Can NATO Reassure its Eastern Members and Deter Putin?

September 23, 2015

by John Gennace

100415a-HQ28-001 NATO Headquarters Brussels.

September 14th marked the start of Russia’s largest military exercise this year – Center 2015 – in which 95,000 Russian military personnel conducted war games designed to test the readiness of forces to “contain an international armed conflict.” The exercise, which took place in the immense region between the Urals and Siberia, came on the heels of a very active year for the Russian military. In August alone, it held 79 drills. For NATO’s concerned eastern members, and the Alliance as a whole, the message is clear – the eastern flank of the Alliance requires more robust reassurance and deterrence against an increasingly aggressive Russian military.

There remains, however, a disconnect between NATO’s strong rhetoric condemning Russian actions in Ukraine and how the Alliance’s actions are perceived on the ground.  While in Berlin this past June, U.S. Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter stressed that “as Russia aggressively modernizes its military capabilities and warfighting doctrine, it’s also actively seeking to undermine NATO….”  He went on to emphasize that although the United States does not seek conflict with Russia, it “will defend…[its] allies, the rules-based international order, and…stand up to Russia’s actions and their attempts to reestablish a Soviet-era sphere of influence.” A similar view was conveyed almost three weeks earlier by NATO’s Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg when he argued that “[w]hat we see is more unpredictability, more insecurity, more unrest…[however] I believe we don’t see any immediate threat against any NATO country from the east.” Even so, NATO’s eastern member states – from Estonia to Bulgaria – are lobbying hard for permanent NATO bases on their territories as a deterrent against further Russian adventurism. This is a plan that Germany and some other NATO members oppose on the grounds that it violates a 1997 agreement between NATO and Russia known as the Founding Act, which obliges NATO not to place “substantial combat forces” in Central and Eastern Europe.

Although NATO has significantly increased the frequency of its exercises in an attempt to supplement its rhetorical reassurances and deterrence, their size and scope pale in comparison to Russia’s war gaming.  While Russian exercises routinely include tens of thousands of personnel mobilized in as little as 48-72 hours from all branches of its armed forces, recent NATO exercises are minuscule by comparison, sometimes involving only a few thousand troops and as little as a few hundred. For instance, the NATO exercise Allied Spirit II was conducted August 4th-24th with 1,600 troops from Canada, Hungary, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the U.S. The exercise Saber Guardian/Rapid Trident 15, which went from July 20th-31st, was a “regional command post exercise and field training exercise that focused on peacekeeping and stability operations” and was conducted with 1,800 troops from 18 countries. These exercises fall short of reassuring NATO’s eastern members and deterring the threat posed by Russia – a threat that the newly appointed Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, U.S. Marine Corps General Joseph Dunford, emphatically described as “the greatest threat to…[U.S.] national security.”  While NATO is scheduled to kick-off Trident Juncture 15, its largest exercise in a decade involving 36,000 troops, it will take place in Western Europe, the Atlantic Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea – quite far from Eastern Europe, where a strong NATO presence would reassure concerned member states and is arguably more fitting.

Perhaps one of the greatest challenges to NATO effectively reassuring its members and deterring future Russian aggression is disagreement over the threat itself. Member states on NATO’s eastern flank are singularly focused on Russia as memories of Soviet domination inform their views on collective defense. Meanwhile, member states to the south and west are fixated on ISIS and the unfolding refugee and migrant crisis. A recent Pew study found potentially deep divisions within NATO, revealing that “at least half of Germans, French and Italians say their country should not use military force to defend a NATO ally if attacked by Russia.” Yet “coalitions of the willing” risk undermining NATO’s cohesiveness and, by extension, its reassurance and deterrence value.

Be that as it may, the near-term Russian threat remains and the U.S. must be the driving force within NATO to assume an appropriate reassurance and deterrence posture in the east.  While the U.S. has moved additional heavy weapons and equipment into the region, more should be done. The U.S. should provide Ukraine with defensive weapons in order to a) deter further Russian intervention and b) if deterrence fails, to inflict upon Russian forces such severe damage that it will reconsider its Ukraine policy and seek a peaceful resolution to the conflict.  Additionally, as has been argued by some, NATO should revive the Long-Term Defense Plan (LTDP) with a particular emphasis on Eastern Europe’s security. An updated LTDP would support several workable concepts such as the prepositioning of weapons and material, the creation of a U.S. Corps headquarters based in Poland, and standardizing Eastern European forces with U.S. weapons and communications systems for optimal interoperability with U.S. and other NATO forces.

For many, the notion that Russia could pose a serious military threat to Europe seemed fantastic prior to its incursion into Ukraine in February 2014. Had the Alliance more accurately interpreted Russian intentions in the months leading up to its annexation of Crimea, it could have strengthened its deterrence posture toward Russia by taking steps such as deploying forces along its eastern flank.  As we see yet again with the “surprise” of Russia’s military deployment to Syria, Putin possesses the will to move aggressively on states bordering NATO. Therefore, it is time for NATO to boost its reassurance and deterrence value or risk more unpleasant surprises from Putin elsewhere on its periphery or on Alliance territory.

John Gennace as a Transatlantic Security and Global Governance Analyst at the Streit Council. Photo credit: NATO

Relieving Stress: The Security Case for Massive U.S. Intervention in Europe’s Refugee and Migrant Crisis

September 16, 2015

by Andrew Blinkinsop

Refugees and Migrants

It has been a stressful year for the European Union. The Greek debt crisis laid bare deep divisions between Europe’s north and south, stressing the joints of the monetary union. Now the EU is being dealt another blow in the shape of hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers at its doorstep, driven from their homes by violent conflict in Africa and the Middle East. An explosion in the number of refugees and migrants, and a few cases, including the discovery of 71 bodies of asylum seekers in a truck in Austria, have propelled the issue to the fore, from Europe’s periphery to its center. As Europe struggles with finding its own solution to the crisis, attention is turning to whether or not the U.S. should respond and, if so, what its response should be. Refugee advocacy groups and some U.S. politicians want the U.S. to accept more Syrian refugees, calling the 1,500 accepted since the start of the civil war there too low.

Doing what is right or what is safe?

The issue from the U.S. perspective is often viewed as a tradeoff between humanitarian and security concerns. The moral obligation to act is self-evident and speaks to core American values inscribed on the Statue of Liberty, to welcome with open arms the “tempest-tossed.” However, the argument goes, we must balance this noble desire with the hard-nosed reality that among these huddled masses may be radical Islamists who mean us harm. But this neat dichotomy between morality and security is a false one. When we abandon the myopic frame that casts counterterrorism as the be-all-end-all of security and look at U.S. security more broadly, it becomes clear that a policy to admit a very large number of refugees serves both causes.

Islamic terrorism is, without a doubt, a significant threat to U.S. security. However, it is far from the only one, and some in the U.S. national security establishment no longer see it as the primary one. Several prominent U.S. generals give that dubious distinction to Russia and its revisionist aspirations, and others place primacy on cyberattacks orchestrated by hostile governments. Determining a “top threat” is a matter of contention. Whether facing these threats or the myriad others emerging in an increasingly multipolar world, what is clear is that a healthy, unified European Union remains indispensable to U.S. security.

Stresses on the EU’s structure

At the moment, though, the EU is in the midst of a crisis of identity and legitimacy. The pressures of economic recession have propelled euroskeptic parties to political relevance in many EU countries. From the UKIP in Britain to the National Front in France to Jobbik in Hungary, these parties disparage Brussels institutions and seek to unravel many of the ties built between EU nations in the past half-century. These and other right-wing euroskeptic parties across Europe share two additional characteristics of concern: nationalist ideologies hostile to immigrants and foreign policy positions antithetical to U.S. security goals.

Beyond the threat to U.S. security that would result from a weakened and divided EU, euroskeptic parties also often exhibit an anti-U.S. stance and some have concerning ties to Russia. For example, Marie Le Pen of France’s National Front stated that the U.S. is “not an ally or a friend” to France, while her party has substantial ties to Russian banks. Across the continent, Jobbik wants Hungary to join Putin’s Eurasian Customs Union. In general, Russia has made no secret of courting euroskeptic politicians, and the euroskeptic faction ENF in the European Parliament has a voting record closely aligned to Moscow’s interests.

The danger of euroskeptic parties should not be overstated; for now, these parties have fairly limited representation in European capitals and the EU itself. However, these parties do pose a potential threat to European unity and American security goals. A Pew survey conducted in April and May showed that despite the lack of strong electoral success thus far, many viewed the rise of euroskeptic parties as “a good thing” for politics, including a majority of respondents in the UK and Germany. This indicates substantial room for growth for these parties – room that could be filled by nationalist appeals to EU citizens’ worries about immigration, the top issue of concern across the EU according to the May Eurobarometer poll. The euroskeptic right views the refugee and migrant crisis as a path to electoral success, and it could be right.

Lessening the stress

Europe sits on a fulcrum with solidarity, unity and the benefits of open borders on one side, and nationalism, distrust and a lack of confidence in the European project on the other. Each stressor, from the Greek debt negotiations to disagreements over Russian sanctions to refugees and migrants, represents another weight on the latter side of the scale. In the interest of a Europe “whole and free,” and by extension U.S. security, the Obama Administration should work to lessen this stress and tip the scale.

The U.S. can do this by dramatically increasing the number of refugees it accepts from source countries. Explaining the moral and strategic considerations to the American public, the Obama Administration should specifically commit to accepting large numbers of refugees from Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq. In addition to their relevance to U.S. policy, these three countries are the source of a large percentage of refugees and migrants currently moving to and through Europe, accounting for 279,866 or 68% of Mediterranean Sea arrivals so far this year. The acceptance of 10,000 Syrian refugees into the U.S. in 2016, as called for by President Obama on Thursday, is not nearly enough. The 65,000 figure called for by a group of 14 U.S. senators, as well as the International Rescue Committee, would make a more meaningful impact on America’s European allies.

To make this work, according to International Rescue Committee President David Miliband, the U.S. government would need to raise its current annual refugee cap of 70,000. There is also the issue that asylum requests take an especially long time to process due to security concerns. Many refugees are turned away due to trivial connections with armed groups that controlled areas they lived in. The U.S.’s strict definitions of “material support of terror groups” cast too many asylum-seekers out and are ill-suited for dealing with the complexities of a civil war. Thus, the U.S. government must issue needed guidance on material support waivers to expand groups of eligible refugees, and establish a family reunification mechanism to streamline applications.

Political feasibility

If the threat to U.S. security lies essentially in the potential for an anti-immigrant, anti-EU backlash, why would the U.S. be immune from the same effects? Given the anti-immigrant turn of the Republican primaries, how would this proposal play domestically?

This is precisely why a re-framing of the issue is needed. If the “security vs. morality” lens remains our only one, the debate will likely fall along partisan lines, with “bleeding hearts” railing against the supposed inhumanity of one side and the “hard-nosed realists” scoffing at the naïveté of the other. But that is not a foregone conclusion. Some Republican presidential candidates, including Lindsey Graham and Donald Trump, have already expressed their willingness to admit more Syrian refugees. By approaching security concerns more broadly, the debate about Syrian refugees could leap the partisan divide and offer a chance for the U.S. to assert moral and strategic leadership.

Andrew Blinkinsop is a Transatlantic Security Analyst at the Streit Council. Photo credit: Freedom House

From Mare Nostrum (Our Sea) to Mare Vestrum (Your Sea): Transatlantic Insecurity in the Mediterranean

July 13, 2015

by Fabio Capano

Migrants in the Mediterranean

“The Mediterranean, by its profound influence over southern Europe, has contributed in no small measure to prevent the unity of that Europe, which it has attracted towards its shores and then divided to its own advantage.”

With these words French historian Fernand Braudel highlighted the porosity of the Mediterranean’s borders as well as competition among multiple social, political and economic systems. Although Braudel was writing of the 16th century, the Mediterranean today is just as divisive. The Arab Spring, which brought protests, civil wars and dramatic sociopolitical changes in the Middle East and North Africa, also led to massive waves of migration from the Libyan coast toward Europe. This vast movement of people, which continues today, undermines geopolitical stability and poses major challenges for transatlantic security.

The Mediterranean, which in the past was perceived as “the lake of Europe,” is now transformed into a no-man’s land. The impressive flow of migrants from the Middle East and North Africa represents not only an unprecedented humanitarian tragedy at Europe’s southern border, but it is also offering terrorist groups a unique opportunity to “export” terror to Europe’s mainland. Indeed, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg stated that “one of the problems is that there might be foreign fighters; there might be terrorists trying to hide, trying to blend in among the migrants.”

In an attempt to respond to what was originally understood as a refugee crisis, the Italian government led a massive rescue operation that became known as “Mare Nostrum,” or “Our Sea” in October 2013.  In November 2014, the EU agreed to remove the financial and logistical burden from Italy and began Operation Triton. Despite its promise to replace Mare Nostrum, the number of deaths of migrants crossing the Mediterranean increased exponentially under the new program, mostly due to its smaller search and rescue capabilities and minimal budget. Also troubling were findings that incoming migrants rescued by Operation Triton’s vessels often entered the tiny Italian island of Lampedusa, about 70 miles off the coast of Tunisia, without having their fingerprints recorded or identification documents requested. This lapse in security due to insufficient resources and poor planning has left Europe potentially exposed to radicalized migrants whose recruitment by terrorist organizations such as ISIS and al Qaeda is facilitated by instability in the Middle East and North Africa.

This potential threat has been overshadowed by the human cost of the crisis. Media attention to the humanitarian dimension of this challenge placed increasing pressure on Europe to propose a more effective strategy. In May, EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini announced three new proposals: A European naval operation to better tackle this human emergency; stronger coordination with African governments that control the shores from which smugglers arrange the mass departures of refugees; and, aware of the immense desperation of refugees to escape violent conflict in their home countries, the  use of military force to destroy the smugglers’ network. NATO confirmed its support for this last European initiative and expressed its willingness to send training forces to Libya and provide intelligence on smugglers’ vessels crossing the Mediterranean. 

Following up on Mogherini’s proposals, on June 22nd the European Council launched a naval operation against human smugglers and traffickers in the Mediterranean called “EUNAVFOR Med.” This operation consists of three phases: The surveillance and assessment of human smuggling and trafficking networks in the Southern Central Mediterranean; search and, if necessary, seizure of suspicious vessels; and the disposal of vessels and related assets. It is too early to assess the effectiveness of this strategy, but it will greatly depend  on the agreement among EU members to move beyond this first encouraging step. Although a UN Security Council resolution would further legitimize the European plan, an EU planning paper obtained by EU Observer stated that intelligence gathering and the seizure of ships can begin without it.  

This plan responds to the criticism that Europe’s inaction has turned the Mediterranean into a graveyard rather than the cradle of European civilization. Indeed, the long stalemate inside the EU over the redistribution of incoming migrants entering the Italian peninsula greatly undermines Europe’s claims to serve as a haven of democracy and freedom for its neighboring countries. Not only did its prolonged indifference weaken its exterior image as an indefatigable promoter of human rights, but it also became a pretext for egoistic avarice and nationalistic populism, ultimately leading to calls for a more comprehensive approach to support political stability, economic development and the strengthening of local governance in its Mediterranean neighbors.

While this strategy was formed to curb illegal immigration in the Mediterranean, it also advances the fight against international terrorism. As argued above, the potential facilitation of terrorist activities in Europe under the cloak of refugees escaping bloody civil, political and religious wars has not received enough media attention. Only recently has there been some recognition that terrorist groups operating in Syria, Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan and South Sudan are using the displacement of millions of people as a strategic weapon against international coalitions. This threat further forces Europe to reconsider its short-term strategic approach to the Mediterranean. Although the EUNAVFOR Med holds great promise, its multi-phased nature may significantly impede a rapid response to infiltration by terrorists.

A more prompt and comprehensive strategy would focus on migration at its sources. It would first consider reinforcing the stability of the Turkish-Syrian border by directly negotiating with the Turkish and Syrian government to facilitate the deployment of UN ground troops in both Turkey and Syria. However, this strategic move cannot be achieved without Russia’s support inside the UN and therefore calls for negotiations with Moscow despite the recent deterioration in diplomatic relations. This consideration further proves the interconnected nature of current crises on the eastern and southern flanks of the European Union. As a result, the EU should consider losing rather than strengthening economic sanctions against Moscow in exchange for Russian support for a UN Security Council resolution under Chapter VII in Syria (allowing the deployment of blue helmets in the country) and the enforcement of the Minsk agreements in eastern Ukraine. By no means should this be interpreted as recognition of Russian sovereignty over the Crimean region; rather, it should serve as a temporary instrument to re-launch dialogue while involving the Kremlin in a broader and more rapid response to the Mediterranean crisis.

Second, the EU and the U.S. should promptly provide tangible and financial rewards such as greater shares in potential revenue from innovation, energy and natural resources-related projects to Tunisian and Moroccan governments. This could enhance broader Mediterranean governance in exchange for the international patrolling of smugglers’ routes. Similar incentives could be extended to the Libyan government, but would only possible with successful mediation in the current civil war, which is not only devastating the country but also strengthening the position of jihadist tribes. In this case, it also appears necessary to resolve differences with both Russia and China in order to pass a UN Security Council resolution to legitimize an international intervention that establishes a truce between the opposing factions. 

Implementing these practical steps toward the creation of a safer and freer Mediterranean represents a unique test not only to the unity of intent of European countries but also to that of the transatlantic partners in the Mediterranean. After the dramatic split over the U.S.-led war in Iraq, and varying degrees of disunity over intervention in Libya and proposed action in Syria, the Mediterranean crisis represents a unique opportunity for Europe to prove its willingness to act with a single voice in international affairs and deepen integration in the military sphere. Due to the global nature of the terrorist threat, Europe also needs to further deepen transatlantic ties with its American ally. Only a combined response from the main bearers of Western values and ideals can transform the Mediterranean into a crossing point of civilizations and a borderland of hope and opportunity.

Fabio Capano is a transatlantic security analyst at the Streit Council. Photo credit: International Organization for Migration

A Bloody Borderland: Insight into the Ukraine Crisis

June 9, 2015

by Fabio Capano

The Crimean War of 1854-1855 deeply challenged Russian military dominance over the European continent and significantly upset the balance of power that was established in Vienna in 1815. More than a century and a half later, Russia’s aggressive strategy in Crimea is reawakened the ghost of former Czarist ambitions of westward expansion. Although different in their scope and nature, these wars seemingly defied the geopolitical order established after the end of the Napoleonic Revolutionary Wars in the former case and the Cold War in the latter. Today, Russia’s territorial ambition in Crimea represents the greatest challenge to the widely shared principles of national sovereignty, territorial integrity and peoples’ right to self-determination that emerged from the ashes of two world wars. More than a year after Russia’s annexation of Crimea, this specific feature of the conflict deserves the attention of the international community as it has major implications for the European order.

Putin’s War: The Return to Cold War Politics

The fall of the Berlin Wall inaugurated a season of unprecedented geopolitical changes within the Soviet bloc. Shortly before the formal dissolution of the Soviet Union, the Ukrainian Parliament declared its independence in the summer of 1991. Within a few months, many countries, including Russia, recognized Ukraine’s right to be an independent and sovereign nation. Ukraine’s new territorial borders also included the Crimean region, a political entity that showed strong autonomous ambitions. Nonetheless, Crimea remained an integral part of the Ukrainian state until the Euromaidan Revolution of February 2014. By the end of March of that year, life in the country had changed dramatically: its president had fled, its Crimean region had been occupied by Russian forces and quickly annexed, and its military had entered into an armed conflict in the Donbass region with separatist forces supported by Russia.

Despite the short-lived optimism of the Minsk cease-fire agreement, these events have further reignited Cold War practices and rhetoric that views Moscow as the main threat to European peace and stability. This tense relationship can be traced back to President Putin’s election in 2012, which effectively distanced Russian politics from Medvedev’s moderate progressivism. Over the years Putin’s image has transmuted into “something close to idolatry” despite a strong economic recession, which has been further aggravated by increased spending on national and military defense. His cult of personality has been facilitated by fears of Western encirclement over “free market imperialism” and NATO expansion to former Soviet satellites.

Therefore, the Ukraine crisis is both a test and an opportunity for NATO, the West and the European Union. On one hand, it is upon these powers to defy Russian aggressiveness by holding economic sanctions, supplying humanitarian aid and strengthening defenses. On the other hand, opposing Putin and his aggressive strategy may also represent a unique opportunity in which European partners can achieve energy independence, unveil Moscow’s corruption and populist demagogy, and further advance transatlantic relations toward a safer and freer world. Ultimately, the transatlantic partners’ legacy will be measured by their ability to effectively preserve what is truly at stake: the territorial integrity of independent and sovereign states.

An Unprecedented Challenge to Postwar Europe

The inviolability of the frontiers that were established after 1945 has become one of the main “victims” of the Ukraine war. This principle, sanctioned by the Helsinki agreements of 1975, long guaranteed geopolitical stability and invaluably contributed to the peaceful settling of state disputes while refraining from the use of military force. At that time, 35 countries, including the former Soviet Union, signed the agreement. Nonetheless, the Russian Federation, one of the successor states of the Soviet Union and a signatory of the Helsinki Act, has bluntly violated its obligations.

Interpreting Russia’s breach of international law by simply attributing it to Putin’s political leadership may be inaccurate. This breach is better understood within the broader frame of regime transitions that followed the disintegration of the Soviet bloc. Different from its Eastern satellites that quickly gravitated toward the European community, the Russian Federation and the other former Soviet Republic experienced a more troublesome and complex transformation from a communist into a post-communist state.

What George Kennan described in his Long Telegram from Moscow in 1946 as “Kremlin’s neurotic view of world affairs” survived the end of the Cold War. In a context of unprecedented political, economic, and social transformation among its neighbors, Russia also had to witness the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, the communist-led military alliance that for almost 50 years guaranteed the cohesion and security of the Eastern bloc. Its counterpart, however, did not disappear. Indeed, NATO has reinvented itself by becoming the leading military response force to threats to Western security. These threats were not related to international communism, but rather the resurgence of ethnonationalism and later, religious extremism.

These changes in NATO’s scope and nature have faced major criticism from Moscow, which has often perceived NATO’s new role as an instrument of Western interference into domestic affairs of sovereign nations. When looking at today’s Ukraine, this critique appears incredibly hypocritical, yet NATO’s military interventions in the Yugoslav wars as well as multiple peacekeeping and peacebuilding missions in both Southeastern Europe and Africa have attracted more founded concerns from its detractors. Moreover, NATO’s role in the military campaigns that followed 9/11 and the harsh debates inside the UN reignited the feasibility of Western “mission civilizatrice.” However, following the Crimean events, NATO re-embraced its original raison d’être as a shield from Russian aggressiveness and an integrative force for its former republics.

The Russian-sponsored separatist war in Crimea marked a new chapter in post-war international affairs. For the first time since 1945, a country has supported the secession of a region that is part of a bordering sovereign and independent state while also using military force to invade and occupy the same region in the name of peoples’ right to self-determination. The use of force and the rebuttal of diplomacy as a means to settle state disputes certainly represent one of the most frightening features of this crisis and calls for an enduring response from the international community.    


The violent confrontation between Ukraine and Russian separatist forces is being played upon opposing nationalist ambitions over a region whose conflicting ethnic and political identities reemerged after 1989. Russia’s violation of the territorial integrity of Ukraine, an independent state, has been largely perceived by Western countries as a direct attack on one of their leading principles: national sovereignty and territorial integrity. The United States and the European Union’s response has largely relied on the use of soft power: economic sanctions against Russia, partnership agreements with the former Soviet Republics, and humanitarian aid. While the United States has gone as far as to grant military training to Ukrainian troops, EU members are still entangled in internal debates. The EU’s inability to deepen common defense capabilities has further reaffirmed NATO’s role as the single most credible instrument of defense for crisis management of the West.

More important, analyzing the Crimean conflict through the lenses of geography, politics and identity tackles the Ukrainian crisis at its core. Territorial changes in the geography of an area also imply changes in its political allegiances. According to Moscow, the local population in Crimea never strayed from its political loyalty to the Russian motherland. Thus, it argues that its reincorporation simply fulfills Western principles of peoples’ right to self-determination. In Moscow’s view, both the transatlantic partners and Russia are fighting to affirm the same principle. This message is clearly misleading and oblivious to the true nature of the issue. Conducting a referendum during military occupation impairs voters’ ability to freely express their will.

Thus, transatlantic partners need to first counter Moscow’s misleading rhetoric. Although repression and censorship is rampant in Russia, the use of international media provides an opportunity to enter into the hearts and minds of the Russian people. Therefore, supporting domestic opposition to President Putin appears to be the best means to contain Russian aggressiveness. Although some analysts have pointed out that political opposition to Putin is extremely fragmented and an easy target for governmental repression, providing financial and political support to underground grassroots movements could actually enhance voices of dissent within Russian national public opinion.

Second, European partners need to quickly overcome their divergent strategies and budget constraints. Although asking European constituencies to devote more resources to defense can be extremely unpopular in a context of the recent recession, the EU can no longer postpone the creation of an autonomous military force to rapidly and effectively respond to challenges on its borders. As the wars in the former Yugoslavia amply demonstrated, Europe was incapable of containing localized ethnopolitical violence that produced waves of atrocities unseen since 1945.

Finally, the transatlantic partners need to firmly sustain current economic sanctions against Moscow while also leaving room for dialogue with both the Kremlin and its partners. In this respect, the Ukraine crisis is proving the United Nations’ inability to serve as the defender of international peace and security. Its outdated system of governance needs to be deeply revised and rethought; otherwise, it will continue to lack the capacity to fulfill its mission.   

As history has shown, the fluidity of state borders has caused much more harm than good to Europe over the years. After 1945, the impulse to expand was subdued by the imperatives of international peace and geopolitical stability. The mutually accepted permanence of national frontiers assisted both sides during the Cold War. While it greatly helped Moscow minimize Western interference in its internal affairs, it also fostered Soviet satellites’ ambitions for national independence and territorial integrity. And just as the Soviet Union attempted to contain these ambitions through political violence and military force, it is clear that the Russian Federation has taken on the same task more than two decades later.

Fabio Capano is a transatlantic security analyst at the Streit Council. Photo credit: German Federal Archives 

The Case for Arms: What is at Stake if Weapons are Sent to Ukraine

June 3, 2015

by Arie Groenveld

Lithuanian Mechanized Troops

Since the Ukraine Crisis began, Western states have faced growing pressure to provide the Ukrainian government with lethal weapons to combat Russian and separatist forces in the east of the country. President Obama has so far been reluctant to provide arms, first wanting to give sanctions more time and exhaust all possible diplomatic efforts. The administration is torn on the issue, as are many European governments that have been involved in seeking a peaceful resolution to the conflict. German, French and other European leaders are, however, more vocally opposed to arming Ukraine, doubtful that such as escalation would convince Putin to back down. As Russia positions itself for another military intervention and the conflict resumes, many Western leaders will face renewed calls to send lethal aid to Kiev – a dangerous proposition that they should resist.

Arguments for lethal aid

Russian and separatist forces made significant gains this year and inflicted heavy losses on the Ukrainian army. The U.S. pledged to support Ukraine with non-lethal aid, but even fulfilling that promise has fallen short so far. The U.S has not sent many urgently requested items, such as body armor, night vision devices, aviation fuel and more sophisticated communications equipment, which it dubbed “force multipliers.” Ukraine is currently undergoing a full military mobilization and possesses a large domestic arms industry. Despite these factors, experts claim that Ukraine will not be able to defend its territory against Russian and separatist forces if it does not acquire the requested equipment. While Ukraine may still be unable to stop their advance with lethal aid, raising the costs of intervention for Russia might help change Putin’s calculations.

The Ukraine Freedom Support Act of December 2014 authorized President Obama to provide weapons to Ukraine, but so far the president has instead opted to pursue diplomatic and economic efforts. The first was through sanctions and the second was via the Minsk Agreements, which have not yielded any significant results. Calls for arming Ukraine increased after the Minsk ceasefires failed to stop the fighting and secure a change in Moscow‘s policy. In March, the House of Representatives voted 348 to 48 on a resolution urging the president to provide lethal aid to Kiev. Their views have been echoed by  Obama Administration officials and high-profile commentators such as General Wesley Clark. Many believe that not reacting to Russian aggression in Ukraine will be interpreted as tolerating it, and therefore invite further aggression elsewhere. This last point in particular has driven many Baltic and Eastern European states to push for a permanent NATO presence on Russia’s periphery, out of fear that they could be next.


The potential hazards of supplying Ukraine with lethal aid have shaped the debate from the beginning. If the West as a whole, or the United States alone, pursues this policy, it is argued that Russia would not hesitate to match it. Russia could supply greater quantities of arms to the separatists more rapidly than the U.S., and possibly even its NATO allies, would be able to supply Kiev. Moscow could also intensify its own direct involvement, which would further escalate the conflict. Russia would likely escalate regardless of any initial success Ukrainian forces might achieve, calling into doubt the net efficacy of lethal aid in the first place. Furthermore, the prospect of Russian citizens being killed by American weaponry would serve Russia’s disinformation campaign against the West and possibly act as a catalyst for retaliation.

A decision to supply lethal aid to Ukraine would also jeopardize Western cohesion. Already, internal EU disputes have marred the chances for a cohesive approach. Most visibly, Greece has pushed against broader sanctions against Russia as its new government is at odds with the rest of the Eurozone over its own economic situation. More importantly, Germany, France and many other EU states are opposed to arming Ukraine, so if the U.S. decides to do so unilaterally it might split NATO and undermine the Alliance’s credibility. Faced with escalation, Moscow could also interfere with Western policies elsewhere. Amid a warming of U.S.-Iranian relations, Moscow stands to lose a key bargaining chip in Iran and potentially a great deal of revenue from Iran’s lucrative nuclear, petrochemical and manufacturing industries if Iran has its sanctions lifted. In this scenario, Iran could even grow to compete with Russia in oil and natural gas exports, further worsening Russia’s economic outlook. Putin could set himself against rapprochement between the West and Iran and seek to thwart a deal on its nuclear program.

Policy moving forward

On balance, Western leaders have been prudent in pursuing a diplomatic solution. While renewed Russian intervention in Ukraine would be the strongest indication yet that the West’s current strategy toward Russia is insufficient to resolve the crisis, the alternative of arming Ukraine would lead to a worse outcome. Western states have little choice but to maintain their risk-averse approach of showing strength and support for NATO states closest to Russia – enhancing confidence in their Article 5 commitments –while sustaining sanctions in an effort to curtail further Russian encroachment and alter Moscow’s behavior in the longer-term.  

Arie Groenveld is a transatlantic security analyst at the Streit Council. Photo credit: U.S. Army Europe 

Russia’s New Military Doctrine and NATO

March 3, 2015

by Arie Groenveld

PutinOn December 26, 2014, Russia released its new military doctrine. In this document, as in the previous edition released in 2010, NATO is named as the main external danger to Russia. While this updated military doctrine was first requested by the Russian Security Council in July 2013, it comes at a time when relations between Russia and NATO are increasingly strained – especially over the conflict in Ukraine. As a result, it includes several new features that have implications for what the alliance should expect from Russia going forward, and how it should prepare.

Continuity, Change and Context

The new military doctrine is similar to 2010 version in several ways. Concern is expressed over NATO’s expanding military presence in Eastern Europe and the potential for expanding its membership up to Russia’s borders. NATO’s increasingly sophisticated missile defense and precision weapons systems are also reiterated as top concerns. The document, moreover, cites NATO’s “global functions” as a violation of international law – a reference to NATO operations over Kosovo in 1999 and Libya in 2011. Other aspects of Russia’s new military doctrine also remain the same: Russia will continuously seek to bolster its own military capabilities and those of its allies, and its nuclear capabilities will be used to deter both nuclear and conventional conflict.

The document does, however, include several additions relevant to NATO, including the perceived danger posed by the overthrow of “legitimate public authorities” friendly to Moscow – a clear reference to developments in Ukraine. An important change is the greater emphasis placed on the perception that foreign actors are using information warfare and “a complex usage [integration] of military force and political, economic, information, and other non-military means, accomplished [in part] through the extensive exploitation of the potential of popular protest and special operations forces.” These are, at the very least, indirect references to what Russia accuses NATO states of doing in Ukraine. Also notable are added references to the Arctic and space. The doctrine now explicitly mentions the Arctic as a key security interest and reiterates the dangers of placing precision weapons in space, but adds that the United Nations should regulate space to prevent its militarization.

These additions and changes to Russia’s military doctrine reflect the Kremlin’s increasingly anti-NATO narrative and actions. As other analysts have argued, Russia now views dangers and threats (which are defined differently in the document) as more immediate than they were during the past two decades, and continues to build its military as it vests little trust in the international system to help maintain a favorable status quo. After Russia’s inability to curtail NATO military action during the Kosovo conflict in 1999, it has seen NATO take steps which it deemed as being anything from aggressive to illegal. As a result, Russia has sought to prop up friendly neighbors such as Belarus and fosters ties with ethnically Russian populations from Ukraine to Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

More recently, the annexation of Crimea and a variety of other intimidating and aggressive actions – such as Russian military planes flying over the Baltic with deactivated transponders – highlight this posture. Moreover, Moscow’s emphasis on information warfare and political subversion as key dangers reflects its own use of “hybrid warfarein Ukraine: the use of special forces, information campaigns and proxies as an alternative to direct warfare.

Implications and Recommendations for NATO

For NATO, the new military doctrine further confirms that it is facing a far more assertive Russia which is willing to act aggressively at times to counter what it perceives to be a deteriorating security environment. The emphasis on precision weapons in space and hybrid warfare – indirect references to perceived dangers emanating from NATO states – illuminates Russia’s growing concern about their activities. Russia’s anti-NATO narrative and actions also signal its intent to address these concerns. NATO should therefore not expect Russia to withdraw from Ukraine without substantial, and most likely unacceptable, incentives to offset its perceived loss of influence there.

In response, NATO must be prepared to reassure its Eastern European members over the long-term, absent a constructive change in leadership and vision in Moscow. Further, as Western sanctions take their toll on Russia’s economy and leadership, and the crisis in Ukraine freezes into a strategic stalemate, NATO must be prepared for Russian action against other states – particularly those with Russian speaking populations – along its periphery.    

Arie Groenveld is a transatlantic security analyst at the Streit Council. Photo credit: Republic of Korea

Home | Streit Council Homepage | Archives | The Streit Council 2015