Advertisement

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT

The Interpreter

Donald Trump’s Ambivalence on the Baltics Is More Important Than It Seems

A Latvian infantry unit during a NATO exercise in the forest of the Adazi military base in Latvia last year.Credit...Bryan Denton for The New York Times

WASHINGTON — When Donald J. Trump was asked on Wednesday whether, if elected president, he would defend the Baltic nations against a hypothetical Russian attack, his answer was, essentially: It depends.

“Have they fulfilled their obligations to us?” he asked. “If they fulfill their obligations to us, the answer is yes.”

And if not? “Well, I’m not saying if not,” Mr. Trump said. “I’m saying, right now there are many countries that have not fulfilled their obligations to us.”

His answer made jaws drop across the American foreign policy community. Mr. Trump seemed to be suggesting a break with an international treaty obligation: a major shift on a policy that gets little political attention but is central to upholding the postwar peace in Europe, the balance of power with Russia, and the small but real risk of conflict among the world’s major nuclear powers.

What follows is an explanation of the policy, why it matters, and the significance of Mr. Trump’s comments.

This goes back to 2004, when seven Eastern European countries joined NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, a military alliance whose members promise to defend one another from attack.

NATO was formed during the Cold War to balance Western nations against the Soviet Union and its allies. After the Soviet Union collapsed, much of Eastern Europe began to join the alliance, including, eventually, the Baltic countries: Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.

For those countries, joining NATO offered security against Russia, their powerful neighbor, which had a history of military domination of the Baltics. For the United States, it promised a Europe united under Western leadership and a deterrent against Russian expansionism.

But for Moscow, this became a threat: NATO, its longtime adversary, had now extended its reach right to the Russian border.

Image
Donald J. Trump at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland on Monday.Credit...Chang W. Lee/The New York Times

As Russia has grown more assertive in recent years, in part to compensate for its weakness relative to the West, much of the friction between it and NATO has played out along the Russian-Baltic borders.

The dynamics in the region have been governed by the alliance’s pledge to defend the Baltic nations if they are attacked, a threat meant to be so serious that it prevents war from ever occurring. That pledge is an important pillar of stability in a region where, in a highly unlikely but plausible worst case, a conflict could escalate to war between nuclear powers.

Mr. Trump’s comments suggested that under his leadership, that guarantee would no longer be guaranteed — that the pillar might not stand if he believed the Baltic nations had not “fulfilled their obligations to us.”

The premise of the question posed to Mr. Trump, a Russian attack on the Baltics, might seem outlandish. And indeed, no one seriously thinks that Russian tanks are going to pour into Latvia any time soon.

Rather, there are two scenarios that worry analysts and policy makers. One is a Russian provocation meant to test NATO’s promise to the Baltics, with the aim of unraveling that commitment while avoiding outright war. The other is that some unforeseen accident or miscalculation along the border, if it came at a time of high tension, could be misconstrued as an act of war, setting off a rapid mutual escalation that could lead to unwanted conflict.

The odds of either scenario are low, but the stakes are potentially catastrophic. The first could erode or outright end the European defense unity that grew out of the ashes of World War II, and would leave Eastern Europe once again vulnerable to Russia. The second could mean war among nuclear powers.

When asked whether war could really break out, foreign policy analysts and officials typically emphasize that it is unlikely because neither side wants it. But they often warn that the region’s volatility, combined with hair-trigger alerts and the ease with which misunderstandings can spiral out of control, puts the odds well above zero.

For Russia, the answer is insecurity. For the United States and NATO, the region is the ultimate test of whether their defense union can hold together.

Russian leaders fear that the West wants to subjugate or even destroy their nation, something President Vladimir V. Putin has at times said overtly. The Baltics are seen both as the vanguard of this threat and, perhaps, as an opportunity to upend an unfavorable status quo.

Ever since the Baltic nations joined NATO, there have been doubts about whether the United States and Western Europe would really risk a major war over these tiny countries on the Continent’s periphery. Many analysts fear that Russia will exploit those doubts, perhaps setting off a low-level incident meant to call NATO’s bluff.

Video
bars
0:00/3:54
-0:00

transcript

Trump’s Speech Casts U.S. in Dark Light

Donald J. Trump accepted the Republican presidential nomination with an emphatic appeal to Americans who feel that their country is spiraling out of control.

NA

Video player loading
Donald J. Trump accepted the Republican presidential nomination with an emphatic appeal to Americans who feel that their country is spiraling out of control.CreditCredit...Josh Haner/The New York Times

A 2015 Pew poll found that many Europeans — including 58 percent of Germans, whose politicians are divided on Russian issues — would not want their government to come to the Baltics’ defense. This would effectively fracture NATO and reveal its pledge to Eastern Europe as empty.

This is part of why Estonia, the country considered most vulnerable to Russia, is among the few NATO members that meet the group’s target of spending 2 percent of gross domestic product on defense.

Mr. Trump’s comments, by creating doubt even about American commitments, may make this outcome more plausible and thus, perhaps, more tempting for Moscow.

The fundamental issue is geography, which makes the Baltics a source of insecurity for both sides.

The Baltic nations divide Russia’s mainland from Kaliningrad, a small Russian exclave on the Baltic Sea that was formerly part of Germany. Moscow fears that Kaliningrad is vulnerable to NATO, which surrounds it. So it has installed weapons systems that, even if they are intended as deterrents, also threaten the Baltics and increase Russia’s ability to cut them off from the rest of Europe.

That has led NATO to expand its own presence in Eastern Europe, which makes Kaliningrad more vulnerable, deepening the cycle.

Scholars call this pattern of escalation a security dilemma. It is considered a major cause of World War I, and is one of the most-studied ways in which countries can stumble into an unwanted conflict.

This pattern has been playing out in the Baltics since 2014, when Russia annexed Crimea, plunging Eastern Europe into fears of further such acts.

Russian military jets have violated Baltic airspace. Both sides have increased military exercises near the border and naval patrols in the Baltic Sea. Some Russian officials and the state news media have suggested, in language similar to that used before the annexation of Crimea, that Moscow will protect ethnic Russian minorities in the Baltics.

In 2014, President Obama traveled to Estonia to pledge that the United States would defend the country as if it were American soil. Less than 48 hours later, an Estonian state security officer ended up in Russian custody after, Estonian officials said, Russian agents stormed across the border to abduct him.

If Mr. Trump creates doubt about the United States’ commitment to defend the region, that will play into the uncertainty and volatility that already makes it dangerous.

Advertisement

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT