Simultaneously with the organization of “humanitarian convoy” for the population of the East of Ukraine V. Putin began to “reconcile” Azerbaijan and Armenia, arranging in Sochi a meeting of the three presidents. Moreover, Russian special services continue to work actively to strengthen disagreements between the countries of Eastern Europe, the Black Sea and Caspian Sea regions on energy, economic and ethno-national and security issues. Taking into consideration the Russian leader's global appetites and Vladimir Zhirinovsky's recent threats to the Baltic States and Poland, experts tend to believe that those Members of NATO and the North Atlantic Alliance directly (on the eve of the September summit in Wales) must be prepared for the RF's president's new “initiatives”.
Against the background of the escalating crisis in Ukraine, heads of 9 countries of Central and Eastern Europe (Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria) met in Warsaw to discuss the situation in neighboring Ukraine, as well as the security policy of the European Union and NATO.
|
|
North Atlantic Treaty Organization http://ria.ru/ |
On the eve of this summit, experts in international law have reminded regional leaders, how in recent years, the Kremlin has been making provocative actions against NATO. Such as, in particular, the repeated violations of the airspace of NATO member countries, strengthening of Moscow's military presence near the borders of NATO member-countries, and regular military trainings where NATO was given the role of the enemy. However, the countries of Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) have not tried to block in response the cooperation between the Alliance and Russia, and some of them said that Moscow must be contacted so that it is not contrary to the interests of the region.
At the same time, the annexation of the Crimea and the escalation of the situation in the East of Ukraine have become a real challenge for the CEE countries and NATO, as they show Moscow's “commitment” to the military force as an instrument of regional policy, besides its actions are abhorrent to international law. Besides, the Ukrainian crisis has shown that Russia could use the presence of the Russian-speaking minority as a pretext for military intervention, which provides “protection of ethnic Russians” living abroad. Russia has also demonstrated its ability to conduct rapid and unexpected military operations and to take measures that do not fall under the classic definition of the use of armed forces. Together with the mobilization of tens of thousands of Russian soldiers near the Ukrainian border, Russia has used special forces, supported local separatists, unleashed an information war and took cyber attacks — all these actions are elements of the so-called hybrid war.
|
|
NATO members http://ria.ru/ |
Despite the unexpected use by Russia of its armed forces near the borders of NATO member countries, during the meeting in Warsaw in the positions of the countries of Central and Eastern Europe were observed discrepancies suggesting the idea that the region is not ready to unconditionally adhere to a single position in security sphere, especially when it concerns the Kremlin's policies.
Like with the question of guaranteeing the energy security of the European continent, a number of countries (or their leaders and the establishment, to be exact) have demonstrated the advantage of the current short-sighted national interests over the long-term global/regional ones. Even the intervention of Russian troops onto the territory of the country, the nearest neighbor of NATO and the growing hostility in Moscow's rhetoric against the Alliance have not changed to this day still quite “peaceful” (economically and energetically motivated) positions of Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia.
Thus, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Romania insist on significant strengthening of NATO's defense policy, demanding to deploy the Alliance's troops in the region on a permanent basis. Besides, representatives of the governments and parliaments of the Baltic countries show interest in the deployment of elements of NATO's defense against missile system to protect against potential missile attacks from the territory of the western region of the Russian Federation.
At the same time, Hungary, Czech Republic and Slovakia do not see significant threats in the current Russia's actions and do not support those measures, which could affect their political and economic relations with Moscow. In particular, Hungary (mediatedly) and Slovakia (openly) have rejected the idea of placing the NATO's forces on their territories, and the Czech Republic, not giving up the idea of potential deployment the forces of the Alliance, was skeptical of the proposal to increase the presence of these forces in other countries of the region. Despite the fact that Prague, Bratislava and Budapest officially announced their intentions to gradually increase defense spending, none of them has taken such a decision for the nearest future.
And it seems that there is no reason to believe that the position of Prague, Bratislava and Budapest will have changed by the beginning of the September summit of NATO or in the upcoming discussions on the future policy of the Alliance.
Bulgaria's position is absolutely different. Bulgaria has repeatedly expressed concern about the destabilization of the situation during the crisis in Ukraine and insists on the need to strengthen defense capabilities of NATO in the Black Sea. On the other hand, Bulgaria, in contrast to the Baltic countries, Poland and Romania, has not formulated clear security demands within the framework of NATO.
Sadly, some of the NATO member countries in Western Europe believe that the location of NATO's units in the region on a permanent basis would violate the Founding Act of NATO-Russia cooperation of 1997, in which the Alliance promised not to deploy permanent “large combat units” in Central and Eastern Europe. For example, Germany is of the view that any deployment on a permanent basis of NATO's forces near the Russian border could trigger an unnecessary escalation of tension in relations with Moscow.
Variability of policies of CEE countries in the military and political affairs has an objective and a subjective explanation and has mirror reflected in their attitude/reaction to events in Ukraine.
The sharp response of the Baltic States can be explained by their weak geostrategic position, having a common land border with Russia and an impressive Russian-speaking minority (in Latvia — 27%, in Estonia — 24%, in Lithuania — 5%), limited military, human and financial resources. They need NATO's full assistance, are sure that the constant presence of the Alliance's troops on their territory is needed, as they are situated between Kaliningrad and Russia's main territory.
The position of Poland, which has taken on the role of the regional leader in resolving the crisis, is more active, if we take into consideration its being far away from the continental Russia, absence of the Russian-speaking minorities within its territory and the ability of the Polish economy to realize its own military programs.
Romania believes that it is necessary to significantly increase the presence of NATO in the Black Sea region, as it fears Russia's inspiration of unrest in Trans-Dniester or Gagauzia and possible recurrence of the Crimean scenario in Moldova, as well as possible increase in the number of Russian troops along Romania's border and in the Black Sea.
V. Orban's government demonstrates the Hungarian ruling elite's commitment to distance itself from both the European Union and the economic and political ties with the United States, as well as the desire to develop its relations with Russia.
The position of the Czech Republic can be explained by internal political disagreements regarding NATO's policy: Prime Minister B. Sobotka's speaking against increasing NATO's military presence in Central and Eastern Europe caused a strong reaction not only of the opposition and President M. Zeman, but also of the partners in the government's coalition.
In Slovakia, demands to significantly strengthen the political commitment of NATO in the region have been voiced by both experts and representatives of the parliamentary opposition.
Bulgaria's balanced approach has been dictated mainly by its historical and cultural ties with Russia, the latter being Bulgaria’s main energy supplier.
|
|
The Combined Armed Forces of NATO (on the base of their formation in 1971) http://ria.ru/ |
What should be the “collective” NATO and its allies' response to Russia's challenge?
We believe that the leaders and experts of the Alliance and its member countries need to agree that the illegal and unlawful actions of Russia against Ukraine are a threat to the European order based on the territorial integrity and trust, and they encourage other autocratic regimes to follow the example of the Russian Federation, who has unleashed a hybrid war against our state. The “non-linear” approach being used by Russia to influence the situation in Ukraine (combining the hidden use of special forces and agents of the Russian Federation's special services, support to pro-Russian local residents, arranging mass campaigns of misinformation, intimidation by military force and economic coercion, etc.) demonstrates the Alliance's being not able to effectively counteract such means of warfare (as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was created to counter the classic military aggression).
|
|
NATO member countries in Europe http://aobe.ru/ |
So, the problem of the independence and territorial integrity of Ukraine has gone far beyond the Russian-Ukrainian relations, and the regional conflict on the borders of the created at some point of time for deterring the Soviet Union, Organization has grown into a global conflict.
Guided by this assessment, NATO needs to act in three directions: direct, including military support to Ukraine + pressure on the Russian Federation, including winding up relations with it + strengthening the defense capability of the Alliance, particularly on the borders with Russia and close to them (on the “Russian frontline”).
|
|
NATO's expansion in Europe http://files.school-collection.edu.ru/ |
In reality this means consistent, in response to the intervention of Russia into Ukraine, implementation of the common decision on the temporary increase in NATO's military presence in Central and Eastern Europe from 16 April this year on, as a step towards the realization of the idea of permanent deployment of NATO's troops in the territory of the Eastern European countries (on the ground, including the elements/bases of a missile defense system, in the air and sea). This would significantly reduce the time for response of the Allies to the aggression by the quick response forces, using the experience of Russia's military and special operations during the Ukrainian crisis.
In the context of the Ukrainian situation and the ongoing modernization of the Russian army, the CEE countries need to revise their approaches to the implementation of the decision of the NATO summit (in 2006) to allocate to defense sector 2% of GDP of a country, and to provide them with real (not just verbal) assistance of Western countries-members of the Alliance in the development of the regional military infrastructure.
|
|
The American military presence in Europe http://www.gazeta.ru/ |
It is also advisable to carry out appropriate consultations with the Central European partners (Hungary, Czech Republic and Slovakia) and Bulgaria in matters of increasing the presence of NATO's forces and expenditures for upgrading the troops.
Based on the Kremlin's increasing aggressiveness, NATO should revise the relevant plans of their responses to potential attacks at Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, including with strengthening combat capability of Multinational Corps “North-East”, stationed in Szczecin (Poland), and constructing a new base of NATO forces in Estonia.
|
|
How the presence of NATO Air Forces in Europe has increased and how it will increase http://navoine.info/ |
The NATO's leadership's clear statement about its readiness to support Ukraine (meeting of NATO-Ukraine Commission at the level of Heads of States and Governments within the framework of the summit in Wales, strengthening its military, logistical and cyber capabilities and military command and control system, the beginning of work of the trust funds for Ukraine), to suspend any civilian or military cooperation with Russia (political contacts suggest only a search for a solution to the Ukrainian question) and to guarantee the security of the Alliance's member countries bordering Russia (under the Action Plan to strengthen the readiness of NATO, presented by the Secretary-General of the Organization) gives reason to hope that the decisions on these and other relevant issues of security, adopted on September 4-5 in Newport, will be timely, efficient and unanimous.
