Eastern Europe feels like the desert of Nato

Countries like Poland and the Czech Republic are disappointed at what it means to be part of Nato. This feeling has become even stronger now the promised missile shield will not be built.

No one in the West is talking about it, but in the heart of Europe the 15,000 Russian and Byelorussian troops at the border with Lithuania and Poland are big news. They are holding an exercise this month, specially dubbed zapad, the West. For the countries of Eastern Europe, traumatised by a war and occupation, 'zapad' is much more than an exercise, it is intimidation, they say. And where is Nato in their part of Europe? Nato sees Eastern Europe as “a desert”, a high-ranking Polish official said last week.

On paper there is solidarity: an attack on one country is an attack on all. But Nato's important infrastructure is in the West, as there is hardly anything worth defending in the East. Countries like Poland have long been unhappy about this. And now plans have been scrapped for the ‘missile shield,’ which the US says was aimed at Iran and parts of which would have been established in Poland and the Czech Republic. Washington decided last week that the shield is not necessary. The desert will remain a desert.

The missile shield would have cost a fortune and there was no guarantee it would have worked, but it would have been an important symbol nonetheless: it was a visible counterweight against Russia’s geopolitical ambitions in the former East Bloc. The US’s decision was applauded in Moscow, but there was also predominantly relief in Germany and France: although these countries supported the project, they were not happy about its effect on relations with Russia.

Normalise relations

In the Central and Eastern European countries the decision reinforced disappointment in Nato: twenty years after the fall of communism, which is being celebrated extensively this year, they feel abandoned by the most powerful country in the military alliance because Obama wants his country to have a good relationship with Russia as well.

Diplomats from other Nato countries at the headquarters in Brussels understand this response. Countries like Poland and the Czech Republic are disappointed at what it means to belong to Nato, they say. After they joined the alliance, no scenarios were prepared in the event they were attacked, which had been done for the other member states, because it was feared this could give Russia the wrong impression. And it was, one diplomat says, much more a “talking club” than expected, No Action, Talk Only.

It is too bad for the Poles and Czechs, diplomats in Brussels agree, but it is also a good time to normalise relations: they are just going to have to rely on Nato rather than the US. They are coming to realise that, it seems. Polish minister of foreign affairs Radek Sikorski said earlier this week that his country would do its best for a more robust European security policy. "We are a European country," Sikorski said, "and we must mainly seek security guarantees here."

Twenty years behind

British political analyst Nick Witney of the think-tank the European Council on Foreign Relations says Poland and the Czech Republic “are acting like disciples of the US who have fallen out of favour.” They have been dealt a harsh slap on the wrist now the shield has been scrapped, says Witney. “You have to see the threat of Russia in proportion: the Europeans together spend twice as much on defence as the Russians. These countries have to let go of the idea that they are threatened, they are twenty years behind.”

But his Lithuanian colleague Arunas Molis says the West takes Russia much too lightly. “We do not feel ourselves under direct military threat here," says Molis, analyst for the Centre for Eastern Geopolitics in Vilnius. “But this does not mean Russia does not pose a threat.” Take for example the major exercise ‘zapad,’ the Russian attack on Estonian computer systems in 2007, or the energy crisis at the beginning of this year when Russia shut off the gas supply to the EU after a row with Ukraine over gas transport.

And the most important evidence: the conflict between Georgian and Russian troops during the summer last year. "Apart from the question of who started it," says Molis, "that conflict should have made Nato and the European Union think seriously about the situation. It shows that Russia still regards the use of brute force as a part of its foreign policy.”

Strengthen ties openly

It did make Nato and the EU think, but not for as long as Poland, the Czech Republic and the Baltic states would have liked. In Brussels the diplomatic consultation between Nato and Russia has already been underway again for six months. New Nato secretary general Anders Fogh Rasmussen also wants normal relations. A day after the US announced the decision on the missile shield, Rasmussen gave a talk – which had been planned for some time – on the relationship with Russia titled ‘A New Beginning’.

This prompted long meetings at the headquarters in Brussels. Countries like Poland, the Czech Republic, the Baltic states and Great Britain did not feel it was necessary for Rasmussen to strengthen the ties with Russia so openly. There was opposition to the fact that he reportedly wanted to propose that Nato sit down with Russia to chart international threats - which Rasmussen nonetheless did. "It is a dividing line that runs through everything at Nato," says one diplomat. "You have a mistrust of the Russians versus a pragmatic attitude towards a large country that simply has to be dealt with."