NATO's Multiple Frontiers?

[SABRE]

Hello all;

I just started to write an article for couple of pages on the possibility that NATO may now have to face multiple frontiers. So I thought it to be a good idea to have an input from our different members.


At the moment NATO is busy in Afghanistan with the demand of more troops should be deployed in the country. On the other hand British Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, is busy in diplomacy to form "widest possible coalition against Russian aggression" [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7583486.stm].

I have these importent points on my mind (if anyone has more please add).

> NATO's expansion in former Eastern Europe is a threat to Russia.

> US deployment of ABM/BMDs is another important factor.

> NATO's presence in Afghanistan gives NATO states an access rout to Central Asia - Russia's Asian backyard.

> Creation of new states carved out from pro-Russia Slavic states is yet another threat to Russia (i.e. Kosovo).

> American backing to anti-Russia states (Georgia)

> West's acceptance of anti-Slavic regions as independent states (ie. Kosovo) & rejection pro-Slavic or Pro-Russia or Russia-Backed regions. (Russia now doing vice versa)

Under these circumstances we see Russia opening its wings, mostly militarily. We can't say who is good or evil but it does seem with Russia coughing its military strength over Europe NATO probably will have multiple Frontiers & not all of them would be directed against Russia.
Example: Afghanistan should remain frontier against War on Terror.

> But with this can NATO handle multiple frontiers?

> Can it manage to take on multiple commands with one being a state (Russia) another being Non State Actors (Terrorists, Taliban etc ...)?

> Can NATO manage to keep its members intact against Russia; they already seem to drift on Afghanistan?

[Any additions are welcome before I plunge my self into deep research]

 

[kato]

Dealing with Russia is not really a NATO-wide "item". NATO is essentially split over the issue, hence why any action in that direction would only come from multilateral coalitions, not NATO itself. This will actually weaken NATO's political position of course.

Regarding Afghanistan (and Iraq), should the situation continue as is, i'd actually fully expect further NATO states to withdraw from the theater. Not the "big ones", France, Spain, Germany, UK and such, but primarily the "auxiliaries", especially as tensions with Russia - important for some of them - rise. Looking in particular at Estonia and Latvia for example there.

The ABM issue, in the end, is just a rehash of the 80s Polaris and GLCM thing, politically. Except in this case now, there aren't any attempts at mutual discussion with Russia (the 1979 NATO "Double-Track" Decision). And a new INF isn't anywhere in sight on this issue.

The thing with accepting disputed independancies... well, that'll probably go on for a bit. Transnistria probably being next.

 

[merocaine]

At the moment NATO is busy in Afghanistan with the demand of more troops should be deployed in the country. On the other hand British Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, is busy in diplomacy to form "widest possible coalition against Russian aggression"

It all seems to have gone to Milibands head...His moment in the sun, bless.

I've said it before, Afghanistan is going to be Nato's graveyard, it is already evident it is a coalition of the willing, most members are unwilling to contribute anything substantial.
Its big problem is it was reconceived after the cold war as a alliance of western democracies, as if western democracies actually have any unity of purpose.
As an anti soviet alliance it worked, without the soviets it just doesn't have any real purpose.
At the moment it exists on American sufferance, as soon as it unable to preform as required by the Americans it will be discarded. (As I think its about to be sidelined in Afghanistan, kept on in a supporting roll, with the Americans doing the heavy lifting))
You could see this in the original Afghan invasion and more lately in the missile shield deal in Poland, it is clear that bilateral relations with Washington are far more important to countries than any guarantees provided through NATO.
I'm probably being harsh, but I feel its main function is as an American foreign policy tool, useful but not very necessary.

 

[Grand Danois]

> But with this can NATO handle multiple frontiers?

Short term?

NATO need not do that much in Europe proper; Russian logistics set the limiter to the size of the threat.

The Baltic states, Poland, Czechs, Slovaks, Hungarians & Romania should do away with the idea of doing expeditionary warfare and focus on territorial defence.

Further, they should accelerate coordination and integration. The only place where Russia could actually push in would be the Baltic states which are almost impossible to defend due to geography and size of population. Those three countries would need a comprehensive program to merge their individual defence capabilites. Though it wil only buy time...

I have in context with the BMD in Europe argued that rolling out SAMs in the PAC-3, MEADS, SAMP-T class have far more impact on the strategic level than the deployment of 10 GBI.

This is because they severely blunt the value of TBM like SS-21 and SS-26, just like Russian air power will be neutered; considering the average age and tech level plus training levels... This cuts the legs under most of the offensive power of Russia.

Cost is not even marginal; it is done within existing budgets. And is done on multilateral bilateral level.

The PAC-3s for Poland is already on their way.


Medium/long term?

Other than that it is just a matter of waiting it out for the ex-Soviet stocks to wear out or go obsolete. From now on, it is only what they build now or have built recently, that will be operational one or two decades from now.

If I was a neocon cynic, I could just wait out for the Russian population to desintegrate. This would cap Russian war potential and economic potential forever.

 

[SABRE]

• Competition with in Europe:

We see UK going against Russia while France flapping its wings by trying to play the good guy by bring "peace" to Russia & Georgia. With France holding the Presidency of EU & UK taking a somewhat different stance is it possible we can see Europe back into division?

How would EU hold out, knowing it may be largely dependent on Russia for the supply of oil & other energy resources (belonging to Russia as well as Central Asia)?


Also what if nuclear dimension comes to play as well?

Does anyone sees Europe divided between the options of:

a) Russia friend or foe?
b) NATO or EU?

 

[kato]

Well, it might give some rise to the "Core Europe" idea, that's been around in certain circles for years, in particular in France, Germany and Italy.

German philosopher Jürgen Habermas and French Jaques Derrida wrote a [book] on that in 2003 after the Iraq invasion, entertaining a "Core" to the EU, a core that would be composed of social-democrat countries (with some leeway), specifically excluding "New Europe" and the UK.
Italian philosopher and politician Gianni Vatimo, formerly a EU MP, also entertained some notions in that direction.

There are a number of people that would have supported an actual application of such theory back then. It was again given some rise when Poland blockaded the EU for a bit politically, and the current row over acceptance of the Nice treaty (EU constitution) in the various member states also has shown some hints of such a notion.

A split along NATO or EU is next to impossible; there are only two politically significant NATO members outside CONUS that are not members of the EU - Norway and Turkey.

 

[Grand Danois]

Unhappy with yank unilateralism, where they?

Well, a "Core Europe" would obviously not be (and is not) sensitive to others concerns or too neutered to be counted on.

Which is why everybody will look to the US, regardless of their foreign policies.

Player or stayer.

 

[kato]

Well, it's actually a concept that has been around even a good time before the Iraq invasion; that split by the Yanks into "New" and "Old Europe" just pushed it.

The first (larger) mention was the Kerneuropa paper of now German interior minister Schäuble and the foreign politics advisor of the conservative Christian-Democrats Karl Lamers. Both, afaik, still support "Core Europe". The Green former German foreign minister Fischer was a supporter, but has distanced himself lately as "it splits Europe" (duh).

Through overlapping treaty opt-ins, this "Core Europe" can be for example defined as France, Germany, Benelux, Italy, the Iberian peninsula and Greece (all members in: NATO, WEU, Schengen, Eurozone); at the time Kerneuropa was written, it was called "5-6 countries", namely France, Germany, Benelux and Italy as 6th, with Spain and the UK as possible later accessions depending on cooperation.

"Core Europe" in that paper was planned as a political heavyweight on a similar power scale to Russia, and essentially seeing eye-to-eye with ally USA.

 

[Grand Danois]

Mmm. I doubt they could get Holland on that wagon today.

But wrt members, it sounds like the Europäische Gemeinschaft für Kohle und Stahl - sans Greece & Spain.

In a Cold War environment this would be close to prostration, considering the political layout.

 

[SABRE]

Although European Divide is getting very interesting discussion we are drifting away from our original topic; that is NATO's Multiple Frontiers.

 

[Topmaul]

A little off topic but keep screwing with Russia and it will be a cold winter in western Europe.

 

[Grand Danois]

A little off topic but keep screwing with Russia and it will be a cold winter in western Europe.

Nobody cares what happens inside the borders of Russia.

 

[Feanor]

A cold war indeed when the heating goes out

On a more serious note, NATO was set for becoming obsolete until this crisis. With the Russia-NATO council and the huge joint cooperation, Russia may have eventually become part of NATO, which would have become the last nail in the coffin of the alliance. The Georgian crisis, however, seems to be giving NATO a second life at least temporarily on an anti-Russian basis.

 

[Grand Danois]

A cold war indeed when the heating goes out

On a more serious note, NATO was set for becoming obsolete until this crisis. With the Russia-NATO council and the huge joint cooperation, Russia may have eventually become part of NATO, which would have become the last nail in the coffin of the alliance. The Georgian crisis, however, seems to be giving NATO a second life at least temporarily on an anti-Russian basis.

Never thought that NATO went out of relevance after the Cold War - an alliance can also be used to control territorial and military aspirations of its members. And I certainly don't belong to the group that think Afghanistan defines it. Not a core mission, never was.

Anyhow, in the 80s in Afghanistan the CIA said: "Pass the Stingers!"

Today, the Europeans say: "Pass the gas!"

 

[Feanor]

NATO as a military-political unified block was becoming obsolete. It was no longer a central unified organization that pursued clear goals.

 

[kato]

True, in particular with the changing role certain members set out for the alliance.

The Kosovo War was essentially the last joint effort of NATO, after that all went downhill - and even before that, there was already heightened tension between members, in particular over Bosnia.

 

[Grand Danois]

Depends on (national) perspective I guess. Seen from Denmarks vantage point, NATO was the tool to extend security guarantees to the Baltic States. Now we do not have a Georgian situation there.

 

[Feanor]

Don't have a Georgian situation there at the moment. If Russia manages to weather this storm, and afterwards rebuild close ties with the west, in particular old Europe, then after some time Russia itself may be once again on track to becoming a member of NATO. Given the amount of joint military exercises and the weapon trade between Russia and NATO states (Russia bought more weapons from the USA in 2007 then Georgia: http://newsru.com/world/27aug2008/usa_arms.html) Russia is likely to eventually join the alliance, and turn it into a farce entirely.

Alternatively if the USA can rally old Europe against Russia once again, NATO may again have meaning to it as a single political/military entity rather then a loose umbrella organization that's busy babysitting Eastern Europe.

 

[merocaine]

Never thought that NATO went out of relevance after the Cold War - an alliance can also be used to control territorial and military aspirations of its members. And I certainly don't belong to the group that think Afghanistan defines it. Not a core mission, never was.

So what is its core mission? controlling the military aspirations of its members?
Being realistic there is no threat from Russia to any member states in Nato or the EU. Either over the long term or the short term, Russia will have its hands full trying to maintain it position.
The Threat from Russia is a Paper tiger.
Afghanistan is the only mission of note! It should never have been a mission in the first place. The problem is it is the core mission now. Failure there will cast real doubt on its ability to function as a credible military alliance, from a European perspective and from an American POV.
If it wants to have any real relevance it needs Russia to keep stirring the pot.

 

[Grand Danois]

So what is its core mission? controlling the military aspirations of its members?
Being realistic there is no threat from Russia to any member states in Nato or the EU. Either over the long term or the short term, Russia will have its hands full trying to maintain it position.
The Threat from Russia is a Paper tiger.
Afghanistan is the only mission of note! It should never have been a mission in the first place. The problem is it is the core mission now. Failure there will cast real doubt on its ability to function as a credible military alliance, from a European perspective and from an American POV.
If it wants to have any real relevance it needs Russia to keep stirring the pot.

It's to keep the Russians out, the Americans in and the Germans down.

Oh well, at least the yanks help adress the security concerns of many new post-modern democratic European states - allowing them to make independent democratic choices.

But if you read my first post - I'm actually saying that Russia is a paper tiger; they have nothing but fear as a weapon; you know, like threatening to nuke Poland. But you should also consider, that a Baltic state on its own is weaker than Georgia - like half an Ireland right next to a Great Power with the habit of crushing small states in its periphery.

So core mission absolutely relevant - it is only those with the short term view that did not see that and dismissed it.

Russia could be a member or whatnot - but until then...