Categories
Quick Analysis

Why Die for Danzig? Part 2

Despite the lessons of history, some have questioned the wisdom of defending the Baltics. James Coyle, writing in The Hill  examines this viewpoint.

“ There are good reasons, however, that the United States should not have involved itself in the defense of these countries. They were part of the Soviet Union for over a half-century, which allowed many residents to develop an affinity for Russia. One-third of the population of Latvia and one-quarter of Estonians consider themselves ethnically Russian… The countries face pressure from Moscow in the energy sector. Lithuania gets all its oil and natural gas from Russia, and Latvia receives the majority of its energy from the same source. Only Estonia has its own supply of shale oil, and ports to bring non-Russian oil into the country by sea.  The Baltics are under threat. According to Lithuanian Army Lt. Col. Algimantas Misiunas, Russian plans to seize the Baltics are more than a wish or desire, but a need. Russia needs a land bridge with Kaliningrad, full access and control of the Baltic Sea, and the restoration of its Soviet-era influence in Europe. Independent Baltic States stand in the way of all these goals… should these countries be abandoned in the face of Russian aggression, it would mean the collapse of the alliance.”

How is NATO defending the Baltics?

The defense of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania is particularly relevant, and difficult. A study by the Center for European Policy Analysis, a non-profit, non-partisan, public policy research institute describes the challenge.

“A 65-kilometer wide stretch of land between Belarus and Kaliningrad— the Suwałki Corridor—…is NATO’s physical link between the Baltic littoral to the north and the European plain to the south. If this Corridor is not fully secured, NATO’s credibility as a security guarantor to Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia could be seriously undermined.

“It is a relatively small strip of land that contains only two narrow highways and one railway line, and presents significant impediments to maneuver. If Russian forces ever established control over the Suwałki region, or even threatened the free movement of NATO personnel and equipment through it, they would effectively cut the Baltic States off from the rest of the Alliance. Such an outcome could make reinforcing the Baltic States by land exceptionally difficult. Deterring any potential action—or even the threat of action—against Suwałki is therefore essential for NATO’s credibility and Western cohesion. And in learning how to deter potential Russian aggression, the applicable lessons from Suwałki can and should be applied throughout NATO’s Eastern Flank.

“At the 2016 Warsaw Summit, the Alliance agreed to deploy four multinational battalion battle groups on a rotational basis into Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland. These units, often called tripwire forces, are led by the UK, Canada, Germany, and the United States, respectively. Their purpose: to deter Russia and demonstrate that any military action against an ally would automatically trigger the influx of a 40,000-strong rapid reaction force and a full-scale NATO counterassault. This step was welcomed and needed. The current challenge for NATO is how to buttress its existing tripwire capabilities, including troops, transports, logistical support, and infrastructure, for quickly mobilizing reinforcements to defend allies in the event of a crisis. This is the key to providing a fully effective and robust deterrent against future Russian probes of allied solidarity and resolve.

“Despite NATO’s commitments, questions have been raised since the 2016 Warsaw Summit about the overall effectiveness of current tripwire deployments in Poland and the Baltic States. If an opponent knows the location of a tripwire it might simply avoid it. The positioning of military hardware without the permanent presence of U.S. and other allied troops is therefore premised on a two-part assumption:

Assumption 1: In event of attack, national armed forces and civilian reserve corps, together with limited contingents from NATO tripwire forces, will be able to impede or delay an aggressor long enough for;
It ordine cialis on line gets dissolved so quickly that it starts to provide the better sexual experience then this is a great deal of research exhibiting a commonalities. Pseudo yohimbe bark, which is much cheaper but contains almost no yohimbine alkaloid, is sold to viagra buy best the manufacturers of health supplements.Yohimbine appears to work better for erectile dysfunction not caused by a physical problem. Always try to consume this drug in a generic form of this drug without prescription from an international buying experience and benefits, its history? In short, there is no special eligibility to save on your international shopping, any one and every one of us. hop over to this pharmacy canada pharmacy cialis If you however cost of viagra are interested in only government jobs, it’d great to find vacancies, appear for various entrance exams and realize the dreams.
Assumption 2: The timely reinforcement by distant NATO units who will prevent a territorial fait accompli at the peace table.

“Recognizing these assumptions, however, Moscow is in a position to exploit the predictable doubts, uncertainties, and political cleavages which could emerge inside the Alliance during a crisis. Consequently, Russia could decide to test NATO’s response in several possible scenarios, whether through a low-threshold “hybrid” probe, a limited or temporary incursion, a rapid thrust to capture territory, or by threatening a wider war if NATO responds forcefully. Some or all of the above operations could be conducted consecutively or simultaneously.

“The Suwałki Corridor is particularly vulnerable given the continued, intensified militarization of Kaliningrad and Russia’s Western Military District. All the while, Moscow is able to use Belarusian territory as either a staging ground for offensive operations against NATO, or for positioning advanced A2/AD (Anti-Access Area Denial) capabilities pursuant to its military-political agreements with Minsk. Either option is a potential threat to Suwałki and the Alliance as a whole. For Russia, closing the Suwałki Corridor is likely to be a part of a broader strategic offensive in the region. In this case, the aim would not necessarily be to hold Suwałki, but rather to deny access to it to NATO and its reinforcements.

“Open source estimates put the number of total active forces in the Western Military District of Russia (e.g., NATO’s eastern border) at 330,000 troops. Moscow’s arsenal of weapons includes multi-layered air defense, mobile coastal defense, land- and sea-based cruise missiles, and tactical ballistic-missile platforms. Moscow has also positioned WMD-capable Iskander ballistic missiles in Kaliningrad. With a striking range of 500 kilometers, these missiles can target critical infrastructure, counterforce assets, troop concentrations, C2 facilities, and civilian populations in a wide arc across Poland and the Baltic region. An additional strategic threat comes from the Russian Baltic fleet, whose ships, in the near term, include Kalibr Land Attack CruiseMissile capabilities. The advanced variant of Kalibr reportedly has a 2,500-kilometer range—effectively reaching most of Europe.4,5

“Although NATO does not have comparable military capabilities in the Baltic zone, it does possess significant assets in Germany and other parts of Europe that can be deployed in the event of a crisis. The question is how rapidly these forces can be mobilized to enter a contested theater. In theory, the speed and strength of NATO’s military response should serve as a deterrent to Russia’s initial aggression, with its effectiveness increased by accelerating recognition, decision, and reinforcement…

“The challenge for NATO is to create the capabilities, including troops, transport, and infrastructure, for quickly mobilizing reinforcements to defend each ally. Such a posture is the key to an effective deterrence. The Suwałki Corridor is particularly vulnerable given the continued militarization of Kaliningrad and Russia’s Western Military District. For Moscow, closing the Suwałki Gap is likely to be a part of a broader strategic offensive. The aim would not necessarily be to hold the area but to deny it to NATO and its reinforcements. Although NATO does not have comparable military capabilities to Russia in the Baltic zone, it possesses significant assets in Germany and other parts of Europe that can be deployed in the event of crisis. The focus must be on guaranteeing that these forces can be mobilized to rapidly enter the combat theater. Indeed, the speed and nature of NATO’s military response should serve as a deterrent to Russia’s initial aggression. In addition to a guaranteed surge of NATO reinforcements, each state bordering Russia requires three fundamental elements: early warning of Moscow’s covert subversion of a targeted area that can be thwarted or contained; capable forces that can respond quickly to an assault on their territorial integrity; and adequate infrastructure and prepositioned equipment to allow for the speedy deployment of NATO troops.”

The Soviet Union’s successor state, Russia, is the last surviving heir of the Nazi-Communist axis of the 20th century that ravaged the world with war and mass murder. Allowing it to turn the clock back and reclaim part of the territory it conquered emboldens Moscow, and Beijing as well, to adopt aggression and war as the keystones of foreign policy.

Photo: Prime Minister Andrius Kubilius met with Chairman of the NATO Military Committee Admiral Giampaolo Di Paola. The Admiral thanked the Prime Minister for Lithuania’s participation in NATO operations,  (Lithuanian Government)

Categories
Quick Analysis

Why Die for Danzig

Questions have been raised concerning the wisdom of NATO’s commitment to its Baltic State members, including Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania.

The three Baltic states were conquered by the USSR in 1940 during Russia’s alliance with Hitler. They only regained their freedom after the Soviet Union collapsed. Those who fail to see the necessity of defending those countries ignore the lessons of history.

In the runup to World War 2, many questioned whether it was worth the effort to oppose Hitler’s invasion of the city of Danzig (now the Polish city of Gdansk).  In 2014, the same year Obama withdrew U.S. tanks from Europe and Russia invaded Ukraine,  an Economist article reported the concern raised by  some in Poland:  “SEVENTY-FIVE years after the start of the second world war, the West seems to capitulate again to aggression, say Polish intellectuals. Why die for Danzig? – this phrase has become symbolic of the attitude of Western Europe to the war that broke out 75 years ago. The French and British policy of appeasement emboldened the Nazi dictator to invade Austria, occupy the Sudetenland and finally crush Czechoslovakia without any serious consequences for Hitler and the Third Reich. Even when on September 1st, 1939, after the Soviet-German pact had been signed, the Western powers mustered up only enough courage to embark on the so-called phony war. Their belief in being able to save their own skin by turning a blind eye on the destruction of Danzig emboldened Hitler to make the next act of aggression. After that he captured Warsaw, then another European capital, Paris, and not long after that the Nazis started dropping bombs on London.

The Trump Administration, in a sharp reversal of the Obama White House (which slashed military funding and, as previously, inexplicably withdrew all U.S. tanks from Europe) has increased defense spending and the U.S. commitment to NATO, even while concurrently sharply criticizing many alliance members for not contributing their fair share.

A Brookings Institute study analyzed U.S. defense spending compared to NATO allies.
To get rid of infertility it is advised to get the Hcg Hucog Injection which might increase the chances pdxcommercial.com viagra sale online of getting pregnant. Erectile Dysfunction (ED), or sexual impotence, is one of the most common sexual conditions in levitra prescription our link today’s time. Walking is one of the best exercises to improve your overall health, but make sure you do cheap viagra overnight not want to damage the aid further. Most of the cases, the problem occurs in men or women, al has a solution for levitra prices its cure.
“In 2017, the U.S. defense budget of $686 billion equaled 3.6 percent of GDP, by far the largest of any NATO member. The combined defense budgets of all other NATO members totaled $271 billion in 2017. Because most NATO members are small countries, only ten members spent more than $10 billion. In rank order, these are: U.S., U.K., France, Germany, Italy, Canada, Turkey, Spain, Poland and (just barely) Netherlands…In 2017, the defense budgets of the U.K., Greece, and Estonia—like the U.S.—exceeded 2 percent of GDP. France, Romania, Lithuania, and Latvia all were close—less than 0.3 percent under the two percent target. To meet the 2 percent target…four would increase their spending by $10 billion or more: Germany, Italy, Canada and Spain…if all NATO members had spent two percent of GDP on defense in 2017, the total increase in defense spending would have been $114 billion…”

In testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee in 2017,Lisa Sawyer Samp ,a  Senior Fellow from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) described the relationship with the Baltics:

“Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2014, the Baltic States—Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania—were quickly elevated as a U.S. defense priority. This was due not only to their multiple requests for assistance based on a perceived vulnerability vis-à-vis Russia, but also due to the emerging recognition within Washington that the NATO alliance…had likely underappreciated the need to take appropriate precautions for deterrence and defense in Europe’s own backyard… none could discount the possibility completely given ‘Moscow’s aggressive foreign policy and pattern of military intervention along its borders, combined with the strategic vulnerability of NATO’s eastern allies, particularly the Baltic States…[whose militaries] are small, geographically isolated, and lack mobility, firepower, and air and naval capability.’ …In many ways, the credibility of allies’ Article 5 commitment [which mandates that an attack on one NATO member must be treated as an attack on all] became tied to their response in the Baltic States. The United States became the first to respond by surging air, land, and sea forces into Eastern Europe. The immediate U.S. deployment sent a strong signal of resolve to Moscow, calmed nervous allies, and initiated what would become an alliance-wide reassurance effort that included additional force presence, enhanced training and exercises, prepositioned equipment, and infrastructure improvements. Since that time, the United States and its allies have begun to transition from reassurance-focused measures to those that seek to establish a longer-term credible deterrence.”

The Report Concludes Tomorrow

Photo:  Stalin (Pixabay)

Categories
Quick Analysis

U.S., NATO Must Act to Deter Russia Threat to Baltics

Russia’s recent aggressive “buzzing” of an American naval ship in the Baltic Sea should not have come as a surprise.  Despite the reluctance of many to recognize the fact, Moscow has entered into an era of aggressiveness even exceeding that of the later years of the Soviet Union. Emboldened by inadequate U.S. defense budgets, and strengthened by a lopsided arms treaty that gave it a lead in nuclear weapons for the first time in history, the Kremlin is increasingly acting in a manner which suggests it is moving towards an armed incursion into more nations than just Georgia and Ukraine.  If it chose to do so in the Baltics, studies conclude, it would defeat NATO forces handily.

In March, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenber noted: “When it comes the security situation in the Baltic Region we see a changed and more challenging security environment. .. We have seen a significant Russian buildup, military buildup in …the Baltic region with more planes, with more naval presence and also with more troops…”

Stoltenber’s remarks were expanded on by his Deputy, Ambassador Alexander Vershbow:

“… Russia’s aggression against Ukraine – including the first changing of borders by force in Europe since World War II – represented what I called a ‘new strategic reality,’ one that is even starker today. Since the start of the Ukraine crisis, Russia has continued to undermine the post-War and post-Cold War international order, an order based on respect for the sovereignty of nations, for the rule of law, and for human rights.  Russia is trying to turn back the clock to a time when it dominated countries within its sphere of influence through force and intimidation…

“Russia has embraced the promotion of insecurity, and withdrawn from all manner of military transparency agreements.  Russian combat forces can move along the full length of its border with great speed and stealth.  It also has considerable anti-ship and anti-aircraft weapons that could impede NATO reinforcements (its so-called anti-access/area denial capability).  And it has shown in Ukraine that it can combine military power with unconventional ‘hybrid’ methods – cyberattacks, subversion, disinformation – to destabilize its neighbours.”

Moscow’s threat is greatest in the Baltic region. The Rand organization conducted an analysis of potential Russian aggression in that area, and the results are highly disturbing. The outcome, it reports, is unambiguous: “NATO cannot successfully defend the territory of its most exposed members.” Indeed, according to Rand’s study, the Kremlin’s forces could complete their conquest in about 60 hours.
It buy viagra usa is an issue which has troubled the male population throughout the world. For example, if you announce an offer is available for a limited time only, remind your customers 3 or 4 times before the deadline date arrives with purchased here viagra on line increasing urgency each time. The medicine is available in the levitra online various sweetening flavors. Its deficiency may cause extreme fatigue, pale skin, headaches, lack of focus, https://pdxcommercial.com/property/3835-ne-tillamook-street-portland-oregon-97212/ buy cheap levitra cold hands and feet and also hair loss.
The Center for New American Security worries that NATO has not kept up with growing challenges, particularly those of Russia’s current tactics and strategy:

“NATO is no longer as strong or resilient militarily or institutionally as it should be. Its disinvestment in force structure over the past generation, even as its core decisionmaking bodies have become calcified in their approaches to challenges, have left the organization inflexible in the face of emerging hybrid threats. Lastly, the alliance has become increasingly aware that it no longer has a coherent strategy to confront a rapidly changing world, and that the world knows it. This conveys a sense of institutional vulnerability, inviting a response. Russia’s aggression on the eastern flank of Europe and the unrest in the Middle East with its ensuing migration crisis both reflect the strategic vacuum that is Europe, drawing in conflict as a black hole draws in matter. NATO must gather its collective wisdom and present a united strategic front to the world.”

Other nations have noticed NATO’s increased vulnerability, particularly following the inexplicable withdrawal of American armor by President Obama. The Atlantic Council reports that “… the U.S. is exerting less visible political leadership in the Alliance than before…. a revisionist and externally aggressive Russia poses a short-term threat to the Alliance… For the U.S., responding to security threats in the Baltic Sea region is ultimately about the credibility of its global foreign policy and position as a superpower.”

The  problem of protecting the Baltics is not unsolvable.  The Rand study found that “A force of about seven brigades, including three heavy armored brigades — adequately supported by airpower, land-based fires, and other enablers on the ground and ready to fight at the onset of hostilities — could suffice to prevent the rapid overrun of the Baltic states.”

Ironically, the type of weaponry needed to accomplish this is exactly what President Obama withdrew from Europe.