This reminds me of RAND's other depressing report on NATO ground force capabilities in the event of a Russian invasion of the Baltics:
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/ran...AND_RR1253.pdf
My concerns with these RAND reports are threefold:
Firstly, NATO forces operate as joint forces, yet there is no discussion of the airpower and seapower that NATO can bring to bear in support of the Baltic republics, including from assets that are not in-theater (e.g. U.S. strategic bombers, NATO SSNs, U.S. SSGNs).
Secondly, I have the feeling that RAND is shilling for the U.S. Army and now for the British, French and German armies. With the waning deployment of ground forces to the Middle East, the uptick in Afghanistan notwithstanding, these institutions are faced with a lack of mission and reprisals from other services whose budgets were cut to the bone from 2001 on.
Thirdly, RAND is perpetuating a notion that NATO's doctrine is static defense, when in fact, NATO has always assumed that it would defend in depth and counterattack.
For instance, the temporary loss of Narva or the Suwalki Gap is considered unthinkable today, but even during the waning days of the Cold War, it was always assumed that the Warsaw Pact forces could seize West Berlin and drive deep into West Germany.
In conclusion, these reports must be taken as sensationalism and fear-mongering in order to grab the attention of the relevant politicians and ensure that there is adequate defense expenditure. Quietly whispering that some incremental improvements are required will not do much: a very squeaky wheel is needed to get a portion of the ask...
Originally Posted by OUTLAW 09
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks