The NATO-Russia military build-up in Eastern Europe could be considered as escalating, with the two sides justifying their military presence by citing the others. NATO claims Russia actions pose a regional threat, and Russia perceives NATOs military deployments as a threat to its own security. The adversaries are both increasing their defences in fear of and retaliation towards each other. This essay aims to evaluate the escalatory risks of NATO responding to Russian aggression against the Baltic states. It will do so by firstly evaluating the Russian culture (mindset) in attempt to understand why they have taken a persevered aggressive stance. It will then, using this knowledge assess the escalatory risked accompanying any NATO response to Russian actions in the region.
Russia has a longstanding belief, and desire to be recognised as a global power by the international community. A belief which persisted throughout post-cold war and beyond. Whilst economic factors prevented desires coming into fruition, ambitions to maintain a globally competitive means of deterrent were easily identifiable within their doctrine. Additionally, the political leaderships policies of the period also prevented these ambitions from becoming a reality.
However, Recently the Russians have seemingly witnessed a change in economic direction, and a modernisation of their spectrum of capabilities has ensued. Russia has once again begun to project its self on to the regional, if not global stage. Although, still lacking in power and capability when compared with NATO, Russia’s recent provocations, may be considered an ‘attempt to create a disproportionate psychological impact in order to arouse a state of widespread fear’ , a tactic widely used by weaker states in an attempt to escalate and in an effort to defend against superior adversaries. The resulting fears have inflated Russia’s global image and placed them in a position of parity with regards to influence and perceived military power within Europe.
At Russia’s helm, Putin, a political leader whose ‘patriotism’…based on principles… (including) conservatism… common good, idealism, and communality’ counter those of the liberal west; his provocative actions: The annexation of Crimea and interventions in Ukraine are seen as aggressive expansionism and caused large amounts of angst in the region. NATO members condemned Russia in the international forum and have imposed posed technological import and economic sanctions on them; Putins response ‘Russia naturally considers these sanctions groundless, unlawful. And we have never been the initiators of the sanction measures,’ Unfortunately, so far, they have been unable to prevent Russia from using military capabilities as part of their foreign policy.
In an effort to deter military aggression in the region, NATO is strengthening military presence on its eastern borders. The reassure this provides member states could be considered out weighted by the escalation it has caused. A defence measure in the eyes of NATO, a perceived act of aggression in that of the Russians who have escalated the situation and increased their military presence in the region. This is a good example of a hostile action cycle in which anxiety and threat, pressure leaders in to unwittingly escalating the conflict.
NATO should reflect on the fact so far Russia is choosing its ‘targets wisely’, whilst it is prodding the sides of the block, it is yet to attack, any member state. A clear indication that it understands the implications of an such actions. Instead they should consider the intentions of Russia ‘to demonstrate the uselessness of NATO’ A great possibility considering Russian culture and the stance of its government.
NATO must be cautious of any response it fields to Russian activities in the region, it needs to analyse each potential response, ensuring perceived benefits gained justify the means and energy invested. Caution should be taken to ensure a steep curve of escalation does not ensue. It should take time to consider Russian culture and understand that its government may not be responding in the desired manner because it doesn’t want to be perceived as weak. The desire to win must be controlled and a true understanding of the Russian intention gained. Russia lack of an attack on the territorial integrity of a full NATO member is the clearest indication that they themselves aren’t willing to escalate the situation too far.