Conventional Deterrence Developments in the Baltics

In mid-February, it was reported that the 1^st Armored Brigade Combat Team (BCT) from the 3rd Infantry Division was deploying ‘to Europe’ for three months. It was implied that the BCT would disaggregate to conduct training events with host nation forces in the Baltics, Bulgaria, Romania, Germany, and Poland.

It now seems that the BCT deployment will be concentrated in the Baltics. The Army is also stating that the BCT’s tanks and armored personnel carriers will remain prepositioned in the region.

I’m not certain, but the amount of armor to remain prepositioned appears to be an increase from what was being described back in December.

Unlike a parade of a handful of armored vehicles through the streets of Narva, the deployment of a BCT is a very serious move. I’ll leave detailed comparisons between this BCT and the Russian order of battle adjacent to the Baltics to experts on ground warfare, which I most assuredly am not. All the same, my gut instinct is that the deployment of a heavy BCT falls somewhere between delay/disruption and tripwire on Robert Rubel’s spectrum of forward presence. In the absence of evident tactical air support as well as air and missile defense support, I would think the needle still points towards tripwire, but the level of commitment that this deployment appears designed to signal is significant.

The obvious follow-on question is whether this BCT will turn over its armor directly to a relieving unit that will take over this presence mission, and if not, what the concept of operations would be to transport personnel forward to marry up with this equipment in a crisis.

Very interesting.

The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and are presented in his personal capacity. They do not reflect the official positions of Systems Planning and Analysis, and to the author’s knowledge do not reflect the policies or positions of the U.S. Department of Defense, any U.S. armed service, or any other U.S. Government agency.