• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Contemporary Deterrence – Insights and Lessons from Enhanced Forward Presence

Rogue Valley

Lead or get out of the way
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
93,583
Reaction score
81,659
Location
Barsoom
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Contemporary Deterrence – Insights and Lessons from Enhanced Forward Presence

nato-trupe-nato-int.jpg


NATO decided, in July 2016, to establish an enhanced Forward Presence (eFP) in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland. A battalion-size battlegroup (BG) was deployed in early 2017 to each of these nations. This report looks at various aspects of the eFP some eighteen months after the start of its deployment and offers recommendations to NATO Allies, particularly host and contributing nations, for strengthening the eFP. The four BGs are manned by framework nations (United Kingdom, Canada, Germany and the United States), who provide the bulk of the troops and support elements, alongside contributions from most other Allies. The multinational contingents of the BGs rotate regularly and are 24/7 combat ready. Their main task is deterrence, as part of NATO’s wider strategy of deterrence by denial and punishment. This strategy includes also other forms of Allied presence in the region (US European Deterrence Initiative, Baltic Air Policing, NATO’s standing maritime groups etc.), as well as forces that would reinforce the region in times of crisis (NRF/VJTF, follow-on forces). The BGs are fully integrated into the land forces brigades of their host nations. They are subordinated through regional divisional headquarters and the Multinational Corps North-East headquarters to NATO’s Joint Forces Command in Brunssum. The chain of command is clear, and supports training activities, as well as regional defense planning and integration.

As well as providing a deterrence presence, the eFP BGs contribute to the self-defence capabilities of their host nations, particularly in the Baltic states. Host and contributing nations gain from eFP by improving interoperability and maintaining combat readiness. The eFP also contributes to deepening political and economic relations between host and contributing (particularly framework) nations. The eFP is a small presence, but has a very significant and visible role, including in strategic communication. It is generally deemed suitable in terms of its size for its roles, but proactive thinking and planning is needed for the possible requirement to strengthen the eFP (e.g. to brigade level units) in times of crisis. In addition, the eFP has to be fully backed by follow-on forces, whose reinforcement operations also need to be planned and regularly exercised. Better coherence between the eFP and other forms of Allied presence in the region is also needed. Russia simultaneously both resents and plays down the importance of the eFP. Russia’s official propaganda routinely attacks NATO, and disinformation and the exploitation of any incidents involving eFP personnel represents the main risk to the eFP. Finland and Sweden work increasingly closely with the Alliance, including participation in major exercises (e.g. Trident Juncture 2018). There may be ways to engage them also with the eFP, initially by participation in exercises of eFP host and contributing nations.

I think eFP has proved invaluable in strengthening the NATO presence and preparedness in the Baltic region. Lithuania, Poland, and Ukraine have also established a joint QRF Brigade. The framework nations also train Ukraine troops at the Combat Training Center in Yavoriv, Ukraine. About 200 soldiers from the 278th ACR, Tennessee Army National Guard participated briefly in the eFP, and then spent six months at the Yavoriv, Ukraine CTC.

Related: Contemporary Deterrence: Insights and Lessons from Enhanced Forward Presence
 
"Tennessee Army National Guard participated briefly in the eFP, and then spent six months at the Yavoriv, Ukraine CTC."

US Troops on the ground in Ukraine. For Shame.
\/
 
"Tennessee Army National Guard participated briefly in the eFP, and then spent six months at the Yavoriv, Ukraine CTC."

US Troops on the ground in Ukraine. For Shame.
\/

Ukraine invited US forces.

Ukraine did not invite the Russians who currently occupy Crimea and Donbass.

US = Guest.

Russia = Invader.
 
Ukraine invited US forces.

Ukraine did not invite the Russians who currently occupy Crimea and Donbass.

US = Guest.

Russia = Invader.

The Russians in Crimea had a 25 year lease on Sevastopol.

There was no invasion.

Us Forces creating provocations by being in Ukraine, especially after initiating a coup d'etat overthrowing the legal gov't'

USA bad.
\/
 
The Russians in Crimea had a 25 year lease on Sevastopol.

There was no invasion.

Us Forces creating provocations by being in Ukraine, especially after initiating a coup d'etat overthrowing the legal gov't'

USA bad.
\/

In Sebastopol. Not the entire Crimea. Once they took the entire Crimea that indeed was an invasion.

And Russian forces have invaded Donbuss.

"US provocation" does not excuse Russian invasion.
 
In Sebastopol. Not the entire Crimea. Once they took the entire Crimea that indeed was an invasion.

And Russian forces have invaded Donbuss.

"US provocation" does not excuse Russian invasion.

Yes it does.
\/
 
Not a single consideration of the obvious - namely that the re-militarisation of the Baltics by a hostile US led alliance will only increase tensions and create a vicious circle of mutually reinforcing insecurity :roll:.
 
No, it doesn't.

But it is telling you approve of illegal invasions of a sovereign state.

I never said that, but I disapprove of illegal coup d'etats in sovereign states. The coup d'etat installed an ILLEGAL regime. The residents of Crimea and Donbass didn't and don't approve of the ILLEGAL regime.
\/
 
What was "illegal" about the Ukraine uprising?

And yes, you do approve of illegal invasions of a sovereign state.

What you don't konw is not my fault. No invasion. ILLEGAL state.
\/
 
What state is "ILLEGAL"?

And you have repeatedly supported the illegal annexation of Crimea and illegal invasion of Donbass. Ergo you support the illegal invasion of Ukraine territory.


..-. ..-
You support the ILLEGAL coup d'etat in Ukraine. ILLEGAL state. End of story.
\/
 
Not a single consideration of the obvious - namely that the re-militarisation of the Baltics by a hostile US led alliance will only increase tensions and create a vicious circle of mutually reinforcing insecurity :roll:.

Their main task is deterrence, as part of NATO’s wider strategy of deterrence by denial and punishment. This strategy includes also other forms of Allied presence in the region (US European Deterrence Initiative, Baltic Air Policing, NATO’s standing maritime groups etc.), as well as forces that would reinforce the region in times of crisis (NRF/VJTF, follow-on forces).

Now who would they be deterring?

The French?

The Australians?

The Muppets?

Hmmmmm

Oh, that's right. The Country that has already invaded their neighbors.

THAT is why you don't like this.
 
Not a single consideration of the obvious - namely that the re-militarisation of the Baltics by a hostile US led alliance will only increase tensions and create a vicious circle of mutually reinforcing insecurity :roll:.

The Baltic NATO countries want to be ready when Field Marshal Putin comes a calling.
 
Not a single consideration of the obvious - namely that the re-militarisation of the Baltics by a hostile US led alliance will only increase tensions and create a vicious circle of mutually reinforcing insecurity :roll:.

The Baltics were victims of Soviet aggression. Their desire to defend themselves reflects the threat posed by Russia.
 
The Baltics were victims of Soviet aggression. Their desire to defend themselves reflects the threat posed by Russia.

That does not answer my observation.

Re-militarisation is highly unlikely to create more security. That's what Europe learnt during the Cold War and it's why the arms control regime was so popular and successful.

Now we seem to have reversed logic, forgotten history, and preside over the destruction of arms control and re-militarisation with the aim of increasing security.

The truth is that the Russian threat is absurdly and gratuitously exaggerated by the warmongers, the MIC, and the paranoid.
 
That does not answer my observation.

Re-militarisation is highly unlikely to create more security. That's what Europe learnt during the Cold War and it's why the arms control regime was so popular and successful.

Now we seem to have reversed logic, forgotten history, and preside over the destruction of arms control and re-militarisation with the aim of increasing security.

The truth is that the Russian threat is absurdly and gratuitously exaggerated by the warmongers, the MIC, and the paranoid.

Actually, it was militarization, in the form of a strong NATO, that achieved Cold War victory over the collapsing Soviet Union.
The strain of military competition drove Gorbachev to his historic blunder: trying to achieve more economic productivity by introducing just a little freedom into the Soviet system. Like most authoritarians he had no idea how corrosive freedom can be, even in small doses, so he became the sorcerer's apprentice, unleashing forces he could neither understand nor control.
Western strength, not treaties, was the foundation of security, and will be again if necessary.
The Russians have only themselves to blame. Their multiple aggressions have produced a reaction.
 
Actually, it was militarization, in the form of a strong NATO, that achieved Cold War victory over the collapsing Soviet Union.
The strain of military competition drove Gorbachev to his historic blunder: trying to achieve more economic productivity by introducing just a little freedom into the Soviet system. Like most authoritarians he had no idea how corrosive freedom can be, even in small doses, so he became the sorcerer's apprentice, unleashing forces he could neither understand nor control.
Western strength, not treaties, was the foundation of security, and will be again if necessary.
The Russians have only themselves to blame. Their multiple aggressions have produced a reaction.


I'm not talking about how 'victory' was achieved in the Cold War (we don't regard it as a defeat incidentally, more a withdrawal and re-formation). I'm talking about post Cold War security in the here and now.

Reprising the Cold War through militarisation is not going to work. It will only create insecurity, and Russia is neither able nor stupid enough to try to repeat Soviet mistakes.
 
I'm not talking about how 'victory' was achieved in the Cold War (we don't regard it as a defeat incidentally, more a withdrawal and re-formation). I'm talking about post Cold War security in the here and now.

Reprising the Cold War through militarisation is not going to work. It will only create insecurity, and Russia is neither able nor stupid enough to try to repeat Soviet mistakes.

Ah yes, withdrawal and re-formation as former captive states threw the Soviets out.:roll:

Russia is less able (and a lot smaller) than the former Soviet Union, but seems just as stupid. I'll put my faith in military strength, thanks.
 
Ah yes, withdrawal and re-formation as former captive states threw the Soviets out.:roll:

Russia is less able (and a lot smaller) than the former Soviet Union, but seems just as stupid. I'll put my faith in military strength, thanks.


How much do you need to spend before you'll ever be comfortable? I know westerners tend to measure everything in terms of money, and that's why when I talk of security you seem unable to comprehend.


Is $750bn not enough? Why not take more from your taxpayers - make it $1tn?


Or isn't the truth more that your MIC will always find some threat which justifies spending ever more? And yes, a good war or two would be tremendous for the MIC. Iran? Venezuela? North Korea?


Dr Strangelove is alive and well.
 
How much do you need to spend before you'll ever be comfortable? I know westerners tend to measure everything in terms of money, and that's why when I talk of security you seem unable to comprehend.


Is $750bn not enough? Why not take more from your taxpayers - make it $1tn?


Or isn't the truth more that your MIC will always find some threat which justifies spending ever more? And yes, a good war or two would be tremendous for the MIC. Iran? Venezuela? North Korea?


Dr Strangelove is alive and well.

Nice try on the propaganda. It will work better when Russia stops threatening and invading neighbors.
As for how much is enough, we have a long tradition of doing what we must.

"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Representative Robert Goodloe Harper, 1797
 
Nice try on the propaganda. It will work better when Russia stops threatening and invading neighbors.
As for how much is enough, we have a long tradition of doing what we must.

"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Representative Robert Goodloe Harper, 1797


:lamo


Not that Russia has invaded its neighbors, but if you're talking about Ukraine and Georgia, it seems to have escaped your attention that good old Uncle Sam did precisely nothing.


So, who exactly are you spending all the money for? There is no Russian threat to the US, and you have no intention of engaging Russia anywhere outside the US.
 
Back
Top Bottom