War Could Have Broken Out 66 Times In Last 18 Months: Russia Vs Nato Forces
Saved under Asia, Europe, News, US & Canada, World News
Tags: Arctic, Baltic States, Cold War, Crimea, Estonia, NATO, Oana Lungescu, Russia, Ukraine
Please follow & like us :)
Russia and NATO have been told they must agree to new rules on their military exercises to avoid triggering a war after 66 recorded ‘close encounters’ since March last year.
Relations between Russia and the West relations have been in the deep freeze after the annexation of Crimea from Ukraine in March last year.
Since then, both sides have been intensifying their large-scale military exercises ‘most likely with war plans in mind’, according to recent research.
Now NATO and Russia have been told they must agree to a set of common rules on unexpected military encounters to cut the risk of war between Moscow and the West.
The warning comes after a group of former defence and foreign ministers revealed that ‘close military encounters’ between the two sides, such as mid-air face-offs between rival military jets, have soared with 66 recorded since the Ukraine crisis.
‘The situation is ripe with potential for either dangerous miscalculation or an accident that could trigger a worsening of the crisis or even a direct military confrontation,’ they said in a report published by the European Leadership Network (ELN).
An ELN study said NATO was planning approximately 270 exercises this year, while Russia has announced 4,000 drills at all levels.
Just last month, Moscow warned the US-led Rapid Trident military exercises in western Ukraine may have ‘explosive consequences’ and threaten to derail the peace process in the separatist east.
Ukrainian and U.S. troops had launched drills involving 1,800 soldiers from 18 countries in July, aimed at bolstering the morale of the armed forces involved in the ongoing 15-month conflict with pro-Russian separatists.
But Russia’s foreign ministry condemned the war games just hours after the exercises started near Ukraine’s border with Poland.
‘The military drills involving NATO members and Ukraine’s army that started in Lviv region under U.S. command are a clear demonstration of NATO’s provocative policy to unequivocally support the policies of current Kiev authorities in eastern Ukraine,’ the foreign ministry said in a statement.
‘Not only is NATO not ready to recognize the wrongness and possible explosive consequences of holding such drills but it is considerably increasing their scope.
‘These actions… may threaten to disrupt the visible progress in the peace process concerning the deep internal crisis in Ukraine.’
Russia had also warned the exercises were a threat to an already shaky five-month truce agreement that aims to resolve one of Europe’s bloodiest conflicts in decades by the end of the year.
The launch of Rapid Trident was quickly followed by the Russian navy’s announcement that one of its warships stationed off Ukraine’s Kremlin-annexed Crimean peninsula would conduct live rocket fire drills Sunday.
Kiev has been locked in a conflict since April 2014 with pro-Moscow rebels in parts of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions. It accuses Russia of funneling in troops and resources to sustain the insurgency – charges Moscow denies.
A peace accord was struck in the Belarussian capital Minsk in February, but deadly clashes continue in spite of it.
Russia’s own exercises in March, which involved 80,000 personnel, were one of the Kremlin’s biggest shows of force since the start of the Ukraine crisis. It put the navy’s Northern Fleet on full combat readiness in Russia’s Arctic North, close to Norway, a NATO member.
Russia also set nerves jangling across Europe by sending its fighter jets screaming toward the skies of Baltic and Nordic nations with increasing regularity in recent months.
Washington and NATO have denounced such steps as both hostile and dangerous to civilian aircraft.
The Kremlin counters that it is only doing what the United States has been for decades – flexing its military muscle in far-off countries to build a ‘unipolar world’.
Ian Kearns, director of the London-based Network, said the war games ‘are contributing to a climate of mistrust’ that have ‘on occasion become the focal point for some quite close encounters between the Nato and Russian militaries.’
The report added that an ‘action-reaction cycle’ was now under way between Nato and Russia that could be hard to stop.
‘History is littered with examples of international crises and tensions that developed a momentum of their own and resulted in conflict even when no one side intended it,’ it said.
Research also found signs that ‘Russia is preparing for a conflict with Nato and Nato is preparing for a possible confrontation with Russia.’
The group of 14 former ministers, who are calling for a high-level Nato-Russia meeting, said rules for communication at sea and in the air were ‘paramount’.
They suggest a similar pact as to that between the United States and China which lays out which actions to avoid such as attack simulations near the other side’s military vessels and aircraft.
If these type of military exercises or live weapons-firing must take place, there should be timely warnings and agreed radio frequencies and signals vocabulary.
But neither Russia nor Nato have accepted any suggestion that their military exercises make war more likely.
Nato’s chief spokesman Oana Lungescu has instead called on Russia to take steps to ease the tensions.
‘Russia has many tools already available to avoid unintentional conflict, to reduce tensions and to increase transparency, ranging from arms control agreements to voluntary measures,’ she said.
‘It should … focus on implementing its existing commitments.’
NATO has suspended all practical and military cooperation with Russia but can still convene political meetings.
The Ukraine crisis began in March 2014, when Russia annexed the Crimean peninsula from Ukraine.
The following month, a separatist war broke out in eastern Ukraine between pro-Russian rebels and government forces.
While Putin has been accused of supporting the separatists which has so far claimed more than 7,000 lives.
He has always denied charges of orchestrating Ukraine’s separatist revolt to unsettle the pro-Western leadership that rose to power in the wake of last year’s ouster of a Moscow-backed president.
But the veteran Russian leader has done little to mask his views of eastern Europe being part of Moscow’s traditional sphere of influence.
The West imposed sanctions against Russia, which responded with sanctions against a number of countries, including a total ban on food imports from the EU, United States and other member states.
The crisis has put relations between Russia and the West at their their worst since the Cold War with military tensions on the increase.
British warplanes, currently stationed in the Baltic States, have been intercepting Russian planes flying on the fringes of the region’s airspace since last year.
In one mission alone, UK Typhoons intercepted a staggering ten Russian planes over Estonia.
Russian jets have also carried out flights near UK airspace, leading to accusations of increasing acts of provocation by Moscow.
Defence Secretary Michael Fallon said: ‘Russia is continuing to test Nato’s resolve, but we have shown we are standing firm.’
The ELN study said the exercises showed what each side views as its most vulnerable points.
For Nato, it’s Poland and the Baltic states while for Russia, concerns are more numerous and include the Arctic, Crimea and border areas with Nato members Estonia and Latvia.
The ELN has formulated a few ideas to defuse tensions, including for governments to examine the need for more restraint in the size and scenarios of future exercises.
While there were many similar characteristics between exercises, including preparing for the rapid mobilisation of troops, there was a ‘notable difference in scale’.
The report stated: ‘While the particular Russian exercise we analyse relied heavily on elite formations such as airborne troops, the ability of the Russian armed forces to mobilise thousands of conscripts inevitably results in exercises of a size that the smaller, predominantly professional armed forces of Nato countries simply cannot match.’ 
