NATO, Russia, and the Security Dilemma

(7)

By Robert Souza
Those with even a passing interest in international relations have myriad
topics to discuss at the moment. But there is one growing crisis in
particular, formed by a subtle combination of incidents, that could
potentially be the largest threat to the world. This is the feud between the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and Russia as both sides
seemingly attempt to aggrandize their power in world politics.
In graduate school I learned a lot about international relations paradigms.
Outside the world of academia, however, these schools of thought are rare to come by. This is
unfortunate, because they can be really useful tools when examining different contemporary events.
In applying the concept of the security dilemma to the current situation pertaining to NATO and
Russia in Eastern Europe, the aim here is to illustrate the analytical value of a specific theoretical
framework: realism.
Political realism focuses attention on anarchy (absence of an international government) and
invariably places international relations into a realm of power and interests. In an anarchical
international system, security is always of foremost concern. This turbulent environment composed
of egoistic actors is what gives rise to the security dilemma.
The security dilemma is hugely driven by insecurities between opposing sides. As each side sees its
attempts to strengthen itself - diplomatically or militarily - as defensive, the other side interprets
these efforts as an existential threat worthy of an immediate response. These actions can often result
in an ironic, self-reinforcing cycle of misunderstandings, heightening tensions and provocations that
sometimes lead to an unintended war. The current situation regarding NATO and Russia, fueled by a
legacy of deep-rooted and mutual mistrust, appears to be a textbook case of the security dilemma.
An appropriate starting point for this analysis is August 2014, when unmarked troops marched
across the border of southeastern Ukraine. This is when Russian belligerence really became
subjected to scrutiny under the international spotlight. Russian president Vladimir Putin vehemently
denied that Russian troops had carried out the invasion, but considerable evidence has surfaced that
flies in the face of Putin’s words. While Russia’s aggression in Ukraine sparked much controversy,
the real issue could actually be taking place in the Baltic states.
The Baltic states – Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia – are not just former Soviet Republics that border
Russia, but, unlike Ukraine, members of NATO as well. Just weeks after these unmarked troops
invaded Ukraine, President Obama traveled to Estonia and gave a significant speech in which
he committed the United States to a possible war against Russia should Putin continue his foreign
policy of incessant aggression in the region.
Obama warned that any foreign aggression against NATO’s Eastern European members, like
Estonia, would trigger a collective military response from all NATO members. This might sound a bit
extreme, but collective defense is actually a legal obligation enshrined in Article V of the NATO
Charter.
NATO was created after WWII as a mutual defense pact to bolster Western Europe and contain the
Soviet Union. The Baltic states were not members of this peacetime military alliance, but rather
occupied republics under the Soviet Union’s sphere of influence. After the collapse of the Soviet
Union in 1991, Russian aggression was a nothing more than a trivial issue and the newly independent
Baltic states would become members of NATO. Understandably, in Russia, this has been perceived as
a threat of encroachment and encirclement in its backyard.
Today, with these NATO members sharing a border with Russia, Russian aggression is a major
concern for NATO and containment has once again been made paramount. When Obama gave his
speech in Estonia, he confirmed that NATO was still committed to enforcing Article V of its founding
treaty despite these changes in the international system. After all, failing to do so would basically
strip NATO of its legitimacy.
Putin, who would love nothing more than to see NATO dissolve into irrelevance, appears to think
that NATO is bluffing. He has been disturbingly willing to gamble with how real these NATO threats
are. As a result, we have seen numerous Russian provocations followed by NATO responses.
Tensions have risen to the point where Putin has materialized the largest military presence in the
region since the Cold War. Combat jets are constantly flying the skies while submarines and warships
are patrolling the waters. The United States has responded by installing heavy military equipment in
the Baltics to augment the defenses of their NATO allies. True to the security dilemma concept,
Russia opted to counter by fortifying its Western border with more troops, tanks, planes and missile
systems.
As we can see, every time one side acts, they inadvertently exacerbate the security dilemma by
eliciting an immediate response. With both opposing forces honing the defensive effectiveness on
their respective sides of the border, the stakes could not be higher.
Luckily, further escalations seem unlikely as both sides - despite different perceptions regarding the
calculus of conflict - believe they can reap the benefits of "frozen" dissension. Still, the stage has
been set in such a way that one wrong move on either side could easily spiral things out of control.
When all of these incidents are pieced together, we get an unequivocal indication of a security
dilemma between NATO and Russia. Therefore, it is my conclusion that the security dilemma
sufficiently explains the current situation in Eastern Europe and should be used to foresee the
potential consequences.
The worst-case scenario here between two major nuclear powers would be catastrophic. While a
major nuclear war is very unlikely, this security dilemma is inching it toward a realm of remote
possibility. The dangers should certainly not be under-appreciated and everyone should be doing all
they can to recede such a scenario from the fore. Recognizing the path we are on is an important first
step and viewing the situation through a prism of political realism very much illuminates this
dangerous path.
Robert Souza is a freelance international relations writer and political analyst at Global Politics.
He recently received his Master's degree in international relations from Suffolk University in
Boston and holds a Bachelor’s degree in political science from the University of Massachusetts
Dartmouth. He can be reached at rts2012@gmail.com