The desperation projected by the Polish and Baltic elites when it comes to the Russia–West conflict betrays their insecurities with regards to the legitimacy of their existence.
International Relations 101 teaches you that the only real token of a sovereign state is its territory, which shapes its power, its resources, its external priorities and, ultimately, its international policies. The backstory of a state and the geographically pre-determined room for manoeuvre affect the very functioning of a macro-scale political entity.
It is a well-known fact that the present-day Poland and the former Soviet Baltic republics stemmed from the geopolitically deal struck by the USSR and the US in the wake of World War II. Back in the day the world’s two most powerful states were quite harsh in aligning the other countries’ territories with their own strategic rationale.
Prior to that, Poland essentially had no sovereignty for roughly 150 years and found itself in limbo during the Interbellum. The Baltic republics only enjoyed 22 years of independence between 1918 and 1940. In 1945, they were already part of the Soviet Union.
In other words, none of these states emerged as a result of its national aspirations. The Polish struggle for survival was defeated in the mid-to-late 18th century. As for the Baltic states, there had never been any such struggle. Their statehood is now largely shaped by a series of decisions made by the potent external forces. Had there been a different set of circumstances in the mid-20th century, chances are, they would have never arisen.
It pays to bear this in mind. And the reason is not just that some self-assured neighbours should, every once in a while, be reminded of the real source of power within their geographical confines, even though it may not be a bad idea either. The key here is that the country’s origins affect its behavioural patterns in the international political landscape.
First, an externally installed statehood, as opposed to the one achieved through painfully concerted effort, determines the way it is being handled. Second, if a politically entity owes its existence to external factors, its further destiny also hinges upon various decisions hammered out someplace else. Should the state of global affairs alter, the implications of this alteration may have a crucial impact on specific nations.
The desperation projected by the Polish and Baltic elites when it comes to the Russia–West conflict betrays their insecurities with regards to the legitimacy of their existence. No wonder Warsaw comes up with all sorts of extravagant reasons to find fault with both Russia and Germany, which is, mind you, still quite friendly towards Poland. Polish politicians know full well that almost half of ‘their’ modern territory once belonged to an entirely different ethnic group. Crucially, it did not result from a battlefield victory but rather was gifted by someone else. In all fairness, the Polish borders during the Interbellum were affected by the nation’s armed struggle with Soviet Russia and its aggression towards the small-sized Lithuania. However, its present-day territory is not buttressed by their ability to act.
The Baltic states are somewhat less strident. That being said, there is a palpable realisation that the three republics are essentially the seceded parts of a vast Russian space. In both cases the legitimacy of the national sovereignty is far from being a done deal. Therefore, it requires constant external reinforcement by a powerful state that is interested in having satellites like these within their current borders. The Polish and Baltic statehoods have no other option but to ensure the foreign policy interest of a guarantor state, the US, that is.
<…>
The 20th century has produced a slew of states whose very existence stemmed from a suite of external circumstances. The stability of this configuration is now anyone’s guess. The collapse of the great European empires in the early-to-mid-20th century sprang from the developmental dead-end along with the overbearing territorial burden as the centuries-long expansionist policies backfired. Needless to say, we have seen multiple examples of admirable anti-colonial struggle put up by Asian and African nations. But sometimes the national sovereignty came out of thin air. The most prominent feature of this status is the origins of the state borders. This led to an era of the great division into multiple small and middle-sized state formations, which were shoehorned into the institutions of the liberal world order spearheaded by the West.
Today the world is rapidly changing yet again. The writing is yet not on the wall for the future international order, but the globalisation processes and the outdated institutions are crumbling at breakneck speed, while the bedrock of this forthcoming order is still unclear.