By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko vowed to counter NATO’s increased Baltic Sea patrols, viewing them as an attempt to dominate the region. This follows Finland and Sweden’s NATO accession, which has strategically weakened Russia’s position, particularly concerning its Kaliningrad exclave. NATO’s heightened activity is partly a response to suspected Russian damage to undersea cables and the operation of a sanctioned Russian oil “shadow fleet.” Grushko asserts Russia will prevent NATO from controlling the Baltic Sea.
Read the original article here
Russia’s recent pronouncements about preventing NATO dominance in the Baltic Sea ring rather hollow given the current geopolitical reality. The assertion itself seems almost comical considering the extensive NATO presence already established in the region.
The Baltic Sea, historically, hasn’t been under consistent Russian control. Periods of Russian influence were interspersed with eras where other powers held sway. To claim a right to dominance now ignores this historical context and the present-day alliances that firmly establish NATO’s influence.
The idea of Russia preventing NATO dominance feels like a significant overestimation of their capabilities. Their naval power, even if one were to disregard the generally accepted assessment of its condition, is simply no match for the combined naval forces of the NATO nations bordering the Baltic. The sheer number of NATO countries with Baltic coastlines drastically outweighs Russia’s limited presence.
The argument that Russia will not allow NATO dominance completely overlooks the consequences of Russia’s own actions. The ongoing conflict in Ukraine has been a major catalyst driving several previously neutral Baltic Sea nations into the embrace of NATO. It is arguably this invasion that has made the Baltic Sea more heavily a NATO area of influence, therefore Russia’s statement about preventing that dominance appears self-contradictory and a direct result of their own aggressive policies.
Furthermore, the claim sounds like an empty threat. The overwhelming military superiority of NATO in the region makes any attempt at enforcing such a claim virtually impossible. The notion that Russia could somehow wrest control or even significantly challenge NATO’s dominance is simply unrealistic, and ignores the potential consequences of any escalation.
This brings us to another important point: the irony of Russia’s position. They seem to be ignoring the fact that their own aggressive actions are the primary cause of NATO’s enhanced presence in the Baltic. Their complaints against NATO’s influence seem disingenuous, given the chain of events triggered by their invasion of Ukraine. Actions speak far louder than words, and Russia’s actions have effectively invited the very situation they now claim to oppose.
The suggestion that Russia could somehow prevent NATO dominance seems laughably naive. The strength and geographical positioning of NATO members along the Baltic Sea coastline make any attempt at hindering NATO activities futile. Their presence has been built over years, and any challenge would require a level of military power that Russia simply does not possess. The situation is not about the possibility of an upcoming war, but rather a war that is already ongoing.
The assertion that Russia will not allow NATO dominance is ultimately a distraction from the real issue: Russia’s ongoing aggression and its consequences. By focusing on this hollow claim, Russia tries to shift the focus away from their own actions and the resulting international response. The reality is that Russia has already allowed – indeed, perhaps even caused – the very outcome they claim to prevent.
In conclusion, Russia’s statement lacks credibility. The military capabilities, the historical context, and the chain of events directly relating to their actions all point towards the unavoidable reality: NATO’s presence in the Baltic Sea is not a temporary anomaly but a firmly established presence, reinforced by Russia’s own actions. The assertion is not only unrealistic but also demonstrates a disconnect from the prevailing geopolitical situation. To claim otherwise is to ignore reality and the consequences of aggression.