Spring is a joyous time, full of promise and growth. We plant our seed and bulbs, fertilize the fields and hope for good weather. The Baltic countries are seeing the results of years of careful tilling, cultivation, and now husbandry. However, euroskeptics remain. Now that Estonia and the other six new NATO countries have celebrated becoming members the attention is full on the EU. Many wonder about NATO's exact role in 2004 - is it a peacekeeping force, or a political talk-shop? Or even as merely a military adjunct of the European Union?

The obvious reality is that NATO is an instrument for Western (read: U.S.) influence globally. Washington calls the shots as the pre-eminent power in the world.

The “new Europe” nations, now members of NATO, share historical experiences. Some know France's betrayal. Even the noting of the centenary of the Entente Cordiale this week between England and France underscored the fact that in the last thousand years of European history France has been a bellicose, often treacherous power. Their reputation for cowardice is perhaps harsh, but Gallic vacillation is an old national trait. Germany and Russia - or both -have historically dominated the other new Europeans.

Thus the obvious, yet sobering reality for the celebrants - what Germany and Russia do, or choose not to do, has a direct effect. NATO forces in Europe are weaker than ever, and with attention on the Mid-East expected to be downsized even further. According to Strategic Forecasting, the publisher of the STRATFOR Global Intelligence Report, Germany has cut its military forces to the extent that it has next-to-zero power projection capacity. In a apt turn of phrase STRATFOR analysts see Germany as "long the European bugaboo", and note that the open discussion these days, of the United States pulling troops out of bases across Europe to deploy them in the Mid-East is being reacted to in Berlin with chagrin.

This is a logical development. The only place on the continent that may require immediate action by NATO troops is the Balkans. The 1999 Kosovo campaign, where Clinton reluctantly authorized air strikes only after European countries were unable to solve the problem with diplomacy, did not bring an end to ethnic and religious conflict. Even the recent violence against Serbs there was treated lightly by all players. When in 1999 Russia protested strongly against the UN bombings, five years later the only reaction was a few harsh-worded press releases, and the bandage offers of insufficient humanitarian aid. Yet, the sporadic outbursts of violence there are child's play, do not threaten the core of NATO when compared to what is taking place in Iraq and Palestine.

This week's escalation of warfare in Iraq indicates that NATO's next big operation may well be in that theatre. The UN anticipates a hand-over in June - but the instability and the inherent weakness of the UN system suggests that this is unlikely to happen either peacefully, or with any degree of confidence. Casualties on the U.S. side are increasing, the deaths of Bulgarians, Ukrainians and Poles this week in Iraq is putting pressure on Bush to resolve issues before the election campaign begins distorting truth even further.

That is why Russia remains a key international player in this equation. Russia observer Peter Lavelle noted April 6th on www.untimely-thoughts.com that Russia is a necessary ally. The war against international terrorism cannot be won without Russia's help. While some Western pundits and journalists appear to be in a contest to determine who can bash Russia hardest, the war on terrorism has recently taken a turn for the worse. Spain is merely the latest example.

Russia's endemic military decline, resulting from Putin's assertion of control during his first terms at the cost of international respect (the Kursk fiasco again only the tip of the iceberg) means that Moscow is no longer the European player that it was during the Cold War. As STRATFOR noted last Friday "Moscow simply lacks the necessary bandwidth" to seriously address or influence events in its environs, much less, if course, farther abroad.

Thus, the mewling from Moscow about the Baltics entering NATO have to be taken in the proper context. Even though Putin has the Duma in his pocket, has entrenched himself in the Kremlin with little real opposition, his task of halting the military decline in his country is Herculean - and, as Lavelle suggests, siding with a popular international cause, the war against terrorism, might be the first step to reverse the trend. Beyond local advantage, Moscow's involvement could tilt the scales in favour of international stability. Lofty expectations, but noble hopes are built often on far less.

The Baltics are proof of that. Their NATO membership has caused rumblings, extremists such as Zhirinovsky are sowing the seeds of ethnic intolerance again these days, as noted in this week's Estonian language leader. And the English-language Russian media is doing its utmost to express " fears". (One truly has to winnow through the chaff to find the seeds of truth: BBC monitoring revealed on April 4th in its coverage of Moscow's Channel One TV that Aleksander Yakovenko, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman is flip-flopping just like John Kerry. To the West he admits that Russia and NATO need each other. On Russian language TV he said that NATO expansion, while not a threat, needs to be assessed, because "NATO has not yet been fully transformed in the direction" that Russia would like to see. Yakovenko failed to expound on what that direction should be.)

The Lithuanian presidential scandal provides the final lesson.. As Stephen Hamdelman noted in the Toronto Star (April 6), Russia's actions there are oddly familiar, the country penetrated by Russian criminal and business interests. Handelman noted that Baltic EU membership is causing more anxiety that that of being in NATO - underscoring the fact that the new Europe constitutes a "gray zone" of an economic, if not an military threat in the minds of the Kremiln puppet-masters.

As the days tick off to May 1st there is sure to be more intense commentary coming from Russia, discerning real intentions from bluster will pose yet another significant challenge for confident nation-builders.

Arvamus

TRENDING