Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
The past few weeks have seen a sharp increase in armed conflict in and around the Baltic. Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, all of which are NATO members, now face Ukrainian drones on a regular basis. According to the capital of Kyiv and the Baltic, the drones, which are going to hit the west of Russia, are diverted by disrupting Russian computers and entering the territories of these countries.
In early May, several stray unmanned aircraft crashed in Latvia, one of which destroyed a fuel depot. Those events he started Political problems in Latvia led to the fall of his government. Last week, a drone was shot down in Estonia, and another drone sighting forced Lithuania to temporarily suspend train and air traffic.
A few days later, the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) and the Russian envoy to the United Nations issued dire warnings, accusing the Baltic states of having green-lighted Ukrainian drones to destroy what is happening in Russia and even to target Ukrainian pilots.
Growing tensions in the region are increasing the risk of miscalculation. This is why the Baltic states urgently need mitigation measures and communication mechanisms.
Strange dangers in Eastern Europe
The increase in drone activity in the region and recent Russian military warnings to the Baltic states point to two very dangerous scenarios.
First, a serious long-term escalation of the Russia-Ukraine conflict is already underway. The recent incident marked the first time in decades that sirens have been fired in NATO member states. Although the Baltic and Nordic cities of Moscow and NATO have been in direct conflict, its prospects seem to be close unless tensions increase in the coming weeks. As Lithuanian Prime Minister Inga Ruginiene said after the latest incident, “war is closer than ever.”
All of this seems particularly dangerous because the Baltic region has been seen as a possible flashpoint between Russia and NATO. The Baltic states lie between Russia to the east and Kaliningrad to the west. In addition, Latvia and Lithuania also share Russia’s ally Belarus on their southeastern border.
Apart from geography, historical grievances foster conflict and partisanship. It may only take one event to escalate into a major regional problem.
Second, this is not a temporary outburst in which the parties simply wait or evolve with small changes in their actions and speech. In fact, the unusual situation in the Eastern European security system is revealing many of the contradictions in the world that have been seen as a systemic problem.
Most importantly, none of the parties can control the events of these events independently, therefore, the new regional culture seems to be full of risks of miscalculations and expected or unexpected escalations.
In response to these dire events, the actors seem to be offering something similar – that is, increasingly hawkish and doubling down on the idea of opposing each other, including with nuclear weapons.
The rhetoric from both sides says it all. Despite Moscow’s pledge to return electoral centers to the Baltic states, Lithuanian Foreign Minister Kestutis Budrys wrote that NATO must “show the Russians that we can break their small fortress in Kaliningrad”. He added that, if necessary, the agreement “has all the means to deal with the security of the Russian airspace and the missiles there”.
Some Baltic leaders are repeating calls for their NATO allies to strengthen cooperation against Moscow and show stronger resolve. Likewise, Russia maintains its escalation-to-de-escalation model as a cornerstone of NATO deterrence.
While such measures may seem safe in terms of domestic politics and alliances, they will do little to reduce the escalating tensions between Russia and NATO. Repetition of strict prohibitionist views and unyielding rhetoric and political posturing that have led to the current situation will only continue to make things more difficult for everyone.
A new approach to regional security is needed
In order to avoid becoming involved in a major war, the Baltic states and Eastern Europe urgently need a way to reduce military threats that could preserve the lines of communication with Moscow. This process should be completely removed and managed by the military alone, not politicians.
A well-discussed security arrangement involving NATO and Russia seems unlikely at this point. Therefore, an interim de facto military-to-military relationship can be established that will include five countries on both sides of the dividing line. On the NATO side, these are the Baltic states of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia as well as Poland. And on the other hand, it is Belarus, which has a security agreement with Moscow.
For this process to work, no political or legal agreement is needed. Just understand that these countries want to avoid any escalating situations, especially those that may arise from misunderstandings and misinterpretations.
Instead, the system can be based on a special network of mutual trust between the two countries- and defense building agreements that Belarus has had with the three Baltic states and Poland for more than 20 years. Although Belarus’s NATO neighbors stopped using the agreements at the end of 2020, most importantly, they did not leave them and can revive their work.
These agreements were concluded in a different technological era and, therefore, do not account for drones and other modern military challenges. However, they can serve as a legitimate means of maintaining regular contact with the military to combat the drone threat.
Arguably, the first move towards a depoliticized, de facto approach has already taken place. Recently, the Belarusian military used various communication channels to provide information about third-country drones to their counterparts in Poland and the Baltic states. Polish and Baltic officials openly he agreed all the principles of information sharing and its usefulness. Now they can just start paying back and share the same with Belarus.
This approach would not resolve the major conflicts between the country’s enemies. But it is important to reduce risk at a time when any escalation could drag the region into war.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect Al Jazeera’s influence.
