Today’s visit to Estonia by the US President Barack Obama carries many a message, which we will gather into one: how do these messages help Russia’s neighbours – the three Baltics included – feel secure. An American thinker William James, dating back to beginning of the 20th century, was of the opinion that to understand anything the right backdrop is needed. So let’s look at today’s visit in the fitting context.
Two years ago, selection was made in the Library of Congress, Washington, regarding books that have most shaped the US way of thinking. Among the main one was «Pragmatism», published by the above William James in 1907. The book became foundational for the American Thought that followed. In it, Mr James introduced a novel approach for the times: firstly, the truth is not given, it is produced – just like wealth and power – during the course of experience. And, secondly, the opinion of two parties about what is really going on cannot be assessed by their statements, but by their actions and the consequences thereof. In other words, the truth is not in words, but in actions and in the results of the actions.
Thanks to this pragmatic approach it is easier for the United States, to the backdrop of systematic lying by Russia, to assess what is happening in Ukraine according to Russia’s actions and not her words, and to realise that Russia’s impunity in Ukraine may lead to consequences potentially dangerous to the entire Western security.
That, in its turn, will help understand Mr Obama’s pre-NATO-summit visit to Estonia. From a pragmatic point of view, it allows for at least five messages at one sweep.
Firstly, it’s a message to Russia: the soft reaction that followed the 2008 events in Georgia, and the rather modest sanctions so far accompanying the invasion into Ukraine, will not mean that the Kremlin can persist in its high-handed ways.
Secondly, it is a message to Ukraine. Up to now, Estonia has been the clearest in its stand towards the events in Ukraine: this is military aggression which goes grossly against the UN Charter, Helsinki Accords, and the Paris Charter, and requires a more definite intervention by the West. Obviously, Ukraine will be a topic to be discussed; and obviously, Estonia will state its case.
Thirdly, it is a message to the European Union: the security situation has changed and such European countries as, reacting politically to the economic crisis, have drifted away from liberal democratic values, better take note.
Fourthly, it is a message to other members of NATO: Estonia is among the few NATO states that keeps the agreement to spend two percent of GDP on defence. If one party takes the agreement seriously, so must the other.
And, most importantly, a message to the NATO frontline states next to Russia: article five – to secure and to protect member states’ security and freedom by political and if needed by military means – is sure and certain.