The Baltic states (catch all)

[Stan]

According to a routine public opinion poll by Estonia's MOD, 73% of Estonian residents support Estonia’s NATO membership.

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.

[Stan]

Estonia’s Prime Minister Andrus Ansip spoke up in defense of Estonia's participation in military missions abroad, calling it Estonia's moral duty to the West.

Recalling discussions on foreign missions that took place during the NATO summit in Bucharest, the head of government stressed that Estonia fully supports improving military-civilian cooperation in mission areas.

"It is not possible to achieve a breakthrough in Afghanistan by military means alone, and it's not what one has been trying to do," he said, adding that alliance members have also invested in the strengthening of the country's civilian structures, and will continue to do so.

The militaries of all three countries are also participating in training each other as part of the Baltic Battalion Staff Intelligent Wolf in Tartu, Estonia this week.

[Stan]

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.

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.”

[selil]

Now I know why I got about 300 hits on my blog downloading everything on Cyber Warfare from Europe.

[kaur]

Between 19.-22.08.1991 was in Moscow putch. Siloviki of that era tried to turn back the collapse process of Soviet Union. On 20.08 Estonian republic declared independence (after the occupation). This was bloodless non-violent resistance that led to this result in Estonia. This case study is already classics in theory. In Estonia this is called Singing revolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_...ttempt_of_1991

About theory

http://www.aeinstein.org/

The movie

http://www.singingrevolution.com/

... the point is that yesterday there was concert in our capital and there you can see the feeling of the masses. This is not rock concert. This is something more.

http://www.epl.ee/artikkel/439120

[Ron Humphrey]

Thanks for posting them

As with any great experiment such as ours in America there are issues of balance such as the freedom to either feel nationalism and patriotism or not.

And in all cases those within the nations will and do determine which it will be and as such truly control their own destiny without regard to or even inspite of outside influence.

One can only hope that these many fledgling democracies are able to progress as successfully along the path as your country and in turn help to strengthen one another through the open exchange of ideas in every form.

[kaur]

Europeans see Moscow as security threat
By James Blitz in London

Published: September 22 2008 23:06 | Last updated: September 22 2008 23:06

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

[Michael F]

I'm not really surprised by those polls.

From a European point of view, people have an other approach to international relations. Despite major setbacks to its development, the EU is the model of international relations European dream to see on a world scale: Relations between nations are defined by laws, treaties (and not by a balance of power), each states gives up part of its power in exchange of mutual cooperation (EU institutions). Such consociationalist modell was especially en vogue after the end of the Cold war. Europeans still consider dialogue, negotiation as the only way. Military efforts is a very lowly reguarded instrument of Foreign policy (except in case of Humanitarian crisis).
If asked to choose between social or military spendings, logically, Europeans will choose social spendings.

About perceived threats, Russia is seen as a potential threat, but escalation is considered the worse option. Dialogue with Russia is the preferred one.

Striking is the fact that the country perceived as being the main threat to global stability for Europeans is the US….. It relates directly to the consociationalist idea most Europeans have. To improve global stability, international dialogue and legitimacy are crucial. The US intervention in Irak, Guantanamo, the refusal to commit to the Kyoto agreement or the treaty banning the landmines are considered immoral (human rights) or illegitimate (No UNSC approval for US intervention) or selfish (global warming). It does not mean that Europeans consider the US as an enemy. Europe was so used to the US as the leading defender of democracy and international justice that the disappointment is great. It’s a bit like learning that a fireman put fire to a building…..

The main problem in European logic is that it disqualifies sheer power as a way to stabilize the world while the main problem of the US recently was to consider military power as a way to solve most international problems. The solution is in between.

Should the next US President (whoever it is) show more consideration on specific issues (guantanamo, Kyoto, Irak,…), Europeans will move the US from biggest threat to stability to main defender of international stability. Should the Europeans understand that international peace can only be reached if diplomacy and military strength are both necessary and the US will stop consider some of us like selfish lame ducks.

More diplomats in the US, more military in Europe will even the balance and create a strong Duo to face such crisis as the Georgian one.

[kaur]

Nato's top military commander has demanded the authority to draw up detailed military plans to defend former Soviet bloc members for the first time since the alliance expanded eastward.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...om-Russia.html

[jmm99]

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.

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.

[kaur]

Stratfor's Friedman has couple thoughts about NATO problem.

The German Question

So while Germany remains committed to its economic relationship with the West, it does not intend to enter into a military commitment against the Russians at this time. If the Americans want to send troops to protect the Baltics and Poland, they are welcome to do so. Germany has no objection — nor do they object to a French or British presence there. Indeed, once such forces were committed, Germany might reconsider its position. But since military deployments in significant numbers are unlikely anytime soon, the Germans view grand U.S. statements about expanded NATO membership as mere bravado by a Washington that is prepared to risk little.

NATO has no real military power to project to the east, and none can be created without a major German effort, which is not forthcoming. The German shift leaves the Baltic countries exposed and extremely worried, as they should be. It also leaves the Poles in their traditional position of counting on countries far away to guarantee their national security. In 1939, Warsaw counted on the British and French; today, Warsaw depends on the United States. As in 1939, these guarantees are tenuous, but they are all the Poles have.

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20081006_german_question

[Stan]

Asian Times, 09 October 2008

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...

[Ron Humphrey]

Does this mean that since it's not important enough to at least pretend that NATO might actually live up to commitments in case of an attack on these countries, that we can go ahead and throw away any plans that have been developed in helping Germany should the Russians decide to pressure(blackmail) them the same way they have others(Restricting resources upon which they depend)?

I think maybe we need to have a worldwide rerelease of the Three Musketeers
(pick your favorite version)

All for One and One for all!
or maybe not

[Stan]

An interesting twist Ron. Estonia certainly is not pretending and I'm thinking they have all bets hinged on NATO. The F-16s cover the Baltic airspace is great, but are they actually here to do anything?

Chancellor Merkel has most of us puzzled these days, and the Nordstream pipeline is now back on track. She came down hard following Georgia, but it didn't take long to fizzle out with subsequent meetings in Moscow.

Hmmm, is there a plan to bail out Germany if Russia shuts the gas off

Does this mean that since it's not important enough to at least pretend that NATO might actually live up to commitments in case of an attack on these countries, that we can go ahead and throw away any plans that have been developed in helping Germany should the Russians decide to pressure(blackmail) them the same way they have others(Restricting resources upon which they depend)?

I think maybe we need to have a worldwide rerelease of the Three Musketeers
(pick your favorite version)

All for One and One for all!
or maybe not

[kaur]

Russians, Germans Disagree over War

A conference entitled “Changing Russia: Perspectives for the Development of Russian-German Relations” took place last weekend in Moscow. Well-known politicians, businessmen and journalists attended. Kommersant correspondent Morits Gatmann observed how the conversation on Russian-German relations turned into a heated argument over the war in the Caucasus.

http://www.kommersant.com/p1040152/r...ct_journalism/

[Stan]

Russians, Germans Disagree over War

http://www.kommersant.com/p1040152/r...ct_journalism/

Karl-Georg Wellmann, member of the Bundestag Foreign Affairs Committee who was representing the German point of view...Wellmann spoke rather harshly about the Georgian President. “I don’t believe that Saakashvili has a political future,” Wellmann said. He also said that, from Germany’s point of view, “Providing Georgia a NATO membership action plan in December is impossible.

Wellmann may want to consult with NATO Defense Ministers about his thoughts. They are conveniently all together

NATO-Georgia Commission meets at Defence Ministers level in Budapest

[jmm99]

Here is Doug Bandow's contribution to the subject, as of today.

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:

.... 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.

(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." ?

[Stan]

It will be remembered that after the August events in Georgia Estonia has become very nervous.

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.

[Fuchs]

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.

[Stan]

Hey Fuchs!
OK, I'll bite for now.

I am collecting & analyzing information about the Baltic and blogged about the Baltic defense challenge months ago.

Care to post or send me a link to peruse?

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.

At this point I would have to disagree, but not totally. The terrain does indeed lend itself to formidable defensive positions, and, also nearly precludes a large Russian first strike from successfully reaching the political capital in one piece. There's but one MSR in, and far too much hiding (similar to what a single platoon did to the Red Army at 200:1 odds under German guidance in 80 hours).

Hint: The only Russian tanks in Estonia are mired under 10 meters of marsh (with their original drivers)

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.

Sorry, you're the one completing an IIR and Blog. Satisfaction comes from doing SAID yourself (which, would support your current theory).

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.

No druthers here with your opinion. The current fighters covering the Baltic are little more than early warning (slightly faster than Russian Iron me thinks) as are most of the cooperative agreements. Politically speaking, a little rally 'round the campfire works here far better at quelling fears.

Perception - They appear concerned with good reason and years of experience, and some think the Baltic States are another Georgia. Not tooting the NATO horn herein, the single difference is a united country with a few disgruntled (retired) Red Army folks with no desire to return home. Hardly a resistance movement in the shadows.

Hope to see your blog link!

Regards, Stan