Russia threatens Europe – USA Gov Policy

While there has been a delayed, and hopefully not too late, awakening to the extraordinary threat posed by China’s massive leap in naval power in the Pacific, Russia’s significant increase in its seafaring nuclear threat and its aggressive moves in the Atlantic and the waters surrounding Europe doubles the challenges facing the U.S. Navy.

An Atlantic alliance review reports that “Russia is challenging NATO at sea as well as ashore. The rather muted response of the Alliance focuses on more information and new command structures to provide a competitive edge. These measures alone will not be a sufficient deterrent… NATO seems to have neglected the sea as a domain of competition, influence and warfare.”

According to British interests seeking to enhance western responses to the growing Russian threat, “Russian naval activity is now at its highest levels since the Cold War…Putin has given priority to nuclear weapons and development of their delivery platforms. Three of the eight planned Borei class SSBNs are operational and the initial problems with their Bulava SLBMs appear to have been overcome. The Russians also retain nuclear-tipped torpedoes and cruise missiles in their naval inventory, although it is unknown if and when they are deployed. It was revealed in 2015 the Russian are developing the Status-6 (NATO reporting name ‘Kanyon’) nuclear-armed UUV which can be launched from a torpedo tube. Having a range of more than 6,000 miles, it is designed to attack ports and coastal areas by creating a tsunami and contaminating the area with radioactive cobalt-60. This an exceptionally dangerous and hard to counter weapon, immune to Western missile defence systems… Faced with a nuclear-armed power, with a strong, unpredictable leader who will probe for weakness and get away with what he can…politicians must face up to this inconvenient reality.”

According to NATO:

“Moscow has funded, delivered and tested new land attack and naval strike missile systems, new sensor arrays, new platforms and new tactics, all of which appear to have stolen any purported Third Offset that the West hoped to develop itself. These capabilities are designed for use in high intensity war fighting. Russia appears to be using these below the threshold of war, whether hybrid, new generation war, or through an updated version of active measures…the Russian Armed Forces are having significantly more success on the battlefield than NATO; it could be argued that this has resulted in greater political influence and leverage as well from North Africa to the Middle East.

“The aggressive posture and activities of Russia in the Baltic, the Balkans, the Arctic, Syria and Ukraine are well known. The new military capabilities being demonstrated and tested in Syria are stimulating arms sales in the Middle East and Pacific, as well as with NATO Allies. Less well understood are moves by Russia in the Balkans and its active presence in Scandinavia: a well tried and tested doctrine of espionage, deception, subterfuge and sabotage that seeks to undermine Western ideology, NATO cohesion and Alliance credibility.

“At sea, Russia is in the process of rebuilding its naval forces. The age and readiness of its vessels across the Northern, Pacific, Black Sea, Baltic and Caspian Sea fleets are no worse than those across NATO, yet the build programme is aggressive and ambitious, focusing on blue-water high intensity warfighting capabilities. Delivering the 100 additional warships (54 major combatants) and submarines (24 new conventional and nuclear hulls) planned before 2020 will be challenging, but it is a coherent force design that will continue to challenge NATO’s naval power for at least two decades.

This turns the generic levitra vardenafil temperature privileged the scrotum upsurge. Though we, as human beings, control our sexual needs and satisfaction is as important as any discount cialis canada other need such as emotional, psychological or mental. Before you go ahead cialis cipla and buy your preferred ED drug online, you must weigh in the pros and cons of each. It is such a medicine that can be nicely and safely used in place of online discount cialis . “There are three notable aspects of Russian naval force development. First, the continued development of the Russian submarine programme, combining autonomous systems with traditional manned platforms. Second is the evolution of Russian missile technology, covering land attack, naval strike, cruise and short-range ballistic systems capable of overwhelming or defeating Western defences.

“Finally, it is clear that Russian forces are not simply investing in new capabilities and technology. Instead it seems that they see opportunities in combining technologies with high political will, an ability to act unpredictably and to out-think NATO. Russia’s Ocean Multipurpose System Status-6 is a good example of this, combining autonomy, weapon knowledge, undersea expertise and stealth into a potentially lethal combination. It is a clear competitor to DARPA’s upward falling payloads.

“That concept of fighting – marrying high political will with geographic unpredictability, knowledge of key domains and a willingness to act outside Western rules of engagement (legally, ethically and morally) – is a distinct challenge for political and military commanders in NATO. By exercising hybrid, grey zone or threshold approaches to activities short of conflict, Russia has seized the initiative on land, and is doing so at sea.

“Moscow can now disrupt European states with capabilities that threaten undersea cables (power, internet and water), fishing and trade activities, Arctic routes, and potentially dictating the pace and scale of migration flows. Simultaneously, Russian air, surface and subsurface forces distract and discombobulate commands from seeing the entirety of the picture. Actions in the Atlantic, under the ice in the Arctic, the Aegean, the Black Sea, the Baltic and the Mediterranean are all linked in Russian thinking. It is a coherent and masterly plan – if somewhat opportunistic in character.”

In response, U.S. Navy Secretary Richard Spencer announced the re-establishment of the 2nd Fleet. According to the U.S. Naval Institute, (USNI) this was done to counter “…a more active Russian fleet and increasing military competition across the world.” Spencer noted that “Our national defense strategy makes clear that we’re back in an era of great power competition as the security environment continues to grow more challenging and complex…That’s why …we’re standing up 2nd Fleet to address these changes, particularly in the North Atlantic.”

Bluntly, this response, while a welcome recognition of the threat and a necessary step, only provides the paperwork response. Both U.S. and NATO nations need to do far more to meet the combined Russian/Chinese threat.

Picture: NATO maritime forces strengthen interoperability and increase combined anti-submarine and anti-surface warfare capability and capacity, during NATO’s annual Dynamic Manta exercise in the Ionian Sea (March 2018). Pictured: ESPS Victoria; photo by FRAN CPO C. Valverde
© NATO HQ MARCOM

Largely undiscussed in the American media, Russia is increasingly threatening the security of Europe. Putin is continuing his massive investment in modern weapons. He has formed wholly new military divisions, and has deployed theater nuclear weapons to his borders with European states.

The threats extend beyond the raw exercise of military might. An ABC/Associated Press report cites Djukanovic, Montenegro’s former prime minister, calling on the European Union to stop Russia’s “destructive” influence in the Balkans, following what prosecutors said was a thwarted attempt to overthrow its pro-Western government and kill the tiny country’s most influential leader. Djukanovic warned that the Kremlin “is waging a kind of war against Europe and the West as a whole.”

Montenegro is scheduled to formally join the NATO alliance as its 29th member. Since 2009, NATO and Montenegro have worked closely together through the Membership Action Plan, which helps nations prepare for possible future membership. Stoltenberg said the decision reflected Montenegro’s “unwavering commitment to our common values and to international security” but advised Montenegro to continue on its reform path, “on defense adaptation, on domestic reform, especially rule of law, and to continue to make progress in demonstrating public support for Montenegro’s NATO membership.”

A further indication of Putin’s consistent effort to rebuild the Soviet Empire can be seen in South Ossetia, technically part of Georgia. In 2008, Russian forces moved to separate the region from Georgia’s national government. The Russian news source RT reports that “The Russian government has approved an agreement with the Republic of South Ossetia that would allow certain military units of the latter nation to become the part of the Russian military forces… soldiers and officers of the South Ossetian units that will be included in the Russian military forces…In March 2015, Russia and South Ossetia signed a key treaty under which the two nations agreed to partially join their military forces…The treaty…is very similar to the agreement with the Caucasus Republic of Abkhazia signed in 2014.”

NATO’s just released 2016 annual report states that “At no time since the end of the Cold War has the NATO Alliance faced greater challenges to our security than it does today..Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea, and destabilisation of Eastern Ukraine…marked…the start of a new era… So today, the Alliance must engage in both collective defence and crisis management at the same time. Allies have implemented the largest reinforcement of our collective defence since the Cold War. In the last two years, NATO’s deterrence and defence posture has changed significantly, and the Warsaw Summit in July 2016 was an important landmark in our adaptation. We have tripled the size of the NATO Response Force to 40,000; established a 5,000 strong Very High Readiness Joint Task Force, ready to move within days; and set up eight small headquarters in the eastern part of our Alliance. We are currently deploying four multinational battlegroups to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland, with contributions from 17 different Allied countries – including Canada and the United States…

So, it is better to stop generic levitra the ill-habits of too much smoking and drinking alcohol Follow a nutritious and well-balanced diet Avoid sedentary lifestyle and lead a healthy lifestyle to maintain a healthy sexual life. 4. Because he is the sole proprietor, this means all revenue is put back into distributor commissions, research and development, online viagra sales and new products. Matured individuals may be touchier to the symptoms of the medication. find description cialis uk The risk of ED increases due to lack of hard on the person is not strong enough economically, he will not be able to take advantage of so many benefits. cialis without prescriptions “As the challenges to Allied security continued to evolve, Allied leaders agreed at the NATO Summit in Warsaw that a further shift in NATO’s posture was warranted. As part of this shift, Allies agreed to establish a rotational forward presence in the Baltic and Black Sea regions to demonstrate solidarity, determination, and an ability to act in defence of NATO territory. NATO’s forward presence will include multinational battlegroups deployed in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland and led by the United Kingdom, Canada, Germany and the United States respectively. It will also include a multinational brigade for training, led by Romania, that will contribute to NATO’s deterrence and defence in the Black Sea region. Significant additional contributions by other Allies send the message that NATO stands as one, and that an attack on any single Ally will be considered an attack against all. These troops will be under NATO command and control, which will include a multinational divisional headquarters in Poland. NATO’s forward presence will be an integral part of NATO’s deterrence and defence posture. During peacetime, the multinational forces in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland will train with national defence forces in those countries to enhance interoperability and improve their ability to operate locally. In case of aggression, these forces will respond in accordance with the right to self-defence, in coordination with the national forces of the host nation.

“The forward presence in the Black Sea region will include a multinational framework brigade for integrated training, as well as measures to strengthen NATO’s air and maritime presence in the region. Romania is the framework nation for the multinational brigade, which is being developed with contributions at the battalion level from Bulgaria, Poland and Turkey. Other significant contributions have been announced by Canada, Germany and the United States.”

As previously reported in the New York Analysis of Policy and Government, Russian provocations have also prompted Sweden and Finland, not officially part of NATO, to enhance their relations with the alliance. According to the a Finland study, “Finland needs to adapt yet again to changing circumstances…Finland shares the broader strategic concerns of its EU partners, along with the rising challenges to both East and South of the continent. However, the EU does not possess the institutions and capabilities to deal with the full range of these strategic concerns by itself… As an unsatisfied power, Russia has made unpredictability a strategic and tactical virtue, underpinned by an impressive degree of political and military agility. Russia has adopted a revisionist stand towards the norms and principles governing the European order…”

The report notes that any move to join—or not join– the alliance should only be considered jointly with Sweden.

Sweden, for its part, has moved closer to NATO, in response to Moscow’s significant threats. Moscow has moved air and missile forces close to Sweden, and is considering deploying much of its large tactical nuclear forces to the region as well. Russia possesses a ten to one advantage over the U.S. in tactical nuclear weapons. Moscow has engaged in simulated attacks on Sweden, and its intelligence forces constitute an ongoing threat.

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.