Some senior generals and admirals in and around Washington have been very busy recently, and their activities, while aggressive, have not been associated with directing current combat operations. Rather, they have been directed at attempting to influence the Administration of newly-elected President Joe Biden to restructure military forces, expand the nuclear arsenal and magnify specific warfighting capabilities. All of this is what might be expected of those whose business and dispositions are aimed at organising destruction and death, but the manner in which their aspirations are expressed are not consistent with what is expected of military personnel in a democracy.

The U.S. Department of Defence is now headed by a Biden-appointed retired general who has not voided the directive concerning “Political Activities by Members of the Armed Forces” which notes that “members on active duty should not engage in partisan political activity.”

This long-standing instruction was last reiterated in 2008 but it cannot be said that generals and admirals have followed its letter or spirit, and the present echelons of senior officers appear determined to flout it by wide publication of their personal points of view concerning the military posture of their country. This, by any interpretation, is “partisan political activity.” No government should tolerate meddling by the military.

On February 2 the chief of staff of the U.S. Air Force, General Charles Q Brown, and the Commandant of the Marines Corps, General David H Berger, had an opinion piece published in the Washington Post in which they expressed overall support for the 2018 National Defense Strategy but complained that “it has not changed defence investment priorities at the scale or scope necessary to prepare the U.S. military for great power competition.” In other words, they consider their enormous armed forces, on which some 740 billion dollars are to be spent this year, are not ready for war in spite of that allocation of taxpayers’ money being 11 times that of Russia and three times that of China.

Not to be outdone in public pronouncements, the following day the commander of U.S. Army forces in Europe and Africa, General Christopher Cavoli gave a speech in which he said that “the U.S. military needs more long-range artillery and other advanced weaponry in Europe to be able to take on enemy forces . . .”, and it is reasonable to ask if this sort of policy indicator is approved by the new President.

Then the head of Strategic Command, the element responsible, among other things, for “strategic deterrence; nuclear operations and space operations”, Admiral Charles Richard, published his personal take on the future use of nuclear weapons. In the February edition of the Naval Institute’s magazine Admiral Richard wrote that Russia and China “have begun to aggressively challenge international norms and global peace using instruments of power and threats of force in ways not seen since the height of the Cold War.” This person accountable for employment of nuclear weapons holds that “There is a real possibility that a regional crisis with Russia or China could escalate quickly to a conflict involving nuclear weapons, if they perceived a conventional loss would threaten the regime or state…”

It could hardly have been a coincidence that in early February the Pentagon ordered two U.S. carrier strike groups, led by the USS Theodore Roosevelt and the USS Nimitz, to conduct manoeuvres in the South China Sea.

Navy Times reported that “the Roosevelt’s carrier strike group includes Carrier Air Wing 11, guided-missile cruiser Bunker Hill, Destroyer Squadron 23 [six ships], and guided-missile destroyers Russell and John Finn. The Nimitz’s carrier strike group includes Carrier Air Wing 17, guided-missile cruiser Princeton, guided-missile destroyer Sterett, and staff from Destroyer Squadron 9 and Carrier Strike Group 11.”

The mission of this enormous force (which has a total of 120 attack aircraft), according to Admiral James Kirk, commanding the Nimitz Strike Group, was to ensure “the lawful use of the sea that all nations enjoy under international law,” and he was echoed by his colleague, Admiral Douglas Verissimo of the Roosevelt Strike Group, saying “we are committed to promoting a free and open Indo-Pacific.” Obviously neither of them is aware that the United States refuses to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea which is considered “the ‘constitution of the oceans’ and represents the result of an unprecedented, and so far never replicated, effort at codification and progressive development of international law.” But this does not prevent Strike Group admirals holding forth about their missions of provocation in the South China Sea that appear intended to push China to react.

In this context it is disturbing that the head of U.S. Strategic Command declared “There is a real possibility that a regional crisis with Russia or China could escalate quickly to a conflict involving nuclear weapons, if they perceived a conventional loss would threaten the regime or state…”

U.S. forces are threatening China in the South China Sea and confronting Russia all round its borders — and most recently in the Black Sea where the U.S. Navy deployed two guided missile destroyers in January. According to U.S. European Command, these ships are from the Sixth Fleet which is based in the Mediterranean “in order to advance U.S. national interests and security and stability in Europe and Africa.” These same interests are being furthered by the Pentagon’s “China Task Force” whose establishment President Biden announced on 10 February. The mission of this war-planning body is to conduct a review of U.S. “strategy and operational concepts, technology, and force posture” in line with Biden’s declaration that “That’s how we’ll meet the China challenge and ensure the American people win the competition of the future.”

So Uncle Joe has apparently joined the generals in their never-ending pursuit of global military ascendancy. Further, it seems he has accepted the new “Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent” or GBSD, which the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists described on 8 February as “a new weapon of mass destruction, a nuclear missile the length of a bowling lane. It will be able to travel some 6,000 miles, carrying a warhead more than 20 times more powerful than the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima. It will be able to kill hundreds of thousands of people in a single shot. The U.S. Air Force plans to order more than 600 of them.”

This imminent leap towards global catastrophe is consistent with the declaration of Strategic Command’s Admiral Richard that “the U.S. military must shift its principal assumption from ‘nuclear employment is not possible’ to ‘nuclear employment is a very real possibility,’ and act to meet and deter that reality.”

The country’s senior military officers are preparing citizens for a terminal nuclear holocaust — for there can be no such thing as a limited nuclear war — and Uncle Joe Biden is permitting them to convey their personal policies directly to the people. This is endorsement of “partisan political activity”, because there are many millions of Americans who, for example, disagree with the GBSD programme and, indeed, a very large number who support their elimination of all nuclear weapons.

The Pentagon’s energetic generals are beating their war drums and the President has as yet done nothing to rein them in. Will he take action to stop this relentless drive towards nuclear war?

One of the comments made following Trump’s decision to relocate some 12,000 troops from Germany was made by retired Admiral James (‘Zorba’) Stavridis, who in 2009-2013 was U.S. Supreme Allied Commander Europe (the military commander of Nato). He declared that the action, among other things, “hurts NATO solidarity and is a gift to Putin.” This was a most serious pronouncement, which was echoed by Republican Senator Mitt Romney, a rich Republican and Mormon cleric, who said the redeployment was a “gift to Russia.” These sentiments were well-reported and endorsed by U.S. media outlets which continue to be relentlessly anti-Russia.

Stavridis is the man who wrote that the seven-month bombing and rocketing of Libya by the U.S.-Nato military grouping in 2011 “has rightly been hailed as a model intervention. The alliance responded rapidly to a deteriorating situation that threatened hundreds of thousands of civilians rebelling against an oppressive regime. It succeeded in protecting those civilians and, ultimately, in providing the time and space necessary for local forces to overthrow Muammar al-Gaddafi.”

On June 22 Human Rights Watch noted that “over the past years” in Libya their investigators have “documented systematic and gross human rights and humanitarian law violations by armed groups on all sides, including torture and ill-treatment, rape and other acts of sexual violence, arbitrary arrests and detention, forced displacement, unlawful killings and enforced disappearances.” Amnesty International’s current Report also details the chaos in the shattered country where Nato conducted its “model intervention.”

The Libya catastrophe illustrates the desperation of Nato in its continuing search for international situations in which it might be able to intervene, to try to provide some sort of justification for its existence. And the calibre of its leadership can be judged from the pronouncements of such as Stavridis, who was unsurprisingly considered a possibility for the post of Secretary of State by Donald Trump.

It is not explained how relocation of U.S. troops from Germany could hurt Nato’s “solidarity” but Defence Secretary Esper was more revealing about the situation as he sees it, when interviewed by balanced and objective Fox News on August 9. He declared “we basically are moving troops further east, closer to Russia’s border to deter them. Most of the allies I’ve either spoken to, heard from or my staff has spoken to, see this as a good move. It will accomplish all of those objectives that have been laid out. And frankly, look, we still have 24,000 plus troops in Germany, so it will still be the largest recipient of U.S. troops. The bottom line is the border has shifted as the alliance has grown.” (It is intriguing that this important policy statement was not covered by U.S. mainstream media and cannot be found on the Pentagon’s Newsroom website — the “one-stop shop for Defense Department news and information.”)

No matter the spin from the Pentagon and what is now appearing in the U.S. media, Trump’s July 29 decision to move troops from Germany had no basis in strategy. It was not the result of a reappraisal of the regional or wider international situation. And it was not discussed with any of Washington’s allies, causing Nato Secretary General Stoltenberg to say plaintively that it was “not yet decided how and when this decision will be implemented.”

The BBC reported that “President Donald Trump said the move was a response to Germany failing to meet Nato targets on defence spending.” Trump was quoted as telling reporters that “We don’t want to be the suckers anymore. We’re reducing the force because they’re not paying their bills; it’s very simple.” It could not have been made clearer than that. The whole charade is the result of Trumpian petulance and has nothing to do with military strategy, no matter what is belatedly claimed by the Pentagon’s Esper.

The German government was not consulted before Trump’s contemptuous announcement, and defence minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer criticised Washington, saying “Nato is not a trade organisation, and security is not a commodity.” But so far as Trump is concerned, security is indeed a commodity that can be traded as he sees fit, irrespective of relevance to national policy or anything other than his ego.

In trying to pick up the pieces following Trump’s candid explanation of his orders to “reduce the force” in Germany, the Pentagon has conjured up a jumbled but confrontational plan intended to convince those who are interested (who do not include the German public), that it is all part of a grand scheme to extend the power of the U.S.-Nato alliance. To this end, Esper announced he is “confident that the alliance will be all the better and stronger for it,” because the redeployment involves reinforcement of the U.S. military in Poland. He is moving 200 staff of the army’s 5 corps to Krakow where, as reported by Military.com on August 5, “In a ceremony… Army Chief of Staff General James McConville promoted John Kolasheski, the Army’s V Corps commander, to the rank of lieutenant general and officially unfurled the headquarters’ flag for the first time on Polish soil.”

In addition to Washington’s move of the advance HQ of V Corps to Krakow, there is a agreement that Poland will engage in what the Military Times reports as “a host of construction projects designed to support more U.S. troops in that country” and Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Tom Campbell said that the Warsaw government “has agreed to fund infrastructure and logistical support to U.S. forces,” which should please the White House.

These initiatives are part of the U.S.-Poland Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement completed on August 3, which Esper stated “will enhance deterrence against Russia, strengthen NATO, reassure our Allies, and our forward presence in Poland on NATO’s eastern flank will improve our strategic and operational flexibility.” Then on August 15 Secretary of State Pompeo visited Poland to formally ink the accord which was warmly welcomed by Polish President Duda who recently visited Trump in Washington.

Duda’s declaration that “our soldiers are going to stand arm-in-arm” is consistent with the existing situation in Poland, where the Pentagon has other elements already deployed, including in Redzikowo, where a base is being built for Aegis Ballistic Missile Defence systems, and the Air Force’s 52nd Fighter Wing detachments at Polish Air Force bases at Lask and Miroslawiec, where there is a unit operating MQ-9 attack drones.

Defence Secretary Esper has emphasised that “the border has shifted as the alliance has grown” — and the border to which he refers is that of U.S.-Nato as it moves more menacingly eastwards. That’s the gift that Trump has given Russia.

Independent researchers came up with the more realistic total of 883 bases, and examination of the current US defence budget shows that the Pentagon’s spending priorities are far from modest in regard to spreading its wings, hulls and boots-on-the-ground to maintain military domination by what Trump calls “the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth.” To this end its vast military spending programme includes:

• increasing the strength of the Army, Navy, and Air Force by almost 26,000;
• building another ten combat ships for $18.4 billion;
• increasing production of the most expensive aircraft in world history, the F-35, costing over eleven billion; and
• upgrading and expanding the triad of nuclear weapons deliverable from air, land and sea.

The US military budget for 2020 is officially $750 billion. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, total US-NATO military expenditure in 2018 was “$963 billion, which represents 53 per cent of world spending.” In striking (no humour intended) contrast, Russia’s entire defence budget was $61.4 billion, its annual outlay having “decreased by 3.5 per cent,” which even the most brainwashed western war-drummer would have to agree does not reflect the policy of a nation preparing to invade anybody.

Yet the US-NATO alliance is increasing the number and scope of military manoeuvres along Russia’s borders, and announced that “in 2019, a total of 102 NATO exercises are planned; 39 of them are open to partner participation.” The exercises include 25 land, 27 air and 12 maritime-centred groups of manoeuvres.

“Partner participation” is a disguised way of saying that non-NATO countries around Russia’s borders have been encouraged to join in all the expensive military jamborees aimed at convincing their citizens they should follow “the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth” in its never-ending conquests.

HQ NATO announced that from 8-22 June military forces of 18 nations took part in the BALTOPS naval manoeuvres which involved “maritime, air and ground forces with about 50 ships and submarines and 40 aircraft” in and around the Baltic. The NATO spokesperson said, presumably with a straight face and no hint of the wry amusement felt by independent observers, that “BALTOPS is now in its 47th year and is not directed against anyone.” Sure. And the Easter Bunny just landed on Mars.

In the most recent example of US-NATO confrontation, according to US European Command, “the US Air Force deployed F-35 Lightning and F-15E Strike Eagles to Spangdahlem Air Base, Germany, as part of Operation Rapid Forge under the Department of Defense’s Dynamic Force Employment Concept. Rapid Forge will involve forward deployments to bases in the territory of NATO allies in order to enhance readiness… and are conducted in coordination with US allies and partners in Europe. Rapid Forge aircraft are forward deploying to the territory of NATO allies… The goal of the operation is to increase the readiness and responsiveness of US forces in Europe…”

Then on July 16 Stars and Stripes (a remarkably objective commentator, incidentally) reported that the Rapid Forge strike aircraft had been sent to Poland, Lithuania and Estonia “in a test of the service’s ability to quickly deploy air power overseas” These aircraft were specifically deployed to operate as closely as possible to Russian airspace.

The manoeuvres are part of ongoing refinement of the Pentagon’s new Dynamic Force Employment strategy “which is focused on using more unpredictable deployments to demonstrate military agility to possible adversaries.” This concept involves “a shift away from traditional six-month naval deployments to a flexible system that can involve shorter but more frequent stints at sea. And in March, the Army dispatched 1,500 soldiers from Fort Bliss, Texas, to Germany and onward to Poland in one of the service’s largest snap mobilizations to Europe in years.”

It was intriguing that the surge in US-NATO military deployment confrontation occurred at the same time it was revealed that the US has been storing nuclear weapons all over Europe for years. Most analysts knew this, although nothing had been admitted, but, as noted in the brilliant BBC TV satire Yes, Minister by the lead character: “First rule in politics: never believe anything until it’s officially denied.”

As the Washington Post reported, “A recently released — and subsequently deleted — document published by a NATO-affiliated body has sparked headlines in Europe with an apparent confirmation of a long-held open secret: some 150 US nuclear weapons are being stored in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey.” The moment a “NATO official” announced that “we do not comment on the details of NATO’s nuclear posture… this is not an official NATO document,” it was obvious that the deleted details given in the document must be accurate. And now many questions must be answered. For example : under whose guard are these weapons held? Are officials, politicians and military personnel of host countries permitted access to US nuclear storage facilities? What are the nuclear readiness states, and are the host nations informed of these? And it would be very interesting to know if US practice deployments involve nuclear bombs and missiles.

One of the most important aspects of the nuclear bases saga is the likely connection between these US weapons and this year’s US-NATO military manoeuvres. The ‘Rapid Forge’ deployments to Russia’s borders involve F-35A and F15E strike aircraft, and Lockheed Martin tells us that “once air dominance is established, the F-35 converts to beast mode, carrying up to 22,000 pounds of combined internal and external weapons.” Similarly, the F-15E is now capable of delivering B61-12 nuclear bombs.

As reported by the Belgian daily De Morgen (in English in the Brussels Times on 16 July), the document stated that “In the context of NATO, the United States [has deployed] around 150 nuclear weapons in Europe, in particular B61 free-bombs, which can be [delivered] by both US and Allied planes.” But we can be certain that the citizens of the countries concerned, or of any of the other NATO nations, will never be told on what terms the United States is storing nuclear weapons in their countries and what international developments might govern their use.

Presumably it is the President of the United States who will give approval for release of the nuclear bombs being stored in six of the US bases in Belgium, Germany, Italy (2), the Netherlands and Turkey — but is he going to seek agreement from the governments of these countries to use these weapons? It is far from certain that there would be concurrence on the part of Turkey, for example, whose relations with Trump Washington are extremely precarious.

What would happen if President Erdoğan objected to an obviously indicated US intention to convert the USAF’s F-35s to “beast mode”, loading B61 nuclear bombs at Incirlik airbase?

Nobody knows.

And nobody know if all these US-NATO martial fandangos in the skies around Russia’s borders involve test deployment of strike aircraft in “beast mode”, as nuclear attack preparedness is so aptly described by Lockheed Martin, that prominent member of Washington’s Military-Industrial Complex.

Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland seem to be delighted that US-NATO is continuing to confront Russia by flying nuclear strike aircraft in their airspace. But have they really thought all this through?

Maritime operations centers are the operational-level warfare command and control organizations designed to deliver flexible maritime capabilities throughout the full range of military operations. The future Seabee projects in Ochakov include a boat maintenance facility and entry control points with perimeter fencing.

«Our ability to maximize European reassurance initiatives in Ukraine holds strategic importance, and will ultimately improve host nation defense capacity and infrastructure, strengthen relations, and increase bilateral training capabilities», said Lt. j.g. Jason McGee, officer in charge of Det. Ukraine.

In July, several US missile warships, including the USS Hue City Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruiser and the USS Carney Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer, a P-8A Poseidon patrol aircraft and a Navy SEALs team took part in the 12-day Sea Breeze 2017 NATO naval exercise held in the northwestern part of the Black Sea, near the port city of Odessa. 17 nations took part in the training event.

The drills were conducted in the 'free game' format in the Odessa and Nikolayev regions and the northwestern areas of the Black Sea. The practice scenarios cover amphibious warfare. The only country the forces could be training to assault is Russia.

During the exercise, US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson made his first visit to Ukraine (July 9) to demonstrate the political support of Kiev’s policy aimed at integration with the United States and NATO. He was accompanied by Kurt Volker, the newly appointed US Special Representative to the Minsk peace process, who is known as a hawk against Moscow.

The US political support is not gratuitous. In late June, the Ukrainian government took a decision to buy American coal from Pennsylvania, which is said to be almost twice as expensive as locally sourced in the Donbass – Ukraine’s traditional supplier of energy needs. 

In July, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko signed the Law of Ukraine «On Amendments to Certain Laws of Ukraine Regarding the Foreign Policy of Ukraine», which determines membership of the Alliance as one of the country’s foreign policy priorities. Poroshenko said that a referendum on NATO membership would be held by 2020.

Ukraine takes part in a host of NATO exercises: Operation Fearless Guardian, Exercise Sea Breeze, Saber Guardian/Rapid Trident, Safe Skies and Combined Resolve. It became the first non-member country to contribute its troops to the NATO Response Force.

On June 8, Ukraine’s parliament adopted a bill called «On Amending Certain Legislative Acts of Ukraine (on Foreign Policy Course of Ukraine), setting NATO membership as Ukraine’s foreign policy goal, replacing the country’s non-aligned status.

The United States will deliver lethal weapons to Ukraine. The Joint Staff is working with US European Command to determine what the lethal defensive aid to Ukraine would look like. The House version of the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) cuts military aid to Ukraine from the initial $300 million to $150 million, but it provides permission for lethal arms supplies. The idea is strongly supported in the Senate. If the legislation goes through, the weapons could be legally sent to Ukraine starting October 1. The money could be used to deliver over 900 FGM-148 Javelin anti-tank missiles designed to strike armored vehicles, fortified ground installations and low flying aerial targets at a distance of 50-2,500 meters.

Former President Barack Obama was unconvinced that granting Ukraine lethal defensive weapons would be the right decision in view of corruption widespread in Ukraine. Skepticism about sending weapons to Ukraine is common in Europe. German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier opposed the idea. NATO Military Committee Chairman Petr Pavel has spoken against lethal arms deliveries to Kiev.

A recently published RAND study says that the country faces deeply embedded problems which cannot easily be solved by foreign-provided assistance.

A US military facility near Russia’s borders is a very serious threat to regional security. The Black Sea region is turning into a hot spot. US destroyers and cruisers visit the Black Sea regularly to provide NATO with long-range first strike capability. The Romania-based Aegis Ashore BMD system uses the Mk-41 launcher capable of firing Tomahawk long-range precision-guided missiles against land assets.

Romania has worked energetically to increase US and NATO force presence in the region. The US has recently taken the decision to send an additional 500 forces to the Romanian Mihail Kogalniceanu (MK) forward operating base. A brigade-size multinational NATO force is based in Craiova, Romania. Nations which have pledged to contribute include Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, Poland, Turkey and the United States. The unit is intended to facilitate the deployment of reinforcements. Georgia and Ukraine will be fully involved in the plans.

Romania calls for a regular trilateral format of joint naval exercises in the Black Sea, along with Turkey and Bulgaria, with the eventual participation of non-littoral NATO members.

The United Kingdom has decided to deploy four Typhoon aircraft to Mihail Kogalniceanu in 2017. Deveselu, Romania, is home for Aegis Ashore ballistic missile defense site and a target for the Russian military.

Bulgaria has offered to participate in the Multinational Framework Brigade stationed in Romania with 400 troops. In September, about 150 US Marines, part of the Black Sea Rotational Force, are due at Novo Selo, Bulgaria. This will be the first of three six-month rotations of about 150 US Marines, part of the Black Sea Rotational Force. Under the 2006 defense cooperation agreement, the United States has access to three Bulgarian military bases.

The US plans to deploy up to 2,500 troops at Novo Selo; the base can hold as many as 5,000 during joint-nation exercises with NATO allies. The facility’s upgrade is finished to add a helicopter landing zone and an air operations building. The base is expected to host US heavy tanks. A NATO maintenance support area is to be built in Sliven or Plovdiv. This is a serious military build-up turning Bulgaria into springboard to attack Russia or a target for the Russia’s armed forces.

It’s hardly a wise decision to militarize the country against Russia when 80 percent of Bulgarian exports and imports transit the Black Sea and tourism contributes heavily to the country’s economy, increased maritime militarization could have a widespread negative economic impact in case of heightened tensions, accidents or clashes.

Since September, 2016 US and Bulgarian aircraft conduct patrol flights in the Black Sea. The patrolling mission greatly increases the risk of an accident, especially with the Russian S-400 long range systems stationed in Crimea. Russian aircraft deployed in the Northern Caucasus and Rostov region are capable of controlling the whole Black Sea. President Putin has warned NATO about the consequences such a policy would lead to.

Non-Black Sea NATO members cannot stay in the Black Sea for more than 21 days, according to the Montreux Convention. NATO has three members with Black Sea ports in Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey, as well as two more aspiring members in Ukraine and Georgia. Bulgarian, Romanian, Ukrainian and Georgian navies have limited capabilities. Handing over to them some of other NATO members’ warships is an option under consideration. The ships could be reflagged to beef up permanent naval capabilities in the theater. US warships frequent the Black Sea to provide NATO with long-range first strike capability.

The Romania-based missile defense system as well as NATO air bases and headquarters will be targeted by Russian Kalibr sea- and air-based medium-range cruise missiles successfully tested in Syria some time ago. The active phase array antenna-based radar, located in Romania, can be countered by Russian ground and air-based electronic warfare systems.

In response to NATO growing presence, Russia has deployed S-400 long-range air-defense systems and Bastion-P (K-300P) anti-ship coastal defense missile systems equipped with Onyx missiles. These Mach 2.6 supersonic missiles are highly maneuverable, difficult to detect and have a range of nearly 300 kilometers. With the help of the Monolith-B radar station, the system is capable of obtaining over-the-horizon target designation many miles beyond the horizon. The long-range cruise missile capable Su-24 supersonic attack aircraft are already deployed in Crimea.

Russia has to react in view of massive militarization of the region against the background of high tensions. An accident may spark a big fire. The US military presence in Ukraine is a highly provocative step, which will very negatively affect the situation. Nothing justifies the whipping up of tensions in the Black Sea region, but the United States keeps on doing it with great vigor. 

The General comes to Europe after leading US forces in South Korea. His service record includes the position of the Director of the Joint Staff. Prior to his tour with the Joint Staff, General Scaparrotti served as Commander, International Security Assistance Force Joint Command and Deputy Commander, US Forces – Afghanistan, the Commanding General of I Corps and Joint Base Lewis-McChord, and the Commanding General of the 82nd Airborne Division.

He has commanded forces during Operations Iraqi Freedom, Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan), Support Hope (Zaire/Rwanda), Joint Endeavour (Bosnia-Herzegovina), and Assured Response (Liberia). Now he will lead the armed forces of 28 nations on the continent, where tensions are running high enough to make a spark start a fire.

During the ceremony at EUCOM headquarters Mr Scaparrotti said that he would «strengthen» the alliance’s stance in Eastern Europe «against a resurgent Russia».

As the General put it, one of NATO’s biggest challenges was «a resurgent Russia striving to project itself as a world power».

The SACEUR said he expected to have only «limited» communications with the top Russian brass until Moscow begins «adhering again to international norms and laws». According to him, one of his first actions as NATO's commander will be to review the rules of engagement for US and allied forces regarding when to respond with force to safeguard their security.

His comments were made as Russia’s Defence Minister Sergey Shoigu announced that Moscow will set up three new divisions in the west and south by the end of the year to counter NATO forces build-up close to its border.

At a handover ceremony from his predecessor Philip Breedlove, he also said, NATO should consider whether to provide Ukraine with weaponry as it battles self-proclaimed republics in the eastern part of the country. «Having to do with weaponry, I do believe we should support the Ukrainians with what they need to successfully defend their territory and their sovereignty», Scaparrotti noted, adding «I need to assess what weapons are best, what capabilities they can use».

During his nomination hearing before the Senate Committee on Armed Services in April, he also stated, Russia presents the greatest military threat to the United States.

He supported proposals to increase the size of the Army’s permanent deployment in Europe beyond the current two brigades to enhance US military presence near the Russian borders. Mr Scaparrotti told lawmakers that force should be used against Russian aircraft overflying US ships and coming close to aircraft in the proximity of the country’s borders. The General also said he wanted an aircraft carrier strike group to be permanently stationed in the Mediterranean.

Though the General was critical of Russia in his congressional testimony, some officials say they think he will prove to be less outspoken than General Breedlove.

Indeed, his predecessor was evidently too outspoken, often making statements that would fit more a political official than a military leader. General Breedlove believed that Russia «has become an adversary of the West and presents an «existential threat» to the United States and its allies».

His words about NATO being prepared to «fight and win» against Russia «if necessary», attracted public attention.

Breedlove ordered U-2 spy planes start patrolling Russia’s borders in late March.

He told congressmen that that Russia was helping Syrian President Bashar al-Assad turn the refugee crisis into a «weapon» against the West.

Some of his statements were not greeted with enthusiasm even by major European allies.

It should be noted that the former EUCOM commander has gone much farther than his seniors, for instance Joseph Dunford, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Perhaps, Mr Breedlove spoke so freely being a lame duck preparing for a political career after retirement. Former head of European Command Wesley Clark unsuccessfully tried that.

Now, what to expect from Mr Scaparrotti? He’ll have to talk with Russian officials, including military leaders. He’ll have to be involved in the talks on Incidents at Sea (1972) Agreement, the 1989 Agreement on the Prevention of Dangerous Military Activities, the OSCE Vienna document and lots of other issues related to European security. The General may not take part in contacts with Russian military himself, but he’ll lead the process and give instructions. He’ll be one of the key figures to determine the development of Russia-NATO relationship in the near future. As NATO's new Supreme Allied Commander Europe, Scaparrotti will need to navigate a complicated political environment. The rhetoric has been tough so far. But it hardly serves practical purposes. The General has great responsibility. The US European Command officials always say their mission is to prevent a Cold War and make unthinkable a hypothetical «hot war». On the very same day the General assumed office, Russian and US military made a deal to prevent incidents in the Syrian province of Aleppo. A dialogue between the militaries has stood them in good stead as they conducted operations in that country. If it can be done in Syria, it can be done in Europe. Mr Scaparrotti’s position requires diplomatic skills. His previous assignments make him possess the needed experience. And he has people by his side who are dry behind the ears in dealings with Russia. Ambassador Susan M Elliott, the Civilian Deputy to the Commander and Foreign Policy Advisor (assigned in November 2015). Her previous overseas assignments include Minister Counselor for Political Affairs in Moscow, Russia. She took part in talks with Russian military officials and knows some of them personally. Earlier in her career she reported on conflicts in the countries of the former Soviet Union when she worked in the Office of the Coordinator for Regional Conflicts in the New Independent States. She can use her professional skills to play a positive role.

Rhetoric aside, Mr Scaparrotti does not have to be a warmonger. Major European NATO allies are not chomping at the bit to aggravate the tensions in the regions. He can make a contribution into making Europe a safer place. He has this chance that must not be let slip away.

«As part of the US commitment to increased assurance and deterrence», US Army Europe will begin receiving continuous troop rotations of US-based armored brigade combat teams (ABCTs) to the European theater in early 2017, bringing the total Army presence in Europe up to three fully-manned Army brigades, US European Command officials said.

As discussed during the announcement of the fiscal year 2017 European Reassurance Initiative budget proposal, the Army has decided to begin storing static equipment, known as Army pre-positioned stocks, within Europe for contingency operations. The service will repair and upgrade its already pre-positioned arms and place them at sites in Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany. Those stocks will be sufficient for another armored brigade to fall in on. The rotating brigade will bring its own equipment. The move will add hundreds of the Army’s most advanced weapons systems to beef up the European Command’s combat capability. It will also free up an entire brigade’s worth of weapons currently being used by American forces training on the continent to enable more US troops to be rushed in on short notice, if needed.

The rotation period will be limited to nine months. Two brigade combat teams are permanently stationed in Europe – the 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team (ABCT) and the 2nd Cavalry Regiment (a brigade-sized unit).

An armored brigade combat team comprises about 4,200 troops and includes approximately 250 tanks, Bradley Fighting Vehicles and Paladin self-propelled howitzers, plus 1,750 wheeled vehicles.

The military has not disclosed where the rotational brigade will be stationed. This question will be included into the agenda of this summer’s NATO summit in Warsaw.

The US military has about 62,000 permanently assigned service members in Europe.

The active Army only has nine ABCTs, and they already are tasked with nine-month rotations to Kuwait and South Korea to make the planned deployment a serious burden as the service faces its other overseas commitments.

The plans are in line with the decisions taken by a meeting of North Atlantic Council at the level of defence ministers held in Brussels on 10-11 February, 2016. The participants agreed on enhanced forward presence in the eastern part of the Alliance. NATO is to station additional soldiers in six member states in Eastern Europe as part of its anti-Russian strategy. The units would be small, but involved in possible deployment of the alliance’s future «rapid response force». It could involve up to a battalion of 500-1,000 troops sent to each of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and Bulgaria. The forces deployed on rotation will include highly-mobile special operations units armed with surface-to-air missiles backed up by ground-attack aircraft and helicopters. The biggest chunk of funding – $2 billion – is for putting a «heel-to-toe» ABCT in theater (on top of the above mentioned Stryker brigade and infantry brigade already stationed permanently). The funding will also cover more aviation in theater.

Polish Defense Minister Antoni Macierewicz has said that talks about deploying American depots for heavy weaponry in Poland are already in progress.

«The US is preparing a network of various activities in which it is extremely important to deploy heavy weaponry in Poland and other countries», said Macierewicz.

But there is no unanimity inside NATO. For instance, Germany traditionally opposes the establishment of NATO military bases in Poland.

And Berlin wants the Russia-NATO cooperation to continue.

The plans are in violation of the Russia-NATO Founding Act (1997) – the only remaining pillar of European security. In that agreement, NATO pledged that, «in the current and foreseeable security environment», it would not seek «additional permanent stationing of substantial ground combat forces» in the nations closer to Russia.

More to that, in its recently released report, the National Commission on the Future of the Army went even further, recommending the Army permanently station an ABCT in Europe because of the «changing security environment in Europe» and the region’s «value as a stationing location for potential contingencies in the Middle East».

Nearly two decades later, the NATO-Russia Founding Act appears all but dead amid the alliance's push to beef up its military presence on its eastern flank.

In his comments on the US plans, Russian permanent representative at the alliance, Alexander Grushko, vowed a «totally asymmetrical» response if the alliance stands by a plan to deploy new armored units to Eastern Europe. «We are not passive observers, we consistently take all the military measures we consider necessary in order to counterbalance this reinforced presence that is not justified by anything», he said. 

«As of today, assessing as a whole what the US and NATO are doing, the point at issue is a substantial change for the worse in the security situation», the ambassador added.

At the same time, he said that bridges have not been burned between Russia and NATO, leaving the door open for restored cooperation – although he stressed that the alliance should end its policy of confrontation.

«Cooperation will be possible only when NATO countries start realizing that the policy of confrontation contradicts their own national interests», Grushko said. «There are no technological barriers to this cooperation. We hope that sooner or later all the ties which we used to have, and which used to be effective, will be re-established and our cooperation will continue».

Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov told Deutsche Welle that Russia had no intention of sending troops to European countries, and urged mass media to stop spreading scare stories about the Russian military ‘threat’. «We should stop the spreading of these scary tales alleging that Russia intends to send tanks to the Baltic countries, to Sofia or Budapest. No one has any intention to do this. There are no such plans. Russia wants no war. Any statements that say that Russia intends to launch a war are simply ridiculous», the official said.

Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu said the deployment of NATO's forces near Russia's borders has caused concern.

As part of a response, he said, new units in the Western Military District, including two new divisions, will be formed.

* * *

The US decision to increase military presence in Europe comes along with the rise of Donald Trump, who has disparaged the NATO alliance as a drain on US resources.

His stance has a lot of supporters in the US.

There are a lot of Americans who realize the negative consequences of US military presence overseas.

The deployment is strongly opposed in Europe where the countries hosting United States troops automatically become targets for retaliatory actions.

The decision is fraught with very serious implications. It will greatly reduce European security and reinforce the growing tensions between Russia and NATO. There is still time to oppose this scenario. US congressmen will become responsible for the consequences in case they approve the plans. They should think twice before the vote. Europeans can exert pressure on their respective governments before the next NATO summit takes place this July in Warsaw. The increase of US forces in Europe will plunge the continent into the quagmire of heightened tensions and uncontrolled arms race. All the previous efforts to make the continent a safer place will go down the drain.