I loathed the NATO summit in The Hague. The classic defence “bubble” full of people pretending that everything is all right, when they know it isn’t. I wrote this piece for the Times.
Most of the important things (Ukraine for example) weren’t discussed properly, at least not publicly. One of them is the Kremlin’s weaponisation of history. Please keep an eye on “Litvinism”— the idea that modern Lithuania is a fake, and that Belarus is the true heir to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. It’s bonkers pseudo-history, but it’s having an effect. I wrote about it for CEPA here, and with a previous piece about the Kremlin’s war on Lithuanian history here .
I’m quietly furious with my old employer about this piece. A headline saying “Putin’s Next Target” sounds like a serious geopolitical prediction. I’m the last to downplay the threat from the Kremlin to any country. But why Estonia not Latvia? Or Lithuania? Or the Åland islands? Or Svalbard? Before making that call, I’d expect a senior experienced journalist to spend a few weeks reporting and thinking.
I also contest the phrase “Russian minority”. What does “Russian” mean in this context? Russian-speakers? People with Russian as their sole mother tongue? Or people who are bilingual in Russian? Or who speak Russian at home? Or who identify culturally with Russia? Or politically with the Kremlin. These are subtly (or even radically) different categories. Lumping them all together accepts the Kremlin’s ethno-nationalism. And the piece does not prove that they are restless.
I wrote about a rejoinder here, quoting one of my favourite books.
I’m mainly busy these days working on the proposed European Rearmament Bank (discussed here, leaked here and outlined by me here).
I append the latest slide set for paid subscribers.
More later
Best regards, Edward