War in Ukraine: “The fears of the Baltic countries vis-à-vis Russia are well founded”

NATO expected at the turn. The summit of the Atlantic Alliance in Madrid on Tuesday and Wednesday June 28 and 29 should confirm the new security deal in Europe, after the invasion of Ukraine by Russia. For the Baltic countries, bordering the Russian giant, it is becoming urgent to consolidate NATO’s eastern flank in the face of new threats from Moscow. “We are going to reinforce our battlegroups in the eastern part of the Alliance, up to the level of the brigade”, reassured Monday the Secretary General of the Atlantic Alliance, Jens Stoltenberg. A level that includes between 3,000 and 5,000 men. For Yohann Michel, researcher on military and defense issues at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, time is running out and “it is today that Europe must invest in its defense”.

L’Express: What is the state of Western forces in the Baltic countries?

Yohanna Michel: There is a reinforced NATO presence characterized by pre-positioned battalions in the region. This concerns the Baltic countries, but also Poland and Romania. This had been put in place in 2014, after the annexation of Crimea by Russia, in order to reassure our partners on the eastern flank of the Alliance. For the Baltic States, this currently represents a total of approximately 5,000 soldiers spread over the three countries.

The purpose of these battalions, however, is not really to provide combat capability per se, but rather to give consistency to Article 5 of NATO, which provides for mutual defense between all its members. The idea is to make it impossible to invade one of these states without the rest of the NATO countries being directly involved in the fight. Their role is therefore a deterrent. On the other hand, if the number of pre-positioned Alliance soldiers remains relatively low, it is to prevent Russia from feeling directly threatened by the presence of these forces on its border.

The Baltic countries, which consider this system obsolete, are now calling for a considerable strengthening of NATO’s presence on their soil…

Indeed. The Baltic countries are worried about Russian expansionist tendencies, in particular since the start of the invasion of Ukraine in February, and fear that they will in turn be attacked. Beyond the security guarantees offered by article 5, they therefore wish to strengthen the presence of NATO forces within them, to prevent all or part of their territory from falling into the hands of Russia, if it ever decided to attack them. In the case of Lithuania, this concerns, for example, the Suwalki corridor, this thin strip of land linking it to Poland, which is caught in a vice between Belarus and the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad. Recent threats from Moscow after the blocking of some Russian goods transiting to Kaliningrad through Lithuania have heightened fears of an escalation in this region.

Especially since the national armies of the Baltic countries weigh little against the Russian giant…

These are sparsely populated states. [1,3 million d’habitants en Estonie ; 2 millions en Lettonie ; 2,7 en Lituanie], so it is clear that they are not great military powers. Lithuania has only 23,000 men in its active forces, and 7,000 reservists. This is insufficient to defend against a neighbor as powerful as Russia. To guarantee their sovereignty, the Baltic countries need the help of NATO and the European Union. That said, in the short term, Russia’s resources are diminished by the conflict in Ukraine and the difficulties it is encountering there. For the moment, I find it hard to see Moscow attacking the Baltic countries without putting itself in an extremely difficult situation.

In the event of an attack, would the NATO forces present in the three Baltic countries be sufficient to repel the Russian forces?

No. One of the difficulties is that these are small countries, and therefore faster to conquer than Ukraine for example. It also complicates NATO’s ability to station a significant force there. Moreover, it does not necessarily have the capacity to significantly increase its presence in these countries. Concretely, France, the United Kingdom or Germany have about 200 tanks each. Our ability to deploy them abroad is therefore limited.

There is the possibility of strengthening the American presence, but this would entail a set of political questions. First, it will have a cost to the American taxpayer. Then, such reinforcement will be instrumentalized by Russian propaganda. Added to this is the fact that the Baltic countries are in a region that is difficult to access, and at the end of NATO’s supply chain. Allowing them to defend themselves against any Russian aggression would therefore require very significant resources and would take several years.

Some analysts believe that in the event of an attack, Russia could occupy all of the Baltic territories in forty-eight hours. What do you think ?

This is indeed one of the scenarios that had been studied before the conflict in Ukraine. Others counted on a little less than a week. Afterwards, it depends on several factors, such as the reaction of the civilian populations, the tactical errors on both sides, the degree of preparation of the forces… While it is clear that an attack by Russia would be very difficult to push back, the 48-hour scenario seems to me a little too optimistic for the Russian forces, given their current shortcomings in Ukraine.

However, it is not necessary to take a whole country to cause considerable damage to its economy and its population. What the Russian forces would be capable of in a very short period of time. It is clear in Ukraine that any territory occupied by Russian forces can suffer considerable violence. The fears of the Baltic countries are therefore justified.

How can NATO’s system evolve on its eastern flank on the occasion, this Tuesday, of the Madrid summit and the adoption of a new “strategic concept”?

First of all by an increase in the number of troops stationed in the countries concerned, and by a larger number of troops that can be mobilized quickly. This will require additional investment from Alliance members. It is also essential to invest in logistical infrastructure, to allow a rapid reinforcement of NATO forces in the region, and to have efficient supply lines in the event of conflict. We must also improve the availability of our military equipment. Indeed, not all vehicles in our fleet can be mobilized immediately, some are being repaired, or some spare parts may be missing.

We must also increase the number of materials at our disposal. Before the conflict in Ukraine, the French army had, for example, only 76 self-propelled artillery guns, the famous Caesars. Today we only have 58, after deliveries to Ukraine. This is very insufficient: a country like France should easily have ten times more. But it is even worse for many European countries. The level of under-investment in the armed forces is very high, in particular for Germany, Belgium or the Netherlands. Giving credibility to the eastern flank of NATO can only go through a rise in power at the military level. It is today that Europe must invest in its defence. Certainly, the more Russia is weakened by its operations in Ukraine, the less it will be able to pose a threat to European countries in the short term. But the Russian military might recover faster than ours, so we really don’t have time to wait.