PROFESSOR LINDLEY-FRENCH STARTED WITH SKETCHING A SCENARIO FOR OUR FUTURE AS AN ILLUSTRATION OF POSSIBLE DEVELOPMENTS IN OUR PART OF THE WORLD. WHILE ALL ISSUES RAISED ARE FICTIONAL, THEY LOOK FRIGHTENING REALISTIC. THE POINT OF THE SCENARIO IS FOR POLITICAL AND MILITARY LEADERS TO BE AWARE OF THE POSSIBLE FUTURE BUT ALSO OF THE CURRENT AND FUTURE SHORTCOMINGS IN THE ABILITY TO HANDLE SITUATIONS. 

The military organizations of many western governments have been severely diminished, especially in numbers. Many investments have been used specifically for interventions (call it peace enforcing/peace building^[1]) in Afghanistan and Iraq instead of preparing for ‘conventional’ war^[2]. In short both European and American militaries are not prepared for a major threat situation at the moment. The scenario consists of several incidents from the Brexit, Middle Eastern countries falling apart, to increased tensions in the South China Sea but also cyber-attacks on Baltic states.

Here are 10 ways to prevent these things from escalating–not from happening because many of these things are already happening at the moment. Think of the Brexit, the cyber-attacks, the current situation in the South China Sea with the dispute about the Chinese claim on the Philippine Exclusive Economic Zone. These responses are written from the perspective of the European (political) leaders but ‘we’ the people should know about it too.

Ten Ways to Respond to East-West Tensions

1. Do not talk about a new Cold War

The current situation can’t be described as a ‘new’ Cold War. Europe’s situation is far more secure that in the period 1945–1989 with (still) better equipped and secured well-functioning governments. Besides economically Europe is far richer and European citizens are better educated, and facilities like healthcare and emergency services are better prepared for worst case scenario’s. Russia however is far weaker, which is the real problem. To give an example, oil at $47 per barrel (158,9 L) is a price too low to sustain Russian public expenditure.

2. Face hard facts

We are witnessing a rapid shift away from liberal power to illiberal power^[3]. Several countries surrounding Europe (even some within European borders) have a more illiberal ‘democratic’ rule. Russia has an estimated defence budget of around $80bn but will inject about c$600 billion between 2012 and 2022 for new armaments and a more professional military. Also Beijing grew the Chinese defence budget an estimated $150bn^[4] in 2015. That is but the latest double digit increase since 1989. China will increase defence spending by at least 7-8% in 2016.

NATO Europe spends c$200bn p.a.  France and the UK are about 50%; France, Germany and the UK 65%. The ‘big three’ spend about 90% of all defence Research & Development in NATO Europe. EU member states have committed themselves to a Common Foreign Security Policy( CSDP^[5]) for the European Union. The European Security and Defence Policy aims to strengthen the EU’s external ability to act through the development of civilian and military capabilities in Conflict Prevention and Crisis Management. As you can see this ‘Common Policy’ is not (yet) aimed on the ability to act as a robust European force nor act as a European counterpart to the US in NATO.

3. Understand an adversary’s real reality

Public and other forms of ‘show of force’ are not the only sources of information of their ability to act. Look at these numbers:

Russia GDP 2015 $1.2 tr.

Germany GDP 2015 $3.3 tr.

UK GDP 2015 2015 $2.8 tr.

France GDP 2015 $2.4 tr.

Netherlands GDP 2015 $0.86 tr.

4. Build a United Europe

As we have seen the United States has been focusing its military power towards other areas of operation (and interest) than the European continent. Their focus has been towards the Middle East and South-East Asia. They removed a lot of their European-based armed forces to the United States and transferred capabilities towards both mentioned areas of interest. Besides, most of the European governments have invested poorly^[6] and ‘harvested’ their ‘peace-dividend’ for about 20 years since the fall of the Berlin Wall. The military of European countries should work together as a super-alliance of states. This real cooperation can only work in a united Europe. This does not mean a United States of Europe. For this Europe needs both NATO and EU’s CSDP. Because the UK is the largest defence spender in Europe^[7], the UK should be part of this.

5. Invest in the Transatlantic Relationship

The United States is by far the biggest defense spender in world with about $ 597,8bn. The US is a global power but because of all its ‘adventures’ is overstretched globally. Currently many European governments are free riding on the US military as they do not spend enough money on Defense R&D. We can expect the transatlantic partnership to change with either Clinton or Trump as the next US president. Either of them will demand the NATO Wales Summit declaration, which states that each member country should increase it’s spending to 2% GDP of which 20% on new military equipment becomes a hard commitment.

6. Reinforce NATO

As said, European countries should reinforce NATO as a European Alliance within NATO by:

• meeting the 2% commitment (many EU countries do not).
• make Warsaw Summit (2016) launch-pad for NATO modernisation
• building a twenty-first century collective defence (advanced deployable forces, nuclear deterrence, cyber, missile defence)
• reinforcing the contract at the heart of the Alliance: the weakest get the security of the strongest in return for the sharing of burdens,  responsibilities and risks.

7. Keep talking to Russia

Besides investments in European and NATO defense capabilities we still have to communicate with Russia, the Russian public and the Russian leadership. As President Theodore Roosevelt^[8] said: “Speak softly but carry a big stick”. Europe should work together with NATO and Russia to improve relations and building peace on the European continent and it’s surroundings. For example, work together with Russia in fighting terrorism, e.g. IS in Syria.

Although most of the normal communication and political negitiations have ceased to exist because of the war in Ukraine and annexation of the Crimean peninsula, the NATO-Russia Council^[9] still is operational. The NRC was established by the 2002 Rome Declaration on “NATO-Russia Relations: a New Quality”, which builds on the goals and principles of the 1997 Founding Act. Its purpose is to serve as the principal structure and venue for advancing the relationship between NATO and Russia.

In accordance with the Rome declaration, NATO member states and Russia work as equal partners in areas of common interest in the framework of the NRC, which provides a mechanism for consultation consensus-building, cooperation, joint decision and joint action on a wide spectrum of security issues in the Euro-Atlantic region. The members of the NRC, acting in their national capacities and in a manner consistent with their respective collective commitments and obligations, take joint decisions and bear equal responsibility, individually and jointly for their implementation. Other issues like Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty^[10] (INF), and proliferation of Conventional Forces and, for example, submarines are important subjects to stay in communication with Russia.

8. Make all institutions work

It is very important that all relevant institutions necessary for keeping the peace work. International organisations and institutions like UN, EU, NATO, OSCE are all European creations and vital to the whole world and European peace. All these institutions are necessary to stop extreme state behaviour – from the beginning this has also been the reason for creating the EU. It was in post-war Europe where on May 9, 1950, Robert Schuman, the French Foreign Minister, proposed to his German colleague, Konrad Adenauer, that their two nations should together form a European Coal and Steel Community, inviting other European nations to join them in placing their coal and steel industries under a shared sovereign authority.

The purpose was to consolidate post-war reconciliation and to prevent the emergence of any future war machine driven by those industries. This was a first bold step towards today’s European Union. Although several ‘fathers’ of today’s EU are recognised including Adenaeur, De Gasperi, Monnet and Spaak, Schuman is the only one officially named ‘Father of Europe’ by the European Assembly (now Parliament). The functioning of institutions also means there should be invested in these political, financial, and also military institutions.

9. Enhance resiliency

One thing which is fundamentally important, either in case of terrorist attacks but also in case of any future war, is to prepare our critical national (and EU/ European) infrastructures for attack. Also the resilience of citizens should be increased to be able to be attacked but also to recover from it. Governments as well as the European Commission (and other EU institutions) must treat our citizens like adults not like children. The people of Europe need a fair story, even if it’s tough.  

10. Leadership

The key element of any response towards threats in general, but specifically towards East-West tensions, is that the leadership, military and political, should act like leaders! In many cases, they follow public opinion and are reactive instead of proactive. The harvesting of the peace dividend is just one example where we see that political leadership has ‘followed’ public opinion instead of lead the way based on the hard facts of increasing threats. European leadership should create a future vision about the position in Europe in the world, with all treads. European leadership should not follow public opinion, they must lead it!

WORST CASE SCENARIO

The Worst Case: Phase One

• 2019: Brexit rumbles on…
• Insurrections rumble across the Middle East & North Africa as state after state begins to implode.
• Iran and Israel coming close to war in what is left of Syria. Libya collapses – IS/ Daesch gain foothold beyond Sirte.
• Suddenly crisis erupts in East China Sea involving key US allies.
• US forced to respond in force.

The Worst Case: Phase Two

• Suddenly power and information networks crash in Baltic States and much of Eastern Europe.
• Military exercises underway in Kaliningrad and Belarus intensify and expand.
• Hybrid warfare begins to turn into real warfare as equivalent four Army corpses (120k soldiers) in the Western military oblast move
• The North Atlantic Council (NAC) meets to put both VJTF (5k soldiers) and eNRF (30k soldiers) on notice to move. VJTF 5-7 days. eNRF 30-45 days. NATO Force Structure 60-180 days.
• Kremlin begins to talk of NATO aggression and cites violations of Russian air, sea, land and cyber space.

The Worst Case: Phase Three

• Russian forces seize the Lithuanian border between Kaliningrad and Belarus (60kms) and give all NATO forces five days to leave.
• Kremlin cites need to consolidate a ‘peace buffer’ between Russia and ‘aggressive NATO’. Russian nuclear forces – both strategic and tactical – are placed on full alert.
• Deterrence has failed but neither the Very High Readiness Joint Task Force (VJTF) or NATO Response Force (NRF) are any match for Russian forces and unable to overcome Russian Anti-Access/Area Denial (A2/AD).

The Worst Case: Phase Four

• President Trump says to Europe – ‘you sort it’. But European forces too hollowed out, lack key enablers, & vital logistics.
• Putin knows that having overcome NATO deterrence the Alliance faces a long war to recover the Baltic states.
• He calls Chancellor Merkel and says his ‘limited correction’ is over.
• In effect, he offers her the same choice Britain and France faced in 1939 over Poland – space for time.

With forces committed to Asia-Pacific, Europeans engaged in the Middle East, the US is too over-stretched to respond in force in any of the 3 theatres; NATO Europeans are too weak and divided to act as effective first responders.

[1] https://pesd.princeton.edu/?q=node/259

[2] The preparations for hybrid and conventional wars need other organisations and equipment’s than those needed for peace enforcing and peace building operations. 1000’s of specialised vehicles and systems have been used to equip these kind of peace operations. These investments pushed lowering budgets which in turn meant the “normal” systems and vehicles weren’t replaced or replaced by less capable systems. Many countries also lowered the numbers of tanks, artillery pieces and fighter aircraft just to free money for the new needed investments in IED (road bombs) protected vehicles.

[3] http://apcentral.collegeboard.com/apc/members/courses/teachers_corner/32074.html

[4] http://thediplomat.com/2015/03/confirmed-chinas-defense-budget-will-rise-10-1-in-2015/

[5] http://www.eeas.europa.eu/csdp/

[6] A lot of investments were more subsidy towards defence industry groups than were useful to keep effective forces. We have seen prices of military systems, vehicles, ships and aircraft rise.

[7] Some of the defence expenditures for 2016 quoted by Dr. Lindley-French:

• UK – $56.2bn; • French – $46.8bn; • German – $36.6bn; • Dutch  – $8bn

[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Stick_ideology

[9] http://www.nato.int/nrc-website/EN/about/index.html

[10] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate-Range_Nuclear_Forces_Treaty