On Monday Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko announced that Lithuania, a NATO member state, would provide Ukraine with military aid, Reuters reported. That same day the commander of the US Army in Europe Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges told the Baltic News Service that US troops would remain in the three Baltic countries and Poland through next year or longer to "deter Russian aggression."
The pretext, created by the US and NATO open involvement in Ukraine a year ago, is false. Yet the build-up of the NATO forces along Russian Western borders is quite real.
Says Dr. Thanos Dokos, the Director General of Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign policy:
This is a very tense moment for the European security. As you know, NATO is a military alliance. And if there is a perception of threat for any of the members and a request for assistance, then other partners are required to do so. So, there is apparently a perception of a threat on the part of Poland and some Baltic states. They are concerned. And one should always remember that the perceptions are very important, even more than the reality. There is a perception of threat, there are concerns from most of those countries and the US decided to provide some assistance.
Now, is that a good development for the European security? I would say no. But the whole period is very bad for the European security. The only good news, perhaps, is that this is a temporary deployment, not a permanent one. I think there is still time for the diplomatic moves on both sides – Russia and NATO – to prevent such a development from becoming a permanent feature of the European security politics.
We used to talk about NATO deployment in those countries. Now we are referring to the US deployment. Why?
Dr. Thanos Dokos: I think there is not only the US deployment, because some of the rapid enforcement units that may be deployed in times of crisis, and that was the decision in the NATO summit in Wales last September, will come from other NATO countries, not just the US. And some of the planes that intercepted the Russian military planes in the last few days were British or of other nationalities. So, I don’t think it is only a US military deployment in those countries. But apparently, the bulk will come from the US for the practical reasons – because the US has the forces to deploy. But I don’t think it is a unilateral move. It is a NATO policy in reaction to what NATO perceives as the Russian aggression in Ukraine.
What is your forecast?
Dr. Thanos Dokos: I'm slightly pessimistic, because I see that both sides fail to exploit any diplomatic opportunities. And, unfortunately, the situation on the ground in Ukraine is escalating. And the more people are being killed, and the more troops are being deployed, the more difficult it becomes to find a diplomatic solution. But I would stress that I think there is still time, because the common interests between the West and Russia are still more important than the differences. So, I think there is still time for diplomacy.
As it turned out over the weekend, the US is also boosting its presence in Afghanistan, and rather secretly, too. The New York Times ran a story saying US President Barack Obama signed a secret order authorizing a broader military mission in Afghanistan than originally planned. “The decision ensures a direct role for American troops in fighting in Afghanistan for at least another year”, the paper reported Saturday.
Why did he need to do it secretly?
Says Dr. Theodore Karasik, Senior Adviser with Risk Insurance Management and Senior Advisor to the Russian Business Council, UAE:
I think the word “secretly” refers to the fact that he did not want this information to get out and affect the midterm elections which just occurred in the US, either before or after the elections occurred. The fact that it is not so secret anymore is to send a message that the US intends to be involved in Afghanistan for the next several years, despite the fact that the withdrawal of all the forces is supposed to occur at the end of this year.
What is the long-term strategy behind that?
The long-terms strategy is to be able to stabilize the new Government that comes in Afghanistan and to provide extra security assistance for the Afghan military, to make sure that when this Government comes in and is faced by the Taliban and other forces that seek to disrupt the Afghan politics, that there will be a robust force in place, that will be able to deal with this issue.
As we know, there’s been a multitude of attacks using the suicide bombers and so on occurring in the last few weeks and this should uptick in the coming months, and particularly, as we roll into spring, it should begin to rise even more. So, there is a combination of factors that are driving this increase in the number of the US advisors in the country.
And what has the reaction been from the different groups of the Afghan society?
Dr. Theodore Karasik: I think that overall it’s been accepted that it is a requirement in order to keep the country quiet. When it comes to the Loya jirga and other tribal-based parties, there may be some disagreement about this act. And it tests the Afghan political system in terms of the agreement that was signed between the US and Afghanistan regarding the presence of the US troops to continue into 2015.
But what kind of troops are we actually talking about?
Dr. Theodore Karasik: It looks like the troops that are being discussed here are those that are the advisors. And I would put this in terms of an analogy – the types of advisors that are going into Iraq. There seems to be a policy from Washington to help enable the national forces in both countries, in order to help them with their combat capability and force protection capability.
As for Afghanistan, as far as I remember, when the numbers of the international troops stationed there were quite impressive, it still didn’t help stabilize the country.
Dr. Theodore Karasik: No, unfortunately it did not. And there are a lot of gaps in the training programs surrounding the development of the Afghan armed forces. However, having said that, the US, I think from its perspective sees Afghanistan as a vital interest. Clearly, the Afghanistan’s neighbors who are also the US allies, except for Iran, are seeking to make sure that Afghanistan doesn’t go down the drain, like Iraq did after the US pulled out of Iraq. And therefore, they are trying to get ahead of the curve.
And you, as an expert, do you think that this is a good decision?
Dr. Theodore Karasik: I think it is a necessary decision. We are going to have to see how it pans out and whether there is a requirement for more forces or advisors to be put in. I think from the geostrategic point of view, the US that wanted to extricate itself from Afghanistan and Iraq a few years ago is now finding itself having to get back involved. And that is only part of a larger picture of the spread of disorder that is occurring not only in the Levant and North Africa, but Afghanistan has the potential for the spread of this disorder. So, I think it is unfortunately called for.
I remember that not so long ago experts’ assessment of the condition of the Afghan military has been quite low.
Dr. Theodore Karasik: The Afghan armed forces need to be continuously vetted with additional training and with the equipment requirements. This is a lengthy process and even though the US has been involved in developing the Afghan armed forces since the early 2000s, it does take a long time to develop a functioning military that is able to protect the country from the threats, and particularly in a country that hasn’t had a very peaceful history. So, this does take time.
And it is also in the interest of other neighboring countries, particularly the Central Asian states – China, India, Pakistan and even Russia, that Afghanistan remains stable. None of these countries want to see Afghanistan turn back into a lawless state, where the ungovernable nature of the country is a breeding ground for terrorists that could target any of these other countries.
And given the trajectory of the Taliban groups and other Pakistani terror groups with the creation of Al Qaeda in India, and also of the attraction of Daish in the Levant, these types of individuals could easily find Afghanistan as a new place to operate from. And they could drive their interests north, into the Central Asia and, ultimately, into Russia itself. So, there is a long-term strategic outlook here that needs to be taken into consideration.
In that sense how real are the chances that the American military could get engaged in the trans-border operations?
Dr. Theodore Karasik: The American military is going to be involved with its partners in taking some of equipment out of Afghanistan. But the bulk of it is likely to be left in Afghanistan, because it needs to be prepositioned for the future years. It is much like the model that we saw with Iraq, the only caveat here is that we don’t want to see the Taliban being able to get hold of any of this equipment, much like Daish did in Iraq. So, I think that these additional forces that are going to be put into Afghanistan, part of their role would be to make sure that this equipment doesn’t fall into the wrong hands.
Ted, tell me, a buildup of the US military presence in Afghanistan comes at the same time as the US military is increasing its presence in the Baltic and Central Europe. The circle around Russia seems to be tightening.
Dr. Theodore Karasik: I think when you look at how Russia is defining the color revolution theory, that this outlook is mostly targeted towards the actions of NATO and the US, when it comes to the Eastern Europe and the Baltics, and obviously Ukraine. Even President Putin just recently said that the US is behind, trying to foment a color revolution in Russia itself.
Having said that, I don’t think any of the color revolution theorists have talked about Afghanistan in the same way. And I think that there is a distinction there. In fact, the color revolution theorists would probably see NATO getting out of Afghanistan as a victory for Russia, in the sense of downsizing the aspect that NATO is surrounding the Russian Federation.
The American presence is seen as a guarantor, if you will, against any kind of upheaval in Afghanistan. I think that there is a distinction to be made between what the US intends to do in Afghanistan versus what NATO means from the Russian perspective. The US, being in Afghanistan in not a threat per se, because the US is trying to prevent the spread of the ‘Afghani disease’, if you will, into the Central Asia.
Russia and the US, despite their sharp disagreements on Ukraine and Moldova, and the Baltics, I think it is a bit of a different case when it comes to Afghanistan. And we can see that in the amount of money that is being invested by Russia and her allies in Afghanistan, I think that they might see the US as trying to protect those investments in a very strange way.
Since we are making certain allusions to the situation in the Baltic states and Poland, as an expert, do you think that here in Russia we have good reason to be upset about the escalation of the US/NATO presence?
Dr. Theodore Karasik: As usual, there always are two different viewpoints. One viewpoint argues that NATO has expanded to the point where it is on the Russia’s very border and the situation in Ukraine, the election coming up in Moldova in the next week, as well as the confrontation, if you will, between NATO and Russia over the Baltics is quite telling about the threat that NATO presents. At the same time though, NATO over the past ten years has gutted itself in terms of its capability, in terms of its political unity, in terms of its ability to conduct offensives. So, we have to be very careful here.
Nevertheless, the perception in Russia is that NATO is expansionist and it is threatening to Russia’s national security. That of course overrides everything. I think that we need to watch very carefully the reaction of the NATO states to Russia’s interest in Moldova, Ukraine and Estonia. When you overlay the template of the color revolution theory to Russia’s national and foreign policy view, clearly, the activity of NATO, regardless of how it is being defined by the West, is a threat to the Russian state.
Is there still a chance that the parties involved could start listening to each other?
Dr. Theodore Karasik: As we move into the winter months, it looks like there is a sharpening of the sides and also that the ceasefire, that was agreed to several weeks ago, is falling apart. I think that the winter period will be the one where there is a continuing rhetorical war ongoing between the sides. I think that the MH17 incident is going to keep popping up over and over again.
And also, I think that Ukraine itself is going to be facing a very tough winter. And this may cause some kind of political upheaval in that country. The economy is in a very-very bad shape; this may turn the events around in Ukraine, sharpen each other’s resolve. There is already a talk by the US to send lethal weapons to Ukraine. This is going to uptick Russia’s interests in Ukraine considerably. So, the outlook isn’t very rosy.
