[The] decision of the V4 to even propose a battle group commanded by Poles is one of those small events that I think will be regarded as a significant turning point. However we might try to trivialize it and place it in a familiar context, it doesn’t fit. It represents a new level of concern over an evolving reality — the power of Russia, the weakness of Europe and the fragmentation of NATO. This is the last thing the Visegrad countries wanted to do, but they have now done the last thing they wanted to do. That is what is significant.
This is a very disturbing reason for those nations to act:
First, there was the question of the degree of American commitment to the region, considering that the document sought to expand the alliance’s role in non-European theaters of operation. For example, the Americans pledged a total of one brigade to the defense of Poland in the event of a conflict, far below what Poland thought necessary to protect the North European Plain. Second, the general weakness of European militaries meant that, willingness aside, the ability of the Europeans to participate in defending the region was questionable. Certainly, events in Libya, where NATO had neither a singular political will nor the military participation of most of its members, had to raise doubts. It was not so much the wisdom of going to war but the inability to create a coherent strategy and deploy adequate resources that raised questions of whether NATO would be any more effective in protecting the Visegrad nations.
We've committed a single brigade to the defense of Poland? This is idiocy. It is enough to represent a commitment by America but not enough to win. We need to do more do defend eastern NATO. Heck, we need more than 3 brigades in Europe, as long as I'm on the topic. Granted, I bet we had to commit another to Romania and this commitment was made when we planned on keeping only two brigades in Europe. Now that we plan to keep three brigades in Europe, the third should be committed to Poland. But even that isn't enough. Why won't we commit more as reinforcements from the continental United States? That's what I assumed when I first heard of our single-brigade commitment.
Am I wrong? Are the Germans no longer committed to sending two divisions? Are some NATO members less worthy of collective defense than others? If NATO members don't believe America and the rest of NATO will provide collective defense, other regional groupings to provide real defensive capabilities will proliferate and eventually kill NATO in practice if not formally.
This should be reason enough for America to retain a robust presence in Europe and a dominant role in NATO. Without America providing confidence that we can herd the cats of Europe together in collective defense, Europe will break down into rival armed camps, giving Russia an opening to maneuver amongst the pieces of NATO to reclaim parts of their old empire lost between 1989 and 1991.
