A robust NATO and an individual security umbrella on the part of all its members would be a better guarantee of a much safer Europe. Displaying seasonal strengths like Trident Juncture may turn out to be a whack-a-mole in front of Moscow’s war preparedness and new global agenda of engagement
The “Trident Juncture 2018”, conducted between October 25 and November 7, has been recorded as the largest-ever military exercise by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) since the end of the Cold War.
It took place in parts of Norway, Sweden, Finland and surrounding areas of North Atlantic and the Baltic Sea, bringing together nearly 50,000 personnel from 31 countries, 10,000 armoured vehicles, 65 vessels and 250 aircraft.
NATO Secretary-General General Jens Stolenberg announced on October 24, the day before the beginning of this military drill, that “Trident Juncture 2018” sends a clear message to our nations and to any potential adversary.
“The NATO does not seek confrontation, but we stand ready to defend all allies against any threat,” he said.
It was a month-long exercise; only the live field drills got over on November 7, but a command post exercise continued from November 14 to November 23.
International commentators and strategic experts claim that the NATO exercise is in response to Russia-led war drills in 2017 and in 2018, known as Zapad (West-2017) and Vostok (East-2018) respectively. Thus the main objective behind this exercise was to build up forces and transform institutions so as to square up to Vladimir Putin’s Russia by the alliance nations.
The main premise of the “Trident Juncture 2018” was that Norway, a charter member of the NATO, was under attack. A foreign adversary’s troops were making an amphibious assault on its coastline near the Arctic. Thereafter, by calling an emergency session, the NATO leaders sharply reacted to the violation of sovereignty of Norway by invoking Article 5 of the Charter.
This Article says, “The parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the party or the parties…”
Second element is that this exercise stretches from Iceland in the West to the airspace of the non-NATO Finland in the East. In fact, Norway is not only a front line ally, it also shares a long 200-kilometre border with Russia.
In the meantime, Norway is also witnessing new warships and massive patrolling of the submarines by Russia’s Northern Fleet, headquartered across the Barents Sea on the Kola Peninsula. It’s an emerging threat and building up gradually bigger and stronger.
Third, this NATO move also underlines how “Russia threat” is looming large over Europe. In the last five years, Russia has annexed Crimea, created instability in the Eastern Ukraine, provided active military support to the embattled President of Syria, dared to meddle in the last US Presidential poll and flexed its muscles against almost all western adversaries. Hence, this mock drill can be largely
seen as a part of a reassurance programme planned by the NATO for its allies in Europe since 2014 that in the event of any attack, the alliance will defend them.
Fourth, another aspect of the “Trident Juncture 2018” is the show of strength. It has reflected NATO’s immediate ability to send reinforcements both over the land and sea. While doing this, the NATO leadership must keep in mind that the Europe’s Schengen areas do not have the permission to allow free movement of arms, though it has abolished complete border restrictions for general trade and movements.
Again, other infrastructural bottlenecks such as inadequate railway lines and weak bridges might cause serious disadvantages for quick movement of armed forces and materials in case war takes place.
While taking this exercise as a great solace for the security umbrella of NATO’s European allies, one needs to analyse the difference of opinion and perspectives existing among the top brass of the NATO leadership.
Today Trump’s leadership is fast bringing home discord, tension and largely putting a big question mark on the liberal order that America has preached and practised for decades.
He has threatened to pull out almost from all important global treaties and it is seriously damaging ties with all American allies, including the NATO allies. Recently, on November 6, French President Macron lamented the absence of a “true European Army” to protect the allies against China, Russia and even the United States.
His statement was truly disturbing for EU’s central and east European allies such as Poland and Estonia, which are fully dependent and confident of an American aid in case a war breaks out.
Frankly speaking, the NATO allies demand complete overhauling of their armed forces, navy and the air commands. All the national armies of Europe need to gear up to the post-Cold War scenario while preparing to counter an attack from Russia.
While Trump is trying to get closer to Putin’s Moscow, his Administration has described Russia and China as revisionist powers which means that they are at odds with American values and interests.
Hence, the traditional demonising of the Russian leadership in the power corridors in the US Administration is on like in the past. But an open exhortation of the Russian leadership by a sitting US President, like Trump, is rare in recent political history of the latter.
Meanwhile, Trident is drawing criticism from Moscow. Just before starting the Trident, Russian Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu said in Minsk, “The scale of NATO operational and combat training near our borders is expanding, its intensity is growing.
The bloc’s member states are practising the objectives of conducting offensive combat actions.”
Besides, Russia has quite often complained that NATO’s fervent attempt to encircle and include the former Soviet republics or Warsaw Pact nations is highly provocative. But then, both Russia and the US have repeatedly accused each other of transgressing in their respective areas for quite a long time.
This typically demonstrates Cold War rivalry and more specifically putting old ideological wines in the new bottles of power struggle in the post-globalisation age.
Around the same time Russia’s deployment of missiles violates a key Russia-US Nuclear Arms Treaty. What has been going the rounds is that Russia might use these missiles to target NATO allies in Europe.
This is creating a fresh tension as Russia is fast modernising its armed forces and overhauling its entire defence preparedness. Putin’s madness and constant efforts to empire building with a view to regaining old grounds are basically a cause of concern for NATO allies and former Soviet republics.
It must be said that an imminent showdown is not considered between Russia and any of the NATO allies in Europe. Even the NATO chief does not foresee any new nuclear deployment in Europe. Last month, Trump announced that the US will withdraw from the 1987 Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. This INF prohibits both the US and Russia from possessing, producing or deploying ground launched ballistic and cruise missiles with a range from 500 to 5,000 kilometres.
After the US declaration, the NATO chief stated that the organisation will consider an assessment of an immediate impact of the Russian breach of sovereignty on its frontline States.
Finally, the real intentions lying behind the “Trident Juncture 2018” are aptly exemplified in what Stolenberg said, “This scenario is fictitious, but the lessons we learn will be real.” But then, the NATO as a group and its allies in Europe could hardly rely on an ever vocal and unpredictable Trump, a non-performing new hero Macron, retiring Merkel and the long-standing crisis that might begin from the end of Britain’s long marriage with the EU.
Security experts say a robust NATO and an individual security umbrella on the part of all its members would be a better guarantee of a much safer Europe than ever before on the onslaught of a belligerent Putin and his Russia.
Else, displaying seasonal strengths like this by the NATO may turn out to be a whack-a-mole in front of Moscow’s war preparedness and new global agenda of engagement.
(The writer is an expert on international affairs)
