FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Britain Tightens NATO’s Noose Around Russia

Britain appears to be selling itself to Europe as the EU’s “security” guarantor so that when the UK finally leaves the EU, it can retain a pretext for maintaining a close military relationship. This is extremely dangerous because the US-British policy toward Russia is provocative.

“[T]he loss of the UK could leave the EU significantly reduced as a defence and security actor,” says the RAND corporation. At present, British taxpayers foot the bill for Europe’s “security,” meaning the security of private corporations that rely on militarism to enforce the global economy. Militarism makes the situation less secure, as a joint British-Russian conference confirmed in 2017. RAND continues:

“Brexit raises questions about the EU’s future credibility and ambition in this field, particularly if Europe hopes to be a counterbalance to US influence within NATO, or to Russia and China.”

Russia’s Concerns

Is Russia really a threat? Elite security experts don’t seem to think so. Cambridge University’s David Blagden gave evidence to the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy (2014), writing: “Russia is only a ‘rising’ or ‘resurgent’ power taken against its post-Soviet nadir of the 1990s; viewed against the 1980s and previously, Russia is and will remain severely diminished.”

In 2015, John Sawers, former head of MI6, was quoted (in one of the few media exceptions) as saying: “The real problem is how we live with a Russia which feels very exposed. Putin’s actions are ones of a leader who believes his own security is at stake.” An unreported House of Commons Defence Committee report (2016-17) says:

“Russia views NATO expansion not as a free choice by sovereign states but as a policy of ‘encirclement’ by the West … There is a sense within Russia of ill-treatment by the West following the demise of the Soviet Union …  the Russian perception of the world is one riven by instability and threats, many of which are uncomfortably close to its borders.”

A European Parliament report (2017) says:

“All Russian security documents explicitly single out the challenges that the policies of Western states supposedly create for Russian security (with particularly harsh words in the Security strategy). Grievances connected to what Russia sees as ‘systemic problems in the Euro-Atlantic region’ (Foreign policy concept), the enlargement of NATO, the location of its military infrastructure close to Russian borders, its ‘offensive capabilities’ and the trend towards the Alliance acquiring ‘global functions’, the ‘symptoms’ of the U.S. efforts to retain absolute military supremacy (the global antimissile system, Global Strike capabilities, militarization of space)…”

Are Russian forces in Canada and Mexico conducting joint exercises against the US? No. Are Russian forces in Ireland conducting joint exercises against Britain? No. Is there an obvious Russian presence in Scotland promoting independence from the UK? No. But Britain and the US are mounted on Russia’s borders and conducting joint exercises with its neighbors.

In addition, Russia is being literally fenced off from Europe, with NATO members and/or EU member states Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland building border fences. Finland, Norway and Ukraine are members of neither NATO nor the EU but contribute to NATO and are also building fences with Russia.

But what do Russia’s neighbours, like the Estonians, rank as their national security priorities? A survey suggests that for Estonians, the biggest threat to global security is the Islamic State, followed by the refugee crisis in Europe and the war in Syria. Russia came fourth on the list, even after the Ukraine crisis. According to Gallup, a majority 52% of Estonians consider NATO a protective force, but 43% see it as either a threat (17%) or neither (26%). Estonians are behind Kosovars, Albanians, Poles and Lithuanians in their opinions of NATO.

NATO’s war games from 2014, following the Ukraine crisis, predicted that in the event of Russian invasions of Baltic states, NATO could not easily defeat Russia. As a result, NATO decided to beef up its so-called deterrence, i.e. a mass of troops encircling Russia. But what is to deter? What is the likelihood of Russia invading more countries?

In November 2014, the Telegraph reported that “Britain is planning more large Cold War-style tank exercises in Poland” in 2015, supposedly in response to Russia’s actions in Ukraine. But remember, Russia’s actions in Ukraine were a response to NATO’s moves and the Anglo-American-sponsored coup. Exercise Black Eagle involved 1,000 British troops, 30 Warrior armoured vehicles and 20 Challenger tanks, to send an “important message … that the Nato alliance is alive and well” (per Gen. Sir Nick Carter, Chief of the General Staff of the British Army).

In June 2016, it was reported that British troops were practicing urban combat operations in Poland, alongside American, Canadian, and Turkish forces (Exercise Anakonda). Until 2017, when Britain took over, Spain led the so-called Very High Readiness Joint Task Force.

In November 2016, Britain deployed another 150 troops from the Light Dragoons regiment, plus armoured vehicles, “close to the border” with Russia’s Kaliningrad. Also in that month, British newspapers reported the planned deployment of British GMLRS missiles to Estonia.

In December, PM Theresa may travelled to Warsaw for the annual bilateral summit. “[T]he Prime Minister is expected to announce a new joint UK-Poland Treaty on Defence and Security Co-operation. The only other European Union country we have such a treaty with is France.” (Shortly after the UK and France signed their bilateral security deal, they worked together to smash up Libya, Mali, Iraq and Syria. Russia will surely take this as an ominous development.)

Having reminded us of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2014 (omitting the irrelevant details of US-British involvement in the preceding coup), BBC online reported in July 2017 of an increased British presence as part of the NATO force in Estonia. Without irony, the reporter notes: “For the British Army it is a question of learning new skills or rather of re-learning them after years spent on counter-insurgency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan,” both of which made Russia’s Ukraine invasion look miserly by comparison. Had there been any indication up to July 2017 of Russian troop deployment? “So far … absolutely nothing,” said Gen. Sir Nick Carter, head of the British Army.

In October 2017, the Polish Foreign Minister Witold Waszczykowki and the Defence Minister Antoni Macierewicz met their British counterparts to discuss “security” and “cooperation.” Britain’s then-Defence Secretary Sir Michael Fallon said: “We want to further our already strong relationship and today will agree a capability partnership to boost both our defence industries and work towards finalising the Defence and Security Co-operation Treaty.”

The UK’s Bilateral Relations

As homelessness rises in the UK and tens of thousands literally die due to health cuts, the Tory government uses £5m of British taxpayer money to fund propaganda in Poland, aka, “counter Russian disinformation.” Propaganda includes support for Belsat, which targets Russia’s last ally in Europe, Belarus, and is funded by Poland (and now the British taxpayer).

In keeping with the organization’s customary neutrality, BBC online has a headline from February, “The Welsh soldiers keeping the Estonian border safe.” Safe from what? Has Russia threatened to or hinted at invading Estonia, which hosts NATO’s cyber command? No. The article quotes Commanding Officer of the Enhanced Forward Presence, Lt. Col. Owain Luke: “We achieve the deterrent principally by being here, because Russia knows that to invade Estonia would be to come up against Nato troops as well as Estonian forces.”

So, if Russia knows that any invasion of Estonia (which was never on the cards) would result in a NATO counteroffensive, why the need for forward basing, other than to threaten Russia? The report says that “[t]he British are the Nato lead in Estonia.” The report also exemplifies the BBC’s legendary impartiality, noting how the Welsh are training the Estonian rugby team and integrating with the locals: “if political tensions in the region increase, their presence in Estonia will remain a welcome comfort to the locals of this former Soviet Union country.”

In February, Forces Network reported: “UK personnel are currently deployed on operations supporting NATO’s Enhanced Forward Presence (eFP), with forces in Estonia and Poland.” It also notes that “The Royal Welsh is the lead Battlegroup (BG) element based in Tapa, Estonia, with the training designed to reassure NATO allies and deter adversaries.”

In February [2018], it was reported that more troops, these from the queen’s Dragoon Guards, were to be deployed in Spring. Estonia’s President Kersti Kaljulaid didn’t seem ever so grateful, requesting a US force presence and the deployment of Patriot missiles: “We want to be sure that both NATO’s territory and NATO soldiers are well protected … We need our deterrence to be believable.”

So much for British taxpayers’ spending millions of pounds to put troops in Estonia for “deterrence” while impoverished Britons suffer cuts to public services at home.

This article originally appeared on Axis of Logic.

More articles by:

Dr. T. J. Coles is director of the Plymouth Institute for Peace Research and the author of several books, including Voices for Peace (with Noam Chomsky and others) and the forthcoming Fire and Fury: How the US Isolates North Korea, Encircles China and Risks Nuclear War in Asia (both Clairview Books).

February 21, 2019
Nick Pemberton
Israel, Venezuela and Nationalism In The Neoliberal Era
Chris Orlet
The Bill and Melinda Gates’ Fair Taxation Scaremongering Tour
Bruce E. Levine
“Heavy Drinking” and the NYT’s Offensive Obit on Herbert Fingarette
Lisi Krall
This Historical Moment Demands Transformation of Our Institutions. The Green New Deal Won’t Do That
Stephanie Savell
Mapping the American War on Terror: Now in 80 Countries
Daniel Warner
New York, New York: a Resounding Victory for New York Over Amazon
Russell Mokhiber
With Monsanto and Glyphosate on the Run AAAS Revokes Award to Scientists Whose Studies Led to Ban on Weedkiller in Sri Lanka and Other Countries
Jesse Jackson
Trump’s Fake National Emergency Moves America Closer to an Autocracy
Alex Campbell
Tracing the Threads in Venezuela: Humanitarian Aid
Jonah Raskin
Mitchel Cohen Takes on Global and Local Goliaths: Profile of a Lifelong Multi-Movement Organizer
Binoy Kampmark
Size Matters: the Demise of the Airbus A380
February 20, 2019
Anthony DiMaggio
Withdrawal Pains and Syrian Civil War: An Analysis of U.S. Media Discourse
Charles Pierson
When Saudi Arabia Gets the Bomb
Doug Johnson Hatlem
“Electability” is Real (Unless Married with the Junk Science of Ideological Spectrum Analysis)
Kenneth Surin
The Atlantic Coast Pipeline: Another Boondoggle in Virginia
John Feffer
The Psychology of the Wall
Dean Baker
Modern Monetary Theory and Taxing the Rich
Russell Mokhiber
Citizens Arrested Calling Out Manchin on Rockwool
George Ochenski
Unconstitutional Power Grabs
Michael T. Klare
War With China? It’s Already Under Way
Thomas Knapp
The Real Emergency Isn’t About the Wall, It’s About the Separation of Powers
Manuel García, Jr.
Two Worlds
Daniel Warner
The Martin Ennals and Victorian Prize Winners Contrast with Australia’s Policies against Human Dignity
Norman Solomon
What the Bernie Sanders 2020 Campaign Means for Progressives
Dan Corjescu
2020 Vision: A Strategy of Courage
Matthew Johnson
Why Protest Trump When We Can Impeach Him?
William A. Cohn
Something New and Something Old: a Story Still Being Told
Bill Martin
The Fourth Hypothesis: the Present Juncture of the Trump Clarification and the Watershed Moment on the Washington Mall
February 19, 2019
Richard Falk – Daniel Falcone
Troublesome Possibilities: The Left and Tulsi Gabbard
Patrick Cockburn
She Didn’t Start the Fire: Why Attack the ISIS Bride?
Evaggelos Vallianatos
Literature and Theater During War: Why Euripides Still Matters
Maximilian Werner
The Night of Terror: Wyoming Game and Fish’s Latest Attempt to Close the Book on the Mark Uptain Tragedy
Conn Hallinan
Erdogan is Destined for Another Rebuke in Turkey
Nyla Ali Khan
Politics of Jammu and Kashmir: The Only Viable Way is Forward
Mark Ashwill
On the Outside Looking In: an American in Vietnam
Joyce Nelson
Sir Richard Branson’s Venezuelan-Border PR Stunt
Ron Jacobs
Day of Remembrance and the Music of Anthony Brown        
Cesar Chelala
Women’s Critical Role in Saving the Environment
February 18, 2019
Paul Street
31 Actual National Emergencies
Robert Fisk
What Happened to the Remains of Khashoggi’s Predecessor?
David Mattson
When Grizzly Bears Go Bad: Constructions of Victimhood and Blame
Julian Vigo
USMCA’s Outsourcing of Free Speech to Big Tech
George Wuerthner
How the BLM Serves the West’s Welfare Ranchers
Christopher Fons
The Crimes of Elliot Abrams
Thomas Knapp
The First Rule of AIPAC Is: You Do Not Talk about AIPAC
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail