George Woloshyn: Europe’s Maginot Line

Europe, too, has constructed a Maginot Line
against an invasion from the east. It’s
called NATO. And, just like the French,
Europeans feel safe behind their NATO treaty, and have neglected funding their
armies.  But, unlike the Maginot line,
Europe’s defensive barriers are not constructed of concrete and steel but
something far more intangible, and elusive….. it’s built on trust. 

Putin has threatened to take five NATO
capitals in 2 days. The five countries include the three Baltic states as well as
Poland and Romania. Consider the
following rough comparisons – from open sources – of their combined military
strength: 

*While all of Russia’s active
military are considered to be “frontline” troops, only 38,000 of the 5
countries’ active military are “land troops prepared to deploy”!

NATO itself is merely a coordinating and
planning center for a system of collective defense whereby its 28 member states
agree to mutual defense in response to an external attack. That external threat
was the USSR (now Russia) and the member states are expected to provide most of
the conventional deterrence while the U.S. provides the nuclear umbrella. It
has no enforcement authority, no military formations, and no logistics of its
own.  It is only now planning to organize
a rapid-deployment force of 4,000 –5,000 troops. If Russia were to move
against any of these 5 (or other) states, 
NATO could do little more than simply call on all its member states to
come to their defense.   

However, mobilization is never a rapid
undertaking.  In addition to warding off
an attack, the French intended that the Maginot line allow them time to
mobilize.  If Russia chose to invade any
formerly Warsaw Pact country it could 
occupy part or all of these target states even before  the rest of 
NATO had time to react and mobilize their forces.  But what then?  How would they repel and push out the
invaders without massive collateral damage in the very countries they hope to
liberate?  The Ukrainian Defense Ministry
has  reported that Russia may have tested
a low-yield tactical nuclear artillery shell 
in east Ukraine.  Would the NATO
states be prepared to match Russia’s use of such munitions in Poland or Lithuania
or Romania?  For that matter, when faced
with the imminent possibility of nuclear or conventional retaliation against
their own population centers, can we be certain that all member states would
honor their agreement to come to each other’s defense?  Will Germany risk a nuclear strike on Berlin
in order to defend Poland?  Will Spain or
France – the two countries that had acceded to fascist Germany – now stand up
to fascist Russia?  Will President Obama
be prepared to put the U.S. at risk of a nuclear attack if the Kremlin assures
him that it is only interested in Europe?  

None of us know the answers, and probably
will not know unless and until NATO states are forced to make these
choices….and then it may be too late. What we do know is that Putin has
been steadily and incrementally pushing the envelope further and further to test
how far he can go with the EU and with NATO. 
He has calculated every step in terms of risks and costs.  And he will continue doing so until his tests
show that the costs and risks are likely to be greater than he and Russia can
afford.  We can also be certain
that if he should succeed in steamrolling over Ukraine, his megalomania,
his confidence, his capabilities, and his appetite will increase manifold, and
NATO members’ peaceful slumber – just like that of the French  – will almost certainly turn to nightmares. 

When President Petro Poroshenko addressed the
U.S. Congress, he characterized Ukraine as the borderland between civilization
and barbarism. Thus far NATO members have provided the young Ukrainian men and
women defending this border with enough support to keep them fighting and
dying, but not the armaments needed to push back the barbarian. Economic sanctions have been cautiously
measured and “graduated” to minimize the cost to corporations, but fall far
short of the debilitating effect they could and should have on Russia’s ability
to maintain its war and civilian economy. 

Just as the French in the 1930s felt safe
behind their Maginot Line, so do NATO’s European members feel safe behind their
gossamer network of mutual defense treaties. Each member realizes its own vulnerability, but hopes that “the others”
will make up the difference. 

Vladimir Putin knows this. His strategists also know Europe’s spotty record on honoring
treaties. Make no mistake about it: he
is watching closely how NATO members react to his naked aggression, breach of
international treaties, and wanton destruction of life and property  in NATO’s back yard and against Europe’s
easternmost state.  He will apply those
lessons and conclusions in his dealings with, and designs on, Europe. 

Europe’s Maginot Line has been successfully
grounded on two pillars: (1)  Russia’s
assumption that an attack on a NATO state is fraught with huge risks; and (2)
member certainty that all will honor their “mutual defense” pledge.  If that line is to hold in the future, Putin
must not be given reason to alter his assumptions, and NATO members must honor
their separate commitments to Ukraine’s security. Europe’s security is no less dependent on
what happens in Ukraine than it is on trust and belief in NATO.

George Woloshyn worked in the administration of U.S. President Ronald Reagan. He is a former naval intelligence commander and former director of U.S. National Security Preparedness and a former director of the U.S. Office of Personnel Security Investigations.