Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 5 Share on Twitter Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
Exclusive to OpEdNews:
OpEdNews Op Eds   

IISS Research: Europe cannot defend itself without U.S.

By       (Page 1 of 1 pages)     (# of views)   2 comments
Author 505119
Message Adomas Abromaitis

Lithuania
Lithuania
(Image by From Wikipedia)
  Details   DMCA
- Advertisement -

International research institutes very often provide assessments which cause just a revolution in the thinking of ordinary people and even politicians. Such reports give impetus to decisive actions and revision of existing strategies and politics.

One of such reports is "Defending Europe: scenario-based capability requirements for NATO's European members" made by the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS). An independent open-source high-level assessment of how the defence of Europe, would look if the United States had left NATO and did not contribute militarily has been published in May.

Though it is stated that research paper "does not intend to predict future conflicts nor the intentions of any of the actors involved", it gives Europe the reasons to rethink situation and take some actions.

- Advertisement -

The 50-page report applies scenario analysis to generate force requirements, and assesses the ability of NATO's European member states to meet these requirements.

The experts give two scenarios for the development of events in the absence of financial support from the U.S. The first scenario examined deals with the protection of the global sea lines of communication (SLOCs). In this scenario, the United States has withdrawn from NATO and has also abandoned its role of providing global maritime presence and protection, not just for its own national interest but also as an international public good. It thus falls to European countries to achieve and sustain a stable maritime-security environment in European waters and beyond, to enable the free flow of international maritime trade, and to protect global maritime infrastructure. The IISS assesses that European NATO members would have to invest between US$94 billion and US$110bn to fill the capability gaps generated by this scenario.

The second scenario deals with the defence of European NATO territory against a state-level military attack. In this scenario, tensions between Russia and NATO members Lithuania and Poland escalate into war after the US has left NATO. Russia uses its ally Belarus to deploy troops in its territory.

- Advertisement -

Belarus (borders Poland and Lithuania) puts its armed forces on alert, its military and air-defence command and control (C2) structures are integrated into Russian networks, and there is a limited mobilisation of reserves. Russian logistic, air defence and C2 units deploy to Belarus, as does the full 1st Guards Tank Army and an air-assault brigade.

This war results in the Russian occupation of Lithuania and some Polish territory seized by Russia. Invoking Article V, the European members of NATO direct the Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) to plan Operation Eastern Shield to reassure Estonia, Latvia and Poland, and other front-line NATO member states, by deterring further Russian aggression. European NATO also prepares and assembles forces for Operation Eastern Storm, a military operation to restore Polish and Lithuanian government control over their territories.

The IISS assesses that European NATO members would have to invest between US$288bn and US$357bn to fill the capability gaps generated by this scenario. These investments would establish a NATO Europe force level that would likely allow it to prevail in a limited regional war in Europe against a peer adversary.

The matter is some of the capabilities provided by US forces, such as logistics and sustainment for land forces, may be relatively straightforward if not cheap to replace.

However others are almost unique to the US, and it would be difficult to substitute European capabilities.

One of the implications of this research is the enduring importance of the US in military terms for the defence of Europe. This study provides a reality check for the ongoing debate on European strategic autonomy.

- Advertisement -

The IISS assesses that the recapitalisation across the military domains would take up to 20 years, with some significant progress around the ten- and 15-year marks.

Europe should also take into account that though this scenario is only hypothetical, in reality Russia and Belarus continue intensive military training. In October they are going to conduct massive joint military exercise Union Shield 2019 simulating joint military activity in case of armed conflict. There is concern that Europe has capabilities to appropriately react on such activities without the U.S.

In other words, the authors of the report demonstrate the direct dependence of the European countries on the U.S. in military sphere and even prescribe a certain path of action to be pursued by European NATO governments. If Europe really wants to be independent, it should start with increasing its capabilities and break a deep dependence on the U.S. and its money.

 

- Advertisement -

Rate It | View Ratings

Adomas Abromaitis Social Media Pages: Facebook Page       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

A Lithuanian expatriate My name is Adomas Abromaitis. I was born in Lithuania in 1983 but left it at 6. Now I live in the UK. For some years I have been working as a teacher. Some time ago I decided to change my life and start writing about my (more...)
 

Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines
Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

STAY IN THE KNOW
If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEdNews Newsletter
Name
Email
   (Opens new browser window)
 

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Lithuania supposed to have a large military sea port

Who will secure Lithuania?

Baltic States sacrifice economy on altar of politics

Is history a new NATO weapon against Russia?

Germany's Minister of Defense is the first victim of "Zapad 2017"

Politics is above common sense in Latvia

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

2 people are discussing this page, with 2 comments


David Pear

Become a Fan

(Member since Nov 29, 2014), 46 fans, 73 articles, 307 quicklinks, 3292 comments
Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in


Add this Page to Facebook! Submit to Twitter Share on LinkedIn Submit to Reddit


  New Content

This is a "what if" false narrative that assumes Russia is a boogeyman, and that the only way to protect Lithuania (and Europe) is NATO. This is the fundamental flaw of not looking at a subject from other points of view, especially Russia. Every action has a reaction.

Exactly who is threatening who? The US has mobilized it forces right on Russia's borders. This is exactly what lead to WW1, because mobilization is considered an act of war. Therefore Russia has every right, in fact a duty to its citizens, to mobilize its forces on Lithuania's, and other NATO countries, borders.

Having small countries with little tactical value in NATO, such as Lituania with a population of less than 3 million, or Georgia with a population of about 4 million, etc. is foolish. Only the arms manufacturers love it. It is stupid to sleepwalk into WW3.

The world is putting is survival in the hands of some possible future idiot such as another Saakashvili.

Submitted on Thursday, May 23, 2019 at 10:47:23 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (2+)
Help
 
Indent

nelswight

Become a Fan
Author 2581

(Member since Sep 3, 2006), 108 comments
Not paid member and Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in


Add this Page to Facebook! Submit to Twitter Share on LinkedIn Submit to Reddit


Reply to David Pear:   New Content

IMO, Billy, a pretty good assesment on your part. This fine x-lithuanian schoolteacher

has engorged the partyline from home and Poland. Not more than a pebble splash

in a big puddle. I think a loud passage of rectal gas would scare him to death.

Submitted on Friday, May 24, 2019 at 11:47:33 AM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
 

 
Want to post your own comment on this Article? Post Comment