By: Kevin Clipper (Adrian College, '21)
On December 2, 2019, the heads of state of NATO’s members met in London to discuss the future of the alliance. NATO’s 70th birthday comes at a difficult time in which it is not only working to deal with the challenge of the rising military power of China, but also with traditional opponent, Russia. According to a CNBC article, NATO does not see any immediate threat against any NATO ally; however, the alliance does perceive, according to the NATO secretary general, “a more assertive Russia using military force against neighbors in Ukraine and Georgia.” Thus, while NATO was seen by some as obsolete after the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, Putin’s Russia remains a threat to Western Alliances, making NATO’s strength and unity just as relevant as ever.
NATO was set up in 1949 as a military alliance established by the United States between themselves, Canada, and European countries in order “to promote cooperation among its members and to guard their freedom.” However, it was included by the secretary general that this was largely done “within the context of countering the threat posed at the time by the Soviet Union.” Seventy years on, NATO’s relations with Russia are still tense. A new surge of tension has come since the Russian annexation of the Crimea Peninsula in 2014 and its role in a pro-Russian uprising in eastern Ukraine. NATO says that the channels of communication remain open with Russia; however, NATO perceives Russia having “provocative military activities near NATO’s borders stretching from the Baltic to the Black Sea.”
While NATO views Russia as a threat to their security, Russia also perceives NATO as a threat to their security. NATO recently made the decision to deploy missile defense systems in Romania and Poland in order to protect them from what is believed to be Russian aggression. Additionally, NATO has deployed thousands of troops in the Baltic states and Poland over the past several years. Both of these developments have increased tensions between NATO and Russia. Russia has criticized the deployment of missile defense shields in its former backyard. The prospect of Ukraine and Georgia, both of which used to be part of the former USSR, joining NATO is also a rather distasteful prospect for Moscow as it not only interferes in what Russia believes to be its sphere of influence, but also it brings NATO, an alliance that was formed to oppose the Soviet Union and now Russia, even closer to their border.
In September 2019, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated that “NATO approaching our borders is a threat to Russia.” That view was echoed by Russian President Vladimir Putin in December when he told Russia’s Security Council that he was “seriously concerned about the NATO infrastructure approaching our borders, as well as the attempts to militarize outer space” Both Russia and NATO perceive each other as threats. NATO’s originates from old Cold War fears. Russia’s, however, are much older, dating back to it origin as the Principality of Muscovy, and were seen highlighted during the time of the Soviet Union. These concerns largely stem from their geopolitical disposition.
Geopolitical Concerns Since to Collapse of the Soviet Union
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia lost many of its buffers, especially in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Russia essentially retreated to its 17th century borders, except for the fact that it retained control of Siberia, which today serves as the Russian core’s only significant buffer zone. Russia lost all of Central Asia and its influence in the Caucuses has declined. If Russia had lost Chechnya, its eastern flank would have been driven out of the Caucasus completely, leaving it without a geopolitical anchor in the region or significant influence in the Caucuses, which still serves as a tenuous buffer as Russia no longer controls the Caucus states of Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan.
To attempt to resolve this issue, Russia has tried to retain a sphere of influence over the former socialist republics in order to maintain the former buffers. In Central Asia, Russia established the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) in 1992 with the former Central Asian socialist republics, such as Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan, allowing for one of their former buffers to be restored. However, the most significant geopolitical concern lies in the region where Russia has often had the worst historical experience with due to the frequent invasions that swept through Russia: Europe and the North German Plain. With the collapse of their satellite states that acted as a buffer zone between Russia and Europe as well as the East European socialist republics leaving the Soviet Union, the Russian core no longer had a buffer in Eastern Europe, intensifying concerns. With the growth and expansion of NATO increasingly closer to the Russian border, Russian historical fears have been reawoken.
While the United States and NATO have no intention of invading Russia, from the Russian point of view, history is filled with dramatic changes of intention, such as breaking non aggression pacts as was done in World War II by the Nazis when they invaded. Historically, an invasion of Russia occurs once or twice a century. In its current geopolitical standing, Russia and its core, now lacking buffers to protect them from Europe, are vulnerable, especially on their European border where so many have invaded in the past. As a result, the existence and expansion of NATO, who for 70 years have served in opposition to Russia, evokes historical memories and fears of yet another invasion from a hostile, European power, causing some to question whether or not Russia will be able to survive any surprises that await them further in the 21st century.
Russia and its precursors have been historically offensive and expansionist because it did not have a substantial defensive option for dealing with the hostile powers that surrounded them. Given the fact that a Western alliance that is perceived to be hostile, NATO, is speaking seriously of establishing a presence in Ukraine and in the Caucasus and has already established a presence in the Baltics places NATO forces directly on the border of Russia and its core region, leaving them exposed. For the Russians, the strategic imperative is to eliminate that possibility of invasion or, if that is impossible, anchor Russia as firmly as possible on whatever geographical barriers they have available while concentrating all available force on the North European Plain to deter or prevent any invasion.
Implications
Due to Russia’s geopolitical vulnerability, the chronicle of invasion after invasion of Russia, and the spread of a force that is perceived to be hostile to Russia such as NATO, creates insecurities and concerns throughout Russia due to their historical memory of previous brutal invasions. While NATO may view Russia as a threat, Russia most certainly views NATO as a threat to its security, causing Russia to strengthen its military position in Eastern Europe. However, as Russia continues to attempt to increase its presence and influence, this only exacerbates NATO concerns, resulting in their efforts to protect their own interests, which in turn results in increasing Russian concern further, originating from their vulnerable geopolitical situation and historical memory of invasions.
Sources: Ellyatt, Holly. “NATO Meets as Relations with Old Foe Russia Remain Frosty.” CNBC, December 3, 2019. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/03/nato-summit-alliance-meets-as- russia-relations-remain-frosty.html.
Gurganus, Julia, and Eugene Rumer. “Russia's Global Ambitions in Perspective.” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. (2019).
Kotkin, Stephen. “Russia’s Perpetual Geopolitics.” Foreign Affairs. (2016). Lewkowicz, Nicolas. The United States, the Soviet Union and the Geopolitical Implications of the Origins of the Cold War. (London ; New York, NY: Anthem Press, 2018).
Stiel, Benn. “Russia’s Clash With the West Is About Geography, Not Ideology.” Foreign Policy (2018).
Toucas, Boris. “Russia's Design in The Black Sea: Extending the Buffer Zone.” Center for Strategic and International Studies. (2017). Young, Kieran. “The Geopolitics of Russia: Permanent Struggle.” Stratfor (2012).
About the Author:
Kevin Clipper is a Junior Political Science and History Major at Adrian College. This blog reflects his research interests in American foreign policy and international relations.