THE RUSSIAN military is flexing its muscles, and Ukraine is not alone in feeling the heat. In the Baltic states, security is also at risk.
Nato’s difficulties there are compounded by Sweden and Finland who are not part of the Alliance, writes World Review expert Professor Stefan Hedlund.
Some claim Russia’s aggression against Ukraine has breathed new life into Nato. Recent developments in the Alliance have shown an increasing resolve to get back to the original purpose of joint defence.
Symbolic gestures have also been made to ensure that Russian aggression against one member state would be met with an appropriate response. Nato is patrolling the Baltic skies and military exercises have driven home the message of readiness.
The main question is how credible such gestures are. The Kremlin has successfully demonstrated that it can act pretty much as it pleases in Ukraine.
It has also sent shivers through other countries with large Russian minorities, notably Estonia and Latvia. The psychological pressure has entailed troop concentrations and ominous threats.
Russian political scientist Sergei Markov, sometimes seen as Russian President Vladimir Putin’s personal envoy, has issued repeated warnings to Finland that a decision to join Nato would have serious consequences.
In an interview with Swedish Radio, he said of the Baltic states that in a wider regional conflict, 'It is possible that there will not be anything left of these countries.'
The problem goes back to Nato’s 'big bang’ of 2004. It brought into the Alliance not only central European countries which would be easy to defend, but also Estonia and Latvia which are highly exposed in the north.
If Russia invaded, would Nato really be able to come to the rescue? Given the prominent role of Nato’s Article 5, providing for common defence, this is a question of existential importance.
If Russia were to get away with aggression against, say, Estonia, then Article 5 would be a house of cards.
The reason common defence of Estonia is problematic is that neither Finland nor Sweden are Nato members. If they were, a Russian attack could be met with a rapid response.
Technologically advanced forces from Finland and Sweden could bear the brunt of a Russian attack and reinforcements brought quickly into play. The Kremlin would have to think long and hard about such an adventure.
As it is, Russian forces could overrun Estonia, probably within hours. A Nato rescue operation would have to proceed through the Baltic Sea, exposed to Russian interference and deprived of Swedish naval and air force protection.
Warning voices have suggested that this would not be attempted, that Estonia would be abandoned.
Nato would maintain there can be no such question; that all member states receive the same protection. But doubts linger, and are skilfully exploited by Russian propaganda.
The weak link is Sweden. When it opted for neutrality, this was backed up by a robust defence force. In the 1960s, Sweden had the world’s fourth largest air force, capable of launching 1,000 fighters and strike aircraft. Its navy was similarly capable, with a powerful submarine force.
After the Cold War ended in 1991, successive Swedish governments made such deep cuts that hardly anything remains. At the outset of 2013, the Swedish commander-in-chief, General Sverker Goransson, said his forces would only be capable of defending a small part of the territory - and only for a week.
While Swedes seem happy to downsize, neighbouring Finland has been grinding its teeth. Finland retains a robust defence force. It has conscription, and refuses to join the international convention against landmines, reassured that its border with Russia is heavily mined
The problem for Helsinki is that while it takes on the burden of maintaining this military force, which acts as a defensive shield for Sweden, its neighbour has walked away.
The logic is that in an attack, Swedish forces would provide cover in the rear, reducing Russian hopes of pushing through Finland to Norway. As it is, the rear is an open door.
There is growing resentment within the Alliance that Stockholm is counting on being protected by Nato without contributing. This was made explicit by then Nato Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, a Dane, saying that Swedes must realise non-members cannot expect to enjoy the benefits of membership.
This is the core of the Baltic security puzzle. Finland feels it cannot join Nato unless Sweden does too. With these key states remaining outside, Nato will continue to face questions about the credibility of Article 5.
Publication Date:
Mon, 2014-11-24 08:23
Attached Files:
Related Links:
Factbox Title:
Nato and the defence of freedom
Factbox Facts:
Nato, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, was formed in 1949 under the Treaty of Washington to counter the threat of communist expansion after the Second World War.
Its purpose is to ‘safeguard the freedom and security of its members through political and military means’.
There were 12 founding members. Today the Alliance consists of 28 countries and has become the prime guarantor of the West’s security.
Though dominated by the United States, the list of member states now includes countries formerly in the Soviet bloc. The Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland joined in 1999, and in 2004 Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria and Romania were admitted.
Ukraine and Georgia have both applied to be members of Nato, which Russia has strongly opposed, and is an underlying factor in the current conflict in eastern Ukraine .
Key to Nato’s mission is Article 5 of the treaty, by which an attack on one Nato country is considered an attack on all, obliging member states to assist each other through a policy of common defence.
The Alliance launched its biggest military operation in 1999 when it undertook air strikes to push Serbian forces out of Kosovo.