US Formally Withdraws from INF Treaty

9786854

The collapse of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty was a foregone conclusion. The United States set a deadline for Russia to comply fully with the terms of the treaty. Non-compliance would result in a formal US withdrawal from INF. 2 August was the deadline date and it came without any indications of Russian compliance anywhere in sight. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo released a statement on Friday explaining the US move, as well as the reasons for it. He laid the blame squarely on Russia’s shoulders, specifically its fielding of a non-compliant ground-launched cruise missile, the SSC-X-8.

With the INF Treaty now effectively trashed, many people across Europe and the United States are raising fears of a new arms race in the making. Aside the fear, and anxiety sits the simple reality that the treaty was no longer effective. The United States had little choice but to walk away from the treaty. Russia’s development and fielding of new non-INF compliant cruise missile systems since 2014 means there has been an arms race underway since then yet only one nation has been taking part.

That changes after today. The US will test its own new non-INF compliant ground launched cruise missile in the coming weeks. It will be some time before the new missile can be fielded though, leaving the US at a distinct disadvantage for the foreseeable future. Russia has already deployed several battalions of cruise missiles that directly violate the terms of the treaty. These missiles are capable of reaching US and NATO bases across Europe with either nuclear or conventional payloads.

It will be some time before the fallout from the US withdrawal, and the death of INF, become apparent. Until then, it is evident the US-Russia relationship will enter a more adversarial phase and that is at least partly because of the INF Treaty’s demise.

The US-Russia Military Balance in Europe: Part I

442432

The performance of the Russian military in the 2008 Russo-Georgian War revealed a number of woeful deficiencies in the training, doctrine, and equipment of Russian forces. The conflict concluded in a decisive victory, but the performance of Russia’s armed forces indicated the reforms and modernizations begun in the aftermath of the Second Chechen War had yet to fully take root. The military was moving in the right direction, however, more work would be required before it could be seen as a legitimate first-rate professional military on par with its Western peers.

Since 2008 Russia has undertaken a series of ambitious, and determined reforms, and modernizations. The final verdict on just how successful these attempts have been cannot be determined short of a major war. The involvement of Russia’s military in Syria and Ukraine fail to qualify as proper test beds. Neither conflict offers a realistic opportunity for Russia to conduct large scale combined arms operations. What they have offered, however, is the opportunity for many Russian soldiers and officers to gain invaluable combat experience.

The Western Military District (WMD) is the command responsible for confronting NATO. The organization and deployment of Russian land, air, and naval units in the WMD region presents insight to the General Staff’s thoughts on potential future conflicts in Europe. Although the WMD is the smallest Russian military district in terms of geographic size, it has the largest number of combat units assigned to it. These forces are generally the best trained, and equipped units in the Russian armed forces.

Readiness and preparation have been major points for the WMD. Since the annexation of Crimea, and the resumption of tense relations with the West, Russia has held major exercises in the WMD multiples times a year. The largest of these, such as the Zapad series, are conducted for the purpose of preparing the forces in the WMD, and neighboring districts, for high-intensity conventional operations. In spite of the heavy publicity that hybrid warfare has received since the Crimean annexation, Russia’s ground forces in the western district are made up primarily of combined-arms units. Combined-arms operations have been the center of Russia’s land war doctrine since World War II, emphasizing maneuver and firepower. Hybrid warfare still has a place in future conflicts in Europe involving Russia, especially in the Baltic States. However, when it comes to planning for operations farther west, such as in Poland, combined-arms forces would be the mainstay.

 

Since the end of the Cold War, US ground forces have become lighter. Iraq, Afghanistan, and other fronts in the Global War on Terror emphasized infantry, special operations, and airborne troops more than they did armor and mechanized infantry. Heavy forces did find a niche in these warzones and proved remarkably effective. However, this was not enough to prevent US Army doctrine from shifting heavily to the employment of light forces on the battlefield. Ukraine, and the annexation of Crimea began to change the US mindset, as did events in other regions of the world. A high-intensity fight against a near-peer opponent equipped with large numbers of tanks, and armored vehicles became more likely. US ground forces have been adapting to meet the emerging threats since then, as have US air and naval forces. With that in mind, it needs to be stressed that Europe has not become the primary focus of US military planning, as it has for Russia. Atlantic Resolve, and the rotating presence of a heavy maneuver brigade in Eastern Europe is helping to change this, but much work remains to be done.

Responsibility for defending Europe against Russian aggression does not fall entirely on US shoulders. That obligation belongs to NATO though the US provides the bulk of the military forces and combat power NATO would bring to bear in a future war against Russia. The alliance has become more united in recent years owing to the growing Russian military threat. And thanks to President Trump’s tough talk, NATO members are beginning to contribute more money towards defense spending. Unfortunately, it will be some time before the results of this effort become visible. Even when that happens, NATO’s European member-states will be unable to defeat a Russian move into the Baltics, or elsewhere in Eastern Europe on their own. US military power is the key to defending Europe.

 

March 2016 DIRT Project: The New Cold War

U.S.-and-Russian-Flags

Whether or not Russia presents a geopolitical threat to the United States and her European allies is no longer up for debate. The question has been answered by Russia through its military actions in Crimea, the Ukraine and Syria, its burgeoning diplomatic relationships with nations such as Iran, and its obsession with challenging the United States in every manner possible around the globe. Moscow has bent over backwards to show the world that it is a threat to the United States, Europe, and democracies around the world. On Saturday, 13 February, 2016 Russian Prime Minister Dimitri Medvedev stated that the world said that the world was fighting a new Cold War. He went on to warn of grave consequences for the West if it did not cooperate with Russia in Syria and in other places.  The thinly veiled threat is impossible to ignore, as is the intimidation factor.

Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome to Cold War 2.0. This is not your father’s or grandfather’s Cold War.

In the last half of March, I will publish a three-part series on the new Cold War, providing a detailed analysis of the diplomatic, economic, and military dimensions of the new state of political hostility between the United States and Russia. The series will also examine the conditions and events which have led to this point, as well as what the future might hold.

For those of us who grew up during the 80s and remember the unbridled optimism that washed over the world following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the reemergence of a belligerent Russia may seem like a nightmare come to life. The bad old days could be returning. Whether or not the United States wants to accept it or not, Russia is a threat. More alarming is the fact that Russia considers us to be a threat once again. Moscow is making decisions and taking actions based on this presumption, and it is working to Vladimir Putin’s advantage. Meanwhile in Washington, the Obama Administration is reluctant to accept the new geopolitical realities that are emerging. With the failure of his foreign policy, President Obama appears to be satisfied with leave a resurgent Russia on the desk for his successor to contend with.