The expert community of the American “deep state” continues to discuss the problem of “NATO mobility” in Europe for possible war with Russia.
Essentially, we are talking about the rapid concentration of U.S. and its NATO allies troops near the borders of the Russian Federation, and above all in the Baltic States. It will be a military operation in the run-up to or just before a normal war with Russia.
The other day, on the topic of NATO mobility in Europe, a report of the Atlantic Council was published. The report was prepared by a group of experts of the “task force” on the issue of mobility, headed by former commander of the European Command of the U.S. Armed Forces and Supreme Commander of the United Nations Armed Forces in Europe (2016-2019), retired General Curtis M. Scaparrotti and former U.S. Ambassador to Hungary Colin B. Bell. The 50-page report of the Atlantic Council was called “On the Move. A Comprehensive Assessment of European Military Mobility”.
Obviously, the publication of General Hodges’s report in March and now in April – General Scaparrotti’s report was linked to the plan for NATO’s big exercise in Europe 20, the active phase of which was to take place in May this year. However, because of the coronavirus, the exercises were disrupted, and the large expert reports of Hodges and Scaparrotti were published by inertia, which of course does not reduce the value of their content.
The Atlantic Council Task Force on Military Mobility was established in April 2019 to assess the adequacy of military mobility efforts in Europe to support the rapid growth of allied forces across the continent.
The report of the Atlantic Council Task Force on Mobility is an annual study based on consultations with NATO, EU and national government officials. The report contains a number of specific recommendations on mobility.
In fact, the text of the report itself, a 50-page document, was written by Project Director Wayne Schroeder, Project Rapporteurs Clementine J. Starling and Conor Rodihan as part of the research support and in consultation with Task Force members.
In addition, staff from the Scoucroft Center for Strategy and Security, which works to develop “nonpartisan strategies” to address the most important security challenges facing the United States, also contributed to the report.
The new NATO front line – a term used in the report – is currently taking place in Poland and the Baltic States, with a further expansion to the South and the vital Mediterranean and Black Sea regions. The front is extending into the eastern Mediterranean, due to Russia’s presence in Syria and possibly Egypt. Military mobility should ensure this front. Unlike the reports of the Jamestown Foundation and General Hodges, the report of the Atlantic Council contains no scenarios of a possible war with Russia in the Baltic States. The report gives a “comprehensive assessment of the European military mobility”.
The report assesses current efforts of allied states, NATO and the EU in the field of military mobility in Europe; identifies gaps in existing progress; and provides practical recommendations for activating and improving mobility in the short and long term.
To support the rapid movement of military forces across the European continent and beyond, NATO countries and the European Union are working together and individually to alleviate the numerous legal, diplomatic and infrastructural obstacles to military mobility.
The importance of cooperation between NATO and the European Union for military mobility in different variations is underlined in the text of the report. “We need more coordination between NATO and the EU,” it states.
The authors of the report “On the move. Comprehensive Assessment of European Military Mobility” points to problems. The report lists mobility problems that are well known for a large number of publications and other reports: legal, infrastructural, organizational, etc. Therefore, we will not dwell on these points in detail in our review. Let us only draw attention to the main policy issues identified in the report.
The authors of the report point out that, first, today’s military mobility lacks the general sense of urgency and permanence needed to ensure a reliable resource. The protracted discussion in Brussels on the next seven-year EU budget 2021-2017 “potentially zeroes funding for military mobility”.
Secondly, the lack of political and military coordination between countries and the two organizations, NATO and the EU, prevents political decisions from being made.
The main objective, according to the authors of the report, is to ensure sustainable and reliable funding for military mobility by the European Union, NATO and member states. It is recognised that the political momentum on military mobility peaked in 2018, but is now threatened by stagnation as countries, the EU and NATO focus on other issues. The report determines that the EU should allocate a budget of €20 billion for the period 2021-27 to finance military mobility. Meanwhile, the report states that there is a growing gap between the EU’s political statements and its resource commitments and capacities.
Most of the EU military mobility efforts were politically linked to the former President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker. In 2019, the European Commission offered € 6.5 billion in funding for military mobility over six years.
Despite this positive start, the EU is currently facing serious financial problems that have jeopardized the military mobility programme. In December 2019, under the Finnish Presidency of the EU, a compromise was proposed to reduce the mobility budget from € 6.5 billion to € 2.5 billion. This is more than 60% less than was originally proposed in the original European Commission budget for 2021-2027. The proposed reduction in the EU would give member states an opportunity to make similar reductions in their national budgets under military mobility. The Covid-19 pandemic has created additional challenges for funding.
The report suggests that priority should be given to investment in rail infrastructure – especially on the eastern flank of NATO. Investments in rail infrastructure are crucial for mobility from Western Europe to Central and Eastern Europe. As a priority, the Nordic countries should continue to pay attention to developing and maintaining national investments in the Rail Baltica project – a high-speed railway line with a European gauge from Poland to the Baltic.
The report published a map-scheme of nine freight railway corridors of the Trans-European Transport Network, through which most of the military equipment and troops in Europe are transported. And only one such route partially covers the Baltic States. At the same time, the map-scheme clearly shows how well the defense of Western Europe is prepared by four lines of rock railways.
The second task is to ensure compliance with NATO defense planning, known as the “Four Thirties” – to expose the U.S. allies to NATO within the first thirty days after “Ch day” thirty land battalions, thirty air squadrons and thirty warships.
The third task is to promote cyber-resilience. Cyber Resilience and infrastructure survival must take higher priority at the operational level, as they will be critical to the movement of forces across Europe in times of crisis or war.
The fourth challenge is to focus on command and control of the exercise. NATO should form a Joint Support and Enabling Competence Centre under the direction of the Joint Support and Enabling Command (JSEC). NATO exercises should be fully integrated with military mobility initiatives, including the Defender-Europe 20 exercise. NATO plans now include an increase in the number of annual exercises with greater duration and increasing complexity. A key challenge in planning the exercise will be the ability of the European infrastructure to receive and transport participants. NATO conducted 103 military exercises in 2018 and 102 exercises in 2019. Large exercises in Europe are planned for 2021, which will be the first opportunity for the Joint Sustainment Command (JSEC) to showcase itself and its capabilities.
The fifth challenge is to expand strategic transport capabilities, both in terms of load capacity and by removing existing obstacles.
The report acknowledges that the existing infrastructure in the former Warsaw Pact countries is largely unsuitable for modern NATO equipment.
At the suggestion of the two Atlantic Council task forces, NATO member states should consider funding the dismantling of the Russian railway gauge in the Baltics and replacing it with a Western European gauge, and – note, this is a rather enchanting proposal – to ensure that bridges at the Baltic-Russian border are changed so that they cannot bear the weight of Russian heavy military equipment. The Baltic states should define and classify the status of the former Soviet infrastructure within their borders, and take appropriate measures to move or replace it.
The most interesting plot of the report is to define the U.S. military potential for mobility to Europe. In this regard, the report complements previous expert opinions on this issue.
The U.S. mobile capability for 2018 was as follows:
– strategic transport aviation: 275 S-5 and S-17 aircraft;
– Civil transport and passenger aviation: 257 cargo or wide-body passenger aircraft;
– tactical transport aviation: 300 C-13 aircraft;
– Pentagon-controlled maritime transport vessels: 15.3 million square feet (1.4 million square metres) of cargo capacity.
– commercial maritime transport under the contract, including ships of allies and partner countries: payload capacity of 3.9 million square feet (362 thousand square meters)
– refueling aircraft: 479 KC-46 and KC-135.
The report acknowledges that the U.S. Air Force is currently suffering from a declining and ageing fleet of aircraft and refuelers. The report proposes that the EU create a European civilian air reserve fleet.
Meanwhile, it recognizes that NATO in Europe does not have an adequate strategy for using air transport for military mobility. Any serious review of crisis scenarios suggests the use of airfield capacity closer to the frontline states – Poland, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia.
With regard to maritime transport, the report indicates that key NATO countries, such as Denmark, Germany and Greece, already own a large part of the merchant fleet worldwide. Norway has developed a concept for using its civilian maritime fleet in times of crisis and can deploy 1,800 ships within 72 hours of a State’s request. The United States should consider increasing its maritime fleet in times of crisis.
The report warns that NATO should prepare for the possible deployment by Russia of conventional weapons – precision short- and medium-range ballistic missiles – and assess their impact on NATO military mobility. Many European security analysts believe that deployment of conventional, advanced ballistic or cruise missiles could truly ‘change the rules of the game’ for mobility in Europe.
EADaily .