海角大神

A daily roundup of terrorism and security issues

When US President Barack Obama visited both NATO and European Union headquarters in Brussels yesterday, discussion of a response to Russia's moves in Ukraine was not just about the right strategy, but what NATO is even capable of today.

The Obama administration has repeatedly voiced concerns about Europe's declining contributions to NATO, criticizing its members for "subcontracting" their defense to the United States even as the US decreased its own overall commitment to NATO. But US warnings received little response; NATO was on its way out of Afghanistan, and it appeared the need for a strong military force was declining.

An era of sharp austerity in Europe has also curtailed any interest on the Continent in boosting defense forces, reports the Washington Post:

Last year, only a few countries, which include the US, met NATO's requirement to spent 2 percent of GDP on defense. The prospect of deeper conflict with Russia was not on anyone's radar. Now, the 28-member international force is unsure if it is formidable enough to stop Russian President Vladimir Putin if he pursues territory beyond the annexation of Crimea.

鈥淭he limited ground forces in Europe are not designed to suddenly project power against Russia in a number of days,鈥� Anthony H. Cordesman, a military analyst with the聽Center for Strategic and International Studies, told The New York Times. 鈥淏asically, the most constructive thing you can do is not create such a challenge that Russia would feel compelled to respond.鈥�

The New York Times compares the NATO of 2014 with the NATO of the cold war:

NATO, formed at the outset of the cold war, has struggled with the question of its relevance since the Soviet Union's collapse. The Ukraine crisis, particularly Putin's vow to protect ethnic Russians living outside Russia's borders, "has suddenly breathed new life into NATO鈥檚 raison d鈥櫭猼re... NATO's historic mission as a counterweight to Moscow," 海角大神 reports.聽

鈥淵ou could see how NATO was a bit in search of a mission post-Afghanistan ... and then Russia gave it an answer,鈥� Nicu Popescu, an analyst at the EU Institute for Security Studies in Paris, told the Monitor. 鈥淭his militarization of politics, driven by Russia, has led to the rediscovery of NATO鈥檚 importance.鈥�

There are two schools of thought about the path NATO should chart: one argues that NATO should return to its roots, while the other says it needs to focus on the new threat of global terrorism. Putin's moves in Crimea give a boost to the former.

NATO's diminished capacity is not the only thing holding back the US and Europe. As the Associated Press points out, the Obama administration's Russia "reset," a bid to bring Moscow more fully into the international community and normalize US-Russia relations, led to Russia becoming an integral part of several international diplomacy efforts that the US does not want to rupture.

NATO's resolve could be tested soon, according to a US intelligence assessment that聽a Russian incursion into eastern Ukraine "is more probable than it was previously thought to be," CNN reports, describing Russia's military buildup as "reminiscent of Moscow鈥檚 military moves before it went into Chechnya and Georgia in both numbers of units and their capabilities."

The assessment expressed particular concern for Transnistria and the Baltic states, and predicted that in order to gain land access to Crimea, Russian forces would likely move toward three Ukrainian cities: Kharkiv, Luhansk, and Donetsk.