Keep an Eye on the Baltic

[Boats]

Keep an Eye on the Baltic - The Russian threat is growing.
By: James H. Mcgee - The American Spectator News - 03-02-24
Re: https://spectator.org/keep-an-eye-on-the-baltic/

Re: Map link: on site.

In my most recent article for American Spectator I wrote of the developing Russian threat to the Baltic states, signified by the Putin regime’s placement of Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas on a wanted list, along with other figures from Latvia and Lithuania. I noted that these absurd criminal indictments were straight out of Russia’s destabilization playbook, and observed that these threats presaged a gradually escalating assault of the independence of these NATO countries. I also emphasized that the first phase of this assault would likely involve some kind of “gray zone” hybrid warfare.

They are preparing to fight, ideally with the full support of NATO, but fight no matter what.

The very same day that my article posted, stark evidence emerged of just such an assault. The headlines read “Estonia thwarts Russian hybrid operation, arrests 10,” and “Estonia thwarts ‘shadow war’ attack.” A companion article in the journal Defense One discussed how these attacks were part of a pattern previously employed by Russian and Chinese special services, noting that the run up to the Russian invasion of Ukraine was marked by similar actions.

This comes on the heels of a report by the Estonian Foreign Intelligence Service that discusses a potential Russian military buildup in the Baltic region, one that would directly threaten Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, as well as new NATO member Finland, while also posing a more wide-ranging threat to all the countries of the Baltic littoral, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, and Poland.

This report further noted that the pace of this Russian buildup would be heavily influenced by the progress — or lack thereof — of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The linkage between Ukraine’s success and the security of the Baltic nations is well-understood by the leaders of these nations. Estonia, for example, has provided more than 500 million Euros worth of military assistance to Ukraine, more than 1.4 percent of the country’s entire Gross Domestic Product, (GDP) a huge sacrifice for a tiny country. In doing so they’ve sacrificed their own immediate security, giving up most of their Javelin anti-tank missiles and a significant portion of their heavy artillery. Forthcoming military assistance will raise the total to 900 million Euros, a figure that doesn’t include substantial quantities of humanitarian aid. Estonia’s neighbor, Latvia, has provided military aid to Ukraine approximating nearly one percent of it’s GDP; Lithuania has provided approximately 1.5 percent of its GDP in combined military and humanitarian aid. (READ MORE from James H. McGee: Putting America First Means Standing Up to Bullies)

The forthright commitment of these states should come as no surprise. Each saw their independence lost under Stalin, each saw themselves subjugated and claimed by the Russian hegemon as a part of the Soviet Union, each regained its independence scarcely three decades ago, within living memory of many citizens. And each has seen that Putin’s imperialism reserves a special place for those bordering nations, regardless of their history, culture, and ethnicity, who, in his tortured view of history, belong to Russia.

But it isn’t just those nations who suffered under Russian rule that have drawn the conclusion that their security is inextricably linked with the outcome of the war in Ukraine. Just days ago, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen announced that Denmark would send all of its artillery ammunition — every single round — to Ukraine. Last year, Denmark pledged to send all of its French-built 155mm self-propelled howitzers to Ukraine, including those for which it had not yet taken delivery.

The Danes have also taken the lead in supplying Ukraine with F-16 fighters. Ukrainian pilots are now training on the Danish F-16s, with combat deployment anticipated for this summer. Had the Biden administration not dragged its feet about granting approval to the Danes, these vital aircraft would likely already be in action. (The Netherlands, Norway, and Belgium have also pledged F-16s to Ukraine.)

The list goes on. Sweden just announced its 15th military aid package to Ukraine, packages that take full advantage of Sweden’s small, but highly sophisticated defense industry, and which included tanks, infantry combat vehicles, anti-tank guided missiles, and its Archer self-propelled, semi-automatic 155mm artillery system. Finland has contributed 1.6 billion euros in military assistance to Ukraine. Despite recent diplomatic controversies regarding Ukrainian grain shipments, Poland continues its emphatic support for Ukraine, which has included a broad range of military and humanitarian assistance.

Put very simply, all of the Baltic littoral states have been forthright and energetic in their support for Ukraine — all except one. While the Germans have talked a good game, and, in fairness, have supplied some absolutely vital weapons systems, particularly Patriot and IRIS air defense systems, the total German contribution, as measured against its status as Europe’s longstanding economic powerhouse, has been laughably meager. In part, this reflects the parlous condition of the Bundeswehr on the eve of the Ukraine war — the Germans could barely keep their tanks running or their helicopters flying, much less send usable systems to a combat zone. (READ MORE: Dishonest Language, Truth, and Failed Policies)

More fundamentally, German politics militates against anything resembling effective leadership consistent with its status as the largest and (theoretically) most powerful Baltic state. In addition to deepening divisions occasioned by Germany’s poorly-conceived and ill-timed environmental policies, and also its disastrous immigration policies, the country has recently seen the emergence of an explicitly anti-Ukraine party, small, but already garnering influence.

The U.S. took its own “holiday from history” in the 1990s, allowing its military to decline as we spent our “peace dividend.” The Germans went on a similar holiday, compounded by the political, economic, and social demands of reunification, and, subsequently, by a series of incredibly short-sighted decisions regarding its reliance on cheap Russian energy and the Chinese market for its industrial goods.

Perhaps, too, it has dawned on them that, for all the vaporings from Brussels about Trump, relying on Joe Biden is also problematic.

Last year, I discussed the divide between NATO’s eastern European “frontline” states and those further removed from the immediate threat from Russia. I suggested that this, more than any other aspect, defined the likely future of an effective NATO alliance. That divide remains as salient as ever, even as some efforts have been made by Germany, France, Italy, and the UK to offer stronger support and reassurance of commitment to their eastern European NATO allies. But for months now, the question that has exercised NATO above all others has been the assurance that the U.S. would respond to an Article 5 attack on a member nation with a full military response.

Much has been made of Donald Trump’s remarks suggesting that, if NATO refuses to get its defense act together, the U.S. would feel no obligation to act on its behalf. These comments have been hashed and rehashed by both European leaders and the old line U.S. foreign policy establishment. Just this week, The Economist headlined this issue, asking if Europe is ready to defend itself if Trump makes good on these words. But perhaps, as is so often the case, The Economist has it backwards. Perhaps the very fact that the most laggardly NATO countries are now seriously concerned with rebuilding their military forces speaks not only to the threat from Putin’s Russia, but also to the need that Trump has so pungently articulated. After all, both George W. Bush and Barack Obama also called on our NATO partners to ramp up their defense spending — they just didn’t act as if they really meant it.

Predictably, The Economist and the trans-Atlantic foreign policy establishment ignored and continue to ignore a more considered Trump pronouncement, contained in his 2017 address in Warsaw, Poland, a carefully considered and thorough statement of the Trump administration’s position on European security. Speaking at the memorial to the 1944 Warsaw uprising, the President bluntly challenged NATO countries to do more for their own defense, while explicitly insisting that the U.S. was “firmly behind Article 5, the mutual defense commitment.” He also professed his support for the “Three Seas Initiative,” a mutual cooperation undertaking by the countries of the Baltic, Adriatic, and Black Seas. (READ MORE: Time for an Asian NATO?)

Listening closely to Trump’s (regrettably occasional) current remarks on the subject of European defense, one suspects that his actual position still aligns with both the blunt challenge and the categorical reassurance contained in the Warsaw speech. The countries that currently meet or exceed the 2 percent target for defense spending — which would mean all of the most threatened countries along the Baltic — have reason to believe that Trump’s angry challenge is in no way aimed at them. For the rest, well, perhaps they’ve gotten the message.

Perhaps, too, it has dawned on them that, for all the vaporings from Brussels about Trump, relying on Joe Biden is also problematic. Instead of supporting Israel in completing the task of destroying Hamas, an undertaking essential to a lasting Middle East peace, the Biden Administration now appears bent on undermining the process, for no obvious better reason that pandering to the voters of Dearborn, Michigan. If Ursula von der Leyen worries loudly about Trump’s criticism of NATO, many other, albeit less prominent European leaders, worry about Biden’s vanishingly small attention span and an American military preoccupied with climate change, a military that wastes precious combat training time on DEI instruction. But you won’t read about these concerns in The Economist.

In the meantime, those NATO countries that remember what Russian domination was like are doing all that they can to keep the Ukraine in the fight, knowing that if Putin realizes his ambitions in Ukraine, their turn is sure to follow. This is the meaning of Putin’s threats, this is the meaning of his attempt to portray Kaja Kallas as some kind of criminal, this is the meaning of the hybrid subversive acts recently thwarted by Estonian counter-intelligence. This is why Estonia has doubled the size of its territorial defense forces — it’s equivalent of our National Guard — and is exercising them with increased frequency and intensity, often alongside troops from the UK, France, and the U.S.

And this is why Estonia, along with Latvia and Lithuania, is now undertaking to “build a wall.” In this case, however, the wall will consist of hundreds of bunkers, miles of razor wire, and anti-tank ditches and barriers. They know the threat is real and urgent, and they know that it’s no longer about a flood of migrants from Belarus, but rather wave upon wave of tanks and armored personnel carriers. They are preparing to fight, ideally with the full support of NATO, but fight no matter what.

They are deadly serious, because they know that their freedom, their very lives, may soon be at stake. At the very least we owe them the respect that such seriousness demands.

About this writer:
-
James H. McGee retired in 2018 after nearly four decades as a national security and counter-terrorism professional, working primarily in the nuclear security field. Since retiring, he’s begun a second career as a thriller writer. His 2022 novel, Letter of Reprisal, tells the tale of a desperate mission to destroy a Chinese bioweapon facility hidden in the heart of the central African conflict region. You can find it on Amazon in both Kindle and paperback editions, and on Kindle Unlimited.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personal note: NATO has their hands full it seems. They gotta stick
together or suffer Russian dominance - something most of them
do not want to happen again. Can't blame them!
-
Boats