Karelia’s Importance – USA Gov Policy

The Republic of Karelia is integral to checking expansion of the Western alliance according to leaders inside the Kremlin. Outside Russia few people recognize how much the country’s northwesternmost region presents challenges for Moscow. After Finland decided to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), Putin looked at transforming Karelia into a second Kaliningrad-like oblast. Earlier, following the Winter War of 1939-40, the Lutheran dominated region had been split in two with Finland ceding Russia the eastern part of the Karelian province and Finland retaining the west. The Finnic ethnic groups living there are indigenous to the historical region of Karelia although many live inside Russian territory.

As a potential source of military power, Russian Karelia could be used to check any Western alliance moves into Scandinavia or the Arctic. “…in the event of a crisis, it could prevent NATO from severing the single-track rail line connecting central Russia and the Kola Peninsula, where a large portion of Russia’s strategic arms are located,” says Paul Goble of the Jamestown Foundation. It may, however, be an overreach that sparks the centrifugal forces in the North that Moscow fears.

In January Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu announced Russia’s intent to expand the Russian army there over the next several years. With Finland joining NATO, Russia’s border with the Western alliance has grown by more than 745 miles. Shoigu says this would involve the formation of a new Russian army corps of some 100,000 men in Karelia. Goble points out that Artur Parfenchikov, Russian head of the Karelian government, and Russian analysts, such as Vladimir Klimanov, head of the Moscow Center for Regional Policy, are “upbeat about this possibility.” Klimanov suggests in the publication Rueconomics.ru that an army corps in Karelia would become “a driver of economic growth” in the depressed region of 528,000 people.

Finnish military expert Petri Mäkelä, however, counters it saying he doubts Moscow can achieve its objective as the existing infrastructure in Karelia is in poor shape and the republic has lost many men in Putin’s war in Ukraine. Karelians, in general, tend to hold anti-war and anti-military attitudes that add to Moscow’s challenge in the region. Earlier this year Karelian activists argued that they don’t believe that Moscow will provide promised funds to help economic development in the region. Instead, they see the move to increase Russian soldiers in the area as one designed to create the conditions needed for a final homogenization of the republic and the Karelian Finnic people.

This week in the Russian online publication Region.expert, one analyst points out that the populace in the Karelian region is concerned that what Putin’s forces are doing in Ukraine could be done to them. In the last 14 months alone Karelia’s economy has contracted by more than 10 percent, which is five times as much as the rest of the Russian economy. Putin has not sent the region economic help and the people are growing angry. By last summer anti-war activism was rampant in the area, with some even creating a Facebook page to announce their opposition to the war in Ukraine and lack of compensation to Karelians whose incomes have suffered. Russia’s Wagner Group refuses to recruit there, despite the widespread poverty from which they typically get their enlistees. It is out of fear of finding no recruit willing to commit to the war, notes Goble. Russian propagandists also have given up on the area.

Many Karelians have decided to exit the eastern portion of the republic and head for Finland. The result is that today fewer than six percent of all republic residents are ethnically Karelian. Moscow refuses to recognize the language spoken in the area, further infuriating the people. Goble says this makes them the only autonomy in Russia without the titular nationality language. “Moscow’s tendency [is] to treat them as if they are Finns rather than a nation in their own right,” notes Goble. Moscow views the indigenous people of Karelia as close to secessionists. If Moscow does go through with its plans to stage a large army there, it could heighten regional tensions and bring Karelia closer to war. Many in the area were outraged that Moscow is not only attempting to move its soldiers there but also pushing to get the Karelians themselves to bear most of the cost of those occupying forces. It may end up the final blow to what stability remains in the area.

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.

Quick Analysis

Why the Electoral College is Vital

Proposals for radical alterations in the way Americans vote are dangerous concepts that would have dramatic consequences for the nation and its Constitution. Some, such as ranked choice voting, are an unblushing bid to prop up fringe, leftist candidates. Others. if adopted, would essentially disunite the nation and overturn its Constitution. As they consistently have after each election loss, Democrat spokespeople have flooded the airwaves with complaints about the Electoral College. Why, they ask, can’t we have a “popular vote,” and let it be done with. Since the Electoral College process is part of the original design of the U.S. Constitution, it would be necessary to pass a Constitutional amendment to change this system. The National Archives notes that over the past 200 years more than 700 proposals have been introduced in Congress to reform or eliminate the Electoral College. There have been more proposals for Constitutional amendments on changing the Electoral College than on any other subject. The answer is as simple as the name of the country: The United States of America. The incredibly successful nation created almost two and a half centuries ago was a union of separate states. Fresh off of dealing with a monarch, it was intentionally set up that way to both prevent the possibility of having an all-powerful dictator, and to prevent larger states from bullying smaller ones. Abolishing the electoral college would essentially disenfranchise smaller states from having any say in the presidency. Indeed, even less populated areas of large states would lose influence. A collection of large cities, (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Phoenix, Philadelphia, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas, Austin, Jacksonville, etc.) would decide the outcome in who gets the White House. Considering how badly many of those urban centers are run, that would not bode well for the future of the country! Beyond the practical policy implications, it would alienate the populations of those not living in California, Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, Illinois, who would, for the most part, be reduced to bystanders in the race for the only nationally-elected position. A Heritage study analyzed the concept of a “National Popular Vote” (NPV) this way: “The National Popular Vote (NPV) plan is the latest in a long line of schemes designed to replace the Electoral College. Imbued with the ideals of this nation’s Founders, the Electoral College has proved itself to be both effective in providing orderly elections for President and resilient in allowing a stable transfer of power of the leadership of the world’s greatest democracy. Therefore, while it would be a mistake to replace the Electoral College, replacing this system with the NPV would be a disaster. The NPV would devalue the minority interests that the Founders sought to protect, create electoral administrative problems, encourage voter fraud, and radicalize the U.S. political system. It also would likely violate the U.S. Constitution’s Compact Clause while directly contravening the Founders’ view of federalism and a representative republic. In an age of perceived political dysfunction, effective policies already in place—especially successful policies established by this nation’s Founders, such as the Electoral College—should be preserved.” Trent England, writing for the National Conference of State Legislatures outlined key reasons for the institution: “At the Constitutional Convention, the primary concern of delegates opposed to direct election was that big states would dominate presidential politics. By using a two-step election process, the Electoral College prevents one region, or a handful of major metropolitan areas, from controlling the White House. Support must be geographically distributed around the country in order to win enough states to capture an electoral vote majority. This was particularly important after the Civil War. The nation remained divided, and Democrats became dominant in the south. A combination of intense popularity with some voters and violent suppression of others allowed Democrats to receive the most popular votes in 1876 and 1888 even though they lost the Electoral College and thus those elections.” Eliminating the Electoral College would be a disaster for the United States/