Shock doctrine – the crisis in Ukraine and Finland
Naomi Klein’s influential work – The “shock doctrine” reveals how power elites pretend the crisis to use threatening or current destruction and fear of introducing policies that satisfy society’s own interests. He gives examples of paradigmatic changes in politics in Chile, Russia, Britain, and other states to show how politics is resisted under “normal” conditions, but because the population has been in shock, is willing, or is subject to further manipulation. . This is happening in Finland with regard to NATO membership.
Finnish power elite. I have noticed how Finnish students want to apply class-specific analysis to other societies, but are reluctant to use the same frame of reference in Finnish assessment. But perhaps the power elite is not as blatant as in other societies. Research Niklas Jensen-Eriksen recognizes how the power structures behind closed doors enabled the development of cartelization in the Finnish forest industry. The invisible hand of the Finnish elite does not reveal the expression of material wealth.
There is an incredible respect for the “expert class” in Finnish society. This has historically been increased by what Lämsä emphasizes as the Finnish style control by the devil. Richard LewisThe leading consultant, who has studied the Finnish leadership style, notes how Finnish leaders, such as Finnish officers, lead from the front. As a result, you have an adaptable population that, even during a relatively stable period, is submissive to those with authority. In times of crisis, they become more flexible.
Group thinking. This can lead to catastrophic decisions. Forsberg and Pursiainen state sharply that “group thinking has also played a role in many Finnish crises. In a small country like Finland, the elite is united and important to belong to.
A strong group thinking is being created around NATO membership. This is illustrated by the weekly polls, which create a passion for consensus funded by self-interest. Then there is the constant dripping of prominent figures such as Stubb, Katainen and others in the media to present their vision of a European superstate.
The Finnish population is clearly in shock, and their own interests are taking the opportunity to re-establish the agenda, implement a radical change in foreign policy and promote themselves as the saviors of Finland in crisis.
Katja Boxberg and Taneli Heikka wrote in collaboration with the European Research Center: “Finns were believed to have lived in Arkadia for decades. In reality, they live in a state of delusion, unlike the world of the science fiction Matrix. There, dissent was forbidden, mistakes were not discussed, alternatives were non-existent. The illusion was invented by consensus: forced consensus. “
Fixed interest. Eisenhower warned of the dangers of a military-industrial complex. These are real experts in the dark arts of lobbying. For years, Transparency International has emphasized the insidiousness of lobbying in the EU. Do Finns believe they are immune to such effects?
Robert Asprey has written extensively on asymmetric warfare and the success of non-conventional forces. What is happening in Ukraine is an example of a weaker military force with guerrilla tactics that oppose conventional forces. Vietnam, Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan have all shown the potential success of such tactics, which would probably be a battleground in which the Finns would participate if they were not part of NATO and the Russians decided on a military confrontation.
But Finland has just invested more than 8 billion euros in American fighter jets. Again, if you look at war history and the Six Day War, the 73 ‘Yom Kippur War, the First Gulf War, the examples of World War II and the blitz crisis, there are many well-documented examples of weaker forces losing their air force in the first 48 hours. conflict.
Why doesn’t anyone ask about Finnish military procurement? The only scenario I see for the value of such an aircraft investment is offensive operations. In other words, if Finland joins NATO, will anyone ask about Finland’s participation in foreign operations, such as Libya or Yugoslavia? What will happen in any future confrontations and will NATO join? Are Finnish jets (and pilots) or other military assets used?
Who will benefit from this paradigmatic change when joining a military alliance? If you follow the money, you may get answers.
Although there are global companies in all areas of society, what about Finns? I assume that they are largely male, white, have a similar university degree, are pro-EU and have a current or future career in political parties or business groups who are interested in seeing the progress of the European project. But even those who oppose a European superstate, such as the Finns, are in a state of respect for fear and the need to comply. There is no difference in the membership debate. I don’t mean ethnic or racial diversity, but the diversity of ideas so people can make informed decisions.
Proponents of a European agenda are uniting around NATO membership as they see the creation of a European superstate. What do you think the Russians will see, given their history of violent conflicts with the West? John Mearsheimer makes interesting observations about the causes behind the conflicts between Ukraine and Georgia.
Klein’s shock theory is sharp and reveals the hidden and complex forces that are currently affecting Finland. I see striking similarities in the actions of political and military stakeholders in the years of the Blair, when, in the shadow of the threat of weapons of mass destruction, the United Kingdom was embroiled in a catastrophic war in Iraq. But then ordinary people quietly refused and they raised their voices. It does not happen in Finland. Will it come when Finnish military assets are used in the future under NATO protection and the Finns are fighters and not peacemakers? But then it’s too late.
Factor: Graham Wood
Graham Wood has been a lecturer at the University of Helsinki for more than thirty years. He earned an Executive MBA from Aalto and a PhD from the Faculty of Social Sciences of the University of Helsinki, where he studied conflict and collective violence. He is also a Fellow of the Higher Education Academy in the UK.
This is the opinion view “View”. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the Helsinki Times. This column is not factually verified, and HT is not responsible for any inaccurate or misleading statements in this article.