1 / 13

Military cooperation in the Baltic states: where do we stand?

Military cooperation in the Baltic states: where do we stand?. Dr. Arūnas Molis Baltic Defence College International Forum Challenges and options for the Baltic Sea region 12 th December 2008, Vilnius. Content. Reasons for cooperation First agreements Main multilateral projects

colin
Download Presentation

Military cooperation in the Baltic states: where do we stand?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Military cooperation in the Baltic states: where do we stand? Dr. Arūnas Molis Baltic Defence College International Forum Challenges and options for the Baltic Sea region 12th December 2008, Vilnius

  2. Content • Reasons for cooperation • First agreements • Main multilateral projects • Challenges for cooperation • New forms of military cooperation

  3. Strategic rationale for cooperation BS - non NATO MSBS -NATO MS • Obtain experience in international cooperation and consensus building • Use the interoperability between BS for enhancing interoperability with NATO countries • Be more effective eliminating risk factors • Give defence forces more visibility • Be more effective • eliminating risk factors: • controlling airspace, • economic zone, developing • military industry, etc • Gain political influence • (weight) in NATO and EU: • integrate common projects • in NATO/EU system; • b) influence decisions which • concerns interests of all 3 • nations

  4. Legal framework and first initiatives • 1994 06 03 - MoU on principles of cooperation in the training of Baltic UN peacekeeping forces (signed in Visby, Sweden) • 1994 09 13 – agreement on establishment and formation of the joint Baltic peacekeeping unit BALTBAT • 1994 11 13 – Baltic Assembly Resolution concerning Military Cooperation among the Baltic States • 1995 02 27 – ministerial agreement on cooperation in fields of defence and military relations • 1996 01 13 – ministerial agreement on cooperation of defence forces Start of cooperation was strongly supported by Nordic countries!

  5. Main projects BALTBAT: 1994-2003, Infantry bn BALTRON: since 1997, Naval Squadron BALTNET: since 1995, Air Surveillance Network BALTDEFCOL: since 1999, Defense College BALTBAT fulfilled its mission and was closed on the eve of NATO membership

  6. Cooperation in operations • BALTSQN – infantry company on rotation basis in B&H and Kosovo (2000-2006) • Air policing mission: since 2004 • Baltic motorized infantry battalion to NRF-14 (2010) • Common participation with Latvia in EU BG (2010) • Common exercises of LT and LV Special Forces • Post mission information exchange

  7. Joint procurement • “Carl Gustaf” grenade launcher ammunition (Saab Bofors Dynamic AB, 3BS, 2007) • Air Control Unit (Norway, 3BS, 2004) • 3D Long distance radars (Lockheed-Martin,LV & EST, 2001) Could be much more effective!

  8. Main challenges for military cooperation Minor joint acquisitions. Tight command experience. Weak influence on operations!

  9. Consequences of diverging interests • BALTBAT as a whole was never deployed to the mission • Disagreements on Air policing infrastructure and acquisition of jet-fighters • Uncoordinated equipping of national contingents with different weapon systems • No common EU BG • More interest for bilateral cooperation: • Lithuania – Poland, Denmark • Estonia - Finland

  10. Diverging interests in a broader context • LT and PL – support to US, Kaliningrad issue, LITPOLBAT • LT and DEN – cooperation in operations (Balkans, Iraq) • EST and FIN – reliance on territorial defense, common EU BG, exchange of military equipment • EST and LV – separate from LT involvement in ISAF operation in Afghanistan • 5+3 meetings – no intent to create common institutions • Membership in EU and NATO: • LT, LV, EE, PL, GER, DEN – NATO and EU • SWE, FIN – EU • Russia – none

  11. And as the result.. • New initiatives fail to end up with new projects: • Failure of combined air wing proposal • Failure of joint action in the area of military environmental protection • Only partial standardizing of military educational systems • Weak connections in operations • the only combined settlement is in KFOR with Danish bn

  12. However, new forms of cooperation are found* • Supporting and shaping NATO political agenda: • Support for NATO enlargement policy: accession talks with Albania and Macedonia, membership invitation for Macedonia, MAP for Ukraine and Georgia • Support for Ukraine’s and Georgia’s political, economical, defense and security sector reform processes • Concerns over the escalation of tensions between Georgia and Russia • Strengthening NATO defense capabilities against: • cyber defense • energy security • missile defense Military cooperation still triggers the cooperation in other spheres! *According to Joint Communiqué of Ministerial committee (May 30, 2008)

  13. Q&A QUESTIONS?

More Related