This is why I've been hesitant to refer to Putin as a chess master as the Western press is wont to do every time he does something surprising:
- The Kremlin has signaled its interest in Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transnistria, Crimea and Donbas since the dissolution of the Soviet Union
- No Russia watcher would predict that Russia would accept the withdrawal of the Black Sea Fleet from Crimea
- No Russia watcher would predict that Russia would ever allow Belarus or Ukraine to join NATO
- The accession of the Baltic republics and Operation Allied Force were very provocative for Russia, although the West did not comprehend it at the time
Therefore, I do not find Putin's strategic actions very surprising, even if he is tactically creative.
While Bush, Jr. sacrificed all foreign policy objectives in favor of the War on Terror, during Obama's tenure, the following has happened:
- Ukraine (most of it) has firmly joined the Western camp
- Russia no longer has access to Ukraine's important defense industries
- The SVR/GRU is out in Ukraine and Western intelligence is in
- Minsk is tacking westward
- Astana is tacking toward Beijing
- NATO ballistic missile defense continues under a new acronym
- Instead of causing trouble in the Middle East (Egypt) or Central Asia, Moscow is busy assisting clients and partners in Ukraine and Syria
- Russia's economy is damaged enough to defer the 2020 modernization plan without the need for an arms race
Not bad for a community organizer and speechwriter duo, no?
I interpreted this as a warning against Russian incursions into NATO airspace by Tu-95s, etc. Basically, I understood that whereas before SACEUR would instruct Polish or Danish air defenses to await orders before firing, now local commanders can shoot down stray Russian aircraft if they feel threatened...
According to
CSIS, it is reasonable to assume that a NATO BMD system based in East-Central Europe could whittle down Russia's second strike capability.
I am all for deploying advanced air defense systems to East-Central Europe in order to establish a NATO A2/AD zone, but I question the wisdom of NATO BMD/EPAA. If Iran is the threat, then why not establish the system in Turkey, Israel or in the Gulf States? Moreover, one would be hard pressed to explain how Iran has the intent, let alone the capability to conduct significant strikes on European NATO members. Lastly, isn't Aegis "afloat" enough?
Russia's increase is more posturing than anything else, especially given the woeful state of their SLBM deterrent, and Russia does not actually have to reach the limits until 2018, if I recall.
This happened in 1991 during the relatively bloodless August Coup. But by 1993, Russians accepted when Yeltsin used tanks against parliament and killed 200 to 2000 people and then later launched a disastrous and bloody war in Chechnya. Many Russians think that Putin doesn't go far enough in fact, so I would be cautious about advocating his
ouster.
It is there to reassure Poland and the Baltics that US and allied lives are on the line as well.
I gather that these forces were intended to tie down the cumbersome Soviet columns at chokepoints and in built-up areas, particularly the Berlin Brigade.
I expect that in the event of a Russian invasion of the Baltic republics, that NATO forces there will be ordered to conduct asymmetric warfare and FIBA, while NATO uses stand-off weapons to destroy Russian formations in the open and deny any Russian surge across the border. I don't think NATO would risk the barrage of cross-border fire that would result from an amphibious assault as well as the escalation risks of silencing Russian firing positions on Russian soil.
I would imagine that cut-off and harassed by enemy soldiers, the Russians would eventually sue for peace, withdraw and only then would NATO reinforcements land in the Baltics.