becoming more militaristic.

After spearheading Finland's sudden campaign during the previous year to join NATO, a proposal inconceivable even in 2021, Mr. Niinisto said this month at the Munich Security Conference, "Many of us had started to take peace for granted." "A lot of us had relaxed our guard."

Since the end of the Cold War in 1989, no event has had as deep an impact on Europe as the war in Ukraine. A peace mentality, which is most pronounced in Germany, has given way to a growing understanding that the pursuit of security and strategic goals necessitates the use of armed force. An enormous struggle to preserve the  independence in Ukraine, which is largely regarded as being equivalent to its own, has galvanised a continent that had been drifting along on autopilot and lulled into amnesia.

 

Rem Korteweg, a Dutch defence specialist, stated that "European politicians are not accustomed to thinking about hard power as a weapon in foreign policy or geopolitical affairs." They've had a crash course, I suppose.

 

The debate over what tanks and maybe F-16 fighter jets to deliver to Kyiv has replaced the dispute over the appropriate sizes of tomatoes and bananas in Europe. The European Union has given Ukraine military aid worth about $3.8 billion.

Over eight million Ukrainian refugees—nearly the population of Austria—have been taken in by European countries, who have also pledged more than $50 billion in various forms of aid to Kyiv, imposed ten rounds of sanctions, and largely weaned themselves off Russian oil and gas in a broad shift in response to severe inflationary pressure.

 

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz coined the phrase "Zeitenwende," or epochal turning point, almost a year ago while announcing a $112 billion investment in the German armed forces. The word also refers to a continent where the idea of nuclear war, however remote, no longer belongs in the realm of possibility. He intended it for Germany, a country traumatised by its Nazi past into visceral antiwar emotion.

Great-power rivalry is intensifying in the uncomfortable interregnum that has followed the end of the Cold War. Earlier this week in Warsaw, President Biden declared that "Ukraine will never be a victory for Russia." He said as Mr. Putin halted Russian membership in the last-standing weapons control deal between the two largest nuclear-armed nations and China and Russia discussed their "no limits" alliance.

 

Europe has been forced to make necessary adjustments as a result of the Age of Reordering.

François Delattre, the French ambassador to Germany, stated that the conflict had brought Europeans back to their core beliefs and fundamental concerns about war and peace. What does it want to know about us as Europeans?

According to Mr. Putin, who sees himself as the masculine personification of Saint Russia, Europeans are a degenerate West devoid of any moral fibre. One of the errors that have undermined a Russian assault that was expected to decapitate Ukraine within days was that he was incorrect.

 

Even still, over 78 years after the end of World War II, Europe's profound dependency on the United States has once again been made clear. Since the war started, the United States has provided Ukraine with military hardware valued about $30 billion, far outpacing what Europe has provided.

Without US assistance, President Volodymyr Zelensky's valiant Ukraine might not have had the military capabilities to fend off the Russian invasion. Even if Europe's response has surpassed many expectations, this is a frightening idea for the continent's citizens. It serves as a gauge of how much work is still left to be done before Europe can be considered a legitimate military force.

 

Therefore, as a protracted war and possible stalemate loom, the European Union will have to decide how to strengthen its militaries, how to handle conflicts between frontline states determined to completely defeat Mr. Putin and others, like France and Germany, who are more open to compromise, and how to handle an American election the following year that will fuel concerns over whether Washington will remain in power.

In other words, the conflict has made it clear how Europe may move from being a peaceful state to a strong geopolitical protagonist.

 

 

There will be no turning back, according to Sinikukka Saari, research director at the Finnish Institute of International Affairs and an authority on Russia. Neither on Finland's choice to enlist in NATO nor on the pre-existing order in Europe.

Unintended Repercussions

When the war broke out last February 24, hard-line nationalists, frequently with financial and other ties to Moscow, criticised the European Union, giving rise to the picture of a prosperous and complacent Europe, drained by consumerism and bureaucracy.

 

The Russian invasion, however, has had a rousing and all-around unifying effect. The unforeseen and undesired effects of Mr. Putin's war have escalated.

 

Finland is a prime example. Russia is deeply feared by it. It was an independent duchy that belonged to the Russian Empire from 1809 till now. It gave over 12% of its land to Moscow during World War Two.

Even though the majority of European nations disbanded their conscript forces after World War II, the continuation of mandatory military service did not occur because, as former prime minister Alexander Stubb claimed, "we were terrified of Sweden."

 

Emilia Kullas, the director of the Finnish Economic and Policy Forum, stated that "every family has recollections of war, and history warns us of the danger." "Yet, we were wary. Being impartial, in our opinion, served Finland best.

Even in January of last year, a month before Russian forces invaded Ukraine, Social Democratic Prime Minister Sanna Marin told Reuters that it was "extremely unlikely" that Finland would apply to join NATO during her presidency. Consistently, surveys of public opinion indicated that only 20 to 30 percent of respondents supported the alliance.

 

Days after the attack on February 24th, all of that came to an end. According to Janne Kuusela, strategy director at the Finnish Defense Ministry, "popular emotion led the way." "Generally, when a politician changes, the public does too. The people took charge this time.

In Ukraine's suffering, Finns saw their own troubled past with Russia. They realised that a cooperative partnership with the Putin government was impossible. Previous beliefs that it was possible to combine a strong defence capability, tight coordination with NATO, and a favourable relationship with Russia fell to pieces.

 

Around 70% of people now support NATO membership. Finland was suddenly too weak and small to defend that extensive border.

In less than three months, Finland and Sweden submitted applications to join NATO. The process is anticipated to be finished by the time of the next NATO summit in Vilnius, Lithuania, in July, despite Turkish objections to Swedish membership due to Sweden's welcoming attitude towards Kurdish refugees.

 

Ms. Marin stated last month at the Munich Security Conference that Finland had asked itself, "What is the boundary that Russia will not cross," accompanied by Magdalena Andersson, the Swedish prime minister.

 

"That is the NATO line," was the simple response.

 

Ms. Marin's earlier reservations are now irrelevant.

 

Even for a nation that hasn't been at war in more than 200 years, Sweden's option had become clear.

Thomas Bagger, the German ambassador to Poland, declared that the Baltic Sea had transformed into a NATO pond. "That is a significant tactical shift."

 

The battle lines have been marked. In Europe, there is no longer room for the in-between locations. The Dutch defence specialist, Mr. Korteweg, declared that there was "no more place for murky areas." Zelensky wants to join the EU and, if possible, NATO as soon as possible because of this.

It won't be simple to do this. The European Union swiftly granted Ukraine formal candidate status last year, but significant issues including pervasive corruption and a shoddy legal system persist for a process that typically takes several years.

As for Ukraine joining NATO, it appears unlikely as long as it remains at war with Russia.

 

Petri Hakkarainen, the main diplomat to President Niinisto of Finland, stated, "I don't think any NATO country thinks that a country fighting a war in Russia can join NATO.

 

Herein lies a conundrum for Europe that is likely to worsen. According to Mr. Delattre, the French ambassador to Germany, "a frozen confrontation favours Putin." "A dysfunctional, partially occupied Ukraine cannot move closer to Europe. Putin therefore stands to gain from two of the three possible outcomes of the conflict—a Ukrainian triumph, a Russian victory, and a deadlock.

Of course, a protracted confrontation will also harm an increasingly oppressive Russia under harsh sanctions and a leader who is despised throughout the West with little way to rebuild the economy. The Russian body's ability to tolerate pain has its limits, but they are not always apparent.

 

As Mr. Kuusela noted, "Russia is not willing to lose, and Mr. Putin does not care about human life, so they can keep the war continuing for a long time." In response, Ukraine will continue to fight so long as the West backs it.

 

It will be difficult to break the deadlock, he said after pausing for a moment.