After months of increasing U.S. forces throughout Europe’s Eastern borders in an effort to curb Russian aggression in the region, a new operation was announced on Monday that will see a U.S. led battalion of more than 1,100 soldiers deployed to Poland specifically as a response force aimed at Russian antagonism.
“This is a mission, not a cycle of training events,” U.S. Army Lt. Colonel Steven Gventer, who heads the battlegroup, told a news conference. “The purpose is to deter aggression in the Baltics and in Poland … We are fully ready to be lethal.”
Other battle groups with the same mission will be placed in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, each with forces arriving from NATO allies Britain, Canada, and Germany. Other NATO nations such as France are expected to provide further support for the mission, with all four groups expected to be combat ready as early as June of this year. The four groups will create a combined 4,000 person NATO force, complete with tanks, armored vehicles, air support and the latest in mission-information technology housed within individual command elements. Their continuing mission will be to monitor and defend the European border against any potential Russian incursion.
America’s investment will include more than 900 soldiers, which will be bolstered by 150 British personnel and 120 Romanian soldiers.
In order to effectively safeguard against any Russian advance into the Baltic region, the alliance’s forces will utilize eight small NATO outposts along the border, in which troops from all four battle groups will conduct exercises and prepare for the potential for the outbreak of fighting. In the event said attack ever does occur, the alliance will call on a 40,000-strong group of alliance soldiers stationed throughout the region to bolster the initial defenses provided by the four battle groups.
“We are not the entirety of NATO’s response,” said U.S. Army Major Paul Rothlisberger, part of the U.S.-led battalion to be based in Orzysz, 220 kilometers (137 miles) northeast of Warsaw.
This decision is another of a long slew of tactical moves made by NATO forces in order to reassure NATO nations that were once members of the Soviet Bloc that another Russian annexation such as that seen in Crimea in 2014 will not be tolerated, and any effort to do so will be met with swift military resistance. However, in an effort not to violate a 1997 agreement between Moscow and the United States, utilizing four command posts located within Baltic nations prevents the need to permanently station American troops along the Russian border.
In January, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov spoke directly to the influx of American forces in Poland, calling it a threat to the Russian State.
“We see it as a threat to us. This is an action that threatens our interests, our security; moreover, this is a third nation (apart from Russia and Poland) that is increasing its military presence near our borders in Europe, and it’s not even a European nation.” Peskov told the press.
“One thousand or 10,000 — we’re talking about the increase of military presence. There’s nothing to add.”
Russia has announced plans for large-scale war games along their western border later this year, though no details have emerged regarding the number of troops participating. Chances are good that the presence of a large Russian force along the very border these groups are tasked with overseeing will only serve to increase tensions between Russia and the NATO alliance, further degrading peaceful discourse between nations. As military forces face off from across borders, the potential for armed conflict will be as high as ever, and may mark one of the hottest spots yet in what some have referred to as a second cold war.
Image courtesy of CNN
Join our community. To comment on this article please join/login. Here's a sample of the comments on this post.
Gventer is a pretty good commander. Quite a few friends in that squadron. I hear all the boys in 2CR are loving these cool deployment opportunities, but getting quite burned out after constant rotation after rotation. "Sustained Readiness" is the new mantra- vastly different than the old ARFORGEN cycle when we had some slower time between deployments.
Shalom (peace, prosperity, & blessings to you)! :-)
USMC...you had another response in here that I really liked, and it disappeared while I was multi-tasking. I don't know if this is still relevant to what you wrote, but these were my thoughts in response (and if I need to edit, happy to do so): "I love these kinds of conversations! You have the advantage of information I haven't yet acquired and so have not yet considered, and I like your points. I know that we have nuclear weapons within our own borders, but was unaware of our own nuclear weapons taking up residence within the borders of other countries. (I'm not at all surprised by that new knowledge, I just wasn't aware of that information.) Now, if we are actively and unilaterally pointing our missiles at Russia or her allies, I can see Russia feeling nervous. Or, if Russia no longer has the ability to determine what we are doing with our missiles, or to respond as quickly, it makes sense that they would be concerned when we start moving strategic pieces on the chess board. I don't see the Missile Defense Systems deployed close to other borders as an act of aggression, unless Russia is feeling entitled to attack (or for its allies to attack) without interference . In which case, they can suck it up....I don't think I really care if a defensive posture to hinder their expansive military plans makes them irritable. (Or... unless they really can't tell the difference between the defensive and offensive systems....) But, there are other situations where I can legitimately see our actions being perceived as aggressive, too. To my mind, that doesn't explain away Russia's recent aggressive actions, which don't at all appear to be an effort to prepare to defend against an invasion from Europe as in centuries past, but rather to invade and take back whatever they consider as theirs, without respect for the sovereignty of other nations."
Michelle B, I believe we've had a fine discussion with each of us making valid points. Even though my primary profession was the "profession of arms," I too hate war but accept it as a necessary evil. My concerns domestically, is not invasion by Russia, it is nuclear incineration and annihilation by miscalculation on their part. Here is my reasoning: 1. Russia no longer has an operational space-based missile launch detection system like it had when I was an Emergency Action officer in the National Military Command Center. That system collapsed with the old Soviet Union. The Russian military is in the process of trying to rebuild their satellite constellation detection system. However, at present, without a space-based launch detection system, the Russians are paranoid about a first-strike by the West! Illogical to you and I, but not to a student of Russian history!!! 2. At the moment, they are relying on a computerized "Dead-Hand" system which is a POSITIVE launch of nuclear weapons headed our way UNLESS STOPPED by human intervention. VERY DANGEROUS & RISKY! 3. This is the reality of the nuclear and missile defense deployments by nation (USA & RU) by the other's national borders: Nuclear weapons deployed aboard fleet ballistic missile sumbarines: both USA & RU. Tactical nuclear weapons deployed close to the others borders: USA only Missile Defense Systems deployed close to the others borders: USA only From a potential nuclear first-strike perspective, we appear to be the aggressor! That is my main concern!
...the choir sometimes hears the best sermons with the deepest thoughts, since we tend to start out on the same page, if not the same paragraph. Always happy to hear those deeper thoughts! And the genuine wisdom and concern from all who have literally "walked the walk" of war...