The
past two years has seen a significant rise in the tension between Russia and
the West. Aggravated by Russia’s annexation of the Crimea, the tension surrounding
Russia’s belligerent behaviour has caused an upsurge in sabre rattling from Central
and Eastern Europe to the Nordic and Baltic Regions.
From
predictions by former NATO deputy
commander, British General Sir Alexander Richard Sherriff, that NATO will be at
war with Russia by 2017, to the pronouncements by Swedish Armed Forces’ Maj. Gen. Anders
Brännström that: “we
could be at war within a few years”, security is paramount
for the countries surrounding Russia.
To this end there has been a surge in defence
spending throughout these regions. Lithuania, for
example, has decided to increase defence spending by 32%. Sweden’s decision to also place
an extra 1.2 billion dollars into the defence budget over the coming four years
indicates that they are worried by the threat posed by Russia and determined to
protect themselves.
NATO’s Power Play
Encouraging
this spending is NATO, who is taking its role as European protector very
seriously. Over the past year and a half NATO has been mobilising its members
to engage with the Baltic and GUAM (Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Moldova)
countries in an ongoing strategy of reassurance.
After
the collapse of the Minsk Agreement and the continuation of the Crimean
conflict, many in these regions now fear that they will be next on the
Kremlin’s agenda. Capitalising on this fear, NATO has spent the first half of
2016 demonstrating that it will not stand for more of Putin’s revisionist foreign
policies, by engaging countries throughout
Russia’s borderlands in military exercises and by integrating military
operations.
2016 NATO Northern and
Eastern European Manoeuvers
Cold
Response
|
Norway
|
17-28
March
|
Brilliant
Jump Alert 16
|
Albania,
Poland, Spain and United Kingdom
|
1-4
April
|
Steadfast
Alliance Ballistic Missile
|
Multiple
European Locations
|
18-29
April
|
Flaming
Sword
|
Latvia,
Lithuania
|
1-20
May
|
Brilliant
Jump Deploy 16
|
Poland
|
17-26
May
|
Sabre
Strike
|
Estonia,
Latvia, Lithuania
|
2-14
June
|
Baltops
|
Baltic
Sea
|
June
3-26
|
Dynamic
Mongoose
|
North
Sea
|
26
June-4 July
|
Two
years ago this would have been seen as an imposition by NATO’s member states,
who preferred to leave Russia a buffer of former soviet states rather than risk
further destabilisation of the region. It was understood that Russia saw its former
soviet territories as an extension of itself and that it was Russia’s desire to
maintain peace and security within its former empire.
This past arrangement is now over and NATO, with its recent declaration of
a Russia Policy at the NATO
Ministerial Conference, has made a significant change in the NATO-Russia
playbook. The specific mention of countries like Georgia and the decision to provide an increase in the ‘boots on
the ground’ along Russia’s north eastern flank, indicates that NATO is worried
about the new powerful Russia.
The Risk of Russia’s Response
NATO’s
games do not come without some jeopardy. The biggest risk is Russian President
Vladimir Putin’s reaction to NATO’s aggressive policies. So far the response to
NATO’s behaviour has been restrained. There has been a series of vague warnings
to Sweden and Finland on the cusp of their meetings with NATO and two minor
military incidents. The first in the
Baltic with the Russian flyover of an American
aircraft carrier and the second in Syria where Russian jets
entered into territory overseen by America. Overall, Russia has taken the proverbial high
road with Russian Foreign
Ministry’s Spokesperson Maria Zakharova declaring in May that
Russia "has tried to be consistent [in
its reaction to NATO's posture] and present facts when it comes
to NATO's expansion and Russophobic remarks with regard
to Russia's imaginary threat."
Domestically
though it is a different story. Putin has overseen the restoration of a
fractured and weak state and throughout this time he has pursued an aggressive foreign
policy where Russia’s interests are concerned. From Russia’s involvement in the
conflicts in Georgia, Azerbaijan and Moldova to Putin’s recent foray into the
Middle East, Russia is not afraid of conflict.
Fortress Russia
Over
the past two years alone, Russia has increased and developed its defence
capabilities. The Russian military has taken delivery of a swathe of new
weapons which they have been field testing in the Syrian conflict. They have also been restoring and developing
the Barguzin (BZhRK) combat railway missile
defence system, which is Russia’s answer to NATO’s ballistic missile shield. There
is also the extension of the S-300 missile defence system to Iran and
Kazakhstan. This expansion will provide protection to Russia’s oil and gas
assets from missile attacks originating in the Persian Gulf.
The
construction of Fortress Russia is hardly surprising. It is in line with
Putin’s formal declaration that NATO is a security
threat
and his statement that “we are
duty-bound to pay special attention to solving the task of strengthening the
combat readiness of our country.” The real question now is will Russia respond to NATO’s
brinksmanship?
Domestic Risks?
Domestically,
Putin needs to be seen to respond. Despite his miraculous ability to remain in
power, Putin has faced domestic backlashes. In 2011, when he was re-elected,
his approval rating slumped to 69% and there were a number of protests against
the state. However, after the annexation of the Crimea and a renewal of tension
with the West, Putin’s approval rating has reached 83%, with Russians
forgetting their economic troubles and unifying behind their President in a nationalistic
pride.
To
maintain this support Putin must develop a new hard-line foreign policy. Russia
must meet NATO move for move in the European theatre. To this end the recent removal of 50 senior and
mid-level commanders of the Baltic fleet after the failed to go toe to toe with
NATO during its recent Baltic operations is surmised as one example of the application
of this new tough foreign policy in the domestic Russian arena. The risk with
this policy is that removing large portions of the military will create a
backlash against Putin in upper echelons of the military and state
.
The Risk of Choosing
NATO
For
the states that border Russia, NATO’s posturing may be leading them down a perilous
path. Firstly, by choosing to side with the west they run the risk of Russia
seeing them as a threat and taking steps to neutralise that threat. Secondly,
they may suffer an economic backlash or other destabilising tactics used by Russia.
These governments risk their stability by joining with NATO.
Nevertheless
many of these countries see this as a risk worth taking and are seeking
European partnerships and ties. Countries deep in Russia’s backyard, such as
Moldova, have requested at the NATO Summit in Warsaw this week to remove the
Russian peacekeepers in Transnistria because the presence
of Russian forces exacerbates the military tension between the two nations.