73% in favour of NATO membership
According to a routine public opinion poll by Estonia's MOD, 73% of Estonian residents support Estonia’s NATO membership.
Quote:
90% of those polled consider completing Defence Forces service necessary or completely necessary for young men. The attitude towards evading military service is predominantly negative and the provision of alternative service for young men, who are deemed unfit for compulsory military service, is considered either completely necessary or necessary.
81% of the residents of Estonia consider the Defence Forces a reliable institution, which includes 88% among Estonians and 66% among non-Estonians, respectively. The Defence Forces ranks sixth in the list of twenty-three institutions, used in the poll.
NATO opens new centre of excellence on cyber defence
Seven NATO nations and the Allied Command Transformation signed the documents for the formal establishment of a Cooperative Cyber Defence (CCD) Centre of Excellence (COE) in Tallinn, Estonia.
Quote:
The centre will conduct research and training on cyber warfare and include a staff of 30 persons, half of them specialists from the sponsoring countries, Estonia, Germany, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia and Spain.
“The need for a cyber defence centre to be opened today is compelling,” said General James Mattis, NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Transformation, at the signing ceremony, “it will help NATO defy and successfully counter the threats in this area.”
NATO cohesion and Baltics
Europeans see Moscow as security threat
By James Blitz in London
Published: September 22 2008 23:06 | Last updated: September 22 2008 23:06
Quote:
Indeed, the Harris opinion poll for the Financial Times, conducted after the conflict between Russia and Georgia last month, indicates the citizens of three west European states would strongly oppose their national armies defending east European nations from a Russian attack.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4530e1dc-8...0779fd18c.html
Article 5 - Paper Tiger ?
Hey K, glad this one did not escape your radar screen - it missed mine.
Craddock's request, if rejected or tabled, will be very devastating to NATO - as a traditional collective defense alliance. The polls do not look good (your OP); and the following from the article looks like an impasse.
Quote:
France and Germany have signalled opposition to the move but Gen Craddock has the strong backing of American and Britain. But even US officials acknowledge there is a risk that the move will cause a rift within Nato. "This becomes politicised very quickly," a Pentagon official said.
As I've noted several times in other threads, Article 5 does have weasel-words. In the Fulda Gap era, everyone ignored the weasel-words for obvious reasons. Craddock says, in effect, "put up". The question is whether Europe and the US (its polls are not that favorable, either) will, at the least, allow a contingency plan.
The new NATO members could well be asking what would NATO do in the absence of a sound collective military plan for their defense. The answer has to be "not much".
Keep your radar tuned to this one - as I am sure you will. It is important.
NATO split over Baltic defense
Asian Times, 09 October 2008
Quote:
BRUSSELS - A recent request by the highest military commander of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) for the authority to draw up full defense plans for Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, could lead to a serious rift in the alliance as it wars over how to deal with Russia.
When Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania joined the alliance in 2004, Afghanistan and terrorism were NATO's top concerns, whereas Russia was seen as an aspiring strategic partner. The alliance therefore did not draw up "contingency plans" or full defense strategies for the three Baltic states, a shortcoming which now looks like an anachronism after the events in Georgia exposed NATO's soft underbelly.
NATO officials privately concede that the three Baltic nations are the most exposed among all 26 allies. Although none of the eastern European allies have full contingency plans drawn up for their defense, some amount of planning has been done for all - except Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.
London's Daily Telegraph, which first broke the story, said Craddock recommends Estonia, with its large Russian-speaking minority and increasingly fraught relationship with Moscow, be the first Baltic beneficiary of a NATO military risk-assessment study.
Baltic countries meanwhile fear that the trend towards accommodating Russia could materially affect their security, and that political considerations could begin to erode NATO's commitment to mutual defense.
Much more at the link...
Some "stuff" for consideration
Here is Doug Bandow's contribution to the subject, as of today.
Quote:
The NATO Alliance: Dangerous Anachronism
Doug Bandow
October 17, 2008
......
The impact of the Russia-Georgia war continues to reverberate. Gen. James Craddock, NATO's Supreme Commander, has requested authority to develop contingency plans to defend the Eastern European countries. ....
http://www.antiwar.com/bandow/?articleid=13603
Tis not my purpose here to argue the pros and cons of Mr. Bandow's views. You can (and will) draw your own conclusions.
One comment in the article struck my eye:
Quote:
.... The 27 members of the European Union have a larger population and GDP than America and are well capable of asserting their own interests. Since they can rely on Washington, they spend only about half as much on the military as does the US, and have created forces with just a fraction of the combat capabilities of America's military. Moreover, they are talking about cutting outlays in the midst of the ongoing economic crisis. However, if they could no longer free ride on the US, they would have to honestly assess the risk of Russian aggression and take whatever steps they deemed necessary to prevent such a possibility. And they could decide whether Georgia, Ukraine, or any other country truly was a "bulwark against Russian expansionism."
The EU also has a much larger larger population and GDP than Russia (now below 150 million). In fact, the countries nearest Russia (not counting Belorus & Ukraine) have a substantial combined population.
Quote:
(from 2008 CIA World Factbook)
Sweden - 9,045,389 (July 2008 est.)
Finland - 5,244,749 (July 2008 est.)
Estonia - 1,307,605 (July 2008 est.)
Latvia - 2,245,423 (July 2008 est.)
Lithuania - 3,565,205 (July 2008 est.)
Poland - 38,500,696 (July 2008 est.)
Czech Republic - 10,220,911 (July 2008 est.)
Slovakia - 5,455,407 (July 2008 est.)
Hungary - 9,930,915 (July 2008 est.)
Of course, building an alliance from the above would be akin to herding cats. And, in an era where Sweden has more generals than cannon (and more admirals than warships), the military inclination of some of these nations seems questionable.
What say all about Mr. Bandow's suggestion "if they could no longer free ride on the US, etc." ?
The USA will defend the Baltics against Russia
It will be remembered that after the August events in Georgia Estonia has become very nervous.
Quote:
Crowds of Russians on the Eastern borders became a nightmare for Tallinn. Local politicians initiated a foretelling contest: when the adversaries will occupy the country and where they will stop afterwards. Most of them agreed that the Russians would occupy the Baltic region within a year or two and will stop somewhere in Lisbon area. The newspapers got to drawing directions of Russian tank blows over the native land. Americans were quick to calm down the alarmed Estonians.
From September 30 the country’s airspace has been guarded by
four American F15C Eagle jets. It goes without saying they are not capable of checking the Russian invasion.
Roughly speaking the West is reluctant to assign EUR 64 mln to protect Estonia from Russia. In fact The West is quite sick and tired of Estonia. On November 12 the US defense minister Robert Gates arrived in Tallinn. He immediately was attacked by a question whether NATO had a plan of Estonia protection in case of a Russian invasion? The minister answered crossly that the alliance was constantly making up plans. The latest discussion on security in the Baltic region took place in September.
The USA is almost irrelevant for Baltic security
I am collecting & analyzing information about the Baltic and blogged about the Baltic defense challenge months ago.
I've got some preliminary results and a quite plausible scenario.
The terrain seems to be quite defensible with strong forces, but the Baltic armies are almost non-existing and were misused as auxiliary troops providers for expeditions.
Feel free to send my hints like
* landscape photos,
* military history reports about combat there,
* maps,
* info about the roads and
* reports about possible advance speed of the Russian army in pursuit.
Maybe someone wasn't exactly pleased by my headline.
I concluded that the USA wouldn't be more relevant than France and less relevant than Poland and Germany for the defense of the Baltic states because of the geographic and political conditions as well as what I consider as a quite promising fictional Russian strategy there.
Most U.S. forces (except at most one division equivalent and some dozen combat aircraft) would arrive only after the decision.
