Sunday 7 August 2016

The Danger of NATO’s Power Play



The past two years has seen a significant rise in the tension between Russia and the West. Aggravated by Russia’s annexation of the Crimea, the tension surrounding Russia’s belligerent behaviour has caused an upsurge in sabre rattling from Central and Eastern Europe to the Nordic and Baltic Regions.
From predictions by former NATO deputy commander, British General Sir Alexander Richard Sherriff, that NATO will be at war with Russia by 2017, to the pronouncements by Swedish Armed Forces’ Maj. Gen. Anders Brännström that: “we could be at war within a few years”, security is paramount for the countries surrounding Russia.
To this end there has been a surge in defence spending throughout these regions. Lithuania, for example, has decided to increase defence spending by 32%. Sweden’s decision to also place an extra 1.2 billion dollars into the defence budget over the coming four years indicates that they are worried by the threat posed by Russia and determined to protect themselves.
NATO’s Power Play

Encouraging this spending is NATO, who is taking its role as European protector very seriously. Over the past year and a half NATO has been mobilising its members to engage with the Baltic and GUAM (Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Moldova) countries in an ongoing strategy of reassurance.

After the collapse of the Minsk Agreement and the continuation of the Crimean conflict, many in these regions now fear that they will be next on the Kremlin’s agenda. Capitalising on this fear, NATO has spent the first half of 2016 demonstrating that it will not stand for more of Putin’s revisionist foreign policies, by engaging countries throughout Russia’s borderlands in military exercises and by integrating military operations.


2016 NATO Northern and Eastern European Manoeuvers
Cold Response
Norway
17-28 March
Brilliant Jump Alert 16
Albania, Poland, Spain and United Kingdom
1-4 April
Steadfast Alliance Ballistic Missile
Multiple European Locations
18-29 April
Flaming Sword
Latvia, Lithuania
1-20 May
Brilliant Jump Deploy 16
Poland
17-26 May
Sabre Strike
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania
2-14 June
Baltops
Baltic Sea
June 3-26
Dynamic Mongoose
North Sea
26 June-4 July

Two years ago this would have been seen as an imposition by NATO’s member states, who preferred to leave Russia a buffer of former soviet states rather than risk further destabilisation of the region. It was understood that Russia saw its former soviet territories as an extension of itself and that it was Russia’s desire to maintain peace and security within its former empire.

This past arrangement is now over and NATO, with its recent declaration of a Russia Policy at the NATO Ministerial Conference, has made a significant change in the NATO-Russia playbook. The specific mention of countries like Georgia and the decision to provide an increase in the ‘boots on the ground’ along Russia’s north eastern flank, indicates that NATO is worried about the new powerful Russia.

The Risk of Russia’s Response

NATO’s games do not come without some jeopardy. The biggest risk is Russian President Vladimir Putin’s reaction to NATO’s aggressive policies. So far the response to NATO’s behaviour has been restrained. There has been a series of vague warnings to Sweden and Finland on the cusp of their meetings with NATO and two minor military incidents. The first  in the Baltic with the Russian flyover of an American aircraft carrier and the second in  Syria where Russian jets entered into territory overseen by America.  Overall, Russia has taken the proverbial high road with Russian Foreign Ministry’s Spokesperson Maria Zakharova declaring in May that 

Russia "has tried to be consistent [in its reaction to NATO's posture] and present facts when it comes to NATO's expansion and Russophobic remarks with regard to Russia's imaginary threat."  

Domestically though it is a different story. Putin has overseen the restoration of a fractured and weak state and throughout this time he has pursued an aggressive foreign policy where Russia’s interests are concerned. From Russia’s involvement in the conflicts in Georgia, Azerbaijan and Moldova to Putin’s recent foray into the Middle East, Russia is not afraid of conflict.

Fortress Russia

Over the past two years alone, Russia has increased and developed its defence capabilities. The Russian military has taken delivery of a swathe of new weapons which they have been field testing in the Syrian conflict.  They have also been restoring and developing the Barguzin (BZhRK) combat railway missile defence system, which is Russia’s answer to NATO’s ballistic missile shield. There is also the extension of the S-300 missile defence system to Iran and Kazakhstan. This expansion will provide protection to Russia’s oil and gas assets from missile attacks originating in the Persian Gulf.

The construction of Fortress Russia is hardly surprising. It is in line with Putin’s formal declaration that NATO is a security threat and his statement that “we are duty-bound to pay special attention to solving the task of strengthening the combat readiness of our country.” The real question now is will Russia respond to NATO’s brinksmanship?

Domestic Risks?

Domestically, Putin needs to be seen to respond. Despite his miraculous ability to remain in power, Putin has faced domestic backlashes. In 2011, when he was re-elected, his approval rating slumped to 69% and there were a number of protests against the state. However, after the annexation of the Crimea and a renewal of tension with the West, Putin’s approval rating has reached 83%, with Russians forgetting their economic troubles and unifying behind their President in a nationalistic pride.

To maintain this support Putin must develop a new hard-line foreign policy. Russia must meet NATO move for move in the European theatre. To this end the recent removal of 50 senior and mid-level commanders of the Baltic fleet after the failed to go toe to toe with NATO during its recent Baltic operations is surmised as one example of the application of this new tough foreign policy in the domestic Russian arena. The risk with this policy is that removing large portions of the military will create a backlash against Putin in upper echelons of the military and state
.
The Risk of Choosing NATO

For the states that border Russia, NATO’s posturing may be leading them down a perilous path. Firstly, by choosing to side with the west they run the risk of Russia seeing them as a threat and taking steps to neutralise that threat. Secondly, they may suffer an economic backlash or other destabilising tactics used by Russia. These governments risk their stability by joining with NATO.

Nevertheless many of these countries see this as a risk worth taking and are seeking European partnerships and ties. Countries deep in Russia’s backyard, such as Moldova, have requested at the NATO Summit in Warsaw this week to remove the Russian peacekeepers in Transnistria because the presence of Russian forces exacerbates the military tension between the two nations.

Turkey’s Failed Coup May Dismantle Turkish Democracy



As the fallout from Turkey’s failed coup d’état continues to unfold, it is clear that a significant portion of the judiciary and military were involved.  According to Justice Minister Bekir Bozdag, 6000 people have so far been detained over the failed coup, 265 people have died and 1,400 were wounded.

Of the 6000 detained, 2,700 were judiciary officials including ten members of the High Council of Judges and Prosecutors and two members of the Constitutional Court, 3000 were military personnel, with 50 being senior military officials from the Denizli Garrison including the base Commander Major General Ozhan Ozbakir. 

Other top ranking personnel arrested included General Erdal Ozturk, commander of the Third Army, General Adem Huduti commander of the Second Army, Akin Ozturk the former Chief of the Air Staff and one of Turkey’s most senior judges Alparslan Altan.  

Coup d'état or Protecting Freedom

The individuals involved in Friday’s uprising were dissatisfied with the rule of President Recep Erdogan’s government. The military in Turkey have long considered themselves to be the protectors of the secular traditions established by the countries first President, Kemal Atatürk. 

Mustafa Kemal Atatürk is considered the founder of modern Turkey and his moves towards secularisation of Turkey’s state and society changed it into a modern society where education was state controlled, women were given equal civil and political rights and poverty was reduced.
President Erdogan’s commitment to Atatürk’s legacy and to democracy has often been questioned. Erdogan is a political Islamist who has divided the country with his rejection of Turkey’s secular history and his desire to exchange Turkey’s secular constitution for a more Islamic based authoritarian one with a strong emphasis on an executive Presidency and Islam. 

His political party, the Justice and Development Party or AKP, despite being popular, has also had a controversial few years. In 2014 the AKP announced a raft of plans to revise the role Islam has within Turkey’s state and society. There were announcements that religious education would now be extended to children as young as six and that there would be new policies implemented to allow children in grades four and above to take up to two years off from school to memorise the Koran.
Furthermore, all high school students would start to learn Ottoman Turkish, an Arabic and Persian based language developed and utilised by the more elite sections of society during the Ottoman Empire. This language has little in common with modern Turkish. 

Each of these measures and policies were met with significant opposition from adversaries. There have been numerous efforts to censure the party with accusations of corruption levelled against senior members in the past two years and the AKP being the subject of two closure cases in an effort to disband the political group. These attempts to moderate Erdogan and the AKP have achieved little.  

Empowering Erdogan

Each failed attempt to discredit Erdogan and the AKP has strengthened their appeal. Erdogan’s successful FaceTime mobilisation of the Turkish people clearly illustrates his popularity as a leader. His CNNTURK interview, during which he called for his supporters to go out onto the streets, was the turning point for the coup which faced significant civilian opposition. Erdogan supporters are reported to have made civilian arrests and assisted police in restoring order while repelling the military who were trying to seize major roads and infrastructure. One day on from the cessation of hostilities, Erdogan has continued his call for people to gather in public squares stating ‘This is not a 12 hour affair’. Answering this request, Erdogan supporters have come out in their thousands throughout Turkey to show their support for the President. 

Opposition Removed

Many believe that Erdogan’s swift response to the coup indicates that the arrests are more about decimating his political opponents. The move against such large numbers of judges and members of the bureaucracy indicates President Erdogan had previously drawn up a list of opponents and was utilising this opportunity to secure his position. As the European Union Commissioner overseeing Turkey application for membership Johannes Hahn stated

"It looks at least as if something has been prepared," 
 "The lists are available, which indicates it was prepared and to be used at a certain stage.
"I'm very concerned. It is exactly what we feared."