THE CRUCIAL SUMMIT

Jens Stoltenberg, NATO Secretary General, has described the anniversary 25^th summit of the organization held on 8 and 9 July 2016 in Warsaw as a “turning point”. This time a mission of the members of the Alliance was to arrive at “decisions concerning adaptation with new situation in the security sphere”. “The summit will take place at a defining moment for our security. The world is a more dangerous place than just a few years ago, and we are responding with speed and determination”, said Stoltenberg on the eve of the summit.

The two-day event held in the Polish capital was attended by all 28 member states, delegations from 26 partner countries, as well as the leading international organizations such as the UN and the EU. The final declaration is set to reflect many of the issues critical for global politics - from terrorist threats to Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union. The participating countries reaffirmed their commitment to the famous North Atlantic slogan: “An attack against one Ally is considered as an attack against all Allies”. As for the practical steps forward, the most crucial ones include the declaration of initial operational capability of the NATO missile defense system in Europe, the sustaining of the Resolute Support Mission beyond 2016 for the training and counseling of the Afghan security forces, the establishment of a new joint intelligence and security division to maximize the efficient use of intelligence provided by the allies, as well as the decision on bolstering NATO's presence in the Eastern Europe along the Russian borders.

While NATO has once again assured that it “should not be considered a threat”, some observers have described the Warsaw summit as “a big step towards a new war”. Indeed, the reason behind this warning stems from the escalated level of verbal rhetoric between the Alliance and the Kremlin, closely resembling the times of “cold war”.

Not tease but contain

The recent event is a startling contrast with the anniversary summit held back in 2010 when Russia seemed more than a partner than a rival. It was also notable thanks to the first visit of the then Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to Lisbon after the Russian-Georgian conflict. Back at that time, Moscow and Washington had just “reset” the mutual relations, and the events in Ukraine and Syria were still far away. The NATO members are still considering a constructive dialogue with the Russian Federation as important as with “the biggest neighbor of NATO and an important element of the European security”. However, Russia has not been named a strategic partner anymore while the dialogue with the country will be accompanied by some serious moves that would strengthen the defense capacity of the Alliance. This is mainly due to a conclusion reached by many Western politicians, as well as the civil and military experts who suggest NATO’s incapacity to hold off the possible Russian advance in the Eastern Europe, namely the territories on which Moscow would like to regain its influence. By the same western logic, the Kremlin's desire is evident from its aggressive policy followed in Ukraine and Syria during the recent years, as well as the incidents over the Baltic Sea. On the other hand, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, that home some large Russian-speaking minorities, fear that under a pretense of protecting these communities Russia can exert pressure on these countries and even invade them.

Therefore, as part of the final declaration adopted in Warsaw, several battalions formed in the United States, Germany, Britain, and Canada with a total number of four thousand troops will be placed in Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, and Poland starting the next year, although the maintenance of these divisions will be backed up by almost all of the member states. Although the Alliance does not specify the length of stay in the Eastern Europe, the personnel of battalions is supposed to be updated on a rotational basis since the Founding Act between NATO and Russia signed in 1997 prohibits the presence of NATO military bases along the Russian borders. In the event of staff changes, however, the military bases may be positioned as temporary ones.

Also, according to Polish officials, NATO is supposed to extend the number of troops serving in Poland by another 9 thousand men (i.e., up to 10 thousand) that will be formed from the 5000  members of the Spearhead forces, as well as a separate American brigade of 4000 servicemen. The Americans will also ensure the control over the operation of the missile defense system in Redzikowo. Incidentally, in early June, the Alliance held large-scale military exercises in Poland, which included some 31 thousand troops from Poland, the US, and 17 other member states. The Polish Minister of Defence Antoni Macierewicz described the event as a transfer from the previously used policy based on the desire “not to tease Russia”, to a “policy of containment”.

In addition, the military experts of the Alliance are seriously working on a concept of expanding its presence in the Black Sea region and in the southeastern end of the EU by creating a Romanian-Bulgarian multinational brigade, air patrol units, the support of Turkish troops, as well as the deployment of the elements of NATO missile defense system in Turkey. As for the declared initial operational capability of the NATO missile defense system, it simply means “the US ships based in Spain, the radar in Turkey and the interceptor site in Romania are now able to work together”. This also includes plans to invite Montenegro to join NATO, possible accession of Finland and the traditional expression of support for Georgia and Ukraine.

Stoltenberg insisted that NATO was not interested in confrontation with Russia, nor did the Alliance want a new “cold war” and the spawn of a new arms race. Secretary General claims that the nature of all these measures is purely preventive and that the NATO missile defense system is “entirely defensive” and “represents no threat to Russia's strategic nuclear deterrent”. Moscow does not believe these assurances, declaring its readiness to introduce similar measures of counteraction. According to the spokesperson of the Russian Foreign Ministry Maria Zakharova, “NATO continues to exist in some sort of military-political looking-glass world”, concentrating its efforts “on deterring a nonexistent threat from the East” and “the attempts to demonize Russia in order to justify the undertaken steps in the sphere of military construction have been gaining much hypertrophied forms”.

A clear message

So, what are the expectations of the international community with this regard? Are we doomed to a new arms race, or is this merely sort of a check-in talks between Russia and NATO? Maybe is it another public show? Indeed, despite the gravity of format and intentions, the fact that four thousand troops will be stationed along vast extent of the Russian borders seems a bit frivolous. Also, given the situation in Ukraine and Syria, as well as the sanctions and rather bad economic situation in Russia, it is hard to believe that Moscow may face the challenge of conquering Poland and the Baltic states for no apparent reason. Nevertheless, it seems that both sides enjoy supporting the belligerent rhetoric. Is it because it plays into the hands of both sides? The external enemy consolidates both the Russian society and the EU-NATO ranks, at the same time spurring the economy through military orders. The US, triggered by Britain’s withdrawal from the EU, try to enhance the impact of the Alliance in the region, and it seems convenient to do this under the guise of a threat. The Russian aggression is an ideal option in this case. In his interview to the Spanish El País, Obama said that the American leadership was indispensable to the security and prosperity of the world but Washington could not solve these kinds of transnational challenges alone. Quite a clear “message”.

On the other hand, Russia does not want to be involved in a new arms race, for it simply cannot afford it for reasons mentioned above. It also remembers the consequences of such a race for the USSR. Meanwhile, the situation within NATO does not seem to be as smooth as silk. Many of the member states are unhappy that they have to allocate additional funds for the maintenance of the allied troops. The statistical data shows that the overall military expenditures of NATO member states since 1990 is severalfold more than the same expenditures made in Russia over the same period of time. “So, what is the reason of increasing the defense budget again?”, ask many of the puzzled European countries privately or openly. This is particularly true now, when they need funds to fight the effects of migration from the Middle East and to back up social benefits. And it seems not everyone is happy to live with this.

Moreover, while the Eastern European countries do really consider Russia as a threat to their security, the French president called Moscow a partner adding that “NATO has no authority to say what should be Europe's relations with Russia”. The German Foreign Minister Steinmeier found NATO’s military exercises in the Baltic strange noting that saber-rattling at the Russian border was not necessary. NATO member states also feel distrust to each other. Thus, France is unhappy with strengthening of Germany. Shortly before the Warsaw summit, Bulgaria has unexpectedly refused to participate in the establishment of a permanent NATO fleet in the Black Sea, although this was part of NATO’s containment strategy against Russia. The experts claim that Sofia was afraid of the Turkish dominance in this issue. The point is that the Montreux Convention of 1936 limits the length of stay for the warships of the non-Black Sea states to maximum of 21 days. Therefore, only the littoral NATO member states of Bulgaria, Romania, and Turkey may create a permanent fleet in the Black Sea and Ankara is the most powerful state among them in terms of the Navy.

Five years later

Going back to the NATO summit in Lisbon in 2010, which has been recognized as the most successful event in the history of the Alliance, we can recall the wave of optimism that it left behind. It was marked by the adoption of the new strategic concept replacing the previous document adopted in 1999. Back at that time, the member states believed that they were able to cultivate conditions that would help the Alliance face the current and future challenges, that the relationship with Russia was “resetting” slowly but steadily, and that they would succeed in Afghanistan. Five years later, it is evident that neither of these objectives have been achieved. The global security is challenged with brand new serious problems caused by the Islamic State, a bloody civil war in Syria, the Ukrainian crisis, and the unprecedented migration issues in Europe. The situation in Afghanistan has been recognized as “difficult” with no room for improvement in the nearest future. The relations with Russia are gradually getting cold and it is easy to find reasons for escalation of the situation on such a vast area from the Baltic Sea to the Middle East, including the South Caucasus. It is pretty clear that Stoltenberg is disingenuous - NATO cannot simply “adapt” to the new realities. It is just too strong and formidable to act as a neutral party. NATO has always seriously affected the realities and created new ones when necessary. But despite the abundance of the available response options, their true intents and purposes often lie much deeper than declarative statements.