U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson recently renewed the Trump administration’s calls for 2% defense spending commitments by European members of the alliance; but as German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel asserted, “more money doesn’t mean more security.”[1] Instead of simply meeting budgetary recommendations, an analysis of small state security potential and funding of smarter, more cost-effective contributions to the alliance is needed.
If I may be so bold, when America calls for more money in NATO defense budgets, we assume it isn't all spent on hookers, booze, and photocopier ink. We assume you analyze your defense needs within the NATO alliance and make appropriate decisions on how to spend more money.
As for saying that instead of more money the Baltic states should focus on intelligence and special forces to combat "hybrid" warfare, you know my feelings about that buzz word.
"Hybrid" warfare is simply Russia invading a country and denying they are invading a country--and we go along with the fiction.
I feel like I'm on crazy pills every time the subject comes up.
Stop basing our defense policies on the unique situation of Russia invading Ukraine's Crimea and eastern Donbas while denying it during a period when the new Ukrainian government lacked the legitimacy and command and control to order resistance to the invasion.
Special forces and intelligence are absolutely useful for the Baltic NATO states to fight a guerrilla war as Russian forces roll over them. I want our special forces to help with that, too.
And special forces surely would be useful to fight "little green men" Russian special forces posing as locals.
But well trained infantry with armor and firepower support would also be useful against little green men if ordered by the legitimate Baltic governments to go after the little green men.
And if Baltic states focus on so-called "hybrid" war, the Russians can simply invade with armor and rapidly roll over the Baltic special forces.
Face it, Baltic anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons backed by engineers who can slow down a Russian conventional invasion are useful and would buy time for special forces to link up with mobilized reservists trained to act as irregulars and guerrillas to resist the Russians.
To their credit, the authors argue for that Baltic state capability. But they say that the Baltic states can't match the conventional capabilities of larger NATO states. With all due respect, duh. Of course the small Baltic states can't rely on their own militaries to provide the ability to defeat the Russians in battle. If that's all they are saying, I'm fine with it. But in the context of focusing on hybrid warfare, I think they go down a false path.
Spend more money on defense. And spend it with some sense of reality about the threat.
And stop acting like "hybrid" warfare is a new and significant thing.
