LETTER TO THE EDITOR / Paul Sofranacs
The issue of Montenegro, as raised by President Trump touches at the core of NATO’s raison d’etre.
It is obvious to most casual observers that the newly independent Eastern European nations vied to joint NATO so as to enjoy the core tenet of the organization. Indeed, Article 5 clearly spells out that member nations enjoy a mutual defense: one for all and all for one.So long as the US was content to foot the bill in providing a nuclear umbrella that in turn provided a credible deterrent against external foes, the alliance was viable.
Since the disestablishment of the Soviet Union, however, and the addition of the partnership for peace membership within NATO, culminating in an outright membership, the original Article 5 comes increasingly into question.
How can a disproportionately tiny Montenegro expect to be protected by big NATO brothers if its contribution is minute and its military capability remains at cold war levels?
Tiny it may be but Montenegro sits on a very strategic peace of real estate, coveted by Moscow as well as Washington. The fjords beyond the Boka Kotorska entry by the Adriatic Sea into the mountainous area inland housed the bulk of the former Yugoslavia’s navy assets. Russia desperately seeks a warm water port, something the US has been denying to Russia for strategic reasons.
So the question becomes, can we sit idly by, following Montenegro’s joining NATO, watching the tiny nation play both sides against the middle and perhaps even spark a much larger squabble? Who’ll come to Montenegro’s rescue? And, most importantly, who’ll foot the bill of such a military venture?
Now that President Trump has formally asked that NATO member nations ante up and even make up for lagging contributions, how many of the NATO member nations would step up to the plate, whether the US decided to intervene or not?
NATO risks becoming a paper tiger as it lacks forward deploying assets and training for likely scenarios it may face. It is indeed time to reexamine cold war givens and war game all likely courses of action and eventual consequences to all NATO partners and beyond.
Sir, you seem to have an intimate knowledge about the Balkans and NATO.
If the criteria is whether NATO will go to war over a country based on its’ troop contribution, then Montenegro’s contribution of 2000 troops puts it ahead of Luxembourg (1335 troops) and Iceland (no standing army with ZERO troops to NATO).
Montenegro was the last vestige of Yugoslavia which ended with their departure from the federation (FRY) with Serbia. Montenegro is located opposite Italy and when the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact existed, they were military and political foes. As a former member of the Yugoslavian collective (Yugoslav People’s Army JNA), Montenegro has plenty of unused airbases (main fields and dispersal areas), training areas for live fire drills and as cited, significant naval ports (including an island with submarine pens in tunnels).
It has been a NATO member since 2017. Montenegro adds 2000 troops to NATO. Montenegro does spend 1.7% GDP on defense. It can provide NATO with old military facilities for dispersal and areas for live training. Yes, the bases are run down and underutilized but their footprints exist for upgrading and rebuilding.
There is internal political division within Montenegro about joining NATO with citizens being 39% for and 39% against.
Montenegro has been an economic stepchild as a lot of development focused on Croatia just north. When Albania, just south, opened itself to the world, some economic development flowed there. Montenegro just lately has drawn economic interest as Croatia has outpriced itself and Albania has a lot of infrastructure upgrading.
Montenegro has drawn the interest of the Russians from investment to tourism. About 20% of tourists come from Russia. But Russians can be found in Dubai to Greece as their middle class grows.
Montenegro is involved in turmoil as there was a 2016 plot to assassinate the PM. From indictments, this involved 14 people including 2 Russian Intelligence Officers.
NATO must weigh the pros and cons of Montenegro. In my humble opinion, it would be worth it. From the practical side, NATO host countries do not want to spend money on their respective home defense. Why would they upgrade bases and facilities in Montenegro for NATO’s use! (But NATO countries like France and Germany seem to have billions for refugees…figure)
Been to a couple former Yugoslavian countries for peacekeeping: old military equipment became surplus but stored; nothing went to waste; and old bases were everywhere.
Yes, Montenegro is a gem. It was rated as the most ecological country of Europe given its pristine landscape and upkeep.
Montenegro largely subsists on tourism and medical spas that attract affluent north Europeans as well as Russians.
As for strategic location, it is hard to find a more contested piece of real estate. Montenegro sits astride the old “Green Corridor” that links Muslim areas in Bosnia, Albania and Kosovo. It’s own sizeable Muslim majority inhabited area of Sandzak sits astride the border between Montenegro and Serbia. Croats still covet Kotor Bay and are still sore at Montenegrins from Cetinje who repelled a Croat invasion and pushed them back to Dubrovnik. Fake news of course was quick to judge Montenegrins for their shelling of Dubrovnik but without explaining why the Croat 4th Brigade from Split had taken refuge there after boasting that they would recapture Montenegro for the ‘Holy Roman Empire.’
Yes, Montenegro has value but the issue at hand is NATO and whether NATO would be willing/able to come to Montenegro’s rescue without the US getting in a sticky mess with Russia.
So, if you advance the notion that starting WW III in Montenegro’s behalf is worth our while, then what I can say? I suppose it’s a good thing President Trump is throwing a wet towel over the hot cauldron rather than to risk it all with no easy resolution down the pike…
Sir, you appear well versed in matters dealing with the Balkans and NATO.
These are my observations about OTAN. OTAN is a paper tiger. Why should the USA fund them when they don’t want to defend themselves. Pres Trump was correct in his assessment and demands for increased spending. There is a schism within OTAN: the elite vs the new members. The new members from the Warsaw Pact have formed their own defense group known as VISIGRAD (Poland, Hungary, Czechs and Slovaks). This says that people who were under Communist occupation seem to have concerns about the viability of OTAN. This doesn’t exactly bode a lot of confidence in the original group of OTAN members. Maybe with age, OTAN has gotten fat and lazy and bureaucratic. Not a good sign for any military organization.
From personal experience: German Army is the best armed humanitarian organization in the world. When given a chance and choice, Germany and France didn’t have their armies participate in Iraq (to see how their military and equipment work). Germany and France had lukewarm participation in Afghanistan. I was amazed how Poland responded as example. As it had little military experience, Poland requested US Military professional assistance to field forces into Iraq and Afghanistan. From a professional perspective, Poland (and Britain) are the most experience partners within OTAN.
Maybe the upstarts in OTAN will change the perspectives on Montenegro. All OTAN participants play a role in the communal organization. OTAN’s aid to Montenegro would increase their military’s professionalism and participation. Even if it meant watching OTAN’s role in a conflict was to watch their back.