Monday, July 2, 2018

NATO Needs a Strategy for Countering Russia in the Arctic and the Black Sea

While I'm on the subject of Russia:
First, don't miss the earlier post containing the link for: Sergei Lavrov: Skripals, Trump and More

Onto the second post for today before heading outside to garden!
ChathamHouse

The NATO summit in Brussels on 11-12 July is likely to be highly political. The Atlantic alliance is increasingly polarised due to disagreements over burden-sharing arrangements, national contributions and transatlantic solidarity. But NATO members cannot let these disagreements get in the way of addressing the ‘Russian challenge’ – the increasing tensions with Moscow as the Kremlin explores the boundaries of escalation with the alliance and tried to destabilize it.

Prospects for improving relations with Moscow are minimal, especially in light of recent developments. The latest meeting of the NATO–Russia Council on 31 May (the first since October 2017) and the meeting between the chief of staff of the Russian armed forces, Valery Gerasimov, and the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Joseph Dunford, on 8 June achieved very little. Although a welcomed addition to the NATO architecture in Europe, the recent approval of the ‘Four Thirties’ plan, aimed at strengthening NATO troops and increasing combat-readiness, will further antagonize the Kremlin.

Since 2014, the alliance has adapted to focus on Russia’s actions in eastern Europe, notably in the Baltic region and in Poland. The agreements made during the NATO Warsaw summit of 2016, notably the ‘3Ds’ of ‘defence, deterrence, dialogue’, are sound and should be reinforced.

But strengthening NATO’s eastern flank is not enough. Little has been done to work out a coherent vision for how to protect NATO interests in the Arctic or in the Black Sea. This is worrying since Russia is emboldened in both regions, as seen through brinksmanship such as provocative air manoeuvring, an assertive force posture and constant military drilling. (Never mind their operations for energy resources and their massive, massive ice breakers)

Russia's Icebreakers Make Them the King of the Arctic and America the Pauper

Right now, Russia stands as the foremost military and exploration leader in the region. It has 40 icebreakers—huge ships designed to push through ice-covered waters to safe passage ways for other vessels—in service with 11 currently in production. By comparison, America only has one, the Polar Star, that is operational. The other one it does have is broken. Russia also has six military bases, 16 deepwater ports and 13 airbases. Protecting these bases are S-400 long-range surface to air missiles. By comparison, the U.S. has no major military bases north of the Arctic Circle.
And in June, Russia launched its new nuclear-powered Arktika, the world’s biggest and most powerful icebreaker. At 567 feet long and 33,500 tones, the Arktika can smash through ice three meters thick. The ship will escort oil and gas boats from Yamal Peninsula and Gdansk oil fields to markets in the Asia-Pacific region. Also, they aren’t cheap. The Arktika reportedly cost $1.74 billion dollars.
It is no surprise that Russia is in control of the region, given that its has an enormous amount of territory there. Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Sweden, and Norway are the other countries that have legal claim to Arctic territories. They have rights to resources in and below the ocean within 200 miles of their territories. However, Russia reigns supreme.

Do Keep in Mind that Russia has the largest Stake in the Arctic. Cause I like facts!

Chatham House Continues Below:
The Arctic and the High North
In the Arctic and its broader neighbourhood, known as the High North, Russia is projecting military power and anticipates competition (and cooperation with China- the silk road has an Arctic aspect) with Arctic countries as well as China. The Kremlin defined its Arctic strategy back in 2008 and named the High North a region of strategic importance in its 2017 naval doctrine.
Russia has been increasing its military footprint there since 2014, through force and equipment deployment – reopening military bases in northern Siberia and Novaya Zemlya, and on Franz-Josef Land – and more drills and patrols, including submarine activities. This has implications for trade routes and lines of communication between the Arctic and the North Atlantic.
NATO by contrast lacks any comparable strategy for the High North: its 2010 Strategic Concept does not even mention the region and discussions on the North Atlantic do not automatically include the High North. The creation of a new NATO North Atlantic Joint Force Command this February, without a proper Arctic angle, proves this point. Furthermore, the ‘GIUK gap’ (Greenland, Iceland and the UK), connecting the North Atlantic to the Arctic region, is often overlooked.

The Black Sea

In the Black Sea, Moscow has been militarizing Crimea since its annexation in 2014 and the peninsula has been transformed into a military fortress. Russia is deploying air defence coastal systems, surface vessels and strike aviation capabilities. NATO now has to deal with the unpalatable fact that members Romania and Bulgaria share de facto maritime borders with the Russian Federation.
The Kremlin is also counting on disunity between NATO members which border the Black Sea, especially Turkey and Bulgaria. Both are playing an ambiguous game with Russia and their disagreements are an obstacle to strengthening NATO’s Black Sea presence.
Going to briefly comment here regarding Turkey and Russia. I know everyone wants to think that Turkey is playing Russia. And they are. Most assuredly, Russia is also playing Turkey off against NATO. It makes sense for them to do just that! 
There is no victim/predator specific role there.
The most recent NATO deployment in October 2017 – a 4,000-strong multinational land, air and sea brigade-sized force based in Romania – has increased NATO’s presence on the Black Sea but falls short of being a genuine deterrent.
A new Russian frigate, the Admiral Makarov, is prepared for joining Russia's Black Sea fleet.

Recommendations

As NATO does not have a clear, united strategy for the Arctic or the Black Sea, both regions will face heightened risks as the Kremlin further builds up its military capabilities. These risks include restricted freedom of access and operation in this contested environment due to Russia’s strengthened air defence and interdiction capabilities.
The risk of miscalculation and tactical errors is also present. An unintended incident could spark disastrous military escalation between Moscow and the alliance.
Therefore, for the Brussels summit, NATO members should:
  • Place the Arctic and the Black Sea high on the agenda, as the security environment in both areas is becoming a weak point for the alliance. The aim should be to give both regions the same strategic weight as the eastern flank.
  • Systematically apply the ‘3Ds’ to the High North and the Black Sea. The Kremlin should not be led to believe that it has military superiority across these regions or that NATO’s access can be contested.
  • Develop NATO forces and capabilities to foster greater military mobility and situational awareness, including air policing missions, air and sea patrols and reconnaissance, anti-submarine warfare activities, air defence capabilities and coastal defence systems.
  • Update the 2011 NATO maritime strategy according to recent developments and taking into consideration the risk of miscalculation.
  • For the Arctic, create a special Arctic task force either within NATO’s North Atlantic Council or as a stand-alone. Include non-NATO partners Finland and Sweden as well as relevant multilateral stakeholders such as the EU and the Arctic Council. Low tension in the region should remain a priority.
  • For the Black Sea, develop a stronger naval presence with Romania as a spearhead and attempt to get compliance from Turkey and Bulgaria.
If NATO is to get compliance from Turkey as well as Bulgaria- there is going to be a carrot and stick approach taken. Watch for it!  I wouldn't, personally speaking, rule out an assassination attempt on Erdogan.  That would be the stick approach. The US has other tricks in it's bag too. The PKK insurgency can flare up, with lots of arms provided by the US. NATO's Grey Wolves can come into play. NATO Stay Behind Armies: Gladio and Grey Wolves. Updated

7 comments:

  1. Great post, Penny. And thanks for the plug!

    Re: "Russia has the largest Stake in the Arctic". It crosses my mind sometimes that Canada would be better off being friends with Russia than with the US. NORAD wasn't designed to protect Canada, but as a buffer for the US against a feared Russian invasion via the North.
    https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/norad-north-american-air-defence-agreement/

    Being northerners and better educated, we actually had more in common physically and intellectually with Russia. Now we're all Hollywood-ed and dumbed down.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've often thought Canada would be better off being friends with Russia- because we did have more in common

      agree on the hollywooded and dumbed down part!

      Delete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi Penny:

    Since the Pentagon has been "losing" over 21 trillion dollars during the past decades...that is why there are no polar-worthy ships in the Western navys.

    https://www.globalresearch.ca/how-21-trillion-in-u-s-tax-money-disappeared-full-scope-audit-of-the-pentagon/5638534


    and...NATO has no "interests" in the Black Sea....other than provoking Russia.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agreed with you on the NATO having no "interests" in the Black Sea other then provoking Russia.

      Delete
  4. The Grey wolves are now in the government MHP which is AKP’s coalition partner is its political wing. They are not pro-US anymore. Assassinating Erdogan is not of importance. Erdogan is just a person, he is probably the most pro-US person in the government, it is the Turkish state as such, that is in conflict with US-Israel. Therefore, it would require much more than just assassination. Else the next leader will just be the same.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Erdogan is important to the Turkish state.
      He is the head of it. Therefore his death would have a huge impact on the state- Think of Kennedy and his killing? The impact still resonates to this day.

      I thought about the Grey Wolves being generally associated with the MHP

      Delete

TROLLS &SPAM WILL BE DELETED WITHOUT HESITATION
KEEP IT RELEVANT. NO PERSONAL ATTACKS