Eastern Shield Alliance?
by Benjamin Cook
The Eastern Shield Alliance (ESA) should emerge as a bold and necessary step to secure the independence and stability of nations bordering Russia. In recent years, the United States has faltered in its role as the arsenal of democracy. The Biden administration's hesitancy, driven by unfounded fears of escalation, has undermined trust among allies, exposing a gap in the global security framework. Now, with President-elect Trump's rhetoric and unpredictability casting further doubt on America's reliability, nations on the frontlines of Russian aggression can no longer afford to wait for decisive leadership from across the Atlantic.
The ESA unites the Nordic, Baltic, and Black Sea nations into a modern, agile alliance. Focused on collective deterrence, rapid air dominance, and undersea asset protection, the alliance leverages NATO standards and infrastructure while eliminating bureaucratic inefficiencies. With a shared commitment to act decisively against any threat, the ESA ensures its members’ safety while complementing NATO’s broader mission. This is a new shield for Europe, forged from necessity and strengthened by unity.
A nimble, NATO-complementary alliance involving Baltic, Black Sea, and Nordic nations—with Poland as the central player—focused on rapid air dominance, undersea asset protection, and streamlined decision-making could look like this:
Structure and Governance
● Core Members:
○ Baltic Nations: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania.
○ Black Sea Nations: Ukraine, Romania, Bulgaria.
○ Nordic Nations: Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway.
○ Key Central Power: Poland.
● Decision-Making:
○ Streamlined decision-making with an empowered central command council.
○ Rapid decision-making authority granted to military commanders in emergencies.
● Standards and Integration:
○ Fully aligned with NATO standards, designations, logistics, and command structures.
○ No duplication of assets; this alliance draws directly from NATO-compatible forces. No duplication of GDP commitments.
Military Doctrine
● Goal: Achieve simultaneous air dominance in two of three regions (Nordic, Baltic, Black Sea) within 24 hours of hostilities.
○ Deploy interoperable air forces for rapid suppression of enemy air defenses (SEAD) and control of regional airspace.
○ Leverage Nordic nations’ advanced air defense systems (e.g., Finland’s F-35s and Sweden’s Gripens).
○ Utilize Polish and Romanian air bases for forward-deployed NATO-compatible aircraft.
● Regional Defense Specialization:
○ Poland: Central logistical hub, land-based armored and mechanized forces, and air force coordination.
○ Sweden and Finland: Arctic and Nordic airspace dominance; advanced air and missile defense systems.
○ Norway and Denmark: North Atlantic naval dominance and protection of Arctic trade routes.
○ Baltic States: Cyber defense, electronic warfare, and forward-deployed drone capabilities. HUMINT.
○ Ukraine and Romania: Black Sea naval defense, tactical drone warfare, and urban combat readiness. HUMINT.
● Interoperability:
○ Standardized equipment, communication protocols, and joint training exercises to ensure seamless integration.
Intelligence Doctrine
The Eastern Shield Alliance (ESA) will adopt a cutting-edge Intelligence Doctrine that draws inspiration from the operational strengths of Five Eyes and the unconventional tactics of the Soviet playbook, creating a framework tailored to counter modern hybrid and asymmetric threats. This doctrine emphasizes agility, deep collaboration, and proactive measures to undermine adversarial efforts before they can fully materialize.
Core Pillars of the Intelligence Doctrine
1. Unified Intelligence Network
● Modeled after Five Eyes, the ESA will establish a shared intelligence network that ensures seamless communication and information-sharing among member states.
● Real-Time Intelligence Sharing: Leveraging advanced AI and edge computing to provide actionable intelligence on hybrid threats, troop movements, cyberattacks, and disinformation campaigns.
● Fusion Centers: Regional intelligence hubs in Poland, Sweden, and Romania to integrate data from military, cyber, and civilian sources.
2. Offensive Counter-Intelligence: “Subverting the Subverters”
● Inspired by the Soviet concept of counter-subversion, the ESA will adopt proactive measures to dismantle and neutralize hostile efforts through unconventional means:
○ Disinformation and Propaganda Reversal: Identify, disrupt, and exploit Russian propaganda channels to turn their narratives against them.
○ Asymmetric Cyber Operations: Use offensive cyber capabilities to disrupt Russian military communications, logistics, and propaganda systems.
○ Psychological Operations (PSYOPS): Launch targeted campaigns to sow discord among hostile factions, undermine morale, and destabilize adversarial operations.
3. Hybrid Warfare Readiness
● ESA intelligence operations will focus heavily on countering hybrid warfare tactics:
○ Energy Infrastructure Surveillance: Monitor and protect critical energy and undersea assets from sabotage.
○ Election Security: Safeguard democratic institutions by detecting and exposing foreign influence campaigns.
○ Critical Infrastructure Hardening: Identify vulnerabilities in member states' infrastructure and implement countermeasures.
4. Human Intelligence (HUMINT)
● Strengthen ESA’s HUMINT capabilities through:
○ Networked Operatives: Train and deploy a robust network of intelligence operatives across critical regions, including within Russian-held territories.
○ Local Collaboration: Work with local populations in occupied and contested regions to gather critical intelligence and foster resistance.
5. Proactive Intelligence Gathering
● Deploy hybrid and unconventional means to gather intelligence before conflicts arise:
○ Economic Espionage: Monitor and disrupt adversarial economic activities, including sanctions evasion and arms smuggling.
○ Social Media Exploitation: Use AI to identify trends, false narratives, and early signs of adversarial mobilization.
6. Joint Training and Integration
● ESA intelligence personnel will participate in joint exercises and cross-training programs, combining Nordic expertise in cyber defense, Baltic proficiency in electronic warfare, and Black Sea nations’ familiarity with hybrid combat.
Unique Features of ESA Intelligence Doctrine
1. Proactive vs. Reactive: ESA intelligence operations prioritize preemption of threats rather than waiting for escalation.
2. Offensive Subversion: ESA will not only defend against hybrid threats but also use them offensively to destabilize adversaries.
3. Multi-Domain Coordination: Intelligence operations will integrate cyber, physical, economic, and psychological dimensions into a unified strategy.
The ESA’s Intelligence Doctrine ensures that its members are not only protected but also positioned to confront and dismantle threats at their roots, leveraging the best of conventional and unconventional methods to secure the alliance’s sovereignty and deter future aggression.
Logistics and Supply Chain
● Centralized Logistics Hub:
○ Warsaw serves as the primary logistical command center, with forward supply depots in Romania and Finland.
● Prepositioned Stockpiles:
○ Prepositioned munitions, fuel, and medical supplies near flashpoints like the Suwalki Gap and Black Sea coast.
● Integrated Command with NATO:
○ Full interoperability with NATO’s logistical networks, ensuring shared resources and efficiency.
Strategic Focus Areas
Air Dominance:
○ Establish regional air superiority through rapid deployment of NATO-compatible air forces.
○ Utilize AWACS, drones, and SEAD-capable aircraft for battlefield awareness and airspace control.
Undersea Asset Protection:
○ Secure undersea communication cables, pipelines, and critical energy infrastructure from sabotage or attack.
○ Deploy advanced undersea surveillance systems and maritime patrol aircraft.
○ Focus on the North Atlantic, Baltic Sea, and Black Sea chokepoints.
Hybrid Warfare and Cybersecurity:
○ Counter Russian disinformation campaigns, cyberattacks, and hybrid threats.
○ Build on Estonia’s expertise in cyber defense and Ukraine’s experience in electronic warfare.
Maritime Defense:
○ Establish robust naval operations to deter aggression in the Baltic and Black Seas.
○ Focus on anti-submarine warfare, minesweeping, and surface fleet operations.
Energy Infrastructure Security:
○ Protect critical energy assets, including LNG terminals, nuclear plants, and renewable energy facilities.
Political and Economic Considerations
● Unified Vision:
○ Shared goal of deterring Russian aggression while maintaining alignment with NATO values and standards.
● Membership Criteria:
○ Democratic governance, NATO-compatible military structures, and strong commitments to collective defense.
● Funding Model:
○ Fixed GDP contributions with equitable burden-sharing.
○ External financial support from NATO allies like the US and UK to supplement member contributions.
● Energy Independence:
○ Coordinate investments in renewable energy, LNG terminals, and nuclear power to reduce reliance on Russian energy.
Partnerships
● Complementary to NATO:
○ The alliance is fully integrated with NATO structures, focusing on rapid regional responses where NATO’s broader structure may be slower.
○ Enhances NATO’s capabilities without duplicating them, ensuring efficiency and unity.
● Observer States:
○ Open to future membership by nations like Moldova and Georgia, with temporary observer status as an interim step.
Unique Features
Rapid Reaction Forces:
○ Multinational brigades and air squadrons ready to deploy within 48 hours.
○ Air dominance achieved in 24 hours in two of three critical regions.
AI and Advanced Technologies:
○ Use of AI, drones, and advanced analytics for real-time decision-making and battlefield awareness.
Integrated Air and Missile Defense:
○ Coordinated air and missile defense systems across Poland, the Nordics, and the Black Sea region.
Undersea Surveillance:
○ Advanced sonar systems and drone technology for monitoring undersea infrastructure.
Energy and Civil Resilience:
○ Comprehensive plans to protect civilian infrastructure, including grids and communication systems.
Challenges
Coordination Across Regions:
○ Ensuring seamless coordination between Nordic, Baltic, and Black Sea regions may require robust communication networks.
Russian Retaliation:
○ Expect hybrid attacks aimed at disrupting alliance cohesion and undermining public support.
Sustainability:
○ Smaller states may struggle to meet financial or operational commitments without continued NATO support.
This alliance would combine NATO’s standards and assets with a leaner, more agile structure, focusing on rapid air dominance, undersea asset protection, and efficient decision-making. By enhancing NATO's capabilities and focusing on immediate regional threats, it would provide a powerful deterrent to Russian aggression while reinforcing European security.
NATO Rules and Potential Implications
Principle of Complementarity:
○ NATO encourages regional and bilateral defense cooperation among its members and partners. As long as the alliance complements NATO’s goals and does not fragment its collective defense commitments under Article 5, it would likely be welcomed.
No Exclusive Commitments:
○ NATO does not require its members to limit participation in other defense arrangements. Member states are free to engage in additional regional alliances, as long as these do not contradict their NATO obligations.
Shared Resources:
○ If the alliance uses NATO assets (e.g., AWACS, airbases, or logistical hubs), it would need NATO's explicit agreement. This could be arranged through a formal memorandum of understanding.
Decision-Making Autonomy:
○ NATO's decision-making is based on consensus. A regional alliance could not override NATO decisions, especially regarding collective defense. However, it could act independently in situations where NATO as a whole cannot or will not act.
Relevant Precedents
The European Union:
○ Many NATO members are also part of the EU and participate in EU defense initiatives like the Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) or the European Defence Fund. These initiatives coexist with NATO and focus on complementary goals such as rapid deployment and interoperability.
Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF):
○ The UK leads the JEF, a coalition of northern European countries (including Nordic and Baltic states) focused on rapid deployment and regional security. It operates independently but is NATO-compatible.
Bilateral Defense Agreements:
○ Countries like the US and Poland have bilateral agreements for enhanced defense cooperation, including troop deployments and shared bases, which are fully compatible with NATO commitments.
Key Considerations for Compatibility
Coordination:
○ The new alliance would need to coordinate closely with NATO to avoid duplication of effort or conflicting strategies.
Avoid Undermining Article 5:
○ The alliance must reaffirm NATO’s Article 5 commitment to collective defense. It should be clear that the new alliance enhances regional security rather than offering an alternative to NATO’s security guarantees.
Political Sensitivities:
○ Some NATO members (e.g., Germany or France) might view the alliance as a sign of regional fragmentation or a lack of confidence in NATO’s ability to defend all members equally. Clear communication about the alliance’s complementary role would be essential.
Challenges and Workarounds
Perceived Division:
○ If framed as filling gaps in NATO’s responsiveness (e.g., in the Baltic or Black Sea regions), some might perceive it as a criticism of NATO. A positive framing as "augmenting NATO" would mitigate this.
Resource Sharing:
○ Formal agreements would be needed to ensure the alliance could use NATO assets (e.g., airbases, logistics hubs) without disrupting NATO operations.
US and NATO Leadership Approval:
○ Given the US's leadership role in NATO, its explicit support would likely be necessary for political and operational success.
Conclusion
As long as this alliance is positioned as complementary to NATO, adhering to NATO standards and enhancing regional security in areas where NATO may be slower to respond, it would not violate NATO rules. In fact, it could strengthen NATO by demonstrating member states’ commitment to shared security goals and reinforcing deterrence against common threats.
I have advocated for this since the Russian invasion of Ukraine exposed the temerity of a US led NATO to effectively counter Putin's aggression. I fervently hope it will be created.
This type of alliance has been talked about here in Ukraine since late 2022 but very little movement so far other than talk, of course. Some of it is public but much of it is not. My contacts in Prague are also working in this direction even though the Czechs are left out of this particular plan. Fact is, this plan is one of the best I have seen or heard of so far. It's got good bones. Now, we have to see if there will be actual "buy-in" due to the US election results. Here in Ukraine, the need to go from reactive to proactive is still a major problem. Tom knows my sentiments from the early days and thank you, Benjamin for putting forth a cogent and reasonable format.