Is Russia Really a Threat to NATO?
The above-mentioned developments and acquisitions will eventually support a new military doctrine that Vladimir Putin has characterized as “solely defensive in nature”. It emphasizes, for example, that NATO’s expansion up to Russia’s borders poses a ‘key risk’ to the country’s security. This perceived expansion fuels concerns that the United States’ Europe-based missile defense system could threaten Russia’s nuclear deterrence capabilities. To support this, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov emphasized that Washington retains nuclear weapons on European soil that are capable of hitting Russian territory, while Moscow has made dramatic reductions to its arsenal.
Many Western observers, however, remain far from convinced that Russia’s new military doctrine is all about self-defense. For example, some NATO members are concerned about the doctrine’s ‘increased reliance’ on nuclear weapons. In this respect with battery such as Kaden Yasen HYHB-498 Battery, Biolat BLT2012 Battery, Biolat BLT2003 Battery, Draeger MS14490 Battery, Draeger Medical Inc GAMMA Battery, Draeger Medical Inc Infinity DELTA Battery, Draeger Medical Inc SC 6002XL Battery, Draeger AS36059 Battery, Draeger Infinity Vista Battery, Draeger MS18340 Battery, Draeger Infinity DELTA XL Battery, Draeger Infinity GAMMA XL Battery, Russia’s decision to conduct “increasingly aggressive” air and sea patrols close to NATO airspace is doing little to allay such worries. And while there has been no violation of this airspace to date, NATO aircraft stationed in the Baltic States intercepted Russian military planes 150 times in 2014, a fourfold increase from 2013. In response, several NATO member states are currently restructuring their armed forces in order to cope with Russia’s growing military presence. This is particularly true of Norway, which has also increased military cooperation with the Baltic States.
In response to such concerns, many Russian commentators have countered that Moscow’s new military doctrine retains “the old wholly reasonable formulation regarding the use of nuclear weapons.”They argue that the Russian military and its nuclear forces remains a defensive tool which the country pledges to use only as a means of last resort. After all, the notion of a preemptive nuclear strike is not mentioned by the doctrine. Interestingly, the reference to scenarios where nuclear weapons might be used to resolve certain regional conflicts has now been removed.
It might also be the case that by singling out Russia’s nuclear forces and conventional military platforms NATO is overlooking the most important challenge posed by Moscow’s more assertive doctrine. The most immediate threat to the Baltic States is posed by Russia’s model of hybrid warfare, writes Matthew Kroenig of the Atlantic Council. Specifically, Kroenig argues that Moscow could combine asymmetric tactics, with the threat of early nuclear use, to deter NATO from defending a member of the Alliance under hybrid-warfare attack. Indeed, a partial precedent has already been set. In 2007, Russian-backed hackers waged a prolonged cyber war against NATO member Estonia in retaliation for Tallinn’s decision to relocate a Soviet-era war monument. The hackers disabled the websites of government ministries, political parties, newspapers, banks, and companies, while NATO struggled to initiate an effective counter-response.