Take our user survey and make your voice heard.

Here
and
Now

opinions

As tensions with Russia spiral, where is NATO?

10 Comments

As Iran rattles its sabers and Russia masses weapons in and around Ukraine, many are asking, "Where is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization?" What are its member states doing to bolster European stability and deter these new strategic threats?"

The alliance that once stood toe-to-toe with the communist bloc is silent and seems ill-prepared for today's challenges. Not that long ago, NATO was the bastion of air-defense capability. With the end of the Cold War, however, members reduced their air-defense assets.

Nations have downsized their forces and are discussing further reductions. NATO's robust training exercises have been reduced or eliminated, and the pursuit of weapons and equipment that could be integrated and can work together seems more a topic of discussion than an urgent need.

Yet post-Cold War Russia is emerging as a serious threat, and other nefarious world actors are demonstrating new capabilities. Moscow is developing advanced ballistic and cruise missiles and boasts a long-range strike capability. The Kremlin's new doctrine characterizes NATO as a threat. Consider: NATO aircraft intercepted Russian military aircraft more than 400 times in 2014, as Russians probed into or near NATO airspace.

In addition, Iran has unveiled its unmanned aerial vehicle, declared itself the "world's fourth-greatest missile power" and opened 2015 with a satellite launch of a rocket that could send a ballistic missile into Europe. Hamas, a Middle East terrorist organization like Islamic State, tested the Qasam rocket, fired more than 4,000 rockets into Israel in the 2014 conflict and flew its own unmanned aerial vehicles.

NATO's air defense force, meanwhile, is stretched thin and limited in its ability to meet these new challenges. Most European nations have retired their short- to medium-range air defense systems. Germany's Patriot force is about one-third the size at the end of the Cold War. The Netherlands ended its deployment to Turkey because its Patriot force is not large enough to sustain a third year of deployment. Spain backfilled the Dutch but only deployed a single Patriot unit for a mission that requires two.

The bulk of the U.S. Patriot force is forward stationed in the Pacific or deployed in Central Asia, leaving approximately 40 percent of it either recently home from a deployment or preparing for a deployment.

Fortunately, there are proven means to solve these challenges. First is greater integration of equipment. As General Frank Gorenc, the commander of U.S. Air Forces in Europe, recently explained, "the holy grail of interoperability is operating the same equipment."

Two NATO allies, Poland and Turkey, are about to select new air and missile defense systems. Both began their acquisition process almost two years ago and both could acquire systems that would assure that all NATO weapons can work together in an integrated manner. The nations' procurement leverages competition, and they have the opportunity to exploit the U.S. Army's Patriot system. Stability in Eastern Europe and the value of interoperable systems are of such importance that a bipartisan group of 32 members of the U.S. Congress took the unusual step of writing to Polish Prime Minister Ewa Kopacz urging his country to acquire the Patriot system.

NATO once understood that interoperability, shared munitions and logistics, and combined training were critical to deterring aggression and - if deterrence failed - to mounting a robust response. The ability to quickly integrate an ally's unit into the partners' command, or share ammunition and repair parts, is essential in combat, particularly when dealing with low-density, mission-critical air defense systems.

NATO also needs to resurrect its training and educational programs. This means creating an integrated air- and missile-defense training center like those the United States developed for Central Asia and the Pacific theaters. This center would complement a Patriot procurement decision and NATO's Tactical Leadership Program.

A reinvigorated tactical program could, for example, enable the relatively new land-based version of the U.S. Navy's SPY-1 radars with batteries of standard missiles, called Aegis Ashore, to operate with offshore Aegis ships stationed in the Mediterranean and also with NATO's Patriot units. The synergies of this type of integrated network would put substance behind wishful rhetoric.

It is time for NATO to rejuvenate itself through focused leadership and a unified alliance that boasts educational and training programs underpinned with the most capable interoperability and shared weapon systems. Nothing less will enhance European stability or ensure its security.

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2015.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

10 Comments
Login to comment

Wrong wrong wrong. it is NATO's aggressive expansion that prompted russia to react....... The world needs less NATO, not more. The threat it was designed to counter is past now.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

There is not and never will be an effective defence against the nuclear missiles based on land, in bomber fleets, and on submarines that Russia and the USA have deployed against each other! Diplomatic negotiations during the Cold War were based on the fear of M.A.D. - Mutual Assured Destruction, which neither side wanted to happen. There is no reason to go back to that insane state of preparedness to commit global mass murder and suicide, at 5 minute's notice of a supposed attack from the other side. Whatever differences exist between nations can and must be settled by peaceful negotiations through the United Nations, negotiations based on respect for the human rights of all involved. Let's have media coverage of the views of the world's peacemakers, to present this alternative option for humanity to the one-sided coverage we have been getting from the war-mongers!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@Wakrimasen Only if you believe the Putin propaganda. The US had no desire for a Maidan at this time, but once Ukraine got going, darned if we were going to let Putin put a stop to it by force. I think the situation is largely stable now, thanks to Obama playing it cool as always. Russia should be an international pariah due to its situation at home alone, and hopefully now we can get the cowards in Europe spending some money on their own defense.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

NATO should have disbanded at the end of the Cold War or incorporated Russia. The least NATO could have done is honor Kohl's promise to Gorbachev not to push eastward. Where is NATO? Causing trouble.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

@scipantheist

Only if you are a devout believer in Washington propaganda.

NATO is goiing where is should be long time ago - dustbin of history. To all American talk about "Russian threat" Europeans ask a simple question: what for? Nobody in his right mind believe that Russia would invade Greece, Italy, Germany. Even Turkey, a country that have fought a dozen of wars with Russia, now see in Russia not a threat, but a reliable trading parther. Poland and tiny Baltic states actively talking about Russian threat, not because they believe in it, but simply to get additional US attention and funds.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

I know this article is a pro-war piece saying Nato/US is not doing enough, but the fact is there are troops on the ground fighting for Kiev. US Mercenaries/BlackWater et al/Isis. What worries me more is that Japan is continuing the pro-war build up and rhetoric at a time when they should be spending on other things or not spending at all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDlX5SSAO0M

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ki5alr1vzwM

3 ( +3 / -0 )

NATO should have disbanded at the end of the Cold War or incorporated Russia.

This could have been done but Russia had to embrace those hated 'western values' first. Instead they backslid with 16 years of Putin thuggery.

The least NATO could have done is honor Kohl's promise to Gorbachev not to push eastward.

You should get those kinds of things in writing and not wait 10 years to complain or else it is just more Russian deviousness.

NATO has never been more necessary.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Russia can't wait long enough to put her dirty pawn on countries such as Romania (member of NATO). They completely damaged the country during the communist times, and would like to redo that over and over...

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Poland and tiny Baltic states actively talking about Russian threat, not because they believe in it

Oh yes they do. Only Russians believe otherwise, but they're just deluding themselves to make it look like they're less of a threat to their neighbors, but their neighbors are truly afraid (who still remember the Soviet bloc times).

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Robert BS Newton.

This guy is a piece of work. Retired from active duty and now lobbying for the MIC.

Robert BS Newton's next article will be about the return of 8-track tapes. What a dodo bird.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites