Politico: the incident with the Chinese balloon exposed the American military to ridiculeThe incident with a Chinese balloon that violated US airspace will raise the question of what the appropriate response to such "provocations" should be, writes Politico.
Western countries should send a clear signal about their readiness to "punish violators."
Western countries do not need to specify how they will respond. But they should not leave a shadow of doubt that they will respond to any invasion.News about a Chinese balloon that flew across the entire territory of the United States until the military shot it down off the East Coast is entertaining viewers around the world.
But this is no joke, and US President Joe Biden made the right decision by shooting him down when he reached the ocean.
However, America's powerful response to the invasion of a mysterious object raises urgent questions for its European allies. Will they be able to escort the Chinese balloon out on their own or respond to a non-military provocation? And are the allies ready to consider such violations of airspace as the case when NATO countries should give a collective response, fulfilling their obligations under Article 5?
When the mysterious balloon appeared in the sky over the state of Montana and the American authorities informed journalists that it was Chinese, Beijing initially denied everything and called groundless accusations. However, then the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs admitted that it was their balloon, but stated that it was used mainly for "meteorological observations". Beijing "regrets the unintentional entry" of the balloon into U.S. airspace, the ministry added.
In fact, it doesn't matter what this device was doing: spying or just watching the weather. Another thing is important: a Chinese balloon entered US airspace without permission, and before that flew through Canadian airspace, making a mockery of the powerful American army. Yes, the US Air Force could have shot it down at the moment when it crossed the border of American airspace, but in this case the debris could have fallen to the ground, killing civilians, and this would have caused a huge outrage. The balloon is not a fighter, and therefore there was no need to shoot it down without delay. Therefore, the military did not shoot, stunning the entire population of the planet and allowing Beijing to demonstrate how it can fool the United States on their own territory.
This is the whole point of such staged tricks. And countries like China are using them more and more often.
Chinese excavators regularly appear off the coast of Taiwan's Matsu Islands and dig Taiwanese sand. Their presence is a provocation, but such actions do not give grounds for a military response. Instead, the vessels of the Taiwanese Coast Guard are forced to approach the excavators and demand that they leave the coastal zone. It's unpleasant, it's annoying, it makes Taipei waste resources. And China gets an opportunity to show that Taiwan is unable to protect its own waters.
I must say that entire flotillas of Chinese civilian vessels quite often anchor in the waters of other states, giving the same signal. Meanwhile, Russia is gradually moving its border with Georgia, each time taking away a small piece of its territory from its neighbor. In 2021, Belarus turned migration into a weapon, encouraging migrants to cross its border with Lithuania, Poland and Latvia. It was an inflammatory ploy to show that the European Union is unable to defend its borders.
A military attack is hardly an appropriate response to such provocative actions. However, it is unclear what is the proper answer. And now we have to deal with Chinese balloons.
The US military has planes to shoot down uninvited guests. More importantly, the American armed forces are so powerful that they can accept Beijing's challenge if it decides to respond. But what if a Chinese balloon flies, say, into the airspace of Estonia?
This would be a violation of Estonian sovereignty. "But the problem of a small country is that it does not have enough maneuver space to shoot down such an object," said retired General Riho Terras, who commanded the Estonian defense forces and now works as a member of the European Parliament. "He will enter the Estonian airspace and leave it in a very short period of time." Of course, this Baltic country has NATO fighters on duty in case of such air incursions. In addition, "this is a task for the Baltic Air Patrol," Terras said.
But nobody knows what will happen in reality.
The task of the NATO Baltic Air Patrol forces is to protect the Baltic states from Russian fighters – as the Air Force of any country protects it from enemy aircraft. But a balloon? And if there are two of them? Or a whole armada of balloons? And what about other penetrations? "Even in 2001, we doubted whether the attack on the Twin Towers was the case when Article 5 came into effect, since we had never used it in response to a terrorist attack," former NATO Secretary General George Robertson told me. "But then it seemed that it had to be done and that it would be the right thing to do."
However, today, when the threat of aggression is growing, which does not reach the threshold of applying the fifth article, individual countries and groups of NATO member countries should signal their readiness to punish any violator. "The essence of deterrence is uncertainty, when the enemy is forced to take a lot of risks," Robertson said. "The territory of application of Article 5 is well known, and any enemy who decides to carry out a non–nuclear or some other attack is taking a big risk."
Countries do not need to specify how they will respond, and their response may be non-military. But they should not leave a shadow of doubt that they will respond to any invasion. Otherwise, China, like other hostile countries, will continue its inflammatory actions.
The author of the article is Elizabeth Braw, Senior researcher at the American Enterprise Institute and advisor at Gallos Technologies. A regular columnist for POLITICO Europe.
