In Russia, Joe Biden’s NATO Promises Could Work Better Than Sanctions

Travel bans and asset freezes may not scare Vladimir Putin, but mounting a NATO incursion into his backyard could.

From left to right, Latvian President Andris Berzins, Vice President Joe Biden, and Lithuanian President Dalia Grybauskaite attend a press conference after a meeting in Vilnius on March 19.
National Journal
Marina Koren
March 20, 2014, 1 a.m.

Vice Pres­id­ent Joe Biden went on a whirl­wind tour of the Balt­ic re­gion this week, meet­ing with five world lead­ers in three days. The trip kicked off the day the United States an­nounced sanc­tions against sev­er­al Rus­si­an of­fi­cials, but the vice pres­id­ent barely men­tioned them in mul­tiple re­marks abroad.

What he did talk about, however, could get Rus­sia’s at­ten­tion more than any oth­er threat would.

“I want to make it un­mis­tak­ingly clear to you and to all our al­lies in the re­gion that our com­mit­ment to mu­tu­al self-de­fense un­der Art­icle 5 of NATO re­mains iron­clad,” Biden told the pres­id­ents and prime min­is­ters of Po­land, Latvia, Lithuani, and Es­to­nia, all mem­bers of the North At­lantic Treaty Or­gan­iz­a­tion. “It is not in ques­tion. It is iron­clad.”

The vice pres­id­ent is re­fer­ring to the NATO prin­ciple of col­lect­ive de­fense, which works like this: If a NATO ally is a vic­tim of an armed at­tack, all mem­bers of the al­li­ance have an ob­lig­a­tion to come to its aid. By us­ing Biden to de­clare that the U.S. will re­spond swiftly to any Rus­si­an ag­gres­sion against NATO al­lies, the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion has ex­hib­ited an em­phas­is on NATO strength it has not yet shown in the Ukraine crisis.

The strategy is well timed. There are few things Rus­sia — and Pres­id­ent Vladi­mir Putin — fear quite like an east­ward ex­pan­sion of NATO, es­pe­cially in­to Ukraine, which is not a mem­ber. The coun­try has been a weak link in Rus­sia’s buf­fer against West­ern in­flu­ence since the end of the Cold War. If Ukraine enters the European fold by join­ing West­ern al­li­ances, it would no longer ex­ist in Rus­sia’s “sphere of in­flu­ence.” Se­cur­ing Crimea and its Rus­si­an nav­al base in this bubble is a big vic­tory for Putin, but a NATO threat re­mains real for Rus­sia. The last thing Putin wants is for oth­er former So­viet na­tions, such as Mol­dova and Geor­gia, to try to fol­low in Ukraine’s west­ward foot­steps and splinter the em­pire that Rus­si­an lead­ers have des­per­ately tried to hold to­geth­er since the break­up of the So­viet Uni­on. For Putin, a stronger NATO pres­ence in East­ern Europe means di­min­ished power, and he’s ready to res­ist it.

“NATO re­mains a mil­it­ary al­li­ance, and we are against hav­ing a mil­it­ary al­li­ance mak­ing it­self at home right in our own back­yard; in our his­tor­ic ter­rit­ory,” the Rus­si­an pres­id­ent said on Tues­day dur­ing his speech an­noun­cing the planned an­nex­a­tion of Crimea.

Prob­lem is, NATO is about to get pretty com­fort­able in Rus­sia’s back­yard. This week, the U.S. an­nounced new NATO ex­er­cises in Po­land, and is cur­rently con­sid­er­ing boost­ing mil­it­ary sup­port to NATO al­lies in the re­gion. “Our in­tent is that NATO emerge from this crisis stronger and more uni­fied than ever,” Biden said Tues­day in Po­land.

And NATO al­lies in the Balt­ics, pre­vi­ously skep­tic­al about Amer­ica’s com­mit­ment to col­lect­ive de­fense, are get­ting on board. As mem­bers, Po­land and the Balt­ic na­tions are less vul­ner­able to Rus­si­an pres­sure than Ukraine, Mol­dova, and Geor­gia are. But they have seen Rus­sia re­arrange their geo­pol­it­ic­al land­scape in a mat­ter of days, and Putin’s ac­tions have left them rattled. Rus­si­an en­croach­ment is “a dir­ect threat to our re­gion­al se­cur­ity,” Lithuani­an Pres­id­ent Dalia Gry­bauskaitÄ— said Wed­nes­day.

The four na­tions have not for­got­ten his­tory, which is hardly an­cient. Rus­sia’s in­ter­ven­tion in Ukraine has sparked anxi­ety about a re­sur­gence in a So­viet ap­pet­ite for power that seemed to ebb just two dec­ades ago. Rus­sia ex­pressed con­cern on Wed­nes­day over Es­to­nia’s treat­ment of its eth­nic Rus­si­an minor­ity. Since Rus­sia has main­tained that its entry in­to Crimea was ne­ces­sary to de­fend the rights of Rus­si­ans there, the new in­terest alone is enough to make Es­to­nia nervous.

For the Balt­ic na­tions, some of which are still mod­ern­iz­ing their mil­it­ar­ies, NATO in­volve­ment means nearly everything. “Only Euro-At­lantic solid­ar­ity will al­low us to pre­pare suf­fi­cient and strong re­ac­tions to Rus­sia’s ag­gres­sion,” said Pol­ish Pres­id­ent Don­ald Tusk on Tues­day.

However, the Balt­ic re­gion doesn’t ex­pect to re­ceive mean­ing­ful as­sist­ance from NATO as it ex­ists now. “The ac­tions of the last sev­er­al weeks … are for­cing us to re­as­sess the past or the as­sump­tions of the past 20, 25 years,” Es­to­ni­an Pres­id­ent Toomas Ilves said Tues­day. “The old idea of NATO, which I re­mem­ber from 20 years ago, out of the area or out of busi­ness, pre­dic­ated on a Europe that no longer has any threats. That, un­for­tu­nately, has turned out, with the ac­tions we’ve seen against Ukraine, no longer to ap­ply.”

Ilves, along with Latvi­an Pres­id­ent An­dris Berz­ins, called for a long-term plan to build a tough­er NATO, united against Rus­si­an ag­gres­sion, at the al­li­ance’s Septem­ber sum­mit in Wales. Biden told them that Pres­id­ent Obama plans to use the sum­mit to seek con­crete com­mit­ments from oth­er NATO mem­bers to bol­ster the mil­it­ary al­li­ance’s col­lect­ive se­cur­ity. Deep­er in­volve­ment in the Ukraine crisis could provide the or­gan­iz­a­tion with a new fo­cus. “NATO has seemed to be grop­ing for new pur­pose in the long twi­light of the war in Afgh­anistan,” Mark Land­ler writes in The New York Times.

But a more vis­ible show of NATO’s mil­it­ary might comes with risks. An in­creased NATO pres­ence in the re­gion — now or in the fu­ture — would be a non­starter for Putin. “Ex­pand­ing NATO fur­ther in­to post-So­viet space is a red line with Rus­sia, and the U.S. is frankly not in a po­s­i­tion to chal­lenge it without run­ning a huge risk,” ex­plains Greg Scob­lete at Real­Clear­World. “Put bluntly, Rus­sia will be able to in­vade east­ern Ukraine faster than the West could ad­mit Ukraine in­to NATO to de­ter Rus­si­an ag­gres­sion.” Rus­sia has already shown it’s not shy about re­tali­ation — its deputy prime min­is­ter said Wed­nes­day that the coun­try may re­vise its stance on Ir­an nuc­le­ar talks if the West con­tin­ues to re­spond with pres­sure.

Septem­ber’s sum­mit is still far off, es­pe­cially giv­en the speed with which the Ukraine crisis has de­veloped. This week’s as­sur­ances from the vice pres­id­ent were likely in­ten­ded to quell the fears of Rus­sia’s neigh­bors. But they open the door to a lar­ger U.S. push for NATO in­ter­ven­tion. In the long run, the threat of a stronger NATO in East­ern Europe could prove to be a deep­er thorn in Putin’s side than travel bans and as­set freezes.

What We're Following See More »
1.5 MILLION MORE TUNED IN FOR TRUMP
More People Watched Trump’s Acceptance Speech
12 hours ago
THE DETAILS

Hillary Clinton hopes that television ratings for the candidates' acceptance speeches at their respective conventions aren't foreshadowing of similar results at the polls in November. Preliminary results from the networks and cable channels show that 34.9 million people tuned in for Donald Trump's acceptance speech while 33.3 million watched Clinton accept the Democratic nomination. However, it is still possible that the numbers are closer than these ratings suggest: the numbers don't include ratings from PBS or CSPAN, which tend to attract more Democratic viewers.

Source:
×