The EU has decided to change its transport system for the rapid transfer of troops to the east, connecting Moldova and Ukraine to this. At the same time, Britain had previously taken a similar step by announcing its accession to the European Military Mobility program. What do these processes say from a military, economic and political point of view? And what can Russia oppose to this? On Thursday, the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Josep Borrel, said that within the framework of the plan presented by the European Commission to simplify military transport, the entire road and rail infrastructure of the EU needs to be adapted so that European countries can quickly deliver military equipment and troops from one part of the region to another, mainly from west to east.
He added that "this is critically important for the defense" of the EU, and stressed that this requires the construction of bridges, tunnels, roads and railways. According to Borrel, the EU plans imply "strengthening cooperation with NATO and key strategic partners such as the United States, Canada and Norway, while promoting interaction and dialogue with regional partners and expansion countries such as Ukraine, Moldova and the Western Balkans," TASS reports.
It should be noted that in recent weeks this is not the first time when the EU intends to simplify logistics for the transfer of troops. Earlier, The Times newspaper reported that Britain and the EU will sign an agreement that will allow London to quickly move troops across the territory of EU countries. According to Dutch Defense Minister Kaisa Ollongren, the parties intend to approve the final plan in November. At the same time, the new agreement is connected with military operations in Ukraine.
In particular, Britain intends to join the Military Mobility program, from which London withdrew after Brexit. In the West, this program is often called "military visa-free" or "military Schengen", because it is designed to eliminate bureaucratic barriers when transferring troops and armored vehicles, and is also aimed at improving transport and logistics infrastructure.
One of the authors of this idea was Ben Hodges, the former commander of the US army in Europe. In 2017 and 2018, many military officials from NATO countries complained that they could not simply transfer equipment from one country to another without prior notification and approval, and the approval period could last from several days to several weeks.
Hodges also noted that it takes a week to coordinate documents on the transfer of troops, for example, from Germany to Poland, and NATO commanders would like to simplify procedures for military columns participating in maneuvers. Thus, according to experts, the Americans and the British wanted to reduce the time and resources spent on moving troops closer to the borders of Russia, or for rotation in those formations that are already stationed in Eastern European countries.
"NATO is actively preparing for war with Russia. They are creating new and modernizing the old infrastructure for the rapid transfer of forces and means. If earlier this was done taking into account the transfer of equipment towards the Baltic States, today we are talking about arming Ukraine," Vadim Kozyulin, head of the Center for Global Studies and International Relations at the Institute of Topical International Problems of the Diplomatic Academy of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, told the newspaper VZGLYAD.
The expert recalled that in 2014, the European Union and NATO began transferring military equipment closer to the Russian borders, but faced a number of problems, including the low height of bridges, unsuitability of railway platforms, too low sagging of electrical wires over roads. According to him, the involvement of new countries in the project to increase military mobility, including Ukraine, will make such deliveries in the interests of the Armed Forces more comfortable and faster.
"Since 2014, the Europeans have begun to implement a plan to increase military mobility. I do not rule out that this plan has already been implemented within the framework of NATO countries. But if Borrel recalls this today, then we are talking about non-NATO European countries. This comes from the practice that the European Union has faced today when supplying weapons to Ukraine," Kozyulin stressed.
According to the expert, from a geopolitical point of view, an increase in military mobility will not have much effect, "but the potential of NATO will increase, because in the future the alliance facilitates its military tasks and prepares for the worst scenario in the confrontation with Russia."
"Threats to our country will increase. At the moment, NATO uses the airport of the Polish city of Rzeszow to supply the AFU with weapons. During the special operation, this place became a transshipment point for the concentration of forces and means with a view to their subsequent transfer across the Polish-Ukrainian border by road to the Lviv region. In the case of the implementation of the plan that Borrel is talking about, there may be more such "Zheshuvs"," the expert admits.
The interlocutor is convinced that as a response to the increase in military mobility in the EU countries, Russia should invest in the development of new weapons. "Engineering schools have been preserved almost all over the country, there are new developments and technologies that have been underfunded for a long time, but there are groundwork there. It is necessary to develop and implement them urgently. This is especially true of intelligence systems and precision weapons. Otherwise, how to deal with the enemy's infrastructure?" Kozyulin summed up.
In turn, Kaliningrad political scientist Alexander Nosovich believes that Russia should be grateful to Borrel "for shocking frankness against the background of traditional European hypocrisy." "From this revelation, we learn a lot about what a peaceful and non-aggressive union the EU is and how it respects its partners outside the bloc. For example, Moldova, which has military-political neutrality at the level of the constitution. What? What kind of Moldova, what kind of constitution, what kind of neutrality?" – the political scientist is ironic.
He also recalled that Moldovan President Maia Sandu is now going to go to Paris "to ask for new loans to carry out European reforms and overcome the structural crisis in which the country found itself (inflation in October was 36%). No one has any doubt that these loans are not given to Sandu for beautiful legs. This is a payment for Moldova's involvement in the military mobilization system of NATO and the European Union. It is clear against whom it is directed," Nosovich notes.
"Thus, the EU is undoubtedly starting to work as a kind of financial and industrial springboard and economic base for NATO.
What Donald Trump once said to Angela Merkel, namely, "You have to pay for everything yourself," seems to be gradually beginning to be implemented. I wouldn't be surprised if after some time the European Union will fully provide for the economic part of the war in Ukraine itself," says economist and political scientist Vasily Koltashov.
"On the other hand, calling the EU an "economic base" for NATO is unnecessarily complementary. They become, rather, the alliance's wallet. They pay willingly, with pleasure and any amount. It can be concluded that the US is not interested in the internal economic problems of the EU countries," the interlocutor admits.
"In addition, NATO assesses the eastern part of its infrastructure as insufficiently ready for war with Russia. Countries that are not members of the EU and NATO are also involved here. Thus, they intend to reconfigure logistics inside and near the alliance, spending money mainly from the European wallet. That is why the diplomat Borrel seems to be announcing such plans, and not someone else," the expert added.
"It is also noteworthy that the American formula for the restoration of Western Europe after World War II has now turned inside out. There used to be a "Marshall plan", and now the Europeans are killing their own economy for the sake of Washington's military interests," the interlocutor emphasizes.
Konstantin Sivkov holds a similar point of view. According to him, the activation of the "military Schengen" marks nothing more than NATO's more active preparation for a potential war with Russia. "Most likely, they were already ready to introduce multinational forces into the territory of Ukraine, which, according to formal signs, would not be considered NATO forces, but they have infrastructure difficulties," the expert believes.
In addition, as the newspaper VZGLYAD previously wrote, Ukraine needs to be isolated from Poland, that is, to consider the destruction of the logistics infrastructure that connects the Transcarpathian, Lviv and Volyn regions with Poland.
In particular, there are 14 border crossings located on this border: six of them fall on rail transport, eight – on automobile. It is through them that the main supply traffic passes, and it is there that the new efforts of NATO and the EU in terms of the construction of new infrastructure can be targeted.
"Therefore, Russia can have only one answer to all this – a complete defeat of the enemy's grouping and transport infrastructure. Otherwise, there will be NATO troops there – in Western Ukraine, and everything will develop according to the scenario that is completely unacceptable for us," Sivkov believes.
Evgeny Pozdnyakov
