Rand Rr1579

C O R P O R AT I O N
European Relations
with Russia
Threat Perceptions, Responses,
and Strategies in the Wake of the
Ukrainian Crisis
Stephanie Pezard, Andrew Radin, Thomas S. Szayna,

F. Stephen Larrabee
For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/RR1579
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available for this publication.

ISBN: 978-0-8330-9637-1
Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif.

Copyright 2017 RAND Corporation
R is a registered trademark.
Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation
of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized
posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this
document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is
required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents
for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit
www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.
The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public

policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure,
healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the
public interest.
RANDs publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.
Support RAND
Make a tax-deductible charitable contribution at
www.rand.org/giving/contribute
www.rand.org
Preface
This is the second in a series of reports on the impact and implications

of the Ukraine crisis on European security; it was produced under a
project titled, Security in Europe in the Wake of the Ukraine Crisis:
Implications for the U.S. Army. This report examines how European
states perceive Russias behavior in eastern and northern Europe in
the wake of the Ukrainian crisis. It focuses on three key analytical
questions:
Do European states see Russia as a major security threat, and, if

so, what is it that Russia might threaten?
How have European states responded to dateeither individu-
ally, through the European Union, or through the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization?
How might these policies change if Russia takes even more aggres-
sive steps in the future?
Human Subject Protections protocols have been used in this

research in accordance with the appropriate statutes and U.S. Depart-
ment of Defense regulations governing Human Subject Protections.
The views of sources rendered anonymous by Human Subject Protec-
tions protocols are solely their own and do not represent the official
policy of the U.S. Department of Defense or the U.S. government.
Other reports in the series examine European vulnerabilities to
Russian pressures, Russian capabilities, Russian operations in Crimea
and eastern Ukraine, and implications for the U.S. Army. This report
should be of interest to those concerned with the impact on European
iii
iv European Relations with Russia: Threat Perceptions, Responses, and Strategies
security of Russias illegal annexation of Crimea and the future of the

relationship between European countries and Russia. Research for this
project was conducted from May to October 2015.
This research was sponsored by the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-3/5/7,
U.S. Army and conducted within RAND Arroyo Centers Strategy,
Doctrine, and Resources Program. RAND Arroyo Center, part of the
RAND Corporation, is a federally funded research and development
center sponsored by the United States Army.
The Project Unique Identification Code (PUIC) for the project
that produced this document is HQD146843.
Contents
Preface. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
Acknowledgments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xix
Abbreviations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxi
CHAPTER ONE
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Approach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Organization of This Report.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
CHAPTER TWO
Perceptions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Threat Perceptions of a Russian Conventional Attack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Threat Perceptions of a Russian Hybrid Warfare Scenario.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Perceptions of NATO and the United States. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
CHAPTER THREE
Responses.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
European States Agree on a Firm Response to Russia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Maintaining Dialogue with Russia and Avoiding Escalation.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
CHAPTER FOUR
Intentions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
What Is Next for Europe-Russia Relations?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Sustaining Existing Measures and Planning for New Ones. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
v
vi European Relations with Russia: Threat Perceptions, Responses, and Strategies
Will European States Increase Their Defense Spending?.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Implications for NATO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Implications for the European Unions Eastern Neighborhood . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
CHAPTER FIVE
Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
APPENDIXES
A. List of Interviews. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
B. Guidelines for Interviews. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
Figures and Table
Figures
2.1. Map of Europe. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2. Percentage of Opinion That Considers Russia a Major
Military Threat to Its Neighboring Countries (Spring 2015).. . . 11
2.3. Percentage of Opinion That Considers Russia Not a
Military Threat to Its Neighboring Countries (Spring 2015).. . . 11
2.4. Evolution of Favorable Opinion Toward NATO Between
2013 and 2015.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
4.1. Percentage of Respondents Who Oppose NATO Sending
Arms to the Ukrainian Government. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Table
A.1. Interviews. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
vii
Summary
Russias illegal annexation and occupation of Crimea in March 2014

and subsequent support for the insurgency in eastern Ukraine have
challenged the integrity of Europes territorial borders and confirmed
after the Georgia war in 2008 that Russia could react violently to per-
ceived challenges in what it regards as its sphere of influence. This report
analyzes how several key European states perceive Russias policy in the
wake of the Ukrainian crisis. First, it examines how these European
states perceive Russias behavior and policy in eastern and northern
Europe, and whether they regard Russian policy in these regions as
an important security priority. Particular attention is focused on fault
lines within Europe regarding threat perceptions, and whether these
fault lines extend to perceptions of the North Atlantic Treaty Orga-
nization (NATO) and the United States. Second, the report analyzes
responses to Russian behavior. While a number of European states gen-
erally agree that a firm response to Russian aggression is required, they
are also eager to maintain channels of communication with Russia.
Finally, the report examines how these European states are likely to
shape their relations with Russia in the future; what existing measures
they intend to keep in place; what new measures they might imple-
ment; and prospects for further NATO and European Union (EU)
enlargement.
This report relies on two main sources of information. The first
is a series of interviews conducted from May to October 2015 in Bel-
gium, Estonia, France, Germany, Latvia, Poland, Sweden, and the
United States with U.S. and foreign officials (including EU and NATO
ix
x European Relations with Russia: Threat Perceptions, Responses, and Strategies
officials), researchers, academics, and journalists familiar with Euro-

pean security issues in general and the crisis in Ukraine and the ten-
sions with Russia in particular.1 The second is a review of open-source
literature in English and other European languages.
Threat Perceptions
Perceptions of Russia as a military threat following the Ukrainian crisis

differ sharply across Europe and appear to be heavily influenced by
geographical proximity to Russia. Most NATO members bordering
Russia regard it as potentially posing an existential threat and feel that
this threat can best be addressed by the deployment of U.S. and NATO
troops on their territory. European countries that share a border with
Russia have been living with the possibility of a Russian invasion for
the better part of their history, and this experience generally has a
strong impact on how they view Russia in the context of the Ukrai-
nian crisisthis is particularly true for the Baltic States and Poland
and, to a lesser extent, Finland and Norway. Russias neighbors are
painfully aware of the military imbalance between Russian forces and
their own much smaller forces and the need to offset this imbalance by
support from NATO. By contrast, NATO countries that do not share
a border with Russia do not see as immediate a threat from Russia and
worry that permanently stationing U.S. and NATO troops on the soil
of NATOs easternmost members would antagonize Russia and could
risk Russian countermeasures. Most of these countries see the threat
posed by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant2 and increasing flows
1 Appendix A provides the numbers of interviews carried out and the discussants, as well as
the type of organizations the discussants belong to. Appendix B provides the questionnaire
the research team used to guide the interviews in every country visited.
2 The organizations name transliterates from Arabic as al-Dawlah al-Islamiyah fi al-Iraq
wa al-Sham (abbreviated as Daish or DAESH). In the West, it is commonly referred to
as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, the
Islamic State of Iraq and the Sham (both abbreviated as ISIS), or simply as the Islamic State
(IS). Arguments abound as to which is the most accurate translation, but here we refer to the
group as ISIL.
Summary xi
of migrants and refugees as more pressing concerns that, alongside the

tensions with Russia, require NATOs full attention.
While Russias neighbors see Russia as capable of and potentially
willing to carry out a conventional attack against them, they do not nec-
essarily see such an attack as likely. Officials and analysts interviewed
tend to describe Russias behaviorsuch as its stationing of nuclear-
capable missiles in Kaliningrad and overflying Polish airspaceas
bullying, intimidation, or posturing rather than an indication
of an imminent invasion. A more immediate fear is that Russia could
employ hybrid warfaredefined as a combination of various types of
operations, from conventional to irregular or psychological warfare, to
influence the domestic politics of potential target countries. Our Polish
and Swedish interlocutors, for instance, were concerned about Russian
propaganda in Estonia or Latvia and that Russias attempt to influence
and mobilize Russian minorities in Estonia and Latvia could exacer-
bate tensions in the Baltic region. With an eye on this threat, Estonia
and Latvia are training their forces to respond rapidly to any provo-
cation from Russia. While they have more effective internal security
services and border guards than Ukraine had, they are also aware that
Russian capabilities relative to the Baltic countries give it a time-space
advantage that it could exploit in any number of scenarios.
European countries, particularly eastern NATO members, are
concerned that the Alliance is ill equipped to respond to the current
crisis with Russia. French and Polish officials interviewed pointed out
that NATOs current decisionmaking mechanism would be inade-
quate, in particular, if Russia were to test Article 5 from underneath,
i.e., with actions under the threshold of conventional war or that can
be plausibly denied by Moscow. While the NATO International
Staff interviewed maintained that NATO was on a path to strengthen
its capability to deter Russias ability to threaten the security of NATO
members, the current efforts may not be sufficient to bring the Alliance
to the necessary level of preparedness in the face of the new Russian
threat. U.S. and European officials interviewed emphasized the critical
importance of U.S. leadership in NATO and recognized the impor-
tance of U.S. military presence for maintaining security in Europe.
Yet, the appreciation for the U.S. role in Europe does not come without
xii European Relations with Russia: Threat Perceptions, Responses, and Strategies
reservations, with generally positive perceptions of the United States

being complicated by a legacy view of the United States as imperialist
by some segments of society in several countries, such as Germany and
Sweden.
Responses
European countries have adopted a broad range of measures in

response to the Ukrainian crisis that include economic sanctions; eco-
nomic, military, and political support for the Ukrainian government;
enhanced military preparedness; reassurance measures for eastern
NATO members; adaptation of the Alliance to the new security envi-
ronment; increased cooperation of European non-NATO members;
and measures to counter Russias information campaign in Europe.
These measures seek to not only sanction Russia for its behavior in
Ukraine, but also deter it from undertaking any further aggressive
moves. Most European states, however, have also been careful to keep
channels of communication open with Moscow on a number of issues,
from the implementation of the Minsk II agreement to counterterror-
ism and Syria.
That Russias behavior requires a strong response is widely accepted
by most European countries. While several countries have expressed
doubts on the usefulness of sanctions, their adoption was repeatedly
prolonged by consensus in spite of the 28 EU members having widely
different understandings of what Russias actions mean for their own
security and suffering at various degrees from sanctions and counter-
sanctions. Such renewals are not automatic, however, and the consen-
sus may not hold if the situation in Ukraine stagnates. Another priority
of the European Unionand another area of consensus so faris sup-
porting the full implementation of the Minsk II agreement and helping
Ukraine reform. Additionally, countries that feel most threatened by
Russia militarily have worked on improving their preparednesssuch
as Estonia with the May 2015 Hedgehog exercise that involved 13,000
Estonian personnel.
Summary xiii
NATO has begun its adaptation to the new threat environment as

well. At the September 2014 Wales Summit, the Alliance put emphasis
on the ability to rapidly deploy forces over establishing a forward pres-
ence in the Baltics as the best way to deter Russia and provide reassurance
to its eastern members. This rapid deployment capability is the Readi-
ness Action Plan (RAP), which focuses on NATOs responsiveness in a
crisis. Following the Wales Summit, NATO took several steps toward
implementing the RAP to include the establishment of the Very High
Readiness Joint Task Force, a brigade-size force capable of deploying in
seven days, with leadership rotating among seven framework nations.
NATO has also worked to speed its reaction time through a number of
improvements to decisionmaking processes within the North Atlantic
Council; sharing processes for intelligence assessments; and logistics
and infrastructure for movement across Europe. The Alliance is also
examining the possibility of giving more authority to Supreme Allied
Commander Europe and other commanders.
Despite these measures, a number of NATO members wanted the
Alliance to go further and contend that NATO has too little capabil-
ity for high-intensity conflict, cannot respond to hybrid warfare and
actions that are under the threshold of clear aggression, and lacks a
doctrine on preemptive deployment of a spearhead force that could be
deployed in an area of growing danger. These members see the United
States as their key security provider and regard U.S. forward presence
as the key response to Russian aggression. Some of the demands for
greater NATO involvement were fulfilled at the Warsaw Summit in
July 2016, when the Alliance announced plans to deploy four rotat-
ing multinational battalions to the Baltics as an enhanced forward
presence, and to strengthen the Alliances capabilities for defense and
deterrence against a full range of threats, from hybrid to nuclear.
With regard to Russias strategic communication efforts and inter-
nal destabilization efforts, responses have been limited. NATO officials
interviewed recognized the threat but, in general, believed that NATO
would be ineffective or unable to respond, because of its limited capa-
bilities in the area of strategic communication. This could give Russia
a significant advantage, despite recent progress in establishing the
NATO Centre of Excellence for Strategic Communications in Riga,
xiv European Relations with Russia: Threat Perceptions, Responses, and Strategies
for example, to share best practices among member governments and

improve the Alliances doctrine, practices, and training in this area.
Meanwhile, the European Union is attempting to counter the Russian
message through the creation of a strategic communication task force.
While there is agreement on a firm response to Russias aggres-
sive moves, most European countries have also made sure to pursue
dialogue with Russia on Ukraine-related issues as well as other mat-
ters of mutual interest. The European Union, for instance, is keeping
a number of communication channels open while making it clear that
relations with Russia are not business as usual. One such channel is
the discussion on the consequences for Russia of the implementation
of the trade component (EU-Ukraine Deep and Comprehensive Free
Trade Area) of the Association Agreement with Ukraine. More gener-
ally, this emphasis on dialogue reflects a concern that an overly military
response to Russia might be seen as provocative and could lead to an
escalation of the conflict.
Intentions
European officials interviewed generally agreed on three key elements
that shape their current relations with Russia, and which they believe
will continue to do so in the near future. First, there is an understanding
that relations with Russia have changed irremediably. Russian actions
in Crimea and eastern Ukraine created a paradigm shift, as the crisis
revealed a degree of Russian assertiveness that had not been suspected
previously. Second, European officials and researchers interviewed did
not expect tensions with Russia to recede anytime soon. The sever-
ity of the crisis makes for a protracted impasse, complicated further
by Ukraines difficulties in the economic and governance realms. The
alternativea political and economic collapse of Ukraine, with spill-
over effects on neighboring countriesrepresents a serious concern for
Poland, in particular. Finally, future actions toward Russia will largely be
influenced by Russian behavior. The full implementation of the Minsk
II agreement has been generally regarded as the key benchmark that will
allow European countries to relax their sanctions policy on Moscow.
In spite of increasing divisions within the European Union on whether
Summary xv
sanctions are justified, they were prolonged again in December 2016 and
March 2017 as some important elements of the peace process were seen
as not yet fulfilled.
A number of EU countries are working on sustaining existing
measures and planning for new ones. Assistance to Ukraine appears to
be one of the most consensual measures and is likely to be pursued in
the future. So is, to a lesser extent, the case of sanctions. With sanctions
showing an effect on Russias economy and European countries overall
facing little domestic pressure to terminate them, sanctions are likely to
be further prolonged in the future unless Russia shows some goodwill
in implementing the Minsk II agreement.
Support for military options is more limited. Air policing mis-
sions over the Baltics, which represent a key element of NATOs reas-
surance measures toward its easternmost members, were reduced in
September 2015. European countriessuch as Francewith com-
mitments in other theaters of operations are unlikely to significantly
increase presence in the Baltics. The provision of lethal aid to Ukraine
is still a generally unpopular idea in Europe. General discomfort with
military options can also be seen in the debate about permanently
deployed forces, which, again, garner little support outside of Poland
and the Baltics. Yet, the perception that the Ukrainian crisis has irre-
mediably altered European security perceptionsturning Russia for
the foreseeable future into a competitor and potential adversary rather
than a partnerhas provided new impetus to the debate in several
European countries on whether their defense spending is adequate
to address current security threats. While the response articulated at
the Warsaw Summit may still seem insufficient to some, gaining full
NATO agreement on an increased forward presence is a sign of wider
and greater commitment for a strengthened defensive posture. The
European Union, too, is exploring potential avenues for more defense-
focused measures, which could include improving its ability to provide
military equipment to partner nations.
Regarding NATOs reform, officials interviewed expressed a sense
that the Alliance will further develop its military response to Russia.
In the immediate term, NATO will continue to develop the NATO
Response Force and other measures specified in the RAP and imple-
xvi European Relations with Russia: Threat Perceptions, Responses, and Strategies
ment the measures specified at Warsaw. One fundamental issue influ-

encing the Alliances future response is how costs of any deployment will
be shared. Finally, several interlocutors mentioned that some issues
e.g., energy security and strategic communicationmight benefit
from greater cooperation between the European Union and NATO.
With regard to enlargement, some of the NATO officials interviewed
noted that members of the Alliance were geographically divided about
decisions regarding the future accession of non-NATO members such
as Georgia, Ukraine, and Moldova. While NATO officially retains its
open-door policy, the more geographically western countries fear that
NATO enlargement will be regarded as a provocative move by Russia
and could exacerbate tensions. Eastern members, by contrast, tend to
believe that admitting new members into the Alliance will strengthen
deterrence against future aggression by Russia, although given gaps
in the institutions of these countries, they are not prepared to bring
them into the Alliance in the near future. Based on that lack of con-
sensus, and barring some unexpected major shift in the security envi-
ronment, there is no realistic near-term prospect for membership for
Georgia, Ukraine, or Moldova. Meanwhile, Sweden and Finland have
strengthened defense cooperation with NATO. At the Wales Summit,
both countries signed Host Nation Support Agreements that will make
it easier for them to host predeployed NATO forces for training and
exercises. Yet, both are still far from NATO membership due to mixed
support at home, the risk that Russia will see Finlands accession as an
offensive measure, and the Swedish reluctance to enter NATO without
Finland simultaneously taking the same step.
Prospects for EU enlargement do not seem affected by events in
Ukraine. EU officials interviewed appeared confident that countries
close to Russia and part of the European Neighborhood Policy would
continue to seek a stronger relationship with the European Union. Yet,
such prospects for enlargement already had been limited. Most EU
member states suffer from some degree of enlargement fatigue, with
populations increasingly skeptical about the European Unions abil-
ity to integrate newcomers successfully in a context of crisis. Yet EU
officials interviewed noted that the prospect of membershiphowever
Summary xvii
remoteremains the most promising lever the union can use on its
eastern partners.
Conclusion
Most European countries have imposed sanctions that, in combination
with other factors, have driven Russia into recession and constrained
future growth prospects. They have shifted resources to buttressing
Ukraine economically and supporting its reform efforts. Several coun-
tries have increased their defense spending; others have halted planned
declines. The United States is also showing the lead by more than qua-
drupling the funds devoted to the European Reassurance Initiative in
its fiscal year 2017 defense budget. NATO has begun improving its
capacity to respond more quickly to future contingencies. NATO and
the European Union are beginning to consider how to deal with Rus-
sian unconventional threats. Despite appeals from NATO countries on
Russias periphery, there is little support elsewhere in Europe for major
deployments of NATO forces further forward or arming Ukraine.
Tensions with Russia are also an opportunity, in the sense that
reassurance measures help maintain interoperability gains between
NATO partners after withdrawal from Afghanistan. Support for closer
ties with NATO is also increasing in Sweden and Finland.
There is a clear geographical divide between countries bordering
Russia and others on how real and immediate the Russian threat is,
and the refugee crisis is pushing the Russian threats further into the
background for numerous NATO countries. Nevertheless, the various
scenarios and contingencies that we heard in Sweden, Estonia, Latvia,
and Poland concerning Russian actions and potential NATO reac-
tions need to be assessed seriously by the U.S. Department of Defense
(DoD). These include
a serious look at Russian capabilities to politically subvert a Baltic

State, including the seizure of a border enclave or fomenting inter-
nal unrest. DoD could use political-military games to understand
the potential Alliance difficulties in reaching consensus, the options
open to NATO, and the time required. More-detailed assessment
xviii European Relations with Russia: Threat Perceptions, Responses, and Strategies
of the Baltic internal security forces and their ability to deal with
potential subversion contingencies also would be valuable.
a better understanding of the Russian ability to prevent rein-
forcement to the Baltic States; DoD could subject some of the
unusual scenarios, such as the seizure of Gotland, to modeling
and simulation. Similarly, for sustained air operations over the
Baltic States, how important does access to Swedish (and possibly
Finnish) airspace become?
a clear view of the role that Kaliningrad might play, with its strong
antiair defenses; how would NATO neutralize it?
support for improving intelligence sharing and decisionmaking
within NATO to improve indicators and warnings of Russian
activity.
looming above all of this: the nuclear issue. How might escalation
be controlled, and what would be the levers available?
Basically, the ball is now in the Russian court. If Moscow deesca-

lates the Ukraine crisis, or there is no increase in fighting, most Euro-
pean governments will be sympathetic to some relaxation of sanctions.
If, on the other hand, Russia escalates its involvement in Ukraine, or
threatens aggressive steps elsewhere, the debate in Europe about a fur-
ther response will be renewed. Russia may also be playing for time,
knowing that there is a clear geographical divide between countries
bordering Russia and others on how real and immediate the Russian
threat is, and the migration crisis is pushing concerns about a Russian
threat even further into the background for many European countries.
The threat of international and domestic terrorism, the Syrian and
Libyan civil wars, and the unprecedented flood of refugees are all pow-
erful distractions that tend to dominate the concerns of all but Russias
closest neighbors. Nevertheless, the Ukraine crisis has caused the Alli-
ance to refocus its attention on the defense of NATO territory for the
first time in more than 20 years. This refocus should continue to yield
gradual improvements in the Alliances defensive capabilities, even as
the prospects for concerted Western action in distant out-of-area con-
tingencies continue to diminish.
Acknowledgments
We are grateful for the support of many individuals over the course of
this research project. We would like to express our sincere thanks to
Timothy Muchmore for initiating and supporting this project. This
research would not have been possible without the many individuals
in Belgium, Estonia, France, Germany, Latvia, Poland, Sweden, and
the United Stateswho took the time to share with us their insights
on European security and politics, providing invaluable input to this
report. We would also like to thank Ethan Corbin, Arnaud Guillois,
Andres Kasekamp, Andrew Michta, and Marco Overhaus, who facili-
tated some of these discussions.
A number of other people helped make this study possible. Olga
Oliker played a key role in the leadership of this project. We thank
Christopher Chivvis, Steven Flanagan, and Andrew Weiss for their
helpful comments on an earlier draft of this report. Finally, our thanks
also go to Natalie Ziegler and Samantha Bennett for providing editing
support.
xix
Abbreviations
CDU Christian Democratic Union

CSDP Common Security and Defense Policy
DCFTA Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area
EEAS European External Action Service
EU European Union
IDC Institut de la dmocratie et de la coopration
ISIL Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
MFA Ministry of Foreign Affairs
MP member of parliament
NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization
NORDEFCO Nordic Defence Cooperation
NRF NATO Response Force
OSCE Organization for Security and Cooperation in
Europe
RAP Readiness Action Plan (NATO)
SACEUR Supreme Allied Commander Europe
SHAPE Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe
SIPRI Stockholm International Peace Research
Institute
SPD Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands
(German Social Democrat Party)
VJTF Very High Readiness Joint Task Force (NATO)
xxi
CHAPTER ONE
Introduction
Overview
Russias illegal annexation and occupation of Crimea in March 2014

and subsequent support for the insurgency in eastern Ukraine have
challenged not only the integrity of Europes territorial borders, but
also its security environment. The Georgia war in 2008 had already
shown that Russia could react violently to perceived challenges in the
former Soviet space, in spite of cooperation efforts such as the creation
of the RussiaNorth Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Council
in 2002. Russias actions again showed its willingness to use force to
change existing territorial boundaries and raised increasing questions
about the possibility of future Russian aggression.1 While the RAND
Corporations report Russia and the West After the Ukrainian Crisis:
European Vulnerabilities to Russian Pressures2 examined what avenues
Russia may have at its disposal to harm European countries on various
levels (militarily, economically, politically), this report analyzes how
several key European states perceive the Russian threat. It addresses
1 In this report, unless otherwise noted, we use Europe and Europeans to refer to
the states of the European Union and NATO members other than the United States and
Canada. In using this shorthand, we do not mean to imply that other countries with all or
some of their territory on the European continent (including Russia, Ukraine, Moldova, and
Belarus), are not European.
2 F. Stephen Larrabee, Stephanie Pezard, Andrew Radin, Nathan A. Chandler, Keith W.
Crane, and Thomas S. Szayna, Russia and the West After the Ukrainian Crisis: European Vul-
nerabilities to Russian Pressures, Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation, RR-1305-A,
2017.
1
2 European Relations with Russia: Threat Perceptions, Responses, and Strategies
three specific questions: (1) Do these Europeans see Russia as a major

security threat? (2) What is it that Russia might threaten? And (3)
What responses have they devised so far, and what might they do if
Russian behavior becomes even more assertive in the future?
Approach
This report relies on two main sources of information. First, we con-
ducted a series of semistructured interviews from May to October 2015
in Belgium, Estonia, France, Germany, Latvia, Poland, Sweden, and
the United States with U.S. and foreign officials (including EU and
NATO officials3), researchers, academics, and journalists familiar with
European security issues in general, and the crisis in Ukraine and the
tensions with Russia in particular. The goal of these interviews was
to gauge the different perceptions within these countries of the major
threat posed by Russia. In a few instances, this study also draws from
interviews conducted in Ukraine for other RAND studies between
April and August 2015. Appendix A provides the numbers of inter-
views carried out, as well as the type of organizations with which the
discussants were affiliated.4 Appendix B provides the questionnaire
the research team used to guide the interviews in every country vis-
ited. The choice of countries visitedBelgium, Estonia, France, Ger-
many, Latvia, Poland, Sweden5 was based on several considerations,
including the following: countries that have played a noticeable diplo-
matic role in the Ukraine crisis; former Soviet and nonformer Soviet
countries; NATO and non-NATO states; and countries that share
and do not share a border with Russia. The study team also wanted to
gather input from the two key international organizations that have
been involved in the lead-up to and the consequences of the Ukraine
3 Conversations with EU officials were with European External Action Service (EEAS)
officials, unless otherwise stated. Conversations with NATO officials were with NATO
International Staff officials, unless otherwise stated.
4 More-detailed information about the organizations and the discussants positions are not
provided so as to protect their anonymity.
5 In addition to the United States.
Introduction 3
crisisNATO and the European Union. Finally, constraints in terms

of time and resources prevented the study team from extending its
visits beyond the seven countries mentioned above.
The interviews were supplemented by the second source of data:
a review of select open-source literature in English and other Euro-
pean languages. Another report from this project, Larrabee et al.,
2017, provides more-detailed information on European relations with
Russiain terms of financial, trade, and energy dependency, but also
with regard to public opinion views of Russia. While both reports can
be read independently, the reader will find that they collectively paint
a more complete picture of Europes complex relationship with Russia
in the wake of the Ukraine crisis.
Organization of This Report

Chapter Two examines how several key European states perceive Rus-
sias behavior in eastern and northern Europeand what it means for
them. Is Russia perceived as a threat, and, if so, what type of threat
is it (e.g., military, economic, internal)? Most importantly, how does
Russia compare with other strategic priorities? This chapter highlights
fault lines within Europe with regard to threat perceptions and exam-
ines whether European and U.S. perceptions align or differ. It also
examines whether perceptions of NATO and the United States have
evolved as a consequence of the Ukraine crisis. Chapter Three ana-
lyzes the responses of Europeans to Russian behavior in Ukraine. In
spite of increasing divisions, particularly on the issue of economic sanc-
tions toward Russia, Europeans generally agree that Russias behav-
ior requires a firm response yet are also eager to maintain channels
of communication with Moscow. Chapter Four examines European
intentions regarding how to pursue their relationship with Russia in
the future; what existing measures they intend to keep in place and
what new measures they might implement; and what the prospects are
for NATO enlargement as well as for the EU Neighborhood Policy
(ENP). A concluding chapter provides some implications of European
perceptions, responses, and intentions for U.S. policy.
CHAPTER TWO
Perceptions
Perceptions of Russia in the wake of the Ukrainian crisis differ sharply

across Europe. A critical factor influencing European perceptions of
the military threat posed by Russia appears to be geographical prox-
imity to Russia.1 Most NATO members bordering Russia perceive an
existential threat that they feel can be addressed only through the pres-
ence of U.S. and NATO troops on their territory.2 With the exception
of Romania, whose views of Russia are closer to those of Poland and
the Baltic States, NATOs western and southern members do not see
as immediate a threat from Russia and fear that too forceful a NATO
response would not only be unnecessarily expensive, but would also
risk provoking Russia and further exacerbating tensions with Moscow.
Most of these countries see the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant (ISIL)
and increasing flows of migrants and refugees as more pressing con-
cerns that, together with the tensions with Russia, require NATOs full
attention.3
1 Many NATO officials explained that geography was a reliable shorthand for understand-
ing different countries perspectives (interviews with NATO officials, June 16 and 17, 2015).
A similar point was made during the following interviews: interview with French officials,
June 18, 2015; interview with French officials, May 12, 2015; interview with EU official,
June 10, 2015. This individual also noted that the same geographic distinction applies to EU
officials: Even though they feel European and try to be neutral, those closer to Russia by
citizenship tend to see Russia as a threat more than their colleagues do.
2 Interviews with Estonian, Latvian, and Polish officials, July 1317, 2015.
3 Interviews with NATO officials, June 16 and 17, 2015.
5
Threat Perceptions of a Russian Conventional Attack
European countries that share a border with Russia (see Figure 2.1)
have lived with the possibility of a Russian invasion for the better part
of their history. In all of these countries, perceptions of current rela-
tions with Russia are heavily influenced by a legacy of Russian domina-
tion and occupation, not only during the Soviet period but stretching
back into the years of czarist rule. Negative bilateral images persist in
many of these countries at the popular level, and even if those per-
ceptions are not reflected at all or to the same extent at the elite level,
they affect the political discourse in these countries. Those historically
rooted perceptions influence how they view Russia in the context of the
Ukrainian crisis.
One Finnish official noted that Russia is Finlands No. 1 security
concern (and will always be) for historical reasons.4 The incorpora-
tion of Finland into the Russian empire during the 19th century, the
securing of Finnish independence only by force of arms in 1918, the
Soviet invasion and attempted annexation of Finland in 19391940,
renewed Finish-Soviet hostilities in 19411944 as an offshoot of Nazi
Germanys attack on the Soviet Union, and the constraints on Finn-
ish sovereignty that Moscow imposed during the Cold War remain
important factors that continue to influence Finnish perceptions of
Russia. Similarly, Stalins forceful annexation of the Baltic States and
their incorporation into the Soviet Union as a consequence of the pact
signed between Germany and the Soviet Union in 1939 strongly color
the security perceptions and attitudes toward Russia in Lithuania,
Latvia, and Estonia. Russias role in the partition of Poland in the late
18th century, which resulted in Polands loss of sovereignty for more
than a century, and then the history of Polish-Soviet conflict and the
Soviet forceful incorporation of Poland into its sphere of influence after
World War II is deeply ensconced in the Polish political discourse.
Notwithstanding the Polish-Russian 20112013 rapprochement,
studies of contemporary media portrayals of Russia and Poland in each
4 Interview with Finnish official, July 14, 2015.

Perceptions 7
Figure 2.1
Map of Europe
20 0 20 40
Greenland
(DENMARK) Barents
Jan Mayen Sea
(NORWAY)
Greenland Hammerfest
Denmark Sea
Troms Murmansk
Strait
Norwegian Sea
Kiruna
White Sea Arkhangel'sk
Reykjavk
ICELAND Arc tic C irc le
Sev D
r
vinnaya
e
Lule a
NORWAY Oulu
Lake
Ume Onega
FINLAND
60 Trondheim 60
Trshavn SWEDEN Gulf
Faroe Islands Lake
(DENMARK) of Tampere Ladoga
Bothnia
40
SHETLAND Turku Helsinki lan
d Saint Petersburg
ISLANDS Gvle f Fin
o
20
ORKNEY
Bergen
Oslo ALAND
Gulf RUSSIA
lga
Rockall ISLANDS Tallinn
ISLANDS Stockholm
Vo
(U.K.)
ESTONIA
HEBRIDES Stavanger
k Moscow
ra
North Aberdeen ag
er
Gteborg Gotland LATVIA
Sk Riga

Atlantic
Ka
Glasgow North Baltic Sea Vitsyebsk

tte
Ocean Edinburgh land LITHUANIA Smolensk

ga
UNITED Sea DENMARK Malm Vilnius

t
Belfast Mahilyow
Isle
Copenhagen Kaliningrad RUSSIA Minsk
Dniepe
of
Bornholm
Dublin Irish Man
Leeds Gdansk BELARUS
r
(U.K.)
Sea Hrodna Homyel'
IRELAND Liverpool Manchester
Hamburg Chernihiv
KINGDOM Warsaw Brest
Birmingham Amsterdam Bremen Berlin Poznan
POLAND Kyiv
Cardiff Oder
NETH. Zhytomyr Dnie
Rotterdam Ldz per
Celtic London Essen
Elb
Leipzig Wroclaw ul
a
UKRAINE
e
Sea Brussels Cologne

Vi
st
L'viv
English Channe
l Lille BEL. Bonn GERMANY Prague Krakw
Vinnytsya
Guernsey (U.K.)
Frankfurt CZECH REPUBLIC
Jersey (U.K.)
Luxembourg Chernivtsi Mykolayiv
Paris LUX. Brno SLOVAKIA
Chis
inau
(
Stuttgart
ine
Strasbourg
Se
Danu
be Bratislava Iasi
in
Rh
Munich Cluj- Odesa

e
Nantes oir
e Vienna Budapest Napoca MOLDOVA
L LIECH.
Zrich AUSTRIA HUNGARY
Bern Vaduz
Bay of SWITZ. ROMANIA
Biscay FRANCE Geneva
SLOVENIA
Ljubljana
Bucharest Cons tanta
Milan Zagreb
Lyon Black
Turin Venice
A Corua Bordeaux Po Belgrade Varna
BOSNIA AND Danube Sea
Genoa CROATIA HERZEGOVINA
SAN SERBIA
Bilbao
Toulouse
MONACO
MARINO Sarajevo BULGARIA
Ligurian Florence Pristina Sofia
Andorra MONT.
la Vella Marseille Sea Istanbul
Porto
ITALY Adriatic KOS.
ANDORRA Sea Podgorica Skopje
Zaragoza Corsica MACE.
40 Rome Tirana Bursa 40
VATICAN Thessalonki
PORTUGAL Madrid Barcelona CITY
ALB.
Tagus Balearic
Naples TURKEY
Lisbon .
Sea Tyrrhenian Aegean
SPAIN Valencia Sardinia GREECE
Sea
Izmir
Sea
BALEARIC Cgliari Athens
Sevilla ISLANDS Ionian
Palermo Sea
Gibraltar Mlaga
Mediterranean Sea Rhodes
(U.K.) Sicily
Strait of Gibraltar
Ceuta Alborn
Sea Algiers
(SPAIN)
Melilla Oran Tunis Scale 1:19,300,000 Crete
(SPAIN)
Lambert Conformal Conic Projection,
Valletta standard parallels 40N and 68N
Rabat MALTA
Casablanca TUNISIA 0 300 Kilometers
MOROCCO ALGERIA 0 300 Miles

0 20
SOURCE: Central Intelligence Agency, World FactBook, website, undated.

RAND RR1579-2.1
country indicate that the nationalist and historicist biases continue to

influence their relations.5
Russian officials tend to quickly dismiss the security concerns
of their western neighbors as solely driven by anti-Russian biases that
persist in these countries. For example, academic and activist Sergei
Markov cautioned Finland against considering NATO membership
out of such supposed nationalistic biases:
Finland should think of the consequences, if it ponders joining

NATO. It must ask: could joining start World War III? . . . Rus-
sophobia can start a third world war. Finland is one of the most
Russophobic countries in Europe, after Sweden, Poland and the
Baltic countries.6
Even in Norway, with its short Norwegian-Russian border in the

Arctic region, Russia continues to be one of the defining elements of
Norways security policy that prompted it to join NATO in the early
days of the Cold War. Although Norway has enjoyed cordial relations
with Russia over the past few years, particularly after the resolution of
the territorial dispute in the Barents Sea in 2010,7 Russias illegal annex-
5 In her study of media portrayal of each other in Poland and Russia, Ekaterina Levintova
notes that
Historically, Polish public discourse presented Russia as a despotic, barbaric, autocratic
and aggressive country, antithetical to European values, and its subjects as uneducated,
unrefined, slavish, violent, unreliable and prone to excessive drinking. The relations
between the two countries were portrayed in terms of an assault by barbaric Russia on
civilised and European Poland.
Similarly, in Russian media, Poles are often portrayed as sly, treacherous, proud, boastful,
condescending, rebellious, anti-Russian and fanatical (Ekaterina Levintova, Good Neigh-
bours? Dominant Narratives About the Other in Contemporary Polish and Russian News-
papers, Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 62, No. 8, 2010, pp. 13391361).
6 Comments by Russian President Vladimir Putins senior political adviser, Sergei Markov,
to Swedish and Finnish media, as reported in Gerard ODwyer, Russia Warns Sweden and
Finland Against NATO Membership, Defense News, June 12, 2014.
7 Walter Gibbs, Russia and Norway Reach Accord on Barents Sea, New York Times, April
27, 2010. The agreement gave Norway an additional 54,000 square miles of continental shelf
and binds the two countries into working jointly to exploit cross-border oil and gas deposits
(U.S. Energy Information Administration, Norway, database, updated April 28, 2014).
Perceptions 9
ation and occupation of Crimea has caused growing concerns about its
intentions among the Norwegian public.8 An April 2015 Gallup poll
reveals that Norwegian disapproval of the actions of Russias leadership
is greater than in nine other countries surveyed.9
Security concerns of Russias western neighbors are also based
on strategic considerations. In case of a Russian-inspired conflict in
the Baltic States, Polish territory could become a strategic corridor for
NATO and an area of combat operations because of proximity to Rus-
sian military bases in Kaliningrad and, possibly in the future, Belarus
(if Russia can persuade Belarus authorities to allow such installations).10
Russia has extensive anti-access/area denial capabilities, including long-
range antiair and antiship missile, based in Kaliningrad. These capa-
bilities allow Russia to constrain or at least delay the deployment of
NATO forces by air or sea to the Baltic States.11
Russias western neighbors are also painfully aware of the military
imbalance between their own forces and Russias unless they receive
NATOand particularly U.S.reinforcement. In conditions of a
hypothetical Russian conventional attack, officials from Estonia and
Latvia argued that Russian capabilities relative to the Baltic countries
gave Russia a time-space advantage that Russia could exploit in any
number of scenarios.12 Officials from both Baltic States estimated that
8 Interview with Norwegian officials, July 14, 2015.

9 Eight-nine percent disapprove, ahead of (among Nordic countries) 86 percent in Finland
and 82 percent in Sweden (2014 Gallup poll cited in Jon Clifton, Russia Receives Lowest
Approval in World; U.S. Highest, Gallup website, April 21, 2015).
10 Interview with Polish officials, July 14, 2015. As of 2015, Russia did not have any military
bases yet in Belarus but had started talks with Belarus to establish an air base on its territory.
See Yaras Karmanau, Putin Moves to Establish Russian Military Base in Belarus, Associ-
ated Press, September 19, 2015; and Belarus Says Does Not Need a Russian Military Base:
Report, Reuters, October 6, 2015.
11 Interviews with U.S. and Swedish officials, discussions with U.S. and European think
tank analysts, July 2015 and February 2016; David A. Shlapak and Michael Johnson, Rein-
forcing Deterrence on NATOs Eastern Flank: Wargaming the Defense of the Baltics, Santa
Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation, RR-1253-A, 2016.
12 Recent
RAND analysis supports this assessment of a Russian time-space advantage. See
David Ochmanek, Andrew R. Hoehn, James T. Quinlivan, Seth G. Jones, and Edward L.
Warner, Americas Security Deficit: Addressing the Imbalance Between Strategy and Resources
they would have very little reaction time in a crisis. One Latvian offi-
cial, for example, assessed the warning time for a conventional attack
to be only 48 to 72 hours, while a former officialalso from Latvia
hypothesized a scenario in which Russian airborne forces could seize
Riga with virtually no warning.13 Finally, Russias snap exercises
such as a July 2013 exercise in which 160,000 troops were deployed
in less than 72 hourshave raised concerns in Poland, especially as
NATO is lacking the ability to rapidly deploy substantial ground forc-
es.14 Out of nine countries surveyed in early 2015 by the Pew Research
Center, Poland showed the greatest concern about Russia, with 70 per-
cent of those surveyed considering it to be, militarily, a major threat
to its neighbors (see Figure 2.2).15
Conversely, the countries whose populations are less inclined to
see Russia as a threat to its neighbors (Figure 2.3) tend to be either
countries from southern Europe, such as Italy, with other strategic con-
cerns than Russia, or countries where pacifist opinion is prominent,
such as Germany. These countries are also least likely to blame Russia
for the violence in eastern Ukraine: 29 percent in Italy and Germany
see Russia as being most to blame, in contrast to 44 percent in France
and 57 percent in Poland.16
Yet, the fact that Russia is seen as capable and potentially will-
ing to carry out a conventional attack against its neighbors does not
mean that such an attack is seen as likely. Polish and Finnish officials
and analysts interviewed tended to describe Russias behaviorsuch
in a Turbulent World, Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation, RB-9870-RC, 2015,

pp.58; and Shlapak and Johnson, 2016.
13 Interviews with Estonian and Latvian officials and former Latvian official, July 15 and 17,
2015.
14 Interviews with Polish officials, July 13, 2015; Bruce Jones, Russia Places 38,000 Troops
on Alert for Snap Exercises, Janes Defence Weekly, March 16, 2015.
15 Katie Simmons, Bruce Stokes, and Jacob Poushter, NATO Publics Blame Russia for
Ukrainian Crisis, but Reluctant to Provide Military Aid, Pew Research Center, June 2015,
p.51. Other possible responses were minor threat or not a threat.
16 Simmons, Stokes, and Poushter, 2015, p. 52. Other possible responses were pro-
Russian separatists in Ukraine, Ukrainian government, Western countries, such as those
in Europe and the U.S., more than one named, all of the above, or none of the above.
Perceptions 11
Figure 2.2
Percentage of Opinion That Considers Russia a Major Military Threat to Its
Neighboring Countries (Spring 2015)
80
70
Percentage of respondents
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Poland United United France Spain Italy Canada Germany
States Kingdom
SOURCE: Simmons, Stokes, and Poushter, 2015, p. 51.

RAND RR1579-2.2
Figure 2.3
Percentage of Opinion That Considers Russia Not a Military Threat to Its
Neighboring Countries (Spring 2015)
16
14
12
10
0
Italy Ukraine Germany Spain France Canada United Poland United
Kingdom States
SOURCE: Simmons, Stokes, and Poushter, 2015, p. 51.

RAND RR1579-2.3
as the stationing of nuclear-capable missiles in Kaliningrad and over-

flights over Polish airspaceas bullying, intimidation, or pos-
turing rather than as indication that Russia is seriously planning an
invasion.17 In Poland, a large-scale conventional war is seen as pos-
sible but unlikely. As one Polish official put it, Russia is ready but not
suicidal.18 Interlocutors in Estonia and Latvia contended that Putin
would be unlikely to take military action against the Baltic States as
long as the war in Ukraine continued. Officials interviewed recognized
that Russian interests in Ukraine are greater than those in the Baltic
States.19 Some Baltic officials speculated that the most likely period
when conflict might begin would be two to three years in the future,
as the increasing pressure on the Russian budget from declining oil
prices would begin to have a strong impact on the Russian economy,
although this view was not universally held.20
Sweden, too, has signaled that it takes the Russian threat seri-
ously, even if Swedish officials do not foresee any immediate threat
of attack against the Nordic countries.21 The Swedish defense bill for
20162020, which represents a consensus view of the countrys shift-
ing defense priorities, highlights Russian aggression in Ukraine and the
possibility of further aggression in the future. Sweden has also sought
to strengthen its bilateral and multilateral cooperation. In particular, it
has used its leadership of the Nordic Defense Cooperation (NORDE-
FCO) group in 2014 to press for a stronger defense against potential
Russian aggression in the region.22
Sweden does not share a land border with Russia, but some in
Sweden see parts of Swedish territory, such as the strategically located
17 Interview with Polish officials, July 14, 2015; interview with Polish analysts, July 14,
2015; interview with Finnish official, May 28, 2015.
18 Interview with Polish officials, July 13, 2015.
19 Interviews with Estonian and Latvian officials, July 15 and 17, 2015.
21 Interviews with Swedish officials and think tank analysts, July 20 and 21, 2015.
22 Gerard ODwyer, Sweden Proposes Aggressive Nordic Defense, Defense News, Febru-
ary 10, 2015a.
Perceptions 13
Gotland Island, as vulnerable to a potential Russian attack.23 Accord-

ing to this line of thought, Russian seizure and consequent installation
of surface-to-air missiles on Gotland would allow Russia to control air-
space over the central Baltic Sea and constrain U.S. and NATO quick
access to and reinforcement of the Baltic States. The scenario envi-
sions a preemptive Russian attack in the context of a conflict over the
Baltic States in order to reduce the likelihood of a NATO response.24
Some interlocutors noted the significant questions about the plausibil-
ity of a Russian attack on Gotland, opined that the defense of Gotland
has significant political resonance, and observed that the suggestion of
the scenario may be intended to address diminished Swedish defense
spending.25 Gotlands strategic value is also diminished by the fact that
Russia already has significant long-range air defense capabilities over
the central Baltic Sea based in Kaliningrad.26 In any event, although
Sweden is not a NATO member, a direct attack against Swedish ter-
ritory would likely provoke a strong reaction by NATO members and
eliminate any ambiguity about Russian intentions.
One way to interpret the Swedish discussions about the defense
of Gotland is to see the island as a surrogate for Swedens defense con-
cerns more generally. The growing concern about the weakness of the
defenses on the island is a sign of increasing concern about Swedens
overall defensive capabilities in general. Indeed, the discussion about
the island takes place in the context of a larger debate on reversing the
decline in Swedish defense spending.27
23 Interviews with two different Swedish think tank analysts, July 20, 2015.
24 Interview with Swedish think tank analyst, July 21, 2015.
25 Interviews with two different Swedish think tank analysts, July 20, 2015.
26 Interview with Swedish think tank analyst, July 21, 2015. Regardless of the islands mili-
tary value, the capacity of Sweden to defend it is politically important, as it signals the extent
of the countrys overall defense capacity. While substantial numbers of Swedish troops were
present on the island during the Cold War, its subsequent demilitarization is seen by many
in Sweden as a sign of the countrys declining military capabilities (interviews with Swedish
think tank analysts and journalists, July 20, 2015).
27 Interviews with Swedish think tank analysts, July 20 and 21, 2015.
Just as in Sweden and Poland, in Finland there is a perception

of higher risk but not necessarily a military threat from Russia. One
Finnish official noted that the Russian Army is much smaller than
it was during the Soviet era and, as a result, does not elicit the same
fears in Finland as it used to. The level of international tension is also
considerably lower than during the Cold War. This official did not feel
that Finland is militarily threatened, and Russias aggressive or disrup-
tive actions in Nordic countries, such as overflights or the suspected
presence of submarines, are mostly seen as posturing and provocations
rather than as an indication of future aggression.28 The potential ratio-
nale for Russia in attacking Finland is unclear, and Russia has other
problems elsewhere, from Ukraine to the Caucasus and Central Asia,
that require its attention.29
Sharing a short border with Russia in Europes Arctic, Norway
has a more sanguine view of potential Russian threat than its eastern
Nordic neighbors.30 While it has aligned itself with EU policy on sanc-
tionsNorwegian Prime Minister Erna Solberg publicly expressed her
disapproval of Russian policy in Ukraine31there is no indication that
Norway expects any aggressive move from Russia against its territory.
Norwegian officials interviewed underlined the fact that Norway has
generally good relations with Russia.32 Militarily, Norways and Rus-
sias respective Arctic military brigades have regularly engaged in joint
training exercises on land and at sea on a variety of missions ranging
from search and rescue to air defense.33 At the same time, Norway has
consistently sought more NATO involvement in the Arctic region
28 Interview with Finnish official, May 28, 2015.

30 Andrew Higgins, Norway Reverts to Cold War Mode as Russian Air Patrols Spike,
April 1, 2015.
31 Russia-Norway Tensions at Liberation Ceremony, Local, October 25, 2014.
32 In October 2014, in the midst of the Ukrainian crisis, Norwegian and Russian officials
celebrated together the 70th anniversary of the liberation of the Finnmark region (bordering
both Norway and Russia) from Nazi occupation (Finnmark Celebrates 70-Year Liberation
Anniversary, Norway Post, October 22, 2014).
33 ODwyer, 2012.
Perceptions 15
where it shares a border with Russiathrough exercises.34 The

Svalbard archipelago, too, could reemerge as a source of tension between
Norway and Russia.35 In June 2014, Norway opened a new military
border post to strengthen Norways ability to monitor and control
the Norwegian-Russian border.36 This monitoring and efforts at pre-
paredness are more of a traditional feature of Norwegian defense policy
than a reaction to the Ukraine crisisNorwegian officials interviewed
described Norways historical approach to security as not having been
changed by the new tensions with Russia 37 yet Russias aggression in
Ukraine, combined with lower global prices of oil, has already reduced
Norwegian-Russian cooperation, particularly on energy issues.38
For countries on the western and southern parts of the Euro-
pean continent, Russia is generally not a top strategic priority. Other
issues, such as the war in Syria, foreign fighters joining ISIL, and the
European migrant crisis take precedence. French officials interviewed
saw ISIL (and counterterrorism in general), Iran, Mali, Libya, and the
migrant crisis as higher strategic priorities than Russia.39 Even in Fin-
34 Brooke Smith-Windsor, Putting the N Back in NATO: A High North Policy Frame-
work for the Atlantic Alliance? NATO Research Paper No.94, July 2013, pp.56.
35 Svein Vigeland Rottem, The Political Architecture of Security in the ArcticThe Case
of Norway, Arctic Review on Law and Politics, Vol.4, No. 2, 2013, pp.249250. The 1920
Svalbard Treaty gives Norway sovereignty over the archipelago but is silent on whether this
extends to the archipelagos continental shelf and economic zone. In the past, incidents have
taken place between Norwegian authorities and Russian fishing vessels in the Svalbards eco-
nomic zone (for an example, see Norway Kicked Russian Patrol Vessels out of Spitsbergen,
Barents Observer, May 27, 2008).
36 Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Norways Arctic Policy, 2015, p.19.
38 Ulf Sverdrup and Elana Wilson Rowe, Norway Is Re-Thinking Its Russian Relations,
Europes World, Summer 2015.
39 Interview with French government-affiliated think tank analyst, June 18, 2015; interview
with French think tank analyst, June 19, 2015; interview with French officials, May 12, 2015;
interview with French government-affiliated think tank analyst, June 19, 2015.
land, one official mentioned foreign fighters returning from Iraq and
Syria as a threat on par with Russia.40
However, there is general concern that, even if Russia did not
choose to initiate a conventional war, the risk of accidental escalation
remains because of the increase in air traffic over northern Europe and
the fact that Russian pilots violating NATO airspace often turn off
their transponders.41 Polish officials expressed concern that a series of
errors and miscalculations might provoke a large-scale conflict.42 The
institutional mechanisms established during the Cold War to prevent
such accidental escalationparticularly when the East or the West
engaged in exerciseswould be useful again but have been largely
neglected since the end of the Cold War.43
Threat Perceptions of a Russian Hybrid Warfare Scenario
More Europeans are concerned about the risk of Russia employing

hybrid warfare than of it carrying out a conventional attack. There
is no shared agreement about the definition of what a hybrid threat
constitutes, though the term appears to be best understood as a com-
bination of various types of operations, from conventional to irregular
or psychological warfare, to influence the domestic politics of target
countries.44
40 Interview with Finnish official, May 28, 2015. In January 2015, the International Centre
for the Study of Radicalisation and the Munich Conference ranked Finland as the western
European country with the sixth-highest estimated number of foreign fighters per capita,
behind (in decreasing order) Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, France, Austria, and the Neth-
erlands (Peter R. Neumann, Foreign Fighters Total in Syria/Iraq Now Exceeds 20,000;
Surpasses Afghanistan Conflict in the 1980s, London: International Centre for the Study
of Radicalisation, January 26, 2015).
41 For one instance over Sweden, see Simon Johnson, Sweden Intercepts Russian Military
Planes Flying with Their Transponders Off over Baltic Region, Reuters, March 24, 2015.
43 Interview with French government-affiliated think tank analyst, June 18, 2015.
44 See
Frank Hoffman, On Not-So-New Warfare: Political Warfare vs. Hybrid Threats,
War on the Rocks, July 28, 2014; Mark Galeotti, The Gerasimov Doctrine and Russian
Perceptions 17
Our Polish interlocutors underlined that hybrid should be seen

as an add-on, not an alternative to, traditional military means.45 They
were concerned in particular about Russias propaganda in the Baltic
States and its attempt to influence Russian minorities in those coun-
tries.46 One such hybrid contingency would be a Narva separatist sce-
nario in Estonia, which some Polish officials presented as plausible.47
A similar scenario could involve the large Russian minority in Latgale
(eastern Latvia).48 In yet another scenario, Russia would be using other
minorities in the Baltic States to attain its ends, such as the Polish
minority in Lithuania, which has allied politically with the Russian
minority in the face of Lithuanian measures that have targeted minor-
ity populations.49 Polish interlocutors downplayed risks to Poland,
noting that the country has neither a significant Russian minority nor
pro-Russian groups.50
Swedish experts and policymakers, echoing others in the region,
see the main military vulnerability, and most likely point of Russian
aggression, to be the Baltic States.51 They, too, see a hybrid scenario
involving the apparent mobilization of Russian minorities in Estonia
or Latvia as generally plausible. One researcher observed that Russia
might pursue three possible small bite forms of aggression: a ter-
ritorial scenario, in which Russia captures a small pro-Russian area,
such as Narva in Estonia, to demonstrate the failure of Article 5; a
functional scenario, in which Russia undertakes aggression because
of some constraint on its actions, such as the closing of land transpor-
Non-Linear War, blog post, In Moscows Shadows, July 6, 2014. For a skeptical view, see
Damien Van Puyvelde, Hybrid WarDoes It Even Exist? NATO Review, 2015.
45 Interview with Polish official, July 13, 2015.
46 Interview with Polish analysts, July 14, 2015.
48 On Latgale and calls for a Latgalian Peoples Republic, see Andrew Higgins, Latvian
Region Has Distinct Identity, and Allure for Russia, New York Times, May 20, 2015.
51 Interviews with Swedish officials, July 21, 2015.
tation links to Kaliningrad; and an assets scenario, involving Russia

taking military action related to, for example, a trapped submarine or
the presence of a dissident in a foreign country.52
German officials and analysts interviewed are concerned as well
about Russian efforts at subversion and internal destabilization but
tend to see hybrid warfare and the Russian threat in terms of non-
violent efforts to undermine the liberal and constitutional order in
Europe. A significant portion of the population in Germany sees the
use of military force to achieve political objectives as obsolete, and
the use or deployment of armed forces by NATO to address a mili-
tary threat in the Baltics as unnecessary and inappropriate.53 Accord-
ing to think tank analysts, in practice, there is very little difference
between German Chancellor Angela Merkels (Christian Democratic
Union [CDU]) and Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeiers (Social
Democratic Party of Germany [SPD]) views of Moscow. However, the
left wing of the SPD and parts of the base still cling to views that
regard Russia as a potential partner. The most concrete disagreement
within the coalition, for example, appears to be about how the Euro-
pean Union should cooperate with the Eurasian Union, with Merkel
and the CDU less open to cooperation than the SPD and Steinmeier.
Growing instability in the coalition, in large part due to the migration
crisis, may undermine a unified policy on Russia in the future.54
Estonian and Latvian analysts and officials interviewed acknowl-
edge that Russia has more or less constantly sought to infiltrate and
destabilize their countries through covert means. Estonian think tank
analysts noted that Russia could easily undertake a provocation that

53 Interviews with German think tank analysts, discussions at conference, June 18 and
22, 2015. See Claudia Major and Christian Mlling, A Hybrid Security Policy for Europe:
Resilience, Deterrence, and Defense as Leitmotifs, Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik Com-
ments, Vol. 22, German Institute for International and Security Affairs, April 2015; Bastian
Giegerich, Workshop Report: Perspectives on Hybrid Warfare, IISS Voices, International
Institute for Strategic Studies, July 1, 2015; and Audio: Hybride KriegfhrungVielmehr
als ein Hype, German Ministry of Defense, August 4, 2015.
54 Interviews with German think tank analysts and academic, June 18 and 19, 2015, and
February 4, 2016.
Perceptions 19
would bring Russian speakers to rally or protest, as they did in the

Bronze Soldier incident in 2007.55 One former Latvian government
official suggested a possible scenario in which Russia might seek to
encourage the development of a terrorist movement against the Lat-
vian government by fabricating attacks on Russian speakers.56 How-
ever, despite recognizing the possibility of a Russian provocation in
these areas, there was doubt that Moscows mobilization of Russian-
speaking populations in the Baltic States would be sustainable. To be
sure, Estonian and Latvian officials emphasized that they were moni-
toring Russian destabilization efforts, but they were not overly con-
cerned that this was a major vulnerability, especially when compared
with the conventional threat. A Latvian official, for example, stated
that a conventional invasion of the entire country is the big fear, not
hybrid and not a limited conventional attack.57
Two factors may account for this apparent lack of concern regard-
ing a hybrid threat in the Baltics. First, the Baltic countries believe
that they are prepared for the threat. They are training their forces
to rapidly respond to any provocation from Russia, and officials in
both Estonia and Latvia have clearly stated their intention to shoot
any little green men. Their belief is that a NATO conventional deter-
rent, including U.S. forces and ideally with the participation of other
NATO countries, will prevent Russia from escalating to protect Rus-
sian covert activity. Furthermore, as our interlocutors throughout the
region argued, Estonia and Latvia have effective internal security ser-
vices and border guards that are more capable of protecting their terri-
tory than the ones Ukraine had.58 Polish researchers emphasized that
55 Interviews with Estonian and Latvian officials and think tank analysts, July 15 and 17,
2015. For a good account of the Bronze Soldier incident, see Heather A. Conley, Theodore P.
Gerber, Lucy Moore, and Mihaela David, Russian Soft Power in the 21st Century: An Exami-
nation of Russian Compatriot Policy in Estonia, Center for Strategic and International Studies,
August 2011.
56 Interview with former Latvian government official, July 15, 2015.
58 Although there was a perception that there is room for improvement in the preparedness
of the internal security forces, especially in Latvia. Interviews with foreign officials based in
Riga, July 15, 2015.
point, noting that Latvia and Estonia are well-functioning states and
that would make it more difficult for Russia to achieve the same suc-
cesses it had in Ukraine.59 Estonian and Latvian officials argued that
Russias hybrid strategy in Ukraine was a failure, since, in August 2014,
Russia had to escalate with well-armed conventional forces when the
separatists were on the verge of defeat, and that Russia would probably
not use the same strategy again.60 Second, there may be a desire on the
part of our interlocutors in the Baltic States to downplay vulnerability
to the threat of subversion to avoid calling attention to the problem
posed by the integration of the Russian minority. By claiming that
our Russians are satisfied and unlikely to be manipulated by Russia,
mainstream opinion in Estonia and Latvia can avoid considering the
need for compromise on citizenship or language issues for the Russian
minority.
Russias Strategic Communication Efforts

Russias influence is reinforced through its Compatriot Policy sup-
porting Russian speakers in former Soviet Republics.61 According to
one think tank analyst in Riga, Russian propaganda is undermining
social integration by encouraging unachievable demands for language
and citizenship. In Latvia, one interlocutor maintained that the Rus-
sian-speaking population exists in a separate media environment; they
generally have little interest in watching Latvian-language programs,
since Russian programs are easier to understand and have significantly
higher production values, including broadcasts of popular Western
59 Interview with Polish analyst, July 13, 2015.

60 Interviews with Estonian and Latvian officials, July 15 and 17, 2015. On this point, see
Michael Kofman, Katya Migacheva, Brian Nichiporuk, Andrew Radin, Olesya Tkacheva,
and Jenny Oberholtzer, Lessons from Russias Operations in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine,
Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation, RR-1498-A, 2017. This report concludes simi-
larly that the Russian operation in eastern Ukraine was unsuccessful as originally conceived
and achieved only some of its objectives, at a much higher cost than desired.
61 On Russias Compatriot Policy, see Conley et al., 2011; Oxana Shevel, The Politics of
Citizenship Policy in Post-Soviet Russia, Post-Soviet Affairs, Vol. 28, No. 1, 2012; and Igor
Zevelev, Russias Policy Toward Compatriots in the Former Soviet Union, Russia in Global
Affairs, Vol. 6, No. 1, JanuaryMarch 2008.
Perceptions 21
shows. These TV stations subtly weave Putins messages in between

these programs.62 Similarly, a report on Russian soft-power influence
in Estonia notes that
Estonians and non-Estonians live in different information spaces,

often with contrasting content. . . . Most of the Russian-speak-
ing population derives its information and views on history and
current events from Russian television channels that are directly
subordinate to the Kremlin and can be used as a mechanism of
propaganda.63
A former Latvian government official observed, however, that the Rus-

sian media mixes two separate messagesone intended for internal
Russian audiences, which emphasizes Putins authority, and the other,
for external audiences, which hypes the U.S. imperialist threat. The
two messages sometimes are at odds with each other, undermining the
overall impact of the message.64
In Poland, officials and researchers interviewed saw Russian
attempts at eliciting pro-Russian feelings as unlikely to succeed. How-
ever, there was wide agreement that exploiting anti-Ukrainian feelings
that exist in parts of the Polish population, using slogans such as why
pay for the Ukrainians and send them all this aid, when there are so
many internal problems in Poland? fell on receptive ears and under-
cut Polish assistance policy toward Ukraine.65 In addition to anti-
Ukrainian messaging, the Russian communication campaign in Poland
stresses more pacifist themes along the lines of we [Poles] should not
respond to the Russians the same way as they act. In this sense, Russia
echoes the line of argument made by the German left, among others.66
Russia has also tried to inflame anti-Polish feelings in Kaliningrad. For
62 Interview with Latvian think tank analysts, July 15, 2015.

63 Mike Winnerstig, ed., Tools of Destabilization: Russian Soft Power and Non-Military
Influence in the Baltic States, Sweden Defense Research Agency, December 16, 2014, p. 53.
64 Interview with former Latvian government official, July 15, 2015.
65 Interviews with Polish officials and think tank analysts, July 2015.
66 Interviews with Polish analysts, July 14. 2015.
instance, local media in Kaliningrad published stories about Russians

being allegedly poorly treated or intimidated in Poland.67
Russias strategic communication efforts have a harder time find-
ing an audience beyond the Baltic States and Poland. Russian-televised
programs in Finland promote the idea that Russians are ill treated in
Finland, but the impact of these stories is limited by the fact that most
of the countrys 60,000-strong Russian minority speak Finnish and are
well integrated in Finnish societytwo factors that make them less
likely to base their judgment solely on Russian media.68
While many Swedish officials are concerned about the spread of
Russian propaganda in the Baltics and other former members of the
Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact countries, there is limited concern that
Russia would be able to sway Swedes to its cause. Sweden, like much of
the European Union, seems to have difficulty formulating a coherent
response to the Russian propaganda challenge. Swedish officials were
insistent that the government not produce its own countermessage and
were generally supportive of the proposal within the European Union
to support independent media in the Eastern Partnership countries.
There does appear to be some military-produced strategic communica-
tions, following a history of generally well-perceived military-produced
propaganda in Sweden during the Cold War.69
One French official noted that the Russian propaganda machine
is active in France,70 but one researcher described Russian efforts to
influence the political debate in France as messy, transparent, and
overall not very successful. Such efforts include the creation of the
Democracy and Cooperation Institute (Institut de la dmocratie et de
la coopration [IDC]), led by a former Russian member of parliament
(MP). IDC works to improve the image of Russia but is generally seen

69 Interviews with Swedish officials and journalists, July 20 and 21, 2015.
Perceptions 23
as Russian propaganda.71 A number of other pro-Russia forums might

be more successful, such as the Franco-Russian Dialogue Association
(Association Dialogue Franco-Russe), whose discourse is less pro-Putin
than IDC, giving it more credibility.72 In July 2015, the copresident of
this association, who is also a member of the French Parliament, led a
controversial trip to Moscow and Crimea with ten fellow MPs.73 These
efforts, however, are counterbalanced by very vocal Ukrainian civil-
society actors present in France.74
Perceptions of NATO and the United States

Perceptions of NATO
European countries, particularly eastern NATO members, are con-
cerned that the Alliance is ill equipped to respond to the current
crisis with Russia and to potential further aggressions. French and
Polish officials interviewed pointed out that NATOs current deter-
rence policy would be inadequate, in particular, if Russia were to test
Article 5 from below, i.e., with actions under the threshold of con-
ventional war or that can be plausibly denied by Moscow. Such situa-
tions would make it difficult for the Alliance to reach a consensus deci-
sionor a quick decision.75 One Polish official mentioned the potential
for divisions within NATO about how to respond to a Russian attack
as a nightmare scenario and described the security of the Baltic States
as a litmus test for NATO, since a failure to withstand Russian pressure
71 Interview with French think tank analyst, June 19, 2015. See also Andrew-Sebastien
Aschehoug, Les Poupes Russes de la Propagande de Poutine en France, Slate.fr, February
11, 2015.
72 Interview with French think tank analyst, June 19, 2015.
73 Jean-Dominique Merchet, Une Dlgation de Parlementaires Franais se Rend en
Crime, LOpinion, July 22, 2015, updated July 27, 2015.
with French government-affiliated think tank analyst, June 19, 2015; interview with Polish
officials, July 14, 2015.
in the Baltics would undermine the Alliances credibility in Poland.76

More generally, they see Russia as trying to undermine NATO to the
point where it would no longer function as a collective defense orga-
nization.77 They claim that Russia is employing various tools for that
purpose, one of which is to promote radical (and anti-NATO) parties
in Europe.78 Some media accounts and many officials have emphasized
the risks of divisions within NATO based on geography or political dif-
ferences. While countries closer to Russia tend to be more concerned
about a threat and prefer a more assertive policy, countries farther away
from Russia tend to play down the risk of future aggression and high-
light concerns about an increased NATO posture provoking Russia.
Senior NATO officials interviewed for this study mostly played down
internal divisions. Another senior NATO official interviewed believed
that Europeans would follow U.S. leadership and not object strenu-
ously to prepositioning forces in the Baltics.79 A third observed that
there was a history of member states opting out of particular NATO
decisions with which they disagreed without it undermining the over-
all coherence of the Alliance.80 So far, there has been relatively little
opposition within NATO to intensified U.S. military activity in the
Baltics since the summer of 2015. When asked about the influence of
the far right or far left, officials responded that they did not believe
that parties on either extreme were strongly influencing countries poli-
cies toward Russia or NATO.81 Overall, NATO officials interviewed
defended the idea that the Alliance is in the process of developing a
stronger policy toward Russia.82

77 Interviews with Polish analysts, July 14, 2015.
78 Interviewwith Polish officials, July 13, 2015. On Russias support to populist parties in
Europe, see Larrabee et al., 2017.
79 Interview with NATO official, June 15, 2015.
81 Interviews with NATO officials, June 15, 2015.
Perceptions 25
There are concerns about the degree of popular support in Europe

for the core principle behind NATO: collective defense. A June 2015
Pew Research Center survey of main NATO states showed that the
willingness to use military force to defend a NATO ally attacked by
Russia was limited, from 38 percent in Germany to 49 percent in
the United Kingdom. Even in the United States and Canada, sup-
porters of the use of force to defend a NATO ally barely reached a
majority (56 percent and 53 percent, respectively).83 This points to
weak support for collective defense on the part of most NATO allies.
German analysts, however, questioned the survey, and argued that
German hesitation regarding collective defense drew on the experi-
ence of past missions such as Afghanistan.84 Several of our interlocu-
tors contended that, if Russia were to clearly demonstrate aggression
against a NATO country, there would be a far stronger consensus
toward collective defense.85 Indeed, while Europeans seem wary of
their commitments to NATO, the Alliance still enjoys strong popu-
lar support. A comparison of opinions86 regarding NATO between
2013 and 2015 shows that support for NATO has increased in five
of the six European countries surveyed, with the exception of Ger-
many, where unfavorable opinions have increased (see Figure 2.4).87
These results suggest that European opinion of NATO is somewhat
decoupled from the understanding of the commitment it potentially
represents, with NATO being seen more as a U.S. umbrella than as a
collective defense alliance.
83 Simmons, Stokes, and Poushter, 2015, p.5.

84 Interview with German officials, an academic, and think tank analysts, June 1619,
2015.
85 Interviews with German and Swedish officials and think tank analysts, June 1619, July
2122, 2015.
86 Defined as the sum of very favorable and somewhat favorable opinions.
87 For comparison, opinion toward NATO has remained stable in the United States between
2013 and 2015, with 49 percent holding combined very favorable and somewhat favor-
able opinions; see Simmons, Stokes, and Poushter, 2015, p.47.
Figure 2.4
Evolution of Favorable Opinion Toward NATO Between 2013 and 2015
12
10
8
Percentage change
6
4
2
0
2
4
6
Germany United Italy Spain France Poland
Kingdom
SOURCE: Data from Simmons, Stokes, and Poushter, 2015, p. 47.

RAND RR1579-2.4
Perceptions of the United States

The United States is still seen as a key guarantor of European security.
U.S. and European officials interviewed emphasized the critical impor-
tance of U.S. leadership in NATO and recognized the importance of the
U.S. military presence for maintaining security in Europe.88 German
analysts interviewed underscored the importance of the transatlantic
relationship for Germany and acknowledged that the U.S. presence in
Europe was essential to maintain European security.89 Many Swedes
see the United States as playing a major security role in Europe.90 The
Baltic countries recognize that, on their own, they can do little to deter
Russia from taking military actions that threaten their security. They
therefore have pressed for the stationing of U.S. troops on their terri-
tory. Estonian and Latvian officials interviewed see the presence of a
U.S. battalion in each Baltic State (with a total of a brigade in all three
88 Interviews and discussions with NATO officials, June 15, 16, 17, and 23, 2015.
89 Interviews with German think tank analysts and academic, June 18 and 19, 2015.
90 B-52 Bombers to Exercise over Sweden, Radio Sweden, May 20, 2015.
Perceptions 27
countries) as necessary to deter a Russian attack and recognize that the

United States is the most reliable source of political and military sup-
port. They see other NATO forces deployed in the Baltics as an addi-
tional asset designed to strengthen their security. At the same time,
they believe that only the presence of U.S. forces on their soil can effec-
tively deter Russia. As a result, they have given priority to strengthening
their relationship with the United States over interactions with the rest
of the NATO countries.91 Polish officials interviewed stressed that the
credibility of Article5 ultimately depends on U.S. actions and policy,92
and they see Russia as trying to weaken Western security structures
(European Union and NATO) and separate the United States from its
European allies.93
The United States is generally viewed positively in Europe. A
median of 68 percent of respondents in key NATO member states sur-
veyed in June 201594 believed the United States would use military
force to defend a NATO ally, were that NATO ally to find itself in a
serious military conflict with Russia. Poland represents an important
exception, with only 49 percent of those surveyed believing the United
States would do so.95
Yet, the appreciation for the U.S. role in Europe does not come
without reservations. In Sweden, generally positive perceptions of the
United States are complicated by a strong pacifist tradition, and part of
the Swedish left continues to view the United States as an imperialist
power.96 On the whole, however, there is strong support for increased
defense cooperation with the United States, including the purchase of
U.S. arms. The more aggressive policy pursued by Russia in the Baltic
94 Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United
States.
96 Left-wing parties, for example, expressed negative opinions about American B-52s that
participated in a recent exercise in Sweden. See B-52 Bombers to Exercise Over Sweden,
2015.
region and High North has increased Swedish interest in strengthening

defense cooperation with NATO, as underscored by the Host Nation
Support Agreements signed by Sweden at the NATO summit in Wales
in September 2014. In Germany, while there has been a marked shift
in German attitudes toward Russia, with support for Russia declin-
ing visibly since the illegal annexation of Crimea and the downing of
Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 over Ukraine in July 2014,97 there is still
a small but vocal group of anti-American individuals.98 They question
whether the United States respects the fundamental rights critical to
Germanys self-image, particularly after the revelations that the U.S.
National Security Agency had been tapping the communications of
key German political leaders, including Chancellor Merkel. Germany
shows fewer opinions favorable to the United States than France, the
United Kingdom, or Spain, for instance (only 50 percent have favor-
able opinions, compared with 73 percent, 66 percent, and 65 percent,
respectively, in the three other countries).99 One interviewee, however,
emphasized that polling revealed that there was not necessarily a cor-
relation between anti-American and pro-Russian views.100
In France, both anti-American and pro-Russian currents still
exist in certain parts of French society, are present within the parlia-
ment, and have relays in the media.101 As indicated earlier, however, the
anti-American sentiment remains limited, with three-quarters of the
French holding a favorable opinion of the United States, according to a
2015 poll by the Pew Research Center.102 Russia generally has a positive
image in French public opinion: A January 2015 poll showed that 81
percent fully agreed or somewhat agreed with the statement that
97 On the evolution of public opinion toward Russia in Germany and France, see Larrabee
et al., 2017.
98 Interview with German academic, June 19, 2015.
99 Richard Wike, Bruce Stokes, and Jacob Poushter, Global Public Back U.S. on Fighting
ISIS, But Are Critical of Post-9/11 Torture, comment on Pew Research Center Spring 2015
Global Attitudes Survey, June 23, 2015, Question 12a.
100 Interviews with German official and an academic, June 19, 2015.
102 Wike, Stokes, and Poushter, 2015, Question 12a.
Perceptions 29
Russia is a great country with whom France should maintain good

relations.103 A French official, however, noted that this image bears
little connection with what is happening in Russia and is more of a
reaction to the feeling that the United States is imposing a policy.104
Some have expressed a concern that the United States may be tempted
to escalate tension with Russia, possibly under the pressure of eastern
NATO members.105 French Director of Military Intelligence General
Christophe Gomart stated in April 2015 testimony before the Defense
Committee of the French National Assembly that NATOs intelligence
mistakenly announced that Russia would massively invade Ukraine,
while his agency did not believe this would be the case, and blamed
the predominance of U.S. intelligence in NATOs intelligence as the
reason why this assessment was so alarmist.106
103 Damien Philippot and Esteban Pratviel, Les Franais, la Perception du Conflit Ukrai-
no-Russe et la Livraison de Navires de Guerre la Russie, poll of the Institut Franais
dOpinion Publique for La Tribune, January 2015, p.6.
105 Interview with French officials, May 12, 2015.
106 Assemble Nationale hearing of General Christophe Gomart, Commission de la
Dfense Nationale et des Forces Armes, Briefing No. 49, March 25, 2015. See also Jean-
Dominique Merchet, Ukraine: les Franais ont une vision plus mitige que lOtan, Blog
Secret Dfense, LOpinion, August 29, 2014.
CHAPTER THREE
Responses
In response to the Ukrainian crisis, European countries have adopted

a broad range of measures that include economic sanctions, support to
the Ukrainian government, enhanced military preparedness, reassur-
ance measures for eastern NATO members, adaptation of the Alliance
to the new security environment, increased cooperation with European
non-NATO members, and measures to counter Russias information
campaign in Europe. These measures seek to not only sanction Russia
for its behavior in Ukraine, but also deter it from undertaking any fur-
ther aggressive moves. For many countries, however, this response has
also included keeping channels of communication open with Moscow
on a number of issues, from the implementation of the Minsk II agree-
ment to counterterrorism.
European States Agree on a Firm Response to Russia
That Russias behavior requires a strong response is widely accepted by

most European countries. Even in Germanya country sometimes
accused of having excessive sympathies for Russia1there is strong
support within the ruling coalition and elite opinion for Chancellor
1 See, for instance, Rick Noack, Why Do Nearly 40 Percent of Germans Endorse Rus-
sias Annexation of Crimea? Washington Post, November 28, 2014; Ralf Neukirch, Is Ger-
many a Country of Russia Apologists? Spiegel, March 31, 2014; Germany and Russia: How
Very Understanding, Economist, May 10, 2014; and Stephen Evans, Germans Not Keen to
Ruffle Russian Feathers, BBC News magazine, April 12, 2014.
31
Merkels basic position that Russia has violated commitments under-

taken after the end of the Cold War and that its actions in Ukraine
threaten European security. There is also an understanding that the
West needs to strengthen its defense posture to be able to deter further
aggressive moves on the part of Russia.2
Demonstrating the Cost of Russian Aggression: Economic Sanctions

The 28 EU member states have achieved and maintained a consensus
on sanctions since the beginning of the crisis.3 Norway, although not
part of the EU, supports the EU line and implements similar sanc-
tions.4 Sanctions have included, as early as March 2014, assets freeze
and travel bans for specific individuals linked to Russias actions in
Ukraine and, since July 2014, targeted economic sanctions against
Russia.5 On March 19, 2015, President of the European Council
Donald Tusk announced that the duration of economic sanctions
will be clearly linked to the complete implementation of the Minsk
agreements.6 One EU official knowledgeable about EU sanctions
pointed out how unusual that statement was, as the EU generally keeps
criteria for termination much vaguer.7 The EU package of targeted eco-
nomic sanctions was designed to have the maximum impact on the
Russian economy while also having the lowest impact on the Euro-
pean Union and spreadingwhen possiblethe pain across member
2 Angela Merkel, Speech by Federal Chancellor on the Occasion of the 51st Munich Secu-
rity Conference, Munich, February 7, 2015; Merkel Toughens Up, Economist, November
19, 2014; interviews with German think tank analysts and an academic, June 18 and 19,
2015.
3 Interview with EU official, June 3, 2015.
5 For a detailed time line of the European Unions restrictive measures against Russia, see
TimelineEU Restrictive Measures in Response to the Crisis in Ukraine, Brussels, Euro-
pean Council, undated.
6 Remarks by President Donald Tusk After the First Session of the European Council
Meeting, Brussels, European Council, March 19, 2015.
Responses 33
states.8 The EU Commission mitigates this impact to some extent by

providing subsidies to those member states most affected.9 In spite
of increasing divisions within the European Union on whether sanc-
tions are justifiedwith Italy and Hungary increasingly reluctant to
follow other EU members on this policythey were prolonged again
in December 2016 and March 2017 as some important elements of the
peace process were seen as not yet fulfilled.10
Several French and Polish interviewees noted that European soli-
darity on sanctionsand on their successive renewalswas a big sur-
prise for Putin.11 Yet, maintaining a consensus is challenging because
of the different relations each EU member has with Russia.12 Polish
discussants found it remarkable that Western sanctions on Russia
have lasted this long, particularly in view of the fissures that already
exist within the European Union, citing pro-Russian inclinations on
the part of Slovakia, Hungary, and Greece.13 Italy, too, has expressed
strong reservations toward the continuation of economic sanctions
against Russia.14 According to one French researcher, Moscow is bet-
ting on the fact that the EU project is going to explode, as Putin does
not believe it will be able to hold in the long term.15 This analysis was
shared by an EU official who noted that Russia uses the differences

9 Interview with EU official, June 16, 2015. This is done through the Common Agricul-
tural Policyno special fund was created for this purpose. The European Union does not
compensate member states with indirect costs, howeverfor instance, the United King-
doms losses in terms of financial services (interview with EU official, June 16, 2015).
10 James Kanter, E.U. to Extend Sanctions Against Russia, but Divisions Show, New York
Times, December 18, 2015; Robin Emmott and Gabriela Baczynska, Italy, Hungary Say No
Automatic Renewal of Russia Sanctions, Reuters, March 14, 2016.
11 Interview with French officials, June 18, 2015; interview with French think tank analyst,
June 19, 2015; interview with Polish official, July 14, 2015.
12 Interview with French officials, June 18, 2015; interview with French government
affiliated think tank analyst, June 19, 2015.
14 Kanter, 2015.
of views that exist between various EU countries to attempt to divide

them.16 Although these attempts have so far been unsuccessful, as evi-
denced by the renewed consensus of the 28 on sanctions, they represent
additional tensions for the European Union at a time when it is already
struggling with other centrifugal forces from the migrants crisis to the
Brexit vote.
Supporting Ukraine and the Minsk Process

Another EU priorityand another area of consensusis to sup-
port the full implementation of the Minsk II agreement and to help
Ukraine reform. As one EU official noted, Helping Ukraine get inter-
nally strong is the best thing we can do.17 To this end, the Euro-
pean Union provides political, economic, and financial aid.18 This also
comes with a widespread understanding that helping Ukraine is going
to be challenging, because of this countrys abysmal record with regard
to development, governance, and transparency. As one EU official put
it: historically, Ukraine never delivered when it promised reforms, but
it is now expected to do so while it is fighting a war.19 Support to
Ukraine is seen as a long-term endeavor that is also the only way that
Ukraine can avoid going through a second or third Maidan revolu-
tion in the future.20
In addition to EU financial support, Ukraines signature of the
Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area (DCFTA), part of the Asso-
ciation Agreement with the European Union, will represent additional
revenue for Ukraine and help finance reform in the country.21 Another

18 Interview with EU official, June 16, 2015. EU financial support to Ukraine was
1.6 billion euros in 2014. In January 2015, the European Commission issued a proposal
for increasing this amount to 1.8 billion euros in 2015 in the form of a Macro-Financial
AssistanceMFAprogram (interview with EU official, June 10, 2015; Ukraine/Macro-
Financial Assistance, Brussels, European Commission, updated July 22, 2015.)
Responses 35
key measure adopted by the European Council was to establish in July

2014 an EU Advisory Mission for Civilian Security Sector Reform
Ukraine that works at the strategic level in Kyiv to provide strategic
advice for the development of effective, sustainable and accountable
security services that contribute to strengthening the rule of law in
Ukraine.22 Finally, the European Union supports the Special Moni-
toring Mission of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in
Europe (OSCE) to Ukraine. The European Union provides the mis-
sion with funds, equipment such as armored vehicles, planning capac-
ity, and satellite imagery from the EU Satellite Center in Torrejn
(Spain).23
NATO has also provided assistance to strengthen the Ukrainian
government, including through trust funds for logistics and command,
control, communications, computers, and intelligence.24 NATO inter-
national staff highlighted frustration with bureaucratic resistance to
reform within the Ukrainian government. Some officials were also
skeptical that the new government would be significantly more eager
to pursue major structuring of the Ukrainian security establishment
than previous governments.25
Individual European countries also provide support. Examples
include Germany placing a strong emphasis on bolstering the impact
of the OSCE during its chairmanship of the organization.26 It has also
worked at strengthening the Ukrainian government though bi- and
multilateral assistance. German officials believe that helping Ukraine
to have a stronger and more effective state will both further European
22 Former EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Catherine
Ashton, as quoted in EEAS, EUAM Ukraine, EEAS web page, undated(a).
23 Interview with EU official, June 15, 2015; interview with EU official, June 17, 2015.
24 See NATOs Practical Support to Ukraine, fact sheet, North Atlantic Treaty Organiza-
tion, June 2015.
25 Interviews with NATO officials and discussions with Ukrainian officials, AprilJune
2015.
26 Interviews with German think tank analysts, discussions at conference, June 18 and 22,
2015.
integration and counter Putins agenda.27 Norway has increased its sup-
port in Ukraine, particularly on energy and governance issues.28 Esto-
nia and Latvia appear aligned with the rest of the European Union on
their Ukraine policy, including limiting support sent to Ukraine to
nonlethal materiel. Estonian officials noted that they are planning to
send their special forces to train their counterparts in Ukraine.29 These
countries are well aware of the impact that a political and economic
collapse of Ukraine might have on the region. Poland, in particular,
fears an implosion of the Ukrainian state that would send waves of
instability (in the form of refugees, weapons, or criminal networks) to
its territory.30
Although there is an extensive list of support measures, it is not yet
clear that European and NATO efforts have had a sustainable impact
on reform in Ukraine. While our interviews certainly highlighted the
ongoing political challenges of reform in Ukraine, Ukrainian officials
emphasized their frustration with the slow pace and complex NATO
bureaucracy in Brussels. In some cases, Ukrainian officials and NATO
officials accused one another of being the source of delay for assis-
tance programs.31 Some Ukrainian officials were also frustrated that
the Europeans did not more strongly condemn Russian aggression and
offer direct support of Ukrainian operations in eastern Ukraine.32 The
ongoing migration crisis and war in Syria reduce the likelihood that a
strong European assistance to Ukraine will persist.
Improving Military Preparedness and Responding to Future Threats

Countries that feel most threatened by Russia militarily have worked
on improving their preparedness, although, given the small size of
2015.
31 Interviews with NATO officials and discussions with Ukrainian officials, AprilJune
2015.
32 Interviews with Ukrainian officials, AprilAugust 2015.
Responses 37
these countries, the size of their forces remains limited. This is espe-
cially applicable to the Baltic States; while all of them understand
they cannot stop a conventional Russian invasion on their own, their
efforts aim at imposing maximum costs on any such invading forces
and delaying their advance. The thick forests in some parts of these
countries favor the defense by channeling avenues of approach, and
the Baltic States have paid great attention to preparing the terrain for
defense. Estonias Hedgehog exercise in May 2015 involved 13,000
Estonian personnela substantial number, given the countrys popu-
lation size of 1.3 million.33 Latvia, despite its larger population, has
an active ground force of only 3,900, compared with Estonias 5,500,
and a volunteer National Guard comparable to the Kaitseliit (the Esto-
nian Defense League organization akin to the U.S. National Guard)
of approximately 8,000.34 Western observers were generally more criti-
cal of the leadership, preparedness, and coordination of the Latvian
security forces.35 One Latvian professor noted that his countrys level
of attention to preparedness against Russia has risen greatly in recent
years.36
In April 2015, the Finnish Coast Guard dropped depth charges
on a possible Russian submarine in Finnish waters to show that such
an incursion was crossing a red line.37 The government also sent a letter
33 Interview with foreign official based in Tallinn, July 16, 2015; Ben Farmer and David
Blair, Estonia Stages Biggest Military Exercise in Countrys History Amid Fears of Russian
Aggression, Telegraph, May 12, 2015. Estonians explain their strong response to Russia by
their history in World War II. They note that the country did not strongly oppose the Soviet
takeover and spent 45 years under occupation. The lesson from this mistake is to fiercely
oppose any Russian attack (interview with Estonian academic, July 17, 2015).
34 Latvia, Janes Worlds Armies, July 2015; NATO, NATO Publishes Defence Expen-
ditures Data for 2014 and Estimates for 2015: Financial and Economic Data Relating to
NATO Defence, press release PR/CP(2015) 093-COR1, June 22, 2015.
35 Interview with foreign contractor working in Latvia and NATO country officials, July 15
and 16, 2015.
36 Interview with Latvian academic, July 15, 2015.
37 Interview with Finnish official, May 28, 2015. See also Sam LaGrone, Finns Drop
Depth Charges Against Possible Underwater Object near Helsinki, U.S. Naval Institute
News, April 28, 2015.
to the countrys 900,000 reservists during the summer of 2015 to clar-

ify their status with regard to the reserves and let them know what
would happen if they had to mobilize; this was an expected step in
the implementation of the reform of the reserves carried out in 2011
but also, in the context of the tensions with Russia, a signal that the
system is working and that the Finnish government is ready to activate
it if needed. Finland continues to carry out its usual large exercises
for conscripts, including one in June 2015 that took place near the
border with Russia in which 10,000 Finns participated.38 Sweden is
also boosting its defense capacity, including through the acquisition of
short-, medium-, and long-range air defenses.39
NATO Adaptation and Reassurance Measures
At the September 2014 Wales summit, NATO considered two possible
options for responding to the Russian threat and providing deterrence
and assurance. One was establishing a forward presence in the Bal-
tics. The other was having the ability to rapidly deploy forces. Some
NATO countries, including Germany, highlighted two major risks of
the first option: A forward presence might not only provoke Russia
but would also be contrary to the 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act,
which limited the permanent stationing of substantial combat forces
on the territory of NATOs eastern members.40 Interviewees in Poland
and the Baltic States were of the opposite view that forward presence
would deter rather than provoke Russiaparticularly as Putin was
deemed to respect only strengthand that Russias illegal annexation
of Crimea and the attempt to destabilize eastern Ukraine had violated
the NATO-Russia Founding Act and rendered it obsolete.41
38 This exercise came just after the NATO multinational exercise that mobilized 14,000
people in Estonia (interview with Finnish official, July 14, 2015).
39 Interview with Swedish officials, July and October 2015.
40 NATO, Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security Between NATO
and the Russian Federation, May 1997.
41 Interviews with NATO officials, June 15 and 16, 2015; interviews with Estonian, Lat-
vian, and Polish officials, July 13, 15, and 17, 2015.
Responses 39
At the Wales Summit, the Alliance chose the second option and
decided to enhance its capacity to rapidly deploy forces in a crisis
through the Readiness Action Plan (RAP). One official noted that
Poland and the Baltic countries acceptance of the RAP reflected a
pragmatic assessment that, even though NATO would not deploy for-
ward troops, it would likely continue to receive significant bilateral
assistance, including a rotational presence, from the United States.
Several NATO officials emphasized that the RAP should be seen as
a first point, or the floor, in NATOs adaptation, rather than an early
reaction that NATO would reverse. Other measures that could receive
increased support from allies might include larger exercises, a nuclear
deterrence component, or a move toward a greater rotational or for-
ward presence on the eastern flank.42 The RAP is not specifically tar-
geted at Russia and explicitly seeks to respond to the threat by ISIL and
Islamic extremism in the south.
Following the Wales Summit, NATO took several steps toward
implementing the RAP. The first and most concrete is the establish-
ment of the Very High Readiness Joint Task Force (VJTF), a brigade-
size force capable of deploying in seven days, with leadership rotat-
ing among seven framework nations.43 Second, NATO and Supreme
Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) are working to speed
42 One official at SHAPE explained that the elements of the RAP had already been dis-
cussed prior to the beginning of the Ukraine crisis, and this plan was put into place quickly
once the crisis occurred as a stopgap measure. He explained that NATO was discussing ways
to strengthen its policy towards Russia. Interviews with NATO officials, June 1517, 2015.
43 A NATO Parliamentary Assembly report explains:
The VJTF forces, up to 5,000 strong (brigade-level), will be supplied in rotation from
Allies. One Ally, in an annual rotation, will act as the framework nation for the force,
though two to three nations might be needed to support the maintenance of the bri-
gades scale-up and scale-down readiness. . . . The VJTF is a multinational brigade with
up to five manoeuvre battalions with standing headquarters. As a whole, the brigade
will be deployable within seven days at most in its full capability, which includes air and
maritime support, and chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear defence capabili-
ties. At a minimum, at least one battalion of the brigade should be deployable within 48
hours (NATO Defence and Security Committee, The Readiness Action Plan: Assur-
ance and Deterrence for the Post-2014 Security Environment, NATO Parliamentary
Assembly, April 16, 2015).
decisionmaking within the North Atlantic Council, including through

tabletop exercises. Third, NATO is improving its processes for sharing
intelligence assessments to make it easier for the Alliance to make a
decision more rapidly in the case of an ambiguous threat in the Bal-
tics. To date, intelligence sharing in NATO has been relatively limited
and tends to be more based on case-by-case exchange of information
rather than full collaboration. Fourth, NATO is working to improve
logistics and infrastructure for movement across Europe. Fifth, NATO
has discussed giving more authority to Supreme Allied Commander
Europe (SACEUR) and other commanders. While SACEUR has the
authority to stage and alert the NATO Response Force (NRF), discus-
sions about enabling SACEUR to deploy forces have stalled, as national
political authorities are reluctant to entrust this authority to NATO
commanders.44
Finally, NATO developed a comprehensive hybrid strategy
containing three elements: prepare, which includes developing indi-
cators and warnings to provide knowledge and attribution of Rus-
sias actions; deter, which includes identifying economic and military
actions to make aggression costly to Russia; and defend, which involves
strategic communication, cybersecurity, and other measures to protect
NATO members from Russian aggression.45 One NATO defense plan-
ner explained that, while the country under attack had to be the first
responder, NATO or its member states would be prepared to quickly
offer support. He also noted that, while consensus was the corner-
stone of NATO decisionmaking, individual allies could certainly
provide assistance without consensus.46 Another NATO official high-
lighted the significant capability of Russian special operations forces,
observing that they were putting in practice the same playbook as
U.S. special operations forces had used in the past for developing or
supporting insurgencies.47 Hence, while NATO governments have

Responses 41
agreed on a relatively measured policy with respect to Russia, plan-

ners at NATO headquarters and SHAPE perceive Russia as posing a
significant and complex threat and are working to develop options to
address it.
Following the Wales Summit, there were significant question
whether NATOs adaptation was sufficient.48 A range of interlocutors
seemed skeptical that the VJTF would provide significant numbers
of deployable, high-readiness forces that would be sufficient to deter
Russian aggression. Some NATO country analysts also questioned
NATOs rhetoric, noting that many of NATOs terms seemed for inter-
nal political purposes and were not well understood outside of the Alli-
ance. For example, the need to emphasize the Very High readiness
of the VJTF name seemed to point out the limited confidence in the
force. Further, the practical meaning of terms such as the Alliances
adaptation and improved domestic resilience were often unclear
outside of NATOs bureaucracy.49
Some Polish officials interviewed noted that NATO has too little
capability for high-intensity conflict and needs to improve on tanks,
artillery, other heavy equipment, and infrastructure, including airports
for reception of reinforcements.50 They mentioned a need for a fully
functioning brigade headquarters in Poland, with a battalion forward
deployed in Poland, and with equipment sets sufficient to equip the rest
of the brigade. This way, in case of a crisis, personnel could be flown in
and would use the prepositioned equipment, limiting the time to readi-
ness to a matter of days.51 Polish officials interviewed also argued that
Poland needs missile defense, especially Patriot 3, as well as helicopters
for increased mobility of its forces.52

49 Discussions with U.S. and UK think tank analysts, February 2016.
51 Interview with Polish officials, July 13, 2015; interview with Polish officials, July 14,
2015.
Polish officials interviewed acknowledged limitations in NATOs

ability to respond to hybrid warfare and actions that are under the
threshold of clear aggression.53 This makes conventional deterrence all
the more critical, and some called for a NATO doctrine on preemp-
tive deployment of a spearhead force that could be activated in an area
of growing danger. They argued for a permanent presence of a NATO
force, arguing that a rotational presence, while useful, was inefficient as
a deterrent because rotations can end at any time.54 In addition to the
permanent stationing of NATO forces in the Baltic States and Poland,
they also advocated for a high-readiness NRF and additional follow-on
forces behind the NRF. Finally, beside the capabilities needed, Polish
officials see a need to ensure that the decisionmaking apparatus of
NATO can deal adequately with such contingencies.55 Another mea-
sure against hybrid warfare that was advocated was a step-up in intel-
ligence cooperation.56
For Polish officials interviewed, the United States remains the
key security provider in NATOits presence counts far more than
shows of solidarity from other allies57 and the decreased involvement
of U.S. forces on the continent over the past decade is of concern to
them. They noted that the actual U.S. presence in Europe has shrunk to
very low levels, and there have been no exercises with U.S. heavy forces
in Europe for ten years, while the changes in security environment
require instead a stronger U.S. military presence.58 Decisively keeping
U.S. presence in Europe was deemed essential by officials interviewed,
despite the opposition of some European members of NATO (particu-
2015.
2015.
Responses 43
larly Germany).59 The United States commands a uniquely high level of

confidence; if the United States were to station forces in Poland, Polish
officials feel other allies would follow. Polish officials believe that U.S.
troop presence would act as a trip wire to deter potential Russian
actions, arguing that their concerns parallel those of West Germany
during the Cold War.60 Some Polish officials interviewed contend that
a brigade in Poland (and Romania) and a battalion in each of the Baltic
States would be sufficient as a deterrent. They acknowledge the inher-
ent risk in such deployments but argued that it was still better than the
alternativeleaving the Baltic States in a state of vulnerability.61
Likewise, our interlocutors in Estonia and Latvia advocated for
a larger, more permanent U.S. military presence as the key response
to Russian aggression. Estonian officials explained that, according to
their war games and estimates of Russian special operations forces, a
U.S. or NATO battalion in addition to the Estonian battalion would
slow the Russian invasion sufficiently to permit Estonian forces to
mobilize.62 Latvian officials seek either a U.S. brigade across the three
Baltic countries, under U.S. European Command, or a U.S. battal-
ion integrated into their force structuremeaning effectively under
Latvian command. Latvian officials emphasized the need for units
that could act independently and be of military value in the event of a
Russian invasion. They also stressed the need for U.S. forces, arguing
that only the presence of U.S. forces could deter Russia, although they
did emphasize that they would welcome other NATO forces, orga-
nized into a framework battalion, in addition to U.S. forces.63 Latvian
officials interviewed downplayed Russias potential reaction to U.S.
deployments as limited and expensiveat most, Russia can militarize
Kaliningrad by deploying Iskander or tactical nuclear weapons there,

61 Interview with Polish officials, July 14, 2015. Our interlocutors also mentioned specific
Polish military needs, to include information systems, antimissile defenses, air defense, and
helicopters to improve mobility of Polands land forces.
62 Interviews with Estonian officials, July 17, 2015.
63 Interview with Latvian officials, July 17, 2015.
but, according to Latvian officials, this would not significantly increase

the vulnerability of the Baltic countries.64
In addition, both countries have numerous requests for further
assistance. In Estonia, officials are interested in further developing the
airfield at Amari and placing increased Estonian or U.S. air assets there;
an increased naval presence, which they argue has been neglected to
date; and air defense. Estonian officials emphasized that the United
States should deploy sufficient capabilities to prevent Russia from being
able to restrict access to the Baltics.65 In Latvia, officials seek greater
firepower for the ground forces, including Stinger missiles and artil-
lery; better air surveillance, especially short-range and low-level radars;
and armored vehicles for better ground mobility.66
While not permanently deployed, European NATO members
have sent forces to the region that have engaged in reassurance mea-
sures such as participation in exercises, training missions, and con-
tributions to air policing over the Baltic States. For instance, Ger-
many and Denmark have had a lengthy presence in Poland through
its participation in NATOs Northeastern Corps in Szczecin.67 France
also deployed a small armored unit (15 Leclerc tanks) for six weeks
in Poland.68 While France has been a strong supporter of implement-
ing reassurance measures for the Baltic States, it has moderated these
measures to some extent. Since January 2015, however, the number
of exercises and sorties for French forces has been decreasing, due to
severe budgetary constraints.69 French forces are overstretched with
Operations Barkhane (Sahel), Chammal (Iraq and Syria), and Senti-
nelle (defense of the homeland following the January and November
64 Interview with Estonian and Latvian officials, July 15 and 17, 2015.
65 Interview with Estonian officials, July 17, 2015.
66 Interview with Latvian officials, July 15, 2015.
with French officials, May 12, 2015. See, also, Dploiement dun Dtachement de Chars
Leclerc Drawsko, French Embassy in Warsaw, updated May 8, 2015.
Responses 45
2015 terrorist attacks in Paris).70 These numerous commitments reduce

Frances margin of maneuver militarily and financially. As one French
analyst put it, France did not commit as much attention to the crisis
with Russia as it should have because there is not much it can do.71
Another researcher noted that Russia is well aware of Frances strate-
gic saturation and its difficulty in establishing priorities.72 France has
also consistently advocated a diplomatic rather than military response
to the crisis.73
The July 2016 Warsaw Summit addressed some of the con-
cerns of the member states, especially through the announcement of
an enhanced forward presence74 of four multinational battalions to
Poland and each of the three Baltic countries. The battalions are to be
led by four framework nationsCanada, Germany, the United King-
dom, and the United States. While the battalions will rotate, so as
not to become a permanent presence, they will effectively constitute
a continuous presence. In addition, NATO announced measures to
strengthen the Alliance in a range of areas, including a new hybrid
strategy; improved intelligence sharing; cyber defense; and shared intel-
ligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities. The Communi-
qu at Warsaw also reiterated the need for NATO to provide a strong
nuclear deterrent.75 It remains to be seen how far these improvements
will address the demands of the member states. While the discussions
at Warsaw did indicate the willingness of the Alliance to strengthen its
response against Russia, it did not fulfill all expectations in this regard.
70 Interview with French officials, June 18, 2015; interview with French government-
affiliated think tank analyst, June 18, 2015.
73 Interview with French think tank analyst, June 19, 2015; Merchet, 2014.
74 NATO, Warsaw Summit Communiqu, July 9, 2016, para.40.
75 NATO, 2016.
Increased Cooperation of Non-NATO Countries

European countries that are not members of NATO have taken mea-
sures that underscore their commitment to the security of the Alli-
ances eastern flank. Although it has no legally binding commitment
to defend the Baltic States should Russia pose a threat to their inde-
pendence and security, Sweden made a solidarity declaration in 2009
that states its intention to defend other EU members (although this
has not been reciprocated). Swedish officials and analysts emphasize
that Sweden would likely view Russian military actions in the Bal-
tics as provocative.76 Swedish military officials recognize that access
to Swedish bases and other facilities would be strategically important,
especially for the U.S Air Force, in the event of a Russian attack on the
Baltic States. They understand that the U.S. Air Force would want to
be sufficiently close to the Baltic countries to provide airborne refueling
and early warning, which makes basing in current U.S. bases in Ger-
many suboptimal, while stationing military aircraft in Poland or the
Baltic States would make them vulnerable to Russian attack.77
Sweden is constrained from making any firm military commit-
ment to defend the Baltic States by its longstanding policy of neutrality
or non-alignment, as it is officially termed since Swedens accession to
the European Union,78 yet it has taken a variety of measures to build
increasingly close security ties to countries in the region.79 Sweden and
Finland conduct regular exercises and joint military planning, and even
make use of each others air bases. Through NORDEFCO, Sweden

78 The non-alignment policy remains popular with the electorate, especially the Social
Democrats. Observers of Swedish politics noted widespread Swedish concerns about Russian
aggression and highlighted feelings of solidarity with the Baltic States among the center-right
parties. They did warn that there could be strong opposition from the left and far right if
Sweden took sides in a Russian attack, since such an action would undermine Swedish neu-
trality (interviews with Swedish journalists, July 20 and 21, 2015). A telling example of the
extent and limits of Swedish policy is that, while Sweden does not participate in exercises
explicitly for Article 5 defense of NATO member states, it participates in similar activities
under a different name (interviews with Swedish officials, July 21, 2015).
79 Matt Ford, After Crimea, Sweden Flirts with Joining NATO, Atlantic, March 12, 2014.
Responses 47
has also intensified defense cooperation with Norway, Denmark, and

Iceland. Sweden participated in large NATO exercises, such as Arctic
Challenge,80 and Swedish officials repeatedly affirmed their interest in
engaging in joint exercises in the Baltics with U.S. and other NATO
forces in the future. While there were specific training goals for these
exercises, Sweden seems especially interested in building closer ties that
could enhance its ability to provide assistance to the Baltic States in
the event of a crisis. 81 Government officials stated that they sought to
build partnership and cooperation just short of membership.82 Sweden
is one of five NATO countries pursuing an Enhanced Opportuni-
ties Partners Program with NATO.83 Closer defense cooperation with
NATO, especially the ability to host NATO forces, was discussed at
the Wales Summit, and Finland already has adopted some of the nec-
essary changes in its laws that would enable such enhanced defense
cooperation to take place. For its part, Sweden is reexamining the tech-
nical legal framework surrounding hosting NATO forces.84 Finland is
also examining its legislation to see what changes need to be made to
enhance cooperation with Sweden.85
Countering Russian Propaganda and the Cyber Threat

NATO officials interviewed recognized Russias ability to use strate-
gic communication tools to internally destabilize some of its neigh-
bors, as well as NATOs lack of tools to address this issue. In general,
they believed that NATO headquarters and other Alliance institutions
would be ineffective or unable to respond because of their limited capa-
80 JonathanWade, Norway-Led Arctic Challenge Exercise 2015 Starts, Sentinel Analyti-

cal Group, May 25, 2015.
83 NATO, Wales Summit Declaration, September 5, 2014, para.88.
85 Interview with Finnish official, July 14, 2015. Finlands law currently authorizes joint
training and exercises, as well as participation in international crisis management operations
(under UN, EU, and NATO auspices), but it is unclear what Finland could do if its neighbor
required direct military assistance following a Russian aggression.
bilities in the area of strategic communication.86 This is believed to give

Russia a significant advantage, despite recent progress in establishing
the NATO Centre of Excellence for Strategic Communication in Riga,
for example, to share best practices among member governments.87
While improved strategic communications is clearly a priority, it does
not seem to have gotten off the ground.88
Similar difficulties exist at the national level. One French official
noted that France has little means to respond to Russian strategic com-
munication efforts.89 One researcher pointed to a lack of expertise on
Russia in France: We forgot to follow what was going on in Russia. 90
The German Ministry of Foreign Affairs started taking steps to address
the expertise gap by funding a new research institute specializing in
Russia and Eurasia.91 Germany also supports Russian-language broad-
casting in the Baltics.92 At the EU level, there is awareness that instru-
mentalization by Russia of Russophone minorities in some member
states might be problematic. One EU official mentioned that the topic
of the rights of Russian-speaking minority populations is very difficult
and sensitive, given that Estonia and Latvia are EU member states.
Similarly, there is awareness that Russia is financing some political par-
ties in Europe,93 but these are matters of internal politics and regula-
tions that are outside the EU scope of action.
86 Interviewsand discussions with NATO officials, June 15, 16, 17, and 23, 2015. Officials
mentioned a similar inability to counter ISILs communication strategy.
87 Interviews and discussions with NATO officials, June 15, 16, 17, and 23, 2015.
88 Interview with foreign contractors working in Latvia, July 15, 2015.
89 Interview with French officials, June 18, 2015.
90 Interview with French think tank analyst, June 19, 2015. One individual interviewed
offered a different view, noting that France was rearming intellectually on Russia, develop-
ing and refining analyses about Russia (interview with French government-affiliated think
tank analyst, June 19, 2015).
92 Anton Troianovski, Germany Seeks to Counter Russian Propaganda in the Baltics,
Wall Street Journal, April17, 2015.
Responses 49
In 2015, the European Union launched a new strategic-

communication effort. A decision to create a task force on commu-
nication was made at the Foreign Affairs Council in January 2015,
under the aegis of the Netherlands and Nordic countries. The Euro-
pean Council subsequently set up a Strategic Communication Team
in April 2015.94 The purpose of this team is to counter Russian pro-
paganda, primarily in Eastern Partnership countries (Armenia, Azer-
baijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine), by better communi-
cating the European Unions own narrative. The idea is to explain the
vision behind EU policies in nontechnical and engaging termson
issues such as the benefits of anticorruption policies and how to access
EU fundsrather than engage in counternarratives. It also purports
to build a network of media representatives and civil society represen-
tatives in Eastern Partnership countries and Russia without support-
ing them directly, to avoid putting them at risk. The idea is to give
them more visibilitya bigger platformso that their narrative can
be heard alongside the Russian bombing of the media.95 Another
objective of this effort is to produce documents such as audience stud-
ies to be made available to member states.96
Maintaining Dialogue with Russia and Avoiding

Escalation
While there is agreement on a firm response to Moscows aggressive

moves, several European actors have made sure to balance this policy
with a continuation of dialogue on Ukraine-related issues as well as
other matters of mutual interest. This attitude may be best summarized
by the French stated policy of dialogue and firmness.97
97 See,
for instance, Laurent Fabius, La Politique trangre de la France: Quelle Autono-
mie pour Quelle Ambition? speech before the French Senate, October 15, 2015.
The European Union, for instance, keeps a number of communi-

cation channels open while making clear that its relation with Russia
is not business as usual. One important dialogue initiated is on the
implications for Russia of the implementation of the DCFTA, which
is the trade component of the Association Agreement with Ukraine.
The European Union postponed its provisional application until Jan-
uary 2016 (which includes access to the EU market) to accommo-
date Russian demands.98 One EU official noted that many member
states disapproved of these talks and felt that they gave Russia the
upper hand.99 The European Union has also maintained cross-border
collaboration with Russia, as well as its support to Russian civil soci-
ety.100 On multilateral issues, the European Union has kept a dialogue
open with Russia on Iran, Syria, the migration crisis, and ISIL, based
on the notion that talking to Russia is better than isolating it and may
allow for limited cooperation in areas of mutual interest.101
Germany, too, has been particularly supportive of maintaining
a dialogue with Russia, insisting that NATO should leave open the
possibility for reestablishing a positive relationship with Russia in the
future.102 German analysts interviewed pointed to a belief underly-
ing German foreign policy that the relationship with Russia is mal-
leable based on how Germany and the other allies choose to interact
with Russia.103 In France, there is an understanding that dialogue with
Russia is needed to solve the Ukraine issue, and that isolating Russia
would be even more dangerous, as it could fuel more radical forces in
Russia.104 France has suspended defense cooperation with Russia but
maintained scientific, economic, and cultural cooperationand, more
98 Interview
with EU official, June 15, 2015; interview with EU official, June 3, 2015; inter-
view with EU official, June 16, 2015.
103 Interviews and discussions with German think tank analysts, June 18 and 22, 2015.
Responses 51
generally, any other area not affected by sanctions.105 One particular

area of continued cooperation has been counterterrorism intelligence
sharing, including on issues such as Chechen networks in France and
the India-Pakistan area.106 Russia and France also share concerns about
foreign fighters returning from Iraq and Syria.107 Norway maintains
technical cooperation with Russia on a number of specific areas that
include the Arctic, governance of fisheries, search and rescue in the
Barents Sea, and nonproliferation but has cut all high-level and mili-
tary engagement with Russia.108
The Ukraine crisis limits the European Unions ability to engage
Russia on a number of topics, including the Eurasian Union.109 One
EU official interviewed noted that everything we say and do [in the
dialogue with Russia] stumbles on the Ukraine crisis and that [in] our
debates, we are hostage of the Ukraine crisis.110 The European Union
has closed (or excluded Russia from) a number of forums of discus-
sion and canceled annual EU-Russia summits; EU-Russia talks on visa
facilitation; and negotiations on a framework agreement encompassing
all EU-Russia trade, including energy.111 Member states, too, have sus-
pended important bilateral meetings or summits with Russiaunless
they are about solving the crisis in Ukraine.112 This general principle,
105 Interview with French government-affiliated think tank analyst, June 18, 2015; inter-
view with French officials, June 18, 2015. The various aspects of this collaboration have been
affected, however, on the Russian side by the economic crisis and the consequences of sanc-
tions on the economy.
106 Interview with French officials, June 18, 2015; interview with French think tank analyst,
June 19, 2015.
107
Interview with French think tank analyst, June 18, 2015; interview with French think
tank analyst, June 19, 2015.
however, has been ignored by a few member states such as Greece113

and Italy.114
The attempt by a number of European states to maintain dia-
logue with Russia also reflects a general concern that an overly military
response to Russia might be seen as provocative and could lead to an
escalation of the conflict.115 A French researcher warned against push-
ing Russia in a corner.116 Similarly, Polish discussants mentioned that
because so much of Russian policy is motivated by domestic factors,
Putin is much more dangerous when pressed to the wall.117 They assess
that, as Putins assertiveness in Ukraine has been building on Russian
pride and the belief of many Russians that the country needed to act,
many within Russia have defended the increased Russian stature even
in the face of economic hardship.118 To some extent, Western sanc-
tions may have even reinforced Putins position domestically by pro-
viding him with an easy scapegoat for an economic situation that is
mostly to blame on Russias structural weaknesses and overreliance on
oil revenue.119
113 Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras met with Putin in Moscow in April 2015.
114 Putin met in Rome with the Italian President and Prime Minister in June 2015.
2015.
119 Michael Birnbaum, A Year into a Conflict with Russia, Are Sanctions Working? Wash-
ington Post, March 27, 2015.
CHAPTER FOUR
Intentions
What Is Next for Europe-Russia Relations?
European officials interviewed generally agreed on three key elements

that shape their current relations with Russia, and which they believe
will continue to do so in the near future. First, there is an understand-
ing that relations with Russia have changed irremediably. There is a
before and after Ukraine, as the current crisis revealed a degree of Rus-
sian assertiveness that had not been suspected previously. Second, Euro-
pean officials and researchers interviewed did not expect tensions with
Russia to recede anytime soon. The severity of the crisis makes it likely
that the crisis will be protracted, especially as Ukraine is still struggling
to improve its governance and reform its economy. The alternative to
such improvementwith Ukraine possibly collapsing, and with spill-
over effects on neighboring countriesrepresents a serious concern,
for Poland in particular. Finally, European actions toward Russia will
largely depend on Russian behavior. The European Union sees the full
implementation of the Minsk II agreement as a critical benchmark that
will allow them to relax the sanctions and begin rebuilding a construc-
tive dialogue with Russia. If full implementation increasingly seems
out of reach, however, there will be increased pressure on these leaders
to reassess and potentially lift the sanctions.
Relations with Russia Have Changed Irremediably

Polish officials interviewed believe that a red line has been crossed by
Russia in Crimea, in that it showed that Russia will not hesitate to use
force to accomplish its objectives. This is seen by Poland as a drastic
53
change in its strategic environment; while it is true that the risk of an

invasion from Russia was always a theoretical possibility, and Polish
defense planning has been keenly attentive of Russia since the regain-
ing of full Polish sovereignty in 19891990, Poland now feels that its
security is more at risk.1 In the Polish view, Russias illegal annexation
of Crimea represents a permanent structural change in Russian policy
that will continue beyond Putins tenure in office due to the strong sup-
port his more assertive policies enjoy among the Russian population.
This will make it difficult, if not impossible, to return to a benign secu-
rity environment. Polish officials interviewed contended that, while
Putins actions are especially dangerous in the short to medium term,
Russia will be unable to achieve its strategic objectives in the long term,
as it has no chance of winning a confrontation with the West. The mere
attempt at winning such a confrontation, however, could cause a lot of
damage.2 Similarly, in Sweden, policymakers see a fundamental change
in the European security environment that is likely to persist.3 Swedish
officials interviewed consistently emphasized that Russia is unlikely to
change even if Putin were to be removed from power. Most seemed to
believe a return to a partnership relationship with Russia to be unlikely
in the near future.4 For example, one Swedish MP described Putin as
having a nostalgic vision for borders roughly akin to 1914 imperial
Russia; the vision accepts the loss of Finland and eastern Poland, but
it still includes the Baltic States as part of its sphere of control.5 One
French official noted that France and its partners agree that there is a
drastic and irreversible change in relations with Russia.6 By making
clear that the European Union and Russia have very different values
1 Interviews with Polish officials, July 13 and 14, 2015.

3 Interviews with Swedish MP and Swedish officials, July, 2015.
4 Interviews with Swedish officials, July 20 and 21, 2015.
5 The request in June 2015 by two Russian MPs (both from Putins United Russia party)
to the Russian Chief Prosecutors Office to examine the legality of the Baltic States indepen-
dence can also be viewed from that perspective. See Russia Examines 1991 Recognition of
Baltic Independence, BBC News, June 30, 2015; interview with Swedish MP, July 20, 2015.
Intentions 55
and geopolitical perspectives, the Ukrainian crisis has ensured that the
relationship between Europe and Russia is unlikely to return to what
was the previous normal anytime soon.7
At the NATO level, while the Wales Summit declaration main-
tains the goal of a future partnership with Russia, it notes that Russias
aggressive actions against Ukraine have fundamentally challenged our
vision of a Europe whole, free, and at peace.8 NATO officials inter-
viewed emphasized that the European security environment had com-
prehensively changed. One discussed Putins intent to break out of
and undermine the rule-based order in Europe and establish an alter-
native order. NATO officials traced Russias aggressive intent back to
Georgia in 2008 and explained that some planning within NATO to
address a potential Russian threat had begun in 2010. One metaphor
offered was that Georgia should have been a wake-up call, but we all
hit the snooze button.9
Tensions with Russia Are Expected to Last

Most European officials and analysts interviewed expect a protracted
crisis. German analysts interviewed emphasized that Germans under-
stand that Russia will not get nice tomorrow and have no specific end
state in mind regarding the reestablishment of a dialogue with Russia
other than trying to develop a new and as yet uncertain modus vivendi.10
One French official expected the crisis to continue at least for the next
three years because of Russias upcoming legislative and presidential
elections (in 2016 and 2018).11 One EU official noted that disagree-
ments and differences with Russia are unlikely to go away anytime
soon; as a result, the European Union is ready to play a long game.12
Interviews conducted in Poland suggest that Poles believe change
8 NATO, 2014, para.20 and 23.
10 Interview with think tank analyst, June 18, 2015.
under Putin is unlikely and that there is little prospect for significant
changes to take place for at least a dozen yearsmaybe more. Poles
fear that, if Ukraine does not receive greater Western support, the situ-
ation will further deteriorate. Expectations are that, since dividing the
West has not worked so far, Putin wants to freeze the conflict and keep
Ukraine on the verge of collapse so that it is not an attractive partner
for the West and remains part of Russias sphere of influence. Russian
policy has therefore focused on subversion of Ukraine, with the goal of
installing a government that would be more friendly toward Russia and
subordinate to Russian interests.13 Finally, many European officials
believe that the goal of Russian policy is to consolidate Russian control
over states located in the former Soviet spacea group with Ukraine
at its core.14 According to this view, what happened in Crimea is the
expression of a coherent and sustained Russian policy designed to keep
Ukraine and other post-Soviet states in Russias sphere of influence (at
least economically, if not politically). Russia also seeks to establish itself
as an equal partner to the major European powers, rather than inter-
acting with the Euro-Atlantic institutions, as shown, for instance, by
its insistence on the Normandy format for negotiations on Ukraine.15
Russias Behavior Will Condition Europes Behavior

The actions Europeans take with regard to Russia will largely depend
on Russias behavior. The Wales Summit declaration also mentions
such conditionality:
The nature of the Alliances relations with Russia and our aspira-
tion for partnership will be contingent on our seeing a clear, con-
structive change in Russias actions which demonstrates compli-
ance with international law and its international obligations and
responsibilities.16

16 NATO, 2014, para.20 and 23.
Intentions 57
Such conditionality is also a key element of the EU sanctions policy,

which can be adjusted up and down depending on Russian behavior.17
Economic sanctions are presently linked to the full implementation of
the Minsk II agreement, suggesting that Russias failure to abide by the
agreement could lead to broader sanctionsassuming all EU members
can still agree on this issueor economic sanctions will almost cer-
tainly be reconsidered if Russia complies.18
Conditioning ones actions on Russias might also be neces-
sary from a domestic politics perspective. A significant portion of the
German popular opinion supports exclusively a diplomatic solution to
the crisis. Thus, the extent to which it would be politically feasible for
Europeans to pursue further military responses to Russias actions in
Ukraine will heavily depend on how clear it is that Russia has violated
key agreements and international law.19
A number of red lines could trigger stronger reactions from
European countries. Polish officials noted that, if Russia were to launch
a major military operation in Ukraine, the West could no longer evade
adopting a clear course of action. Such an operation could potentially
open up the prospect of providing lethal aid to Ukraine.20 One French
official hypothesized that, if separatists took over Mariupol, Kharkiv,
or Odessa (obviously with Russian support, since they would not be
able to seize such territory on their own), this would probably trig-
ger additional sanctions by the European Union. This interviewee
believed, however, that Putin is unlikely to make such a move, since he
has already reached his objective, which was to destabilize Ukraine.21
A Finnish official similarly maintained that a Russian offensive in
2015.
21 Interview with French government-affiliated think tank analyst, June 18, 2015. Two
more French researchers interviewed did not expect Russia to attempt to extend its territorial
gains in Ukraine (interview with French government-affiliated think tank analyst, June 19,
2015; interview with French think tank analyst, June 19, 2015).
Ukraine would trigger stronger measures.22 In the event of a Russian-

supported attack against their territory, Estonian and Latvian officials
made it quite clear that their governments intend to respond and try
to defeat Russian, or Russian-backed, forces. They recognized their
responsibility as first responders to any Russian assault and emphasized
that they would immediately seek greater assistance from NATO.23
There is, however, no official red line for the European Union and
most European governments. One EU official noted that, if such a red
line were made public, it could encourage Russia to take advantage of
it and would also limit the EUs flexibility in calibrating a response.24
Sustaining Existing Measures and Planning for New Ones

Assistance to Ukraine
Assistance to Ukraine appears to be one of the most widely agreed
measures likely to be pursued in the future. Interviewees in Sweden
emphasized the need to help Ukraine through both financial aid and
technical assistance.25 In Brussels and Berlin, our interlocutors con-
firmed strong support for the EU Civilian Security Sector Assistance
Mission, contrary to the questions in Kyiv about the European Unions
hesitant attitude toward the mission.26 Ukraine may, however, soon
experience the effects of donor fatigue, especially as other countries
in Europe require help as well. One French analyst noted that France
lacks the means to support Ukraine financially, as its budget con-
straints limit the amount of assistance it can render at the same time
it is assisting Greece.27 While many NATO officials admitted that the
Minsk II agreement was unlikely to succeed, they noted that there had

23 Interview with Estonian and Latvian officials, July 15 and 17, 2015.
25 Interviews with Swedish officials, July 20 and 21, 2015.
26 Interview with foreign official working in Ukraine, May 2015.
Intentions 59
been no significant discussions of what to do if the agreement were to

break down.28
Sanctions
Several countries have expressed doubts on the usefulness of sanctions,
including Hungary, Italy, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia;
one EU official described the EU consensus on this issue as not going
without difficulty.29 EU officials interviewed in Brussels in June 2015
had no doubt that the sanctions would be prolonged without difficulty
later that monthand indeed they were.30 President of the EU Coun-
cil Donald Tusk has played an important role maintaining consensus
among the 28 members through consultations and negotiations sup-
plemented by behind-the-scenes negotiations by powerful EU players
such as Germany.31 So far, the method has worked, as the consensus
was maintained despite the 28 members widely different understand-
ings of what Russias actions mean for their own security and their suf-
fering, to various degrees, from the impact of the sanctions and coun-
tersanctions on their own economies.
Another reason sanctions are likely to be maintained is that they
are generally seen as having an impact on Russia.32 Even though this
impact is difficult to evaluateRussian economic difficulties are also
largely due to other factors, such as the decline in oil prices and the
structural weaknesses of the Russian economyit is worth noting that
entities listed on the sanctions list have not been able to obtain financial
assistance to ease the economic strains imposed by the sanctions, and
some Russian entities have brought legal challenges to the European
Union. Both developments suggest that Russia is feeling the pain from

32 Interview with EU official, June 10, 2015; Edward Hunter Christie, Sanctions After
Crimea: Have They Worked? NATO Review, undated; Ina Dreyer and Nicu Popescu, Do
Sanctions Against Russia Work? European Union Institute for Security Studies, Brief Issue
No.35, December 2014; Birnbaum, 2015.
the sanctions,33 although this does not mean that Russia will change its
behavior as a result. One EU official called sanctions the EUs deter-
rence tool and believes they have prevented Russia from taking more
aggressive steps.34
European governments do not seem to face excessive pressure
domestically to end sanctions, even though some countries have been
disproportionately hurt by the EU sanctions and Russias countersanc-
tions policies. A few EU members have experienced some economic
disruptions in sectors heavily dependent on the Russian market; for
instance, Latvian exports of smoked sprats (sardine-like fish popular in
the Baltic Sea region) have been hit hard by the Russian embargo, and
Latvia has sought to locate alternative markets.35 Nevertheless, despite
some concern regarding the economic impact on certain industries,
there is little sign that any of the Baltic States will soften its policy
toward Russia given the perception of a continued Russian threat.
One interlocutor explained that Latvian businesses recognize the risk
of doing business with Russia.36 In Germany, analysts and officials
interviewed generally contended that there was limited pressure from
the business community to end the sanctions. Several interviewees
referred to a letter from the Bundesverband der Deutschen Industrie,
the German trade association, in support of the sanctions.37 One Finn-
ish official mentioned an opinion poll on perceptions regarding the
sanctions carried out in the spring of 2015 among Finnish companies.
While these companies (milk and dairy producers, in particular) are
suffering from Russias countersanctions, most showed strong support
for the sanctions policy. According to this official, this is because of a

35 Interview with foreign officials based in Riga, July 16, 2015.
36 Interview with Latvian academic, July 15, 2015.
37 Interviews with German official and academic, June 19, 2015.
Intentions 61
widely shared understanding, based on the memory of the 19391940

Winter War, that vis--vis Russia you need to be tough.38
Yet, it remains unclear whether the consensus will hold if the situ-
ation in Ukraine stagnates. In January 2016, for instance, Italy delayed
the decision to renew sanctions, asking for further discussions on the
matter. Its opposition to Germanys support for the Nord Stream 2 gas
pipeline projectan opposition echoed, to some extent, by Tusk
exposed the tensions that exist within the European Union on sanc-
tions, as well as more broadly on policy toward Russia.39
Military Options
With regard to military options, one French analyst noted that France
could reinforce the current reassurance measures were Russia to become
more aggressive, but it would hardly be in a position to pursue further
military options.40 One official similarly noted how difficult it was for
France to conduct a credible (and sustainable) deterrent policy in a
period of constrained defense budgets. The permanent force deploy-
ments that Poland and the Baltic States are asking for, in particular, are
deemed unrealistic considering Frances budget.41
Air-policing missions over the Baltic States, which represent a
key element of NATOs reassurance measures toward its easternmost
members, were reduced in September 2015. The number of aircraft
deployed for policing the borders of the Baltic States declined from 16
to eight in response to a decrease in airspace violations from Russia.
While NATO stated that eight was the current requirement, it also
38 Interview with Finnish official, May 28, 2015. This official also noted that countersanc-
tions have affected the Finnish economy much less than other trends in the Russian econ-
omy, such as the decrease in oil prices, the diminished value of the ruble, and the general lack
of reforms in the Russian economy. All these trends had resulted in a contraction of Finnish
exports to Russia starting in 2013, i.e., before the Ukraine crisis.
39 Kanter, 2015.
noted that the number of aircraft might surge again if the security situ-
ation required it.42
Our interlocutors saw the provision of lethal aid as unlikely in
the near future, considering that this option is generally unpopular
in Europe.43 One analyst in France outlined that it could lead to an
escalation of the conflict and a massive influx of Ukrainian refugees.44
Another French researcher described such lethal aid as a gift to Putin,
as it would support his claims that the West is the aggressor.45 Yet,
French public opinion seems more supportive of the idea, with 40 per-
cent of respondents supporting NATO sending arms to Ukraine
compared with 46 percent in the United States, 25 percent in Spain,
22 percent in Italy, and 19 percent in Germany.46 German officials
remain committed to strengthening governance in Ukraine, though
any sort of direct military assistance is off the table.47 Opposition to
providing lethal arms to Ukraine is particularly strong in Germany.
Individuals surveyed expressed the strongest hostility to NATO send-
ing arms to the Ukrainian government, with 77 percent opposing such
a policy. Poland and the United Kingdom are the only European coun-
tries (out of six surveyed) where disapproval of providing lethal arms to
Ukraine is less than 50 percent. It is worth noting, however, that sup-
port for sending arms to Ukraine is low overallit reaches 50 percent
in Poland, and, in the United States, only 46 percent approve of the
measure (see Figure 4.1).
42 John Vandiver, NATO: Fewer Flights Needed to Patrol Baltic Airspace, Stars and
Stripes, August 5, 2015; NATO Halves Baltic Air Policing Mission, Agence France-Presse,
August 4, 2015. Prior to 2014, the Baltic Air Policing Mission typically involved only four
aircraft from a single nation (Nicholas de Larrinaga, NATOs Tripled Baltic Air Policing
Mission Begins, Janes Defence Weekly, April 30, 2014).
43 Discussions with Polish and Swedish officials, July 1314, 2021, 2015.
47 Interviews and discussions with think tank analysts, June 18 and 22, 2015. Several ana-
lysts noted that Germany had supplied antitank weapons to the Kurdish forces in Iraq but
not to Ukraine (interviews with German think tank analysts and academic, June 18 and 19,
2015).
Intentions 63
Figure 4.1
Percentage of Respondents Who Oppose NATO Sending Arms to the
Ukrainian Government
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Germany Spain Italy France United Poland
Kingdom
SOURCE: Data from Simmons, Stokes, and Poushter, 2015, p. 52.

RAND RR1579-4.1
General discomfort with military options can also be seen in the

debate about permanently deployed forces. At the Wales Summit, Ger-
many insisted that the Alliances policy not undermine the NATO-
Russia Founding Act. The alternative policy of enhanced rotation of
NATO forces and strengthening NATOs capacity for rapid response
were more closely in line with Germanys perception of how to achieve
reassurance and deterrence without provoking Russia.48
Any discussion of developing or deploying German military forces
to respond to Russian aggression appears politically difficult in Germany,
especially given the history of Nazi occupation of eastern Europe.49 It
remains easier for German officials to focus on nonmilitary threats
from Russia, such as strategic communication, Russias threat to liberal
values, and its manipulation of economic instruments. On the German
left, opinions are divided. Elements of the Green party have adopted

49 Interviews with German think tank analysts, official, and academic, June 18 and 19,
2015.
the most hawkish policy because of Russias record on human rights.

The Die Linke party, and a larger group of Russian-sympathizers
(Russlandversteher) within Germany, however, maintain an affinity for
Russia and believe that the country has been misunderstood.50 Many
on the German left remain suspicious of NATO as a military orga-
nization and believe that NATOs revisionist goals provoked Russian
aggression.51 German analysts also emphasize that there is a major elite-
versus-mass divide. While SPD officials may have become more criti-
cal of Russia since the beginning of the crisis, the popular opinion still
supports the possibility of partnership with Russia and blames NATO
for provoking the conflict.52 Finally, several German analysts note a
growing consensus that Germany should play a greater role in defend-
ing the international order, but there is no clear understanding of how
this will be put into practice.53 Despite internal disagreements about
a greater military role, at the Warsaw Summit, Germany did agree to
become a framework nation supporting the new forward deployed bat-
talion in Lithuania.54
Germanys attitude stands in sharp contrast to Polands, where our
interlocutors believed that weakness was deeply problematic in dealing
with Russia and invited aggressive Russian behavior. There was visible
dismay among them about any discussion of limiting NATOs response
to avoid provoking Russia. The Poles see recent Russian maneuvers
involving massive numbers of troops as an attempt by Russia to influ-
ence policies in the Baltic States. They claim that, if there is not a firm
response to such intimidation, it will be seen by Russia as a sign of
weakness, and as a sign of success of Russian policy.55 In that regard,
the lesson Polish officials and analysts draw from the Ukrainian crisis
50 Interview with German academic, June 19, 2015.

51 Interview with German think tank representatives, June 18, 2015.
52 Interviews with German think tank analysts and academic, June 18 and 19, 2015.
53 Interviews with German official and academic, June 19, 2015. (The discussion about how
Germany should adapt itself in the future is happening in the context of its white paper,
which will outline its overall defense strategy into the near future.)
54 NATO, 2016, para. 40.
55 Interview with a Polish official, July 13, 2015.
Intentions 65
is that weakness invites trouble and is dangerous. They believe that

Ukraine was weak and unable to defend itself, which made it a magnet
for Russian subversion.56 Consequently, NATO must show decisive-
ness and resolve and remain united as one organization that provides
security for all members.57 Polish officials interviewed expressed regret
that the era when NATO concentrated on out-of-area missions was
used by many NATO states to reduce defense budgets, capabilities,
and forces, resulting in the virtual disarmament of previously militarily
strong states, foremost Germany.58
Will European States Increase Their Defense Spending?

The perception that the Ukrainian crisis has irremediably altered Euro-
pean security perspectivesturning Russia into a strategic adversary
rather than a partnerhas provided new impetus to the debate in
individual European countries on whether their defense spending is
adequate to address current and future security threats. Such a debate
exists also at the EU level, on the capabilities that the union can or
should have in a domaindefensenot central to its identity.
The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI)s
study of trends in military spending reveals that, between 2013 and
2014, military expenses increased in eastern Europe (Russia and its
immediate neighbors) by 8.4 percent, while they decreased in west-
ern and central Europe by 1.9 percent.59 The largest increases were for
Ukraine (a 23-percent increase)60 and Poland (13-percent increase), fol-

59 These fit in larger trendsa 98-percent increase for eastern Europe and an 8.3-percent
decrease in western and central Europe since 2005. See SIPRI, Trends in World Military
Expenditure 2014, fact sheet, April 2015, p.4. SIPRI defines eastern Europe as comprising
Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine, and Russia (SIPRI, Regional
Coverage, database, undated.)
60 This figure is marked as uncertain estimate (SIPRI, 2015, p.4).
lowed by Russia and Lithuania (respectively, 8.1 percent and 6 per-

cent). SIPRI further noted that [i]ncreases in many Central European
countries, as well as some of the Nordic countries, are likely to con-
tinue in 2015, in part as a reaction to the crisis in Ukraine.61 This
is certainly the case in Sweden, where the developments in Ukraine
have led to a policy that combines increasing defense spending and
intensifying cooperation with neighbors and NATO, with the implicit
goal of ensuring a measure of collective defense.62 Swedish reactions to
Russian aggression in Ukraine have been compounded by a growing
realization of increasing Swedish military weakness. Many in Sweden
were surprised by claims by the SACEUR in 2013 that, at best, Sweden
could hold out against a Russian attack for only one week.63 Prior to
2014, there was a consensus regarding downsizing the military and
orienting Swedish forces around crisis response and contributions to
international missions, which was based on a belief that there were
no major military threats in the region. Economic challenges encour-
aged a decline in military expenditures.64 This has changed. The most
recent Swedish defense bill for the period from 2016 to 2020 calls for a
relatively modest 2.2 percent increase in spending year over yearor
$722 million over five years.65 The defense bill, the result of an agree-
ment by Swedens five main parties, also calls for a return to a policy of
total defense involving both civilian and military personnel; station-
61 SIPRI, 2015, p.4.

63 Ford, 2014.
64 A center-right coalition, including the Liberal and Moderate parties, supported con-
tinued decline in military expenditure before they left the government in the last election.
Analysts explain that they sought to gain votes from the left-leaning Swedes (interviews with
Swedish analysts and journalists, July 2021, 2015).
65 Swedish Defense Bill 20162020, Government Offices of Sweden, April 24, 2015;
Charlie Duxbury, Sweden Plans to Increase Military Spending, Wall Street Journal, March
12, 2015.
Intentions 67
ing two battalions of ground forces on Gotland; and improving the

navy and air force.66
In Germany, public opinion is increasingly amenable to greater
military spending, particularly after a series of scandals questioned the
efficiency and reliability of the German military. Poor maintenance,
unreliable equipment, and other technical problems appear to be
embarrassing even to pacifist Germans. One of our interlocutors noted
that, while many foreign-policy elites had assumed that there would
be little interest among Germans in increasing military spending, an
October 2014 survey showed more support than expected, with 55 per-
cent of respondents supporting such an increase for the Bundeswehr
(the unified armed forces of Germany) in the medium term.67
A French official believed Frances defense budget is unlikely to
increase further in the current economic context, especially as France
is the only European country already engaged militarily at a high level
around the worldsuggesting that France will nudge its European
partners to do more before it increases its own spending.68 In response
to the January 2015 terrorist attack in Paris, the French Parliament
updated the 20152019 Military Planning Law to reduce planned per-
sonnel cuts from 30,000 to 15,000 and increase operational forces in
the Army from 66,000 to 77,000.69 One researcher believed that the
paradigm has changed, as a number of new threats (ISIL, jihadist
groups in the Sahel, terrorist attacks on French soil, Ukraine) could
reverse the downward trend in defense spending and justify an increase
in defense expenditures.70 The November 2015 attack resulted in French
66 The
Social Democratic Party, Moderate Party, Green Party, Centre Party, and Christian
Democrats (Swedish Defense Bill 20162020, 2015).
67 Infratest dimap, ARD-DeutschlandTREND, survey report, October 2014; interviews
with German official and academic, June 19, 2015.
lawmakers increasing the funds for the Defense Ministry (among other
security-related measures) by another 200 million euros.71
Among Nordic countries, Finlands defense policy has been to
emphasize readinessthe country is unusual in Europe in that it has
retained conscription and a large reserve force that maintains high
combat potential.72 The Finnish Army is also working on possibly
adding a new quick-reaction force, with a short timeline for mobiliza-
tion.73 In Norway, the general attitude as of mid-2015 was toward an
increase in defense spending, partly based on the crisis with Russia.74 A
few months later, it was announced that the 2016 budget for Norwe-
gian armed forces would rise to $6 billion, or 1.54 percent of Norways
gross domestic producta 9.8-percent increase compared with 2015.75
The Baltic States intend to continue to develop their forces, seek a
greater U.S. presence, and increase their defense spending for the first
time since the global financial crisis.76 Estonia appears to be identifying
and addressing flaws in its preparedness. Latvian officials and analysts
are clearly concerned about the countrys low defense budget, and there
was an uptick in spending in 2015.77 In July 2015, Latvia and Lithuania
announced that they would increase their defense budget to 2 percent
and 1.5 percent of their gross domestic products, respectively.78
As for military responses at the EU level, the Union is exploring
potential avenues for action. One would be improving the European
Unions ability to provide military equipment to partner nations. Cur-
71 Aprs les Attentats, le Budget 2016 Prvoit 815 Millions dEuros pour les Mesures de
Scurit, Le Monde, November 30, 2015.
75 Gerard ODwyer, 9.8% Budget Hike Set for Norwegian Armed Forces, Defense News,
October 9, 2015c.
76 SIPRI, 2015, p.4.
77 Interviews with Latvian officials, former government official, and foreign contractor
working in Riga, July 15, 2015.
78 Jaroslaw Adamowski, Latvia, Lithuania to Raise Defense Spending, Defense News, July
30, 2015.
Intentions 69
rently, provision of military equipment is not considered a Common

Security and Defense Policy (CSDP) matter in spite of the European
Unions rising involvement in nation and institution building.79 To
address this gap, the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Secu-
rity Policy and the Commission issued a Joint Communication in April
2015 on [c]apacity-building in support of security and development
enabling partners to prevent and manage crises.80 Although the dis-
cussion on this issue is only starting, the European Union may, in the
near future, incorporate the provision of military equipment to the
CSDP, or it could develop a dedicated instrument to train and equip
partners.81 An alternative solution would be opening access to existing
funds for such purposes. For instance, the Instrument contributing to
Stability and Peace, administered by the Commission and defined as
the main instrument supporting security initiatives and peace-build-
ing activities in partner countries,82 cannot currently fund programs
whose recipients are military.83 The Ukrainian crisis may provide some
impetus to alter EU processes in ways that would make the Union
more capable of playing a militaryin addition to diplomatic and
economicrole in the resolution of the crisis.

80 This document notes, for instance, that
the EUs comprehensive approach needs to be strengthened to cover gaps in the cur-
rent EU response. For example, this may be the case where training has been provided
by Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) missions, but its sustainability and
effectiveness has been hampered by a lack of basic partner country equipment (Euro-
pean Commission and High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs
and Security Policy, Capacity Building in Support of Security and Development
Enabling Partners to Prevent and Manage Crises, Joint Communication to the Euro-
pean Parliament and the Council JOIN[2015] 17, Brussels, April 28, 2015).
81 Interview with EU official, June 17, 2015; Thierry Tardy, Enabling Partners to Manage
Crises: From Train and Equip to Capacity-Building, European Union Institute for Secu-
rity Studies Brief Issue No.18, June 2015.
82 Directorate General for International Cooperation and Development, The Instrument
contributing to Stability and Peace (IcSP), Brussels, European Commission, undated.
Even without clear military capabilities, the European Union has

gathered, through its CSDP missions, extensive experience in build-
ing civilian capabilities of foreign nations, and such capabilities could
be brought to support NATOs effort. French officials interviewed
believed that, in the crisis with Russia, the paramilitary police and
border guards Ukraine needs could particularly benefit from this expe-
rience.84 This, however, leaves open the question of the modalities
under which EU capabilities could be employed by NATO, especially
as cooperation between the two institutions has been uneven.85 One
EU official also pointed to the Unions ability to offer comprehensive
solutions that rely on different instruments. For instance, antipiracy
Operation Atalanta,86 in the Indian Ocean, included military training
(EU Training Mission), civilian training (European Union Regional
Maritime Capacity Building for the Horn of Africa and the Western
Indian Ocean), capacity-building programs for the judiciary sector and
coast guard (among others), and development assistance.87 Finally, the
crisis with Russia has given new impetus to the debate about a common
European defense policy and possibly, in the longer term, a European
Army. President of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker
called in March 2015 for a European Army to show Russia that the
European Union can defend its values and respond to threats against
84 A recent example of such EU training is the European Union Border Assistance Mis-
sion in Libya, which supports in particular the Libyan customs and Naval Coast Guard (see
EEAS, Common Security and Defence Policy: EU Integrated Border Assistance Mission
in Libya (EUBAM Libya), fact sheet, January 2015; and Andrew Rettman, EU Civilian
Mission Training Paramilitaries in Libya, EUObserver, November 18, 2013).
85 Conversation with French officials, May 12, 2015. See also Karl-Heinz Kamp, NATO-
EU Cooperation: Forget It! Strategic Europe blog, Carnegie Europe, October 30, 2013;
Kristin Archick, The European Union: Questions and Answers, Congressional Research
Service, January 19, 2016, pp.78.
86 Also known as EU Naval Force SomaliaOperation Atalanta. See
EU Naval Force Somalia, Countering Piracy off the Coast of Somalia,
fact sheet, undated.
Intentions 71
its members or neighbors.88 This idea received the support of German

Minister of Defense Ursula von der Leyen, who acknowledged, how-
ever, that such a project was unrealistic in the short to medium term.89
Implications for NATO

Reform
NATO officials interviewed gave the impression that the European
allies will further develop military responses to Russia. As one noted,
no one is arguing for less . . . [there are] reservations about whether it
is enough, or whether people are willing to pay for it.90 In the immedi-
ate term, NATO will continue to develop the NRF and other measures
specified in the RAP. Discussions about the details of how forces would
be allocated to the VJTF, for example, are still ongoing, though there is
progress in setting up an interim VJTF.91 One NATO official observed
that, in practical terms, the NATO-Russia Founding Act was no longer
constraining the NATO response, as the member states might individ-
ually choose to have a forward presence even if the Alliance does not.92
There was also a consensus that the Alliances posture toward Russia
would be strengthened at the Warsaw Summit in 2016as it indeed
was, with the announcement of a further deployment of 4,000 troops
in the Baltic States and Poland.93 One fundamental issue for the Alli-
ances future response is how costs of any deployment will be shared.
To date, costs for military actions fall where they lie, meaning that
whatever nation provides the military capabilities also pays the associ-
88 Interview of Jean-Claude Juncker (Beat Balzli, Christoph B. Schiltz, and Andr Tauber,
Halten Sie sich an Frau Merkel. Ich Mache das! Die Welt, March 8, 2015).
89 Face la Russie, Jean-Claude Juncker Veut une Arme Europenne, LExpress and
Agence France-Presse, March 8, 2015.
90 Interviews with NATO official, June 15, 2015.
91 Interviews with NATO and foreign officials, June 15, 2015.
93 Jaroslaw Adamowski, NATO Agrees on E European Rotational Troops at Warsaw
Summit, Defense News, July 8, 2016.
ated costs. This makes additional contributions from more western and
southern member states politically difficult, since these countries feel
that there is less of a threat from Russia yet are being asked to contrib-
ute forces and associated resources.94
Our discussions also revealed certain areas where NATO efforts
could be improved. NATO headquarters is taking action to assess and
improve the Alliances decisionmaking, but the sharing and analysis of
indicators and warnings also needs to be improved. Given the Alliances
dependence on responsiveness, it is essential for the Alliance to be able
to quickly develop a shared picture of Russian activity. With further
attention to implementation, current intelligence-sharing capabilities
and procedures do appear to meet this requirement. Further, our inter-
locutors emphasized the need for more discussion about the Alliances
policy on nuclear deterrence, especially given Russias increasing rheto-
ric in this area.95 Finally, several interlocutors mentioned that issues
such as energy security and strategic communication might benefit
from greater cooperation between the European Union and NATO.96
Enlargement
Some of the NATO officials interviewed noted that members of the
Alliance were divided along geographic lines about the future acces-
sion of Georgia, Ukraine, and Moldova. While NATO has consis-
tently emphasized that the Alliance will retain its open door policy,
the more-western countries fear that the enlargement of NATO will be
regarded as a provocative step by Russia and exacerbate tensions with
Russia. Eastern members, by contrast, tend to believe that admitting
new members to the Alliance will deter Russia from taking aggressive
actions that challenge the independence and sovereignty of Alliance

96 However, continuing political difficulties related to Cyprus prevent effective coordina-
tion between the European Union and NATO (interviews with NATO officials, June 15,
2015; interviews with German think tank analysts, June 18, 2015). See also Judy Dempsey,
Time to End the EU-NATO Standoff, Strategic Europe blog, Carnegie Europe, December
8, 2014.
Intentions 73
members.97 Given these differing viewpoints among the Alliance mem-

bers, in the current strategic environment, there is no near-term real-
istic prospect for membership for Georgia, Ukraine, or Moldova. In
Sweden, another country that is not a member of the Alliance, support
for joining NATO has substantially increased over the past ten years.98
In October 2014, the number of supporters of NATO membership
outnumbered opponents for the first time (37 to 36 percent).99 In Sep-
tember 2015, the volte-face of the Center party, traditionally an oppo-
nent of Swedens membership in NATO, brought public support for
NATO membership to a new height41 percent.100 Most opposition
parties (Liberals, Moderates, and Christian Democrats, in addition to
the Center) have a pro-NATO policy.101 Newspapers associated with
these parties regularly note the fundamental contradiction in Swedens
policy of paying the costs of partnership with NATO without receiving
the formal benefits of collective defense. A number of Swedish analysts
interviewed see Sweden as a security hole in northern Europe and
fault Sweden for failing to uphold its responsibilities towards its eastern
neighbors, which joining NATO might help correct.102
However, the issue of NATO membership remains divisive
domestically. Left-wing parties (including the Social Democrats and
Greens) generally oppose joining NATO and would rather build up
Swedens capabilities through conscription and preserve the countrys
tradition of neutrality.103 Several of our interlocutors observed, however,

98 See, for instance, Erik Lindblad, The Future of Swedens Partnership with NATO,
paper, Sciences-Po (Paris School of International Affairs) and Institut de Recherche Strat-
gique de lEcole Militaire, Spring 2014, p.8.
99 Poll Shows More Swedes in Favor of NATO for First Time, Reuters, October 29, 2014.
100 Gerard ODwyer, New Poll Shows Sharp Shift in NATO Support, Defense News, Sep-
tember 17, 2015b.
101 ODwyer, 2015b.
102 Interviews with Swedish think tank analysts and journalists, July 20, 2015.
103 Conscriptionis seen as a desirable means of maintaining a close connection between the
society and military and preventing misuse of the military (interviews with Swedish think
tank analysts and journalists, July 20, 2015).
that Swedens neutrality was often misunderstood.104 While Swedish

governments pursued a policy of neutrality during the Cold War and
criticized U.S. actions in Vietnam and other theaters of conflict, in
practice, there was significant cooperation between Sweden and the
United States. On the far right, the Swedish Democrats recognize the
threat posed by Russia and strongly oppose NATO and the European
Union, preferring to develop a strong national defense by reappropriat-
ing funds currently spent on recent immigrants.105
In Finland, the government decided even before the Ukrainian
crisis broke out to spend more resources on training and exercising
with NATO.106 The trend toward support for NATO membership,
however, is less clear than in Sweden. This might be because of the con-
sensus between the president, the government, and the armed forces
that there is no need to join NATO at the moment. An opinion poll,
however, showed that if all three institutions said that Finland should
join NATO, then a majority of the population would vote in favor of
membership at a referendum.107 In addition, the government formed
after the April 2015 parliamentary elections made the decision to start
looking at the pros and cons of NATO membership.108 Like Sweden,
Finland is very much aligned militarily with the West, even without
being a member of the Alliance. The Soviet Union curtailed Finlands
sovereignty during the Cold War, and the country was a Soviet-leaning
neutral. Consequently, during the Cold War, Finland balanced its
military procurement between the East, the West, and its domestic
104 Elizabeth Pond, Secrets of the Baltic: Swedish Cold War Neutrality Revisited, World
Policy blog, September 26, 2012.
105 Interviews with Swedish think tank analysts and journalists, July 20, 2015.
107 Technically, a referendum is not a necessity, since the decision to join NATO could
simply be taken by the parliament. However, it would be politically difficult for any gov-
ernment to push such an important measure through parliament without putting it first
to a popular vote. The results of a referendum would not be binding, although it is hard to
imagine the parliament not abiding by these results. Finland has had two referendums in the
past: one in 1931 to abolish the prohibition of alcohol, and one in 1994 on EU membership
(interview with Finnish official, May 28, 2015).
Intentions 75
production. Since the collapse of the Union of Soviet Socialist Repub-

lics, Finland moved quickly toward alignment with the West, and now
its entire equipment follows NATO standards. Finland has deepened
its defense cooperation at the bilateral level (e.g., with Sweden and
the United States) and regionally, with NORDEFCO, the European
Union, and NATO.
Sweden and Finland are two of the five countries that benefit from
an enhanced NATO partnership (Enhanced Opportunities Partners
program) that was announced at the Wales Summit.109 Both countries
have also signed host-nation support agreements with NATO, which
will make it easier for them to host or serve as transit points for allied
forces, including for training and exercises.110 This agreement facili-
tates cooperation activities that in the past were largely ad hoc. Sweden
and Finland see the agreement as an opportunity to do more NATO
exercises and training and to be involved in the discussions leading to
decisions made by NATO members only.111
Besides the uncertainty of a referendum on NATO membership
and some level of domestic opposition, a major reason Finland and
Sweden will likely remain on the threshold of membership is the con-
nection of their memberships. A decision by Sweden to join the Alli-
ance alone would isolate Finland, which would lose the benefits of close
Swedish-Finnish cooperation and become more vulnerable to potential
Russian pressure. Both countries joining together would be problem-
atic as well, since Russia would see Finnish accession as an offensive
measureas Russian officials already made clear to Finland.112 Finland
has significant military capabilities, and the Finnish-Russian border is
109 The other three countries were Australia, Georgia, and Jordan.
110 See Finland and Sweden Sign Memorandum of Understanding with NATO, press
release, NATO SHAPE Public Affairs Office, September 5, 2014; and Gerard ODwyer,
Sweden and Finland Pursue Special Relationship with NATO, Defense News, October
10, 2014. Such a possibility existed and had been employed before, but the memorandum of
understanding formalized it. As a Finnish official put it, it gives a standardized way of doing
things, and each side knows what is expected. It makes life easier (interview with Finnish
official, July 14, 2015).
close (approximately 100 miles) to Russias second-largest metropolitan

area (St. Petersburg), which would reinforce the Russian perception of
encirclement if Finland joined NATO.113 Overall, given the risks of
Finlands accession, and the continuing questions about the popular-
ity of NATO and breaking Swedens tradition of neutrality, any move
toward NATO membership appears unlikely in the near future.
Implications for the European Unions Eastern

Neighborhood
EU officials interviewed appeared confident that what happened in

Ukraine114 would not discourage those countries close to Russia and
part of the European Neighborhood Policy (ENP)115 from building
a stronger relationship with the European Union.116 One noted that
Georgias, Armenias, and even Ukraines interest in the European
Union had remained unchanged after the crisis.117 Some countries even
showed disappointment after the Riga Summit of May 2015, when no
promises of membership were made.118 The official consensus in Brus-
sels remains that, as long as Eastern Partnership members undertake
reforms, membership is always a possibility in the long term.119
Yet, prospects for enlargement were limited to begin with. EU
member states suffer from enlargement fatigue, with populations
increasingly skeptical of the European Unions ability to integrate
newcomers successfully, particularly in a context where some existing
memberse.g., Greecerequire substantial assistance from others.
113 Interviews with Swedish MP, think tank analysts, and journalists, July 20 and 21, 2015.
114 It
was Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovychs decision in March 2014 not to sign the
Association Agreement with the European Union that prompted the popular demonstra-
tions known as Euromaidan and, eventually, the demise of the regime.
115 Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Armenia.
Intentions 77
To a lesser extent, another obstacle to further enlargement is the notion

that this might prompt more aggressive moves by Putin.120 President
of the EU Commission Jean-Claude Juncker ruled out any new acces-
sion during his mandate, which is set to end in 2019.121 In spite of
this, EU officials note that the prospect of membership is still the most
promising lever the European Union can use on its eastern partners.122
French officials agreed that the European Union has few options on
the table besides integration.123 One such option is a visa agreement
between aspiring members and the European Union. Such discussions
have made progress in the cases of Georgia and Moldova, while they
are being stalled with Russia.124
In November 2015, a review of the ENP put greater emphasis on
differentiationa concept that outlines the need to provide different
EU partners with different incentives and measures.125 The Ukraine
crisis may prompt changes at a more technical level, such as a revision
of what the European Neighborhood Instrumentthe ENP fund that
amounts to 15.4 billion euros for the period 20142020126 can be
used for, to include security and defense in addition to development

121 Juncker to Halt Enlargement as EU Commission Head, EUBusiness, July 15, 2014.
125 European Commission, Joint Communication to the European Parliament, the Council,
the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Review of the
European Neighbourhood Policy, JOIN(2015) 50 final, Brussels, November 18, 2015. On dif-
ferentiation, the EEAS further notes that
While the underlying principles and objectives of the ENP apply to all partners, the
EUs relationship with each one of its partners is unique, and the instruments of the
ENP are tailored to serve each of those relationships. The ENP provides the EU with a
toolbox of instruments that allows it to adapt and differentiate its policy, in line with the
different developments, ambitions and needs of its partners (EEAS, European Neigh-
borhood Policy [ENP], fact sheet, undated[b]).
126 European Commission, Towards a New European Neighbourhood Policy: The EU
Launches a Consultation on the Future of its Relations with Neighbouring Countries, press
release, March 4, 2015.
assistance. There is an increasing realization that the meaning of secu-

rity has changed, and threats have become more hybrid, a develop-
ment that may require the European Union to adapt its existing tools
accordingly.127

CHAPTER FIVE
Conclusion
Most European countries have imposed sanctions that, in combination

with other factors, have driven Russia into recession and constrained
future growth prospects. They have shifted resources to buttressing
Ukraine economically and supporting its reform efforts. Several coun-
tries have increased their defense spending; others have halted planned
declines. The United States is also showing the lead by more than qua-
drupling the funds devoted to the European Reassurance Initiative in
its fiscal year 2017 defense budget.
The various scenarios and contingencies that we heard in Sweden,
Estonia, Latvia, and Poland concerning Russian actions and poten-
tial NATO reactions need to be assessed by the U.S. Department of
Defense (DoD). This refers to
a serious look at Russian capabilities to politically subvert a Baltic

State, including by seizing a border enclave or fomenting internal
unrest. DoD could use political-military games to understand the
potential Alliance difficulties in reaching consensus, the options
open to NATO, and the time required. More detailed analysis of
the Baltic internal security forces would also be valuable.
a better understanding of the Russian ability to prevent rein-
forcement to the Baltic States; DoD could subject some of the
unusual scenarios, such as the seizure of Gotland, to modeling
and simulation. Similarly, for sustained air operations over the
Baltic States, how important does access to Swedish (and possibly
Finnish) airspace become?
79
a clear view of the role that Kaliningrad might play, with its strong
antiair defenses; how would NATO neutralize it? The whole topic
of neutralization of Kaliningrad brings up the issue of escalation
and potential Russian response to what Russia would see as strikes
on the Russian homeland.
support for improving intelligence sharing and decisionmaking
within NATO, especially with regard to indicators and warnings
of Russian activity.
looming above all of this, the nuclear issue. How can escalation
be controlled, and what would be the levers available?
Here again, NATOs adaptation will play a key role in mitigating

some of these threats. This adaptationas seen through the results of
the 2014 Wales and 2016 Warsaw Summitsis generally consensual,
unlike other measures such as the provision of lethal aid to Ukraine
or the prepositioning of troops in the Baltic States, which continue to
divide Europeans. Tensions with Russia are also an opportunity, in the
sense that reassurance measures help maintain interoperability gains
between NATO partners after withdrawal from Afghanistan. Support
for NATO membership is also increasing in Sweden and Finland.
Basically, the ball is now in Russias court. If Moscow deesca-
lates the Ukraine crisis or even does not further increase fighting levels,
most European governments will be sympathetic to some relaxation
of sanctions. If, on the other hand, Russia escalates its involvement in
Ukraine or threatens aggressive steps elsewhere, the debate in Europe
about a further response will be renewed. Russia may also be playing
for time, knowing that there is a clear geographical divide between
countries bordering Russia and others on how real and immediate the
Russian threat is, and the migration crisis is pushing concerns about
Russian threats even further into the background for numerous Euro-
pean countries. The threat of international and domestic terrorism, the
Syrian and Libyan civil wars, and the unprecedented flood of refugees
are all powerful distractions that tend to dominate the concerns of
all but Russias closest neighbors. Nevertheless, the Ukraine crisis has
caused a refocus within the Alliance on the defense of NATO territory
for the first time in more than 20 years. This refocus should continue
Conclusion 81
to yield gradual improvements in the Alliances defensive capabilities,

even as the prospects for concerted Western action in distant out-of-
area contingencies continue to diminish.
APPENDIX A
List of Interviews
Table A.1
Interviews
Number of Type of Organization

Location Interviews (number of interviewees)
Belgium (Brussels, Mons) 17 EEAS (9a); European Parliament official

(1); NATO International Staff officials
(14); NATO country officials (2)
Estonia (Tallinn, Narva) 5 Ministry of Defense (2); Ministry of

Foreign affairs (2); research organizations
(2); academia (1); foreign officials (2)
France (Paris) 7 Ministry of Defense (3); Ministry of

Foreign affairs (2); research organizations
(4)
b
Germany (Berlin) 4 Officials (1); research organizations (4);
academia (1)
Latvia (Riga) 8 Ministry of Defense (2); former

government official (1); research
organizations (1); foreign officials (4);
foreign contractors (4); academia (1)
Poland (Warsaw) 11 Ministry of Defense (15); National

Security Bureau (5); research
organizations (8); former government
official (1)
Sweden (Stockholm) 10 Ministry of Defense (1); Ministry of

Foreign Affairs (5); Swedish Parliament
(1); media (2); research organizations (2);
foreign officials (1)
United States (Washington, 6 Foreign officials (9)

D.C., and Arlington, Va.)
a
Includes one phone interview.
b
Additional discussions in Berlin at a conference on Hybrid Warfare with German
and foreign officials and analysts.
83
In a few instances, this study also draws from interviews con-

ducted in Ukraine for other RAND studies between April and August
2015.
APPENDIX B
Guidelines for Interviews
Interviews were open-ended, with these questions acting as a general

guide.
Strategic environment
1) Can you describe your countrys/EUs/NATOs relationship
with Russia preMarch 2014?
2) Can you describe your countrys/EUs/NATOs relationship
with Russia today?
3) What makes Russia important to your countrys/EUs/NATOs
foreign policy interests?
Threat perceptions
4) What are the most important security issues facing your
country/EU/NATO today and why?
5) What do you see as the top threats from Russia? How do
you see the Russian threat evolving?
6) What do you think are the right tools and institutions to
prepare for and remedy these threats?
7) What aspects of this crisis make it a military issue for your
country/EU/NATO (if at all)?
8) What aspects of this crisis make it a domestic policy issue
for your country (if at all)?
a. Is there a popular movement in your country that
supports Russias position on the Ukraine issue?
b. Does Russia have the ability to influence your coun-
trys civil society (public opinion, media, academia,
etc.)?
c. Are there cleavages within your country that Rus-
85
sia or others might seek to exploit? How deep are

these cleavages? What could be national or regional
responses to address these cleavages?
9) What aspects of this crisis make it an economic and financial
issue for your country (if at all)?
10) What aspects of this crisis make it an energy issue for your
country (if at all)?
11) Are your concerns with regard to the Russian crisis similar
to those of your allies and partners? If not, what are some
differences?
12) Do EU/NATO countries share similar concerns with regard to
the crisis with Russia? If not, what are some differences?
Responding to the threat
13) What actions has your country/EU/NATO taken to mitigate
the issues you just described?
14) What have been the political and economic implications of
these actions for your country/EU/NATO?
15) How long do you expect you will need to pursue these ac-
tions for?
16) How do you see European states cooperating, or not, in the
face of common challenges and threats? What about chal-
lenges and threats that are more specific to your country?
17) How do you see the current threat environment affecting
defense spending and priorities in your country? Among
partner countries?
18) How may the current crisis impact the future of European
security? Of NATOs security?
19) What would be the right tools at the EU/NATO level to pre-
pare for and remedy these threats?
20) What move(s) from Russia would warrant further actions
from your country/EU/NATO (i.e., what red lines would
Russia have to cross)? If Russia made these moves . . .
a. What types of action would your country take uni-
laterally?
b. What types of action would your country advocate
for within the EU?
c. What types of action would your country advocate
within NATO?
Guidelines for Interviews 87
Reshaping engagement policy

Engagement with Russia
21) How has the Ukrainian crisis changed your countrys/EUs/
NATOs engagement policy with Russia?
22) How do you see this relationship evolving in the next six
month to one year?
23) What would need to happen for your countrys/EUs/NATOs
relation with Russia to normalize?
Neighborhood policy
24) How has the Ukrainian crisis impacted your countrys rela-
tionship with other EU countries [when country is a member
of the EU]?
a. Do you expect these relationships to experience
more changes, and if so, under what circumstances
might this happen?
25) How has the Ukrainian crisis impacted your countrys
relationship with other NATO countries [when country is a
member of NATO]?
might this happen?
26) How has the Ukrainian crisis impacted your countrys
relationship with non-NATO European countries (Sweden,
Finland, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova)?
might this happen?
27) How has the Ukrainian crisis impacted your countrys rela-
tionship with non-NATO, non-European countries on Rus-
sias periphery (Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan,
Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan)?
might this happen?
28) How has the Ukrainian crisis impacted the EUs/NATOs relation-
ship with non-EU countries on Russias periphery?
a. Do you expect these relationships to experience more
changes, and if so, under what circumstances might this
happen?
29) Do you envision greater or lesser political, military, econom-
ic, or other integration in Europe going forward? How do
you think this might play out?
Relationship with the United States
30) How do you see the U.S. role in Europe, politically and mili-
tarily?
31) Do you expect this role to change over time, and if so, how?
References
Adamowski, Jaroslaw, Latvia, Lithuania to Raise Defense Spending, Defense

News, July 30, 2015. As of October 23, 2015:
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/international/europe/2015/07/29/
latvia-lithuania-raise-defense-spending/30843863/
, NATO Agrees on E European Rotational Troops at Warsaw Summit,
Defense News, July 8, 2016. As of August 19, 2016:
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/omr/roadtowarsaw/2016/07/08/
nato-agrees-eastern-european-rotational-battalions-warsaw-summit/86863516/
Aprs les Attentats, le Budget 2016 Prvoit 815 Millions dEuros pour les Mesures
de Scurit, Le Monde, November 30, 2015.
Archick, Kristin, The European Union: Questions and Answers, Congressional
Research Service, January 19, 2016.
Aschehoug, Andrew-Sebastien, Les Poupes Russes de la Propagande de Poutine
en France, Slate.fr, February 11, 2015.
Assemble Nationale, hearing of General Christophe Gomart, Commission de la
Dfense Nationale et des Forces Armes, Briefing No. 49, March 25, 2015. As of
October 23, 2015:
http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/14/cr-cdef/14-15/c1415049.asp#P3_69
Audio: Hybride KriegfhrungVielmehr als ein Hype, German Ministry of
Defense website, August 4, 2015. As of October 23, 2015:
http://www.bmvg.de/portal/a/bmvg/!ut/p/c4/NYu5CsMwEAX_
SCvhQI4uwk1aN47d6UJZ0GHkld3k4yMVeQPTDA9WaCR1oFeEOakAb-
1gMPvTJdDw8Ox3uu67mw2INhNFZVDD3k3XM5OSom1wibPZFUS5sy4V-
CL7WUVhhaWLgYJRf8P_G9r4OcbpfrML7kBFuMzx9mEHBT/
B-52 Bombers to Exercise over Sweden, Radio Sweden, May 20, 2015. As of
October 23, 2015:
http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2054&artikel=6170058
89
Balzli, Beat, Christoph B. Schiltz, and Andr Tauber, Halten Sie sich an Frau
Merkel. Ich Mache das! Die Welt, March 8, 2015. As of October 23, 2015:
http://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article138178098/Halten-Sie-sich-an-Frau-
Merkel-Ich-mache-das.html
Belarus Says Does Not Need a Russian Military Base: Report, Reuters, October
6, 2015.
Birnbaum, Michael, A Year into a Conflict with Russia, Are Sanctions Working?
Washington Post, March 27, 2015.
Central Intelligence Agency, World Factbook, website, undated. As of October 23,
2015:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/wfbExt/region_eur.
html
Christie, Edward Hunter, Sanctions After Crimea: Have They Worked? NATO
Review, undated. As of October 23, 2015:
http://www.nato.int/docu/Review/2015/Russia/
sanctions-after-crimea-have-they-worked/EN/index.htm
CIASee Central Intelligence Agency.
Clifton, Jon, Russia Receives Lowest Approval in World; U.S. Highest, Gallup
website, April 21, 2015. As of October 23, 2015:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/182795/russia-receives-lowest-approval-world-highest.
aspx
Conley, Heather A., Theodore P. Gerber, Lucy Moore, and Mihaela David,
Russian Soft Power in the 21st Century: An Examination of Russian Compatriot
Policy in Estonia, Center for Strategic and International Studies, August 2011.
de Larrinaga, Nicholas, NATOs Tripled Baltic Air Policing Mission Begins,
Janes Defence Weekly, April 30, 2014.
Dempsey, Judy, Time to End the EU-NATO Standoff, Strategic Europe blog,
Carnegie Europe, December 8, 2014. As of October 23, 2015:
http://carnegieeurope.eu/strategiceurope/?fa=57423
Dploiement dun Dtachement de Chars Leclerc Drawsko, press release,
French Embassy in Warsaw, updated May 8, 2015. As of October 23, 2015:
http://www.ambafrance-pl.org/
Deploiement-d-un-detachement-de-chars-Leclerc-a-Drawsko
Directorate General for International Cooperation and Development, The
Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace (IcSP), Brussels, European
Commission, undated. As of October 25, 2015:
https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/sectors/human-rights-and-governance/
peace-and-security/instrument-contributing-stability-and-peace_en
Dreyer, Ina, and Nicu Popescu, Do Sanctions Against Russia Work? European
Union Institute for Security Studies, Brief Issue No.35, December 2014.
References 91
Duxbury, Charlie, Sweden Plans to Increase Military Spending, Wall Street

Journal, March 12, 2015. As of October 23, 2015:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/
sweden-plans-to-increase-military-spending-1426198507
EEASSee European External Action Service.
Emmott, Robin, and Gabriela Baczynska, Italy, Hungary Say No Automatic
Renewal of Russia Sanctions, Reuters, March 14, 2016.
EU Naval Force Somalia, Countering Piracy off the Coast of Somalia, fact sheet,
undated. As of October 23, 2015:
http://eunavfor.eu/home/about-us
European Commission, Towards a New European Neighbourhood Policy: The
EU Launches a Consultation on the Future of its Relations with Neighbouring
Countries, press release, March 4, 2015. As of October 23, 2015:
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-15-4548_en.htm
, Joint Communication to the European Parliament, the Council, the
European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Review
of the European Neighbourhood Policy, JOIN(2015) 50 final, Brussels, November
18, 2015. As of September 13, 2016:
https://eeas.europa.eu/enp/
documents/2015/151118_joint-communication_review-of-the-enp_en.pdf
European Commission and High Representative of the European Union for
Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Capacity Building in Support of Security
and DevelopmentEnabling Partners to Prevent and Manage Crises, Joint
Communication to the European Parliament and the Council JOIN(2015) 17,
Brussels, April 28, 2015. As of October 25, 2015:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52015JC0017
&from=EN
European External Action Service, EUAM Ukraine, EEAS web page,
undated(a). As of October 25, 2015:
http://www.eeas.europa.eu/csdp/missions-and-operations/euam-ukraine/
index_en.htm
, European Neighborhood Policy (ENP), fact sheet, undated(b). As of
October 25, 2015:
http://eeas.europa.eu/enp/about-us/index_en.htm
, Common Security and Defence Policy: EU Integrated Border Assistance
Mission in Libya (EUBAM Libya), fact sheet, January 2015.
Evans, Stephen, Germans Not Keen to Ruffle Russian Feathers, BBC News
magazine, April 12, 2014.
Fabius, Laurent, La Politique trangre de la France: Quelle Autonomie pour

Quelle Ambition? speech before the French Senate, October 15, 2015. As of
October 25, 2015:
http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/fr/le-ministere-et-son-reseau/maedi-
une-diplomatie-globale-au-21eme-siecle/la-politique-etrangere-
de-la-france-quelle-autonomie-pour-quelle-ambition/article/
la-politique-etrangere-de-la-france-quelle-autonomie-pour-quelle-ambition
Face la Russie, Jean-Claude Juncker Veut une arme Europenne, LExpress and
Agence France-Presse, March 8, 2015. As of October 25, 2015:
http://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/monde/europe/face-a-la-russie-jean-claude-
juncker-veut-une-armee-europeenne_1659168.html
Farmer, Ben, and David Blair, Estonia Stages Biggest Military Exercise in
Countrys History amid Fears of Russian Aggression, Telegraph, May 12, 2015.
As of October 25, 2015:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/estonia/11600458/Estonia-
stages-biggest-military-exercise-in-countrys-history-amid-fears-of-Russian-
aggression.html
Finland and Sweden Sign Memorandum of Understanding with NATO, press
release, NATO Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe Public Affairs Office,
September 5, 2014. As of October 23, 2015:
http://www.aco.nato.int/finland-and-sweden-signing-a-memorandum-of-
understanding-with-nato-for-operational-and-logistic-support.aspx
Finnmark Celebrates 70-Year Liberation Anniversary, Norway Post, October 22,
2014. As of September 18, 2016:
http://www.norwaypost.no/news-politics/30251-
Ford, Matt, After Crimea, Sweden Flirts with Joining NATO, Atlantic, March
12, 2014. As of October 25, 2015:
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/03/
after-crimea-sweden-flirts-with-joining-nato/284362/
Galeotti, Mark, The Gerasmiov Doctrine and Russian Non-Linear War, blog
post, In Moscows Shadows, July 6, 2014. As of September 18, 2016:
https://inmoscowsshadows.wordpress.com/2014/07/06/
the-gerasimov-doctrine-and-russian-non-linear-war/
Germany and Russia: How Very Understanding, Economist, May 10, 2014.
Gibbs, Walter, Russia and Norway Reach Accord on Barents Sea, New York
Times, April 27, 2010.
Giegerich, Bastian, Workshop Report: Perspectives on Hybrid Warfare, IISS
Voices, International Institute for Strategic Studies, July 1, 2015. As of October 23,
2015:
https://www.iiss.org/en/iiss%20voices/blogsections/iiss-voices-2015-dda3/
july-2632/perspectives-on-hybrid-warfare-cd5e
References 93
Higgins, Andrew, Norway Reverts to Cold War Mode as Russian Air Patrols
Spike, New York Times, April 1, 2015. As of October 23, 2015:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/02/world/europe/a-newly-assertive-russia-jolts-
norways-air-defenses-into-action.html?_r=0
, Latvian Region Has Distinct Identity, and Allure for Russia, New York
Times, May 20, 2015.
Hoffman, Frank, On Not-So-New Warfare: Political Warfare vs. Hybrid
Threats, War on the Rocks, July 28, 2014.
Infratest dimap, ARD-DeutschlandTREND, survey report, October 2014.
Johnson, Simon, Sweden Intercepts Russian Military Planes Flying with Their
Transponders Off over Baltic Region, Reuters, March 24, 2015. As of October 23,
2015:
http://www.businessinsider.
com/r-sweden-intercepts-russian-planes-over-baltic-amid-regional-tensions-2015-3
Jones, Bruce, Russia Place 38,000 Troops on Alert for Snap Exercises, Janes
Defence Weekly, March 16, 2015.
Juncker to Halt Enlargement as EU Commission Head, EUBusiness, July 15,
2014. As of October 23, 2015:
http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/politics-juncker.x29
Kamp, Karl-Heinz, NATO-EU Cooperation: Forget It! Strategic Europe blog,
Carnegie Europe, October 30, 2013.
Kanter, James, E.U. to Extend Sanctions Against Russia, but Divisions Show,
New York Times, December 18, 2015.
Karmanau, Yaras, Putin Moves to Establish Russian Military Base in Belarus,
Associated Press, September 19, 2015.
Kofman, Michael, Katya Migacheva, Brian Nichiporuk, Andrew Radin, Olesya
Tkacheva, and Jenny Oberholtzer, Lessons from Russias Operations in Crimea
and Eastern Ukraine, Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation, RR-1498-A,
2017.
LaGrone, Sam, Finns Drop Depth Charges Against Possible Underwater Object
near Helsinki, U.S. Naval Institute News, April 28, 2015. As of October 25, 2015:
http://news.usni.org/2015/04/28/
finns-drop-depth-charges-against-possible-underwater-object-near-helsinki
Larrabee, F. Stephen, Stephanie Pezard, Andrew Radin, Nathan A. Chandler,
Keith W. Crane, and Thomas S. Szayna, Russia and the West After the Ukrainian
Crisis: European Vulnerabilities to Russian Pressures, Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND
Corporation, RR-1305-A, 2017.
Latvia, Janes Worlds Armies, July 2015.
Levintova, Ekaterina, Good Neighbours? Dominant Narratives About the Other

in Contemporary Polish and Russian Newspapers, Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 62,
No. 8, 2010, pp. 13391361.
Lindblad, Erik, The Future of Swedens Partnership with NATO, paper,
Sciences-Po (Paris School of International Affairs) and Institut de Recherche
Stratgique de lEcole Militaire, Spring 2014. As of October 25, 2015:
http://www.sciencespo.fr/psia/sites/sciencespo.fr.psia/files/LINDBLAD_
Erik_2014_IRSEM_PSIA_Prize.pdf
Major, Claudia, and Christian Mlling, A Hybrid Security Policy for Europe:
Resilience, Deterrence, and Defense as Leitmotifs, Stiftung Wissenschaft und
Politik Comments, Vol. 22, German Institute for International and Security
Affairs, April 2015. As of October 25, 2015:
http://www.swp-berlin.org/fileadmin/contents/products/comments/2015C22_
mjr_mlg.pdf
Merchet, Jean-Dominique, Ukraine: Les Franais Ont une Vision Plus Mitige
que lOtan, Blog Secret Dfense, LOpinion, August 29, 2014.
, Une Dlgation de Parlementaires Franais se Rend en Crime,
LOpinion, July 22, 2015, updated July 27, 2015. As of October 25, 2015:
http://www.lopinion.fr/22-juillet-2015/
delegation-parlementaires-francais-se-rend-en-crimee-26442
Merkel, Angela, Speech by Federal Chancellor on the Occasion of the 51st
Munich Security Conference, Munich, February 7, 2015. As of October 25, 2015:
http://www.bundesregierung.de/Content/EN/
Reden/2015/2015-02-07-merkel-sicherheitskonferenz_en.html
Merkel Toughens Up, Economist, November 19, 2014.
NATOSee North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
NATO Defence and Security Committee, The Readiness Action Plan: Assurance
and Deterrence for the Post-2014 Security Environment, NATO Parliamentary
Assembly, April 16, 2015.
NATO Halves Baltic Air Policing Mission, Agence France-Presse, August 4,
2015. As of October 23, 2015:
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/international/europe/2015/08/04/
nato-halves-baltic-air-policing-mission/31139949/
NATOs Practical Support to Ukraine, fact sheet, North Atlantic Treaty
Organization, June 2015. As of October 25, 2015:
http://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/
pdf_2015_06/20150624_1506-Factsheet_PracticalSupportUkraine_en.pdf
Neukirch, Ralf, Is Germany a Country of Russia Apologists? Spiegel, March 31,
2014.
References 95
Neumann, Peter R., Foreign Fighters Total in Syria/Iraq Now Exceeds 20,000;
Surpasses Afghanistan Conflict in the 1980s, London: International Centre for
the Study of Radicalisation, January 26, 2015. As of October 23, 2015:
http://icsr.info/2015/01/foreign-fighter-total-syriairaq-now-exceeds-20000-
surpasses-afghanistan-conflict-1980s/
Noack, Rick, Why Do Nearly 40 Percent of Germans Endorse Russias
Annexation of Crimea? Washington Post, November 28, 2014.
North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Founding Act on Mutual Relations,
Cooperation and Security Between NATO and the Russian Federation, May
1997. As of October 23, 2015:
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_25468.htm
, Wales Summit Declaration, September 5, 2014. As of October 25, 2015:
, NATO Publishes Defence Expenditures Data for 2014 and Estimates
for 2015: Financial and Economic Data Relating to NATO Defence, press release
PR/CP(2015) 093-COR1, June 22, 2015. As of October 25, 2015:
http://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2015_06/20150622_PR_
CP_2015_093-v2.pdf
, Warsaw Summit Communiqu, July 9, 2016. As of August 24, 2016:
Norway Kicked Russian Patrol Vessels out of Spitsbergen, Barents Observer, May
27, 2008.
Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Norways Arctic Policy, 2015.
Ochmanek, David, Andrew R. Hoehn, James T. Quinlivan, Seth G. Jones, and
Edward L. Warner, Americas Security Deficit: Addressing the Imbalance Between
Strategy and Resources in a Turbulent World, Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND
Corporation, RB-9870-RC, 2015. As of October 23, 2015:
http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1223.html
ODwyer, Gerard, Norway, Russia Strengthen Relations, Defense News, April 4,
2012.
, Russia Warns Sweden and Finland Against NATO Membership,
Defense News, June 12, 2014. As of October 23, 2015:
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140612/DEFREG01/306120040/
Russia-Warns-Sweden-Finland-Against-NATO-Membership
, Sweden and Finland Pursue Special Relationship with NATO, Defense
News, October 10, 2014.
, Sweden Proposes Aggressive Nordic Defense, Defense News, February

10, 2015a. As of October 23, 2015:
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/policy-budget/warfare/2015/02/10/
sweden-nordic-cooperation-russia-nordefco-cooperation-nbg--sreide-battlegroup/
22865811/
, New Poll Shows Sharp Shift in NATO Support, Defense News,
September 17, 2015b.
, 9.8% Budget Hike Set for Norwegian Armed Forces, Defense News,
October 9, 2015c.
Philippot, Damien, and Esteban Pratviel, Les Franais, la Perception du Conflit
Ukraino-Russe et la Livraison de Navires de Guerre la Russie, poll of the
Institut Franais dOpinion Publique for La Tribune, January 2015. As of October
23, 2015:
http://www.ifop.com/media/poll/2912-1-study_file.pdf
Poll Shows More Swedes in Favor of NATO for First Time, Reuters, October 29,
2014. As of October 23, 2015:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/29/
us-sweden-nato-idUSKBN0II1XN20141029
Pond, Elizabeth, Secrets of the Baltic: Swedish Cold War Neutrality Revisited,
World Policy blog, September 26, 2012. As of October 23, 2015:
http://www.worldpolicy.org/blog/2012/09/26/
secrets-baltic-swedish-cold-war-neutrality-revisited
Remarks by President Donald Tusk After the First Session of the European
Council Meeting, Brussels, European Council, March 19, 2015. As of October
25, 2015:
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/
press-releases/2015/03/19-european-council-intermediate-remarks-tusk/
Rettman, Andrew, EU Civilian Mission Training Paramilitaries in Libya,
EUObserver, November 18, 2013.
Rottem, Svein Vigeland, The Political Architecture of Security in the Arctic
The Case of Norway, Arctic Review on Law and Politics, Vol.4, No. 2, 2013.
Russia Examines 1991 Recognition of Baltic Independence, BBC News, June 30,
2015. As of October 23, 2015:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33325842
Russia-Norway Tensions at Liberation Ceremony, Local, October 25, 2014. As of
October 23, 2015:
http://www.thelocal.no/20141025/russia-norway-tensions-at-liberation-celebration
Shevel, Oxana, The Politics of Citizenship Policy in Post-Soviet Russia, Post-
Soviet Affairs, Vol. 28, No. 1, 2012.
References 97
Shlapak, David A., and Michael Johnson, Reinforcing Deterrence on NATOs

Eastern Flank:Wargaming the Defense of the Baltics, Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND
Corporation, RR-1253-A, 2016. As of September 8, 2016:
http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1253.html
Simmons, Katie, Bruce Stokes, and Jacob Poushter, NATO Publics Blame Russia
for Ukrainian Crisis, but Reluctant to Provide Military Aid, Pew Research
Center, June 10, 2015.
SIPRISee Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.
Smith-Windsor, Brooke, Putting the N Back in NATO: A High North Policy
Framework for the Atlantic Alliance? NATO Research Paper No.94, July 2013.
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, Regional Coverage, database,
undated. As of October 23, 2015:
http://www.sipri.org/research/armaments/milex/milex_database/regional_coverage
, Trends in World Military Expenditure 2014, fact sheet, April 2015.
Sverdrup, Ulf, and Elana Wilson Rowe, Norway Is Re-Thinking Its Russian
Relations, Europes World, Summer 2015. As of October 23, 2015:
http://europesworld.org/2015/07/14/norway-re-thinking-russian-relations/#.
VuxT42f2aM8
Swedish Defense Bill 20162020, Government Offices of Sweden, April 24,
2015. As of October 23, 2015:
http://www.government.se/government-policy/defence/
the-swedish-defence-bill-2016-2020/
Tardy, Thierry, Enabling Partners to Manage Crises: From Train and Equip to
Capacity-Building, European Union Institute for Security Studies Brief, Issue No.
18, June 2015.
TimelineEU Restrictive Measures in Response to the Crisis in Ukraine,
Brussels, European Council, undated. As of October 23, 2015:
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/sanctions/ukraine-crisis/
history-ukraine-crisis/
Troianovski, Anton, Germany Seeks to Counter Russian Propaganda in the
Baltics, Wall Street Journal, April 17, 2015.
Ukraine/Macro-Financial Assistance, Brussels, European Commission, updated
July 22, 2015. As of October 23, 2015:
http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/international/neighbourhood_policy/
ukraine_en.htm
U.S. Energy Information Administration, Norway, database, updated April 28,
2014. As of October 23, 2015:
http://www.eia.gov/countries/cab.cfm?fips=no
Van Puyvelde, Damien, Hybrid WarDoes It Even Exist? NATO Review, 2015.
As of November 29, 2015:
http://www.nato.int/docu/review/2015/Also-in-2015/hybrid-modern-future-
warfare-russia-ukraine/EN/index.htm
Vandiver, John, NATO: Fewer Flights Needed to Patrol Baltic Airspace, Stars
and Stripes, August 5, 2015.
Wade, Jonathan, Norway-Led Arctic Challenge Exercise 2015 Starts, Sentinel
Analytical Group, May 25, 2015. As of October 23, 2015:
http://thesentinel.ca/norway-led-arctic-challenge-exercise-2015-starts/
Wike, Richard, Bruce Stokes, and Jacob Poushter, Global Public Back U.S. on
Fighting ISIS, But Are Critical of Post-9/11 Torture, comment on Pew Research
Center Spring 2015 Global Attitudes Survey, June 23, 2015. As of October 23,2015:
http://www.pewglobal.org/2015/06/23/1-americas-global-image/
Winnerstig, Mike, ed., Tools of Destabilization: Russian Soft Power and Non-
Military Influence in the Baltic States, Sweden Defense Research Agency,
December 16, 2014. As of October 23, 2015:
http://www.foi.se/rapport?rNo=FOI-R--3990--SE
Zevelev, Igor, Russias Policy Toward Compatriots in the Former Soviet Union,
Russia in Global Affairs, Vol. 6, No. 1, JanuaryMarch 2008.
Russias illegal annexation and occupation of Crimea in March 2014 has
challenged the integrity of Europes territorial borders and conrmed after the
Georgia war in 2008 that Russia could react violently to perceived challenges to
what it regards as its sphere of inuence. This report rst examines how European
states perceive Russias behavior in eastern and northern Europe, and whether
they regard Russian policy and behavior in these regions as an important security
priority. We identify a number of fault lines within Europe with regard to threat
perceptions and further analyze whether these divides extend to perceptions of
NATO and the United States. NATO members closer geographically to Russia
appear to be most concerned by Russias aggressive behavior, and are concerned
that the Alliance is ill equipped to respond to the current crisis. Second, the
report analyzes how European states have responded to Russian behavior. While
European states generally agree that a rm response is required, they are also
eager to maintain open channels of communication with Russia. Finally, the report
examines how European states intend to shape their relationship with Russia in the
future; what existing measures they intend to keep in place; what new measures
they might implement; and prospects for NATO and EU expansion. This future
relationship is based on a general understanding that relations with Russia have
changed irremediably; tensions are unlikely to recede anytime soon; and future
actions toward Russia will depend on Russian behavior.
ARROYO CENT ER
www.rand.org $20.00
ISBN-10 0-8330-9637-0
ISBN-13 978-0-8330-9637-1
52000
RR-1579-A 9 780833 096371

Rand Rr1579

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rand Rr1579

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rand Rr1579

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What are the main topics discussed in the document?

What are the main topics discussed in the document?

What are some of the challenges discussed regarding relations between European states and Russia?

What are some of the challenges discussed regarding relations between European states and Russia?

C O R P O R AT I O N

Stephanie Pezard, Andrew Radin, Thomas S. Szayna,

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available for this publication.

Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif.

Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights

The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public

This is the second in a series of reports on the impact and implications

Do European states see Russia as a major security threat, and, if

Human Subject Protections protocols have been used in this

security of Russias illegal annexation of Crimea and the future of the

Will European States Increase Their Defense Spending?.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Russias illegal annexation and occupation of Crimea in March 2014

officials), researchers, academics, and journalists familiar with Euro-

Perceptions of Russia as a military threat following the Ukrainian crisis

of migrants and refugees as more pressing concerns that, alongside the

reservations, with generally positive perceptions of the United States

European countries have adopted a broad range of measures in

NATO has begun its adaptation to the new threat environment as

for example, to share best practices among member governments and

ment the measures specified at Warsaw. One fundamental issue influ-

a serious look at Russian capabilities to politically subvert a Baltic

Basically, the ball is now in the Russian court. If Moscow deesca-

CDU Christian Democratic Union

Russias illegal annexation and occupation of Crimea in March 2014

three specific questions: (1) Do these Europeans see Russia as a major

crisisNATO and the European Union. Finally, constraints in terms

Organization of This Report

Perceptions of Russia in the wake of the Ukrainian crisis differ sharply

Threat Perceptions of a Russian Conventional Attack

4 Interview with Finnish official, July 14, 2015.

Glasgow North Baltic Sea Vitsyebsk

Ocean Edinburgh land LITHUANIA Smolensk

UNITED Sea DENMARK Malm Vilnius

Sea Brussels Cologne

Munich Cluj- Odesa

MOROCCO ALGERIA 0 300 Miles

SOURCE: Central Intelligence Agency, World FactBook, website, undated.

country indicate that the nationalist and historicist biases continue to

Finland should think of the consequences, if it ponders joining

Even in Norway, with its short Norwegian-Russian border in the

8 Interview with Norwegian officials, July 14, 2015.

in a Turbulent World, Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation, RB-9870-RC, 2015,

SOURCE: Simmons, Stokes, and Poushter, 2015, p. 51.

SOURCE: Simmons, Stokes, and Poushter, 2015, p. 51.

as the stationing of nuclear-capable missiles in Kaliningrad and over-

Gotland Island, as vulnerable to a potential Russian attack.23 Accord-

Just as in Sweden and Poland, in Finland there is a perception

28 Interview with Finnish official, May 28, 2015.

where it shares a border with Russiathrough exercises.34 The

Threat Perceptions of a Russian Hybrid Warfare Scenario

More Europeans are concerned about the risk of Russia employing

Our Polish interlocutors underlined that hybrid should be seen

tation links to Kaliningrad; and an assets scenario, involving Russia

52 Interview with Swedish think tank analyst, July 21, 2015.

would bring Russian speakers to rally or protest, as they did in the

Russias Strategic Communication Efforts