Russia and NATO in the Baltics in 2016 (NSC)

Set in July 2016. Since Russia’s annexation of the Ukrainian peninsula of Crimea in 2014, the United States has debated how to best support the Baltic States, three small countries wedged between Russia and the Baltic Sea. Those states—Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania—are fellow members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which the United States is bound by treaty to help defend. Given Russia’s willingness to openly flout the sovereignty of its neighbors and its increasingly aggressive military presence in the Baltic region, the United States worries that Russia could continue an expansionist policy. 

Before the biennial NATO summit, the U.S. National Security Council (NSC) will convene to determine a policy to address Baltic security that the United States will articulate at the gathering. As the NSC deliberates, it needs to consider the possibility that Russian actions in Ukraine could be replayed in the Baltics. 

American policymakers need to decide how to support the Baltic states now that Russia has annexed Crimea. Russia’s willingness to openly flout the sovereignty of its neighbors leaves the United States worried Russia could continue an expansionist policy. 

Underscoring that fear was Russia’s increasingly aggressive military presence in the Baltic region. In the years before the annexation of Crimea, the territory around the Baltics had seen Russian military buildup, including increased submarine patrols around NATO territory, military drills, and air patrols. In April 2016, tensions flared after the White House reported that a Russian plane had flown “dangerously close” to a U.S. ship and a Polish plane in the Baltic Sea. In a separate incident later that month, a Russian fighter jet came within one hundred feet of an American reconnaissance plane over the Baltic Sea. During the following months, Latvia several times identified Russian military ships and aircraft near its waters and airspace.

The biennial NATO summit is scheduled to convene in Warsaw, Poland, in July of this year (2016). Because tensions with Russia in the Baltic region have been mounting, discussing the alliance’s eastern flank will occupy much of the summit’s agenda. In advance of the meeting, the U.S. National Security Council (NSC) will convene to determine a policy to address Baltic security that it will articulate at the summit. As the United States deliberates, it needs to consider that Russian actions in Ukraine—including the exploitation of a neighbor’s internal divisions, the infiltration of special operations forces, a buildup of regular units on the border, and a potential Russian seizure of neighboring territory—could be replayed in the Baltics. The stakes for the United States and its allies would be considerably higher should such moves occur in a country that, unlike Ukraine, is a member of NATO. As NSC members meet to choose a response, they should consider four different variables:

CFR Education extended simulations use a variety of pedagogical tools to create an effective, meaningful, and memorable learning experience for students that builds their global literacy. Students will develop crucial skills such as critical thinking, communication, collaboration, and creativity. Students will complete authentic assessments that feel relevant: instead of five-paragraph essays and book reports, students will write policy memos and participate in a role-play of a meeting of a foreign policy–making body. There are no right or wrong answers in actual policy deliberations, and there are none here, either; students will walk away from this experience with an appreciation for the complexity of policy questions.

In this simulation, students will learn about the National Security Council, as well as meeting these learning outcomes specific to this simulation:

Concepts

Issues

This section presents context, potential benefits and drawbacks, and other information about the policy options outlined in the case that you may find helpful as you guide the role-play and assess students.

General Considerations

Because NATO is both a central institution of U.S. foreign policy and a major strategic asset, the United States sees any Russian military activity near the Baltic states as a challenge it needs to—in some fashion—meet. The United States has a strong interest in maintaining the security of its European allies and in sending a firm signal to Russia that it cannot threaten them without consequence. Yet no decision on supporting an ally in trouble is a simple one, especially when the opposing power is a nuclear-armed state with considerable military and economic might. Any escalation in the conflict could have high costs for both U.S. and NATO military personnel.

As a first step, the United States, along with its NATO allies, had to consider how severe the threat from Russia’s actions was. Russian buildup near the Baltics had yet to constitute an armed attack that would justify invoking Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. However, against the backdrop of Russia’s ongoing activity in Ukraine, the Baltic states sought strong signals of U.S. resolve.

Second, the United States will need to carefully consider how to most effectively assist without unnecessarily escalating the conflict. If, on the other hand, NATO members hold off invoking Article 5, Western policymakers could have more flexibility. In either case, Baltic leaders and other NATO allies will seek strong signals of U.S. resolve, and any U.S. action seen as half-hearted under these circumstances could cause allies in Europe and beyond to question U.S. commitment to collective security.

Apart from the question of whether Article 5 applies, the United States has a variety of policy tools available in supporting the Baltic states. NSC members will need to examine the costs and benefits of those tools as well as ways to combine them. They could also advise taking none of the steps if they conclude U.S. interests are best served by staying out of the crisis.

Military measures

If the United States believes the Baltic states’ status as treaty allies calls for a strong show of support, it has a range of military options, such as immediately deploying U.S. rapid-reaction troops, mobilizing a larger multinational NATO contingent, and positioning naval forces off the coasts of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. If NSC members choose to pursue military action, they will need to consider how U.S. and NATO forces can most effectively respond while avoiding unnecessary escalation. NATO forces could be deployed to reinforce the Baltic states’ defenses unobtrusively, so as to not inflame Russia, or take a more visible approach that would signal firmness. An immediate deployment of rapid-reaction troops could quickly reinforce critical defenses, whereas a larger response would take longer to assemble but could send a more visible message of NATO solidarity. Additionally, deployments close to the Russian border could risk escalation, but stationing troops at a greater distance could both limit NATO’s ability to react quickly and convey uncertain resolve.

A military response would send a strong message of resolve to Russia and potentially deter further escalation if the Kremlin decides the risk of open conflict with NATO is too great. Moreover, it would position troops to respond quickly and effectively if the situation escalated into open conflict. However, a military response is not a guaranteed deterrent: Moscow could respond by bolstering its own military presence, increasing the risk of a miscalculation or miscommunication that could ignite a large-scale conflict.

Diplomatic initiatives

Interest in solving this crisis peacefully is strong. To pursue a diplomatic resolution, NSC members could consider consultations between the United States and the Baltic states. The United States could also call for a meeting of NATO foreign or defense ministers, or even a meeting of the NATO-Russia Council, which was created to address security issues between NATO and Russia but has met only intermittently since the 2014 Crimea crisis. The United States could also take a more direct approach, dispatching a high-level U.S. representative to Moscow—perhaps preceded by a U.S.-Russia presidential phone call. NSC members will need to decide whether diplomatic steps should be tried before military steps are taken or whether pursuing both steps in parallel would be more effective. They will also need to consider whether to seek concessions and what sort of concessions to seek: assurances of security in the Baltics, trust-building measures, or merely beginning talks.

Economic measures

NSC members could also choose to impose economic sanctions on Russia to signal Western opposition to Russia’s actions. Sanctions would reduce the risk of direct military confrontation but could be interpreted by NATO allies as a weak show of support. Moreover, sanctions would not necessarily compel Moscow to act. Sanctions played a large role in Western strategy during the confrontation over the Crimean Peninsula but ultimately have had no effect on Russia’s involvement in that country. Moscow has also used the sanctions as a tool to inflame anti-Western sentiment. However, combined with a fall in oil prices, sanctions significantly weakened Russia’s economy in 2014. Although Russia has largely recovered from that downturn, new and more severe sanctions could have a stronger effect on its actions. As they were during the annexation of Crimea, sanctions can be applied in many forms: against individual leaders, particular companies, or entire sectors of the economy.

CFR Education extended simulations are project-based learning activities. Project-based learning (PBL) leads to better learning outcomes and improves skills, and is more fun than traditional instructional methods. The website that students will navigate throughout the simulation is divided into several parts:

In the NSC Guide, students will learn about the National Security Council, the body they will be simulating. Included are details on its history, how it works, who its major players are, and more. There is also a video interview with experts who have served on the body.

In the Case Notes, students dive into the actual situation they will be trying to solve in their simulation. At the beginning is a clear decision point: the question that students will debate during the role-play. This is followed by detailed background material and a discussion of the role that the United States plays.

Preparation and Role-Play includes details on the various roles students could take on, guidelines for the memorandum they will write (the student playing the role of president has a slightly different task), as well as an outline of how the discussion will flow during the role-play.

The Wrap-Up is an important part of the project and includes reflection questions and guidelines for reflecting in a class discussion and in a second memorandum. For historical cases, this section also includes a short description of how the decision point was addressed by policymakers in real life.

The simulation also includes Student Resources, which include a reading list to support research, additional directions and exemplars for writing assignments, and other tips students may find helpful.

Once students have read the simulation and prepared their position memos, here is how we recommend structuring the role-play:

Tips for the National Security Advisor
In Round 1, call on everyone for their opening statements, keeping to a strict time limit—if students have more to say, they can say it in Round 2. The president doesn’t have a specific time limit, but you should keep things moving by not letting the president get bogged down on one issue or policy option.

In Round 2, students do not need to follow a prescribed speaking order; you can call on them as they raise their placards. Work to include everyone and prevent anyone from dominating. As debate goes on, remind students they can change their minds. If it will help move things along, help students see when they are agreeing with each other without realizing it. Feel free to pose questions or propose discussion topics if you feel that certain issues are not receiving adequate consideration. Ultimately, it’s up to you to judge when Round 2 has run its course and it is time to move on to Round 3. You will want to move on when all policy options have been discussed and all of the president’s questions have been answered. The room does not need to come to a consensus—every option just needs to have a fair airing.

In Round 3, ask students to make a final case for their positions. If, during the course of the discussion, some students seem to have coalesced into blocs, you could ask one student to present on behalf of the bloc. If consensus seems possible, you could work toward it; if not, just make sure each option has been clearly presented to the president. Remember, the NSC is not democratic and is an advisory, not decision-making, body. There is no vote, and the president does not need to choose the most popular option.

Tips for the President
Before Round 1, review all the position memos, if you can. During Round 1, as students are presenting their opening statements, you can ask questions to clarify or help draw out the differences between one policy option and another. Try not to get too deep in the weeds, though—that is what Round 2 will be for.

In Round 2, you can take a more active role. If you have concerns about a policy option, ask questions; if some policy options seem stronger than others, say so. If an element of the issue is not being discussed, raise it.

In Round 3, once you have heard all the policy options, it is all down to you. You should choose whichever policy option you think is best, or combine the strongest elements of several different options. Remember, the NSC is not democratic and is an advisory, not decision-making, body. There is no vote, and you do not need to choose the most popular option. Your decision must be made and announced before the wrap-up discussion, although the written presidential directive can come later.

Tips for Online Classes

We suggest conducting the role-play in three rounds, and that three-round structure is a helpful way to approach chunking the role-play for online learning as well. You can conduct each round synchronously or asynchronously.

In round one, participants present their positions.

In round two, participants debate the various policy options.

In round three, debate begins to coalesce around the policy options that the president favors.

To add challenge to the role-play, partway through the discussion throw in one of the following flashpoints—additional hypothetical developments that fit within the case’s existing decision point—or create your own. These flashpoints are intended to stimulate debate by making students think on their feet and reconsider their initial policy preferences. 

After introducing a flashpoint, you might want to help students refocus their discussion by considering critical questions such as these:

Each CFR Education extended simulation involves writing assignments that help students think through policy options and reflect on their learning experience.

In NSC cases, there are three types of writing assignments.

Simulations (on the student-facing side) have instructions for written assignments, and samples for each of these writing exercises. You can also find sample rubrics below.

Samples:

Below are sample rubrics for your use in assessing the writing students will do as part of this extended simulation.

These are single-point rubrics. Jennifer Gonzalez, who writes the blog Cult of Pedagogy, has a great explainer, but the bottom line is that single-point rubrics are relatively easy for students to digest but still have all the advantages of giving structure to instructors’ feedback.

NSC Position Memo Rubric

NSC Presidential Directive Rubric

NSC Written Reflection Rubric

Downloadable rubrics are available here: