Analysis of the Western Orientation of the Baltic Countries in the Context of Balance of Threat Theory

Yıl 2022, Cilt: 18 Sayı: 43, 547 - 578, 26.12.2022

Sezgin Kaya

https://doi.org/10.17752/guvenlikstrtj.1202070

Öz

Since 1991, when they regained their independence, the Baltic States have made a concerted effort to become part of the Western alliance system. The article is based on the idea that the primary reason for this orientation cannot be explained solely by normative elements such as identity or culture. Undoubtedly, the West has always been a world to which these countries in question did not belong. Nevertheless, it should not be forgotten that the main priority of the Baltic States, which are categorised as small states, is to preserve their independence. As a result of their historical experiences, Russia is the biggest obstacle that the Baltic countries see in front of these goals. In order to balance the renewed and intensely felt Russian threat, the West has been seen as the only real strategic choice for the region’s countries. This article argues that the countries of the region have no alternative option in this process, which resulted in membership in NATO and the EU. Indeed, historical experience has shown that these countries’ strategic choices, such as bandwagoning to preserve their independence, which would mean aligning with the threatener, or avoiding being the centre of attention of the adversary by remaining neutral have not yielded results. Therefore, this article aims to try to understand the logic of the Baltic states’ strategic choices based on the balance of threat theory. This is because by turning towards the West, the countries of the region have sought to balance not Russian power but the threat they perceive from this country.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Baltic Security, Balance of Threat, Military Doctrine, Russian Diaspora, Narva Question

Baltık Ülkelerinin Batı Yöneliminin Tehdit Dengesi Kuramı Bağlamında Analizi

Öz

Baltık ülkeleri bağımsızlıklarını yeniden kazandıkları 1991 yılından itibaren Batı ittifak sisteminin bir parçası olmak için yoğun bir çaba içerisine girmişlerdir. Makale, bu yönelimin temel nedeninin salt kimlik ya da kültür gibi normatif unsurlarla izah edilemeyeceği fikrine dayanmaktadır. Şüphesiz Batı söz konusu ülkeler için hep ait olmadıkları bir dünya olmuştur. Bununla birlikte küçük devletler kategorisinde değerlendirilen Baltık ülkelerin asıl önceliklerinin, bağımsızlıklarını korumak olduğunu unutmamak gerekir. Tarihsel tecrübelerinin bir sonucu olarak Baltık ülkelerinin bu hedeflerinin önünde gördükleri en büyük engel ise Rusya’dır. Yeniden ve yoğun bir şekilde hissedilen Rus tehdidi dengelemek için Batı, bölge ülkeleri açısından tek gerçekçi stratejik tercih olarak görülmüştür. Makalede bölge ülkelerinin NATO ve AB’ye üyelikle sonuçlanan bu süreçte alternatif bir başka seçeneklerinin olmadığı savunulmaktadır. Zira tarihsel tecrübeleri göstermiştir ki bu ülkelerinin bağımsızlıklarını korumak için tehdidin kaynağıyla uyum sağlamak anlamına gelecek şekilde peşine takılma ya da tarafsız kalarak tehdidin ilgi odağı olmaktan kaçınma gibi stratejik tercihlerde bulunmaları sonuç vermemiştir. Dolayısıyla makalenin amacı tehdit dengesi kuramından hareketle Baltık devletlerinin stratejik tercihlerinin mantığını anlamaya çalışmaktır. Zira bölge ülkeleri Batı’ya yönelerek Rus gücünü değil ama bu ülkeden algıladıkları tehdidi dengelemek istemişlerdir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Baltık Güvenliği, Tehdit Dengesi, Askerî Doktrin, Rus Diasporası, Narva Sorunu, Baltic Security, Balance of Threat, Military Doctrine, Russian Diaspora, Narva Question

Kaynakça

• ADAMSKY Dimitry (2014). “If War Comes Tomorrow: Russian Thinking About ‘Regional Nuclear Deterrence’”, The Journal of Slavic Military Studies, 27:1, 163-188.
• ARBATOV Alexei G. (2000). The Transformation of Russian Military Doctrine: Lessons Learned from Kosovo and Chechenia, The Marshall Center’s Papers, No. 2.
• ARBMAN Gunnar ve THORTON Charles (2003). Russia’s Tactical Nuclear Weapons Part 1: Background and Policy Issues, FOI Swedish Defence Research Agency.
• BAKSHI Jyotsna (2000). “Russia’s National Security Concepts and Military Doctrines: Continuity and Change”, Strategic Analysis, 24:7.
• BLANK Stephen J. (2011). “Russia and Nuclear Weapons”, (ed.) Stephen J. Blank, Russian Nuclear Weapons: Past, Present, and Future, Strategic Studies Institute U.S. Army War College, Carlisle, 293-364.
• CHILLAUD Matthieu ve TETART Frank (2007). “The Demilitarization of Kaliningrad: A ‘Sisyphean Task’?”, Baltic Security and Defense Review, 9, 171-186.
• COOLICAN Sarah (2021). The Russian Diaspora in the Baltic States: The Trojan Horse that Never Was, LSE Ideas Strategic Update, London.
• CORUM James S. (2013). Security Concerns of the Baltic States as NATO Allies, Us Army War College Press, Carlise.
• DARICILI Ali Burak ve ÖZDAL Barış (2017). “Rusya Federasyonu’nun Siber Güvenlik Kapasitesini Oluşturan Enstrümanların Analizi”, Bilig, 83, 121-146.
• de HAAS Marcel (2011). “Russia’s Military Doctrine Development (2000-2010)”, (ed.) Stephen J. Blank, Russian Military Politics and Defense Doctrine, Strategic Institute US Army War College, Carlisle, 1-61.
• FINK Anya Loukianova ve OLIKER Olga (2020). “Russia’s Nuclear Weapons in a Multipolar World: Guarantors of Sovereignty, Great Power Status & More”, Daedalus, 149:2, 37-55.
• FREEDMAN Lawrence (1999). “The New Great Power Politics”, (ed.) Alexei Arbatov, Karl Kaiser ve Robert Legvold (ed.), Russia and the West: The 21st Century Security Environment, M. E. Sharpe, New York, 21-43.
• HANDEL Michael I. (1990). Weak States in the International System, Routledge, London.
• JERVIS Robert (2017). Perception and Misperception in International Politics, Princeton Uni. Press, 2nd ed., New Jersey.
• KASEKAMP Andres (2020). “An Uncertain Journey to the Promised Land: The Baltic States’ Road to NATO Membership”, Journal of Strategic Studies, 43:6-7, 869-896.
• KASSIANOVA Alla (2001). “Russia: Still Open to the West? Evolution of the State Identity in the Foreign Policy and Security Discourse”, Europe-Asia Studies, 53:6, 821-839.
• KRATOCHVIL Petr (2004). “The Balance of Threat Reconsidered: Construction of Threat in Contemporary Russia”, Fifth Pan-European Conference Netherlands, The Hague, September 9-11.
• LABS Eric J. (1992). “Do Weak States Bandwagon?”, Security Studies, 1:3, 383-416.
• LAMOREAUX Jeremy W. ve GALBREATH David J. (2008) “The Baltic States As ‘Small States’: Negotiating The ‘East’ by Engaging The ‘West’”, Journal of Baltic Studies, 39:1, 1-14.
• LIDER Julian (1980). “Introduction to Military Theory”, Cooperation and Conflict, 15:3, 151-168.
• MAIN S. J. (2000). Russia’s Military Doctrine, Conflict Studies Research Centre Occasional Brief, No. 77.
• MANAKOV Andrei G. ve KLIIMASK Jaak (2020). “Russian-Estonian Border in the Context of Post-Soviet Ethnic Transformations”, Geography, Environment, Sustainability, 13:1, 16-20.
• MEYN Carina (2021). “Russia’s Nuclear Capabilities – a Basic Insurance Policy in a Complex Technological Age”, (ed.) Niels Bo Poulsen and Jørgen Staun, Russia’s Military Might - A Portrait of its Armed Force, Djøf Publishing, Copenhagen, 293-325.
• MUIZNIEKS Nils, ROZENVALDS Juris ve BIRKA Ieva (2013). “Ethnicity and Social Cohesion in the post-Soviet Baltic States”, Patterns of Prejudice, 47:3, 288-308.
• OLIKER Olga (2018). “Moscow’s Nuclear Enigma: What Is Russia’s Arsenal Really For?”, Foreign Affairs, 97:6, 52-58.
• PAULAUSKAS Kestutis (2006). The Baltics: From Nation States to Member States, The European Union Institute for Security Studies Occasional Papers, No: 62, Paris.
• PIETKIEWICZ Michał (2018). “The Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation”, Polish Political Science Yearbook, 47:3, 505–520.
• POSEN Barry (1984). The Sources of Military Doctrine France, Britain, and Germany Between the World Wars, Cornell University Press, New York.
• RAUN Toivo U. (1994). “Post-Soviet Estonia 1991-1993”, Journal of Baltic States, 25:1, 73-80.
• SMITH David J. (2010). “Narva Region within the Estonian Republic: From Autonomism to Accommodation?”, Regional Federal Studies, 12:2, 89-110.
• SOKOV Nikolai N. (2009). “The Evolving Role of Nuclear Weapons in Russia’s Security Policy”, (ed.) Cristina Hansell ve William C. Potter Engaging China and Russia on Nuclear Disarmament, James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, 73-88.
• THORNTON Rod ve KARAGIANNIS Manos (2016). “The Russian Threat to the Baltic States: The Problems of Shaping Local Defense Mechanisms”, Journal of Slavic Military Studies, 29:3, 331-351.
• TRIMBACH David J. ve O’LEAR Shannon (2015). “Russians in Estonia: Is Narva the Next Crimea?”, Eurasian Geography and Economics, 56:5, 493–504.
• WALT S. M. (1985). “Alliance Formation and the Balance of World Power”, International Security, 9:4, 1985, 3-43.
• WALT Stephen (1990). The Origins of Alliances, Cornell University Press, Ithaca and London.
• WALT Stephen M. (1992). “Alliances Threats, and U.S. Grand Strategy: A Reply to Kaufmann and Labs”, Security Studies, 1:3, 448-482.
• BLEEK Philipp C. (2001). “Moscow Reportedly Moves Tactical Nuclear Arms to Baltics”, Arms Control Today, https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2001-01/arms-control-today/moscow-reportedly-moves-tactical-nuclear-arms-baltics, erişim 01.08.2022.
• HANKEWITZ Sten (2022). “Putin Vaguely Threatens the Estonian Town of Narva”, Estonian World, https://estonianworld.com/security/putin-vaguely-threatens-the-estonian-town-of-narva/, erişim 15.09.2022.
• HENLEY Jon ve BORGER Julian (2022). “Russia Warns of Nuclear Weapons in Baltic if Sweden and Finland Join NATO”, https://www.theguardian.com/ world/2022/apr/14/russia-says-it-will-reinforce-borders-if-sweden-and-finland-join-nato, erişim 05.09.2022.
• https://www.citypopulation.de/en/estonia/admin/ida_viru/511__narva_linn, erişim 20.09.2022.
• https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries.php, erişim: 10.11.2022.
• KASEKAMP Andres (2019). “Why Narva Is Not Next”, Estonian World, https://estonianworld.com/security/andres-kasekamp-why-narva-is-not-next/, erişim 15.09.2022.
• KEPE Marta ve OSBURG Jan (2017). “Total Defense: How the Baltic States Are Integrating Citizenry into Their National Security Strategies”, Small War Journal, https://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/total-defense-how-the-baltic-states-are-integrating-citizenry-into-their-national-security-, erişim 15.10.2022.
• LISTER Tim ve PICHETA Rob (2022). “Why Kaliningrad, Russia’s Toehold in Europe, could be the Next Flashpoint in its War Against Ukraine”, CNN, https://edition.cnn.com/2022/06/21/europe/kaliningrad-explainer-russia-lithuania -sanctions-intl/index.html, erişim: 30.06.2022.
• LORD Ryan (2021). “Russian Minority Populations in the Baltics”, https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/6cb4f0a7dcd64278b52840a7dc364127, erişim 19.08.2022.
• RUBIN Josh (2019). “NATO Fears That This Town Will Be the Epicenter of Conflict with Russia”, https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/ 2019/01/narva-scenario-nato-conflict-russia-estonia/581089/, erişim: 15.09.2022.
• STOICESCU Kalev (2020). “The Tartu Peace Treaty and Estonia’s Eastern Border”, The International Centre for Defence and Security (ICDS), https://icds.ee/en/the-tartu-peace-treaty-and-estonias-eastern-border-2/, erişim 10.10.2022.