Thread by @jmkorhonen

One more warning from the history of Finland's uneasy alliance with Nazis:

I believe almost every self-styled geopolitical "realist" could today ally with a monster just like Hitler.

It's crucial to understand that the Hitler of 1940 wasn't the Hitler we know. 1/

https://twitter.com/jmkorhonen/status/1622548612428312577

In 1940, when the Finnish leadership quietly decided to ally with Hitler, the greatest horrors we associate with the Nazis and Hitler hadn't even been decided yet.

Mass murders of Jews began in June 1941, and the Final Solution was formulated only in January 1942. 2/

In wartime, rumors and propaganda abound. Full knowledge of the horrors of the Nazi regime wasn't available until after the war.

In 1940, Hitler was a fascist demagogue who had become a very successful statesman and wartime leader. Dismissing his detractors was very easy. 3/

A "realist" assessment of Hitler of mid-1940 would say that sure, perhaps he is an objectionable character who spouts crude propaganda when it suits his needs, but think about the benefits of allying with the army that humiliated the Allies in weeks! 4/

Those who self-style as "realists" deride a #neoidealist like me when we maintain that ends do not justify the means and that values are crucially important, even in international relations.

But by discounting values, "realists" end up worshipping power. 5/

I believe I can think like a realist. I could assess, for example, that Russia is a great power and wants a sphere of influence, and it might be in the interests of the West to divide up the world with Russia and other contenders. That could save money, even blood. 6/

But I refuse to condone cynical assessments like that. Because I believe they're dangerously short-sighted.

One major reason is that I've studied how the Second World War began, how reasonably democratic Finland ended up with the Nazis, and what happened afterward. 7/

It's essential to assess the capabilities more than intentions, be aware that states and their leaders have selfish interests, and remember that great powers in particular have few friends but many interests.

But "realpolitik" doesn't actually have a great historical record. 8/

In reality, "realpolitik" tends to give would-be monsters time, space, and freedom - sometimes even support - to grow into true monsters. "Realpolitik" is democracies abandoning other democracies for political and economic convenience, only to face a more formidable foe alone. 9/

Selfish policies tend to backfire eventually. Geopolitical "realism" is no exception. It is the thinking that leads democracies to ally with the worst monsters in the world for short-term gains.

If a Hitler of 1940 appeared today, realists would flock under his banners. 10/

This is evident from e.g. the arguments put forward by the doyen of neorealism, John Mearsheimer, the apologist for dictators and the grand purveyor of the geopolitical version of "if she wasn't asking for it, why did she wear such a provocative dress?"
11/

Mearsheimer and other victim-blamers are using the exact arguments the allies of Hitler used:

That perhaps Putin is objectionable, but he is powerful and can get angry, and it's better to reach an understanding with him, and what do we care about the Je... Ukrainians anyway. 12/

Or even convoluted arguments that claim the Je... Ukrainians are themselves responsible for whatever evils a genocidal enemy visits upon them.

And that the West shouldn't spend money or use limited weapons stocks to help them.

Just like the appeasers said of Nazi Germany.
13/

I'm appalled not only by the lack of humanity and solidarity in these arguments but also by their short-sightedness.

Every decision reverberates in the future, and every war sets a precedent. Letting imperial dreams fester and come to fruition encourages more fever dreams. 14/

Letting autocrats get away with their predations makes them stronger. And today, they can easily influence and meddle with democracies abroad.

As the Romans knew long ago, no wall can be built so high that it would prevent an ass laden with a sack of gold from climbing over. 15/

Powerful autocrats will always find willing helpers in democracies. There are always people who prefer hierarchies and would like to rise to the top, even with dirty money or other help from monsters.

And some will always argue for "realism" and alliances with monsters. 16/16

Furthermore I consider that Russia has to lose this war it wages in #Ukraine. An outcome Russian elites could interpret as a victory would encourage them to believe that they can get whatever they want from democracies by sacrificing enough Russians. #CeterumCenseo