Russia can try to take over small areas from its border neighbors when it can from the war in Ukraine.
This is what a British professor specializing in air force and technology research believes Justin Bronk.
Bronk assessed to that Russia would hardly seek and be able to take over entire countries. Instead, it could try to undermine NATO countries’ faith in the functioning of common defense with small territorial conquests and thus gain influence over the politics of its neighbors.
There was a big debate in Finland about the threat of a Russian attack after the leading researcher of the Foreign Policy Institute Charly Salonius-Pasternak urged reservists on Monday to get their lives in order a year from now.
We called Britain to get an assessment of the threat from a researcher outside of Finland. Bronk works as a professor at a prestigious defense and security think tank called the Royal United Services Institute.
According to Bronk, Russia’s military threat to NATO countries is still low due to its war in Ukraine. In 3–5 years, the risk is real, he says.
Much depends on Ukraine, China and the US elections
Bronk states that when and to what extent Russia is a threat to other European countries depends, among other things, on how the war in Ukraine goes. And that, in turn, depends on whether the West is able to continue supplying Ukraine with arms and ammunition.
The longer Ukraine is able to fight, the longer it will take before Russia becomes a threat to others.
– In all scenarios, the Russian military threat would also require that the United States is either politically unwilling or does not have the capacity to quickly come to Europe’s support, he points out.
Globalfirepower.com collects numerical data on the military power of different countries. The site does not analyze how well each country uses its resources. The organization also publishes an index of the world’s most militarily powerful countries.
Below we compare the military budgets of different countries. The original budget proposal of each country’s government in euros has been used for comparison. Realized expenses may have increased in additional budgets during the year.
US capacity could be tied up, for example, if a conflict were to arise between it and China in the Pacific Ocean. In turn, the willingness of the United States is influenced by who holds power in the country.
– Russia is fully aware that the biggest victory it can achieve in the foreseeable future is if Donald Trump or Republicans are in the White House at all. When you look at the controversy over the Ukraine aid package, you can understand why they think that way, says Bronk.
According to Bronk Russia should not get a solution to its war in Ukraine that makes it believe that the West is unwilling to fight.
Russia wants to get rid of NATO
Bronk believes that Russia’s potential threat is aimed specifically at border neighbors from NATO countries. He does not believe that Russia would try to conquer them, however.
– The bigger risk is that Russia would try to take over a small area on the border of a NATO country, but so small that the other NATO countries would not quickly come to the aid militarily.
According to him, Russia’s goal is to get rid of NATO as the central organization with which it must work.
– If Russia could take over small areas without the other NATO countries coming to the rescue, it would be able to show that Article 5 of NATO (which is the basis of common defense) is not credible. Then Russia would achieve its goal.
According to Bronk, the border neighbors should then make bilateral agreements with Russia to avoid a greater threat. This is how Russia would get what it wants, i.e. with military threats, a strong say in the politics of its neighbors, Bronk thinks.
He emphasizes that Russia will not be able to achieve this as long as Article Five is credible.
“Finland and Poland would be difficult destinations”
Bronk does not believe that Finland would be the most likely first target if, in accordance with the scenario described above, Russia decided to take military action against a NATO country.
– Finland has a strong army for its size, and for decades it has maintained, for example, strong training and mobilization capabilities to defend against possible Russian aggression, Bronk states.
Below we compare the ground forces of different countries. According to Global Firepower, in reality, about 20 percent of these total strength figures are always out of use, for example due to maintenance.
Similarly, choosing Poland as an immediate target is unlikely, Bronk says, because the country has rapidly increased its military strength.
According to him, a more likely destination would be a Baltic country, perhaps Latvia. In the past, Estonia could have been a target that Russia would try to isolate, but thanks to Finland’s NATO membership, that may no longer be so likely, says Bronk.
– Latvia has more friction with its Russian-speaking population, so the risk there would be perhaps the biggest of the Baltic countries. But the risk also applies to the rest of Eastern Europe, Bronk estimates.
He states that, ironically, the target could also be Hungary, which Viktor Orbán leadership is openly hostile to a large part of NATO policy.
– Other countries could find it difficult to mobilize political support on behalf of Hungary.
Political readiness without ability is meaningless
According to Bronk, in the event of an attack, Europe would be in trouble in the current situation if the United States was unable or unwilling to come to the rescue.
Bronk is pushing Europe to invest quickly in defense. He points out that the political will to intervene in an attack against an ally is linked to military capability.
– Political readiness without ability is meaningless. It is also easier to generate political will if there is capacity.
Below we compare the air forces of different countries. According to Global Firepower, in reality, about 25 percent of these total strength figures are always out of use, for example due to maintenance, repairs or modernization.
Bronk points out that NATO’s Article 5 does not say that other countries will respond militarily to an attack on one ally.
– In the member states, it is assumed that the answer is military, but that requires capacity. For a long time, it has been trusted that the United States will defend.
He estimates that a small group of willing NATO countries would first come to the rescue, because reaching a consensus throughout NATO and deciding on a common course of action takes time.
According to him, NATO countries are slowly starting to recognize that they need to strengthen their military capacity. This has happened fastest in Eastern Europe.
Poland took action more than a year ago, and the results are starting to show. The Baltic countries understand, but because they are so small, they cannot have a large impact on the whole.
Below we compare the fleets of different countries.
– Finland understands things broadly because it never stopped understanding Russia, Bronk states.
On the other hand, he does not believe that the message has yet reached many Western and Southern European countries.
And how worried Bronk is about the possibility that Donald Trump win the US presidential election?
– Very worried. If that happened, it would be a disaster.
A day after the interview, the US Congress passed a law according to which the president cannot decide on his own to withdraw from NATO.
Charly Salonius-Pasternak, the leading researcher at the Foreign Policy Institute, urged reservists to be in good shape in a year’s time, sparking a discussion about the Russian threat:
See A-Talk’s discussion on the topic: