National Security Matters

old salt · Post by **old salt** » Sun Jul 29, 2018 10:13 pm

Since we're staring fresh, I'm starting this thread in this forum.

Hopefully we can keep this forum cordial, troll free ,non-political (since there's another forum for that),
& concentrate on substance here -- diplomacy, military matters, overseas conflicts, military history, etc.

In this Forum -- let's attack the bad guys & not each other.

old salt · Post by **old salt** » Sun Jul 29, 2018 10:57 pm

From the Naval War College :
Informative & entertaining presentations on why Russians (& Putin) do the things they do.
Understanding is not approving.
(Part 1)

old salt · Post by **old salt** » Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:47 pm

https://www.popularmechanics.com/milita ... -frigates/

Bring the Frigates out of mothballs -- 8 Perry class Frigates have ample remaining service life. Base them on the E coast, freeing up Arleigh Burke class destroyers to be homeported on the W coast for deployment to W Pac.

These Frigates are still good ASW platforms (more capable than the new LCS). Upgrade with off the shelf Mk41 vertical launch tubes (like the Aussies & Turks did), they carry a good supply of various weapons. Deploy them as a wingman to an AEGIS equipped Burke class destroyer & you double your firepower at a fraction of the cost of another destroyer & you add a more capable ASW platform, capable of deploying 2 additional Seahawk ASW helos. Send 'em to the GI-UK gap to chase Ivan coming out. They can also replace a destroyer as an escort in E coast Carrier Strike Groups (CSG) & Expeditionary Strike Groups (CSG). They can also do independent anti-drug ops in the Caribbean.

Or base 2 - 4 of them in Japan to team up with the Burke class destroyers already there. More escorts for our CSG & ESG based there. Freeing up a DD/FF pair or two, to do ASW ops off Vlad or in the S China Sea & Freedom of Nav transits near China's toll booth popup islands. Basing them on the E coast & Japan reduces their transit times & puts them closer to the ASW hunting grounds.

These Frigates were mothballed early because of sequestration budget caps to free up budget to develop & procure the LCS's. Now that the budget caps are off, bring them back for the remainder of their usable service life to help fill the gap created by delays & shortfalls caused by the LCS problems. Especially if the increase in Russian & Chinese submarine development & deployments increase.

old salt · Post by **old salt** » Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:49 pm

Interesting goings on with the Truman Carrier Strike Group (CSG). Returning to Norfolk after just 3 mos in the Med, without even going into the Persian Gulf. Has detached her most capable Anti-Sub Warfare (ASW) escorts to work in the N Atlantic. Truman CSG to remain on alert for short notice deployment. 2nd Fleet Command just re-established.

Looks like Ivan is coming out again through the GI-UK gap. We're exercising with Brit, French & US subs.
Seems like old times. Cold War Part Deux, here we come.

https://news.usni.org/2018/07/18/harry- ... n-saturday

https://news.usni.org/2018/07/16/uss-ha ... e-hot-spot

https://news.usni.org/2018/06/29/carrie ... n-the-rise

The move to the Atlantic is arguably a continued expression of two constituent themes in the Pentagon as of late: a return to great power competition outlined in new strategic planning documents, and the direction from Secretary of Defense James Mattis that U.S. forces need to be “strategically predictable and operationally unpredictable.”

In terms of great power competition, there is growing evidence that Russia continues to push its newest attack submarines to operate the North Atlantic at a pace not seen since the Cold War, Navy leaders have continued to stress publicly.

“Russian submarines are prowling the Atlantic, testing our defenses, confronting our command of the seas, and preparing the complex underwater battlespace to give them an edge in any future conflict,” current U.S. Naval Forces Europe-Africa commander Adm. James Foggo wrote in U.S. Naval Institute’s Proceedings in 2016.
“Not only have Russia’s actions and capabilities increased in alarming and confrontational ways, its national-security policy is aimed at challenging the United States and its NATO allies and partners.”

Bryan Clark, a senior fellow at CSBA, said that carrier strike group operations in the Atlantic make sense for high-end exercises for the U.S. and partner nations. Both the U.K. Royal Navy and the French Navy field effective submarine forces that haven’t trained much lately with U.S. surface ships.

“Our Atlantic coast guys need a chance to train against good submariners,” he said. “Either they’re it doing with the French or the British for training or for hope of finding a Russian submarine.”

For its part, the Truman Strike Group embarked with an extensive escort fleet that will include up to six guided-missile destroyers and the German Navy guided missile frigate FGS Hessen (F 221).

Clark said the U.S. DDGs are equipped with an effective anti-submarine warfare packages that work well in the Atlantic but aren’t typically deployed there.

“You have to make a special effort to put them there,” he said.

old salt · Post by **old salt** » Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:51 pm

A helpful ballistic missile defense update & explainer :

https://www.defenseone.com/feature/Prot ... d-dontmiss

An increasing number of US Navy Aegis destroyers (& those of our allies) are part of an integrated global defense network.

old salt · Post by **old salt** » Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:56 pm

Hopefully, the LCS program is back on track. It's a unique, exciting concept, not without challenges.
Given time, the Great American Sailor will make it work. Find a way, or make one.

Here's a good overview/update of the LCS, the 4 interchangeable mission packages & manning issues.
No matter the mission package, there is one common characteristic -- it is primarily a Helo/UAV platform.
Like all new programs, it will be both exciting & challenging to be a plank owner in a new warfare community.
(...wish I was young enough to still be part of it)

https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/it ... es-016450/

old salt · Post by **old salt** » Mon Jul 30, 2018 1:01 pm

The F-35 goes to sea

As in so many aviation capabilities, particularly naval aviation, the Brits lead the way.
They designed & constructed the Harrier for the RAF & the Sea Harrier for the RN.
They also pioneered the use of the ski jump, on their carriers, allowing STOL from their straight deck carriers.
Shortly after fleet introduction, they performed splendidly in the Falklands War in the early 80's.
The RAF GR1's deployed aboard converted container ships & provided close air support for British commandos ashore.
The RN Sea Harriers, flying from their carriers, provided air defense for the fleet & took a ferocious toll on the Argentine A-4 Skyhawks & Super Entards with sidewinder missiles, in tight turning dog fights.
The Spanish still operate Harriers from their carrier.
The USMC still operates upgraded AV-8C's from our straight deck amphib carriers.
They'll be retired as the F-35's are phased in.
This is the future of carrier aviation for nations without the need for larger, more expensive super carriers, requiring catapaults & arresting gear.
The Brits are buying these F-35's to deploy aboard their 2 new aircraft carriers currently under construction.

old salt · Post by **old salt** » Mon Jul 30, 2018 1:08 pm

Russia threatens response if Sweden and Finland join NATO

“A treaty was signed in May that provides for [Sweden and Finland’s] full participation in the exercises of the alliance and the possibility of using its command-and-control systems for troops and weapons,” Sergei Shoigu said Tuesday, according to state-run media. “In exchange, NATO received unrestricted access to the airspace and territorial waters of these countries.”

Shoigu said that “such steps by Western colleagues” work to harm the current system of global security and create “greater mistrust, forcing us to take response measures.”

Following a NATO summit in Brussels earlier this month, the alliance’s heads of state and government met with leaders of Sweden and Finland to “discuss shared security challenges,” according to an official statement."

This is really getting interesting. A Trump - Putin summit (if permitted to take place) could be monumental.

Putin's rhetoric about NATO encroaching on Russia is not without foundation.
A little historical perspective is helpful :
http://www.spiegel.de/international/wor ... 63315.html

We may be coming to a final resolution of the re-alignment of E Europe, set in motion by German unification in 1990 & the subsequent dissolution of the USSR.

Trump & Putin have the ability to plunge us into another costly, dangerous Cold War, or to reach a pragmatic rapprochement.

NATO's rotational deployment of additional forces into E EU, Poland's offer to base heavy US forces, & now the prospect of Sweden & Finland joining NATO -- certainly up the ante. We (NATO/EU/US) are dealing from a position of strength.

Best case outcome (imho) would be a pragmatic modus vivendi which demilitarizes NATO's E flank (on both sides of the border), brings heavy US rotational forces back home & green lights Nordstream 2, with no worries.

It would probably require an easing of sanctions, an acknowledgement that Crimea is again part of Russia, a referendum to determine the future of the ethnic Russian enclaves in the Donbass, & a formal treaty guaranteeing that no other former USSR Republics would be allowed into NATO (beyond the current member Baltic states).

It might also lead to START & INF renewal & extension, & even further reductions in nuc weapons.

If the Russophobe politicians in the US would lighten up & let Trump (& Mattis/Pompeo) make a deal, a monumental post Cold War win-win is possible. The time is ripe. The alternative is a deepening Cold War, ...or worse.

old salt · Post by **old salt** » Mon Jul 30, 2018 1:13 pm

Nordstream 2 will allow Putin to shut off the gas to any of the EU/NATO countries E of Germany (coincidentially, the former USSR satellite states of the Wasrsaw Pact or former Soviet Republics), without disrupting supply to Germany & EU/NATO nations to the west.

Thus dividing NATO by forcing member nations to choose between the economic impact of energy shortages or acting against Putin's adventurism in allies E of Germany.

As shortages ensue, non Russian gas now flowing to W EU will divert to E EU as prices for all rise rapidly.

The whole thrust is to reduce EU/NATO dependence on Russian energy & to develop alternative supplies.
Nordstream 2 works against that.
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/06/trump-n ... aders.html

old salt · Post by **old salt** » Mon Jul 30, 2018 1:18 pm

The prospects for Crimea reverting to Ukraine are slim & none. Putin is pushing for a referendum there. Even if it was an open referendum, overseen by the OECD, there's no guarantee that a majority the Crimeans would vote to be part of Ukraine again. 58% of Crimeans are ethnic Russians. Recently, Russia opened a bridge to Crimea & is investing in infrastructure there.

The EU is doing less than the US to support Ukraine & deter Russia, even though Ukraine is their neighbor & aspiring EU member. The EU led Minsk process is stalled. The EU Parliment passed the Magnitsky sanctions, yet the EC has refused to implement them. The US sanctions on the 7 wealthiest Russian oligarchs, implemented in Apr, are really biting Putin. Meanwhile, Germany is pressing ahead with Nordstream 2, guaranteeing a revenue stream for Russia, even it allows Russia the leverage to cut the flow to/through Ukraine & Germany's neighbors to the east.

The US is doing much more than our NATO allies to support Ukraine & deter Russia.
We have 300 trainers there, just approved $200 million more in military aid & are sending anti-tank manpads.

We are forward deploying to provide the overwhelming % of combat power on NATO's E flank. How much more to contain & deter Russia should we be willing to do, given our EU allies indifference & Germany's unwillingness to subordinate their business interests to NATO & Ukraine's legitimate security interests ?

Ditto with Iran. The EU is willing to turn a blind eye to Iran's malign activities in return for access to their market. They were warned of the risks of sanctions being reimposed by the US if the Senate did not ratify the nuc deal as a treaty.

The US is more willing to both sanction & to militarily contain & deter, both Russia & Iran, than are our freeriding EUroburgher allies. ...& Trump is criticized for walking ahead of the Queen while reviewing her Guards, when she gestured to him to do just that.

old salt · Post by **old salt** » Mon Jul 30, 2018 1:21 pm

War in the gray zone :

https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2018/0 ... ne_today_n

These new gray-zone challenges – paced by China and Russia – exhibited three characteristics. First, all were hybrid combinations of military, paramilitary, and non-military capabilities and methods. Second, all were menaces to American defense and military convention precisely because they exhibited warlike potential in their impact yet defied preferred U.S. military solutions. Finally and perhaps most usefully, all gray-zone challenges generated “risk confusion” in American decisionmakers.

This “risk confusion” takes place in circumstances where the hazards of action and inaction appear equally dangerous: action looks excessively provocative and escalatory, whereas inaction in practice is appeasement. We found the deferred harm of the latter ultimately makes it an attractive default choice for U.S. strategic leaders. Yet inaction irrevocably changes facts on the ground and leaves U.S. strategists few legitimate options to recover losses over time.

old salt · Post by **old salt** » Mon Jul 30, 2018 1:23 pm

Neo-Cold Warrior primer :

To save the Baltics & deter Russia -- plugging the Sulwaki gap. Getting there firstest with the mostest.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/eu ... e2da034eff

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... 316c33f0e2

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na ... 9b61e38577

Retired US Army Gen Jack Keane told the WSJ -- " Putin looks at Angela Merkel - there's guys like me sitting around Putin saying to him, ' if we took the 3 Baltic capitals, would Angela Merkel really commit her infantry ? " ...good question.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/me ... 699544b7b6

old salt · Post by **old salt** » Mon Jul 30, 2018 1:27 pm

NATO indigestion. Wake up & smell the sauerkraut.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/07/ ... t-america/

...the idea of NATO membership became more important to the countries that are part of it than the reality and responsibility of actual military readiness.

NATO’s 21st-century problem is not the United States, which provides a large percentage of its wherewithal, but Germany. As the most populous and most affluent of European nations, Germany still insidiously dominates Europe as it has since its inception in 1871.

Berlin sends ultimatums to the indebted Southern European nations. Berlin alone tries to dictate immigration policy for the European Union. Berlin establishes the tough conditions under which the United Kingdom can exit the European Union. And when Berlin decides it will not pony up the promised 2 percent of GDP for its NATO contribution, other laggard countries follow its example. Only six of the 29 NATO members (other than the U.S.) so far have met their promised assessments.

Germany’s combination of affluence and military stinginess is surreal. Germany has piled up the largest trade surplus in the world at around $300 billion, including a trade surplus of some $64 billion with its military benefactor, the United States, yet it is poorly equipped in terms of tanks and fighter aircraft.

Ostensibly, NATO still protects Europe from Vladimir Putin’s Russia, just as it once kept the Soviet Red Army out of West Germany. But over the objections of its Baltic neighbors and the Ukraine, Germany just cut a gas-pipeline deal with Russia — the purported threat for which it needs U.S.-subsidized security.

Trump may be loud and uncouth, but his argument that NATO countries need to pay more money for their shared alliance’s self-defense is sound. If successful, it will lead to a stronger NATO.

In contrast, German chancellor Angela Merkel sounds customarily professional and diplomatic as she continues to weaken the alliance and pursue German commercial and financial interests at the expense of fellow NATO members.

old salt · Post by **old salt** » Mon Jul 30, 2018 1:36 pm

On BBC (07-17-2018), a surprisingly upbeat outake on the Helsinki Summit by Amb Kurt Volker (former NATO Amb, current Exec Dir McCain Institute & current US Special Rep to Ukraine) --

" What's significant about this... I understand the controversy that's going on in the media today, can't walk away from that, but when you look at the substance, I think what Pres Trump was trying to do was to create an atmosphere with Vladimir Putin where they could work together, & do that without giving away any of the substantive points that we care about. The one that came up in the press conference was Crimea, where it was Pres Putin who confirmed that No -- Pres Trump indicated that we still disagree over Crimea & we're not going to recognize that. This puts us in a position where we continue to try to work on a couple of these issues. One is make sure we are not accepting Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea & to see if we can bring about peace in eastern Ukraine, where Russia is still supporting the conflict there.

If you look at the actual substance again, where did we come out ? We didn't come out with a sellout on Ukraine, we didn't come out with a sellout on Syria, US forces are going to continue to stay there. We are still disagreeing on other issues, including INF & nuclear issues. ...We have the worst relationship with Russia that we've had since the Cold War. A lot of that is because of Russia's own actions & we've had to deal with those. That's not where we want to be. We want to be able to make some progress. We'd like to be able to see Russia get out of Ukraine. We'd like to see peace in eastern Ukraine. We'd like to see N Korea actually get rid of their nuclear weapons. Some Russian help there would be helpful, if they'd be willing to do that. The President is trying to get Russia to the point that we may get some help with those issues...

If you look at the record of this Administration over the past year & a half, we've been much more frank about Russia's responsibilities in the Ukraine. Sanctions have been increased. We've been much more vocal about Russian leadership of the forces that are there. We've been very explicit about holding Russia accountable for providing the equipment used to shoot down the civilian airliner... We've been very forthright about that. I understand there's a frustration, because (in a way) Russia is never going to be held to account. We've done a lot to make it more clear just what Russia's responsibilities are.

It (the Helsinki Summit) gives me a way forward. To stick with where we are on not recognizing Crimea, while proposing a peacekeeping force in eastern Ukraine to replace the Russian forces & ultimately let the people there get on with their lives.

old salt · Post by **old salt** » Mon Jul 30, 2018 1:46 pm

Advice from Henry the K :

(Dec 2016) : Henry Kissinger has 'advised Donald Trump to accept' Crimea as part of Russia

Why doesn't Trump crtitcize Putin ?
Why so many Russia connections ?
What's Trump's Russia policy ?
Kissingerian Realism.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/peop ... 97646.html

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1CAAS ... b5TT5qP8WM

old salt · Post by **old salt** » Mon Jul 30, 2018 1:50 pm

Rand Corp update on Russian military readiness on CSPAN.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?447083-1/ ... y-strategy

It's that time of year again. Provocative wargames in the Baltic. Saber Strike 18 vs Zapad 18.
USAF B-1/B-52's flying out of Czech Rep
Warzenschweine auf der Autobahn
F-16's (CO ANG) & A-10's (MI ANG)
Send in the Marines (& Romanians)

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/03/world/na ... index.html

A massive US-led military exercise involving 18,000 soldiers from 19 nations, primarily NATO members, kicked off Sunday along the alliance's eastern border.

Exercise Saber Strike 18 ended June 15, 2018, in Poland, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia.

The exercise was be conducted amid heightened tensions with Moscow, which views any NATO military activities along its border negatively, maintaining that it increases "mutual distrust."

Poland recently revealed it is considering a proposal for a permanent deployment of US troops to the country -- a move Russia denounced as "gradual expansion of NATO" towards its borders.

"When NATO infrastructure directly approaches our borders, this certainly does not contribute to security and stability on the continent in any way," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said while responding to a question about the creation of a US military base in Poland.

Part of the joint military exercises include air assault operations, convoy security, and bridge and river crossings to support freedom of movement.

The countries participating this year include Canada, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania, Spain, the United Kingdom and the United States.

old salt · Post by **old salt** » Mon Jul 30, 2018 1:53 pm

Germany's military readiness is becoming a focus of attention. 'bout time.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/g ... -alliance/

There was a time, not too long ago, when the Bundeswehr fielded half a million men (along with immense reserve forces). NATO documents described it as “the backbone of NATO’s conventional defence in Central Europe.” It was indisputably one of the best armies in the world. Without West German strength, it’s an open question whether NATO could have maintained conventional military deterrence in Western Europe.

painted a terrible picture of decline, outlining a lack of readiness in the air and on the ground. For a dose of perspective, consider the loss of Germany’s armored firepower. During the Cold War, it procured 2,125 Leopard II main battle tanks. By 2015, just 225 remained. Readiness reports showed that only a fraction of its fighter force was operational.

Has readiness improved? An April 2018 Business Insider story contains some disturbing paragraphs:
Germany’s Tornado fighter jets may not be able to join NATO missions due to technological deficiencies, according to an army report seen by German magazine Spiegel at the end of March.

The confidential report, prepared by Germany’s Bundeswehr, said 93 Tornados need immediate, extensive upgrades, as “the readiness to operate with the increasing age of the weapon system is clearly risky,” according to Spiegel.

As of February, only five of Germany’s 16 A400M transport planes were ready for use. An early 2016 report found that German jets fighting ISIS couldn’t operate at night because their cockpit lights were too bright for pilots. A report in early 2015, when Germany was preparing to send jets to Syria, said only 66 of 93 commissioned fighters were operational — and just 29 were combat-ready.

Since the end of the Cold War, Germany’s military and defense budget have shrunk. Troop numbers have fallen from almost 500,000 in 1990 to 180,000 now— some 21,000 officer positions are vacant, adding to readiness woes.

Consider this January report in the Washington Post:
Three years ago, Germany’s military made headlines when it used broomsticks instead of machine guns during a NATO exercise because of a shortage of equipment. The lack of real weapons in the European Union’s most populous nation was seen as symptomatic of how underfunded its military has long been.

One Russian annexation later, if anything, the state of affairs has only gotten worse, according to the parliamentary commissioner for the country’s armed forces.
He has now reached the conclusion that the German military is virtually “not deployable for collective defense.” Independent commissioner Hans-Peter Bartels also indicated in an interview that Germany was unprepared for the possibility of a larger conflict even though smaller operations abroad may still be possible.

In October, reports emerged that not a single German military submarine was operational — at a time when Russian submarine operations in the Baltic Sea were raising new concerns. Bundeswehr pilots are using choppers owned by a private automobile club to practice because so many of their own helicopters are in need of repair. And about half of all Leopard 2s — the tank which is most common in the Bundeswehr — were out of order as recently as November, which left the country with only 95 tanks of that type. By comparison, Russia is believed to have over 20,000 combat tanks, even though it is not known how many of them are operational.

Trump’s rhetoric is harmful to NATO. But the American military remains its most potent force. Germany’s verbal support for the alliance is helpful, but you know what’s more helpful? A powerful, functioning military in the heart of Central Europe. Donald Trump — or any American president — has an obligation to be angry about Germany’s decline. There are better and more productive ways to express that anger, but the underlying feeling is amply justified.

And yes I know that Germany is increasing its defense spending, but not fast enough and not effectively enough. American deployments in Europe are at a fraction of their Cold War levels, and the former “backbone” of NATO’s defense has turned to tissue paper. If you care about NATO, then you must care about Germany’s profound and indefensible military weakness.

old salt · Post by **old salt** » Mon Jul 30, 2018 1:57 pm

Gotta admire tiny Denmark. Blocking Nordsream 2 & deploying F-16's to bomb ISIS & patrol the Baltic, while our giant, wealthy 1% German allies can't even keep their pilots current & qualified.

http://um.dk/en/news/newsdisplaypage/?n ... 7e16248f89
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mide ... SKBN13R0WA
http://www.janes.com/article/77999/denm ... f-35-funds
https://www.dw.com/en/german-military-s ... a-42603112
https://www.dw.com/en/only-4-of-germany ... a-43611873

old salt · Post by **old salt** » Mon Jul 30, 2018 2:00 pm

Poland offers $2 billion to build a base to permanently host a US Army Armored Division.

https://www.armytimes.com/news/2018/05/ ... on-for-it/

If we are going to need to keep the current combat power present on NATO's E flank & Poland is willing to welcome US forces based on their soil & share the cost of doing so --

-- for the cost of rotating in & out a different Armored Brigade Combat Team (& their vehicles & equipment) from the US every 9 mos, an entire Armored Division could be permanently based in Poland, with soldiers & their families rotated in & out, individually on 3 year tours of duty.

This would allow for a closer, permanent integration with our Polish allies & enhance our troops knowledge of the terrain, promote a constant readiness to the specific threat they would face, & lessen the strain of constant overseas deployments on our soldiers & their separated families. If our other NATO allies join in similar joint basing of forces on the E flank, NATO can regain the credible conventional deterrent capability we presented during the Cold War.

old salt · Post by **old salt** » Mon Jul 30, 2018 2:04 pm

Poland's invite to a permanently host an entire US Armored Division has prompted a very enlightening debate revealing the motives of our NATO allies. An entire armored brigade based in Poland could be redeployed (say to the middle east) as rapidly from Poland as it can from CO, KN or TX. The more tanks we base on NATO's E front the better. That's where they are most likely to be needed & provide the greatest conventional deterrent. (firstest with the mostest to plug the Sulwaki gap).

https://www.politico.eu/article/warsaw- ... hout-nato/
https://www.politico.eu/article/nato-us ... in-poland/
https://www.politico.eu/article/dont-pu ... in-poland/
https://www.politico.eu/article/nato-po ... tary-base/

https://g8fip1kplyr33r3krz5b97d1-wpengi ... d-2018.pdf

The need for a larger, permanent U.S. military presence in Europe – and Poland in particular – is
clear. Former U.S. European Command (USEUCOM) commander General Philip Breedlove has spoken to
this effect, testifying before the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee in April 2015 that “Permanently stationed forces are a force multiplier that rotational deployments can never match.”

One year later, in March 2016, General Breedlove added in testimony before the committee that “The challenge EUCOM
faces is ensuring it is able to meet its strategic obligations while primarily relying on rotational forces from
the continental United States.”

Additionally, high-ranking military officials note the need for additional forces to counter Russian
aggression. U.S. Army Chief of Staff General Mark Milley, the Army’s highest ranking military officer, stated
in November 2017, “We, the Army, think that additional capability is probably needed [in Europe], in
combination with our NATO allies, to ensure deterrence of further Russian territorial aggression.” Milley
added that “heavy, armored forces” are best in the environment Europe presents.

When asked in March 2017 before the House Armed Services Committee whether permanent – rather than rotational – forward stationing of an Armored Brigade Combat Team in Europe would help deter Russian aggression, USEUCOM
commander General Curtis Scaparrotti said:
" I would prefer to have an enduring armed force in Europe. …I’d prefer to have an enduring one
because the force then becomes accustomed to the environment. It forms relationships with our
allies, they become well-known over the period of time of several years that our service members
are then stationed there and [they] have a greater appreciation for the problem set.”

A permanent American military presence in Poland would significantly reduce security
vulnerabilities in the region, particularly in the Suwalki Gap. U.S. military leaders, like U.S. Army Europe
commander Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges, have noted that a narrow piece of land connecting two NATO member
states Poland and Lithuania (the Suwalki Gap) could be a target of Russian military aggression, thereby
needlessly exposing Polish and NATO forces in the region to a period of potentially escalated conflict.
Permanent U.S. troops will also help increase interoperability with Polish forces. Poland started a program
in 2015 modernizing its forces and will benefit from increased participation in exercises with U.S. troops.

LaxPower Back-Up Stick

National Security Matters

National Security Matters

Russia

Naval Gazing

Re: Naval Gazing

Re: National Security Matters

Naval Gazing

Naval Gazing

Russia

Russia

Russia

Russia

Russia

Russia

Russia

Russia

Russia

NATO

NATO

NATO

NATO