Kurt Volker
A former U.S. Ambassador to NATO, is now Senior Fellow and Managing Director of the Center for Transatlantic Relations at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies, and a Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council of the United States.
Small Country, Big Ideas
A small country has its advantages, if it knows how to use them. With less bureaucracy and fewer actors, most of whom have known each other for years, a small country can sometimes be more nimble and strategic than a large one. Of course there can be disadvantages and vulnerabilities as well – but that’s where smart policy can help.
In the 1990’s, it was far-reaching economic reform that rapidly made Estonia a candidate for EU membership, and now sensible stewardship puts it at the head of the pack in seeking to join the Euro. Today, it is also a security policy that balances “home” and “away,” civilian and military, and Russia and the East, in a manner that anticipates what NATO itself must do.
NATO is in the midst of preparing a new strategic concept, and is itself grappling with the ideas of “home” and “away.” NATO needs to provide iron-clad Article 5 reassurance to all Allies concerning their territorial defense within the Euro-Atlantic area. Defending against a territorial attack within Europe may be among the least likely things NATO will ever have to do – and being prepared for such a contingency will keep it that way.
At the same time, NATO must deal with the most pressing security challenges that challenge our societies and civilization right now – and those are anchored outside the Euro-Atlantic area and have to do with building societies and overcoming violent extremism, most immediately in Afghanistan.
A NATO that deals only within the Euro-Atlantic area will swiftly lose the interest of America, which is most concerned with the immediate threats elsewhere in the world. But a NATO that does not spend adequate effort on its core Article 5 defense mission at home will lose both its credibility and the willingness of Europe to go along with missions like Afghanistan far from home. A sensible balance of the two – home and away – is necessary for the success of NATO for the long haul.
With its small size and armed forces, Estonia knows it cannot stand alone in its self-defense. It needs to be part of a security community that will join together in self-defense, should that ever be required. But to be valuable within this community, Estonia must contribute to the overall success of the Alliance, including in missions far afield. And it also knows – having suffered cyber attacks – that security is defined not only by military threats, but more diverse, 21st century threats as well.
And here, Estonia is leading on all fronts. Estonia is among those countries pushing NATO to do its most basic job: defense planning and exercising for the defense of all Alliance members. This is NATO’s bread and butter role – not some provocative new step. That it was ever controversial is shocking, and happily NATO Allies are now responding to the nudge given by Estonia and the other Baltic states to proceed with proper contingency planning and exercising.
At one point in 2009, Estonia had more troops per capita in Afghanistan than any other NATO Ally – demonstrating a commitment to NATO’s highest operational priority thousands of miles from Estonian territory.
And Estonia is home to a NATO Center of Excellence on cyber-security – putting into practice a focus on the new threats and challenges to security in the 21st century, not merely the traditional military ones.
So Estonia is in effect pointing the way ahead for NATO. If NATO is able to replicate in its strategic concept the same balance of “home” and “away,” and the integration of both civilian and military notions of security, that Estonia has managed in its contributions to NATO, the Alliance it will have taken a major step forward.
Looking ahead, Estonia can also be a catalyst for a well-balanced policy on Russia and the East. Today, there are at least three distinct views of Russia policy within NATO – a demand for protection from Russian assertion of a “sphere of influence.” An insistence on engagement and entanglement as a means of reducing tensions and improving prospects for cooperation with Russia. And a desire to focus on global, strategic issues with Russia – where we hope to make progress on issues such as Iran – while avoiding confrontation over European-based disagreements with Russia (such as support for Georgia and Ukraine.)
Again, a balanced policy is required – one that accepts as legitimate and integrates all three approaches to Russia: protection, engagement, and strategic partnership. And instead of sacrificing support to Ukraine, or Georgia, or other countries in Europe’s east because it may irritate Russia, seeing instead that a strong, united position with respect to Russia enables support to Europe’s Eastern neighbors as well.
Estonia already provides invaluable economic and political advice to Georgia, as well as others in Europe’s East. It is a strong advocate of the EU’s Eastern Partnership initiative. And as one of the countries within NATO most worried about the “protection” side of the equation – by emphasizing the other dynamics of NATO policy, engagement and global strategic partnership, Estonia can again provide innovative, small country leadership to an Alliance in need of big ideas.
NATO membership puts Estonia firmly on the map
The Estonian government approved the National Defence Development Plan for 2009–2018. Spending on defence for these years will total 60 billion kroons, 40% of which will be used for weapons procurements and the financing of construction work for the Defence Forces. Over the next ten years Estonian spending will mostly go towards participation in international operations and the adjustment of units for NATO co-operation, and to management and communications in order to increase the defensive capability of Estonia. (TS, 25.1)
As a member of a strong alliance a small country like Estonia can have power, which in the best case will prevent the use of force against it. Or, if this does not happen, the country will not have to fight alone. At the same time, NATO membership is also a choice of values. Since the creation of NATO, the central role of the alliance has been the defence of Western values, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Estonia wants to be clearly associated with these values, but membership also demands a price and Estonia follows its words of wisdom, bearing responsibility for joint security. A NATO Centre for Excellence was founded in Tallinn, where the ability of the entire alliance to protect itself against cyber attacks is being developed. Estonians also bear the shared responsibility in Iraq and Afghanistan. Estonia’s NATO membership is not directed against anyone. It puts Estonia firmly on the map. (Satakunnan Kansa, 28.2)
Estonia's NATO membership is also a choice of values. Estonian defence minister Jaak Aaviksoo and NATO secretary-general Anders Fogh Rasmussen.
© Estonian Defence Forces
President Obama’s wish to press the reset button on relations between the U.S. and Russia has become the favourite metaphor of the media. Along Russia’s north-western periphery, in countries with a long history with the Kremlin, the metaphor is not being met with such enthusiasm. Estonia’s President Toomas Hendrik Ilves commented drily on the eve of the NATO summit that when you press the reset button on your computer, you don’t lose your memory files. (The Guardian, 7.4)
The President of the United States Barack Obama, despite his busy schedule, found time for an unscheduled meeting with Toomas Hendrik Ilves, the President of Estonia. That is partly a reward for the Estonians’ service in Afghanistan (its soldiers get maimed and killed while most NATO warriors either stay away or shirk conflict). It also reflects the personal profile of the waspish and brainy Mr Ilves, America’s favourite East European politician. But it was also Obama’s coded message to Moscow: American support for the frontline states on NATO’s eastern border does not waver despite a warming up of the relations between the two powers. (The Economist, 18.6)
Influential heads of states in the White House. President Toomas Hendrik Ilves and USA President Barack Obama.
© Pete Souza, White House
NATO's core task is collective defence
On 7 April, NATO conducted extensive defence manoeuvres in the air space of the Baltic states. Defence Minister Jaak Aaviksoo says that this confirms that the security of all member states is equally important and that NATO has a real ability to be involved in possible incidents in the Baltic air space. The manoeuvres provided a good indication of NATO’s technical strength, which is a form of psychological warfare. Moscow’s propaganda programme aimed at Estonia is trying to influence and affect the climate in the society. The objective of the psychological operations is to break the will of Western countries and to keep the Baltics in the sphere of influence of Moscow. Russia’s information war differs from the Western one because in Russia people have stressed attention to psychological influence during times of both war and peace. (HS, 15.4)
In a massive NATO marine exercise taking place on the Baltic, 11 European nations plus the U.S. were involved, but not Russia. Russia claims to be the target of the 12-day BALTOPS training event. U.S. Navy Rear Adm. John Christenson is circumspect, saying there are a lot of powerful nations present. According to Christenson it’s not about deciding who is a threat, but about being ready to face a military capability. Next year’s BALTOPS will be decisive, because Russia’s presence, or absence, will say a lot about the direction that Russian-NATO relations. NATO has expressed the will to maintain good relations with Moscow. But Estonia warned that it shouldn’t come at the price of NATO solidarity. (Wired News, 18.6)
The North-Atlantic Council extended the Baltic air defence mission until at least the end of 2014. Military experts say that member states may have to defend the Baltic air space even in the next decade. The defence of the Baltic states’ air space has remained on the shoulders of NATO countries, as the Baltic states do not have an air force. It is not expected that the Baltic states will invest in fighter planes in the next few years. Instead, NATO hopes that the countries will contribute more to covering the costs of guarding their air space. NATO fighter planes are on standby 24 hours a day. If the Baltic air surveillance system Baltnet issues a warning, the planes take off from the Zokniai base on a check-flight. But the location of the Zokniai air base is not the best. Most of the air space violations have taken place in North-East Estonia and have lasted for a short time. In this case the planes do not arrive in time from the base, which is 500 kilometres away. The Ämari base in Estonia and the Lielvarde base in Latvia have been discussed as new locations. Both are former Soviet bomber plane bases. Air surveillance of Baltic air space has not been favoured by NATO allies, and some member states have thought that the 24-hour standby of the fighter planes is perhaps not even necessary. The people in the Baltics say that the presence of a few fighters in the region should not be a problem, as NATO member states have over a thousand fighter planes in Europe. (ESS, 13.10)
NATO has a real ability to be involved in possible incidents in the Baltic air space.
© Delfi Pressifoto
A NATO exercise is planned to take place in the Baltic states next year. Russia’s armed forces may be ramshackle, but many European members of NATO are in poor shape too. The alliance’s ability to defend the Baltic states depends almost wholly on American involvement. Yet Eastern Europe is raising their voices in talks about NATO’s new strategic concept. With NATO focused mostly on the fighting in Afghanistan, they want a clear statement that the old-fashioned collective defence of NATO territory is still a priority. Only that, they say, will convince their voters that, with Russia flexing its muscles nearby, sending troops to Afghanistan is worth it. (Economist, 30.10)
Historical traumas have made Estonians cautious, especially towards Russia. Today 26% of the population of Estonia is Russian. Kadri Liik, director of the International Centre for Defence Studies, says that compared to Latvia, Estonia is less vulnerable. The local Russians vote for the Estonian Centre Party, not for the Russian parties as they do in Latvia. Ron Asmus from the Marshall Foundation believes that the real threat does not lie in Russia’s military movements but in its coercive force. It is feared that politically motivated Russian investments and energy dependency on Russia undermine the sovereignty of the Baltics. Into this political, historical and geographical context comes the plan of the Obama administration to reset America’s relations with Russia. Estonians are worried about the lack of NATO troops in the area. President of Estonia Toomas Hendrik Ilves says that in the unlikely case of a Russian invasion NATO has no action plan. This is not a coincidence, but NATO’s conscious aspiration to avoid opposition to Russia. But planning is necessary, believes Liik. “The more serious your plans, the less the likelihood that you have to use them.” Estonians wish that the NATO foreign ministers would discuss the defence issue at the summit in Tallinn in April 2010. In order to show their solidarity with the alliance, Estonia has 150 men in Afghanistan at the moment, Latvia has 175 and Lithuania 250. Estonian Foreign Minister Urmas Paet describes his country’s contribution by saying: “If we want others to help us when we need it, then we have to be prepared to help others.” (National Journal, 14.11)
The Baltic Sea gas pipeline project and the war in Georgia last year have clearly indicated how differently Estonians and Finns feel about Russia 20 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall. To put it simply, in Estonia Russia is mostly seen as a threat, in Finland as a potential co-operation partner. Political scientist Iivi Anna Masso has said that in reality the picture of Russia is more multi-faceted. “The objective of Estonia is not to push Russia out of the EU’s list of partners,” assured Merle Pajula, ambassador of Estonia in Finland. “Russia is not evil. At the same time it is not good when one counterpart is totally dependent on the other.” Marko Lehti, research fellow at Tampere Peace Research Institute, says that the Georgian war was a turning point of more importance to Estonians than the September 11 terrorist attacks for the USA. The EU and NATO did not prove to be opponents standing against Russia. Ambassador Pajula says that most Estonians still believe in NATO. According to a recent poll, 61% of the respondents supported Estonia’s membership of NATO. 89% of Estonians supported NATO; so did 31% of Russians. (Aamulehti, 21.11)
Despite repeated reassurances, the countries of Eastern Europe are worried about security. NATO officials are meant to be drafting contingency plans to defend the Baltic states. A recent big Russian military exercise highlighted the region’s vulnerability. Yet little is happening in the alliance. NATO officials blame a “lack of consensus”. Western European countries, notably Germany and Italy, are against anything that is not first discussed with Russia. A likely outcome is a generic plan, to be presented privately to the Baltic three in December, that will not deal with specific threats. Nobody really expects a military conflict. But if NATO even hints that it is no longer in the business of guaranteeing the defence of all its members, it may encourage Kremlin mischief-making over such issues as minority rights or transit to Russia’s Kaliningrad exclave. (The Economist, 27.11)
Estonia bears responsibility for common security
Estonia is proud of its membership in NATO and its friendship with the United States, and is among the most committed of all the peacekeeping countries to send soldiers to Iraq and Afghanistan. In 2002 the tiny nation sent its first soldiers to the war on al-Qaeda and the Taliban. As of 2003, Estonia is one of the original members of the so-called “coalition of the willing” to fight the war in Iraq. That may sound more newsworthy once you realise that this country had no army until 1994, when Soviet troops finally left. The army was created from scratch. The first generation of Estonian troops is now training for international missions on what used to be a Soviet military base not far from the town of Paldiski. Young soldiers get their tough lessons in snowy woods before tackling Taliban fighters. The soldiers are focused on their country’s future and value their international service for the combat experience. (World Focus, 13.3)
Estonian soldiers stand for the safety of Afghan children.
Trying to demonstrate its credentials as a reliable member of NATO, Estonia has kept 300 troops in Afghanistan’s most violent areas. With six combat deaths in Afghanistan, Estonia’s casualties as a proportion of its population are nearly twice those of the U.S. (WSJ, 24.9)
The Estonian infantry company is fighting together with British, US and Danish units in southern Afghanistan, in Helmand Province. The region is so restless that other countries do not send their soldiers there. Estonians went to southern Afghanistan in order to guarantee the rebuilding of Afghanistan. Clashes with Taliban fighters have become an everyday matter. Every time an Estonian soldier dies in Afghanistan, Defence Minister Jaak Aaviksoo and Commander-in-Chief of the Defence Forces Ants Laaneots give a press conference, where the leaders of the state explain the reasons why Estonia is taking part in the Afghanistan operation. The justification is the same as in Finland: combating terrorism and the drug business, reducing chaos, taking international responsibility. Additionally, the Estonian government has another reason: in case of need, Estonians can ask their allies for help only when they have helped their allies. This has silenced the criticism of the people. In World War II, Estonia was alone. Although Estonia is a member of the EU and NATO, the fear of the military threat from Russia has not disappeared. (HS, 25.10)
Estonia plans to contribute some cyber defence expertise to the war in Afghanistan but no new troops, said Defence Minister Jaak Aaviksoo following a meeting with Robert Gates during his visit to the U.S. Aaviksoo said that given the rethinking of the Afghanistan strategy, Estonia and other countries in the mission need concrete targets regarding where we want to be in six months or in one year’s time. Aaviksoo said the Baltic country of 1.3 million people plans to reduce its troop commitment in Afghanistan from 290 to 170 troops. Estonia would be among the top five contributors per capita even after reducing its troop commitment. Aaviksoo depicted his country’s view of the war in Afghanistan like this: “If the courage and commitment are there, then we’d like to support that, militarily, politically, but also with training and non-military civil support.” (Defence News, 3.11)
Estonia supports developing the healt care system in Helmand province in Afghanistan. On the photo: Deputy Governor of Helmand Province Abdul Satar Miszakwal and foreign minister Urmas Paet
© Estonian MFA
The Baltic nation of Estonia is one of the newest and smallest NATO members. In recent months, Estonian troops have been deployed mainly in the regions of Masood and Shamshad. “The Estonians are good infantrymen,” said Maj. Matthew Maz, commander, Anglico. “We provide the necessary enablers to allow them to do what they are good at.” (Blackanthem Military News, 21.11)
Estonia sent its troops to Afghanistan in 2003, a year before joining NATO. As well as being involved in Afghanistan, Estonia has contributed troops to NATO missions in Kosovo, Iraq and Bosnia. However, this is not the first time that Estonian troops have found themselves in Afghanistan. Before regaining independence, Estonians were forcibly conscripted to serve in the Soviet army and many of the soldiers in Afghanistan now have fathers who were there before them. (Daily Telegraph, 25.8)
On Monday Estonia mourned two soldiers who perished in an explosion in southern Afghanistan. Over the past few years, six Estonian soldiers have died in Afghanistan. This is a large number compared to the total number of Estonians serving there. This summer Estonia increased the number of its troops in Afghanistan to 289 soldiers, which means that Estonia has the biggest number of troops in Afghanistan as a share of its population. The battles between Estonian soldiers and the enemy have become so common that they are not featured as separate news. Encounters take place every day. Estonia has not set restrictions on its military activities in Afghanistan like many other countries have. Defence Minister Jaak Aaviksoo explained Estonia’s contribution by saying that when the situation in Afghanistan calms down, freedom in the world will grow. At the same time, Estonia's reputation in the eyes of its allies will also grow. (HS, 25.8)
Estonia mourns the soldiers who perished during international missions.
© Estonian Defence Forces
While other larger European countries have limited how and where their soldiers can operate, Estonia has been keen to prove itself to its NATO allies, maintaining a combat force of about 150 soldiers in some of Afghanistan’s most dangerous areas. Estonian soldiers have been engaged in heavy combat since arriving in 2006. Estonia has lost seven soldiers, the latest being 19-year-old Sgt. Kristjan Yalakas. Two days before, another soldier was seriously injured, the 57th Estonian to be injured in Afghanistan. This year has been the deadliest for the Estonians in Afghanistan, with four soldiers killed. In a country with just 1.3 million people, everything the soldiers do is scrutinised, every death a big national story. (Stars and Stripes, 26.12)
Ravo Hirvesoo had a choice: fight in Afghanistan or go to jail and end up fighting in Afghanistan anyway. So the 18-year-old headed to Central Asia and endured two years of ambushes, rotten food and exposure to freezing cold and blazing heat with inadequate clothing. It was the same Afghanistan he fights in now but under a different flag in a different war. It was 1985 and Hirvesoo fought for the Soviet Union, fighting a losing battle. Hirvesoo, now a 42-year-old sergeant, is on his fourth tour in Afghanistan with the Estonian army, this time as a volunteer. He sees many differences between the current conflict and the Soviet war. Hirvesoo says NATO has learned from Russian failures and there is a chance to end this war some way. (Stars and Stripes, 26.12)
Mistral – alarming ship bargain
Russia’s plan to purchase a Mistral-type naval ship from France has raised several questions in Estonia. As a NATO member state, Estonia’s coast is about a hundred kilometres from St. Petersburg. Lieutenant General Ants Laaneots, commander-in-chief of the Estonian Defence Forces, says that if Russia purchases several such ships, an entire brigade of marines can be embarked on board them, and for Estonia this means building up a coastal guard. “The danger to Estonia from the sea would grow immensely,” Laaneots said in an interview with the national broadcasting company. (NYT with AP, 24.11)
Estonian officials said that if Russia buys a French amphibious assault ship, Estonia should consider taking new security measures. The Mistral-class helicopter carrier ship takes aboard hundreds of people, tanks and other armoured vehicles. “If Russia obtains such a modern and effective warship, which can carry a tank battalion, take aboard several hundreds of people and faultlessly control its operations, it will provide a considerable advantage if deployed in the Baltic Sea,” Eerik Niiles Kross, an Estonian security analyst, said. (Upi.com, 22.11)
Estonia, which is worried about the intention of the French to sell Russia a Mistral-type naval ship, is planning to ask France for detailed information about the deal. Urmas Paet, Foreign Minister of Estonia, informed the media that he is waiting for an answer to the question of what kind of equipment the ship has. The Russian Ministry of Defence officially confirmed on 19 September that negotiations for the purchase of the ship are ongoing with Paris. The 200-metre-long and 32-metre-wide vessel can hold six helicopters, 13 Leclerc-tanks and a hundred vehicles. It also has space for 69 hospital beds. (Marine-marchande/AFP, 24.11)
The French Green Party does not support France’s plan to sell Russia a powerful naval ship, because Russia’s authoritative attitude towards its former Soviet satellites is obvious. Although the three Baltic states, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, are members of both the EU and NATO, which guarantees their security, others, for example Ukraine and Georgia, are not members of either. (Fenêtre sur l’Europe, 30.11)
The potential warship purchase has raised hackles in the region. Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Georgia all have coastlines adjoining or near Russia’s. The Baltics have the security guarantee that comes with NATO membership, yet the Baltic officials pressed France for details about the deal. Marko Mikhelson, chairman of the European affairs committee in Estonia’s Parliament, said the deal would have implications for NATO’s security. But Kaarel Kaas, a defence analyst at the International Centre for Defence Studies, said it would be too huge an investment to be solely used in the Baltics or the Black Sea. (NYT, 28.11)
Managing the espionage case
Herman Simm began his career in the Defence Ministry in 1995 as director of the Analysis Section. His work was appreciated, leading to his appointment as the head of the Security Department in 2000. In 2001-2006 he was regularly involved in meetings and negotiations with EU and NATO partners. The fact that Herman Simm was convicted of treason proves that Russia has not lost interest in what is going on in its former empire. Simm might have been recruited as an agent in Morocco in 1995, though some seem to think it happened already earlier, in the 1980s before the collapse of the USSR. It is known, however, that during his service in the Defence Ministry he has passed more than 3 000 classified documents on to the Russians and received 100 000 dollars in return. The media has chiefly focused on the leakage of sensitive military secrets, such as NATO documents on activities in Kosovo, operations in Georgia, and the plans to set up a missile defence shield in Central Europe. Already the first cyber attack targeting Estonia in May 2007 left NATO headquarters horror-struck – are the electronically stored secrets protected well enough not to fall in the enemy’s hands in a cyber war? Many experts say Estonia was at the receiving end of the cyber attack not because of its inadequate servers, but rather its good reputation. It was a potential source of information about what is happening elsewhere. Other members of the alliance have complimented Estonians for succeeding in proving his guilt without making him suspicious, thus bringing about his arrest. (La Nouvelle Europe, 24.3)
Herman Simm, a former Estonian high official, pleaded guilty to treason and was jailed for twelve and a half years. Once Estonia joined NATO in 2004, he acted as the Kremlin’s eyes and ears in the alliance in spite of his poor English. It was difficult to observe Mr Simm closely without sparking his suspicion. Yet Estonia managed to observe him and is getting many plaudits for this. The way in which Estonia put Mr Simm openly on trial is striking. In other countries these issues tend to be eased out discreetly rather than in the painful light of day. (The Economist, 26.2)
NATO has expelled two Russian diplomats over the case of Herman Simm, a spy scandal in Estonia. Both envoys were attached to Russia’s mission to NATO and worked undercover as intelligence agents, alliance sources said. Russia did not react to NATO’s move, but the expulsions come at a politically sensitive time as the West tries to rebuild ties with Moscow following the Russia-Georgia war. The two expelled Russian diplomats were not directly involved in the Estonian spy affair, but the Simm scandal caused such damage to the alliance’s security that it had to deliver a hard response. (FT, 30.4)
There is nothing accidental in expelling two Russian agents from the Czech Republic. It took an 11-month-long operation to eliminate a well-organised international network of Russian agents who were spying on critical security information in NATO member countries. The arrest of Herman Simm, a high-ranking official in the Estonian Defence Ministry, in September 2008 gave grounds for the alliance’s security operation. Not only did he confess, he also spilled details about the network of Russia’s spies operating in NATO countries and therefore received a shorter prison term. A NATO mission followed and a number of spies were expelled from several NATO countries. (Respekt, 24.8)
