Eastern Europe Frets About NATO’s Ability to Curb Russia
By STEVEN ERLANGER

OVER CONSTANTA, Romania — High over the Romanian border, a sophisticated NATO surveillance plane kept a close watch on Russian movements below. Its radar screens came alive with a cat-and-mouse game between a Russian surveillance jet buzzing an American guided missile destroyer in the Black Sea and a squadron of NATO fighter jets that chased it away.

It was a scene reminiscent of the Cold War, and NATO’s mission was meant to reassure allies that are feeling newly vulnerable to Russian threats after Moscow’s muscular intervention in neighboring Ukraine.

But it provided little comfort to NATO’s Eastern European members, which are growing increasingly nervous about Russia’s moves and the alliance’s ability, or even willingness, to counter them.

Today’s NATO, hollowed out by years of European military cuts and deployed mostly to help fight far-off battles in places like Afghanistan and Libya, is no longer as prepared to counter a newly assertive Kremlin, its own leaders acknowledge.

Western European members of NATO may regard the conflict over Ukraine as remote, an annoying threat to their business ties to Moscow, said Artis Pabriks, who was Latvia’s defense minister until he stepped down in late January. “But for us, it’s not about money, it’s existential,” he said. “You guys may remain with your freedoms, but we may not, so it’s different.”

NATO itself is awakening to the altered circumstances. Ukraine, said Maj. Gen. Andrew M. Mueller, who commands NATO’s fleet of 17 surveillance planes, “made us re-emphasize the mission we were built for.”

“We’re augmenting NATO defenses inside NATO,” he added. “We’d gotten away from that a bit with Afghanistan and Libya.”

But it will take more than a change of emphasis to re-energize a military alliance that has badly eroded since 1989. The United States is responsible for 75 percent of NATO military spending, and only a handful of European countries meet the alliance’s target of having military budgets of 2 percent of gross domestic product.

NATO is the front line of response to increased tensions with Russia, but the reluctance of the United States and its Western European allies to beef up the alliance reflects an ambivalence about confronting Russia too frontally, either militarily or through punishing economic sanctions.

The reluctance is particularly strong among some NATO members, like Spain, Italy, France and Germany, with major business and energy ties to Russia. They would like to see a quick return to the status quo ante.

But in a division reminiscent of the debate over “New Europe” and “Old Europe” during the Bush years, NATO members near the Russian border say that era is over.

“The fundamental understanding of security in Europe has now collapsed,” said President Toomas Hendrik Ilves of Estonia. “Everything that has happened since 1989 has been predicated on the fundamental assumption that you don’t change borders by force, and that’s now out the window. Political leaders need to recognize that the old rules no longer apply.”

The surveillance fleet is owned by NATO, with money and staffing contributions from 17 nations. It is under the direct control of the top NATO commander, Gen. Philip M. Breedlove of the United States Air Force, who can deploy the planes without consulting with member states. General Breedlove became NATO commander in July, and he has been outspoken about the new threat from Russia.

The Obama administration has so far rejected suggestions, including some from senior officials in the State Department, to significantly increase the tiny presence of American or NATO troops, or the supplies of military equipment, in countries bordering Russia. The White House does not want NATO to pour fuel on the fire, a senior official said, but it did recently commit American troops for temporary exercises in Poland and the Baltics. But the total number is tiny: about 600 paratroopers normally based in Italy.

“This is very symbolic reassurance, very carefully calibrated to ratchet up if need be,” said Sean Kay, a former Pentagon adviser on NATO. Washington does not want to feed the notion of the Russian president, Vladimir V. Putin, that the West is determined to encroach on traditional Russian turf, he said. But some argue that for Washington to do so little is an invitation to Mr. Putin to do more.

NATO has refrained from deploying substantial numbers of troops in member states bordering Russia, in accordance with a unilateral promise made to Moscow in 1997, when Russia was behaving more cooperatively.

For the same reason, although the Baltic nations have been full members of NATO since 2005, there was no military contingency plan to defend them until 2009, after Russia’s war with Georgia. Now, with the annexation of Crimea and the threat to eastern Ukraine, many in Northern Europe believe that posture must change.

The euro currency crisis and weak growth have hit Europe hard, however, making budget cuts widespread, with military spending among the easiest areas to cut politically.

In 2013, among the few NATO countries that met the 2 percent target, according to NATO figures, were the United States, at 4.1 percent, and Britain, at 2.4 percent. Estonia was at 2 percent, and Greece, though debt-saddled, spent 2.3 percent. France was at 1.9 percent, and Turkey and Poland were at 1.8 percent, while Italy spent only 1.2 percent of its G.D.P.

Spain and Hungary, along with two apparently vulnerable Baltic countries, Latvia and Lithuania, spent less than 1 percent. Even wealthy Germany spent only 1.3 percent. Over all, European members of NATO were at 1.6 percent.

But pleas for more spending may fall, as usual, on ears otherwise occupied with domestic budget constraints.

NATO has been trying to respond, Mr. Ilves, the Estonian president, said. “Everything that has been said sounds good, and NATO has announced various air and sea measures,” he said. “But when it actually starts happening, it will sound and look even better.”

What countries like the Baltic States, Poland and Romania need are “boots on the ground, a presence in the region,” Mr. Ilves said, as well as air defenses, not just air policing.

Despite the recent statements from NATO, Mr. Pabriks, the former Latvian defense minister, said, “the Polish and Baltic publics are not certain.”

“Compared to what Russia has been building up on our borders,” he added, “we are a demilitarized zone, and that will have to change.”

No one doubts NATO’s capacity to stand up to Russia militarily. But if Mr. Putin sees opinion in NATO as “divided or undecided about whether Latvia’s security has the same value as Germany’s, then he may challenge it,” Mr. Pabriks said.

“If he does, and NATO doesn’t respond in force, NATO is dead,” he added. “We have to give a clear signal that this is a red line, not a red line as in Syria, but that if you cross this line we will shoot.”

Mr. Pabriks noted that five minesweepers — two from Norway and one each from the Netherlands, Belgium and Estonia — would conduct an exercise in the Baltic Sea until the end of May. “They’re not battleships, of course. It’s clearly a signal, but obviously not enough.”

General Mueller, the surveillance fleet commander, said he was facing staffing cuts despite the re-emergence of the Russian threat. “The challenge is to get the European nations to spend the money on defense,” he said. “We feel it today. This incident has made people step back and think that those who were pushing to spend money were more farsighted, and maybe we should listen to them.”

Capt. Bogdan Drelciuc, 32, one of two Romanians on board the surveillance plane, returned early from a rotation in Afghanistan, after the Ukraine crisis began, to help coordinate these new flights with the Romanian military. “I think my country is concerned, for sure,” said the captain, who was 7 in 1989 when Communism collapsed. “We have a direct border with Ukraine, and we requested NATO support, and why not?”

北約無力抗俄 東歐心慌慌

烏克蘭危機仍持續醞釀中，俄羅斯強力干預烏克蘭的舉動，已引發東歐國家對俄國的不安，儘管北大西洋公約組織採取空中警戒行動試圖安撫這些盟國，東歐國家仍是恐俄不已，不僅憂心北約的能力不足以牽制俄國，也擔心北約是否願與俄國交戰。

紐約時報報導，北約領袖坦承，歐洲連年從事軍事削減，以及將部隊部署到遙遠的阿富汗與利比亞作戰後，今天的北約在對付重拾信心的俄國上，已沒有交戰的萬全準備。

拉脫維亞前國防部長帕布里克斯說，北約的西歐成員國可能認為烏克蘭衝突是場遙遠的戰爭，只會對他們與俄國的經濟關係造成影響。他說：「對我們而言，這與金錢無關，與生存有關。你們仍保有自由，我們卻沒有，所以是兩回事。」

北約是對俄作出反應的前線，但美國與西方國家不願提升北約軍力，反映出這些國家無論在軍事與經濟制裁上，不願與俄國太正面交鋒的矛盾心理。

這種抗拒心理在西班牙、義大利、法國、德國這些和俄國有商業與能源關係的北約國家最顯而易見，他們最想見的是一切快速恢復原狀。

歐巴馬政府迄今也拒絕提高美國在東歐或北約的兵力，或是提供軍事設備給與俄國毗鄰的國家。白宮不希望北約火上加油，也不希望讓俄國總統普亭認為，西方決心闖入俄國的傳統地盤。

不過，美國最近確實同意派兵參加在波蘭和波羅的海的演習，但僅約六百名傘兵。這批傘兵已抵達波蘭。

北約迄今也避免在與俄國毗鄰的成員國部署數量可觀的部隊，遵守一九九七年與俄國達成的雙方的承諾。

但愛沙尼亞總統伊爾維斯說，波羅的海三小國、波蘭、羅馬尼亞需要的正是「在這個地區增兵」、強化空防，不光是空中警戒而已。

帕布里克斯表示，若是俄國發現北約在捍衛拉脫維亞安全一事上分裂與猶豫不決，普亭可能發出挑戰，而若「北約未強力反應，北約即宣告死亡。我們必須挑明強調這是紅線，跨越紅線，我們即會射擊」。

原文參照：
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/world/europe/eastern-europe-frets-about-natos-ability-to-curb-russia.html

Video：U.S. Sends Troops to Eastern Europe. The Pentagon press secretary, Rear Adm. John F. Kirby, discussed U.S. military exercises in Eastern Europe, and the Ukrainian first deputy prime minister, Vitaly Yarema, expressed gratitude.
http://nyti.ms/1jCwuqA

2014-04-25．聯合報．A25．國際．編譯王麗娟