ADVERTISEMENT

Survey: Western Europe wary of supporting Russia’s NATO neighbors

cigaretteman

HB King
May 29, 2001
79,366
62,385
113
How reliable are our NATO allies? I seem to remember France or Britain nearly running out of ammunition during the Libyan upsrising:

After more than a year of war in Ukraine, Western European citizens are extremely wary of using military force to defend NATO allies from Russia, according to a wide-ranging opinion poll released Wednesday. The findings highlight fears among Russia’s NATO neighbors that the Western defense alliance may not be ready if put to the test.

Fewer than half of those surveyed in Britain, Germany, France, Italy and Spain supported using military force to defend NATO allies if Russia entered a serious military conflict with one of them, the Pew Global Attitudes Project found. The results came at a time of the worst tensions between Russia and the West since the Cold War, as the NATO nations that border Russia have stepped up military exercises to levels not seen in recent memory.

The NATO charter requires that member nations defend one another if one comes under attack. But the former Eastern bloc countries that joined the alliance in 2004 have long feared that their partners may not come to their aid. Leaders there say that Russia is keeping a close watch on NATO readiness.

“We can’t defend ourselves by ourselves,” Latvian Defense Minister Raimonds Vejonis said in an interview last month. He has since become president-elect. “Russia is provoking us all the time. They are checking our readiness to react to any test of our borders.”

The three Baltic countries — Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania — as well as Poland have increased their defense spending since the conflict started in Ukraine. And NATO troops, including more than 600 U.S. soldiers, have been rotating through the countries conducting exercises. Just last week, dozens of NATO navy vessels began practicing combat operations in the Baltic Sea.

View results from the Pew poll View Graphic
Of the eight NATO nations that Pew surveyed, the United States was the most open to backing its allies if one was attacked. Of the Americans questioned, 56 percent were in favor of using military force and 37 percent were against. Germany, which has taken the lead European role in negotiations with Russia, was the most skeptical of a military response, with 38 percent in favor and 58 percent opposed.

U.S. security officials have long complained that Europe benefits from the American defense umbrella even though most countries spend less on defense than the level required by NATO rules. In Europe, only Britain, Greece and Estonia spend the amount required by NATO, which is 2 percent of gross domestic product. The Pew results suggest that citizens in European NATO nations are less committed militarily to their allies’ security than are Americans.

Within the United States, there was a partisan divide on the issue, with Republicans far more likely than Democrats to support military action to defend Russia’s NATO neighbors. Sixty-nine percent of Republicans favored military force, while 47 percent of Democrats did.

Americans narrowly favor arming the Ukrainian military, a possibility floated over the winter, with 46 percent in favor and 43 percent opposed. U.S. officials say that such a move is unlikely.

Russia is emerging as a campaign trail issue, with Democratic candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton’s record on Russia during her term as secretary of state up for debate. Since the start of the Ukraine conflict last year, she has advocated a tougher line against Russia than the Obama administration has taken. Republican Jeb Bush, who plans to declare his candidacy next week, started a European tour Tuesday with a speech in Berlin that was harshly critical of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Later in the week he planned to visit Poland and Estonia, where leaders have said they fear a Russian attack.

The Pew surveys were conducted during April and early May of this year. Depending on the country, polling was done by telephone or in face-to-face interviews. The margin of error ranged from 2.8 to 4.1 percentage points.

The study also examined attitudes in Russia and Ukraine toward the continuing conflict in the eastern part of Ukraine, where the death toll has passed 6,400 since April 2014, according to U.N. estimates.

A cease-fire deal struck in February is being violated every day, according to international observers, but the fighting is far calmer than at peak moments during the crisis. More recently, the Kremlin and the rebels have shifted their rhetoric, and both camps now say that the breakaway parts of eastern Ukraine should remain part of that country.

But only a third of Russians agree, a measure of the harsh passions stoked by a year of angry rhetoric on Russian state television and a sign that the Kremlin may have unleashed anger it cannot fully control. Fifty-nine percent of Russians believe the rebellious territories should split from Ukraine, with 24 percent of those surveyed saying they want the region to become part of Russia.

The survey also found that Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko has become deeply unpopular among his electorate despite having won an unusually strong first-round majority in the May 2014 presidential election. Forty-three percent of Ukrainians disapprove of his performance, while a third approve. On specific policy issues, his disapproval ratings are far higher. The survey did not measure attitudes in the regions of Ukraine where there is war, nor in the annexed Crimean Peninsula.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...df6-11e5-a0fe-dccfea4653ee_story.html?hpid=z4
 
Our NATO allies have been stealing from us for years by not keeping their military up to snuff. This Ukrain scare could work in our favor.
 
The shorter the distance between a country and Russia the less their population supports a conflict.
 
Expanding NATO eastwards beyond Poland was just dumb. Those countries offer nothing and the Russian army could conquer any of the Baltic states in a single day. Really reckless foreign strategy.
 
I think Russia is employing the "remnants" of their 50-odd years dominating these countries to try to re-absorb them from within.

There have to be pro-Russian people in all these countries from the prior domination. Russia I believe is trying to subvert these countries using those connections so to speak to generate discontent internally...then use that as an excuse to throw support in there like they have in The Ukraine.

All of these countries were "leadership cleansed" during their time of occupation, Ukraine especially. The vacuums were filled by Russians.

They know if they roll in the tanks Czechoslovakia-style, they got a war on their hands with NATO...so they are trying the slow-drip method.

I see what amounts to a new Berlin Wall getting built in the next decade. A new cold war...call it what you will. And the US strategically will be forced to subsidize the defense like before.
 
Expanding NATO eastwards beyond Poland was just dumb. Those countries offer nothing and the Russian army could conquer any of the Baltic states in a single day. Really reckless foreign strategy.

I agree. The Clinton Administration really screwed up on this one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: preshlock
They applied to NATO in 2002 and were accepted in 2004.

I was thinking of when eastward expansion started with Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic from the former Soviet bloc joining NATO in 1999:

"In February 1991, Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic and Slovakia (as Czechoslovakia) formed the Visegrád Group to push for European integration under the European Union and NATO, as well as to conduct military reforms in line with NATO standards. Internal NATO reaction to these former Warsaw Pact countries was initially negative, but by the 1991 Rome summit in November, members agreed to a series of goals that could lead to accession, such as market and democratic liberalization, and that NATO should be a partner in these efforts. In subsequent years, wider forums for regional cooperation between NATO and its eastern neighbors were set up, including the North Atlantic Cooperation Council (later the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council) and the Partnership for Peace.[14]

While the other Visegrád members were invited to join NATO at its 1997 Madrid summit, Slovakia was excluded based on what several members considered undemocratic actions by nationalist Prime Minister Vladimír Mečiar.[15] Romania and Slovenia were both considered for invitation in 1997, and each had the backing of a prominent NATO member, France and Italy respectively, but support for enlargement was not unanimous, particularly in the U.S. Congress.[16] In an open letter to U.S. President Bill Clinton, more than forty foreign policy experts including Bill Bradley, Sam Nunn, Gary Hart, Paul Nitze, and Robert McNamara expressed their concerns about NATO expansion as both expensive and unnecessary given the lack of an external threat from Russia at that time.[17]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO#Visegr.C3.A1d_Group
 
I was thinking of when eastward expansion started with Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic from the former Soviet bloc joining NATO in 1999:

"In February 1991, Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic and Slovakia (as Czechoslovakia) formed the Visegrád Group to push for European integration under the European Union and NATO, as well as to conduct military reforms in line with NATO standards. Internal NATO reaction to these former Warsaw Pact countries was initially negative, but by the 1991 Rome summit in November, members agreed to a series of goals that could lead to accession, such as market and democratic liberalization, and that NATO should be a partner in these efforts. In subsequent years, wider forums for regional cooperation between NATO and its eastern neighbors were set up, including the North Atlantic Cooperation Council (later the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council) and the Partnership for Peace.[14]

While the other Visegrád members were invited to join NATO at its 1997 Madrid summit, Slovakia was excluded based on what several members considered undemocratic actions by nationalist Prime Minister Vladimír Mečiar.[15] Romania and Slovenia were both considered for invitation in 1997, and each had the backing of a prominent NATO member, France and Italy respectively, but support for enlargement was not unanimous, particularly in the U.S. Congress.[16] In an open letter to U.S. President Bill Clinton, more than forty foreign policy experts including Bill Bradley, Sam Nunn, Gary Hart, Paul Nitze, and Robert McNamara expressed their concerns about NATO expansion as both expensive and unnecessary given the lack of an external threat from Russia at that time.[17]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO#Visegr.C3.A1d_Group
I was talking about the Baltic states.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT