The More NATO in Our Neck of the Woods - the Better (Gazeta Wyborcza, Poland)
"Putin's imperialism clearly shows that Poland and other
countries of the former Soviet bloc were fully justified in their rush to join
not only NATO, but also the E.U. ... . If Putin is calculating the gains and
losses of an intervention in eastern Ukraine, let him count on prolonged
resistance by a Ukrainian army strengthened by the West."
Pro-Russian protesters rally in downtown Donetsk, Ukraine, calling on ousted President Yanukovych to return and hold a referendum on the status of the Donetsk region like the one held in Crimea, Mar. 29.
Putin's
imperialism clearly shows that Poland and other countries of the former Soviet
bloc were fully justified in their rush to join not only NATO, but also the E.U.
The
Kremlin has forever protested NATO enlargement, and a few years ago, it also
began to recognize the European Union as a geopolitical rival. Brussels is now convinced
that if it had failed to admit Bulgaria and Romania into the Union in 2007,
Russia, through economic means and energy, would soon have tried to sabotage any
such attempt.
The
Union is dutifully helping its newest members, spending big money on, among
other things, policies to boost internal cohesion, increase general prosperity,
and promote the rule of law. In contrast, opinion on the part of the public and
even a segment of the ruling elite in our region of Europe have long had doubts
about whether the NATO allies were fully aware of Putin’s aggressive
aspirations to reconstruct the Russian sphere of influence. Now, mainly the Baltic
countries, are loudly pondering whether, even after the Crimea Anschluss,
the Western allies are prepared to abandon their fantasies of constructing “a
common security area reaching from San Francisco to Vladivostok.”
It
was only 2010 that NATO countries ratified plans for Poland and the Baltic states,
since before that, the West considered a hypothetical attack by post-Soviet
Russia nothing more than a symptom of Polish or Lithuanian hysteria. In 2013,
NATO conducted military exercises called Steadfast Jazz
during which, among other things, it practiced repulsing an attack against
Estonia by a non-fictional country that, for the purpose of the exercises, bore
the name of Bothnia. Yet even then, the
decision to carry out the training was only taken as a political reaction to
Russian military exercises conducted since 2009, the script of which contained a
simulated nuclear attack on Warsaw.
And
after the annexation of Crimea? Military planners are obliged to exercise an
abundance of caution, or, in other words, to prepare a response to even minimally
probable future threats. For now, the United States has sent a number of its
fighter aircraft to patrol the airspace over Poland and other countries in the
area, which is a great way to show solidarity with NATO’s eastern flank, but
only in the short term. The task for the Alliance in the coming weeks and
months will be to formulate a longer-term response.
NATO
planners have already been tasked with estimating the needs arising from the
potential threat from Russia, but the key decisions will perhaps only be taken at
the NATO summit in Wales in September. The likelihood is that this will involve
a recalibration of defense plans and an intensification of military exercises
in our part of Europe. However, the decision to permanently stationing additional
NATO forces in Poland remains an open question. Two brigades in Poland [6,000-10,000
troops] - which is what Foreign Minister RadosławSikorski recently spoke of, doesn't now seem likely,
but perhaps there is a chance for a smaller increase. We should also expect
President Obama to demand more European defense expenditures at this fall’s
NATO summit.
Posted By
Worldmeets.US
And
what about Ukraine? NATO has never been prepared to accept it as a member (which
would require all members to unanimously agree). The main obstacle has been the
reluctance of a number of key members to escalate the confrontation with
Russia. At the same time, Ukrainians themselves are divided on the issue. The Maidan protesters were fighting for closer ties to the E.U.
rather than NATO. That, of course, doesn't mean that NATO cannot help them.
No
one, neither in the United States or Europe, has an appetite for a war with
Russia, but as ZbigniewBrzeziński recently
wrote, the West should signal to Russia that in the event of invasion, the
Ukrainian army can count on immediate and direct Western aid so as to enhance
its defensive capabilities. If Putin is calculating the gains and losses of an
intervention in eastern Ukraine, let him count on prolonged resistance by a Ukrainian
army strengthened by the West.
The North Atlantic
Treaty was signed on April 4, 1949, but the U.S. only ratified it in August. Then, having been ratified by most of its 12 founding members, NATO began
functioning formally.