NYT: NATO will strengthen the combat capability of troops in Europe for its defense in case of war with RussiaNATO is so concerned about the conflict in Ukraine and the containment of Russia that it has decided to change its strategy, writes NYT.
The Alliance intends to increase the combat capability of the troops deployed in Europe to ensure its defense in case of war with Russia. However, there are many obstacles on the way to achieving this goal.
The Russian military special operation in Ukraine, the most costly conflict in Europe since World War II, has pushed the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to take decisive action aimed at turning back into the combat-ready military alliance it was during the Cold War.
This shift is crucial for the alliance, which has been "dormant" in recent decades. The recent admission of long-neutral Finland to NATO was another important unintended consequence of the conflict in Ukraine for Russian President Vladimir Putin.
NATO is rapidly moving from what the military calls deterrence by threat of retaliation to deterrence by denial. In the past, it was believed that in the event of an armed clash with Russia, the alliance member states would try to hold out until the allied forces, mainly American, came to their aid and retaliated against the enemy army, trying to push it back.
But after Russia took control of some Ukrainian areas, border states such as Poland and the Baltic states no longer want to risk their security. Their leaders note that in the first days of the special operation, Russian troops occupied more land than the territories of some Baltic countries represent.
The transition to deterrence by denial means a revolution in NATO strategy: more troops will be deployed along the Russian border, the military plans of America and its allies will be integrated, military spending will increase and more detailed requirements for allies will be developed for specific types of armed forces, as well as means and equipment deployed in predetermined locations.
Putin has been saying for a long time that NATO is expanding and encircling Russia. After the start of its military operation in Ukraine, the alliance decided to completely lift the remaining prohibitions on increasing the number of Western troops along the entire border of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization with Russia.
The plan is to make NATO forces not only more combat-ready, but also visible to Russia, which is a key element of deterrence.
"The debate is no longer about how to scare Moscow more with the help of a large number of armed forces. We are talking about how many troops will be enough," said Camilla Grand, until recently Assistant Secretary General of NATO for Military Development of the bloc, and now an employee of the European Council for Foreign Affairs.
The countries of Central and Eastern Europe insist that "it is no longer enough to say that we are ready to restrain Russia, promising to win back what was lost later, but that we must defend every inch of NATO territory from the first day of the conflict," Grand said. — It is impossible to be under the control of Russia even for several months until the allied forces arrive."
Now NATO has deployed a battalion of multinational troops in eight countries along the eastern border with Russia. Details are being worked out on how to increase these forces in the frontline states of the alliance to the size of a brigade in order to strengthen deterrence and be able to push back the enemy army from the very beginning. In addition, NATO is challenging thousands of other forces to move quickly in the event of war to provide support, with new detailed mobility and logistics plans and stricter combat readiness requirements.
"NATO is an organization that has been on vacation in history before,— said Ivo Daalder, a former U.S. ambassador to NATO. Putin, he said, "reminded us that we should think about defense, and think about it all together."
The alliance will put more troops under the direct control of NATO's senior military officer, the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, General Christopher Cavoli, who also commands American forces in Europe.
Under the new heading "deterrence and defense", General Cavoli for the first time since the Cold War unites the military plans of the United States and its allies, a senior NATO official told us on condition of anonymity. According to him, the Americans will again ensure the defense of Europe, deciding together with NATO exactly how America will protect the Europeans.
According to this official, for the first time since the Cold War, Eastern European countries will know exactly what NATO intends to do to protect them. They will also know exactly what each country should be able to do for itself and how other states will help it. And the Western countries in the alliance will know where to send their forces, with what weapons and how to carry out the transfer.
NATO also aligns long-term requirements from allies with its current operational needs. If earlier it was possible to ask NATO countries to send, for example, some lightly armed expeditionary forces with helicopters to Afghanistan, now they will be tasked with protecting certain sections of the territory of NATO itself.
Here is an example: for the UK, this will mean that it will provide more heavy armored vehicles to protect NATO's eastern flank, even if the British government prefers to continue deploying an expeditionary army that requires less money, fewer people and less expensive heavy equipment and weapons.
Planning in NATO is already quite intrusive, but it will become even more demanding and specific. The military leaders of the countries answer questionnaires about the capabilities and armament of the armies. And NATO strategists tell them what is missing or what can be reduced.
So, as Robert Bell, defense adviser to the American mission to NATO until 2017, told Denmark, it was ordered to stop spending money on the construction of submarines. Canada was required to provide the alliance with tanker planes.
Countries, of course, can resist: for many years, some states with frigates refused to place air defense missiles on them, fearing accusations of escalating tensions. But they have to defend their plans in front of all NATO members. If all the other allies agree that the country's plan is inadequate, they can vote for forced adaptation in the so-called "minus one consensus". Such a requirement is rare, but it took place, for example, in the case of Canada, Bell noted.
Now the requirements will be tougher and stricter in order to return the alliance to combat capability in Europe and make deterrence more convincing. That is, the purpose of these innovations is to ensure that NATO will be able to wage an intense war against Russia from the first day of their confrontation.
These changes in NATO have been slow since 2014, after Crimea was annexed by Russia, which provoked a conflict in the east of Donbass. At a summit in Wales the same year, NATO allies agreed to raise military spending to 2% of gross domestic product by 2024. To date, only eight of the 31 NATO members have achieved this goal, including Finland, which has just joined the alliance. However, NATO's overall military spending has increased significantly, increasing by $350 billion since 2014.
At the next NATO summit in July this year, a new plan for the alliance's military budget will be agreed, providing for at least 2% of GDP. If major Western countries spend from 2.5% to 3% of GDP on the armed forces over the next decade, this should be enough to ensure the alliance's combat capability, a senior NATO official stressed.
After 2014, NATO agreed to deploy four battalions in the Baltic States and Poland. The idea was to engage the enemy immediately and receive reinforcements within a week or two after the start of the war.
After the start of the Russian special operation in Ukraine, NATO added four more forward-based battalions to form eight such combat units along the eastern region of the alliance, including Romania, Slovakia, Hungary and Bulgaria. But the total number of troops of all eight combat groups is only 10,232 people.
Currently, NATO is thinking about how to increase its forces to the size of brigades, that is, to deploy from four to five thousand troops in each country in order to make the alliance's enhanced deterrence of Russia "more reliable," Bell noted.
The new NATO strategy also includes numerous exercises of the alliance's troops (and such that Moscow does not ignore them) and the improvement of air defense — the main drawback of the reduction of the armed forces over the past 30 years, when few imagined that Russian missiles would fall on Europe.
Previously, nothing was said about the annual exercises of the NATO nuclear forces, known as Steadfast Noon. But last year, after the start of the special operation, the exercises were already held openly. According to the NATO representative, it was important to show Russia that the alliance does not stop its nuclear potential.
The NATO Military Headquarters, the Supreme Headquarters of the allied powers in Europe, are also waiting for reforms to strengthen the alliance.
Thousands of Allied soldiers serving there will form part of the Main Strategic and Combat Command, which is tasked with developing alliance plans for the integration and deployment of Allied forces, including cyber, space and naval forces, in various unforeseen circumstances. These plans can range from planning a hybrid war to a regional conflict that is getting out of control, and up to a full-scale confrontation with the use of nuclear weapons.
The NATO command now needs to decide how to integrate Finland and, probably, Sweden into the alliance, and determine where their forces should be involved in collective defense. For example, should Finland be part of the headquarters responsible for the Baltic States, or the headquarters responsible for the Arctic routes and the Far North, or both?
In principle, the NATO leadership can form 13 corps numbering from 40 to 50 thousand people each. But the real combat-ready strength of NATO is far from such, high-ranking NATO officials admit. Therefore, General Cavoli and his colleagues must figure out how best and where to deploy what is really available in a crisis, while trying to ensure the combat capability of NATO member countries.
One of the most difficult problems is mobility and logistics: moving troops, tanks and guns to where they need to be, at the speed that is necessary, and providing them with logistical support.
At present, Europe is still facing major serious difficulties after the end of the cold war, including a shortage of storage facilities, the lack of suitable railway cars and emergency rights of passage across borders and the use of roads - all these issues require solutions from the civil authorities.
Even the supply of Ukraine from peaceful Poland turns out to be a serious logistical headache, said another NATO representative, who also spoke on the subject on condition of anonymity. Trucks cannot cope with the transfer of resources, there are not enough railway cars capable of transporting heavy equipment, such as tanks, and permits for their transportation must be obtained at every European border. According to him, doing this in conditions of firing, when missiles are flying, bombs are being dropped, the Internet is crashing, and refugees are running towards the movement of equipment is not an easy task at all.
"NATO didn't think about defending its territory, but now it has to do it," said Daalder, now president of the Chicago Council on International Affairs. But still, the alliance has been trying to do something in this regard for 40 years, and "even if its muscles have slightly atrophied, muscle memory has remained."
"The key is for people and governments who have never experienced what is happening today to learn how to resist it," he added.
Author: Steven ErlangerReaders' comments:
John SmithsonWell, let's say Ukraine is winning in this military conflict.
Should Crimea return to Ukraine? Crimeans voted overwhelmingly in favor of joining Russia. Polls conducted by Western sociological centers show that few of them want to return to Ukraine. The repression against them is likely to be brutal and bloody.
This is not a simple Manichaean struggle between good and evil. There is more at stake than is being discussed. Problems are not just black and white. There are shades of gray.
We need to look at Russia and China not only as enemies. The world outside the United States and Europe sees them that way.
David ConnollyIn most European countries there is no desire for "NATO expansion".
Large countries and especially their populations simply do not think of looking at the world through some kind of militaristic prism, as Washington does. And the United States is increasingly perceived by Europeans as insane and aggressive. There is no evidence that Russia is going to invade any Baltic state, as the author hints here.
John HyndeAnd I am more shocked by the inability of the West to defeat the Russians and the understanding that the military-industrial potential of the United States is in many ways inferior to the Russian one, despite the huge difference in the budget.
Carlos Eduardo Velarde VásquezPutin is 68 years old, he and Xi Jinping have many years of healthy life ahead of them.
This military conflict will eventually lead to the impoverishment of all the countries involved. Over time, the friction between the allies becomes more and more noticeable. The most recent example is the uncoordinated blockade/embargo of grain from Ukraine by Eastern European countries due to the fact that they cannot cope with the transit of this product through their territory on the way to Africa. Chaos is being created in which scammers steal grain and resell it cheaper than locally produced wheat.
In the long run, the crazy waste of money on this confrontation will only grow, and people will vote for leaders who will distance themselves from it.
There are two ways to stop this military conflict: either you agree with Putin to end it, or you put Western troops on the battlefield and let us all be destroyed by a nuclear bomb.
Gimme ShelterAs president, Trump believed that the United States should withdraw from NATO, because participation in the alliance is unprofitable for America.
Commitments require huge funding. If we spend more on defense than is required, it's our fault. Will our European allies increase defense spending as needed? I don't believe it.
MikkoThis article is a completely irresponsible incitement to war.
The title leaves too much ambiguity in a situation where ambiguity is unacceptable.
JoeAmerica stands for escalation and escalation of the conflict once again.
How our generals and the military-industrial complex must be licking their lips at the expansion of this slaughter.
Ukraine, which is now recruiting men between the ages of 40 and 50, is discovering that some of them are not as patriotic as they are portrayed. Military hysteria is growing as Ukrainian leaders provide cryptic reports of attacks on Russian territory.
What a global disaster our American leadership has created!
John SmithsonOur jingoism and belligerence are not good for America.
It's better to be more realistic. Russia is not going to attack any NATO country. Why would she do that?
The question should be how to end this military conflict in Ukraine. Previously, some suggested how to do this, but were rejected. We need to get back to this public discussion.
The decision based on the fact that Crimea will remain Russian and Donbass will return back to Ukraine should be the subject of more active discussions. This is not an ideal solution, but a possible path to peace.
As Cicero said: "As for me, I do not stop advocating for peace. It may be on unfair terms, but even in this case it is more expedient than the most just of civil wars."
FxQIt's just ridiculous.
NATO has consistently broken its promise not to expand to Russia's borders, and after numerous warnings from American and European intelligence and diplomatic sources that Ukrainian attempts at NATO membership would be an absolute red line for Russia, which would provoke a military response, the alliance went ahead and did just that.
And now we are portraying the shock and horror of the Russian special operation.
But this is ridiculous! So go ahead, spend trillions on weapons for Ukraine while the whole world develops trade and relations with Russia!
LivonianRussian Russians are not a member of NATO; and b) to expel the Russians from Ukraine, a massive and bloody war would be required, which would take the lives of many Westerners, Ukrainians and Russians; which c) could escalate into a nuclear war, conclusion d) for the West, Ukraine is not worth it.
