A Solution to Russia's Standoff With the West?

Defense Secretary Jim Mattis visited Ukraine last week in a show of support for the besieged Eastern European nation. And he issued a stern warning: “Despite Russia's denials, we know they are seeking to redraw international borders by force, undermining the sovereign and free nations of Europe.”

Russia’s aggressive actions in Eastern Europe, combined with its attempts to meddle in the 2016 U.S. elections, have created a foreign policy crisis that nobody in Washington or Brussels seems to know how to resolve. 

So here comes an idea from Michael O’Hanlon of the Brookings Institution:  Freeze NATO at its current size and create an “arc of neutrality” spanning from Europe’s far north to its south — including Finland and Sweden; Ukraine, Moldova, and Belarus; Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan; Cyprus plus Serbia, as well as possibly other Balkan states.

This “alternative security architecture,” O’Hanlon contends, “could do much to transform NATO-Russian relations.” He believes this could help turn over a new leaf with Vladimir Putin, defusing tensions and taking the region off its war footing.

“The big idea proposed here is this: NATO should not expand further into Eastern Europe,” O’Hanlon argues in a new Brookings paper titled “Beyond NATO.”

As countries become more unstable, it “reduces to near nil the odds that NATO will, in fact, commit firmly to offer them membership.”

O’Hanlon says his proposed East European security architecture would be preferable to NATO membership for countries like Ukraine and Georgia “for the simple reason that it is a far more credible and attainable arrangement.”

Many foreign policy experts share O’Hanlon’s view that NATO’s rapid expansion has fueled the current crisis. “Whether most Russians truly see NATO as a physical threat is a question, but many do see it as an insult — a psychologically and politically imposing former enemy that has approached right up to their border,” he says.

An alliance of just 12 countries when it was created in 1949, NATO grew to 16 members by the end of the Cold War and has added another 13 countries since then. Russia has reacted aggressively to NATO’s eastward growth, says O’Hanlon. “If the Trump administration is serious about its worthy goal of improving U.S. relations with Russia, how exactly can it do so?” he asks. “It may be possible to reduce the risks of rivalry and war by focusing on what may be, in Putin’s mind, the fundamental cause of the problem: NATO expansion.”

That does not mean the United States should abandon friends like Ukraine and Georgia. “However, there is likely a better way to help them,” he says. Creating a buffer zone in Eastern Europe would require that both Russia and NATO commit to uphold the security of Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, and other states in the region, suggests O’Hanlon. Russia would have to withdraw its troops from those countries, and corresponding sanctions would be lifted.

O’Hanlon tells RealClearDefense that, so far, nobody from the Trump administration has reacted to or commented on his proposal. “I don't have any insight into whether there would be support from the Trump administration for this, but I hope so, as it would seem to fit with the president's interest in exploring ways to get along better with Russia without lowering our guard in any way.”

Any path that would lead to a more peaceful coexistence should be worth exploring, he insists. The acrimony in U.S.-Russian and NATO-Russian relations has not only been detrimental to global security but also has impeded cooperation on urgent matters such as the security of nuclear materials. “There is also little reason to think that, left essentially on geostrategic autopilot, the relationship will markedly improve in the years ahead.”

Until the crisis simmers down, countries in Eastern Europe will continue to fret about the prospect of a Russian invasion. NATO has stationed about 5,000 troops, “a modest force, more of a tripwire than a forward defense,” in the Baltic States and Poland, O’Hanlon notes.

In military bases across the region this summer, tens of thousands of troops from the United States and 23 other countries staged combat drills that were far more sophisticated and complex than in years past. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Joseph Dunford recently characterized Russia as the “most capable state actor that we face.”

As to whether Putin would even consider this proposed security architecture idea, O’Hanlon says it is hard to predict. The incentives may not be there yet for the Russian president to want to negotiate.

“Putin may feel he is in an advantageous position to continue to try to weaken NATO, and the European Union more generally, by stoking various conflicts, promoting and supporting extremist leaders in Western Europe, fomenting dissent in American politics, and generally keeping the major democratic powers guessing as to what will happen next,” says O’Hanlon. “Putin may also welcome an ongoing standoff with the West for the additional excuses it provides him for his strongman behavior at home and his aggressiveness abroad,” he adds. “The outcome of any effort to create a new security architecture is, therefore of course, uncertain but it should be attempted nonetheless.”

Sandra Erwin is a national security and defense reporter for RealClearDefense. She can be reached at serwin@realcleardefense.com. Follow Sandra on Twitter @Sandra_I_Erwin.

Editor's Note: For more on NATO, see RealClearWorld's interview with Michael O'Hanlon: