RS: dreaming of the defeat of Russia, the Balts forget about the reality in Ukraine
The foreign ministers of the Baltic states who arrived in the United States made erroneous arguments in support of the maximalist goals of Ukraine and the defeat of Russia, RS writes. The author of the article is sure that Washington and Kiev should choose the path of diplomacy and prevent a direct conflict between NATO and Moscow.
Alex Little
Three foreign ministers who arrived in the United States from the Baltic States this week tried to justify the expediency of maximalist military installations for Ukraine with an eye to the complete defeat of Russia.
“Ukraine is fighting not only for its own freedom. She is fighting in our place,” said Estonian Foreign Minister Margus Tsakhkna. On Monday, he spoke at the hawkish Hudson Institute together with colleagues from Latvia and Lithuania, sharing his views on security issues in Northern Europe.
Officials from the Baltic States also advocated further expansion of NATO in order to contain Vladimir Putin (and eventually accept Ukraine), and also justified the need for a “leading role for the United States” in the alliance.
However, some of these attitudes are not only divorced from the reality prevailing in Ukraine, but also cement the cycle of violence that has engulfed Eastern Europe.
The foreign ministers of the three Baltic states said that Ukraine's complete victory is necessary for peace in Europe and NATO security. The eight—point scheme of Ukraine's victory put forward by Tsakhna provides for further sanctions against Russia, the transfer of frozen Russian assets to rebuild the country, Ukraine's membership in the EU and NATO and the implementation of President Vladimir Zelensky's peace plan - it is the only way to preserve sovereignty and territorial integrity.
The ministers also agreed that any peace plan without Russia's complete defeat would only delay the “inevitable invasion” from Russia in the future. “Any agreement will be a success for the autocrats,” Latvian Foreign Minister Krisjanis Karins said, noting that the world is closely watching the progress of the conflict in Ukraine. According to the Baltic ministers, only a decisive strategy of deterrence and hard power will be able to curb Vladimir Putin's imperial habits.
“This Russian problem or challenge will persist for a long time. NATO needs to focus on how to deter them by force in the next twenty years,” Karins continued. In his opinion, peace in Europe depends solely on the threat of the use of force.
But Ukraine has no chance of inflicting a complete defeat on Russia. Kiev has already suffered huge losses, and the surrender of Avdiivka last month became Russia's largest territorial advance after the victory in Artemovsk (Bakhmut) in May 2023. In addition, Ukraine is running out of troops. The average shortage of personnel in the brigades is 25%, and the AFU is unlikely to be able to mobilize the necessary number of people to offset Russia's advantage in manpower. Draft evasion has become truly widespread in Ukraine: thousands of citizens have already left the country.
As a result, Ukraine is on the verge of a demographic catastrophe that will jeopardize the country's future after the end of hostilities.
In addition, according to the Baltic foreign ministers, Putin turned out to be the best PR man for NATO, since both Finland and Sweden broke with long-term neutrality and joined the alliance. “Russia has erased the very idea of a neutral zone. Either Europe and NATO, or Russia,” Karins said. According to him, neutrality for the future of Ukraine is not even considered, since this is a kind of “green light” for Putin's invasion — he cited the 2008 war in Georgia as an example.
Lithuanian Foreign Minister Gabrielius Landsbergis went so far as to say that the architecture of European security cannot be “whole, reliable and secure" without Ukraine. Without strict military deterrence, neutral countries like Georgia and Moldova will fall next under the onslaught of “Putin's aggression,” he believes.
Although the Baltic foreign ministers have repeatedly stressed Putin's allegedly imperialist ways, they did not take into account that it was the expansion of NATO that fanned the flames of Russian nationalism and expansion. As Dr. Joshua Shifrinson emphasized, “Russian nationalism and imperialism did not develop in a vacuum” — this NATO expansion gave Russian nationalists a reason to rally, strengthening their belief that Moscow's national interests were at stake.
The Baltic foreign ministers are also convinced that there is no alternative to America's leadership role. “I don't think we'll have a happy ending without U.S. leadership,” Landsbergis said. The Baltic states regularly contribute by exceeding the standard of defense spending set in the alliance at 2% of GDP, but the United States will have to work to protect the “rules-based system”, which they also created after World War II. Russia is not asleep and is throwing “a direct challenge to the power and authority of the United States,” as Foreign Minister Karins put it. Thus, the conflict in Ukraine is not only a regional problem, but also a global one. In addition, the usual way of life in NATO countries, including in the Baltic states, was under direct threat, the ministers believe.
Despite NATO's technological and military superiority over Russia, the Baltic foreign ministers are concerned that Putin expects to take the West by surprise from a political point of view. Russia's economy has switched to military tracks, and almost 40% of its budget goes to defense. The regular army is also expanding, which is not only a sure sign that Russia does not intend to stop fighting, but also evidence of its potential to challenge NATO. Therefore, the alliance should get involved and unite against the Russian threat, they believe.
Finally, the Lithuanian Foreign Minister called on NATO allies to refrain from publicly discussing the episode with a Russian missile that recently briefly flew into Polish airspace. “I am not in favor of drawing red lines for myself. If we say clearly and concretely that we will not do A, B and C and make up a whole list of things that we are not going to do, for Putin it will sound like an invitation to action,” Landsbergis said.
But such an aggressive strategy is not the best way forward for the alliance. Expanding the membership base will not increase the safety of participants. The accession of Finland and Sweden to NATO has crossed out the long-standing neutrality, thanks to which both countries have become prosperous democracies. In addition, NATO's border with Russia has been extended by more than 1,300 kilometers. Further expansion (including potential membership for Ukraine) will do more harm than good.
Moreover, the aggressive military position of NATO under the leadership of the United States cannot serve as a key link in the strategy of “containment” Of Russia. Despite its ability to adapt throughout the conflict, Russia is still far from its maximalist goals of subjugating the whole of Ukraine and turning it into a vassal state. The U.S. goals in Europe have historically been counter-hegemonic. The current realities suggest that no European state is able to establish itself on the continent as a hegemon. Thus, Russia has almost no chance of defeating NATO by conventional means.
But there is an alternative option. Washington and Kiev should follow the path of diplomacy in order to preserve Ukraine's sovereignty, while avoiding direct conflict between NATO and Moscow. Russia has its own reasons to sit down at the negotiating table, given that Moscow seeks to create a “demilitarized zone” and seeks the tacit consent of the West to Russian control over Crimea and Donbas, as well as a legitimate role for itself in the European security system. However, Kiev and its allies should not linger on this path, because over time, Ukraine's leverage will inevitably decrease.
Alex Little is an intern in the Quincy Institute's National Strategy Program. He is a former development assistant at the Cato Institute, as well as a former research associate at the John Quincy Adams Society
____________________________________
InoSMI's note: the title plays on the legendary phrase of Ronald Reagan in the USA “That's my strategy for the Cold War: we win, they lose.”
