President
Barack Obama’s new budget is very generous to the Pentagon -- at $600 billion, overly so.
But one welcome proposal is a quadrupling of military
spending in Eastern and Central Europe, to $3.4 billion. As a message to Russia
and to ease the rising fears of the ex-Soviet Baltic states, it could be money
well-spent.
The
anxiety in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania is not unjustified. Russian President
Vladimir Putin, his military adventurism having paid dividends in Syria and
Ukraine, could soon turn his attention to the Baltics. And several reports --
from within the military and without -- suggest
that a greater U.S. military presence in #Eastern_Europe would make a
difference.
Admittedly,
it’s improbable that Putin would undertake a ground invasion of a #NATO member.
More likely, he would follow the Ukraine script: dubious claims of oppression
against the countries’ sizable Russian ethnic minorities, covert campaigns of
propaganda and subversion, financial support to separatist groups, even
infiltrating with non-uniformed special forces -- aka “little green men.” This
approach would give Russia plausible deniability while carving out a foothold
in the Baltics.
The
best way to deter Putin’s belligerence is to put a military presence in Eastern
Europe sufficient to convince him that any aggression would be vulnerable to a
serious American-led reprisal.
Unfortunately,
as Putin looks west, he sees little to intimidate him. U.S. Army troop numbers in
Europe have dropped from 200,000
to 30,000 since the end of the Cold War. Almost none of the European NATO states
reach the alliance's target of spending at least 2 percent of
gross domestic product on defense. The three Baltic nations have about 10,000
active-duty soldiers combined, and no real air forces or navies. And while
the Atlantic alliance has expanded eastward from the Baltic Sea in the north to
Romania and Bulgaria in the south, most of the military infrastructure remains
in the middle, on the western side of the former Iron Curtain.
Meanwhile,
Russia could bring 22 battalion tactical groups to bear in the area, and some
100,000 troops. It can also call in overwhelming air power. Despite
falling oil prices and sanctions, Russian military spending rose 21 percent in 2015.
In
the wake of the Ukraine crisis, the U.S. decided to rotate in and out of the
region a new armored brigade combat
team of
about 5,000 troops. The Pentagon has permanently positioned heavy equipment for
that force. It has also been rotating in more fighters, bombers and support
aircraft. All of this might raise the political stakes for Kremlin aggression,
but it doesn’t amount to much militarily. The West needs a more serious and
permanent force further to the east.
There
is a 1997 nonbinding agreement between the
U.S. and Russia which says that the West would avoid “permanent stationing of
substantial combat forces” inside NATO’s new member states. The Russians have
violated other aspects of this agreement in Ukraine, even as the U.S. has been
careful to adhere to its letter. But it’s time to abandon the moral high road.
As
a start, the U.S. should add a second armored brigade combat team, and one if
not both of them should be permanently positioned in the area. And more of the
support equipment should be moved out of Germany and into
Poland and the Baltics. Additional aircraft should also be rotated
in. In response, Russia is sure to ramp up its own forces -- but that’s less of
a concern than it seems, since Russia already has such an overwhelming
advantage in Eastern Europe that more military might would be overkill.
Adding
a permanent new U.S. brigade in Eastern Europe of course wouldn’t hold off a
full-scale Russian invasion for long. But as a strategic deterrent, this sort
of visible, flexible military commitment would do a great deal to keep Moscow’s
ambitions at bay. Long-term, of course, the U.S.’s NATO allies have to do more.
But the U.S. can also send Putin a message of its own.
No comments:
Post a Comment