The Wire - November 26, 2024

//The Wire//2200Z November 26, 2024//
//ROUTINE//
//BLUF: COMPLEXITIES AND NUANCE OF NATO PERSPECTIVES IN EUROPE CONTINUE CONTRIBUTING TO TENSIONS REMAINING HIGH. POSTURING EFFORTS AMONG ALL PARTIES CONTINUES AS WELL.//
-----BEGIN TEARLINE-----
-International Events-
Europe: Posturing efforts by NATO continue as before. Yesterday French media outlets reported that both France and Britain are allegedly considering the deployment of troops to Ukraine.
AC: While these claims have been made before in the past, the “unnamed sources” in this case cited the sideline diplomatic discussions during a recent Remembrance Day visit by PM Starmer to France. Two days ago, French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot visited London, and made statements suggesting those earlier sideline discussions were probably true. More specifically, when mentioning the involvement of France and the U.K. more directly in the conflict he stated that “we do not discard any option”.
-----END TEARLINE-----
Analyst Comments: In classic form, many legacy media outlets have also amplified fearful messaging to the point of directly altering the statements of senior NATO officials. For instance, many pundits have claimed that NATO is considering a first strike against Russia. In reality, the quote that sparked this manipulative and misleading news headline came from Adm. Rob Bauer, who has spoken publicly twice over the past week with regards to the focus being on NATO’s military readiness at a time of global instability. Adm. Bauer’s original quote is as follows:
“The idea was we are a defensive alliance, so we will only sit and wait until we are attacked, and then when we are attacked, we will be able to shoot down the 'arrows' that come to us.” And that it would be “smarter to attack the archer, that is...Russia—if Russia attacks us. So you need to have a combination of deep precision (strikes) with which you can take out the weapons systems that are used to attack us”.
As Adm. Bauer is of Dutch nationality there is likely some level of the meaning of his quote being lost in translation. More specifically, Russia’s Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov directly lied and stated that Bauer called for a “preemptive strike”, when Bauer never actually used the word “preemptive” in his original quote. Western media, not understanding what Bauer was trying to convey (and also being unwilling to watch the video recording of his talk themselves), probably heard these Russian claims and in their zeal to focus on the fearmongering potential, warped the original meaning of his message. Somewhat hilariously, western media has focused on this one quote (from an hour-long seminar and Q&A session)…while completely ignoring the larger message conveyed during the talk. Bauer’s short quote has been taken out of context; he was not advocating for a direct preemptive strike on Russia, but quite the opposite.
In fact, quite literally Bauer’s next sentence was “and because we are a defensive alliance, we will have to take the first blow. So Russia will start the conflict, because we are not going to attack Russia out of nothing.” Bauer’s overall remarks were exceptionally concerning, and very much indicative of NATO driving as fast as possible towards a direct military confrontation with Russia. In effect, this indicates that the media is right, but right for the wrong reasons. In this case, a bit of background knowledge must be understood to properly make decisions based on NATO’s perspective.
Much of the consternation around Bauer’s statements probably comes from a lack of understanding of how the nuts and bolts of a Large-Scale Combat Operation (LSCO) would actually work out if such a war were to break out between NATO and Russia. Additionally, this somewhat minor quote/incident is illustrative of long-standing NATO doctrine that requires more time to explain the nuance of. Bauer, who was responding to a question, probably was referring to the details of what specific things would occur if a state of war were to erupt between NATO and Russia. For instance, the following hypothetical situation might grant some clarity: If a missile site located in southern Russia were to conduct a missile strike on an air defense battery in Poland (but nowhere else), that would probably result in a state of war between Russia and NATO, with Russia throwing the first punch. At that point, once hostilities commence, NATO would be able to conduct strikes at an entirely different point along the front lines, before Russia could mobilize. At least, in theory. The Russian soldiers stationed in the far-flung regions of Russia’s eastern territories probably wouldn’t even know about Russia’s hypothetical strike in Poland until well after it happened. Neither would Russian troops along the border with Finland, who probably wouldn’t get word of hostilities commencing until NATO (seemingly) fired at them “first” from their perspective. A few minutes after that hypothetical Russian attack in Poland, missile strikes could be carried out from Finland, for instance, targeting the Russian naval bases in the White Sea. For those Russian soldiers and sailors stationed at those bases, it would indeed seem to be a “first strike” by NATO as they likely wouldn’t be aware of events in Poland for some time.
This would constitute a “deep strike” on a target in a part of Russia that previously did not start that first overall engagement (i.e. that hypothetical strike in Poland). Thus the need for NATO’s ability to strike targets deep inside Russia that might not have specifically had a hand in the hostilities opening in the first place. Once hostilities commence, any military target with a Russian flag is fair game. This is probably what Bauer was trying to communicate; the nuance of how wars are actually fought on the battlefield, within the context of NATO pledging to not fire the first shots…but if shots are fired, NATO would need the ability to carry the fight to places in Russia that were not involved in firing that first shot themselves. Wars are big, and conflicts almost never stay isolated in one place, where the shooting first started. This hypothetical situation helps us to understand what on the surface looks to be a contradictory statement, and shows that NATO can both be concerned with “deep-precision strikes” in certain locations, but also be committed to not starting the war outright. Once the war has begun, however, NATO likely wants to have the capability to strike targets along a different part of the front than where the war first started. This bit of nuanced context should provide some clarity as to both Bauer’s comments, and NATO’s overall mentality. NATO is very likely seeking to make aggressive moves, but concerning this exact idea (and only this exact idea), Bauer’s remarks are not only no departure from the norm, but also a decently good preparation to make considering NATO’s role in the world. This does not make NATO’s perspective right, moral, or even good. It merely explains the perspective that is often lost in an age of information manipulation.
Somewhat ironically, the initial quote as parroted by pundits was actually one of the more reasonable remarks he made during this talk. He directly denounced NATO having any hand in the war starting due to their actions, he directly stated that NATO didn’t expand eastward, and of course, spent many minutes advocating for the prolonging of the Ukrainian war. During this 1.25 hour seminar, roughly an hour’s worth involved framing NATO’s actions as morally superior. Somehow Bauer also managed to work in lies about the war in the Middle East to a talk on Ukraine, repeating known and confirmed fabrications of details of that war. But the insinuation that this specific headline making the rounds was an escalatory statement by itself is disingenuous at best.
Analyst: S2A1
//END REPORT//