Skip to main content
  1. Life
  2. Society & Culture
  3. Social Issues

The United States "Baltic Pivot". How Poland Will Become NATO's Secret Weapon.

See also

How and why the US and NATO Must use Poland as a “Blueprint”

As the US debates its 21st Century “Baltic Pivot” it will be safe bet to assume that this pivot will mimic that of its predecessor in during the Post WWII era of 1949 to 1990. The primary partner of such a pivot would be that of Poland. The US and Poland will have to address some sorted history between that of Ukraine and Poland.

The expansion of US/NATO coupled with the marginalization of Russian influence in European Policy is seen by the Russian Federation Provocative and in some cases even hostile. Lavrov and Deputy Prime Minister and former Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov both explicitly rule out “Cold War” as a label for Russo-American relations, their subordinates are not so soothing. The Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Aleksandr’ Losyukov, speaking in Tehran, said that” Washington was using Korea and Iran’s proliferation as an issue to consolidate its global strategic position, i.e., invoking those two states to justify its missile defense program. If this issue cannot be resolved by diplomatic means, he warned, Russia will carry out a series of military acts to balance and establish security.”
The reengagement of NATO by the addition of Poland and even talks with Georgia a country in which Russia has a very hostile border dispute with lends itself to possible conflict. And this could prompt an arms race. This frosty warning, rather than the calculated, insincere, and misleading efforts to invoke Russo- American partnership, more accurately characterizes the present state of Russo-American relations even if they are far from the Cold War.

Polish- Ukrainian historical background is complicated...at best

Historical relationships of Polish- Ukrainian diplomatic have been bumpy to say the least. According records during the 10th Century Grand Prince of Kiev named Vladimir the Great made and sinister ploy to expanded his empire by destroying and pillaging a number of Polish cities. Centuries that followed produced conflict between the populations of both countries that would result vicious clashes over territory, using forcible population transfers and heavy-handed cultural imperialism to cement their regional influence. The sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were especially violent. It is estimated that 100,000 Poles and 20,000 Ukrainians were killed in ethnic purges during this time.

In modern times both states found themselves as satellites of the Soviet Union. In 1942 almost 60,000 Poles where purged by Ukrainian forces. Though Poland was never part of the Soviet Union as was Ukraine thus the where no saddled with the burdensome economic woes of Communism nonetheless the shadow of Lenin and Stalin loom over both. Poland can will be the perfect candidate to sponsor Ukrainian integration into the EU. The issue will arise with the maintenance of border integrity with a Regional Power such as the Russian Federation looming down upon their state.

NATO, Ukraine, and Russian response to Ukrainian Membership

There is the very public and very significant issue of expanding American military infrastructure closer to Russia’s borders, which was taking place within and outside NATO. The United States continued its support for former Soviet states, such as Azerbaijan, Georgia and Ukraine, as potential NATO members, and in 2007 Washington announced plans to deploy elements of missile defense system in Eastern Europe. Russia expressed its strong distaste of both developments viewing them as a threat to its own security. In his final annual Address to the Federal Assembly, President Putin went father and announced his decision to declare a Russian moratorium on implementing the Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty. The decision, if implemented, would allow Russia to freely move its troops within its territory in response to those steps by NATO that the Kremlin may see as potentially harmful.

Overall, a new foreign policy consensus emerged that an assertive style of achieving the objectives of development, stability and security suited Russia well at the moment. The new Foreign Ministry report entitled “A Review of the Russian Federation’s Foreign Policy” commissioned by the Kremlin and released on March 27, 2007 further elaborated on the new face of Russia’s great power pragmatism. It indicated an important change in Russia’s thinking since the 2000 Foreign Policy Concept. The report embraced the notion of multi-polarity based on a more equitable distribution of resources for influence and economic growth” which it said laid the ground for a more self-confident and assertive Russia. The document presented Russia as ready to actively shape the international relations by challenging actions of others, particularly the United States, if they were “unilateral” and disrespectful of international law.

Although the report was not anti-American and did not call for any concerted effort to undermine U.S. global position it did show that the regional tectonic plates that are converging on each other are escalating . Instead, it defended the notion of collective leadership and multilateral diplomacy as the alternative to unilateralism and hegemony in international relations. As with Russia’s new assertiveness expressed by Putin’s Munich speech, the report indicated frustration with lack of progress in developing ties with the West, not with the principle of Westernization as a foreign policy objective. Russia and the U.S. were not moving toward another Cold War. There was no ideological line dividing the two nations – the two nations agreed on some issues, while sharply disagreeing on others.

Collective Security is the Answer

Collective security is based on the risk of retribution, from non state players ie. Militant groups and state sponsors of militant groups, but also not excluding economic and diplomatic responses trade conflicts that may arise, in addition to military retribution. From this, it is theorized that perfected collective security would discourage potential aggressors from angering a collectivity of states. Collective security goes beyond the military realm to include a wider array of security problems. It assumes that states will relinquish sovereignty and freedom of action or inaction to increasing interdependence and the premise of the indivisibility of peace. The assumption is that the outcome implementing post OEF security initiatives will establish a lasting security that can be derived from this is part of the foundation of the neoliberal institutionalism argument.

NATO is the premier globalist institution design explicitly for the purpose of governing transatlantic security . The current trends of political, social, and economic globalization provide both challenges and opportunities for the international community. Some nations experience the forces of fragmentation while others experience integration. With these recent changes has come an increase in the number of conflicts, exacerbated by instability, social and economic injustice, and political competition. In this environment, the NATO has an uncontested role as the leading organization for the maintenance of peace and security, development of political stability, social and economic progress, and well-being.

The issues of peace, governance, democracy, and development are closely interrelated and must be simultaneously addressed. This situation not only demands greater efforts by the Organization to find political and financial solutions, but also requires the United Nations to identify and explore appropriate and adequate human resources, particularly in this field.

Advertisement