Under Operation Atlantic Resolve, the U.S. has been rotationally deploying relatively small land-based force packages into Eastern Europe that are intended to signal American commitment to defending NATO’s boundary members against Russian aggression (while arguably also serving as deterrence tripwires). It's been pretty confusing trying to sort out what is being deployed where. Although last Thursday I noted the reported deployment of the 3rd Infantry Division’s entire 1st Armored Brigade Combat Team (BCT) to the Baltics, per the latest Atlantic Resolve fact sheet only a few hundred personnel and vehicles will actually be positioned in the Baltics. Furthermore, these vehicles will be consolidated with U.S. Army Europe’s prepositioned stocks in Germany at the end of the BCT’s deployment; they will not be left in the Baltics. According to LTG Ben Hodges, Commander of U.S. Army Europe, however, that does not preclude redistributing those vehicles to prepositioning sites in the Baltics or other Eastern European NATO members at a later date.
Russia’s
response to all this is hardly surprising or unexpected. From Agence France-Presse via Defense News last
Thursday:
Putin on Monday [3/16] ordered drills for more
than 40,000 troops in regions spanning the country, from the Arctic to the far
east to the volatile southern Caucasus, and ordered nuclear bomber jets to be
deployed in Crimea a year after its annexation by Moscow.
Russia's chief of the general staff, Valery
Gerasimov, said Thursday that the "number of troops taking part in the
exercises has gone up to 80,000, and the number of aircraft has increased to
220," quoted by RIA Novosti state news agency.
Troops in the western and central regions and
military aircraft were scrambled for exercises, Gerasimov said.
The drills are the latest in a succession of
large-scale military maneuvers that Moscow has ordered as relations with the
West have plunged to a post-Cold War low over the crisis in Ukraine.
"I've been
watching the Russian exercises...what I cared about is they can get 30,000
people and 1,000 tanks in a place really fast. Damn, that was impressive."
Conventional
deterrence by denial rests heavily on creating a perception that a fait accompli isn’t possible, or that
achieving one would be very costly and risky. This is why forward presence is
so critical to deterrence credibility. The challenge becomes even harder when
the adversary can mobilize and deploy an order of magnitude faster than the
defender can.
Pavel
Felgenhauer, a longstanding and often well-sourced Russian military analyst, notes at the Jamestown Foundation’s Eurasia Daily
Monitor that:
This week (March 16-21), the
Russian military began massive, “sudden” military exercises (“vnezapnaya
proverka”). The authorities initially announced that the “sudden exercises” are
intended to check out the battle readiness of Russia’s Northern Fleet and the
possibility of reinforcing it with forces from other military districts.
According to the Russian Ministry of Defense, 38,000 soldiers, 3,360 military
vehicles, 41 navy ships, 15 submarines and 110 aircraft are involved in the
exercise. The mass deployment of air and naval forces in the Barents Sea
practices ensuring the safety of Russian nuclear missile-armed submarines,
which have to be defended at all costs before they launch their hundreds of
nuclear warheads at the United States. The military plans to land marines and
paratroopers on the shore of the Kola Peninsula close to the Norwegian border
and on the polar archipelagos of Novaya Zemlya and Franz Josef Land.
According to a defense ministry
source, the “sudden exercise” was intended to send a message to the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) that Russia is ready for war and can
counter with force the deployment of limited US and other NATO forces to the
Baltic, Romania, Poland and Bulgaria. Moscow, apparently, did not give Western nations
any prior notification about the exercise (Vedomosti, March 17).
Neither side has had experience with brinksmanship on par with the darker moments of the Cold War in over a generation. That does not bode well for crisis stability, to put it mildly.
--Updated 3/24/15 7:38AM EDT to correct typo in 6th paragraph--
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment