The U.S. Senate last month overwhelmingly voted for Montenegro’s accession into NATO. President Donald Trump signed off on this, writing in a letter to the Senate, “the inclusion of Montenegro in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) will not have the effect of increasing the overall percentage share of the United States in the common budgets of NATO,” so it won’t affect how much the U.S. contributes monetarily to NATO, and it “does not detract from the ability of the United States to meet or to fund its military requirements outside the North Atlantic area.” Still, the Balkans is a volatile region, and it’s well-known that Montenegro does not bring substantial material benefit to the transatlantic alliance.
The Cipher Brief’s Kaitlin Lavinder spoke with Senator John McCain (R-AZ), Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who recently visited the Balkans and met with leaders there, about what Montenegro brings to NATO and the current state of affairs in the region.
The Cipher Brief: President Trump, in the letter he sent to the Senate on April 11, said that Montenegro’s membership in NATO essentially won’t harm the United States. But how does membership benefit the United States and the transatlantic alliance in general?
Senator John McCain: First of all, their geographic location. It’s a small country, but it’s very strategically located. Second of all, its population and people are Western oriented, and there has been, as recently as a few months ago, an attempt by the Russians to overthrow the freely elected government of Montenegro. Being a member of NATO would provide them with some additional security. And their military has contributed to our efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq, and we’re always grateful for that.
TCB: At a recent event at the Atlantic Council, Montenegro’s Foreign Minister, Srdjan Darmanovi, said the government in Montenegro needs to acknowledge in a very “blunt” way, the anti-NATO camp that remains in the country. How large is the anti-NATO camp, and how could that impact Montenegro’s accession into NATO?
JM: We’re at a point now where only Spain has to approve, and then it’s a done deal, as far as their entry into NATO is concerned. By the way, it’s a long, hard path – it’s a military assistance program, it’s reforming a whole lot of tasks and programs in order to have this eligibility. It’s a long, hard path to do so.
But there’s no doubt that the Russians recently tried to overthrow the government with a coup. That shows how important they believe Montenegro is. And I am confident that the majority of people in Montenegro are oriented towards Europe and not towards Russia. There is an element in Montenegro, and it’s a sizeable one, that has been impacted by Russian television, Russian propaganda, the Internet. False news has been very active in Montenegro, because the Russians obviously did not want Montenegro to have membership in NATO, which I’m sure is one of the reasons why there was a blatant attempt orchestrated by the GRU [Russia’s foreign military intelligence services] to overthrow the freely elected government of Montenegro.
TCB: Is there valid concern that those within Montenegro who have been influenced by these Russia information campaigns will react extremely negatively to Montenegro’s accession into NATO?
JM: First of all, the freely elected [members of] government of Montenegro were the ones who were strongly in favor of their inclusion into NATO. That’s the way democracy works, and that’s, to some degree, a reason why the GRU – the Russian intelligence – tried to overthrow the government through a very elaborate coup. If there are people who react negatively in Montenegro, they obviously are not expressing the will of the majority. Montenegro is a democracy. People are able to and allowed to register their different positions on different issues, but there’s no doubt that the majority of people in Montenegro elected a government, and that government supported entrance into NATO.
Finally, there is a thing called Article 5 of the NATO alliance: An attack on one is an attack on all. I’m sure that’s one of the many reasons why the Russians attempted a coup when they did, before the formal accession of Montenegro into NATO.
TCB: Are you confident that the Montenegrin government supports NATO as strongly as it says it does? David Kanin, a former CIA official who was the Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Europe, wrote about Serbia that, “Belgrade skillfully manipulates the West and Russia while avoiding making meaningful concessions to either.” Obviously Serbia is a different case, but do you think that line of thinking could apply to Montenegro?
JM: No. And I think it’s very clear that the Serbs have been very close to the Russians historically. They fought on the side of the Russians in World War I, and so that relationship is very long and very close. But I do note with interest that the President and the Prime Minister of Serbia are all in favor of being members in the European Union, not a union with Russia, if for economic reasons alone. So I don’t see a real connection between Serbia and their ambitions, which are entrance into the European Union, and Montenegro, who not only wants the European Union but [also] to [be] a member of NATO.
And yes, the government of Serbia is playing a careful role because they have to. They want good relations with the West, while they also understand ties with Russia. In Serbia, they have not forgotten the air attacks that took place when the campaign against [former Serbian President Slobodan] Milošević took place, and there is still some anger and resentment about that that most of us have forgotten.
TCB: At the same time that we’re discussing NATO extension to Montenegro, the European Union is going through a rough time in its peaceful 70-year post-World War II history, with Brexit, with Marine Le Pen’s run for presidency, with increasingly authoritarian regimes in Hungary and Poland. Is now the right time to be expanding NATO?
JM: I think the urgency of expanding NATO is probably more significant than it’s been since the formation of NATO, certainly since the end of the Cold War. The fact that the refugee flow has caused enormous strains in Europe, Russian propaganda is more active than it’s ever been, Russian military exercises and encroachments on airspace and all of the aggressive actions that President Vladimir Putin has taken also argue for that alliance.
And yes, there are enormous strains going on right now. We are seeing the threat of a breakdown of the new world order that was established 70 years ago at the end of World War II. Free speech, freedom of the press, free travel, all of the democratic principles are being threatened as more authoritarian regimes come to power in some of these countries.
The world is more dangerous than it has been in the last 70 years, which argues for a strong NATO alliance, and you’re seeing reactions from countries that are even non-NATO. For example, Sweden has just reinstated conscription. I don’t think any of us 10 years ago thought that Sweden would ever have a draft. Many of the nations as members of NATO are now making really strong efforts to comply with the 2 percent rule in a way that we have not seen before. This is a direct result of Russian behavior. The Baltic countries are overjoyed that we now have our troops rotating in and out, training with their militaries, and showing our solidarity and our mutual support for each other.
So the reactions to Vladimir Putin’s adventurism, of taking Crimea and partitioning Ukraine, have caused a degree of concern amongst European nations that is almost unprecedented, certainly since the end of the Cold War.
TCB: In thinking about the tensions in the Balkans, and as you mentioned the Baltics, and thinking about NATO troop buildup in the Baltics, and Montenegro’s possible accession into NATO sometime this year, is it right to look at this increasing tension as an East versus West situation? So the Western world order versus Russia?
JM: I think you can look at it as a very ambitious Vladimir Putin, whose goal is to restore the Russian empire, and all the actions that he is taking and with significant success [sic]. For example, Russia is now a major power in the Middle East, which they haven’t been since Anwar Sadat threw them out of Egypt in 1973. We’re seeing Russia’s significant influence in places like Syria. You’re seeing a military buildup at their bases there. And you are seeing a Russian military buildup [in general] which is quite impressive as well.
Vladimir Putin is a thug and a bully. And there’s only one thing that thugs and bullies understand, and that is that there is a greater price to pay for their aggression than the benefit that they might achieve from committing that aggression.
Already, we’re seeing some benefit from the European Reassurance Initiative [initiated by the White House in 2014, after Russia’s incursions in Ukraine, to strengthen U.S. security assistance and cooperation in Europe]. But we also have not very well addressed at all the whole issue of cyber warfare, which the Russians have proven to be extremely capable of. They are able and have shown the effects of shutting down power plants, shutting down financial institutions. Some of the activities that they have used in the use of cyber warfare do not portend well for the future unless we are able [to work] with our allies – by the way, in Tallinn, there is an excellent cyber center – but we have got to address this issue of cyber which shows capabilities to literally shut down countries.
TCB: You were recently in the region – in the Balkans region – meeting with heads of government there. What are the top takeaways from your meetings?
JM: One, they want to be part of the European Union. They’re not that interested at all in being part of some kind of Russian sphere of influence. Second, they are confused. They’re confused as to the statements of the President, as to exactly what our commitment is to NATO and to other aspects of our relationships.
I think they have been comforted some by the knowledge of this national security team, which is very strong, and frankly, our reaction to [Syrian President] Bashar Assad and the Russian [sic] butchery of innocent children – men, women, and children – with the use of chemical weapons, something that Barack Obama never did over a period of eight years, even though there were chemical weapons attacks. So I think they’re a bit confused. I think that we’re going to have to show them our commitment to the alliance.
And frankly, especially in the area of cyber warfare, I think we have significant challenges ahead. And I think that they recognize the importance of American leadership, which has been largely absent the last eight years. Leading from behind doesn’t work.
TCB: Finally, what do you see in the coming months and years for the Balkans in terms of covert cyber activity that could lead to external tension on the streets?
JM: It’s a significant challenge. The Russians get better at it everyday. I think that false news is part of their MO. They are putting strains on particularly the little Baltic countries. By rotating our troops in and out, by joining in training exercises, by showing our commitment to their independence and freedom – that has been very helpful. And I know that General James Mattis and General H.R. McMaster both have strong feelings about that.
I believe that we are in for a very challenging period, because I believe that Vladimir Putin – and not just Vladimir Putin, but problems in the Middle East, problems in Asia and the Pacific are there too – but in the case of the challenges of Vladimir Putin, I think that they will be significant.
I do not predict conflict or war. But I do predict challenges which are met by strength, the old line of Ronald Reagan – peace through strength. And by strengthening our alliances, showing that our militaries working together are very capable, I think we will prevent that conflict. But there will be stresses and strains, particularly in the Balkans, and we have sort of walked away from that place. There are tensions amongst the various countries. There is significant Russian influence. We need to pay more attention to those countries – after all, we did fight a little war there.
I walked over the bridge in Sarajevo – the place where the Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated, that started World War I and then led to World War II. We’ve got to remember that it’s still a very volatile region.
