Russia and Terrorism, Europe between two fires

It is obvious that as soon as the terrorism problem comes to the fore, NATO (first of all the US) diverts attention to other matters, such as the necessity to boost defence expenditures because of Russia, Syria, Afghanistan and other “annoying” countries.

It can be easily explained by the burden that the country has in NATO. Washington wants to reduce the burden at the expense of European NATO member states. By and large it does not really care about what is happening with Europeans. Apparently, at this particular moment, the terror threat is not so important for Washington as it is for Europe.

Competing for supremacy with Russia, the US persistently calls on NATO member states to increase defence spending. This issue was on the agenda for NATO Defense Ministers meeting on 29 June. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg announced that defence spending across the Alliance is expected to grow by 4.3% in 2017. This is too much for Europe.

Who will benefit? Definitely the US. But most European countries will be alone with with the terror threat and lack of money to solve their domestic problems.

But there are three European countries that have their own interest in this matter. Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia will also benefit. Deducting the insignificant sums they receive from NATO support and continuing to ask for more and more foreign troops on their territories. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg conducting a visit in Lithuania this month praised Lithuania for increasing defence spending and efforts to strengthen security in the region. The Baltic states feel their importance in confronting the superpowers and they intend to extract all possible benefits.

In other words, most European countries are in a trap. They are forced to help the Baltic States to the detriment of their own interests. Sooner or later, this state of affairs will lead to tension in relations between European NATO member states. Help and support within the organization should be equal for all members. Helping the Baltic States, other European countries themselves have the right to expect help and understanding of their problems. It could happen so that making their neighbors’ life safer they endanger their own people, leaving them face to face with terrorists, without the capabilities to counter them because the money has gone somewhere else. A one-sided collective defence, is it not?