Former Deputy Supreme commander of NATO forces in Europe Richard Shirreff told DW why the Alliance ukreplyat Eastern border, waiting for war with Russia, and when Ukraine will be in NATO.
On 8-9 July in Warsaw will host a NATO summit at which leaders of member countries of the Alliance will discuss the expansion of its military presence in Eastern Europe. On the eve of the summit DW spoke with British General Richard Shirreff, who served from 2011-2014 as Deputy Supreme allied commander of NATO forces in Europe. In may 2016 Shirreff has published a book, “2017: the war with Russia,” where he modeled the potential military confrontation of NATO with Russia.
DW: In your book, “2017: the war with Russia,” you describe a possible scenario of full-scale war between Russia and NATO. You assume that Russia will attack the Baltic States. Why do you think that this could happen?
Richard Shirreff: First of all, I want to emphasize that this is fiction. My book is a Wake-up call for NATO, for the West is that while we do not pay attention to the momentum started by President Putin’s invasion of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, as well as other signals that it sends, it could end this kind of disaster.
– What does Russia want? Putin wants war with the West?
I think Putin wants Russia to be treated as a great power. I guess he wants to provide a kind of dominance in its direct surroundings. I don’t think he wants war with the West. But it is not the question. We see that Putin is highly opportunist. He used force to change borders in Europe, what we saw in Crimea. And we need to understand the importance of defense and deterrence to exclude the possibility of errors.
– You call your book a Wake-up call for NATO. At the NATO summit in Warsaw is expected to strengthen the Eastern borders of the Alliance by placing four battalions in Poland and the Baltic States. Does this mean that NATO “woke up”?
NATO – “woke up”, but the giant need time to fully Wake up. The deployment of troops in the Baltic States and Poland – is only the beginning. We must also make sure that we are talking about the effective population. Four separate battalion without inclusive structures – combat support, command and control, which make from four battalions effective military unit – there will be no more than a political gesture. That’s what bothers me.
– So you believe that four battalions are not enough and we will see further steps?
– I do not believe that four battalions are enough. I think we at least need a United team. Those four battalions could be combined, perhaps in the form of a brigade. But it must be properly formed team, ready to conduct combat operations.
– Placing troops in Eastern Europe, NATO goes on the verge of formal compliance with the Founding act Russia-NATO. The Alliance should continue this course of action?
– The Founding act of the NATO-Russia talking about the non-deployment of substantial combat forces in the Baltic States. Substantial combat forces is not a battalion in each of these States. If we are talking about the fact that NATO runs the risk to violate formal agreements, I’ll assume that Mr. Putin has violated them. For example, the Budapest Memorandum of 1994 guaranteeing Ukraine’s sovereignty. So NATO needs to demonstrate the will, effective deterrent and reliability. It’s in the first place.
– Russia has recently sent a positive signal to NATO. Russian combat aircraft will now fly over the Baltic sea enabled transponders. Does this mean the beginning of de-escalation from the Russian side?
– If so, this is very good news. But it should not force NATO to abandon the show of force. Hopefully, this will lead to de-escalation. The policy goal is deterrence – this is de-escalation.
– The last conflict with Russia began with the Russian annexation of Ukrainian Crimea. Should NATO arm Ukraine?
– Ukraine does not fall under the scope of article 5th of the Washington Treaty, because it is not a member of NATO. The issues of support of Ukraine by NATO countries refer to the bilateral relations of individual States. NATO needs to be unified and act in unison. The danger is that if some countries vote for the support of Ukraine and others don’t, the Alliance will look ineffective or disconnected.
– Ukraine for several years knocking on NATO’s door. After what happened in Crimea, as far as the probability is high that one day Ukraine will be in the Alliance?
– I don’t think that’s even realistic. First, from a political point of view, Ukraine’s accession to NATO – despite the fact that a large part of the country is occupied by Russian troops – can easily lead to war. Secondly, the basis of NATO is article 5 of the Washington Treaty, that involves collective defense: an attack on one country is considered an attack on all Alliance members. We have to be realistic. I don’t think it is possible to speak about Ukraine’s accession to NATO.
– That is Ukraine will remain alone with Russia?
– In a perfect world, Ukraine should be regarded as a country like Finland during the cold war, able to look both to the East and to the West. Ukraine needs continuous support of the West. This support needs to demonstrate the benefits of the Western orientation, and not the disadvantages.
You would have offered to Kiev to take a neutral position?
– The reality is that there are too many things in Kiev could at least think to remain neutral. Given the invasion of Russia and Pro-Russian separatists in the East of Ukraine, it is difficult to imagine how Kiev could act neutrally. Ukraine will continue to need the help of the West, but from countries-members of NATO, this can happen only on a bilateral basis.
