 |
| Credit: Medium.com |
Opinion by Theresa Fallon, Alexander Titov, and Kadri Liik
Russian aggression is the new normal in Europe.
NATO is considering sending more troops to Central and Eastern Europe, but
will the plan protect the continent or further escalate tensions with Moscow?
We are facing a European security crisis. A warning
issued by NATO chief General Jens Stoltenberg saying, "the
threat of Russia invading Ukraine shows Moscow is prepared to use force to
undermine the core principles of the western military alliance."
For its part, Russia says its military is retreating and released videos of
convoys leaving Ukraine. But the United States says another 7,000 Russian
troops have arrived on the Ukrainian border to evacuate. Stoltenberg says
Europe needs a strong defense. He proposed sending more troops to the Middle
East and Eastern Europe as part of NATO’s new battle groups. "What
we're seeing now is a new normal for European security
because we have seen this trend over many years where the basic
principles of Russia's security are at stake, they use force. They have done it
against Georgia, but also threaten the use of force to intimidate European
countries.”
A battle group is the main forward
block of an army's fighting force. It
usually consists of about 1500 soldiers. NATO deployed
battlegroups in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland after Russia annexed
Ukraine's Crimea region in 2014. The Baltics and Poland have a total of more than
4,600 multinational troops. An attack on any of them would be considered an
attack on NATO. These military units conduct regular exercises, including the
annual winter camp, one of the largest military exercises of NATO, in which
approximately 1,400 troops take part.
NATO Secretary-General, Jens Stoltenberg, says
Russia's aggression is a new normal for Europe. He said in a press conference
after a ministerial meeting at NATO headquarters in Brussels that he expected a
long-formulated high-pressure strategy from Russia. So it's not something that
these exercises are going to end like the Russians are pretending, but he
expects it to be a very long experience. It means we are seeing a
challenge to the 1975 Helsinki Accords, which were signed by the
Soviet Union and the West. Putin is really pushing for that. He said that they
might be were going back to Yalta, just in some kind of sphere of influence.
One of the most telling signs is that Russia has moved troops from the Far East
to the Ukrainian border, which means that there is a tacit agreement between
Moscow and Beijing to cooperate and this kind of cooperation between Russia
and China sends a very worrying sign to the world. (Fallon)
Read
more: US and West Vs China-Russia Nexus
Looking at it from the Russian point of view:
When Russian President Vladimir Putin heard Yen Stoltenberg, using the phrase,
"This is a new normal for Europe." What does Putin think about this?
Putin would say we have been warning you for
years that there are issues we want to address. As far as Putin is
concerned, he has been investing heavily in the military and navy. He is
happier with the new normal than the Europeans. He may pressurize them to
engage with Russia on things that are important to Russia that have been
overlooked in the past.
So now we know that NATO is considering these
new battlegroups in Southeast Europe in response to the Russian military
buildup. Of course, there are NATO-backed battlegroups in the Baltic States in
response to Russia's annexation of Crimea since 2014. Are these NATO-backed battle
groups really operating in the Baltic States?
It's hard to answer because we don't know what
would have happened without them, but what I can say is that they have made
countries feel safer. There are differing views on how and why the Baltic States
are under threat from Russia. I don't think Russia really intends to take
control of the Baltic States or restore the Soviet Union or anything like that.
But if tensions rise in another theater, be it Ukraine or Syria, or if tensions
between the West and Russia reach new heights, an accidental collision in the
region should not be overlooked. Thus, the troops here are very pertinent in
countering this. (Alexander)
Putin will not attack any NATO member as it would trigger Article 5. So, as Kadri noted, when you have so many troops, there is a high incidence of the possible clash as was seen in the Donbas school. Hence, the movement of troops is a sign of reassurance, but hopefully prevention as well. There are fears of spillage and if there is a conflict in Ukraine, these troops are sent there to strengthen the border and prepare for the evacuation of millions of potential refugees from Ukraine. The tension is very high and the fact that the Ukrainian minister indicates that NATO is not backing down from its open-door policy which Moscow must irritate Moscow.
Wouldn't the formation of these new battle
groups really make Russia more hostile, that is, what can Russian President
Putin do in response?
There is a whole series of issues that the
Russians are unhappy about. The battlegroups are sending nominal confidence in
the Baltic States, rather than a real threat to Russia or even a real obstacle
to Russian aggression. NATO’s cooperation and military assistance to Ukraine are
very troubling for Russia. The real issue for them is the security of cooperation
with Ukraine. As Putin has said, Ukraine has disputed territory with Russia and
Crimea. There is an ongoing dispute in East Donbas, etc. In general, the Ukrainian
government and public opinion have animosity towards the Russian
government. Therefore, they want to make sure that Ukraine does not feel so
powerful in terms of its military capabilities that it tries to resolve these
outstanding issues with Russia. This is far more important than any kind of
regional warfare that NATO could place in Romania or Bulgaria. (Titov)
A bilateral communication channel with Moscow
would be appropriate. Will that work?
It might work. The problem with the Baltic
States, as far as Russia is concerned, is not so much a military threat from
them or their allies settling there, but it is more of
what Russians see as a very strong anti-Russian rhetoric and actions coming out of the Baltic. It has been a
constant topic in Russian foreign policy discourse that they are anti-Russian
activists who are pushing the European Union and NATO in a very strong
anti-Russian direction and sending weapons to Ukraine, for example, Estonia and
Lithuania have been sending arms and so forth. All of these things basically rattle the Russians and do not help build trust between them. Establishing direct contact to avoid, in case of any
incident, descending into large-scale conflict is more important. But there is
a lot of animosity and mistrust between the Baltic States and the Russians on
all sides, which is not conducive to overall security.
When British Defense Secretary Ben Wallace was
on a recent visit to Moscow, he also talked about creating a communication
channel because there is a lot of misinformation going on at the moment. That's the key thing for military men to have clear
communication.
People suffer at large:
I would also like to add that although there is
intense tension in the region, Moscow does not have to attack to destroy the
Ukrainian economy. We see that the flights are not landing. Therefore, it
reduces many trade and economic problems. In addition, they can cause problems
in the Black Sea, as we have seen them try to blockade the Black Sea.
Therefore, there are many problems that Ukraine can face without any direct
attack. It is already hurting the economy and, as many people have pointed out,
Russian intelligence is present throughout Ukraine which can lead to mischief. Ukraine could be suffering this for months neither at war
and neither at peace. (Fallon)
Are there any growing concerns about what NATO
is doing, or perhaps it could make Europe more dangerous?
No, I do not think so. What could be the
problem if the West completely denies any other clause that Moscow has raised
with it. For example, the future of Ukraine, on which the West certainly has no right. But it's linked to wider questions about
the European security order. The Western position at the moment is that
they have the Paris Charter, a founding document of the European
Security Order that gives every country the right to choose its alliance. With that, all is well but Russia does not abide by it. I wonder if this
position is really sustainable because the order was agreed upon in the early
1990s when Russia in fact adopted Western values, principles, and worldview. And
now Russia is no longer there, that is to say, Russia has made it very clear
that it doesn't share the world view of the west.
Hence, the concern is an
unwillingness in many western countries to accept that as a reality. (Kadri)
Read more: Russia-Ukraine tensions: inching towards war
Theresa Fallon, the founder, and director of the center for Russia Europe Asia Studies (CREAS)
Alexander Titov, a lecturer at queen's university Belfast and specializes in Russian foreign policy
Kadri Liik, a senior policy fellow at the European Council on foreign relations.
Subscribe to our website and allow
notifications for more in-depth articles.
0 Comments