Lithuanian soldiers inspected a United States Army Stryker vehicle last year during an exercise. Lithuania and its Baltic neighbors, Estonia and Latvia, are among the NATO countries that have been asking for a statement of American military support. Credit Bryan Denton for The New York Times
New York Times: U.S. Fortifying Europe’s East to Deter Putin
WASHINGTON — President Obama plans to substantially increase the deployment of heavy weapons, armored vehicles and other equipment to NATO countries in Central and Eastern Europe, a move that administration officials said was aimed at deterring Russia from further aggression in the region.
The White House plans to pay for the additional weapons and equipment with a budget request of more than $3.4 billion for military spending in Europe in 2017, several officials said Monday, more than quadrupling the current budget of $789 million. The weapons and equipment will be used by American and NATO forces, ensuring that the alliance can maintain a full armored combat brigade in the region at all times.
Though Russia’s military activity has quieted in eastern Ukraine in recent months, Moscow continues to maintain a presence there, working with pro-Russian local forces. Administration officials said the additional NATO forces were calculated to send a signal to President Vladimir V. Putin that the West remained deeply suspicious of his motives in the region.
Read more ....
Update: DOD requesting 3,000-5,000 more troops for Europe in FY17 budget (Stars and Stripes).
WNU Editor: This is all PR and politics. A few thousand troops and and a few tanks is not going to make a difference in the defense posture of Eastern Europe .... and it will certainly not change Moscow's agenda.
When reading this my first thoughts are, there likely is no force structure the United States or Eastern European nations are capable of mustering that would be capable of countering anything Russia does in the foreseeable future. Deployments such as this will only further inflame Russia and make things worse.
ReplyDeleteRussia is the most powerful military force n the world. Eastern European nations, the US, and western European nations need to adjust their policies accordingly. Besides should war become hot it is going to be the US who is going to bear the brunt of a Russian reprisal along with Eastern European nations possibly be hit hard.
"This is all PR and politics." If so, it is bad PR and bad politics. You correctly point out a few thousand troops is not going to make a difference. Even if the United States threw everything it had at this and then some, it seems unlikely Russia could be deterred and such deployments will only further anger Russia. Hopefully the US, Western Europe, and Eastern European nations will one day soon get leadership that has some sense.
There has been no "Russian aggression" in the classic sense and Germany & France couldn't care less about any "Russian threat" so yes it is all PR. Plus the US Army has a new billion-dollar hospital a-building in Germany and they need to justify it, and possibly fill it.
ReplyDeleteRussia has been trying to make nice with the US (e.g. Sochi), but the US will have no part of it. Russia is simply a designated enemy of the US in order to justify Pentagon spending on routine land warfare hardware like howitzers and tanks. Without Russia, they no justification to spend the money.
@ BP
"Russia is the most powerful military force in the world" is certainly amusing, but certainly not true.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete"Russia is the most powerful military force in the world" is certainly amusing, but certainly not true.
DeleteGood call.
Nothing amusing about it and it certainly is true. Anyone paying attention would be aware of this. I've been patiently explaining this sense at least 1998. Had the right people been listening they would not have expressed "surprise" at how the Russian military is performing.
ReplyDeleteRecognizing this does not mean will necessary do everything they ask us to do but such realizations will help direct our foreign policy the way it should be. Furthermore if the weapons are designed with Russia in mind they aren't even the right kind of weapons to challenge Russia. As such, the primary focus seems to be on Islamic terrorism with a minimal focus on Russia.
As for the hospitals, these will be a matter of negotiations between the US and the soverign government of Germany. With the myriad of threats faced by Western Europe right now for Germany to want such a facility would seem prudent.
With that said I think we can agree that it is long past time for the US to redeploy its forces away from Germany. World War II ended almost 70 years ago, there is no possibility of Nazi Germany returning, and the Germans have had more than enough time to develop their own military capability. It may take some time for German forces to be ready for this.
I would suggest frank consultations with US and German leaders to try and determine how much lead time Germany needs to be able to cover it's won defense without American assistance, help them get there where and when possible, and the details of such conversations need to be kept out of the media as we don't want this revealed to enemies. Additionally, as long as American national defense is not endangered, I think it might be a good idea to leave Germany a few nuclear weapons as a "parting gift." Now this might actually be enough to deter any would be aggressor.
I've tried to offer constructive possibilities. Very respectfully ignoring the threats and dismissing them as amusing or knee jerk blaming everything on the United States is unlikely to be helpful.
"Good call." Very respectfully I'm not sure how ignoring reality is a good call. Such would seem to be a "bad call." Essentially there probably is no force structure at this time that the United States is capable of fielding that can defeat Russia on the battlefield. The best we could probably hope to do is make things pyric enough for them that they would not consider attacking us or any allies we may have.
ReplyDeleteIf the wrong assumptions are made, we either go in to light or ignore the threat all together. Essentially I think we are probably in agreement that this current deployment will not only not be adequate to contain Russia should it choose to attack but will only further inflame Russia. (Of course the force structure is not going to be enough to actually threaten Russia either but I'd expect this to not appear in the messaging as it does not fit the carefully construed narrative.) Essentially it's a bad idea all the way around.
"Ignoring reality" was not the correct term to use. I apologize. There is a difference of opinion which does not mean reality is being ignored.
ReplyDeleteI suppose the only way to "know" for certain would be for hot war to ensue. As such, U hope and pray we do not get to find out.
I meant "I hope and pray we do not get to find out." I apologize for the misspellings.
ReplyDeleteb.poster
ReplyDeleteRussia is not the most powerful military force in the world....we've been over this.
People do pay attention.
Outside of the U.S. Obama is all show, no go.
ReplyDeleteYes I know we have. Very respectfully you failed to prove the opposite. While we cannot "prove" definitively beyond any doubt unless the two powers and their allies face off in a hot war, the Russian military has shown abilities to move troops and equipment and carry out military operations that the United States would not be able to do. For example, retired Lt Col Ralph Peters admitted that the Russians were able to move faster from a standing start than the US could have over the same distance and the same time period. Unfortunately he failed to reach the proper conclusions from his observations. Also, Russian cyber and nuclear capabilities need to be considered as well.
ReplyDeleteIt is my considered opinion that Russia is the most powerful military force in the world. If I'm right, the policy suggestions I've suggested elsewhere should be sound. If not, then 1.)supporting Russia's position on Ukraine and 2.)doing all we can to break sanctions against Russia would cost us nothing. Such changes in policy carry virtually no downside with huge upside potential.
Again, the only way to "know" is to have a hot war which I pray we avoid. I hope people do pay attention. I try to add constructive points to the discussion. If people pay attention, we might all learn something.:-)
Imagine: After the Cold War, NATO disintegrated and the Warsaw Pact doubled in size to include countries like Venezuela, Cuba, Honduras, Panama. And then began courting countries like Mexico and the former US territory of Puerto Rico. Not to mention transforming from a defensive alliance into an offensive one used to topple governments and create friendly states all over the planet. How would Texans feel about that right in their own backyard?
ReplyDeleteSo...who are the aggressors again?
Russia's annexation of Crimea was the best thing to ever happen to NATO... Suddenly it had a relevant mission again and General Breedlove was important... not to mention a large uptick in European defense spending. I wouldn't have expected any leader of any country to have acted differently that Putin if in the same circumstances.
ReplyDelete