Peeter Kaldre: Dangerous times

As the United States scales back its military role in Europe, the continent faces a dangerous test: strengthening its own defenses while Russia intensifies its threats and war against Ukraine.

It is appalling that 500 million people (Europe) have to ask 300 million people (the United States) for protection against 140 million people (Russia). That is what NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte said recently when the subject of reducing the U.S. military presence in Europe came up. Rutte is certainly not the first to put it this way, but it illustrates the situation European security now finds itself in.

The U.S. plan to reduce its military contribution to NATO and delegate more responsibility to European countries is nothing new; nearly every U.S. administration has talked about it. Why should the United States have to defend wealthy Europe when Europeans themselves barely lift a finger for their own defense? The difference is that the Donald Trump administration has now begun to act and the first cuts are already taking place.

All this is happening at a time when Russia is waging a full-scale war in Europe against Ukraine and is increasingly threatening European countries that support Ukraine.

The September 15 issue of Foreign Affairs featured an article by three security experts — Franklin C. Miller, Eric Edelman and Walter B. Slocombe — pointing to the risks posed by such a U.S. plan. The authors refer to a new security strategy completed last year that calls for shifting the focus from Europe to Asia and the Middle East.

The article lists military capabilities that the Americans want to cut in Europe but that Europe will not be able to replace anytime soon. Its conclusion is that such a policy threatens America itself — in other words, the United States would be hurting itself.

The U.S. military presence in Europe prevents potential adversaries from growing stronger and becoming a threat to the United States. One example cited is that, for the first time in many years, the United States did not take part in a NATO exercise in the North Atlantic that practiced countering Russian submarines. Those same nuclear-armed submarines are designed to approach the U.S. coast...

Now the United States is pulling back, but Europe is simply not ready to replace the Americans. One way forward is through so-called coalitions of the willing, one example being the Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF), led by the United Kingdom and comprising the Baltic and Nordic countries.

The JEF does not have to wait for NATO's Article 5 to be formally invoked; it can act immediately. Jamie Murray, commander of the British contingent stationed in Estonia, put it well : We are ready to go into battle immediately. There are currently 900 British troops in Estonia, with another 300 to be added next year.

We should also bear in mind that the United Kingdom has nuclear weapons, as does France. Although their combined arsenal cannot be compared with Russia's, the Kremlin still has to take it into account. In theory, NATO's collective defense provides for the possibility of using nuclear weapons, including in Estonia's defense. Finland's recent decision to allow nuclear weapons into or through the country in the event of a threat was a powerful statement.

Incidentally, Finland and Sweden seem to have been transformed since joining NATO. Sweden recently announced that if Russia attacks, Sweden will strike targets deep inside Russia.

As for nuclear weapons, Russia has recently begun threatening their use again. Some time ago, Vladimir Putin warned Europe at the Valdai forum that if European countries were planning to take action against Kaliningrad, Russia could resort to nuclear weapons.

There has also been renewed talk of the so-called Dead Hand, an underground system in the Urals that can launch nuclear weapons even if the country's political leadership has been eliminated. It is one of those "nice" Kremlin stories whose veracity cannot be taken for granted.

Nuclear weapons are, after all, Russia's last resort. It cannot defeat even Ukraine with conventional weapons, let alone prevail in a potential conflict with all of Europe. Before it comes to that, however, there are the so-called hybrid tools to try: sabotage, assassinations, election interference and so on. And, of course, brutal strikes against Ukraine's civilian infrastructure, along with disingenuous appeals to foreign countries to move their embassies out of Kyiv.

The aim is to frighten Europe into abandoning its support for Ukraine or at least scaling it back. Putin understands very well that if European support for Ukraine continues, it will be almost impossible for him to subjugate the country.

A very dangerous period lies ahead. Russia may be tempted to make some move against Europe before next month's U.S. congressional midterm elections. Those elections could significantly change Washington's hitherto lenient approach toward Russia.

Follow ERR News on Facebook and X and never miss an update!