Assessing NATO's Deterrence Strategy against Russian Federation Security Threats in the Baltic Sea

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسنده

Assistant Professor of Department of Reginal Studies, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.

چکیده

Today, the Baltic Sea has become the epicenter of the European crisis. The Baltic Sea is the only region where NATO has a land border with Russia, increasing the region's sensitivity. The slightest incident can turn into a full-blown war in the region. Russia's complex security challenges, the region's geopolitical situation, and the Baltic states' defense vulnerabilities have raised the need to revive NATO's military presence and strengthen deterrence against Russia. In the light of interpretive structural modeling, this study seeks to answer the question of what effect Russia's escalating activities in the Baltic Sea have had on the effectiveness of NATO's deterrence strategy in the region. Given the theoretical framework of broad deterrence, it hypothesized that Russia's security strategy in the three areas of conventional, nuclear, and hybrid threat had led NATO to move toward broad deterrence based on the threat of punishment and denial. However, both types of deterrence do not have the quantity and quality necessary to fully contain Russia in the region, as in the Cold War. In order to measure efficiency according to the research method and its extended formulation, the indicators of credibility, communication, and capability are used. The findings show that deterrence through punishment is much more pronounced than deterrence through denial and that the normal state of deterrence in NATO is highly vulnerable to Russia. Weaknesses in capability and communication have also led to the fragility of NATO's deterrent credentials in the region, making the Baltic Sea very sensitive and critical.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

Assessing NATO's Deterrence Strategy against Russian Federation Security Threats in the Baltic Sea

نویسنده [English]

  • Roxana Niknami
Assistant Professor of Department of Reginal Studies, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
چکیده [English]

Today, the Baltic Sea has become the epicenter of the European crisis. The Baltic Sea is the only region where NATO has a land border with Russia, increasing the region's sensitivity. The slightest incident can turn into a full-blown war in the region. Russia's complex security challenges, the region's geopolitical situation, and the Baltic states' defense vulnerabilities have raised the need to revive NATO's military presence and strengthen deterrence against Russia. In the light of interpretive structural modeling, this study seeks to answer the question of what effect Russia's escalating activities in the Baltic Sea have had on the effectiveness of NATO's deterrence strategy in the region. Given the theoretical framework of broad deterrence, it hypothesized that Russia's security strategy in the three areas of conventional, nuclear, and hybrid threat had led NATO to move toward broad deterrence based on the threat of punishment and denial. However, both types of deterrence do not have the quantity and quality necessary to fully contain Russia in the region, as in the Cold War. In order to measure efficiency according to the research method and its extended formulation, the indicators of credibility, communication, and capability are used. The findings show that deterrence through punishment is much more pronounced than deterrence through denial and that the normal state of deterrence in NATO is highly vulnerable to Russia. Weaknesses in capability and communication have also led to the fragility of NATO's deterrent credentials in the region, making the Baltic Sea very sensitive and critical.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • NATO
  • Russia
  • Baltic Region
  • Extended Deterrence
  • Deterrence by Denial
  • Deterrence by Punishment

مراجع

  1. Behling, F (2019). Briten kommen mit Armada in die Ostsee. 54. https://www.kn-online.de/Nachrichten/Schleswig-Holstein/Britische-Marine-kuendigt-grosse-Seemanoever-in-der-Ostsee-an.
  2. Bergmane, U (2020). Fading Russian Influence in the Baltic States, Orbis, 64 (3), 479-488. doi: 10.1016/j.orbis.2020.05.009.
  3. Binnendiik, H; Rodihan, C (2020). Geometries of Deterrence: Assessing Defense Arrangements in Europe's Northeast: Atlantic Council.
  4. Brauß, H; Krause, J (2019). Was will Russland mit den vielen Mittelstreckenwaffen? Zeitschrift für Strategische Analysen (Cooperation Committee of the Peace Movement Schleswig-Holstein), 3 (2), 154-166. doi:10.1515/sirius-2019-2005.
  5. Brauss, H; Stolcescu, K; Lawrence, T (2020). Capability and Resolve: Deterrense, Security and Stability in the Baltic Region: Konorad Adenaur Stiftung.
  6. Chalmers, M (2011). Words That Matter? NATO Declaratory Policy and the DDPR. November 17. https://media.nti.org/pdfs/NTI_Framework_Chpt2.pdf.
  7. Dalsjö, R; Berglund, C; Jonsson, M (2019). Bursting the Bubble? Russian A2/AD in the Baltic Sea Region: Capabilities, Countermeasures, and Implications: Malmo University.
  8. Davis, P.K; Gilmore, J; Frelinger, M. D. R; Geist, E; Gilmore, C. K; Oberholtzer, J; Tarraf, D.C (2019). Exploring the Role nuclear weapons Could Play in Deterring Russian Threats to the Baltic States: RAND. doi:10.7249/RR2781.
  9. Flanagan, S. J; Osburg, J; Binnendijk, A; Kepe, M; Radin, A (2019). Deterring Russian Aggression in the Baltic States Through Resilience and Resistance: RAND. doi:10.7249/RR2779.
  10. Ghasemi, F (2007). Deterrence Model of Iran's Foreign Policy: A Theoretical Approach, Geopolitics Quarterly, 3(7), 97-127. doi: 20.1001.1.17354331.1386.3.7.5.0.[In Persian]    
  11. George, A.L; Smoke, R (1989). Deterrence and Foreign Policy, World Politics, 41 (2): 170-182. doi:10.2307/2010406.
  12. Hank, J (2020). Credibility of US Deterrence in the Baltic States after Crimea`s Annexation: Center for Strategic Deterrence Studies.
  13. IISS (2021). The Military Balance 2021: The International Institute for Strategic Studies.
  14. Jervis, R (1979). Deterrence Theory Revisited: in World Politics, World Politics, 31 (2), 289-324. doi:10.2307/2009945.
  15. Kaitseliite (2021). Estonian Defence League. 9 19. https://www.kaitseliit.ee /en/edl.
  16. Klein, R; Lundqvist, S; Sumangil, E (2019). Baltic Left of Bang: The Role of NATO with Partners in Denial-Based Deterrence: INSS.
  17. Knof, J (2010). The Fourth Wave in Deterrence Research, Contemporary Security Poicy, 31 (1), 1-33. doi:10.1080/13523261003640819.
  18. Koolaee, E; Tishehyar, M (2006). Geopolitical Transformations and Changes in the Mission, Structure and the Functions of International Organizations (Case Study: NATO), Geopolitics Quarterly, 2 (5), 56-89. doi: 20.1001.1.17354331.1385.2.5.3.7. [In Persian]
  19. Kühn, U (2018). Preventing Escalation In teh Baltic: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
  20. Leps, H (2020). Die Militarisierung der Ostsee: Zusammenarbeitsausschuss der Friedensbewegung.
  21. Marshall, T (2015). Prisoners of Geography: Ten Maps That Tell You Everything You Need to Know About Global Politics: Elliot and Thompson.
  22. Major, C (2019). Die Rolle der Nato für Europas Verteidigung: Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik.
  23. Mearsheimer, J (2014). The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. Trans: Cheginizadeh, G. A.: [In Persian] 
  24. Mossalanejad, A (2015). NATO’s Regional Security Policymaking to Confront with Chaos-Generating Indications. Geopolitics Quarterly, 11 (37), 1-38. doi: 25.1001.1.17354331.1391.8.28.5.7.[In Persian]
  25. Muzyka, K; Consulting, R (2021). Russian Forces in the Western Military District: CNA.
  26. NATO (1997). Chapter 12: Host Nation Support. 10 15. https://www. nato.int/docu/logi-en/1997/lo-1213.htm.
  27. — (2015). NATO. September 3. https://b2n.ir/f67629.
  28. — (2021). NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg Following the Meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Foreign Affairs Ministers’ session. 4 1. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_184462.htm.
  29. — (2022). NATO. 16 NATO Allies and Partners Take Part in Exercise BALTOPS 22. 6 10. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_196240.htm.
  30. (2018). Nuclear Posture Review. Febraury -. https://media. defense.gov/ 2018/Feb/02/2001872886/-1/-1/1/2018-NUCLEAR-POSTURE-REVIEW-FINAL-REPORT.PDF.
  31. Osgood, R (1957). Limited War: The Challenge to American Strategy: University of Chicago Press.
  32. Peck, M (2019). How A $125 Million Baltic Guerrilla Force Could Stop Russia: Report. April 30. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/how-125-million-baltic-guerrilla-force-could-stop-russia-report-55077.
  33. Pishghahifard, Z; Arab, H (2011). Geopolitics of Baltic Sea and its Regional Importance, Geopolitics Quarterly, 7 (23), 53-79, . [In Persian]
  34. — (2014). Remarks by President Obama to the People of Estonia. 93. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2014/09/03/remarks-president-obama-people-Estonia.
  35. Snyder, G (1961). Deterrence and Defense: Princeton University Press.
  36. Sokov, N (2019). How NATO Could Solve the Suwalki Gap Challenge. 31. https://nationalinterest.org/feature/how-nato-could-solve-suwalki-gap-challenge-55347.
  37. SWP (2013). New Power New Responsibility: SWP.
  38. Szymański, P; Gotkowska, J (2015). The Baltic states’ Territorial Defence Forces: OSW.
  39. — (2021). The European Deterrence Initiative: A Budgetary Overview: Congressional Research Service.
  40. Tunander, O (1989). The Logic of Deterrence, Journal of Peace Research, 26 (4), 353–365. http://www.jstor.org/stable/423658.
  41. Van der Putten, F.P; Meijnders, M; Rood, J (2015). Deterrence as a Security Concept against Non-Traditional Threats: Clingendael Monito.
  42. Vasegh, M; and et al (2021). Expansion of NATO Territory in the Baltic Region, the Black Sea, and Eastern Europe, and its Consequences for Islamic Republic of Iran, Human Geography Research Quarterly 53(1): 343-364, . [In Persian]
  43. Veebal, V; Ploom, I (2018). The Deterrence Credibility of NATO and the Readiness of the Baltic States to Employ the Deterrence Instruments, Lithuanian Annual Strategy Reveiew, 16 (0), 171-200. doi:10.2478/lasr-2018-0007.
  44. Veebal, V; Ploom, I (2019). Are the Baltic States and NATO on the Right Path in Deterring Russia in the Baltic? Defense and Security Analysis, 35 (4), 406-422. doi: 10.1080/14751798.2019.1675947.
  45. Vseriov, J (2021). Constructing Deterrence in the Baltic States: ICDS.

Yazdani, E; Touiserkani, M and Bahrami, S. (2011). NATO and National Missile Defense, Gopolitics Quarterly, 7 (24), 25-53. doi: 20.1001.1.173543 31.1390.7.24.2.9. [In Persian]  

فایل ها

سابقه مقاله

  • تاریخ دریافت: 17 مهر 1400
  • تاریخ بازنگری: 06 تیر 1401
  • تاریخ پذیرش: 13 تیر 1401

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار