American soldiers recently arrived in Poland, while British soldiers have deployed to Estonia. In total the forward deployment by NATO forces consists of 4 battalions, of about 1,000 each, in Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Poland. Most are strategically located countries in the Baltic Sea that have often been intimidated and absorbed by Russia. These countries only gained their independence at the end of the Cold War, and they don’t have the manpower or budgets of the Russian Bear to their West. Poland, who has often fought and been the first target of Russian aggression, is especially worried about Russian incursions.
The intention of the troop deployments is to signal strength in the region to Russia, act as a guarantee of Baltic independence and signal NATO resolve in the region. This is welcome news that shows the continuing cooperation of NATO countries and that they have enough resolve to at least send soldiers. But the effectiveness of those soldiers is largely based on American and NATO commitment to wage war if they are attacked. In the event of conflict the 4 battalions are too small to win the war or be much more than a speed bump. A small number of highly trained Western forces can defeat much larger forces that look good on paper but suffer from funding and moral problems. Most likely though, this small number would bolster local military forces and wait for reinforcements. Their main use would be as a deterrent in the belief that Russia wouldn’t want to instigate a war with a unified NATO, even if they could overwhelm the small forces in the Baltics. But that deterrent is only effective if America and their NATO allies are credibly willing to fight if the deployed soldiers are attacked.
Unfortunately there is continuing tension in NATO over controversial statements made by Trump, the relative amounts of funding of the respective member states, and how to best handle the security risk posed by immigrants. All of which provide a note of caution concerning the effectiveness of the deployment. Despite high level friction and disagreements, as well as chafing at Trump’s assertions that other member states “owe” the US money, 22 of 28 NATO nations have increased their spending, and the deployment of soldiers from many NATO countries is complete.
Alliances seem strong until they are tested by aggression, at which point, unless they have a trained and equipped military – and the political will to use it, the alliance often fails. It then turns into what Henry Kissinger called collective insecurity, where alliances collapse due to inaction and each state is consumed in turn. This was especially pronounced during the period in between the World Wars for example. Western Europe established alliances and treaties, but few very leaders were willing to back them up with force. If the members of NATO fail to take proactive steps it would only encourage aggressive nations like Russia. Still, the deployment of NATO forces acts as an important statement to the contrary, and with enough resolve it will act a credible deterrent to Russian behavior.
Morgan Deane is an OpsLens Contributor and a former U.S. Marine Corps infantry rifleman. Deane also served in the National Guard as an Intelligence Analyst.
