Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is forcing Europe to quickly redraw the security arrangements that underpinned peace on the continent for decades.
While NATO has not deployed troops on the ground in Ukraine — which would bring it into direct conflict with Russia — member states are shipping money and weapons there to shore up the country and under-siege Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy.
The military alliance is also sending thousands more troops to its eastern frontier to send a pointed warning to Russian President Vladimir Putin: Do not move your forces any further into Europe than Ukraine or you risk engaging us directly.
Beyond that, countries in Europe are talking about how to overhaul their defenses from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea, as tensions with nuclear-armed Russia reach levels not seen since the Cold War.
Officials say there is no concrete threat against NATO at the moment, but they are worried about what Putin might do next.
“We thought that peace was already a given,” Lithuanian Ambassador to NATO Deividas Matulionis said in an interview. “We were wrong. We all were wrong.”
Putin says that NATO forces on Russia’s borders are a threat to his country’s security and, in the days before he moved into Ukraine, demanded all troops and weaponry be withdrawn from eastern Europe.
It is indeed possible that NATO’s reinforcement of its eastern flank could provoke a further escalation by the Kremlin. Since the war began, Putin has moved his nuclear forces onto a higher alert setting.
Despite NATO’s buildup of thousands of troops, the presence still amounts to far less than the estimated 150,000 soldiers Putin amassed around Ukraine ahead of his attack and would struggle to contain any push by Russian forces further west.
The reinforcements from NATO have an important role to play either way, said Kristine Berzina, a senior fellow at the German Marshall Fund in Washington.
However, it would have helped if they had been sent in sooner, she added.
“The underestimation from Moscow of European and transatlantic and American resolve for smaller European countries I think led to the situation,” Berzina said. “The fact there is a lot of military resolve, that there is an understanding of the possibility for territorial conflict, if that had been more explicit, perhaps Russia would have felt it didn’t need to test that.”
The three Baltic nations — Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia — are particularly anxious about Putin’s actions. The former Soviet states have been insisting for years that Russia could pose a threat to Europe’s security, and the war in Ukraine is bringing their allies around to that conclusion.
Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas called on NATO states to urgently upgrade their defenses with a permanent presence for alliance troops and more serious air power.
Estonia is to boost defense spending to 2.3 percent of GDP next year, while Latvia and Lithuania will increase spending to as much as 2.5 percent of GDP in the coming years.
The biggest shift is in Germany. Berlin has for years fallen well short of NATO’s 2 percent target for defense spending, to the frustration of successive US administrations.
Just days after Putin sent his troops into Ukraine, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz announced 100 billion euros (US$109.3 billion) in new spending this year to modernize the German military and a permanent increase to meet the NATO target from 2024.
Scholz said Putin’s actions had ushered in “a new era” for Europe.
NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said it means a “new normal” in relations with the Kremlin.
“This will have some long-term effects on our security, on how we respond, on how NATO is reacting and also on how our relationship with Russia can evolve,” Stoltenberg said on Feb. 24, the day Russia started its assault.
NATO is looking to at least double its forces along its eastern flank with a minimum of four additional battle groups in Romania, Slovakia, Hungary and Bulgaria, an alliance official said.
France is volunteering to lead one group in Romania, which shares a border of almost 640km with Ukraine, and military commanders have already been hashing out their options.
NATO has a total of about 5,000 troops in Poland and the Baltic states, established after Russia’s annexation of Ukraine’s Crimea in 2014.
Weeks before the invasion, US Permanent Representative to NATO Julianne Smith warned that Russia’s aggression would result in the exact opposite of what Moscow says it wants.
“What we’ve tried to help the Russians understand is that they have spent many years complaining about NATO troops coming closer to their border, and unfortunately it is their actions — Russian actions, Russian aggression — that has resulted in more posture moving into central and eastern Europe,” Smith told reporters on a briefing call.
As they boost their presence in the east of the alliance, NATO allies are holding back from any kind of military intervention in Ukraine so as not to escalate the war further and trigger direct confrontation with Russia. That means NATO has ruled out putting boots on the ground, but also defending Ukraine’s airspace — what is known as a no-fly zone — which could involve allied planes confronting Russian aircraft.
Even as popular support grows in Finland to join the alliance, there is also little political appetite from Helsinki, as well as in Sweden, to join any time soon.
While NATO has had an ongoing presence in its members in eastern Europe, the troops have been regularly rotated out to comply with the NATO-Russia Founding Act, signed in 1997 to declare mutual commitments to peace in Europe.
Russia has repeatedly breached the act by not respecting countries’ borders, NATO officials say, leading to a debate about whether troops should be stationed in the east permanently.
That would give them a better understanding of the local conditions and allow them to deepen relationships with local counterparts.
NATO also has a missile defense base in Romania and is building another in Poland. NATO has no offensive missiles in those countries, but Putin has repeatedly said that the Aegis Ashore missile defense systems could be used to fire Tomahawks, because they use the same launchers.
The buffer zone between the two sides could be narrowed further after voters in Belarus, a Russian ally, on Feb. 28 backed a constitutional reform to allow nuclear weapons to be stationed in their country for the first time since the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko is increasingly reliant on Putin after lashing out at US and EU sanctions over his crackdown on opposition protesters after disputed 2020 elections.
“The stationing of Russian troops in Belarus and the risk of Belarus hosting nuclear weapons changes the strategic security landscape,” Latvian Ambassador to NATO Edgars Skuja said in e-mailed comments.
While Stoltenberg called Putin’s move to put Russia’s nuclear command on high alert “irresponsible, reckless” in an interview, he added that NATO is not changing the status of its nuclear forces.
“It is the responsibility for NATO to ensure we don’t see a development where a conflict in Ukraine spirals out of control and becomes a full-fledged confrontation between NATO and Russia in Europe,” he said.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath