NATO’s Eastern Flank: Security Issues in the Baltics, Ukraine and Turkey
NATO’s Eastern Flank: Security Issues in the Baltics, Ukraine and Turkey
Redaktor
Stępniewski Tomasz
Data publikacji
Abstrakt (EN)
- The present Policy Papers outline the main developments within the Baltics’ defense systems following Russia’s military operations in Ukraine in 2014. First, the publication gives a structured explanation on how the defenses of the Baltic countries were formed and argues that Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 was shocking for the defense establishments of the three Baltic states. Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania built their armies and defense systems gradually adjusting to the existing international environment and relying on the norms of international law and practice of the post-Cold-War period. Before Russia’s actions in Ukraine,the Baltic countries primarily focused on various international operations and on assisting international forces intheir peacekeeping missions in “hotspots” around the globe. The most significant engagements by the Baltic countries were provided in the US-led Operation Iraqi Freedom and NATO’s operations in Afghanistan (ISAF). What happened in 2014 forced the Baltics to rebuild their defense forces completely, this time focusing on their self-defense capacity. 2. Second, the Policy Papers answer the question concerning the main components of these developments and tangible changes emerging from these. The publication also provides a brief case study of each of the Baltic countries. Two dimensions of these changes ought to be highlighted – thenational level and policies which are to enhance self-defense capabilities, and efforts undertaken by the Baltics with the aim of vitalizing a response of the NATO collective defense system towards defending the states.3. Within the national domain, when we walk through the updated defense policies of the Baltic countries following Russia’s aggression in Ukraine, the most vivid change for Latvia and Lithuania comes with different approaches towards the engagement of the whole society within the national defense. For Latvia, it is the comprehensive defense approach, which was introduced instead of the reinstatement of the conscription service. Lithuania, on the other hand, chose to restore the conscription in 2015. Estonia placed its emphasis on the “porcupine strategy” for a “worst case” scenario. All three countries pursue higher defense spending, reaching 2% of their GDP for defense expenditures and undertaking major investments in the armamentand mobility of their defense forces. 4. As far as the collective defense is concerned, the Baltic countries acted to promote a much more articulated presence of allied troops in the region. This resulted in the NATO Summit of 2016 decision concerning the deployment of the Enhanced Forward Presence battalions to each Balticcountry, led by Great Britain, Canada and Germany, also composed of troops from other NATO allies such as Poland, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Slovenia, Slovakia and others.5. Finally, the Policy Papers argue that there prevail few existing challenges to the Baltic states’ defenses which are related to the necessity to achieve a much stronger defense and security synchronization and cooperation among the Baltic countries themselves and the closest regional partners in order to consolidate air defense and maritime security capabilities and make improvements within their military training and education systems, as well as update personnel and higher command policies. 6. For decades, NATO has been adjusting to new challenges and threats of security-related nature. The adaptation has also proved necessary since Russia’s neo-imperial policy towards Ukraine “woke the dragon” in 2014 and NATO began to adjust to the new security reality in East-Central Europe by boosting defense expenditures, modernizing the military and command structures, and relocating troops, etc.Since 2014, an armed conflict between Russia and Ukraine in Donbas (along with operations connected with the annexation of Crimea) has been ongoing. It resulted in the change of security perception concerning Eastern Europe, and Europe in general. 7. The Russo-Ukrainian armed conflict has implications forthe countries of NATO’s eastern flank. The following questions emerge: Are NATO members responding adequately to the threat emerging from the armed conflict in Ukraine? Will Russia’s revisionist politics revitalize the North Atlantic Treaty Organization? Do valid premises concerning the change of security condition in Eastern Europe exist? 8. The crisis of relations between the Republic of Turkey and the USA and other NATO allies is rooted in the transformation of Turkey’s political system. According to President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s rhetoric, the concentration of power in presidential hands which occurred in 2016 was toresult in the consolidation of the country’s position in international relations. However, the plan backfired and the relations with NATO, the USA, EU and European countries deteriorated. On the other hand, as a consequence, a rapprochement between Turkey and Russia emerged. 9. Due to American withdrawal from the Middle East, the Russian Federation became the most vital actor exerting an impact upon the conflict in Syria. In order to achieve the primary objective of its policy towards Syria, i.e. the elimination of the YPG (forces of Syrian Kurds), Ankara was compelled to establish close cooperation with Moscow. As a consequence, in order to maintain its military and political presence in Syria, Turkey became dependent upon the decisions of the Kremlin.
Dyscyplina PBN
nauki o polityce i administracji
Tom
1
Wydawca ministerialny
Instytut Europy Środkowo-Wschodniej
ISBN
978-83-66413-06-1
Licencja otwartego dostępu
Uznanie autorstwa