You Can't Fight Fire With Fire

Fifteen months into the war in Ukraine, both sides continue to argue about who assumes dominance. Over 500,000 civilian and military lives have been lost on both sides and close to 8 million people have been uprooted, forced to flee or to accept refugee status. When this war will end remains uncertain, but its possible consequences bear weight to an impending Baltic invasion, where the future of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania hang in a balance. Will they too be the next dominoes to fall? Should NATO increase its defense commitments to support these Baltic States?

Currently, all three Baltic states combined have a sizable Russian minority where over 1 million Ethnic Russians currently reside, which makes up a quarter of the total population. All 3 states have imminent plans to join the NATO coalition. Post Second World War, the USSR was determined to create a ‘buffer zone’ of friendly communist countries to prevent the spread of western, capitalist influence. Hence said plans to join the alliance are likely to provoke Russia with the threat of NATO-deployed forces at or in very close proximity to its border. This will be argued by the Kremlin as a threat to their national security. We must not forget that sustained Ukrainian efforts to join the European Union and then NATO which would have brought NATO troops right to the Russian borders was the argument that was used by the Kremlin to mount the Ukrainian conflict to begin with.

Despite attempts to denounce Russia for the Ukrainian conflict by the western press, public support for the Kremlin within Russia has been extremely strong and unwavering, reaching a staggering support rate of 75%. Against this backdrop, it is certainly worth it for NATO to consider less bellicose alternatives. Increasing defense spending in the current economic environment where most Western countries are running high budget deficits is in fact most imprudent. In addition, the current central bank policy of raising interest rates to combat inflation increases the cost of financing such spending. The opportunity costs to finance wars at the expense of badly needed infrastructure, education and health programs within the NATO countries is exceptionally high. Political parties on the right running for elections are making hay on the issue of “war spending” and seem to be making meaningful inroads as we approach crucial elections in the Western world.

The signaling effects of increased spending could trigger an arms race and destabilize efforts towards achieving detente and deter chances to negotiate more peaceful outcomes. One increasing risk that’s posed by NATO’s efforts to increase military spending is the increased risk of economic and political cooperation between Russia and China. Both countries strongly feel that the US dollar is being weaponized by the US to keep the growing economic and political ambitions of China and Russia at bay. To be sure, the foundations of this idea originate all the way back to Stalin’s concerns over “Dollar Imperialism” in the 1940s, accompanying the Truman Doctrine and the subsequent Marshall Plan.

Within the domain of military technology, Russia is assisting China in developing a nuclear early warning system and both countries have seen an increased bilateral trading in weapons. Russia has shown particular interest in purchasing warships from China especially as they have been cut off from Europe. Hence the threat posed by both countries moving away from their use of the US dollar will most definitely be catalysed by NATO increasing defense commitments.

Further, the NATO alliance is not an alliance of economic equals. The US and the UK end up bearing almost a quarter of the costs of the NATO organization. So increasing military spending will most certainly exacerbate the burden sharing imbalances within NATO. The cumulative nominal GDP of the three Baltic states is around $125 billion. Comparing this with Russia’s GDP of $1.9 trillion, no amount of increased spending by the Baltic states can truly grant them the security that will make them feel comfortable purely through military means.

At this stage, the world needs a non-traditional but peaceful solution to this ever complex chess board. That solution should be led by the US which has the most to gain from these de-escalations. They need to get Russia immediately to the negotiating table. The broad brush strokes of this plan should entail :

1. Providing Russia relief from the current harsh economic sanctions.

2. To not permit Ukraine to join NATO and stop military assistance to Ukraine.

3. To acknowledge the annexation of Crimea.

In return for these concessions, NATO must :

1. Secure an immediate, permanent ceasefire in Ukraine.

2. Establish a buffer zone in Eastern Ukraine outside of either US or Russian spheres of control or influence.

3. Negotiate a long term energy contract with Russia on behalf of Europe to secure the long term energy needs of Europe.

As a part of this deal Russia should declare written intent to not attack the three nations that form the Baltic States. It would go a long way if the Baltic States as a good gesture agree not to join NATO. This would considerably alleviate any Russian fears of further Western intervention and aggression.

“You can’t fight fire with fire”. Ultimately, the West can choose the path of aggression, or perhaps they might set aside their ego, negotiate in good faith and finally bring back the promise of peace to the hearts of every citizen worldwide.