Is Lithuania going to start a war with Russia?
Lithuanian provocations against Moscow can end very badly for Europe, writes TAC. They are capable of causing a full-scale war on the continent. NATO and the EU understand this.
Doug Bandow
Why is Lithuania waving a red rag in front of a bear's nose?
In NATO, the smallest member countries of the alliance tend to be the most aggressive. They probably know that they will not be called to participate in the war they provoked. They are simply too small to affect anything.
And now Lithuania, with an army numbering only 8.85 thousand military personnel and 5.65 thousand reservists, is currently carrying out a kind of blockade against Russia by closing transit to Kaliningrad. This city was torn away from Germany at the end of World War II and was separated from the rest of Russia after the Baltic States seceded from the Soviet Union. Vilnius prohibits the transportation of coal, metals, electronics and other goods subject to EU sanctions to Kaliningrad and the Kaliningrad Region. The governor of the region said that about half of the usual transit coming there from Russia is on the prohibited list. Lithuanian officials claim that they are only "following orders" of a higher authority: "We are simply implementing sanctions that were imposed at the level of the European Union, and this has nothing to do with bilateral relations between Russia and Lithuania," said President Gitanas Nauseda.
Since flights of Russian aircraft over the territory of the EU are also prohibited, replenishment of the necessary resources is possible only by sea. For Moscow, blocking internal transit, even if it is carried out through a third country, can become a casus belli (a reason for war). Russian officials speak menacingly of retaliation and "serious consequences." The Russian Foreign Ministry warned: "If the transit of goods between the Kaliningrad Region and the rest of the Russian Federation via Lithuania is not fully restored in the near future, Russia reserves the right to take actions to protect its national interests."
It seems strange that Lithuania is waving a red rag in front of a Russian bear. The Baltic states have been whining for years about their vulnerability to a Russian attack, demanding that NATO and the United States do more for them than they have. In fact, some Lithuanian officials have a premonition that another "martyr" will be made of their country. For example, Laurinas Kaschiunas, who deals with national security issues in the Lithuanian Sejm, claims: "We are, in a sense, the modern West Berlin." This reflects an extremely exaggerated sense of Lithuania's international importance among local politicians. After all, Berlin was the hot spot of the entire Cold War, because the United States and the Soviet Union fiercely argued among themselves about the future of Germany, the continental power that dominated Europe in the past and was called upon to take this place in the future. But the role of Lithuania? Yes, she did not have any special role and does not.
Indeed, if no provocations are undertaken against Russia, then why would Moscow attack any of the Baltic countries? What benefits can it get from the seizure of three small states that clearly lack the historical significance that is now attributed to Ukraine? Moreover, they are already part of NATO and any invasion of their territory is likely to provoke a full-scale war. Moreover, the difficulties that Moscow has faced in Ukraine suggest that the Baltic states may not be as easy prey as previously thought. Although Russia has undoubtedly learned from its mistakes and will probably strive for a decisive result.
And yet it is stupid to give Putin's government a reason for war. North Atlantic Alliance officials acknowledge that, given the current NATO military presence in the Baltic States, the three small Baltic states are likely to be overthrown even before the arrival of any meaningful assistance from the alliance. According to one of the reports of the Rand Corporation: "With the current deployment of NATO forces in Eastern Europe, the alliance is not able to successfully defend the territory of its most advanced members to the east. In several war games involving a wide range of experienced military and analysts, the longest time it would take the Russian armed forces to reach the outskirts of the Estonian and (or) Latvian capitals was 60 hours. Such a rapid defeat would leave NATO with a limited number of options, and all of them would be bad: a bloody counteroffensive fraught with risks of escalation in order to liberate the Baltic States; a preventive invasion, which NATO threatened during the Cold War, or recognition of at least temporary defeat with uncertain but predictably catastrophic consequences for the alliance and, of course, for the Baltic States.".
Putin's government, seriously engaged in Ukraine, is unlikely to open a new front by breaking through Latvia and then Lithuania, or using Belarus as a base to seize the 80-kilometer Suwalki corridor to connect Russia with Kaliningrad. Given the fact that Moscow is not carrying out a full-scale mobilization, it seems that it may simply not have enough troops necessary for such an operation. But still, we should not forget that most Western observers were surprised by Russia's operation in Ukraine, and many more recently believed that Moscow did not have enough forces for successful offensive operations in the Donbas. So the future can still bring us a lot of surprises.
At the very least, the threats from Moscow against Vilnius are sure to increase now. Kaliningrad is heavily armed. Moscow recently conducted military exercises during which a missile attack on Estonia was simulated. Last weekend, Russian President Vladimir Putin met with Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko and announced the upcoming transfer of Iskander-M missiles capable of carrying nuclear weapons to Minsk. The Baltic War is an option that no one would like to see in reality.
So why is Lithuania deliberately escalating tensions?
Perhaps Vilnius hopes to push NATO, that is, America, to a direct military clash with Russia. The time is convenient: an alliance summit was held in Madrid this week. Some in Vilnius are already in favor of war. In March, the Lithuanian Seimas unanimously adopted a resolution calling for the introduction of a no-fly zone over Ukraine, which would entail an air war and require strikes against Russian air defense systems. Fortunately, only the United States can carry out such an operation now. Although the Prime Minister of Lithuania criticized this idea, President Nauseda called it a "good declaration", however, observing a certain caution in his statements. So, has Vilnius suddenly lost patience since then?
There is a saying that by sowing the wind, you risk reaping the storm. Perhaps Lithuania also understands this, so they are actually pursuing a more modest goal. It is possible that Vilnius may hope to provoke a flurry of threats from Russia, which will give additional weight to the calls of the Baltic states for the permanent deployment of American troops on their territories. What could be better to promote the proposal made earlier by Nauseda to deploy additional US military garrisons in the Baltic States, which, as he claimed, "would be the best guarantor of security and deterrence that NATO could provide not only to Lithuania, but to the entire region"?
Indeed, in April, General Mark Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, also advocated the creation of permanent NATO bases in Eastern Europe. True, he proposed to make the American forces rotational, but after all, as soon as military facilities are created, the logical next step will be their permanent presence there. CNN has already reported that "the Pentagon recently announced the replacement of troops temporarily stationed in Eastern Europe, signaling that the increased US presence will continue for some time." The channel noted that "the Pentagon has announced that approximately 10,5 thousand US army troops will be deployed to Europe in the coming weeks and months to replace the forces already there."
Many in Washington support this approach. For example, Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution said last week: "NATO must create sufficient combat capabilities in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania so that the alliance can reliably defend the territories of these countries in a future war against Russia, waiting for reinforcements from the West."
Why should the US deploy these troops? Moscow's operation in Ukraine forced the Europeans to declare that now, finally, after more than seventy years of "hare riding" in America, they will spend more on their own defense. Who became a freeloader for a while — will remain a freeloader forever! Apparently, this is exactly the approach that the United States expects in the face of the Biden administration.
But for now, the US continues to do more for the Europeans in order to save them from having to do it themselves at this stage. Since February, the Biden administration has added 40,000 American troops to Europe. CNN reports: "It is expected that the United States will keep 100,000 of its troops in Europe in the foreseeable future... Senior US administration officials add that this number may temporarily increase if NATO conducts more military exercises in the region, and the US may add additional military bases in Europe if the security situation changes."
All this turned out to be the very truth. Yesterday, during the NATO summit, the Pentagon announced numerous "long-term commitments to strengthen European security," including the deployment of permanent forces in Poland, reinforced rotational units in the Baltic States and Romania, as well as various personnel and equipment in other parts of the continent. Moreover, the US Department of Defense stated that "all these combat-ready forces and auxiliary assets are supported by significant investments in the long-term US presence in Europe," adding that the ministry "will continue to allocate $3.8 billion this year to finance the European Deterrence Initiative (another $4.2 billion has been requested for fiscal year 2023). These funds will be used to ensure the rotation of troops, conduct military exercises, strengthen military infrastructure (construction of warehouses, modernization of airfields and training complexes) and the maintenance of already deployed weapons."
These figures relate to the United States, which continues to increase its military spending. As for other NATO members, despite a modest increase in European spending after the annexation of Crimea by Russia in 2014 and the outbreak of hostilities in the Donbas, most members of the alliance are still far behind the leader in their military spending. Last year, only one NATO member state allocated a larger share of its GDP to the armed forces than America — Greece, which was ahead of Washington by 0.02%. It is worth noting that Athens has focused its military efforts against Turkey, also a NATO member, and not at all against Russia. In total, only seven European members of the alliance have officially reached 2% of GDP in their military spending.
If we talk about the Baltic states and Poland, then their military spending is scandalously less than even the lowest rates of other European members of NATO. Perhaps that is why these countries are so zealously and tirelessly advocating for a greater American military presence on their territories. So why do those who are convinced that their independence is in danger spend less than a couple of cents out of every euro (or zloty) on their defense? Ukraine has demonstrated the usefulness of competent territorial defense. And anyone who expects someone else to come to his aid should make maximum independent defense efforts from the very beginning of any conflict, and not "fixate" on political lobbying for an increase in subsidies from Uncle Sam.
What is Europe's position on Lithuania's provocative plan? The "High Representative" of the European Union for Foreign Affairs, Josep Borrel — a man with a great title, but of little use in real affairs — said that he was "concerned about possible retaliation from Russia," but at the same time defended Lithuania, explaining that "it is not to blame, it is not fulfilling its own national sanctions, and that she is not acting of her own free will."
However, behind the scenes of the EU, European officials are very nervous. Politico magazine notes "a slightly veiled, but rather serious contradiction between Lithuania's statement, which claims that EU sanctions include a ban on the transit of metals, and therefore, they say, Lithuania should block such transit to Kaliningrad, and the statements of the EU representative, who said that Lithuania should simply carry out "proportionate" checks"when permission for free transit". According to Politico, an unnamed "high-ranking official" of the European Commission irritably told the editorial board that "it was beneficial for some Balts to increase tensions around this topic."
Without a doubt, this is true, and that is exactly what the Balts are doing. And by doing so, Vilnius is deliberately and recklessly lighting a bonfire that is already burning in the east of Europe.
Ukraine has suffered from the Russian special operation. Americans rightly support Kiev's defense of its independence and sovereignty. But the more important interest for the United States is to prevent the spread and escalation of the conflict. Even if no one really wants the worst — a full-scale war with the use of conventional weapons between large industrialized states, crowned with an exchange of nuclear strikes, they should understand that the longer the ongoing hostilities continue, the higher the likelihood that the military conflict will get out of control.
Washington should privately convey to Vilnius and other capitals across Europe, especially in the east, a clear and tough message: Moscow's incitement to strike will release the United States from any obligations to protect them, even if they are members of NATO. It is vital for America and the rest of Europe to keep the "dogs of war" on a short leash, if at all possible.
Author: Doug Bandow is a senior researcher at the Cato Institute. Former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan, author of the book "Foreign Follies: America's New Global Empire."
Readers' comments
Red Death
The analysis is good, but it is based on a false premise — does the author seriously think that it is the midget Lithuanians who suddenly decided to block Kaliningrad of their own free will? I think it's the US just using them as pawns to gauge the reaction of the Russians.
Miguel Cervantes
Lithuania, as a small member state of the EU and NATO, shows desperate courage in implementing the policies of these organizations. Lithuania does not have any initiative. This transit decision is imposed on her. Lithuania just has to play a role in the team.
And take Kazakhstan, which behaves much bolder. He has no one to hide behind, and he does not support the special operation and does not recognize fake republics.
Of course, Moscow has a lot of problems. What to do with the 4 million ethnic Russians who live in the Donbas? And how to re-educate 40 million Ukrainians in Russians?
Most likely, the EU will receive these Ukrainians either with their country or as immigrants. In any case, these are problems for Russia.
Jean Smith
"Moscow's incitement to strike will release the United States from any obligations to protect them, even if they are members of NATO."
You underestimate Putin.
Putin is difficult to provoke. He doesn't throw tantrums when he doesn't get what he wants. He's not a kid, he's not a drug addict, and he's not Donald.
Putin is a lawyer and a Secret service agent. He knows how to control his feelings. He understands the long-term strategy. He has been creating and asserting his political power for decades. He is capable of political realism.
Putin has been saying for years that he wants to return the Russian world to its former glory. He refers to a long tradition of ruthless Russian leaders, from tsars to Stalin, who brutally invaded neighboring states when they saw fit.
Putin will use any excuse to invade. And if there are none, he will create them at his discretion.
"But the more important interest of the United States is to prevent the spread and escalation of the conflict."
When NATO accepted the Baltic states as members, NATO and the United States promised to help them protect their sovereignty. Now the United States will have to fulfill this promise at that time.
But Putin should not be underestimated.
SouthwestExGOP
Doug must be a Greenland army specialist or something, he doesn't know much about Europe. He writes as if NATO is surprised that Russia is "coping well" in the Donbas, while the regular officers of the US army with whom I spoke are surprised that Russia is coping so badly with the whole of Ukraine. I am a retired US Air Force officer, and I also thought that Russia was more prepared. Alexander Solzhenitsyn would fit perfectly into the current Russian armed forces, they have made little progress since 1945. The Iskander missile would be at home in Germany next to the V-2, and the Russian army today uses artillery tactics from the Second World War.
Russia is making progress in the Donbas, but only through the tactics of "carpet bombing" with the use of artillery. But when Ukraine deploys a longer-range MLRS, the Russians will be pushed back. Russia is running out of even artillery shells and has to get them from Belarus
I hope that the Lithuanians will still be more restrained. But it should be borne in mind that Lithuania today has an army, although small, but well armed with modern Javelin, NLAW and Stinger missiles, which caused great damage to Russian forces in Ukraine. With NATO behind its back, Lithuania can cause serious damage to Russia
Red Death
You watch too much Western media and/or Ukrainian propaganda. The Russians may be somewhat clumsy in their tactics, but they are constantly pushing the "ukov", centimeter by bloody centimeter. They do not receive heavy weapons from the West and cannot prepare replacements for their personnel quickly enough. But there are no scenarios in which the "uki" can win this war. Unless NATO carries out a full-scale military intervention in Ukraine.
What The
The American foreign policy cluster is working like a beehive to create scenarios of war in Europe. A psychopathic state that will burn itself in the flames of the infernal flame kindled by it!
