The War in Ukraine: Arrogance, Pride, and Nationalism
Translation: Judy Fong
AFTER WORLD WAR II there was a tacit agreement amongst many of the countries in the West to create new international institutions with the aim of resolving differences between countries and to prevent armed conflict. Institutions such as the European Union and the United Nations have been in steady development since then, but each of these institutions has had limited success in preventing war. Although militarised conflict between the largest European nations has clearly not been repeated, war within Europe has happened repeatedly in the past seventy years.
One of them rages on even as these words are typed, as the victims of the Ukrainian war are now over 500,000, notwithstanding those who have had to flee their homes. “The one thing that we can learn from history is that we learn nothing from history,” a well-known philosopher said. Such pessimism perhaps does not become historians, who would no sooner agree that their field is a pointless pastime, but the Student Paper has asked Guðmundur Hálfdánarson, history professor, to shed light on military conflict in Europe, the interplay between war and nationalism and international collaboration.
“Never again,” said western leaders
Guðmundur Hálfdánarson
“War has followed man from the beginning of time, but World War II marked a turning point. Technological and industrial war complexes made the conflicts all the more dire, culminating in the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan. After the war ended French and German politicians made a pact, led by the German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer and the French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman, to break up the feedback loop and instead promote communication between nations with the goal of supporting cooperation and to establish a supranational power to resolve conflict.”
“These conflicts between Germany and France can be traced back to the Franco-Prussian war of 1870-1871 which had developed into a feedback loop of conflicts originating from the need to avenge misdeeds of the past.”
“Under the leadership of Napoleon III the French were defeated in a dispute which ended with a peace treaty ceding the Alsace-Lorraine territory to Germany (today, the territory lies on the French side of the French and German borders). The region then became an ongoing territorial dispute between the two countries. After World War I it once again became part of the French republic, but after the Nazi occupation of France, Germany reannexed the area into Germany. Beginning in 1942, the region’s inhabitants became German citizens and the young men were enlisted in the German army. They were called, “les Malgré-nous” or the “Against-our-wills.”
No World War III but military conflicts still abound
“The European ideal aims to prevent war on the continent, and the European Union has certainly supported peace and yet it has not been possible to completely prevent war. In fact, many wars have burgeoned in Europe since 1945 although none of them have ended in a world war. The war in Ukraine is the last such example.”
“The United Nations (UN) was also founded after World War II, in order to learn from the mistakes of the League of Nations (the forerunner to the UN), with the aim of strengthening its executive power, that is the security council. But within the security council are five nations, considered the victors of World War II, who have veto power within the council, which prevents the council from exercising its powers when a nation with veto power has an interest in the conflicts that it is trying to resolve.”
“That can be seen clearly now in Ukraine and was obvious in other incidents such as the Vietnam war or in Afghanistan during the days of the Soviet attack there. The United Nations have certainly maintained international peace and aid. In contrast, preventing wars has not been their strongest side. One might ask, then, why has the veto power not been revoked? The reason is that the larger and more powerful nations such as the United States of America, Russia, and China would never willingly lose their veto power and would much rather withdraw from the United Nations than to give up that power.”
War concerns more than just interests
“It is difficult to form a general theory behind why war breaks out. Of course there are often some kind of interests behind it, but there are often many and varied factors in history – at times even “toxic masculinity” is used to explain war. It is an oversimplification to argue that war is due to economic interests only, as rarely does anyone “gain” from war in the end. More often war tends to both cause massive destruction and loss of life for all participants.”
“Nationalism, culture, and religion can play an important role in war. The United States’ invasion of Afghanistan was driven by the desire to avenge the 11 September 2001 terrorist attack, but hurt pride was also to blame for their Iraqi invasion. Just like Russians are now tangled in a net from which they cannot easily disentangle themselves.
“Ideals or ideology often have a large part in creating war conflicts. If we look at the Ukrainian war, for example, understanding the basis of it is difficult. Many have pointed to expansionist policy which has dominated within Russia since the days when Czars reigned and this policy has in some ways been inherited by the various governments that Russia has undergone. Others believe that Russia is fighting against the aspirations of the West which has fastened itself in their territory. I truly believe that Putin had simply thought that he could overthrow the Ukrainian government easily, resulting in a satellite state friendly to him, like Belarus, and I think that it is difficult to understand the start of the invasion any other way.”
The Russian government appears to have made a rash mistake
“Yes, in hindsight this invasion is a certain failure and there is no other way to understand it than that Putin has made a rash mistake. He and his military commanders appear to have overestimated the Russian army and the war has now reached a certain stalemate, which was likely to happen. Putin will not want to admit defeat and will try to keep control of the Crimean peninsula and the part of the Donbas region that Russians have captured, but in contrast Ukrainians will not be satisfied with ceding the Russians a portion of their country, especially not the Donbas region. Therefore, it is difficult to forecast how this war will be resolved. Finally, one must also not forget about the millions of Ukrainians who have lost everything and are now refugees. They will not take it lying down if their homeland falls into enemy hands.”
“The invasion has also stirred up deep nationalistic feelings within Ukrainians, who used to live in a rather divided nation, at least before the Russian invasion in 2014. Ukraine is a very young nation, and therefore the country has had little time to develop a strong national identity, but one could say that Putin’s invasion has united the nation. Internal conflict seems to have disappeared for the most part and citizens now stand together against the invasion, no matter whether their mother tongue is Ukrainian or Russian.”
The past is indeed a crucial factor in armed conflict, but one theory underscores that dictators are also especially likely to wage wars due to the social environment in which they thrive. Such leaders are often isolated from society in general and instead surrounded by yes-men who dare not challenge their judgement. Voices of caution thus never reach the ears of the dictators and the chances of one overestimating one’s abilities and acting carelessly are therefore much more likely.
Additionally, a dictator need not rely on the support of ordinary citizens in a war effort. As is often the case, war efforts are rather unpopular with the electorate.
Nationalism is a double-edged sword
“Has nationalism ignited the war in Ukraine? That is a controversial question since Russian nationalism is honestly very new and is not especially deep rooted. Russians do not look at themselves first of all as one nation, rather as residents of a multinational empire. Russia, as we understand it today, was born in 1991. The Russian czar ruled over land masses which are now various nations. Even within these lands which we now call Russia, live a variety of ethnic groups which do not identify themselves as “Russians,” which is why it has always been somewhat difficult for Russia to develop its cultural national identity like we have here in Iceland. It fits rather poorly with its history and cultural heritage.”
“It could be said that nationalism need not necessarily be aggressive. If countries are rather satisfied with the borders which they hold, then they can be quite peaceful. Here in Iceland, the border has always been clear, as a result of Iceland being an island and thus geographically separated, although of course the Cod Wars can be viewed as a kind of Icelandic expansionist policy. But then nationalism in small countries is usually rather peaceful simply because small countries rarely have the means to mess with others!”
“When a nation considers itself to have suffered a transgression or that its borders are not respected then it tends to react aggressively, as has happened in Ukraine’s case. Sometimes nationalism is also used to justify unprovoked attacks against other nations.”
“The British believe that everything is their business, meanwhile Icelanders believe nothing is their business…”
The Icelandic experience of World War II was completely different from the experience of nations in the thick of the conflict such as France, Germany, Britain, or Poland. World War II was a time of much economic boom in Iceland. First the British then the Americans based themselves here, creating employment both during and after the war. The government in Washington pumped money into the Icelandic economy through the Marshall Plan and Icelanders used the German occupation of Denmark to dissolve their union with Denmark and declare themselves a republic in 1944.
“That is of course one reason why Icelanders have been more sceptical than many neighbouring nations when it comes to European cooperation,” Guðmundur says. “Icelanders profited from the war while others suffered and thus felt less of a need to do major international reforms.”
“We have therefore not been ready to even acknowledge our participation in the European project even though we already have one foot in it as a participant in the European Economic Area. This divergent experience does not explain everything however, as the British have now left the European Union even though they have indeed experienced the horrors of war. European ideals and ideas of a supranational power sits poorly with some nations. I think that the roots of the opposition within Britain on the one hand and in Iceland on the other hand are quite different. Memories of the British empire is of course an important part of British national identity. Meanwhile Icelanders consider themselves so far apart from others that they assume what happens elsewhere will not affect them.”
“Of course, In Iceland, the fight for independence also has had an influence on politics. It is fresh in the minds of Icelanders and further adds to these suspicions.”
“Let’s try to be a decent example”
But what can Icelanders do during these times of war to support peace on the continent? What can we learn from history, if anything?
The history professor sighs:
“Tough question… Start with ourselves, perhaps! Conduct ourselves peacefully at home. Support human rights. Work together against discrimination and try generally to be a decent example within the world. That is the one realistic path that we have.”
“In regards to European collaboration, I myself would support becoming a member of the European Union but we shouldn’t consider it unless we really mean it. There doesn’t seem to be a strong wish to join so far and thus we should try to support the message of peace through other channels, such as strengthening our participation within international organisations of which we are members. By taking in refugees we are also doing our part in alleviating the suffering of the victims of the war. That is one way to use our small weight on the scales of worldwide peace.”