Reflections: America's allies worry over life after Obama

The drums of war sound distantly muffled in Norway’s mist-shrouded Naeroy Valley as Europeans speculate on America’s role in shaping world events after US President Barack Obama’s term ends. But the war drums aren’t altogether silent as the prospect of Donald Trump inching towards the White House raises new hopes and fears. This idyllic retreat is not unfamiliar with belligerent rulers. A stone memorial commemorates the 1894 visit of Kaiser Wilhelm II who is blamed for starting World War I. However, the immediate worry is not that Mr Trump might kindle the fires of war but that he might not be sufficiently energetic in upholding the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance’s self-appointed mission to defend what it calls the “free world” against Russian designs.

Norwegian historian Olav Riste calls Norway Nato’s “neutral ally”. Nikita Khrushchev, the Soviet leader, had complimented Norway on not contributing soldiers to Nato. The Norwegians invented dynamite but they also invented the indispensable paper clip. They might earn handsomely from exporting small arms and war material but the Nobel Peace Centre overlooking Oslo harbour testifies to their commitment to world peace. The perceived threat Mr Trump is accused of not taking seriously enough is not to Norway, Sweden or Denmark. It is to the three smaller Baltic countries — Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia — that experienced Moscow’s control during the Cold War. Now, they fear they may be victims of the kind of campaign Russia is accused of orchestrating to annex Ukraine’s Crimea peninsula in February 2014. Seeing themselves in the frontline of any potential conflict with Russia, they are putting their armies on war footing. Asked at the convention that anointed him the Republican candidate about the possibility of aggression, Mr Trump said if Russia attacked the Baltic states he would decide whether to come to their aid only after reviewing if those nations have “fulfilled their obligations to us”. He added: “If they fulfil their obligations to us, the answer is yes.”

Europeans don’t consider this good enough. They believe Nato’s purpose is to pre-empt an attack on any member nation. It must forestall a situation where the
US President needs to undertake a review. It’s his job to convince any potential aggressor that the reprisals for aggression will be swift and severe. The Baltic states would be swallowed up, it is argued, by the time Mr Trump reviews the situation and decides they deserve to be defended. Convinced that Nato’s plans are too small and symbolic to deter the Russians, the Baltic states and their southern neighbour Poland want a sophisticated anti-missile shield for protection. Article 5 of Nato’s charter — “Attack against one... shall be considered an attack against... all” — implies aggression in the Baltics would automatically trigger a response by all Nato members, including the US. It seems inconceivable after the reckless military adventurism of a President like George W. Bush that the US would not go to the aid of an ally who is genuinely threatened.

Europeans have warned about the Russian threat to the Baltic states since 2014. The Estonian defence ministry’s recent report claimed Russia was the only external force presenting a threat to the country’s constitutional order. Similar warnings were issued by respected European think tanks like London’s Chatham House which also draws attention to Vladimir Putin’s push to modernise Russia’s military. Unable to forget the isolationist Monroe Doctrine, sceptical Europeans also recall the famous letter Lyndon Johnson wrote to Turkey’s PM, Ismet Inonu, during the Cyprus crisis. Johnson implicitly warned Inonu that Nato might not come to Turkey’s assistance if Turkish involvement in Cyprus led to a Soviet invasion of Turkey. Intended to warn Ankara not to meddle in Cyprus, this was seen by some as evidence of the non-binding nature of Nato’s security guarantees. It seemed like a precedent for America to stand back from what other nations see as its treaty obligations.

Gen. Petr Pavel, chairman of Nato’s military committee, doesn’t yet take an specially alarmist view of the Russian threat to Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. But although he is not contemplating a major troop buildup in East Europe, there are plans for a new Nato force in Poland and the three Baltic nations. Gen. Pavel’s four battalions of up to 1,000 troops each are part of a wider deterrent force that might act as a political rather than a military deterrent. A bigger force isn’t needed yet, he says. “It is not the aim of Nato to create a military barrier against broad-scale Russian aggression, because such aggression is not on the agenda and no intelligence assessment suggests such a thing.” The deterrent force would ensure there was no repetition of Crimea. This time, it would produce a collective Nato response.

All this has led to a rise in tension that is palpable even amid the pine-shrouded hillsides that sweep precipitously down to the still waters of Norway’s fjords. What the West ignores is that Nato’s eastward push has added to Russia’s security concerns. Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania became members in 2004, and some analysts cite Ukraine’s flirting with Nato as the reason for Moscow’s annexation of Crimea. Which side began this escalation is like the old chicken-and-egg argument. The point is that the ideological Cold War may have ended but the old-fashioned rivalry between the great powers for influence, political control, access to resources and domination of trade routes remains as intense as ever. It would appear as the mists begin to clear above the Norwegian mountains that the race between the US and Russia was never anything else.