By Paul Robinson, a professor on the University of Ottawa. He writes about Russian and Soviet historical past, army historical past and army ethics, and is the creator of the Irrussianality weblog.
Tensions between Russia and NATO are at an all-time excessive. But as an alternative of in search of a method off the ladder of escalation, the US-led bloc’s new plan for hybrid struggle dangers accelerating an already harmful deadly arms race with Moscow.
There’s an idea in worldwide relations, almost one of many first that college students study, referred to as the ‘security dilemma’. It’s hardly rocket science, however it’s one thing governments and armed forces planners appear to persistently overlook relating to making coverage.
The concept is principally this: Country A feels threatened by nation B; it subsequently takes some measures – akin to rising its defence spending – to make itself safer; however when nation B sees what nation A is doing, it in flip feels threatened, and so takes reciprocal measures of its personal. The result’s that nation A finally ends up much less secure than it was to start out with.
The dilemma is that in case you do nothing to strengthen your defences, you’ll be insecure, however in case you do one thing you’ll find yourself worse off due to the counter-measures the opposite facet will take. What do you do? If international locations A and B each take motion to defend themselves, they are going to discover themselves in an ever-escalating course of – what theorists wish to name the ‘spiral model’, however which in public parlance is usually referred to as an arms race.
The apparent method out is to interrupt the spiral. Avoid escalating and resort to different measures, akin to negotiation and arms management. All it could take is for one facet to unilaterally step again, and the vicious circle will flip right into a virtuous one.
It’s fairly fundamental stuff, however time and again, state leaders select to disregard it and like as an alternative to march down the trail of the spiral. So it’s at this time within the case of Russian-NATO relations, that are as basic an instance of the safety dilemma as you could possibly presumably hope to seek out. Deep down, there’s no basic purpose for battle, however mutual suspicion results in a unbroken ramping up of reciprocal measures that deepen the suspicion, resulting in extra measures, extra suspicion, and so forth, seemingly advert infinitum.
For occasion, earlier this 12 months, the Russian army undertook a sequence of workout routines near its Western borders. From a Russian perspective, these had been purely defensive. From a Western perspective, they appeared doubtlessly threatening, justifying in flip Western workout routines that NATO claims are solely for defence, however which Russia considers a risk, prompting additional Russian measures.
The newest spherical on this harmful course of is the announcement this week that NATO has developed a brand new ‘masterplan’ to defend in opposition to a doable Russian assault. The plan itself is secret, so we don’t know its contents, however it’s mentioned to deal with non-conventional struggle, together with nuclear strikes, cyberwarfare, and even struggle in house. Geographically, it covers the entire unfold of NATO’s border with Russia, from the Baltic to the Black Seas inclusive.
In half, that is simply what army establishments do: They plan for doable future conflicts. The Russian army almost definitely additionally has comparable contingency planning in place for a possible struggle with NATO. It could be very odd if it didn’t. In this sense, NATO’s new masterplan shouldn’t in principle be seen as a trigger for alarm. Moreover, NATO insists that its goal is just not aggressive. Rather, the plan’s intention is deterrence, thus its formal title: ‘Concept for Deterrence and Defence in the Euro-Atlantic Area’.
However, as college students of the spiral mannequin know, actuality is way much less vital than notion. Deterrence is a matter of indicators. One sends a message to potential enemies that in the event that they assault, they are going to endure devastating penalties. The downside is that though this message could also be clear to the one doing the signalling, it might not be so clear to the one to whom it’s despatched. You suppose you might be deterring, however they suppose you might be threatening. They subsequently reply in form. In this manner, deterrence finally ends up being counter-productive.
This doesn’t at all times occur, however on this occasion, it appears to be the case. Some elements of NATO’s announcement appear unnecessarily escalatory, specifically the references to nuclear struggle. We’ve come a good distance from the musings of nuclear strategists like Herman Kahn and Bernard Brodie, who tried to calculate the way it was doable to struggle and win a nuclear struggle. One shouldn’t be stunned that when different folks hear such speak being revived, they’re not deterred however alarmed.
Unsurprisingly, Russia’s response to NATO’s new army idea has been decidedly unfavorable. “There is no need for dialogue under these conditions,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov mentioned, persevering with: “this alliance was not created for peace, it was conceived, designed and created for confrontation.”
From the Russian standpoint, NATO’s actions justify Russia’s current resolution to sever ties with the Atlantic alliance. Rather than bringing Russia to heel, NATO could merely be driving it into an ever extra hostile place.
In this manner, the West’s notion of Russia as a risk turns into a self-fulfilling prophecy. The identical, after all, could possibly be mentioned the opposite method round. For if the West perceives Russia as threatening, it’s due to issues that Russia has accomplished – because it sees it, for its personal defence. For occasion, NATO argues that what has made its new plan obligatory is Russia’s strengthening of its armed forces and its current advances in army know-how.
The extra Russia defends itself, the extra it incites NATO. And the extra NATO defends itself, the extra it incites Russia. A safety dilemma par excellence. The threat each events run is that the scenario will proceed to spiral additional and additional into ever extra harmful territory. Already this spring, Europe handed by way of a interval of excessive rigidity by which it regarded solely doable (though unlikely) that struggle would possibly erupt between Ukraine and Russia. Anything that contributes to an additional worsening of the scenario is subsequently completely undesirable. NATO’s new army plan, it appears truthful to say, runs the danger of doing simply that.
Think your pals would have an interest? Share this story!
The statements, views and opinions expressed on this column are solely these of the creator and don’t essentially symbolize these of RT.