Russia’s January 2026 use of a hypersonic Oreshnik missile was not primarily about destroying a target. It was a strategic message delivered through speed and proximity rather than words. Western reporting confirms the strike occurred near Ukraine’s western border during a broader missile and drone attack and was widely interpreted as a deliberate signal toward NATO rather than a battlefield necessity.

This is how the conversation begins. Russia speaks first, not with a declaration, but with a capability demonstration. Hypersonic systems like Oreshnik reportedly exceed Mach 10, compressing detection and decision timelines and complicating interception by existing missile defense architectures. The message is implicit. If this can reach here, it can reach farther. Geography does the rest of the work.

From a battlefield perspective, the strike changed little. Ukraine has endured far heavier damage from conventional missile campaigns. Infrastructure effects were limited relative to scale. That is precisely why the strike matters. Hypersonic weapons derive much of their value not from explosive yield but from psychological and strategic effects that shape decision-making under uncertainty.

Hypersonic systems sit in an uneasy space between conventional and nuclear deterrence. Their speed and maneuverability reduce warning time, while their dual-use potential introduces ambiguity about intent and escalation thresholds. This ambiguity is destabilizing by design. It forces worst-case assumptions and heightens coercive leverage without crossing overt nuclear red lines.

The timing of the strike matters. It occurred amid active European debates about long-term security guarantees for Ukraine. Russia has consistently opposed deeper Western involvement, and analysts note that demonstrations of advanced strike capabilities often coincide with diplomatic inflection points to influence allied decision-making. Poland was not targeted, yet proximity alone conveyed risk. That was sufficient.

This brings the conversation directly to deterrence and national strategy. The most recent United States National Defense Strategy identifies Russia as an acute threat and emphasizes integrated deterrence across domains, allies, and instruments of national power. The document explicitly recognizes the challenge posed by advanced missile threats and highlights the need for resilient command and control, integrated air and missile defense, and close coordination with allies.

However, the Oreshnik strike exposes a gap between strategic acknowledgment and operational specificity. The National Defense Strategy speaks clearly about the importance of integrated deterrence, yet it remains largely high-level in addressing how compressed decision timelines created by hypersonic weapons affect escalation management in Europe. While the strategy calls for investments in missile defense and sensing, it does not fully grapple with the psychological and political effects of hypersonic ambiguity on alliance cohesion crises.

Deterrence by denial becomes harder to sustain when allies know that some threats may penetrate defenses regardless of investment. Hypersonic systems challenge assumptions that reassurance can rest on interception alone. NATO and U.S. strategies increasingly emphasize deterrence by punishment and resilience, yet the National Defense Strategy stops short of articulating how allies should respond politically and militarily when warning time collapses, and attribution is immediate, but intent remains unclear.

This does not mean the strategy is wrong. It means it is incomplete. Integrated deterrence remains the correct framework, but hypersonic weapons demand greater emphasis on crisis decision-making, distributed command structures, and alliance-level exercises that assume ambiguity rather than clarity. Analysts have long warned that hypersonic systems stress deterrence not by making war more likely, but by increasing the risk of miscalculation during moments of political tension.

Russia’s hypersonic signal near NATO’s border, therefore, becomes a practical test of whether strategic documents translate into a credible posture. The National Defense Strategy acknowledges the problem. The question is whether implementation moves fast enough to match the physics involved. Deterrence must function even when seconds replace minutes, and ambiguity replaces certainty.

The Oreshnik launch did not redraw Europe’s security map overnight. It changed the tone of the room. It reminded policymakers that deterrence is not static, and that technology can erode comfortable assumptions faster than doctrine adapts. Hypersonic weapons are not the end of deterrence. They are a stress test of whether national strategies and alliances can remain credible when clarity disappears.

When the screens go dark in that briefing room, the real discussion begins. Not about panic or retaliation, but about adaptation. Deterrence endures not because threats are fast, but because responses remain coherent under pressure. Russia spoke in velocity. The enduring question is whether strategy, alliance resolve, and execution can keep pace.

Brandon Toliver is a Senior Fellow at the National Institute for Deterrence Studies. Views expressed are the author’s own. 

The Conversation Europe Never Wanted: Hypersonic Tensions and U.S. Defense Strategy was originally published on Global Security Review.

Extended deterrence, commonly known as the “nuclear umbrella,” represents America’s commitment to defend its allies against strategic threats, including the use of nuclear weapons. Since the late 1940s, this policy provides security guarantees to NATO members and Asian allies like Japan and South Korea.

Rising threats from adversaries like North Korea and Iran, coupled with the modernization of arsenals by Russia and China, underscore its continued necessity. Without this safeguard, allies may feel compelled to pursue independent nuclear programs, triggering preventable proliferation that can destabilize entire regions and weaken American influence.

Consider a scenario where the United States’ failure to build a peer theater nuclear capability and public statements are viewed by allies as a reduction in American nuclear commitments in East Asia. Japan, confronted by an assertive China and threatening North Korea, initiates a covert nuclear program, leveraging its advanced civilian nuclear technology and plutonium reserves. Constitutional constraints notwithstanding, mounting public anxiety could drive Tokyo toward its first nuclear test.

South Korea, facing similar security vulnerabilities, revives its previously dormant nuclear ambitions. Taiwan, under existential threat from China, sees nuclear capability as essential for survival. Alarmed by these developments, President Xi Jinping orders an accelerated attack on Taiwan and, potentially, attacks targets in South Korea and Japan to preempt support of Taiwan.

This ripple effect would yield devastating global repercussions. The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), a cornerstone of nonproliferation, ceases in relevance. Nations such as Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Germany, and Poland might explore nuclear options. With more nuclear actors in play, risks increase as a statistical probability. Diplomatic and economic instability would likely surge, potentially fracturing alliances, crippling foreign investment, and destabilizing global markets.

Extended deterrence is not merely about preventing proliferation; it provides substantial military and economic benefits as well. American allies contribute robust defense capabilities, hosting critical strategic bases essential for American operations. South Korea’s military fought alongside American forces in every conflict since Vietnam, while Japan’s formidable naval and air capabilities enhance American strategic flexibility. European NATO allies provide indispensable missile defense and air operations infrastructure, reinforcing American global power projection.

Economically, the nuclear umbrella fosters stability, encouraging foreign direct investment from treaty allies like Japan, Germany, and South Korea—three of the top investors in the US. This security framework ensures mutual prosperity and deepens economic interdependence, strengthening not just trade partnerships but long-term strategic relationships. South Korea, the world’s 14th-largest economy, thrives under this arrangement, further reinforcing cross-border trade and investment.

Upholding extended deterrence demands a long-term investment of American resources, ensuring stability across NATO. Allied nations pledged to meet defense spending commitments, emphasizing the principle that collective security thrives on shared responsibility. Given that the US allocates just under three percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) to defense, committing at least two percent is a reasonable expectation.

Eleven nations met the two percent target in 2023, up from just four in 2017. President Trump’s pressure campaign on NATO defense spending is working. If every NATO nation adhered to the two percent minimum, the alliance’s total defense budget would rise by over $100 billion annually, reinforcing military capabilities, strengthening infrastructure, and fortifying global stability.

More than just a financial obligation, honoring these agreements is fundamental to sustaining NATO’s unity and trust. Increased investment not only bolsters collective security but also eases the strain on the US, which continues to shoulder the responsibility of protecting Western civilization from instability.

Extended deterrence long served as the backbone of global stability, shaping a world where security, military cooperation, economic prosperity, and nuclear nonproliferation are upheld. Stability is not self-sustaining; it demands vigilance, action, and unwavering commitment. NATO’s legacy proves this repeatedly. From coalition forces uniting in Kosovo to prevent ethnic cleansing, to NATO-led air campaigns in Libya that dismantled an oppressive regime, alliance members stood together in moments of crisis. Joint operations in Afghanistan, where NATO countries fought side by side for nearly two decades, showcased the strength of shared commitment. Even today, as NATO fortifies defenses in Eastern Europe, the principle remains unchanged. Security is only as strong as the unity behind it.

NATO’s Article 5 is more than a pledge; it is a promise that must be upheld through action. Security is not theoretical; it is built on resources, strategy, and cooperation. The deterrence piggy bank needs deposits, not just withdrawals. If allies fail to uphold their commitments, the burden on the US becomes untenable.

The stakes could not be higher. Geopolitical tensions are rising, nuclear threats are evolving, and adversaries are watching for cracks in the foundation. The American nuclear umbrella remains a pillar of international security, but it is only as strong as the resolve behind it. Allies must step up because if they do not, the rain will come, and they will find themselves unprotected in the storm.

Brandon Toliver, PhD, serves on the A4 staff of Headquarters Air Force. The views expressed are those of the author and do not reflect the official guidance or position of the United States government, the Department of Defense, the United States Air Force, or the United States Space Force.

The Nuclear Umbrella: Reassurance or Relic in a Shifting World? was originally published on Global Security Review.

The international system is now firmly bipolar, with China’s global power rapidly increasing at a time when Russia regularly threatens to use nuclear weapons against the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), influencing the administration of President Donald Trump. The combined Chinese and Russian threats are leading President Trump to warn of a possible World War III.

American power is increasingly contested, bringing new operational challenges to extended deterrence. A fundamental question is now in play—should the US abandon the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) it created in 1960s and instead push its allies to field nuclear weapons?

Allies are already reconsidering their nuclear stance. In the Asia-Pacific, American ally Australia provides useful historical insights.

From the late 1940s to the early 1970s, Australia sought to acquire nuclear weapons in response to an unstable international order where it felt threatened by China. In 1967, Secretary of US Defense Robert McNamara said it would be “entirely natural” and “an obvious thing to happen” for Australia to acquire nuclear weapons in response to China developing them. He also expressed interest in establishing a collective nuclear organization for the Far East, “starting with Australia and the Philippines.”

Indeed, Secretary of State Dean Rusk earlier suggested a “US-supplied Far Eastern nuclear stockpile” open to Japan and India. In 1958, others proposed the US could base intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) in Australia, in the event the US decided to keep tight control of nuclear weapons in its own hands and actively worked to push its allies to agree to the NPT treaty.

There were similar debates around friendly nuclear proliferation in Europe around the same time. Aiming to regain leadership in Europe, the US proposed a multilateral nuclear force within NATO. While there were doubts over its military utility, the diplomatic discussions that started around sharing nuclear hardware and control did allow time to develop a European non-proliferation solution. In 1966, the NATO nuclear planning group was established, allowing some European allies to be involved in how and under which circumstances American weapons might be used.

The structural changes in the international system that prompted these earlier ideas are happening again. It is time to start thinking seriously about the next steps to take. The nuclear history noted suggests three broad approaches.

First, allies might build their own nuclear forces. The logic is that in a high-intensity conflict between the US and a nuclear power, the adversary may target American allies with nuclear weapons. Such an escalation demonstrates an adversary’s willingness to coerce allies into ceasing support for the United States.

This is the worst-case scenario that extended deterrence was created to prevent. If allies seriously doubt American credibility, fielding independent nuclear forces is a solution.  Indeed, economically challenged Pakistan and North Korea took this path already. For America’s allies, acquiring nuclear forces may be a lower cost option than growing their conventional forces.

Second, allies might work together to devise a modern multilateral nuclear force as considered in 1960s Europe. In the Pacific, Australia considered working with Britain on nuclear weapons in the late 1940s and 1950s; some still favor this effort. In that regard, Japan and Australia have recently acquired Tomahawk cruise missiles, which the US armed with nuclear warheads to deter Russia in the 1980s. Such weapons might be a starting point for an allied nuclear force in the eastern Pacific. As noted, the US considered deploying ICBMs in the Australian outback.

Third, another option, arguably better for American global leadership, is to address the allies’ deepening concerns over extended deterrence. This would involve the current administration actively reassuring allies that it still places importance on existing security treaties, increasing nuclear sharing and including more nations in nuclear planning, especially in the Pacific. Such steps would be at marginal cost to the US.

The most important might be nuclear sharing as this appears a tangible example of commitment. Of course, nuclear sharing is actually a misnomer since the US shares in the employment of certain nuclear weapons. It retains full control of the weapons prior to an authorization to strike a target.

The US could increase nuclear sharing with Pacific allies, such as Australia, Japan, and South Korea, and broaden out to other NATO nations like Poland and the Scandinavian nations, which appear to be Russia’s next target after Ukraine. These nations could then reciprocate in hosting US nuclear weapons as Belgium, Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands do now.

This discussion hinges on American ambitions for global leadership. As the Trump administration pushes allies to bare a greater share of their own security while attempting to close a $2 trillion annual deficit, the US must necessarily cut costs everywhere. Thus, American allies must take a realistic look at what President Trump is seeking to accomplish with the federal budget and understand that they must step into the breach while the US sets its house in order.

Sometimes, a great power must admit that it may be in its interests to change direction and push its allies down a new, different path. In that case, the Trump administration might declare the NPT finished and instead encourage its allies to go nuclear.

Dr. Christine Leah is a Fellow at the US National Institute for Deterrence Studies and has worked on nuclear issues at Yale, MIT, and RAND and in London, Singapore, and Canberra. She is the author of The Consequences of American Nuclear Disarmament and Australia and the Bomb. Dr. Peter Layton is Visiting Fellow at the Griffith Asia Institute and an Associate Fellow at the Royal United Services Institute. He is author of Grand Strategy and coauthor of Warfare in the Robotic Age.

Time to Proliferate Nuclear Weapons (or Not?) was originally published on Global Security Review.

After World War II, the nation abandoned the independent Poland cause, despite so many Poles fighting alongside the allies against the Nazis. Two decades later, the United States did not intervene in the Czech uprising (1968) when there was a cry for freedom from behind the Iron Curtain. The United States left allies in South Vietnam (Hmong), Lebanon (Maronites), and, most recently, Afghanistan. Other nations who fought with the United States were abandoned for political expediency. Once-allied regimes became undesirable and were left to their fate at the hands of revolutionary communists. The new revolutionary regimes often turned out not only worse than their predecessors but were devoted enemies of the Unted States.

American foreign policy is rightly called schizophrenic because it is rarely consistent.  Built into the American system of government was mutual agreement between the executive and legislative branches of government. It took two-thirds of the Senate to ratify a treaty and an act of Congress to declare war. Early presidents were loathe to act without the endorsement of Congress in real and tangible ways.

Until World War I, American foreign policy was largely stable regardless of the political party in power. Whether democratic or autocratic in their form of government, allies of the United States could trust in agreements they made with the Americans. Unfortunately, that has changed as American foreign policy vacillated widely in the post–World War II period. This is a problem not only for allies but also for the United States.

The moment allies doubt American commitment, they are no longer incentivized to work with the United States. This matters because the US is losing standing amongst allies and adversaries. For example, over the past two years the United States imposed every possible sanction against Russia. Yet the Russian economy grew faster than the American economy in the first quarter of 2024. Two years ago, the newly elected president of South Korea discussed the need for a South Korean nuclear arsenal because the United States was seen as an unreliable ally.

China is regularly expanding its navy and coast guard and using them to prevent the transit of international waters by its own neighbors. This week, the Chinese attacked a Philippine ship in Philippine waters. China also brokers deals with the Saudis to reestablish relations with Iran.

The US Navy claims it ensures freedom of navigation for all nations as a principle but is clearly challenged to follow through on that promise. The US is unable to provide effective escort of ships through the Red Sea because the US Navy is the smallest it has been in over eight decades. The lack of American commitment to sea power is but one example of inconsistency in foreign policy. Some argue that the Houthi terror campaign in the Red Sea is succeeding, and the United States is failing.

The Budapest Memorandum (1994) offered security assurances to Ukraine if it returned Soviet nuclear weapons to Russia, yet when Russia violated that agreement in 2014 with its invasion of Crimea, the American response was muted. When Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, the United States provided indirect support for Ukraine that is prolonging the war but is insufficient to ensure Ukrainian victory. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the American approach to Ukraine, the simple fact is that the past 30 years of American action offer a bewilderingly inconsistent view to Vladimir Putin as he seeks to advance Russian interests.

Despite the fact that 32 Americans were murdered and at least 10 taken hostage on October 7, 2023, President Joe Biden failed to actively join Israel in defeating Hamas. Instead, he chose to spend more time criticizing Israel for waging war on a regime that employs terror tactics. Israel, a long-time ally, can no longer count on American support because domestic radicals in the United States are a large voting block for the president.

Israel is not the only ally President Biden insulted. He insulted Japan as well and has demanded they fundamentally change Japanese culture and society. The US State Department is also engaging in bizarre practices of ridiculing and insulting strategic allies by pressuring them to adopt cultural practices that are patently offensive to them. This behavior is a result of government’s capture by progressives. It is a recipe for American foreign policy disaster and inconsistent with long-time American tradition.

It would be incredibly difficult for the US to act in the Pacific without the use of air bases and ports in Japan. In the event of a territorial war in East Asia, both Japan and South Korea will be at significant risk of attack on their civilian population. Their navies and air forces are force multipliers for the United States. Again, the point is not whether the reader agrees with an individual decision by one presidential administration or another. The point is that the United States all too often vacillates in its positions and makes it difficult for allies and adversaries to predict the American position in the future.

Consistency, whether hands off or activist, is critical for the United States because stability and predictability in foreign policy is important to friend and foe. The Weinberger Doctrine of former Secretary of Defense Casper Weinberger was an effort to offer a consistent framework for judging American action, but that effort largely fell on deaf ears. In the four decades since Weinberger offered his doctrine, American foreign policy has lunged from one failed military effort to the next.

The United States is no longer the global superpower it once was. It is more important than ever that the United States make wise decisions in its foreign policy. Allies are more important than ever, and they seek stability across administrations. A revanchist Russia and China are bad for the world. A consistent American foreign policy is the opposite. It is time the nation moved in that direction.

Michael Fincher is a Fellow of the National Institute for Deterrence Studies. The views expressed are his own.

Is America’s Foreign Policy Incoherent? was originally published on Global Security Review.

In Washington policy and political circles, the former President’s comments are met with both shock and disdain. The familiar tropes about the indispensability of the Western alliance and the civilizational connection with Europe are trotted out to defend NATO. In the Pentagon, there is even an optimistic belief that Europe is the security partner of future expeditionary missions around the world.

While Trump may talk like a shock jock, what he says about NATO and Europe hold true. Unless some tough love is imposed on the Europeans, American taxpayers will foot Europe’s security bill indefinitely. What Europe needs to understand is that America is changing, and with it Europe’s free pass is getting rescinded.

The Demographic Transition

One reason the Trans-Atlantic political and military alliance will change is the demographic transition in both the United States and Europe. In the US, by about 2045, citizens not of European extraction become a slim majority. Surveys of the next generation show that the affinity for Europe and with traditional American foreign policy imperatives is shrinking. The younger generation’s position on the Palestine-Israel conflict is a case in point. Latinos, Asians, and black Americans do not have emotional ties to Europe. They are, therefore, less inclined to tolerate and support the subsidizing of European defense efforts.

Instead, much like Trump, they will call on Europe to pay its bills. Europe, however, cannot pay those bills since it is an aging society with a large welfare state. As Table 1 shows, major European societies are rapidly aging. Not only that, but their median age is also going to rise to the extent that they will have a hard time fielding women and men of a fighting age.

 Table 1

Source:  Data retrieved from UN Population Revision 2019. (These numbers do not account for the recent population transfer from Ukraine to Russia or to the millions of Ukrainian refugees now in other parts of Europe who are unlikely to return.)

These numbers paint a bleak future. The nations listed above have the largest and most capable armed forces among NATO. In short, they all have greying populations and, by 2030, except for Turkey, will have a median age that is greater than 40. Italy, for example, is in serious demographic trouble with a median age of 50.8. Spain and Greece also have a median age of nearly 50. Worse, Germany, Greece, Italy, and Spain are all going to see a major decline in their populations. The priority of these countries is focused on meeting the social needs of their populations—something which is very expensive and can only come at the cost of reduced defense expenditure.

The other big problem for the Europeans is finding people who are willing to join the armed forces. After the Cold War, most European countries eliminated conscription. Reintroducing it would be political suicide for even the most conservative politician. Thus, while German Prime Minister Olof Schulz has committed 100 billion euros to defense modernization, he cannot realistically bring about force expansion without bringing back conscription. Further, 100 billion euros are not primarily going to buy more weapons but, instead, refurbish and modernize the existing force, much of which is mothballed.

The fact that the European nations lack manpower and the fact that rebuilding the forces will be expensive leads to the modest size of the militaries of the major NATO countries (as shown in Table 2). The question then arises, how many troops and weapons can these nations realistically field in modern combat? The answer is very few as these countries are likely to be casualty averse given their shrinking and aging demographics.

Table 2: Cuts in Force Levels of Major European Nations

Source: The Military Balance [IISS: London], 1972, 2017, and 2023 editions.

The Two Percent Myth

The other myth that Europe must stop hyping is that of how these countries are going to reach 2 percent of GDP in their defense spending. A remilitarization of Europe would require the Germans to cross the 2 percent threshold, but, by the end of 2022, the German government was admitting that it is unlikely to raise defense expenditure to 2 percent of GDP.

Table 3: NATO Defense Expenditure as a Percentage of GDP, 2023

Source: Defence Expenditure of NATO Countries (2014–2023), NATO Communique, July 7, 2023.

            The news is not all bad. Those NATO member-states who most fear Russia, or, in the cases of Greece and Turkey, are spending the required 2 percent of GDP on defense. However, except for the United Kingdom, the further geographically from Russia a NATO member-state gets, the less the country spends on defense.

Table 4: NATO Nations Spending Two Percent of GDP on Defense

Source: Defence Expenditure of NATO Countries (2014–2023), NATO Communique, July 7, 2023.

With only a third of NATO member-states contributing 2 percent of GDP, it begs the question to what end? Estonia, for example, has a population is 1.3 million. Is 2 percent of Estonia’s small GDP a meaningful contribution to the Continent’s collective defense? Latvia, similarly, has 1.9 million citizens. Lithuania has 2.79 million citizens. In practical terms, this means that for credible militarization the rich and populous states of Europe need to reach a similar level of defense expenditures.

Most NATO nations intend to raise their defense expenditure to 2 percent by 2026. Italy and Spain expect to reach it by 2028 and 2029, respectively. This is, however, a medium-term projection which does not consider the state of the economy. Neither does it explain where funding will come from. The social democracies of Europe are unlikely to agree to a transfer of resources from social welfare programs to defense expenditures. In fact, with rapidly aging populations the cost of elderly care will grow.

The other alternative, raising taxes, is unpopular in European societies, which already carry a heavy individual tax burden. Further, in some countries, notably Britain, the prevailing mood is to cut taxes, making it unfeasible to ask the citizenry to agree to a tax increase to fund defense expenditures. The question arises, therefore, where will the money come from to pay for new weapons, the development of a defense infrastructure, and the intake of more troops to boost larger military formations?

A European Nuclear Deterrent

 One way out is for Europe to field a Euro-centric nuclear umbrella. Talk is already ongoing as some suggest the French nuclear force transform into one requiring joint authority to permit employment. The British nuclear force, since 1962, has been committed to the protection of NATO members.

One way to achieve this integration painlessly would be to state which missions fell under the purview of the French or British nuclear authority and which would be covered by the joint command. Thus, a French decision to use a tactical nuclear weapon in response to a 9/11-style terror attack, for example, would be the country’s sovereign right while a Russian assault would fall under the category of a jointly authorized strike. NATO member states would contribute to the cost of maintaining and fielding the force—perhaps increasing its size and capability.

One can also speculate on whether other NATO states may decide to cross the nuclear Rubicon given the changed security environment on the continent. Sweden and Poland would certainly fall into this category given their fears of Russian expansionism. If this happens, it is well within the scope of nonproliferation laws since countries are allowed to leave the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty if their core security interests are threatened (The problem for the US, however, is how to prevent non-Western states from taking a similar step).

While this may compensate for the inability to field adequate forces it would certainly meet with considerable opposition from the peace groups in Europe and the general population which is wary of nuclearization.   Which then brings the issue back to the need for conventional militarization.

Fielding capable militaries that can defend Europe and project power in alliance with the United States requires NATO member-states to make hard choices about spending and compulsory military service. For the reasons cited above that is unlikely. For the United States, therefore, the best course of action is to redefine its commitment to Europe and let the continent make the diplomatic and political compromises needed to bring about regional stability.

For those in the Pentagon who think Europe is a partner to help maintain global security, it is time to look for new security alliances. The evidence is clear. Europe has neither the funds nor the manpower to be a partner of the United States.

Amit Gupta was on the faculty of the USAF Air War College and is now a Senior Advisor on Peace and Conflict Resolution to the Forum of Federations, Ottawa. The views in this piece are his. He may be contacted at agupta1856@gmail.com.

Is Trump Right About Europe? was originally published on Global Security Review.

Reports of Ukrainian state capture, Russian corruption, and bribery in other Eastern European and Central Asian states are on the rise. In all of the countries survey, only one country scores over 50 out of 100 points, with the average of countries only averaging a score of 35.

What’s the relationship between corruption and security?

Corruption undermines democratic consolidation and leads to voter disenfranchisement. This results in an overall lack of political will to combat illicit behavior in the public sector. In many Eastern European countries, history has provided few institutional checks and balances.

According to Transparency International, “one of the biggest impediments to fighting corruption in Eastern Europe and Central Asia is state capture, where powerful individuals or groups seize control of national decision-making and use corrupt means to circumvent justice.”

It is unlikely that Eurasia will see widespread democratic stability in the near future, with countries like Azerbaijan (scoring 25), Russia (28), Kazakhstan (31), Kosovo (37), Serbia (39), and Montenegro (45) dropping in rank or continuing to stagnate.

While there are exceptions such as Ukraine’s increase from 30 in 2017 to 32 in 2018, given Ukraine’s weak enforcement of anti-corruption reforms enacted in 2014, any improvement is more superficial than it is long-lasting.

What’s wrong with the status quo?

For many, state capture and corruption have been everyday factors of life for the past two decades. Some see the status quo as essential for maintaining stability. Implementing a more equitable system carries a host of risks—from public trials to long-term imprisonment. For many in the ruling class, retaining current systems of informal governance seemingly carries zero cost.

However, the populist wave of 2018 might say otherwise. As voter frustration with corruption continues to rise, so too will their impatience with those currently in power. Leaders that rode those waves of anti-corruption legislation—such as Armenia’s Nikol Pashinyan—must now follow through on their campaign promises, lest they risk being thrown out themselves.

Even countries like Russia, which have more entrenched systems of corruption, are beginning to see popular discontent. According to Russian’s Public Opinion Research Center, trust in Russian President Vladimir Putin has fallen to an all-time low since 2006.

While much of this can be attributed to Russia’s aggressive foreign policy in Ukraine and Syria, observers must also take into account public disapproval over an increase in the retirement age and growing frustration with U.S. and European sanctions.

Corruption isn’t just a domestic concern—the extent to which corruption dictates domestic policies inherently affects domestic and regional stability and security. Therefore, endemic corruption in Eastern Europe and Central Asia doesn’t bode well for democratic cohesion and international support for human rights.

Corruption in Eastern Europe & Central Asia Is On the Rise was originally published on Global Security Review.

Before World War II, Britain was the dominant global power—having control over important trade routes across the Atlantic, Indian, and Pacific oceans. Control over maritime trade routes coupled with leading the industrial revolution in Europe enabled Britain to emerge as the dominant economic power in the nineteenth century. However, in the latter half of the nineteenth century—following its unification— Germany emerged as a dynamic continental power capable of both efficient production and trade. The end of the nineteenth century, therefore, saw the U.K. gradually lose its European primacy owing to competition from Germany in terms of industrial production, trade, and military strength. However, it was only after World War II that Britain lost its global dominance to the United States.

The situation after World War II saw the U.S. rise as the dominant power. The United States’ strong economy and superior naval strength enabled it to control global maritime trade routes. The geopolitical rationale drove the U.K. to become a strategic ally of the United States. Securing vital maritime trade routes worked in the interest of both countries. For the U.S., with coasts with both the Atlantic and the Pacific Ocean, securing its waters was a matter of security driven by geography. For the U.K. it was about keeping the vital channels of international trade open. But the disintegration of its empire also meant that the U.K. was left with a weak economy which needed to be rebuilt.

World War II devastated European economies. The founders of the European Union decided that the best way to ensure growth on the continent would be to join European countries economically and politically into institutions that would eliminate the threat of war. Thus, the idea of having a common market in continental Europe began taking shape. As European countries grew more united and rebuilt their economies, the U.K. saw an opportunity. It realized that the common European market could supplement if not replace its decreasing imperial markets. In other words, economic interest motivated the U.K. to join the E.U.

The U.K. also found that it benefitted in being an active member of the European security architecture. NATO and the E.U. became the bedrock of British national security. Participation in NATO allowed the U.K. to maintain some global power and redefine its position in post-war Europe. During the Cold War, the U.K. built its foreign and defense policy around its membership of NATO. The alliance that was formed to protect Western Europe from invasion by the Soviet Union, became central to how the U.K. would structure, equip, and deploy its armed forces for decades to come.

However, the end of the Cold War saw the U.K.’s defense spending reduced following the elimination of the Soviet threat. This resulted in major cuts being imposed on the British Armed Forces, a process that was mirrored in most European NATO member states. While the U.K. did not provide the bulk of troops and resources to European security operations in Kosovo, Afghanistan, the Aegean Sea, and the Gulf of Aden, its contributions in terms of providing strategic guidance, expertise, intelligence, and equipment, proved effective and contributed to the E.U.’s international credibility on security issues.

The U.K. has thus been an integral part of European security architecture in the post-Cold War era. However, with Brexit, this could change. The impact of Brexit will at best introduce uncertainty and at worst permanently weaken Western defense by introducing new divisions in Europe. There are a number of issues on how the post-Brexit U.K. will continue to co-operate with bodies such as Europol and European Counter Terrorism Center. At the moment it is assumed that Britain’s co-operation in European security arrangements will continue after Brexit, but it is not certain—much depends on how negotiations take shape.

Given the importance of such bodies to both the U.K. and the E.U., it is safe to assume that both sides would try to find some common ground. Losing one or the other would have negative consequences on not just the functioning of the organization but also on the overall security in Europe, which recent terrorist attacks have shown is lacking. Therefore, the U.K.—with its large military budget, advanced weaponry, and a highly sophisticated intelligence services—has proved vital in maintaining both EU’s vital counterterrorism and homeland security efforts.

Prioritizing bi-lateral relationships

The real impact of Brexit would be on the bi-lateralization of relationships in the E.U. which could impact the E.U.-NATO multilateral dynamics. Already, the U.S. has prioritized its relationship with certain E.U. countries, for example, Poland and Romania. U.S. policy has been in cognizance with the Intermarium concept, an idea that is floated by strategic thinkers to understand U.S. policy especially with regards to Central and Eastern European countries. The U.K. has a strong military relationship with the United States. Compared to other European powers, the U.K.’s military strength and common foreign policy interests have enabled it to share the military burden with the U.S. when engaging in global and regional operations.

President Trump’s evident dislike of the E.U. and the NATO and his support for reviving the special relationship between the U.K. and the U.S. offers the former a tempting prospect of making its relationship with the U.S. the central pillar of its foreign policy. At the same time, the U.S. policy of working with Central and Eastern European countries provides much common ground for Britain to remain an influential power in Europe by building stronger ties with emerging powers in that region. A case can be made for a stronger partnership between Poland and a post-Brexit Britain.

The two countries have already signed the Treaty on Defense and Security Co-operation under which commitments have been made for cooperating on a number of issues ranging from cybersecurity to strategic communications. Under this defense and security co-operation agreement, Britain can offer Poland a number of benefits. It is important to note that although Poland has been an active member of NATO and is among the few countries that contribute two percent of its GDP to the NATO budget, it does not solely rely on NATO for its security. Poland over the years has focused on cultivating bilateral defense relationships with key countries to match its security considerations.

A post-Brexit Britain could provide Poland support on critical issues concerning its security. Britain has been one of the staunchest critics of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s policy in Ukraine. There is no reason to assume that London’s policy will change after Brexit. Britain has its own problems with Russia and it would be in Britain’s interest to throw its diplomatic weight behind Poland’s resistance against Russia. Moreover, Britain can also provide Poland with investment and trade agreements that could decrease Poland’s dependency on Germany for economic growth in the long-term. Solidifying Poland’s political position in Europe would enable Britain to remain relevant in European geopolitics. For Poland, having the support of an economic and diplomatic powerhouse would be crucial as it campaigns against German influence in Europe.

The Implications of Brexit for Security in Europe was originally published on Global Security Review.

What began as a small collection of infrastructure projects in neighboring countries in 2013, has now expanded to neighboring regions and continents, impacting 65% of the world’s population, and 40% of global GDP. Primarily funded by private investors, State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs), the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, and China’s Exim Bank, the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is China’s flagship of foreign policy and investment. Encompassing massive economic corridors, transportation routes, and critical infrastructure across 68 countries, BRI is nothing short of the most ambitious development project in history.

The incentive for the initiative stems from a shared desire to improve transcontinental connectivity in commerce and people-to-people ties by offering massive investment, inexpensive credit lines, and excess Chinese capacity in steel and cement — all vital to critical infrastructure projects. In turn, Beijing aims to realize the return on BRI investments through the expansion of its geopolitical and economic spheres of influence.

Initially driving investment in transportation routes between Eastern and Western China, an economic corridor through Pakistan, and deep sea port development in Sri Lanka, BRI projects quickly spread from Central and Southeast Asia to Eastern and Southern Europe. Already the EU’s second-largest trading partner, China offers Europe abundant opportunities to improve transportation in the Eurasian corridor by decreasing transportation costs, transit times, and carbon emissions.

As international trade routes operate now, importing Chinese products can be rather cumbersome. The most cost-efficient route can take up to 40 days on a container ship. To reach European markets from coastal China, a freight ship must sail through the Strait of Malacca, across the Indian Ocean, up the Red Sea, and through the Mediterranean Sea to round Iberia and Normandy, and finally pass through the English Channel to dock at the deep-water ports of Rotterdam and Hamburg.

With new high speed rail across Central Asia, trains could freight materials by land directly from China to the European Union. According to research from the Center for Economic Policy Research, new transportation routes created by BRI infrastructure projects will decrease shipping times and costs by 3.5% and 4% between BRI countries and by 2.8% and 3.2% with the rest of the world.

Although there are numerous ways in which Chinese investment — within and apart from BRI — can benefit Europe, the European Union remains wary of increasing Chinese influence within its member states, and with good reason. In 2017, China’s state-owned enterprise (SOE) COSCO Shipping, one of the world’s largest ocean carriers, bought up a 51% share in the Port of Piraeus — Greece’s largest port. Athens subsequently blocked a joint EU statement on Chinese human rights abuses at the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva.

Far from being an isolated incident, Chinese lobbying of the kind seen in the Port of Piraeus has become China’s M.O. in exercising economic sharp power in Europe. While the Belt and Road Initiative is an opportunity to foment economic development and stability across Eurasia, it is also the disguised economic engine of Chinese geopolitical statecraft.

Beijing seeks to insert itself into the European dialogue and policymaking process to undermine European unity to gain preferential access to European markets and limit the ability of the European Union to exercise collective foreign and economic policy that hampers China’s geopolitical ambitions. Where Russia seeks to challenge and disrupt Europe through disinformation and military posturing, China seeks to assert its will into European policymaking to manipulate the geopolitical climate to its advantage.

Countering Sharp Power

In recognition of the threat to collective policymaking, on 20 November, after less than 18 months of negotiations, the European Parliament, Council, and Commission committed to the creation of an investment screening mechanism. The unprecedented speed and unity on this issue marks the gravity with which the European Union perceives the threat of Chinese economic influence in the European theater. Although the mechanism applies broadly to all FDI in the European Union, the motivation to protect the EU’s domestic interests through its creation is evident.

The EU also appears acutely aware of the need the accompany investment screening with its own economic development initiatives. Greater EU investment in Southern and Eastern Europe would strengthen political ties with Northern and Western Europe. It would also provide an economic alternative to Chinese investment in European countries with higher unemployment, emigration, and hostility towards the political elite in Brussels.

The EU recognizes that without a significant economic alternative, Europe’s poorer countries are willing to file in line with China’s geopolitical ambitions so long as they reap the benefits from Chinese investment. China has already invested €600 million in the Port of Piraeus in an attempt to modernize the port, which is poised to bring in thousands of logistics jobs and an increased demand for further infrastructure investments from Greece, inland to Western Europe.

China’s success in pressuring Greece to block a joint statement against Chinese human rights abuses at the UN is undoubtedly alarming to European national security policymakers.  Nevertheless, it’s important to recognize that Greek politicians are beholden to their constituents, who might be willing to overlook criticizing Chinese human rights for the economic benefits that accompany Chinese investment.

Even with enhanced investment screening, the EU’s foreign interests remain vulnerable. On 21 September, following a 2017 “Joint Staff Working Document” on a “Euro-Asian Connectivity Mapping Exercise,” the European External Action Service adopted an “EU Strategy on Connecting Europe and Asia,” hereafter referred to as the Euro-Asian Connectivity Initiative (ECI). Implicitly designed to respond to the geopolitical ambitions of the BRI, the ECI aims to further develop the EU’s own soft power through increased economic and diplomatic presence within its Eastern neighborhood and beyond.

Adapted to “pursue a ‘coherent approach’ to connectivity” which “encompass[es] all modes of transport links (land, sea and air) as well as digital and energy links in the Euro-Asian area,” the ECI will likely become an integral part of the European Union’s Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) in the East, providing an economic and diplomatic framework for future relations. The question remains, will Europe’s ECI come into direct competition with China’s Belt and Road Initiative?

Although Europe and China have differing visions for Eurasia, many of their fundamental goals are shared. Both Europe and China recognize the potential for economic growth at home and abroad by bringing the two ends of Eurasia closer together. Fostering greater connectivity and trade through Central Asia would not only drive down the costs and time required of maritime shipping, but also provide economic stimulus for developing economies in the region and greater access to rich natural resources. As Central Asians’ mobility and wealth increase, greater connectivity  will encourage stronger people-to-people ties through shared education, research, innovation, culture, and tourism. China and Europe also share a mutual interest and commitment to the political stability and security of periphery countries at the nexus of Europe and Asia which can be strengthened through economic growth.

However, Europe’s vision for Eurasian connectivity is to encourage economic development, good governance, and open society through adherence to “principles of sustainability, transparency, market principles, open procurement rules, a level playing field, as well as equal treatment and equal access.” Likewise, Europe will likely require benchmarks for the respect of human rights and democratic governance to its investment proposals through the ECI. In addition to these laudable goals, the EU will, nonetheless, seek to develop its own soft power and influence throughout Central Asia, in part for its own merit and in part to counter the influence of China over the heartland of Eurasia.

In contrast, China is solely dedicated to reaping economic benefits and accruing political leverage over key routes of connectivity, reflected by its lack of insistence on governmental transparency, respect for human rights, or equal access to investment opportunities. Most BRI contracts are ultimately chosen by Beijing. However, Chinese investments often come with a ‘no strings attached’ policy which may appeal to countries reluctant to meet Western provisions for economic and political liberalization.

Baiting the Balkans

Even within non-EU European nations, the temptation of Chinese investment funding is strong. There are fewer bureaucratic delays and stipulations attached to massive infrastructure investment projects when dealing with an autocratic regime. China has the financial resources, enterprise, and political wherewithal to invest billions in new development projects overnight.

In the eyes of EU candidate countries, Chinese investment is a godsend. Among the EU’s Copenhagen Criteria for European Union membership, countries must have a well-developed and stable economy to integrate well into the single market without posing themselves a burden on the European economy. For EU hopefuls like Serbia, Chinese infrastructure investment reads like a golden ticket to economic prosperity and eventual EU membership.

With around €5.3 billion ($6 billion) in Chinese investments in Serbia alone, the Balkans has become China’s backdoor entry to securing greater influence in the European Union.

Yet Beijing’s investment overtures in the Balkans and Eastern Europe are the call of a siren for many would-be EU member states. As attractive as these investments may seem, Serbia doesn’t have to look far to get a sense of the risks that come with Chinese investment. Just 500 km from Belgrade, Montenegro embarked on an ambitious project in 2017 to connect their port of Bar to mainland Serbia, largely funded by China’s Exim Bank.

In theory, completing this project could be hugely beneficial to Montenegro. Yet two feasibility studies in 2006 and 2012 disproved the project’s economically viability due to the lack of traffic in the area. With an already burgeoning debt to GDP ratio, the Chinese loan “has sent Montenegro’s debt soaring and forced the government to raise taxes, partially freeze public sector wages and end a benefit for mothers to get its finances in order.”

China’s “if you fund it, they will come” approach to economic development may not actually yield the short and long term results it promises. What’s even more disappointing for the Balkans is the use of Chinese labor and capital to advance these projects — in Montenegro, 70% of the workers on the port of Bar project are Chinese. China is, in essence, driving Montenegro into debt to finance a project with highly questionable economic returns while using primarily Chinese labor in Serbia’s backyard. Belgrade should take note.

For now, the EU’s dualistic response to China’s increasing sharp power is encouraging. A stronger investment screening mechanism will ensure that European countries agree to infrastructure projects or loans on financially stable terms and will prevent China from buying up industries that could threaten national security. At the same time, EU funding initiatives will provide an economic alternative to Chinese investment and will bolster political ties with European, Central, and South Asian countries.

The Road Ahead

American hegemony over the post-Cold War liberal world order grew out of an alliance of Western countries adhering to free market economics, democratic soft power, and control over the global commons. While China has no ambition to replace the United States and become a global hegemon, but rather aims to displace the West’s influence by leveraging Chinese capital, technocratic policymaking, and foreign debt.

By amplifying its political and economic soft power through BRI investments, China simultaneously creates and controls the means by which its economic power is exercised through BRI countries. The renowned scholar of Asian geopolitics Parag Khanna tells us that the driving force of the 21st century will be the ever-closer economic and people-to-people ties between nations around the world. He is right to claim so. Connectivity — and the means to control it — is the new currency of geopolitics.

The European Union is gradually coming around to this way of thinking, but its implementation in foreign policy remains slow. The ECI marks a first step towards pursuing a greater presence in Eurasian connectivity projects and policymaking. As Europe moves closer to a state of strategic autonomy, it must develop a more comprehensive, efficient, and effective foreign policy regime to keep pace with China’s expanding influence. Great strides have been taken already by establishing a screening mechanism for FDI, establishing the Permanent Structured Cooperation, and elaborating upon the European Union’s Neighborhood Policies. Nevertheless, Brussels needs to develop a more cohesive strategy to address Chinese sharp power influence in Eastern Europe and Central Asia.

The European Union has yet to reconcile its own principles with its nascent role as a regional hegemonic power. Maintaining and promoting liberal international values of democracy, free market equality, and human rights are difficult to pair with the realpolitik of geopolitics in the era of connectivity. It remains to be seen if the EU has the political wherewithal to compete with China on 21st century terms. For now, the future of Eurasia hangs in the balance.

This article was originally published on The International Scholar.

Geopolitics in the Era of Connectivity: Beijing and Brussels Compete for Central Asia was originally published on Global Security Review.

This September, Poland was also suspended from the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary due to concerns over the level of judicial independence in Poland. Many in Poland and throughout the European Union have raised questions about the independence of the Polish judicial system from political interference, in light of a judicial reform law that came into effect on April 3, 2018.

40% of Polish Supreme Court justices are over 65—including Chief Justice Malgorzata Gersdorf.

Not only does Poland's judicial reform legislation terminate the term of office for existing members by decreasing the retirement age and making it mandatory, it also gives the parliamentary majority the right to nominate a majority of their replacements.

In other words, all judges over the age of 65—over a third of all judges—will be forced to retire unless the president expressly approves an extension. Chief Justice Malgorzata Gersdorf’s mandated six-year term is also set to be terminated early.Some judges have asked for presidential approval. However, many are concerned that only judges with politically agreeable views will be approved.

This law gives the PiS complete control over the supreme court, which acts as the highest court in the land. The Supreme Court is responsible for validating elections, thus implying that PiS could have the option to contest the outcome of unfavorable elections to a court that is politically dependent on the party.

Maintaining rule of law and other essential rights is essential for a functioning democracy.

In July 2017, a similar attempt was made to reform the constitution, in particular the judicial branch’s National Judiciary Council. That is the council which makes judicial appointments. The European Commission even threatened to trigger Article 7 of the EU treaty. However, protestors and observer’s collective sigh of relief was evidently short-lived.

The controversial bill was signed into law by President Andrzej Duda in December 2017. In January 2018, the Polish Supreme Court released a strongly worded statement claiming that the law goes “against the standards of the Polish Constitution, in addition to violating the principle of separation of powers, the independence of the courts and judges and the security of tenure of judges.”

Alongside the Supreme Court’s condemnation of the law, the European Commission elected to officially trigger sanctions under Article 7. These sanctions would strip Poland of its voting rights within the E.U. However, the chances of this are slim because enacting the sanctions requires a unanimous vote in the European Council, where Hungary has vowed to oppose it. The lack of meaningful response on the part of the council forced the European Commission’s hand in referring the matter to the European Court of Justice.

While this European Court cannot directly strip Poland’s voting rights, it can impose large fines. Despite the passage of the law, most of the Supreme Court justices also came into work after the law was implemented. There is widespread confusion over which judges are members of the court.

Poland is divided over its judges.

All of this controversy begs the question – why is there such a societal dislike of the judicial system in Poland? The majority of this rhetoric came from the PiS party, which has called judges a “caste of superhumans” and labeled the judiciary as “a state within a state.” Currently, polls indicate that Poles are split over the reforms, which 44% agreeing that judges should be forced into retirement at 65 with 33% disagreeing.

The rule of law is one of the common values upon which the European Union was founded. Therefore, the E.U. is bound to respond to any attempt to curtail it. While it is unlikely that that the Article 7 will enter fully into force, it is notable that the European Union felt it necessary to move to this step. It remains to be seen how the E.U. can respond effectively while maintaining strong partnerships with its more illiberal members.

E.U. Commission Refers Poland to European Court of Justice Over Rule of Law Concerns was originally published on Global Security Review.

Poland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania have all expressed concerns that their dependence on the Russian power grid network increases their exposure to Russian interference in their internal affairs and presents a grave threat to their sovereignty and national security.

As Lithuanian President Dalia Grybauskaite noted, “that tool of blackmail, which was used [by Russia] to buy our politicians and meddle in our politics, will no longer exist,” should Lithuania acquire energy independence.

On June 28, 2018, Poland, the three Baltic States, and the European Union signed a deal in which all Baltic electricity systems will be connected to the Continental European Network (CEN) via Poland by 2025. The agreement is a significant step towards eliminating the Baltic states’ dependence on Russian energy, further bolstering their sovereignty as well as security.

The Polish-Lithuanian link will integrate the various power systems.

The Polish-Lithuanian interconnection, in particular, will serve to improve supply reliability for Baltic consumers, as well as open up new opportunities for energy trade and competition. The LitPol Link was set up to facilitate this integration. LitPol Link is co-owned by Polish and Lithuanian system operators.

In total, the project cost 494.4 million euros, with 244.5 million of those euros coming from the E.U.’s European Regional Development Fund. Using this system, Lithuania, as well as other Baltic countries, will be able to cultivate more diversity amongst their suppliers.

Russian actions spurred this move towards Baltic energy independence.

There is always a motivating factor, domestically or internationally, when there is a significant shift in global energy politics. In this instance, the motivator is Russian expansionism and aggression.

When Russia cut off gas flow to Ukraine in response to late payments from Ukrainian gas company Naftogaz in 2015, it was a warning signal to other states that were reliant on Russian gas. If it could happen to Ukraine, what was to say it wouldn’t happen to Lithuania or Latvia?

Since 2015, both Lithuania and Poland have worked to construct liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals to import such gas from other countries like the United States and atar. However, even with LNG terminals, much of these countries remained heavily reliant on Russian energy.

The deal struck in late June 2018 took nine years to negotiate, revealing not only the complexity of the negotiations but the involved states’ dedication to this shift in policy, as well. One of the reasons for the deal’s timing was impending E.U. funding deadlines, in addition to potential Russian upgrades which would allow Russia to decouple from the Baltics unilaterally.

Russia remains Europe’s largest supplier of natural gas.

Interestingly, Russia has never threatened to cut off power to the Baltic states. As these negotiations have entered into their final phases, Russia has neglected to speak out against this shift aggressively. Why? Perhaps the main reason is that while Russia does face being kicked out of the Baltic states, Gazprom, Russia’s top gas producer, is still Europe’s largest supplier.

In the first half of 2018, Gazprom increased gas production by 8.7 percent, with exports to Europe rising by 5.8 percent. Gazprom’s President, Aleksey Miller, reported that gas exports to Europe could reach a record high of 200 billion cubic meters. Why worry about three small states when you already supply most of the European continent?

While Baltic states may be excited about a move towards more energy independence in Europe, the Russian share of the European gas market increased to 34 percent last year. It may seem more reasonable for these countries to see this new opportunity as an option to diversify amongst suppliers, but Europe is caught between a rock and a hard place when it comes to gas diversification.

Russian gas will always be cheaper and more reliable than LNG from other countries such as the United States and Qatar. As such, are the Baltic states moving away from Russian reliance, or are they just shifting towards a new political reality where a wall of European bureaucracy serves to mitigate the immediate threat of Russian influence?

Poland and Baltic States Reduce Reliance on Russian Energy was originally published on Global Security Review.

The European ‘bad boy’, Viktor Orban, the man who can be single-handedly attributed to Hungary becoming a semi-authoritarian regime, claims yet another victory in the Hungarian elections. An infamous figure in Hungarian politics since the late 1980s, Orban is a symbol of anti-communism and the face of nationalism in a state that is increasingly ostracised by its liberal European neighbors.

Perhaps the Eastern bloc and the legacy of its demise penetrates far deeper than we could have assumed. Orban’s condemnation of the petering Christian sentiment across the continent is microcosmic for the swelling rifts between his beliefs and the liberal swathes of his neighbors: Orban’s re-election doesn’t spell unity across Eastern Europe.

Orban’s ‘illiberal democracy’ stirred the pot of international cohesion with its rather uncouth response to the refugee crisis that has shaken Europe since 2015. His plans to hold immigrants in prison-like shelters to prohibit their exploitation of the Schengen area unmasks the blatantly xenophobic sentiments that have plagued his reign. Orban himself has insinuated that his agenda is beginning to infiltrate popular opinion across Europe and that the election of Trump has near advocated his anti-immigrant perspective.

Orban presents significant challenges for the E.U.

Orban’s third term presents significant challenges for the European Union; it’s conscious liberality and the leaders of Brussels attempting to dispel Brexit fever. An orchestrated media, a judicial system under the thumb: Hungary continues to polarise itself against the swathe of shared European values. The almost satirical likening by Orban of the relationship between Hungary and the E.U. as a ‘peacock dance’ laughs in the face of European unity.

It’s difficult to anticipate the behavior of Orban and his Fidesz-Hungarian Civic Alliance. Since his march of alliance alongside other European heavyweights in retaliation to the Charlie Hebdo attacks in 2015, the erratic behavior of the Hungarian leader couldn’t have been predicted. From building walls to prohibit the movement of refugees, to actively denouncing Islam, it’s difficult to sketch a trajectory for the future of Hungarian foreign policy.

Of course, it’s cruel to demonize Orban without looking at the bigger picture. Jingoism and xenophobia have run rampant in the streets of Budapest for some time. Gyongyosi (a member of the Hungarian far-right Jobbik party) publically demanded a list of professional Jews in 2012, arguing they posed a ‘national security risk.’ This charge has been ineffective with Orban witnessing another landslide victory—but despite his ‘reinvention,’ Gyongyosi’s remarks are a conceit that riddles through the policy of Hungarian Parliament.

The trouble with Hungary is that it’s seen to use Poland as its proxy, that Hungary has its foot on the pedal of Polish foreign policy. The conflation of these two states is easily justifiable; the two most overtly authoritarian countries in Europe are likely to bear a few parallels. When Junker and his European posse condemned Poland to face E.U. sanctions, Orban was the first to offer an olive-branch in defense of his ally.

Kaczynski and Orban’s love affair as the “bad-boys of Europe” can only maintain for a certain amount of time before they conclude that their lack of well-established democratic values and far from up-standing economies would collapse unaided. This story has a happier ending for Hungary than Poland however, as it is only Poland that is being threatened with Article 7, and in such its European voting rights. This is as much of a threat as Trump is with a nuclear response to North Korea: one is aware that it’s doubtful, but the threat itself is resounding.

Hungary is doing her best to propel the presupposition that she will continue her pursuit of weakening the E.U. to prohibit any imposition on the nationalistic endeavors of her foreign policy. German foreign policy inclinations, that being a balmy opposition to the Visegrad Group, might be Hungary’s only hand to coerce Berlin into addressing its concerns—including both migration to and within Europe, alongside economic growth in the East.

Fortress Hungary

The impact that Fortress Hungary will have on the rest of Europe is uncertain. The increasingly shadowy relationship between Orban and Putin, some say, should be a cause for concern. As Orban is courted by Putin’s financing of the Hungarian Soviet-era nuclear plant to reduce dependency on Russian oil (or so we’re told), our knowledge of allies and enemies in the E.U. muddies.

Of course, the relationship between Russia and Hungary is more sinister than one may believe—Russian linked paramilitary organizations are embedded into Hungarian territory, the Hungarian National Front a specter of fear for any minority residing within the ‘Fortress.’

Orban, his Hungarian Parliament, and his xenophobic attitudes pose a considerable threat to the European Union. His anti-immigrant policies have far from assuaged the right-wing fever spreading across Europe, and his intolerance of anything dispelling traditionally Hungarian values exemplifies how he is feeding rhetoric of anything anti-E.U.

His re-election poses a threat in many ways, but those whom must be protected chiefly are the immigrants. Perhaps the damning marriage of Poland and Hungary in international politics shall peter away, and Putin’s puppeteering of Orban will cease—but until then Hungary poses a genuine threat and its leader a real menace.

What Viktor Orban’s Victory Means for Europe and Russia was originally published on Global Security Review.

In February, 2018, MIkhail Saakashvili was detained, flown to Poland, and eventually to the Netherlands, His wife’s home country. Saakashvili has responded defiantly, saying that he will ignore the ban and return to Ukraine claiming, “I will return home to Ukraine very soon now, much sooner than in three years.” That may be difficult seeing as Saakashvili’s Ukrainian citizenship was stripped in July 2017, after allegations were made charging him with corruption and poor governance.

How did Saakashvili come to get banned from Ukraine?

The former Georgian president was chosen to lead the fight against corruption in the Odessa region of Ukraine by his former friend, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko. Just a few years later, Saakashvili would be banned from yet another country he formerly called home.

Although he was known for his strong stance against Russia and anti-corruption position, Saakashvili is not as popular as he once was in the early 2000’s. In Georgia, his presidency lasted from 2004-2013. During that time, he presided over the 2008 Georgia-Russia war, in which Georgia lost control over the disputed territory of South Ossetia. In 2012, Saakashvili’s party lost the parliamentary elections and he was further term limited out of office in the following year.

Since losing that election, Saakashvili looked to university friend, Petro Poroshenko for help. Poroshenko was elected as the Ukrainian president in 2014. Saakashvili became an advisor to Poroshenko, and in 2015 became governor of Ukrainian region of Odessa region.

To become governor, he needed to become a Ukrainian citizenship. This meant Saakashvili needed to renounce his Georgian citizenship. This was no great loss for him, considering that he is convicted of abuse of power in relation to a 2006 murder case and sentenced to three years of prison in-absentia. He maintains his innocence, however, saying that the charges are politically motivated.

The following year, Saakashvili was again out of work. He resigned from his post as governor in November 2016, claiming that members of the Ukrainian government, Poroshenko in particular, were undercutting his efforts to fight corruption.

In the year that followed his resignation, Saakashvili became an outspoken critic of Poroshenko. He and his supporters claim that Poroshenko is a pawn of Putin, and that all of his political acts are purely motivated towards Russian dominance. His movement, however, is not particularly popular and is not expected to be particularly successful in the 2019 Ukrainian elections.

Why does Saakashvili have difficulty gaining support from Ukrainians?

In short, Ukrainians are tired of turmoil. From the Euromaidan protests to the Russian annexation of Crimea, Ukraine has been in a constant state of flux for over four years. Saakashvili’s own history is not one of stability. His past leadership is marred with unpredictable behavior and populist tendencies. Further complicating his reputation is a pending money laundering case in the Ukrainian courts that alleges that Saakashvili conspired with ousted president Viktor Yanukovych.

Although his Ukrainian citizenship was stripped from him in July 2017, Saakashvili succeeded in crossing the border illegally from Poland in September of 2017. He has organized and led anti-government protests. In response, the Ukrainian government has accused Saakashvili of working with a criminal organization. They further state that the anti-Poroshenko protests are a “Russian plot against the government in Kiev.”

Saakashvili appears at the Munich Security Conference to push his own agenda

Saakashvili made an appearance at the Munich Security Conference in February of 2018. Instead of joining the broader security discussion, he spent his time speaking out against the Ukrainian government. His claims of crooked business dealings and anti-democratic measures ring hollow against his own attempts to work with the Svoboda party and Azov Battalion, both of which are right-wing, xenophobic groups.

Although his supporters in Georgia and Ukraine would prefer otherwise, Saakashvili’s star seems to have waned. He will undoubtedly continue to speak out against perceived injustice, but the former president seems to have been reduced to a stateless agitator.

The Decline of Mikhail Saakashvili was originally published on Global Security Review.

As Germany and Russia begin construction phases for the Nord Stream 2 pipeline underneath the Baltic Sea, Polish lawmakers echoed by U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson continue to oppose its construction. Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki asked the United States to consider extending sanctions that would hamper its development. Secretary Tillerson has stated that he sees the Nord Stream 2 pipeline as a threat to European energy security.

What do gas pipelines and security have to do with one another? The United States and Poland both consider the Nord Stream 2 pipeline to be a potential political tool for Russia. Both countries have raised the frightening possibility that Russia could use the flow of gas as geopolitical leverage in Europe. In other words, if political tensions escalated significantly to Russia’s detriment, the Kremlin could just turn off the tap.

What is Nord Stream 2?

The Nord Stream 2 pipeline will link Germany and Russia, bypassing several Eastern European states. Once constructed, it will be one of the world’s longest offshore pipelines measuring at over 745 miles (1,200 kilometers). Once it makes landfall, natural gas from Russia will flow through to access European energy markets.

Permits were granted to begin construction on the Nord Stream 2 pipeline in the landfall area in Lubmin, near Greifswald, Germany on January 31, 218. The Stralsund Mining Authority issued the permits. Other countries that will need to also provide licenses to Nord Stream 2 are Russia, Finland, Sweden, and Denmark. The scheduled completion of the pipelines is marked for the end of 2019.

Europe will face a deficit of 120 billion cubic meters of gas over the next two years. Nord Stream 2 and LNG aim to mitigate that gap. In response to claims that Nord Stream 2 is will place Europe under Russian influence, the gas company claims that Russian gas makes up approximately thirty percent share of EU energy consumption. Even with the construction of Nord Stream 2, Russian gas exports to Europe are not expected to increase or decrease drastically.

Energy diversification as a tool of political power.

Energy diversification has long been the desired policy of European states. However, with the expansion of Russian natural gas pipelines across Europe and Eurasia – that possibility grows smaller. Smaller countries like Poland are naturally worried about the intentions that a monopoly on gas could cost Europe. Poland has started imported liquid natural gas (LNG) from the United States, but overall – the majority of energy comes directly from Russia.

One of the more significant questions is whether or not this is a situation that requires a negotiation mandate from the European Commission. Does Germany need permission from the EU for this project? Countries like Poland would say yes. However, Germany doesn’t believe there is a need for it. With that comes a degree of regulatory uncertainty. Furthermore, the question of how seriously Bulgaria will take energy diversification when it takes up the EU Council presidency remains unanswered.

Another issue that arises is that Ukraine makes around 1 billion USD annually from transport costs of Russia using their territory to access Europe. With the Nord Stream 2 in place, that will no longer be the case. Bulgaria, like Ukraine, is also highly dependent on Russian gas. On the security front, how will Nordic countries handle construction preparation with a more aggressive Russia on their literal sea borders?

Taking all of this into account, however, Nord Stream 2 will translate more gas and in turn more competitive pricing for European consumers. As a political tool, though, the Nord Stream 2 pipeline is a potentially useful way for Russia to increase its influence in the European Union, which has restricted Russia’s economic activities through sanctions that were levied in the aftermath of Russia’s annexation of Crimea. It remains to be seen, at present, whether or not the Nord Stream 2 pipeline is a vehicle for Russian foreign policy and political influence.

The Nord Stream 2 Pipeline Threatens European Energy Security was originally published on Global Security Review.

This comes alongside news that the Polish military will create a 50,000-strong volunteer militia as fears grow of a resurgent Russia under President Vladimir Putin. Poland shares a border with Russia. Since Moscow has annexed Crimea from Ukraine and supported the insurgency in the east of the nation, Russia’s neighbors have warily observed its military expansion.

Polish President Andrzej Duda signed off a statement which will increase defense spending and increase the strength of the military by 50,000 troops from the current 100,000 troops. The bill will also include provisions for a volunteer militia force, numbering around 50,000, according to reports from state broadcaster Polskie Radio.

Increased Defense Spending is Policy Everyone Can Agree On

The bill—a rare piece of cross-partisan legislation—envisions defense spending increasing to up to 2.5 percent of Poland’s gross domestic product by 2030. Most NATO members have yet to meet their pledges to increase defense spending to, at least, 2 percent of their respective GDPs.

Of the 28 NATO members, only the U.S., the U.K., Greece, Poland, and Estonia currently meet the 2 percent threshold that all members have pledged to meet. “The Polish army will, within ten years, gain the capability of stopping every opponent,” said the Polish Defence Minister Antoni Macierewicz.

Poland is one of just five NATO allies that share a border with Russia, along with all 3 Baltic countries, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. NATO’s ongoing reinforcements in Eastern Europe has leaned towards alleviating the anxieties of Poland and the Baltic states (Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia), where multinational NATO battalions are based.

Deterrence or Expansion?

Russia has consistently argued that NATO expansion in the former Soviet sphere of influence is part of a strategic encirclement of Russian territory, rather than providing protection for European states that would be otherwise vulnerable to Moscow. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has vowed that his nation would never strike a NATO ally and risk a conflict.

Nevertheless, confidence in Russian foreign policy among Western governments is at a post-Cold War low. The Kremlin has made a string of spurious claims about the character of its campaign in Syria, in which it’s denied all reports of infringing and bombing civilians. Russia’s official policy is to refuse any military backing for insurgents in east Ukraine. However, the insurgents themselves have claimed to have thousands of Russian troops in their ranks.

Poland Will Increase the Size of Its Military by Over 50% was originally published on Global Security Review.

Russia’s annual strategic “Zapad” (запад; Russian for west) military training exercises—held in Russia’s Western Military District and regions of Belarus—began on September 14. Troops from neighboring ally Belarus joined alongside Russian forces in the week-long demonstration of military force.

Historically, Russia (and the Soviet Union before it) has maintained a habit of conducting offensive operations under the guise of training exercises. The drills will reveal the Russian military’s tactical capabilities and provide indicators on the threats it is focused on.

How Moscow could use the exercises to its advantage

Moscow could use the exercises to boost its presence in states along the front line with North Atlantic Treaty Organization forces and to increase its military assets in Belarus.

The two nations have partnered in the drills ever since 2009. Within their 1st year as a collaborative endeavor, the drills had been the biggest joint exercises Russia had conducted in the post-Soviet era. Official statements announced that 12,500 military personnel Participated In the 2009 exercises, which included 100 combat, tanks, armored vehicles, artillery airplane and 20 warships.

These drills took place in the crucial Area surrounding the Baltic area and mimicked not only the invasion of Poland but a strategic nuclear strike on Warsaw, increasing concern among NATO member countries.

Russia has conducted several large-scale snap exercises along NATO’s eastern flank with little to no notice and in a non-transparent manner.

Russia and Belarus held the next Zapad exercises in September 2013. Expanded to include all branches of Russia’s army As well as rapid response Units of the Collective Security Treaty Organization, the drills likely were considerably bigger than the previous exercises, even though the exact numbers are up for debate.

The exercises simulated an assault by Baltic terrorists on Belarus which resulted in a mixed air, naval forces, and urban warfare response. And as had become custom by that time, they ended with a mock atomic attack, this time against Sweden. More important, Russia employed a number of the same approaches it tried in the 2013 Zapad exercises, including the use of unmanned aerial vehicles, when it got involved with battles In Ukraine and Syria during the following two years.

Moscow isn’t happy with Minsk.

Belarus and Russia entered into a formal “Union State” in 1999 to promote trade and other policies, but the goal of a single currency was never realized. Some experts suggest Putin could use the financial component of the “Union State” arrangement as his legal justification in annexing Belarus.

Putin has been growing uneasy with the West warming to President Lukashenko of Belarus since 1994. The U.S. has sought to get closer to Belarus by lifting some sanctions it imposed to encourage political forums. Last year, The European Union also lifted its five-year sanctions on Belarus, a country with about 10 million people.

Moscow also isn’t happy that Belarus continues to depend on Russian subsidies because the collapse in oil prices has made Moscow cut back on spending. Moreover, Lukashenko’s ties with Moscow worsened when he positioned himself as a neutral mediator for the Ukraine peace talks.

At the same time, there’s a chance Belarusian’s officers might side with Russia in a military conflict. Some of the officers were trained in Russian military schools and are paid less than their peers in Russia. Belarusian troops realize that if Belarus gets annexed by Russia, they’ll be better paid—with the bonus of serving in the armed forces of a nuclear-armed power.

Russia, meanwhile, beefed up its own forces along the borderlands and boosted its security support to regional allies and breakaway territories. Now that Washington has expanded its sanctions against Moscow — and the Kremlin has promised an “asymmetrical” response — Russia is looking to use this year’s military drills to send a message to the West.

Heightened Tensions between Russia and the West

The United States and NATO built up their forces along the European borderlands after Russia annexed Crimea and began backing Ukrainian separatist forces in 2014. The West deployed continuous battalion rotations of 1,000 troops to the Baltic states and Poland and increased its presence in the Black Sea.

Held along the Europe’s borders with Belarus and Russia, Zapad-2017 has emerged as an item of skepticism for governments and media outlets in Europe and the United States.

Ukrainian Defense Minister Valeriy Heletey commented that the 2017 Zapad exercises could be a prelude to an assault on any “country of Europe that shares a border with Russia.” This concern is well-founded, given that troop deployment disguised as military training have preceded Russia’s three most recent foreign military engagements.

This concern is well-founded, given that troop deployment disguised as military training have preceded Russia’s three most recent foreign military engagements. Those skeptical about Russia’s intentions will point out that Russian partners can be underreporting numbers since the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe’s so called Vienna Accord require OSCE nations to permit in observers for particular activities between 13,000 troops or more.

Analysis: Biggest risk comes from non-transparency and Russia’s displeasure with Belarus

The 2017 Zapad exercises are drawing attention because Russia can avoid the need for official outside observer nations by claiming it will have less than 13,000 soldiers in the drills. However, several smaller exercises will be conducted simultaneously, allowing Moscow to avoid the conditions put forth in the Vienna Accord.

Western intelligence and military agencies believe that over 100,000 troops could be deployed. According to statements from the U.S. Department of Defense, Russia has conducted several large-scale snap exercises along NATO’s eastern flank with little to no notice and in a non-transparent manner.

The biggest risks stemming from the Zapad drills are possible errors, including stray shots, local attempts to test response  through other measures, escalations in existing conflict zones (such as in Ukraine, Abkhazia, or South Ossetia), or attempts to use nonlinear/hybrid warfare tactics, or asymmetric tactics,  in order to further consolidate the Russia-Belarus “Union State.”

Could Russia Attempt a Crimea-Style Operation Against Belarus? was originally published on Global Security Review.

The drill exercised combat scenarios recently used in Ukraine and tested the compatibility of the Belarusian army with Russian forces.

Politicians from Poland, Ukraine and Baltic states viewed the exercise as aggressive as they mistrust the Kremlin and fear possible security threats in the region. They used the drill to justify the ongoing “social militarisation” of their respective countries.

This is primarily a rise of state support or enthusiasm for voluntary defence organisations which are sometimes armed, committed to “national causes” and often have roots in right-wing political groups.

Is the “Russian threat” the sole reason why right-wing politicians in the region want to militarise their societies?

Training for war

With the post-1989 transition to liberal democracy and NATO accession, Central Europe began a gradual process of social demilitarisation towards a Western model of civilian states. Slowly but steadily armies were reduced in size and professionalised.

In recent years, however, this model of statehood and citizenship has been seriously challenged in Central Europe.

The region has experienced a significant rise in the number and visibility of grassroots paramilitary actors ranging from anti-refugee vigilantes in Bulgaria and Hungary through pro-Kremlin militias in Slovakia and the Czech Republic to a civilian component cooperating with the armed forces in the Baltics and Poland. By 2019, Poland expects to have trained 53,000 people for its Territorial Defence Forces, a new volunteer segment of the army built entirely of local citizens – many of them members of already existing paramilitary groups.

Military picnics

Normalisation of the paramilitary sector goes hand in hand with a diffusion of military values and practices to everyday life. For example, in Poland, the teaching of history is increasingly centred around military events. WW2-themed clothing and accessories are growing popular too, and families can be seen attending military-themed picnics featuring shooting ranges and weapons displays. The visibility of military uniforms in the public sphere has become too. In Estonia, meanwhile, people are signing up for weekend training sessions with volunteer paramilitary groups.

This ideological shift became evident when the Polish minister of defence Antoni Macierewicz made an appearance on a morning television programme for children. Sitting among a group of youngsters over bowls of army-style pea stew, he talked to the children about the importance of fighting for sovereignty.

Children are also being courted by the Hungarian governing party FIDESZ. Its officials are currently implementing a broad patriotic and national defence programme beginning in kindergarten. They are contemplating including shooting classes and military training in schools. Following the path of his Estonian and Polish counterparts, the Hungarian minister of defence, István Simicskó, has praised volunteer territorial defence forces. He is also endorsing the idea to build state-owned shooting ranges in each county to popularise military skills.

Towards militarised governance

Central European leaders claim their societies need to be prepared to face challenges brought about by the refugee, terrorist and Ukrainian crises. Wide-scale societal militarisation has stirred concern among both military officials and civil society.

Many see it as part of the illiberal political transformation which is underway in the region and aims to popularise an alternative model of governance which combines democratic procedures such as multi-party system and general elections with a disregard for human rights and constitutional limits to power.

In Poland and Hungary, civil society activists are portrayed as enemies and national traitors. There are also extraordinary measures against perceived threats, such as activists and journalists increasingly face financial penalties and even direct violence.

‘Remasculinisation’

Right-wing ideologues also wish to regenerate the society that they consider broken and morally corrupt. In their narrative, the journey towards liberal democracy and global governance is told as a story of emasculation of men and loss of their agency over their lives and their countries.

As argued by panellists of the National Congress of Families held in Warsaw in 2017, militarisation is the solution to a crisis of masculinity in Poland.

In the words of former MP of the ruling Law and Justice party Marian Piłka – the militarised “New Man” has character traits which are needed to advance the country’s international standing as well as forge a “new form of Polishness” capable of overcoming “post-communist mediocrity”.

Members of Territorial Defence Forces are to receive €125 monthly along with additional financial rewards for completing all training. They also enjoy the special protection of labour contracts preventing employers from firing them while in service.

Families benefiting from such programmes could contribute to the emergence of a substantial new patriotic middle class.

Can the civilian state be saved?

In 2012, hopes were raised of a future without military violence when the European Union received the Nobel Peace Prize for the “advancement of peace and reconciliation” on the continent. Today in Central Europe, the civilian state is trembling.

Objective security challenges such as the terrorist threat or the Kremlin’s superpower ambitions certainly play a role in boosting nationalist militarism. But the public attractiveness of the militarised model of governance and citizenship has as much to do with severe social costs and unfulfilled promises of the post-1989 transition.

Therefore, to save European civilian states, advocates will need to take the underlying causes seriously fuelling militaristic sentiments. One of them is the unfulfilled need of individuals for security, well-being and upward mobility. Another is a sense of being left out and deprived of control over their economic future. If these genuine issues are not addressed progressively, nationalist militarism will continue to seem like a legitimate answer.

“In Central Europe, militarised societies are on the march” was originally published on The Conversation. 

In Central Europe, Militarized Societies are on the March was originally published on Global Security Review.

While eastern European leaders are certainly justified in their concern, it is the job of military leaders all over the world to ensure that their forces are prepared to deal with worst-case scenarios. Zapad and other large-scale war games are intended to test the readiness of military forces to deal with such situations.

History, and Russia’s military doctrine, tells us that for the Kremlin to legitimately consider the use of force against a sovereign state—under the guise of aiding Russian-speaking separatists, military drills, or otherwise, the Russian military and political leadership must perceive a legitimate threat to Russia’s national interest—largely the interests of its ruling oligarchic elite.

Additionally, the Kremlin must be sure of its ability to prevail in any forceful confrontation or to, a minimum, ensure a stalemate. Neither condition seems present.

Since last year’s strategic Caucasus-2016 exercise, no Russian allies or client states are under greater threat than they were last year. A few, like Bashar al Assad of Syria, have seen threats to their rule decrease in the past year.

How Likely is it that Russia Will Attempt a Crimea-Style Operation Against the Baltics?

NATO is now keeping a much closer eye on the Russian military techniques, particularly since the  Zapad-2013 exercises featured simulations of a pre-emptive nuclear strike against Sweden.

Western countries were caught unaware as Russia employed hybrid tactics to hide its deployment of forces to Crimea.

NATO has beefed up its presence in its Baltic and Eastern-European Union member countries, further reducing the already slim chances that Russia will want to attempt an incursion in Baltic or E.U. states.

NATO is now keeping a much closer eye on the Russian military techniques, particularly since the  Zapad-2013 exercises featured simulations of a pre-emptive nuclear strike against Sweden.

Preparing for a conflict doesn’t mean the Kremlin is planning to commence one.

The Russian military has been holding large scale strategic exercises each year of the twenty-first century, as the Russian economics has rebounded from the lows of the early 1990s. Preparing for such a conflict doesn’t mean the Kremlin is planning to commence one.

It is also worth noting a correlation between Russia’s economic state and its military spending and training. This would imply that the Russian Armed Forces have a tendency to train as far because they can afford to.

Until 2015, Russia’s military expenditures and the number of war games it conducted, both large- and small-scale, had been increasing at a faster rate than the rate of economic growth.

Russian Troop Deployments in Military Training Exercises

Russian GDP figures, Military Exercise Data, and Troop Numbers

Given the degree of attention focused on Russia’s military deployments, it’s highly unlikely that that Zapad-2017 will escalate into a full-scale or partial military conflict with NATO.

Even though Russia’s Gross domestic product grew to 2014, its costs grew by 300 percent at the exact same period and the number of war games increased by 157 percent from 2008 to 2014.

It should be noted that this precludes any so-called “black money” that would not appear on a publicly available balance sheet.

Security Analysis: Although Possible; War with NATO is Unlikely.

The biggest risks stemming from the Zapad drills are possible errors, including stray shots, local attempts to test responses through other measures, moderate or temporary escalation in existing conflict zones (such as in Ukraine, Abkhazia, or South Ossetia).

Additionally, due to regional geopolitical developments in the Russia-Belarus relationship, Russia may attempt to use “nonlinear” warfare tactics (asymmetric tactics) in order to further consolidate the Russia-Belarus “Union State.”

Zapad-2017: Analyzing Troop Numbers & Economic Factors was originally published on Global Security Review.