How Much Longer Does NATO Have?

[Waylander]

There is no way NATO is able to hold the baltic states even if they really tried.

But I also don't think that Russia, even in an alliance with Belarus is able to run over Poland in no time.
So IMHO the polish borderland is the limit of what NATO is able to defend.

If an attack on the baltic states happens NATO would need to get enough ground troops together to get it back by land.
And this is the problem.
I have no doubt that NATO is going to fight for every meter of polish soil in order not to let the fighting spread to other NATO countries.

But does NATO has the guts to fight a long war to roll back the Russian forces and reconquer the baltic states. And all this with nuclear holocaust in sight...

I am not sure about this.

 

[swerve]

Firn you raise a very good point. However what if the actions are initiated by the Baltic states or Poland? I am not familiar with the exact requirements. Additionally it's always possible to send token support, to fullfill formal obligations, without actually commiting to a large scale conflict. .

If a NATO country attacks a non-NATO state, it is not a matter for NATO. But if, for example, a border skirmish in which border guards of the NATO member may have fired first was met with a full-scale invasion, it would be considered irrelevant who had initiated the minor clash. Proportionality of response is a very important principle.

To give an entirely hypothetical example, a Belarussian response to a Latvian incursion a couple of km across the border would have to be proportional, or NATO would get involved. Bombing Riga, or trying to seize Daugavpils, would not be proportional. Repelling the incursion, & perhaps hot pursuit a short distance across the border, would be acceptable.

Formal obligations would not be fulfilled by token support.

 

[kato]

Formal obligations would not be fulfilled by token support.

If token support is all that other NATO members are willing to give, it does fulfill the formal obligations. "Each of them, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith such action as it deems necessary" after all.

 

[MrBean4]

There is no way NATO is able to hold the baltic states even if they really tried.

But I also don't think that Russia, even in an alliance with Belarus is able to run over Poland in no time.
So IMHO the polish borderland is the limit of what NATO is able to defend.

If an attack on the baltic states happens NATO would need to get enough ground troops together to get it back by land.
And this is the problem.
I have no doubt that NATO is going to fight for every meter of polish soil in order not to let the fighting spread to other NATO countries.

But does NATO has the guts to fight a long war to roll back the Russian forces and reconquer the baltic states. And all this with nuclear holocaust in sight...

I am not sure about this.

The Allies did not try to save Poland after WWII from the Soviets because they simply couldnt . I dont think that much have changed since then in order to defend Poland from the Russians , its simply to hard a task.And i bet that NATO is more than willing to sacrifice Poland for other goals , ie defence of Germany.Just guessing

 

[Feanor]

So in other words, if a conflict is initiated by East-European NATO members, say by Poland, or at leats it's unclear and can be argued that Poland initiated it, provoking a powerful Russian-Belorussian (hell or on the diplmatic level even a CSTO) response, leading to the occupation of the Baltics, and NATO is struck with indecisiveness... then in the end Russia could end up getting away with it.

The implications are unsettling. Because while this is plausible, it is not necessarily so. And if certain political figures in Russia are willing to bet on this being the case, while certain East-European politicians are willing to bet on the opposite.....

 

[Sampanviking]

Here is some hypothetical conjecture for you.

1) Plans for further integration and harmonisation of the EU, wanted by the established Western European players are frustrated by the concerns and objections of the Newer Eastern Members.

2) Plans for better relations with Russia and the achievement of better energy security are constantly being undermined by local spats along the Eastern EU borders.

3) The old EU and Russia simply agree a deal to end each others irritations.

4) Russia re-occupies certain ex WP countries. Western Europe makes a lot of noise, does nothing except sign a long term Gas Supply deal with Russia at a generously discounted rate.

 

[Grand Danois]

How about this one:

1) Russian oil depletes oil by 2023.

2) China occupies the relative power vacuum in Central Asia, obtaining virtual control of natural gas reserves.

Then there's nothing for Russia to offer EU...

 

[Waylander]

So in other words, if a conflict is initiated by East-European NATO members, say by Poland, or at leats it's unclear and can be argued that Poland initiated it, provoking a powerful Russian-Belorussian (hell or on the diplmatic level even a CSTO) response, leading to the occupation of the Baltics, and NATO is struck with indecisiveness... then in the end Russia could end up getting away with it.

The implications are unsettling. Because while this is plausible, it is not necessarily so. And if certain political figures in Russia are willing to bet on this being the case, while certain East-European politicians are willing to bet on the opposite.....

As I said before.
How willing the rest of NATO is to save the east european members if it looks like they provoked an armed conflict is something I can't predict.
But I have little doubt that Russia (And other potential allies like Belarus) are going to get stopped cold in Poland when it looks like they are on a rampage into the west.
I am also confident that the mobilized polish forces as well as the available NATO quick reaction forces are able to stop any russian thrust into Poland before it advances very far.

So IMO the baltic states might be not as safe as they maybe want to be. As you I also can think of some possible scenarios where Russia might get away with taking them back.
But I don't think that any expansion into (for example) Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia or Hungary is possible.

 

[swerve]

Here is some hypothetical conjecture for you.

1) Plans for further integration and harmonisation of the EU, wanted by the established Western European players are frustrated by the concerns and objections of the Newer Eastern Members.

2) Plans for better relations with Russia and the achievement of better energy security are constantly being undermined by local spats along the Eastern EU borders.

3) The old EU and Russia simply agree a deal to end each others irritations.

4) Russia re-occupies certain ex WP countries. Western Europe makes a lot of noise, does nothing except sign a long term Gas Supply deal with Russia at a generously discounted rate.

This is one of those posts which shows just how little some people understand of how politics works in W. Europe.

 

[swerve]

The Allies did not try to save Poland after WWII from the Soviets because they simply couldnt . I dont think that much have changed since then in order to defend Poland from the Russians , its simply to hard a task.And i bet that NATO is more than willing to sacrifice Poland for other goals , ie defence of Germany.Just guessing

After WW2, Poland was already occupied. The Western Allies would have had no public support for an attack on the USSR to get Soviet forces out. The situation is very different now. The Russians don't have to be thrown out, only kept out. The Poles would fight hard, & so would the Germans. Do you think they want an aggressive Russia on their borders? Everybody else would have no choice but to help.

You can't sacrifice Poland to defend Germany. You defend Germany on the eastern border of Poland. Oh, & while you're at it, take back Königsberg.

 

[Sampanviking]

This is one of those posts which shows just how little some people understand of how politics works in W. Europe.

One of those posts which shows how just how little some Altanticist Brits understand how the Franco-German EU axis thinks and postures.

 

[swerve]

...So IMO the baltic states might be not as safe as they maybe want to be. As you I also can think of some possible scenarios where Russia might get away with taking them back.....

Interesting comment in The Economist today. An unnamed "senior Polish source" saying that Polish defence plans "include Lithuania", which I read as "defending Poland as far away from its territory as is possible & practical". I imagine they do not think it practical to defend Poland in Estonia or Latvia.

 

[kato]

Well, there's always NATO MNC Northeast for that corner in strategic planning. In Szczecin on the German border. Interestingly not bound into the other NATO command structure (i.e. directly under SACEUR).

Its composition pretty much shows where the defense lines end. And that's in Poland - the three Baltic States only have liaison officers in the HQ (like other Eastern-European states and the USA), whereas Poland, Germany and Denmark give the "Baltic Corps" its three divisions, its command support brigade and its naval and air support.

 

[Feanor]

I can see the EU sacrificing the ex-USSR, Ukraine, Georgia, etc. to Russian relations. I don't see Poland or Hungary being sacrificed.

 

[Palnatoke]

Come on people.
Russian agression directed against the baltic states would be followed by an instant declaration of war by the entirety of NATO. And with all due respect for Russians. Russia is, disrespecting the nukes, not a power that in any way can match NATO neither millitary, economically nor politically.

 

[Sampanviking]

Come on people.
Russian agression directed against the baltic states would be followed by an instant declaration of war by the entirety of NATO. And with all due respect for Russians. Russia is, disrespecting the nukes, not a power that in any way can match NATO neither millitary, economically nor politically.

I think you miss the point that many are making entirely. The strains caused by the seperation of the EU and NATO on an organisational level are increasing and far more critical now than many appreciate.

Most of the old EU always preferred to keep the organisation as a rich man's club and would have been happy to concentrate on deepening and integrating. This was frustrated by the US/UK axis in the 90's which argued for widening rather than deepening as this would enable the EU to act as a stalking horse for NATO to be able to pick up and integrate the former WP nations (at cost mainly to the EU and not the US, who did very nicely by military sales aimed at "modernising" the ex WP's capabilities etc).

Now with the US/UK influence in marked decline, the EU core is again looking at further deepening and this inevitably means reviving the EU defence force. If as a part of the deepening process, the old core members felt it was right to ditch some accession members, I have no doubt that they would not hesitate, especially if they could cut security deals with the East.

I take Feanor's point, but would remind him of the recent press criticism of the UK Tory party for cozying up to the main Polish opposition party, which has been described as Neo-Nazis and Anti Semitic. Poland is not alone in having prominent "far" right wing parties in the East, and it is not too hard to speculate the reaction from the old EU if any of them managed to form a government.

 

[Waylander]

But for many other NATO partners Poland is a direct or very close neighbour.
And one always doesn't want to fight on one's own soil.
So at least for Germany, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary and Denmark fighting a war on the Polish border is far more attracting than fighting it further west or south.
I doubt that in such an event our dutch, belgian and french neighbours would stay out either. Especially when the Russians start to hit the dutch-german corps or the german-french brigade.
Add to that that US forces in Germany as well as the BAOR would also come under attack.

With all this happening I would bet on Poland being the border where a full intervention of NATO becomes inevitable.

And that's also where Russia's dilemma is if they consider taking back the baltic states.
I doubt any NATO country would go to war with Russia for any non-NATO Ex-USSR country but there are many uncertainties when it comes to the baltic states.
They might get away with it if the circumstances and some luck are on their side but that's a big "might".

 

[Feanor]

That might depends on a lot of things, among then the relative power changes between the EU and Russia, as well as Russia and China. As it stands we can't even keep Ukraine, Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Turkmenistan in line. Nevermind invading the Baltics. What worries me is the potential for conflict there. Iirc there are still some unresolved border disputes between Russia and one of the Baltic states.

 

[Palnatoke]

I think you miss the point that many are making entirely. The strains caused by the seperation of the EU and NATO on an organisational level are increasing and far more critical now than many appreciate.

Yes I missed and am coninuing to miss that point entirely, since EU and NATO are irelevant to each other on an organisational level. You can argue that the growth of the european integration, who's mainbody is the EU, has transformed the relationship between the EU and the US from a west european "hat in the hand" position, to a much more independent European position. In which US involvement in europe are seen as mingeling much more than helpfull.

Most of the old EU always preferred to keep the organisation as a rich man's club and would have been happy to concentrate on deepening and integrating.

Factual wrong. ALL of the EU welcomed and readely posted huge amounts of money and opened our borders for the "poor" east. In fact here in Copenhagen we had a great party celebrating the unification of Europe. I think that what you are hinting at is the recurring discussion of a "one speed Europe" or "multiple speed europe". In priniciple all wants a one speed Europe, though certain countries are making that very difficult. So the most integration happy countries want a multiple speed europe, were they can integrate and the lurkewarm can stay behind, while the lurkwarm wants a one speed europe, where they are not left behind.

This was frustrated by the US/UK axis in the 90's which argued for widening rather than deepening as this would enable the EU to act as a stalking horse for NATO to be able to pick up and integrate the former WP nations (at cost mainly to the EU and not the US, who did very nicely by military sales aimed at "modernising" the ex WP's capabilities etc).

Lol, take estonia, NATO march 2004, EU may 2004. In short what a prospect member nation does the first is to get into NATO, then they can get into the EU. So it's kinda the oppositie.

US/UK allience in the EU??? I think the US has less to say in the EU than Tyrkey. NATO is a security arrangement, the EU is much more than that. Internally in the EU-sphere there is a discussion of whether the WEU should replace NATO, for the moment the side that wish to keep the US integrated in european security arrangement has the upper hand. Though stuff like the checz and polish wanting to be part of the american NMD has certainly annoyed the totallity of the EU.

Now with the US/UK influence in marked decline, the EU core is again looking at further deepening and this inevitably means reviving the EU defence force.

No, the EU millitary cooperation is a constant process of deeper integration. The question you are raising is to which degree the US is to be part of future european security arrangements. As I said, for the moment the side that wants to keep the US in, is stronger than the side that wants to keep the US out.


I

f as a part of the deepening process, the old core members felt it was right to ditch some accession members, I have no doubt that they would not hesitate, especially if they could cut security deals with the East.

I don't know what you mean by accession members, If we are talking about members, then I think you are wrong,

I think that one important point you are missing, is that the EU is the world largest market, the world largest economy and has the largest share of the world market over any economy. That there are 400M+ Europeans. That the human development index is, together with north america, the highest in the world etc etc. To that you hold a cleptocracy with 120M inhabbitants that has a 3rd world petro-economy and the only world record is alcohol consumption per capita.

 

[Stylesm4]

I believe that if the SCO (Shanghai Co-operation Organisation) is to rise to an extent that it resembles a threat similar to the Warsaw Pact then NATO would definately stay in existence and likely strengthen its organisation's structure both command and political.

As of now, I see Afghanistan as a huge smear on NATO becoming another powerful western force falling to the Afghans who fight against foreign invaders much like the British Empire and the USSR. USA has announced today it will pullout by 2011, the political will of the administration and the country as a whole is depleting rapidly and they hope that the extra troops will be the last push to defeat its enemies. However, there is already the mention of "moderate Taliban" members offered talks with USA and UK suggesting Taliban can be apart of the govt. With these proposals, NATO is seriously going to be embarrassed but I will be surprised to see it disband, especially seeing that smaller countries need the bigger powers for protection.