Hard for NATO to defend Baltic states from Russia: Spiegel

[Stelio Kontos]

http://news.yahoo.com/hard-nato-defe...7--sector.html

NATO would struggle to defend the Baltic states from any Russian aggression "with conventional means", Germany's Spiegel magazine reported on Sunday, citing sources close to the organization and a draft of a NATO planning document.

Eastern European states are nervous about Russia after it annexed Ukraine's Crimea region and massed 40,000 troops on Ukraine's borders.

The United States has sent 600 soldiers to the three Baltic countries - Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania - and Poland to take part in exercises to bolster NATO's presence in eastern Europe.

"Russia's ability and intention to undertake significant military action without much forewarning poses a far-reaching threat for the maintenance of security and stability in the European-Atlantic area," the weekly magazine said, citing a NATO defense planning committee document.

Russia is capable of building up a local or regional military threat at short notice and at an arbitrary spot, the draft document continued.

However, Europe at the end of the Cold War had concluded that "it could reduce its capabilities for fighting conventional, large scale and high intensity conflicts in Europe".

"While we never comment on alleged leaks or on our defense plans, NATO's core task is collective defense and we will do what it takes to defend any ally under attack," said NATO spokeswoman Oana Lungescu.

"In light of the new security situation created by Russia's illegal and illegitimate aggression against Ukraine, we have taken immediate measures to enhance collective security in the air, at sea and on the ground."

The Ukraine crisis has compelled the alliance to refocus on its core mission of defending its members after years in which its main effort has been far away in Afghanistan.

So if NATO has allowed itself to become a paper tiger, what's the point of it?

[Deleted]

The Ukraine was not part of NATO, so this entire thread is moot.

[Kellhound]

Attacking the Baltics is as stupid as attacking Germany.

[Clausewitz]

The Ukraine was not part of NATO, so this entire thread is moot.

The Baltics are, though. Meaning that a discussion on if NATO can defend its membership is relevant, especially when three of them are on Russia's radar.

The fact is, NATO should probably drop a few battalions in the Baltic states. Russia won't invade conventionally, they'll foment unrest among ethnic Russians. It will be a Russian backed insurgency in the Eastern regions of affected countries.

- - - Updated - - -

Attacking the Baltics is as stupid as attacking Germany.

Yeah…

…but history is full of stupidity.

[Sunseeker]

The fact is, NATO should probably drop a few battalions in the Baltic states.

But they won't. For the exact reason you state:

Russia won't invade conventionally, they'll foment unrest among ethnic Russians. It will be a Russian backed insurgency in the Eastern regions of affected countries.

It is considerably easier to create unrest when your legitimately appointed leaders have called in foreign military to keep you in line.

Which is why NATO won't do anything because it is a ridiculous rock and a hard place. NATO troops come in, governments start clamping down on ethnic Russians, Russia is suddenly the good guy.

Don't make Russia the good guy. It's bad for business.

[Clausewitz]

But they won't. For the exact reason you state:


It is considerably easier to create unrest when your legitimately appointed leaders have called in foreign military to keep you in line.

Which is why NATO won't do anything because it is a ridiculous rock and a hard place. NATO troops come in, governments start clamping down on ethnic Russians, Russia is suddenly the good guy.

Don't make Russia the good guy. It's bad for business.

You're right, any sort of situation involving an ethnic Russian led insurgency will be difficult for NATO to cope with. Not only militarily, but politically as well. NATO member states are politically prepared to deal with a conventional invasion of Russia, so it would be significantly harder to get war-averting nations to aide in any war where Russia denies culpability.

I think the issue of bringing in foreign troops is difficult as well. Does Latvia, for example, have the military capability to squash an internal rebellion without NATO help? I'm willing to make more ethnic Russians angry if it means settling hostilities. A population can resent a government without rebelling against it, just look at many military juntas or authoritarian dictatorships. Furthermore, what would it mean for the alliance if nobody came to aide Lithuania upon its government invoking article 5?

[Kalis]

So if NATO has allowed itself to become a paper tiger, what's the point of it?

NATO is a mutual defence pact, but that doesn't mean that NATO countries can't be invaded - it's the threat of retaliation from its member forces against an invader that is the strength of NATO, not border patrol.

If NATO refused, or was unable, to come to the defence of a member that was invaded, then it could be classed as a paper tiger, but it hasn't, so it isn't, and therefore your question is redundant.

[Spectral]

The Ukraine was not part of NATO, so this entire thread is moot.

Agreed, and it's a good fuckin' thing in my view. This incident is exactly why NATO shouldn't have admitted Ukraine - there's no upside and a ton of downside. NATO shouldn't be a prestige club, it's about national interests.

[Kasierith]

Agreed, and it's a good fuckin' thing in my view. This incident is exactly why NATO shouldn't have admitted Ukraine - there's no upside and a ton of downside. NATO shouldn't be a prestige club, it's about national interests.

Ukraine isn't part of NATO, as far as I know; I know there was considerable dialogue over it in the past five years, but I don't believe anything actually came of it.

If anything, most adjacent nations are protected by being part of the EU. The exceptions are Belarus, which is so corrupt and plagued with internal strife and very strong anti-Russian feelings that that would likely go nowhere, and Moldova, which is roughly along the same lines but less corruption. That Russia would even annex the entirety of the Ukraine, much less the eastern half, is highly dubious, as it would be a financially and administratively disasterous move. Even annexing Crimea was a very unstable news, as it could lead to a shift of Tatars from other parts of Russia into the Crimea and thus exacerbate existing problems.

[Clausewitz]

Agreed, and it's a good fuckin' thing in my view. This incident is exactly why NATO shouldn't have admitted Ukraine - there's no upside and a ton of downside. NATO shouldn't be a prestige club, it's about national interests.

The post-Cold War expansion of NATO was a mistake. Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia literally offer nothing to the alliance aside from baggage. Their militaries are practically useless, they don't even meet the 2% mark, and yet they stand on the front line against Russia.

Edit: Estonia does meet the 2% mark.

[Kasierith]

The post-Cold War expansion of NATO was a mistake. Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia literally offer nothing to the alliance aside from baggage. Their militaries are practically useless, they don't even meet the 2% mark, and yet they stand on the front line against Russia.

Last I saw, Estonia did meet the mark. And their geographic location is the exact reason why they were brought into NATO.

[Spectral]

Ukraine isn't part of NATO, as far as I know; I know there was considerable dialogue over it in the past five years, but I don't believe anything actually came of it.

Right, I'm aware. My post was meant to indicate that I think NATO did the right thing by not admitting Ukraine. I do not relish the idea of a more direct conflict with Russia. That non-NATO members are some sort of buffer zone is sufficient for my tastes.

[Clausewitz]

Last I saw, Estonia did meet the mark. And their geographic location is the exact reason why they were brought into NATO.

You're right. I apologize for my mistake, a product of speaking before thinking.

Elaborate on the strategic necessity of their geographic position.

[Spectral]

The post-Cold War expansion of NATO was a mistake. Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia literally offer nothing to the alliance aside from baggage. Their militaries are practically useless, they don't even meet the 2% mark, and yet they stand on the front line against Russia.

I'm insufficiently informed to make any plausible argument with regard to specific countries, but I broadly agree. Picking up nations closer and closer to the Russian border serves to poke a sharp stick in their eye and little else. I can't see much about that being a good idea.

[Kasierith]

You're right. I apologize for my mistake, a product of speaking before thinking.

Elaborate on the strategic necessity of their geographic position.

Having territory there to defend against Russia prevents Russian expansion and gaining more traction on the coastline. I didn't say that it was a good reason or one I agree with, but it was the reason; not because they could contribute soldiers.

[Clausewitz]

Having territory there to defend against Russia prevents Russian expansion and gaining more traction on the coastline. I didn't say that it was a good reason or one I agree with, but it was the reason; not because they could contribute soldiers.

You seem to be well read on this issue. Do you have any academic experience in IR or Political Science?

[Kasierith]

You seem to be well read on this issue. Do you have any academic experience in IR or Political Science?

Not really. I did a large research paper on the development of the USSR and what internal issues led to its collapse, so a lot of what I know is interpretations from the stage set at the collapse of the USSR, but that's mostly it.

[Sunseeker]

I'm insufficiently informed to make any plausible argument with regard to specific countries, but I broadly agree. Picking up nations closer and closer to the Russian border serves to poke a sharp stick in their eye and little else. I can't see much about that being a good idea.

It is, and in part, that was the point. However, the fall of the USSR had knocked Russia on its butt, so we could get away with it. It's still fairly short-term history we're talking about as the USSR only fell 23 years ago. The fall is often less important than the resulting rise. It took Russia until little more than a decade ago to get back on it's feet and get back on the world stage. As I mention, the rise is more important than the fall, what does Russia want now that it's back on its feet? Well, clearly they want to be a power again, a regional one was easy to establish but that's a bit of a poor measure because there aren't many powers in their part of the world, only the Western European states to the far West and China to the East. If that's its first step it obviously wants to be a world power again, which arguably now it is. It's logical that they want to go further.

But the point of all my rambling is simply that it's taken 20+ years for that expansion of NATO to come back and haunt us. But really we couldn't just leave Eastern Europe to decay could we? Anyone with a brain and 5 minutes of reading on Russian history knows the country is famous for it's ability to bounce back, and not just bounce back, but to become one of the greats within a very short time.

NATO was then, as it is now, stuck between a rock and a hard place, which is not a pleasant position for a military organization.

[Ligier]

I've not heard this. But it's one of those "if" things, what if a meteor hits your house tomorrow. Would you run away or save your dog? They've missed the reasoning behind Russia's Nazi style invasion anyway - the president of Ukraine was ousted and ran to Russia to see his mate, Putin Hitler, crying that the naughty people have upset him. This is unlikely to happen in atleast Estonia and Latvia - they're already part of the European Union, which was the point of the Ukraine crisis - the ex president changed his mind and pissed his ppl off.

I would expect, though, if Russia did try to act the big cheese and invade it's former Soviet states, maybe most of Europe would end up declaring war and we'd end up in World War 3, with the United States probably joining in after three years. It's a shame Russia is so big landmass wise, I'd enjoy if everyone would fuck them up badly for what they've done to Ukraine. I'd expect them to invade Poland first, though, on the basis that Poland never gave Russia any points in this year's Eurovision Song Contest ;-)

[Kalis]

The post-Cold War expansion of NATO was a mistake. Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia literally offer nothing to the alliance aside from baggage. Their militaries are practically useless, they don't even meet the 2% mark, and yet they stand on the front line against Russia.

Edit: Estonia does meet the 2% mark.

Iceland was one of the founding members of NATO, it doesn't meet the 2% mark and has no military of note, so it isn't a new concept for NATO to admit nations for the sole reason that they are in a valuable strategic location.