Invoking the “Russia-Bogey” seems to have been the best way, both for Europe and the United States, to justify their geo-strategic positions from time to time, even though the Cold War ended with the fall of the Berlin Wall in November 1989.
The increasing militarization of the leading European countries and their firm support for Ukraine in its current war with Russia have been rationalized to deal with a Putin-led Moscow.
And now, the United States President Donald Trump is justifying his plans to take over Greenland, a semi-autonomous part of the fellow NATO country Denmark, by making Russia the punching bag.
However, there seems to be a difference.
In the case of Ukraine, particularly during the Russian invasion in 2022, there was complete unanimity among the U.S. (then led by President Joe Biden) and major European powers such as the United Kingdom (UK), France, and Germany.
But in the case of Trump’s proposed takeover of Greenland, Europe and the U.S. seem to have fallen apart. The former does not believe in Trump’s rationale that he is taking over Greenland “to eliminate the Russian threat”.
Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform on Monday( January 20),
“NATO has been telling Denmark, for 20 years, that ‘you have to get the Russian threat away from Greenland.’ Unfortunately, Denmark has been unable to do anything about it. Now it is time, and it will be done!!!”
But Trump’s rationale invited a swift response from France in the form of tweeting multiple mock counters.
“If there were a fire someday, firefighters would intervene — so better burn the house now. If a shark might attack someday, intervention would follow — so better eat the lifeguard now. If there were a crash someday, damage would occur — so better ram the car now,” the official response account of the French Foreign Ministry on the microblogging platform.
Ironically, it was none other than France that did not consider such examples while projecting the Russian threat as the reason for expanding NATO.
Anticipation or the premise that Russia would attack the European countries even after dissolving the Warsaw Pact and ending the Cold War was cited as the reason for allowing the former members of the Warsaw Pact to enter NATO.
There are strong merits in the theory that multiple rounds of enlargement exacerbated Russia’s sense of insecurity as NATO forces crept closer to Russia’s borders, finally provoking Putin to lash out violently by invading Ukraine.
Putin found it hard to tolerate the persistent humiliation of Moscow by the United States and Western Europe ever since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991.
The EurAsian Times once explained how all the important agreements on not expanding NATO and other arms control and confidence-building measures, agreed upon or concluded between Russia and Western countries since 1991, have been broken not by Moscow but by Washington.
It seems that the Western elites in general and those in Europe in particular continue to display a kind of “McCarthyism” in their thoughts that the West was the unconditional “victor” in the Cold War, and, therefore, they have every right to determine how the constituents of the former Soviet Union (USSR) would be run.
They do not tolerate any dissenting opinion on Ukraine.
In the narratives of these European elites, there is no scope for reconciliation with Putin and Russia until Moscow’s total subjugation to the international order as determined by them. And that is the reason why they are said to have more or less brainwashed/pressurized Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to remain uncompromising and rigid on any talks on peace or ceasefire agreement with Russia.
As John J. Mearsheimer, the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, has explained, Western governments remain deeply committed to what is said to be their “triple package of policies” —NATO enlargement, EU expansion, and democracy promotion. For them, Ukraine’s choice to join Europe will accelerate “the demise of the ideology of Russian imperialism that Putin represents.”
In that sense, the war in Ukraine is also an ideological war to belittle Russia in every sense.
It is worth noting that in March 2022, when both Ukraine and Russia were close to a deal, European leaders convinced Zelensky to backtrack with assurances and narratives that a military “victory” over Russia was imminent, backed by their support.
Reportedly, this deal talked of Russia withdrawing to its position on February 23, 2022 (the day it invaded Ukraine), when it controlled part of the Donbas region and all of Crimea. In exchange, Ukraine would promise not to seek NATO membership and instead receive security guarantees from several countries.
In retrospect, had this deal been finalized, it would have been much better than the situation Ukraine is currently in. Ukraine has lost more territories to Russia and is farther away from achieving anything remotely resembling a military victory than at any point since February 2022.
The then-British Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, reportedly sabotaged the 2022 deal. He visited Ukraine and urged Zelensky to break off talks with Russia for two key reasons: Putin cannot be negotiated with, and the West isn’t ready for the war to end.
But then, Johnson, all said and done, represented the narrative of the dominant Western elites. Its principal theme is that most of Europe, including Ukraine and many parts of Russia, must be “westernized” (Europeanized). In fact, long before the Ukraine war, this policy was pursued systematically.
As pundits now acknowledge, at least in the United States, it began at the beginning of this century with the eastward expansion of the European Union and NATO, followed by the sponsorship of pro-democracy movements, such as the so-called Orange Revolution in 2004 in Ukraine.
Viewed thus, realist scholars say that Putin, or for that matter any proud Russian leader in his place, would have stuck to the traditional balance of power theory that describes a state of equilibrium between nations so that any one state or group of states does not gain too much power and become a threat to others. And it is understandable why Russia sees Ukraine as a bulwark against NATO and Kyiv’s possible membership in the Alliance as a “redline.”
Incidentally, President Trump also seemed to agree with this theory. And that explains why he has been on record that had he been the President, the war in Ukraine would have been avoided.
But if the same Trump is using the “Russian bogey“ in the case of Greenland, then it seems to be essentially covering up his real mission of expanding American territory – his latest “dream” is to make Greenland and Venezuela parts of the U.S. as well.
And here, it may sound ironic that Russia, particularly Putin, has been very emphatic that Moscow has no intention of being a player in the game of acquiring Greenland.
In fact, the Russian stance on Greenland should have made Trump really happy.
On January 20, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said that Greenland was not “a natural part” of Denmark and that the problem of former colonial territories was becoming more acute, according to news agency Reuters.
Speaking at a press conference in Moscow, Lavrov said that Moscow had no interest in interfering in Greenland’s affairs. He also said that the US knew Russia itself had no plans to take control of the island.
“It was neither a natural part of Norway nor a natural part of Denmark. It is a colonial conquest. The fact that the inhabitants are now accustomed to it and feel comfortable is another matter,” Lavrov said.
But more important is recalling what Putin said last year in Murmansk, the largest city north of the Arctic Circle.
While conceding that “America’s plans in relation to Greenland are serious,” he had explained how “these plans have deep historical roots. And it’s clear that the US will continue to systematically pursue its geo-strategic, military-political, and economic interests in the Аrctic. As for Greenland, this is a matter for two specific countries (the U.S. and Denmark). It has nothing to do with us.”
The Russian President had also described how the U.S. had been exploring the idea of incorporating Greenland since the 1760s. “Back then, the US administration considered the possibility of annexing Greenland and Iceland. But the idea failed to win congressional approval,” he said.
Putin also recalled the 1910 deal between the US, Germany, and Denmark on the exchange of territories. It would have given the US sovereignty over Greenland, but “the deal failed.”
He then added, “ In other words, there were serious U.S. plans with regard to Greenland in the past. As I have just said, these plans are deeply rooted in history”.
And the ice in the cake, as far as Russia’s pro-American position on Greenland was concerned, was added by Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov on Monday (January 19).
“There are international experts who believe that by resolving the issue of Greenland’s incorporation, Trump will certainly go down in history. And not only in the history of the United States, but also in world history,” he said, adding, “It’s hard not to agree with these experts.”
So if this is the Russian position, Trump’s “Russia bogey” in Greenland is hard to rationalize. However, in the process, Russia will continue to be the smokescreen for his hidden interests, as it has been for Europe for all these years.
- Author and veteran journalist Prakash Nanda is Chairman of the Editorial Board of the EurAsian Times and has been commenting on politics, foreign policy, and strategic affairs for nearly three decades. He is a former National Fellow of the Indian Council for Historical Research and a recipient of the Seoul Peace Prize Scholarship.
- CONTACT: prakash.nanda (at) hotmail.com
