Thursday 22 September 2016

“Better Now Than Later!” – Nato Deploys 4,000 Additional Troops To Eastern Europe.

A Demonstration Of Strength? Is Nato's decision to deploy an additional four battalions (approximately 4,000 troops) to Poland and the Baltic States a demonstration of strength: a firm “don’t mess with even the smallest of our member states”, directed at the President of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin; or yet further evidence of the West’s rising levels of anti-Russian paranoia?
 
THE MOMENTS OF MAXIMUM PERIL, diplomatically-speaking, are seldom the consequence of excessive strength. Strong states have little reason to fear their neighbours. It is, rather, perceptions of national decline and diminishing military strength that spur national elites towards diplomatic recklessness – and war.
 
How, then, should we interpret the news that in May 2017 the Nato alliance will be deploying an additional four battalions (approximately 4,000 troops) to Poland and the Baltic States? Is it a demonstration of strength: a firm “don’t mess with even the smallest of our member states”, directed at the President of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin; or yet further evidence of the West’s rising levels of anti-Russian paranoia?
 
On the face of it, Nato remains a very strong alliance – especially in relation to the military capability of the Russian Federation. According to an article authored by Ian Shields of Anglia Ruskin University and published in The Independent of 28 May 2016: “NATO is significantly larger than Russia in simple numbers: NATO has a total of 3.6m personnel in uniform, Russia 800,000; NATO 7,500 tanks, Russia 2,750; NATO 5,900 combat aircraft, Russia 1,571.”
 
But numbers aren’t everything, it’s what you do with them that counts. At the 1805 Battle of Austerlitz, the French Emperor’s, Napoleon Bonaparte’s, Grande Armée of 67,000 men outmanoeuvred and decisively defeated a combined Austrian and Russian force of 85,000. Imagination, daring and superior strategic thinking continue to play a vital role in diplomatic and military encounters.
 
In this respect the Russian leader has proved himself more than match for his European rivals. His willingness to use military force, both to advance and defend his country’s strategic interests, has reduced Nato to playing repeated games of catch-up and bluster. For the West’s political leadership Putin’s successes have been galling enough. For Nato’s generals, however, Russia’s strategic application of force has been a personal and professional humiliation. They are hungry for revenge.
 
The decision to deploy an additional 4,000 troops to Russia’s western borders has been undertaken in an attempt to both intimidate and deter Putin from contemplating a lightning-fast repossession of the former Soviet republics of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Nato knows that Russia’s massive army could roll over the Baltic states in a matter of hours. Its purpose in stationing troops there is not to halt any Russian advance, but to require Russia’s soldiers to engage American, British and Canadian troops on their way to the Baltic shore.
 
Applying the same process of cold deliberation that he used in relation to Georgia, the Crimea and eastern Ukraine, Putin must decide whether this “Cross the Latvian border and start World War III” threat is real, or just another example of Nato bluster. The generals may be willing to incinerate the world for Latvian independence, but what about the peoples of Western Europe? And, how willing would a President Trump, or Clinton, be to invite their own people’s annihilation by authorising a nuclear strike against Russia?
 
In Trump’s case, Putin is reasonably confident that the nuclear codes will not be activated for the Baltic States. He cannot be so sure about the hawkish Hillary Clinton. That being the case, it is not difficult to understand why Putin is deploying his cyber warriors against the Democratic Party’s candidate. It is just one more demonstration of Putin’s strategic daring – and yet another example of the West’s inability to come up with an effective response.
 
It is often argued (by the winners of World War I) that Germany was only willing to risk war with Russia in 1914 because its generals knew that given a few more years, and a few more French loans, the Russian “steamroller” would be utterly unstoppable. “If war is going to come in any case”, they are said to have reasoned, “better now than later.”
 
There are alarming echoes of these grim calculations in Nato’s most recent deployment. Faced with economic stagnation, diminishing military budgets, and increasingly restive populations, have the generals of Europe – and Britain in particular – come to the same doom-laden conclusion as the German General Staff of 1914.
 
“If we wait, then in a few years Nato will be both militarily and politically incapable of stopping Putin and the Russians from reconstituting their lost empire. Better now than later!”
 
This essay was originally posted on The Daily Blog of Wednesday, 21 September 2016.

23 comments:

Psycho Milt said...

It is, rather, perceptions of national decline and diminishing military strength that spur national elites towards diplomatic recklessness – and war.

Yes, but it's a matter of perspective. I would have said this better explains Putin's recklessness of the last few years than anything about NATO countries.

On the face of it, Nato remains a very strong alliance – especially in relation to the military capability of the Russian Federation.

Most of that NATO military capability is on a different continent. NATO in Europe is a lot weaker than the Russian Federation.

In this respect the Russian leader has proved himself more than match for his European rivals. His willingness to use military force, both to advance and defend his country’s strategic interests, has reduced Nato to playing repeated games of catch-up and bluster. For the West’s political leadership Putin’s successes have been galling enough. For Nato’s generals, however, Russia’s strategic application of force has been a personal and professional humiliation. They are hungry for revenge.

Fans of Hitler wrote pretty similar stuff about "the German leader" and his European rivals in the late 30s. They were probably not proud of having done so in later decades.

Guerilla Surgeon said...

If the west is paranoid, so are the Russians. Perhaps with a little more reason having been invaded so many times in the recent past. But the Russians could not fight a war in north western Europe without drastic repercussions for their economy. Having said that, they have not deployed their best forces in Syria or the Ukraine. Even so, some military analysts claim that the Polish army could see off the Russian, given its parlous state. I tend to be a little sceptical of that, but Russian equipment is generally at the moment inferior – which is why in the past they've always had so much of it. It kept breaking down. They are producing more advanced weapons, but they can't afford to produce very many of them – 100 of their latest tanks in some sources. 100 is not a great deal these days. But if I was one of the Baltic states, I certainly wouldn't want the Russians back. Particularly under a corrupt guy like Putin.
I agree that he is taunting the West, and generally running rings around it diplomatically. But that's because he's as mad as a box full of badgers – but as cunning as a shithouse rat..:)

greywarbler said...

Is this time for a treaty between the west and Russia, or would that not be efficient given all the expenditure on western armaments? Look at all this great machinery and technology, are we going to let it go rusty - no sirree? A man's got to do what a man's got to do. War is hell, but we're up to it etc.

If Russia feels vulnerable because their weaponry isn't modern then moves like this will only make Russia more uneasy. Pull back now, have a treaty, ask them what their intentions are even. Get locked up in some rooms till they are too tired to make up any new lies and get some honesty on both sides. The question - how can we go forward in the world without any new wars, how can we contain and put out the fires of war still burning, and how can we deal with disagreements and resource and climate problems? And how can we watch each other safely and obviously? Questions that occur to me, there would be more but they are rhetorical anyway I suppose. Or are there parallel actions, show of force and quiet talks across a large table where the sides can't kick each other in the ankles or stick poisoned umbrella shafts at each other's legs.

A pox on all of you power players, greedy grabbers, randy resourcer rogues and pusillanimous politicians. I speet on you all.

manfred said...

Russia. The country of corrupt government, mafia-connected oligarchs, raving ultra-nationalists, old people living in 3rd world conditions as the state abandons them, persecution of minorities, shadowy mercenaries with ties to government and capital, armies where soldiers are routinely bullied and sexually assaulted, dictatorship and repression of political dissidents.

In the US things are pretty bad, but every now and again a ray of sunlight shines through and we are given renewed faith in the American experiment. Just enough to keep us going, mind you - not a whole lot, but some.

Russia on the other hand has been mired in darkness for hundreds of years.

The western Left wing soft pedaling on Russian chauvinism and tyranny has to be one of the most macabre and asinine phenomenon of recent times.

Putin's right wing paradise (with cynical left wing drapery) is enough to make me think that old Shachtman was right.

greywarbler said...

GS Putin is taunting the west you think. Is Russian taunting as full frontal as French taunting a la Monty Python? If only we could settle for these ripe insults and relatively simple killing methods, boiling oil, heavy rocks etc.

In the recent book David and Goliath by Malcolm Gladwell he points out that this was an ancient way of settling differences and provocations. You sent out your best warrior against theirs. He analyses why huge Goliath in heavy armour could be felled in seconds by a shepherd boy expert with the sling shot. Some quotes from the book:

Giants are not what we think they are. The same qualities that appear to give them strength are often the sources of great weakness.”
― Malcolm Gladwell, David and Goliath: Underdogs, Misfits, and the Art of Battling Giants

“As the playwright George Bernard Shaw once put it: “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.”
― Malcolm Gladwell, David and Goliath: Underdogs, Misfits, and the Art of Battling Giants

https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/21445709-david-and-goliath

Monty Python routing the English.
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8yjNbcKkNY
Monty Python with a brief sketch of a possible alternative political platform for the citizens to adopt and take to Putin. I am sure the Russians would see the delicious parody of it all. Or whatever.
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7iPxb0uwos

Nick J said...

Russia supplies most of Europe's gas, and exports as much oil as Saudi Arabia. Most of this oil and huge amounts of minerals prop up Chinese industry.

Under the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and under BRICS Russian energy is a key component of the challenge to energy transactions made by US $. The TPP and the transatlantic equivalent along with Asia Pivot strategy are part of the US response. NATO pushing east toward Russia has nothing to do with Russian aggression or Putins character. It's about defending the global economic dominance of the USA and their dependence upon foreign oil. As US non conventional oil and gas production proves no more than an energy arbitrage the US will have a stark choice, nation or empire. This seems to align with Trumps vision of a "great again" America within walled borders, and Hillarys hawkish imperial forays into oil rich lands (which includes Russia).

mikesh said...

I'm inclined to think that Putin is merely defending Russia's military and economic interests, in Crimea and Syria respectively.

The USA would like to see Qatar supplying gas to Europe as this would compete with gas supplies from Russia, to the latter's detriment. However such a pipeline would need to pass through Syria and this Assad would not allow, hence the US backed war to overthrow Assad.

Russia's military interests in Crimea are well known.


Polly said...

Putin is one of Russia's great leaders, he attacked the fascist take over of the Ukraine when they overthrew the elected President who was Russian -friendly.
He has acquired the Crimea and it looks like he will gain a strong foot hold in eastern Ukraine.
Pro- fascist elements in Europe have persuaded the American administration to put in American rockets and now troops to support their own fascist and political desires.
The Germans are wary, they know who liberated them from Hitler and his gang of killers.
The European Parliament want to form a European Army and supporting force's which they say is for the defence of Europe, I say it will be a force to create war against Russia because of if it's vast mineral, gas and oil wealth.
Fascism cannot help itself, it is still a potent force in world politics and the 45 million people killed in the last world war is a distant memory.
Russia for its part is forming strong military friendships with the Chinese, North Koreans and friendly anti-fascist groups.
We live in dangerous times. Good post.

Nick J said...

Manfred. You are correct about Russia. Now let's look at the good old USA....
The country of corrupt government, mafia-connected drug cartels, raving ultra-nationalists, old people living in 3rd world conditions in a country of paltry welfare, persecution of minorities especially blacks, shadowy mercenaries with ties to government and capital called Blackwater etc, armies where soldiers are routinely bullied and sexually assaulted, corporate dictatorship masquerading as democratically elected, repression of political dissidents, jailers of more people than at the height of the gulag, owners of "Gitmo".

In Russia things are pretty bad, but every now and again a ray of sunlight shines through and we are given renewed faith in the recovering economy which despite sanctions grows. Just enough to keep us going, mind you - not a whole lot, but more than the USA.

The USA on the other hand has been mired in darkness such as continuous warfare since inception, slavery that gave way to second class black citizenship..

The western neolib media pedaling US cultural and actual imperialism, corporate and financial fraud and militaristic adventurism chauvinism has to be one of the most macabre and asinine phenomenon of recent times.

Putin's right wing paradise (with cynical left wing drapery) has a mirror image, but one probably grown far uglier.

Andrew Nichols said...

My question is this. What is the endgame of all this puerile anti Russian stuff? When you have a front runner for POTUS calling the Russian Pres Hitler on a regular basis just where does she think that will lead? What is the end game for all the war fans in the media? Looks a lot like the run up to WW1 though this time we wont survive. Whey do so many of us feel so powerless when looking at all this pointless belligerence? Time to take a deep breath and pull back from the brink.

greywarbler said...

Nick J
Excellent incisive comment. The trouble is we are swimming in a pea soup with daily additions of left-over porridge just like the staple diet when I went skiing and stayed in a mountain hut years ago.

Unlike that nutritional mish mash this stew we are in surfaces unpleasantly on RNZ (formerly known as RadioNZ) news which contains lumps of USA tragedies of shot people, street protests and violence, political circuses, pronouncements about war and how noble and brave USA is (Kerry recently making hypocritical speech about something not worth remembering) until I feel like asking Morning Report and News Editors to corral it all into a short resume in its own space, the USA Update. It could follow the news about our country and items from the world in brief, then wev at last could get Sport our abiding interest, then the weather my abiding interest.

And the USA news would be brief with no personal impressions and thoughts and interviews with all and sundry about their latest tragedy and how they feel. I can imagine, it makes me feel nauseous way over here. It is all so unfair, they have millions of people with tragedies to make the news, and how can we compete in our small country and have a level playing field in this major news sector!

Some rousing music from 1917-18 Over there the Yanks are Coming. Original old record with some skips - very authentic. With words. You can sing along.
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4X0TrcKl4Jo
And another clip 5 Haunting events and photos from WW1 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34--yqcHyTo

Wayne Mapp said...

I think this article (and some of the comments) is greatly overwrought.

NATO remains the bedrock of security for its members, and the security guarantees remain strong, Trump's statement about the NATO guarantees not withstanding. That is why 4,000 troops can be deployed into the Baltics without any real reaction from Russia.

However. of the two presidential candidates Trump is clearly the greater risk. If he really did undermine NATO as President (which be virtually an impeachable matter) it could encourage Putin adventurism, especially in the Baltics.

However I imagine Ukraine would not welcome a Trump presidency. The de facto partition of eastern Ukraine may become permanent with a Trump green light. Mind you if western Ukraine reconciled itself to this, that would lead to a permanent peace. No doubt it could be the grand bargain that Trump envisages, which may have already been floated with Putin. No wonder Putin prefers Trump.

In contrast Clinton's firmness on the NATO guarantee means that the guarantee in respect of the Baltics would never be tested. I imagine Ukraine can also rest easier, but it will have an ongoing conflict in eastern Ukraine, at least for quite some time to come..

As for nuclear war in the highly unlikely event of a Baltic invasion by Russia, that would be far from the first step (or the second, third or fourth step). There would be a massive attempt to stop any incursion by conventional means. There are plenty of NATO airbases in Germany and Poland to launch counter strikes. It would not be plain sailing for Russian forces. I have participated in NATO war-games as a NZ officer on attachment (obviously many years ago). Soviet incursion, even large scale ones on the German border were always able to be stopped by a combination of armour and air strikes. Modern precision stand-off weapons would now be more devastating to an invader.

But in any event it is all moot. None of this will happen. Russia is not going to invade the Baltics.

Nick J said...

Wayne is that a hint of what you would describe as "conspiracy theory "? Trump doing a deal with Vladimir? You may have been hanging around this type of site too much!

Agree Russian won't go to war in Baltic. Those states have nothing Russia needs. All cost no gain.

In the Ukraine you are right that a lasting peace requires the return of the Donetz to Russia. From all accounts Russia took a million refugees from the area which crippled industry there as all the technical skills left. They are absorbed into Russian industry aND won't return. Vladimir wins either way.

Nick J said...

Thanks Grey It's all a rather sad commentary on ourselves that we don't have enough news of our own any more. An American section might corale their nonsense. Fine idea.

Guerilla Surgeon said...

I'm not sure Wayne that the Ukraine actually equates to the German border when it comes to Russian incursions. As I understood it, the main problem facing the Russians, was that Germany was incredibly built-up – at least since World War II, and that the distance between small towns and villages was roughly the range of an anti-tank missile. Still, if I'm wrong I'd be interested to hear your take on it. It's fascinating as an academic subject, but maybe less so in real life. So let's hope it never happens.

Wayne Mapp said...

GS

You are right about the small town issue. Part of the planning envisaged a network of TOW missiles camouflaged within each village targeting the exits from the villages in front, typically 2 or 3 km apart.

But Nick J is right. Attacking the Baltic states is all cost and no gain. It would set back Russian and western relations for about 30 or more years. Putin might be cynical but he is not mad. In fact as cynic he will be a analytical calculator of risk.

Crimea was virtually no risk. Similarly with Georgia. East Ukraine has more risk hence his unwillingness to go all out in backing the separatists. He would see the Baltics as a suicidal risk. Probably the end of his presidency, and in Russia, possibly his life.

Look at the effect of the Falklands war. Even 35 years later there is minimal relationship between Argentina and the UK.

Victor said...

Chris

Undoubtedly, there are occasions when a display of resolution leads to war. But there are many other occasions when it has the opposite effect.

I would take some convincing that the current sabre rattling over the Baltic republics fits into the former category. But I would agree that neither a Hillary nor a Trump White House would be a particularly safe player, albeit for different reasons in each case.

Polly

"Fascist" is, I accept, a rather slippery term. But most of the Westerners who most closely fit that description (e.g. Mme Marine, Nige, AfD and the Hungarian guys in silly hats) seem quite fond of Putin. I wonder why that should be.

Nick J said...

Please Victor, isn't that a little fast and loose? The best definition of fascist I ever heard was from Mussolini himself. And it certainly fits nobody you mention. Thats because Benito said he was the only person who could define it. Sort of royal prerogative.

I assume by Nige you mean Farage, rather than take the MSM view I have taken to listening to what he actually says. By those standards the whole 1960s Conservative party would be fascist, Enoch Powell (who was actually a very prescient person who was wrongly labelled racist) would be Adolf. As I said never label on third party advice. Listen to the original and make your own decision.

Victor said...

Nick J

I take your point in part. Nige doesn't really fit the description despite the friends he's made on the further shores of continental politics. AfD is also a complex phenomenon, with an as yet not wholly defined character.

But there's a growing pro-Putin consensus among Europe's populist xenophobes, including those with distinctly fascistoid tendencies and antecedents, of whom the leaders of the Front National are clearly the most significant.

And you can see what they all like about Putin's Russia; mystical nationalism, intolerance, authoritarianism and leader-worship, amongst other things.

Yes, Mussolini did say that "Fascism is not for export". But it wasn't true then and it isn't true now, even if jackboots and serried banners have gone out of fashion, along with Holocaust denial/relativism and Nostalgie pour Vichy. Jeans and Islamophobia take you so much further.

And then there's the Donald.......

Nor do I deny, by the way, that there are fascists among the authors and beneficiaries of the Ukrainian coup or amongst their Baltic sympathisers. That's why I referred specifically to Westerners, as opposed to inhabitants of former provinces of the Russian Empire.

My point was, however (in response to "Polly), that the rights and wrongs of the current tension twixt Russia and the West can't be determined by shouting "fascist" at either side.

mikesh said...

Oswald Mosely believed that countries should be ruled by those best qualified to rule (which seems something of a truism), but he didn't believe that democracy was the best way of achieving this. Adolf Hitler may not have come to an untimely end had he not set out to invade and conquer other countries. Franco managed to rule for a lifetime, and Mussolini seems to have failed because of his alliance with Hitler.

Guerilla Surgeon said...

"Oswald Mosely believed that countries should be ruled by those best qualified to rule (which seems something of a truism)"

On the other hand, wasn't it some of the ancient Greeks who said you should give the job to someone who actually doesn't want it? I'm particularly fond of this idea, because as we all know politicians would as Winston Peters once said "crawl over broken glass to get their jobs." And I've often thought that – looking at a career that spanned close to 50 years – the people who get on in most organisations are those people who relish meetings. The longer and more boring the better. :)

Nick J said...

Victor, is it possible that the pro-Putin concensus is actually more an anti establishment anti status quo movement that reflects popular disenchantment with our ruling caste and US satraps? Putin like Chavez a hero for sticking it to the Empire?

I once studied geopolitical history back in the Jurassic. We then had Tsar Leonid ruling Russia, direct inheritor of Ivan, Peter, Catherine, Alexander, Ilyich, Josef et al. Now Tsar Vladimir takes over the mantle in one of histories great continuums. I dont see how we expect Russia to be ruled to our image, the record says Vladimir type rulers are what Russia has. Another part of the record. Russia has never attacked the West seriously with intent to overrun. They did admittedly overrun Napoleon and Hitler post themselves being invaded. The record indicates that Russia is bearlike...leave well alone. Do not push troops into Latvia. Do not fund revolution in Kiev.

Victor said...

Nick J

I more or less agree with you over Russia, the apparent doleful inevitability of Tsardom and the West's failure to learn from some of the best known mistakes of recent centuries.

And, certainly, a lot of pro-Putin posturing in the West is part of a widely dispersed anti-status quo mood.

But the point remains that Europe has a constellation of resurgent right wing, nationalist movements that share, amongst other things, in this broader pro-Putin sentiment. Moreover, it's an affection that, for reasons of his own, Putin seems to reciprocate.

That's one of the reasons why his claims to be defending Mother Russia from the fascist menace ring somewhat untrue. Hence my response to "Polly".