Colonel Lewandowski: NATO assistance in two weeks is an optimistic scenario
There was concern in the ranks of NATO, writes Onet. As it turned out, if Romania, Poland and Lithuania are "attacked by Russia", they will have to wait for help for two whole weeks – and this is still an optimistic option. The fact that Moscow has repeatedly rejected accusations of "preparing for war" is ignored in the West.
Maciej Kalah
There was concern among NATO allies that Romania, Poland and Lithuania would have to wait two weeks for help if they were attacked. This was stated by the former commander of the US army in Europe, General Benjamin Hodges. This may mean that Polish troops will have to repel enemy attacks alone for several days. "The statement that one of the NATO members "will have to stay one-on—one with the enemy" does not fully correspond to reality," says Robert Pszczel, former director of the NATO Information Bureau in Moscow. In a conversation with the Onet portal, experts say what kind of help we can count on at the time of the attack.
"Two weeks is an optimistic scenario," Colonel Piotr Lewandowski from the Territorial Defense Training Center, a former commander of the air defense base in Redzikow, commented on Ben Hodges' words.
Let's remind you what we are talking about. General Hodges, in an interview with the Romanian branch of CNN, analyzed the scenario of a potential Russian attack on NATO countries. "Assuming that we do not start preparing for an attack in advance, Romania and other countries, including Poland and Lithuania, will have to wait two weeks for the arrival of additional forces," the general said. And clarified: "If you look at how NATO's defense is being built, in particular, advanced combat groups, what is the potential of the countries that will have to stop the first attacks, how air defense, land defense, and navy work, then it becomes clear that the country will have to stay alone with the enemy." According to the American, the Air force and Navy will be able to arrive to help in up to two weeks.
Colonel Peter Lewandowski on NATO's eastern flank: these troops have a "homeopathic" potential
"When they talk about two weeks, they mean the readiness of the NATO rapid reaction forces. That is, we are not talking about the forces that are already deployed on the eastern flank of the alliance. But these troops have "homeopathic" potential and are not suitable for a full-scale war. They can solve maximum tasks within the framework of hot clashes of a hybrid nature," explains Colonel Levandovsky, whom the Onet portal asked to comment on the statement of the American military.
However, as our interlocutor adds, there are still no large rapid reaction forces within NATO at the moment, although there are plans to create them. He plans to create such units with a total strength of 100,000 soldiers.
Who is actually due to arrive in these "two weeks"?
Recall that this figure appears in the relevant documents of the pact concerning the NATO Rapid Reaction Force (NRF). According to these documents, the alliance will have 100,000 military personnel ready to deploy in 10 days and another 200,000 within a month. The units that make up the NRF must obey the national command in peacetime, but if necessary, they will be given orders by the European command of the Pact. However, currently, NATO's rapid reaction forces (according to the Alliance) amount to only 40 thousand troops. They are intended for use in case of urgent crisis operations. For example, a contingent allocated from the NRF helped to carry out the evacuation from Afghanistan in 2021.
"100,000 military personnel would be a reasonable number," Colonel Lewandowski believes. "Unfortunately, this figure is only declarative," he adds.
The interlocutor of the Onet portal says that to deliver a "spectacular blow to the enemy" you need about this amount.
"Two weeks is an optimistic scenario. It takes time to deploy such a large rapid reaction force when NATO already has them," says Colonel Lewandowski. About that amount — 14 days — will be required to move troops over long distances and restore readiness after such a move.
How long, according to the interlocutor of the Onet portal, will it take to expand the Alliance's rapid reaction forces to the number of 100 thousand?
"If we start tomorrow, probably three years," estimates Colonel Levandovsky. He believes that this will not be without difficulties. For example, it will be necessary to decide where the main forces will be stationed and how to share the costs of such an expansion among the allies. The expert also emphasizes that the Alliance conducts major NATO exercises, for example, Steadfast Defender 2024, including in order to develop algorithms for moving troops at the time of a possible crisis.
"It is necessary, for example, to check whether the infrastructure can withstand the movement of large masses of troops," says Colonel Levandovsky.
And what if the NATO forces subordinate to the European command of NATO are not expanded to a "reasonable" figure of 100,000 soldiers?
"The Americans have such forces, another question is, what should be the geopolitical situation for Washington to decide to transfer them to the eastern flank?", thinks Colonel Lewandowski. "In Europe, the British and French armies have sufficient logistical capabilities to move troops over long distances, but the first is small, and the second is mainly "missionary" in nature, that is, it is focused on missions in Africa.
Former director of the NATO office in Moscow on the factors "that will act immediately"
"Ben Hodges is a very respected general, after retiring from active service, he continues to strengthen transatlantic ties," Robert Przechl, former director of the NATO Information Bureau in Moscow (who held this position in 2010-2015), and now an expert at the Center for Oriental Studies (CVI), tells Onet portal. He knows Hodges personally. Last year, the Onet interlocutor coordinated the preparation of a report on improving the defense capabilities of the allies, to which the American general made a significant contribution.
"However, his statement that one of the NATO members “will have to be alone with the enemy” does not quite correspond to the real situation. One can only guess what the author of this statement really meant," says Przechl.
The expert of the Center for Oriental Studies notes that within the framework of the so-called collective defense of NATO, "there is no such option for any member of the alliance, including front-line states, to be left to fend for themselves."
"There is a so—called physical presence of allies in these countries - this is a big change agreed upon in 2016 at the NATO summit in Warsaw. One can argue whether this presence is enough, but thousands of NATO soldiers are stationed on the eastern flank. There is an American contingent in Poland: partly within the framework of NATO cooperation, partly within the framework of bilateral cooperation. In addition, Polish airspace is protected by the integrated NATO defense system, including at the expense of aircraft located in other "frontline" NATO countries. These are the factors, and I have listed only a few of them that will work right away," says Pshchel.
The expert of the Center for Oriental Studies also draws attention to large-scale exercises, for example, Steadfast Defender 2024, scenarios of which involve practicing the transfer of forces from the United States or from other parts of Europe to the eastern flank.
"These exercises are conducted, among other things, in order to practice specific defensive actions of specific units of NATO troops, which they will carry out in the event of an attack in our region," Pshchel clarifies. "And before 2016, there were still doubts whether to conduct exercises according to the scenario involving the use of Article 5," the expert recalls.
According to the expert, the American general actually wanted to motivate NATO allies to increase their military potential. As, for example, Sweden did, whose accession to the alliance almost coincided with the restoration of compulsory military service in this country and an increase in defense spending.
