By Declan Leary
Tuesday, June 18, 2019
Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu may have
dedicated a settlement “Trump Heights” in honor of the U.S. president, but pipe
dreams of a Fort Trump in Poland have effectively been quashed — by Trump
himself, no less.
The idea was first floated last year by controversial
Polish president Andrzej Duda. During a visit from Duda last week, Trump
announced a new agreement for U.S. military involvement in Poland. The plan’s
central point is the addition of a thousand U.S. troops to the roughly 4,500
already rotating through Poland. While the compromise was touted as a success
by both the Polish and the U.S. administrations, the U.S.–Poland deal falls short
of Duda’s dream of a Fort Trump, due to both practical and doctrinal obstacles.
But ultimately, the compromise strikes the right balance.
What would the case for such a base have been? Poland
would likely be a major avenue for any Russian incursion into Europe. The small
Russian exclave of Kaliningrad borders directly on Poland, and it houses
thousands of ground troops, not to mention anti-aircraft weaponry as well as
air and naval forces. For years, the U.S. has expressed disapproval of the
strong and growing Russian military presence in Kaliningrad, but Russia doesn’t
seem to be backing down. The military threat in Kaliningrad should not be
underestimated, and Kaliningrad’s obvious strategic importance is as a gate to
Poland, and thus to Europe and NATO.
Nevertheless, Kaliningrad is small, and any massive land
incursion — i.e., any incursion large enough to be successful in a conflict
with NATO — would likely have to come from the main body of Russia and so would
have to cross through the small NATO states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania
before marching into Poland. It is highly doubtful that any of those nations
would be able to support the kind of large-scale, permanent base that Duda had
proposed, so Poland would still seem the obvious location for a physical
deterrent to Russian aggression. But it turns out that Poland couldn’t support
Fort Trump, either.
Army Secretary Mark Esper concluded as much after
considering the Polish proposal. The space the Polish government was prepared
to provide was nowhere near sufficient for a full-scale base, and while the
financial commitment of the Polish government was sizable ($2 billion), there
is no guarantee that this would cover the costs of such a massive project. A
permanent project would almost certainly require significant financial
contributions from the U.S., sooner or later.
Beyond the logistical difficulties, there’s a problem of
NATO policy and norms here. The Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation,
and Security between NATO and the Russian Federation (1997) states, “In the
current and foreseeable security environment, NATO plans to carry out its
collective defence and other missions by ensuring the necessary
interoperability, integration and capability for reinforcement rather than by
additional permanent stationing of substantial combat forces. Accordingly, the
Alliance will have to rely on adequate infrastructure to allow for
reinforcement if necessary.” This doctrine has guided the American practice of
cycling troops through Poland on a constant (but rotational and thus
technically “impermanent”) basis, while maintaining longstanding posts in
Germany as the base of U.S. forces in Europe. Poland has clearly determined
that this guideline is no longer binding, either because we have moved beyond
“the current and foreseeable security environment” of 1997 or because of some
general perception of relaxed standards for meeting NATO commitments.
Hence the more limited deal struck between Duda and
Trump. Yet even that agreement has drawn criticism from two opposing sides. One
camp argues that it increases the already outsized American role in the defense
of NATO’s European frontier; another that it fails to adequately protect that
frontier against possible attack. Neither objection ultimately withstands
scrutiny.
In an analysis at The Hill, Daniel DePetris argues
that the U.S. should not provide any further military support to NATO until
other member states start paying their fair share. The U.S. is one of only five
member states out of 28 that actually meet the minimum defense-spending
threshold of 2 percent of GDP. In fact, at 3.6 percent of its own GDP and 71.7
percent of NATO’s total defense spending, the U.S. is paying well above its
fair share. But DePetris quickly glances over the fact that one of the other
four non-delinquent countries is . . . you guessed it, Poland. More than just
meeting its NATO obligation, Poland has actually spent billions of dollars in
recent years to augment its own national-defense systems with American
technology. Rather than focusing on these facts, and the inclination they
should inspire in us to work with Poland especially, DePetris uses the
recent agreement as a jumping-off point to discuss the delinquency of one of
NATO’s most negligent members: Germany. He justifies his imprecision with a
shockingly blatant dismissal: “The details are less important than the general
picture.”
Actually, the details are pretty important. For one
thing, the additional troops being sent to Poland will be drawn from the many
thousands currently stationed in Germany. Beside the obvious strategic
advantages of a strong presence in Poland, the removal of a thousand troops in
favor of a more cooperative and supportive ally should send a clear message to
German leaders. Given how important and established our German bases are, and
considering the various other limitations on American action here, such a
relatively small, symbolic action is probably all we can afford at the moment.
But it could be enough to light a fire under some rear ends in Berlin.
The opposite objection — that the escalation doesn’t go
far enough — has a kernel of legitimacy, too. If Russia ever does invade
Poland, a thousand extra U.S. soldiers probably won’t tip the scales in
Poland’s favor. But, just as the move sends a message to apathetic allies, it
sends another to our more ambitious rivals: If we can place these troops here,
we can place more, and we won’t be afraid to do it if the need arises. It is
more a deterrent than an actual defense plan in the event of an invasion.
The kind of large-scale operation that Duda requested
would be plausible only in such an event. In the meantime, a show of strength
to Russia and of friendship to Poland is a step in the right direction. We need
to be ready for major military action in defense of Poland and to make our
readiness known. An invasion is unlikely, certainly, but Russian military
activity in Kaliningrad suggests that we can’t afford to be naïve about the
possibility. They may not be planning an invasion, but they have certainly
prepared for one. We would be foolish not to do the same.
No comments:
Post a Comment