Emir J. Phillips, an Associate Professor of Finance at Lincoln University in Jefferson City, Missouri, warns in an Aug. 24 commentary in a publication called The Geopolitics, that NATO’s war build-up could provoke the very conflict that it says it wants to avoid. The very nature of NATO’s war plans—as revealed by the publication of secret military documents by Der Spiegel—"raises concerns,” he writes. “While the stated goal is to deter aggression by demonstrating NATO’s readiness, the buildup itself could be perceived by Russia as a threat, thereby escalating tensions rather than calming them. This situation is a textbook example of the security dilemma—a concept in international relations where the actions taken by a state to increase its security lead to increased insecurity in other states, prompting them to respond in kind, thus creating a cycle of escalation.”
“Poland’s recent military buildup exemplifies this paradox,” Phillips goes on, noting that Poland has embarked on a massive military build-up and is spending 4 percent of its GDP on it. “Yet, this rapid militarization, rather than ensuring Poland’s security, might be exacerbating the very threats it seeks to counter,” he writes, noting the recent border tensions with Belarus. “Prime Minister Donald Tusk’s assertion that the next two years will decide everything underscores the existential stakes Poland perceives. However, the same actions that Poland views as necessary for its survival could be interpreted by Russia as preparation for an offensive, thus triggering a dangerous escalation.”
“The principle of deterrence is predicated on the assumption that the threat of overwhelming retaliation will prevent an adversary from taking aggressive actions,” Phillips writes later. [It’s also predicated on the assumption that the adversary will take aggressive actions in the absence of deterrence, but this isn’t necessarily true.—CJO] “However, this logic can be deeply flawed if both sides engage in mutual fear and mistrust, leading to an arms race that makes war more, not less, likely.”
