The Political and military-strategic impact of arms control regime failure on the Baltic Sea region

ENIn the 1990s huge stockpiles of conventional arms, chemical weapons and nuclear weapons were eliminated. From being the most heavily militarised space in the world, Europe became a world region in which military factors were pushed to the sidelines. Legal agreements with unprecedented levels of verification played an important role in making the transformation a relatively orderly process. The annexation of Crimea and the challenge to Ukrainian sovereignty posed by Russia's aggressive actions from 2014 onwards highlighted a lack of preparedness should a military contingency arise elsewhere. Many European states emphasised enhancing military capability in response. Maintaining, or building upon, the restraint measures negotiated in the 1990s received less attention as trust evaporated, and new negotiated limits on armaments will require a significant (and unexpected) change in approach by the most senior decision-makers in major powers. States in the Baltic Sea region are cautious in their approach to arms control, but the economic burden of comprehensive defence measures is considerable, and domestic political support for increasing military expenditure is uneven across European countries. Once measures to enhance military capabilities have been implemented, finding a balance between defence, deterrence and restraint may become a higher priority for European governments, and at that point states in the Baltic Sea region will have to make a new assessment. States may seek the predictability offered by binding agreements, and the changes in the strategic geography of Europe make it highly unlikely that states in the Baltic Sea region could stand outside such arrangements. [...].