The historian Neill Ferguson is one of a number of analysts who believes it is possible, even plausible, that Vladimir Putin (pictured) will move into the Baltics to test Article 5. Sometimes called the ‘cornerstone’ of the NATO alliance, the Article states that an attack on one member will be seen as an attack on all. Only once has it been invoked – when two planes slammed into the Twin Towers on 11th September, 2001 – but then, the attack was on the strongest member of the alliance, whose willingness and ability to respond with or without help was hardly in question, writes Harry Readhead, director at Sonder London.
Now, things look a little different. The Ukraine war may be coming to an end or it may not be. But in any case, the responsibility for keeping the peace in Ukraine, and responding should Putin move into the Baltics, now falls chiefly to the European members of the NATO alliance. At least, given the changeability of the present U.S. administration, this is what we have to assume. But providing that guarantee will be nigh on impossible if those European countries lack the military might to respond to Russian aggression. It was recently reported that Britain would not only struggle to play her part in a joint NATO response should Article 5 be invoked. She would not even be able to defend herself were a hostile foreign power to attack.
Following a lengthy inquiry, the Commons defence committee said the present government was moving at a ‘glacial’ pace in the face of renewed and credible threats from both Russia and China. Indeed, Professor Peter Roberts of the Royal United Services Institute told Members of Parliament that Britain had ‘next to nothing’ in respect of air and missile defences in place, and that, in the event of an attack, lives would be lost, and key provisions – healthcare, food, water, power – would fail. Long used to the protection of the United States and the so-called peace dividend, Britain has forgotten what – to flip the title of a song by D:Ream – things can always get worse. Among the conclusions were that Britain was ‘over-reliant on U.S. capabilities’; that ‘it must implement … recommendations aimed at ensuring that the UK is a better [NATO] Ally’; and that Britain’s ‘lack of mass [ie, troops and equipment] is denuding its leadership in NATO.’ Another way to put this: Europe is at greater risk because Britain is under-powered.
The collective defence of NATO requires, at minimum, that its member states fulfil Article 3. Britain is failing in this. So though much ink has been spilled asking what might happen should Putin try a ‘limited cross-border move’ in the Baltics – say, by claiming to be defending ethnic Russians – such questions would seem to answer themselves from the British point of view if it is unable to respond militarily. Nor is it impossible that Russia might be bolder: she has, after all, held military drills along the Polish border, sent drones into Denmark, threatened UK waters, jammed satellites on a ‘weekly’ basis, and been implicated in a series of cases of spying – in Latvia, Austria, Britain, and elsewhere. Sir John Sawers, the former head of MI6, put it like this: “The biggest defence threat is undoubtedly Russia. They are the ones who should be the focus of our national defence. They are ruthless. Sometimes they can be very effective. They can be very violent. They can employ propaganda, hybrid warfare, and cyber attacks.”
Talks around defence cooperation between Britain and the European Union broke down last week following a disagreement over the UK’s financial contributions. And though it seems likely that the two parties will reach an agreement soon, officials from both have said the outcome may be more limited than was first pictured when the British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and the Commission President Ursula von der Leyen agreed to cooperate in May. As a major country and, along with France and Germany, one of Europe’s so-called E3 powers, Britain must not risk becoming a weak link in the alliance at a time of grave and rising threats. General Sir Richard Barrons, a former commander of the UK’s Joint Forces Command and a co-author of the Strategic Defence Review, believes it is vital that Russia knows that if she breaches Article 5, it will be ‘repaid tenfold’. Unless Britain gets a move on, that looks quite unlikely.
