Dig In and Hold On at the Front

Small European NATO states are too small to build combined arms military capabilities. Should they specialize in holding their ground? 

Should eastern European countries facing Russia focus on positional defense of their homeland, waiting for the cavalry from the rest of NATO? 

Small frontline countries should become a first layer of defense, focusing their entire defense ecosystem on positional defense. These countries should completely dismantle their current military formations and recreate them with a sole focus on positional defense. Their spending of 5 percent of GDP should focus on infrastructural preparation and fortification of the potential battlefield, both in a physical and virtual sense, including the construction of obstacles, strongpoints, and modern defensive positions. Further investment should be made in camouflage and deception capabilities, deployment of land-, air-, and space-based sensors, early warning systems, antiarmor capabilities, long-range artillery, land, air, and sea drones, and other capabilities that support the effective execution of positional defense. Military formations should be redesigned, and purpose-built for positional defense. 

I'd add in the ability to leave stay-behind forces as an invader advances. But armored vehicles have a role in local counter-attacks and as a reserve for bolstering defenses, no? So I'm not sure how specialized a positional role should be. And who does ground-based air defense?

The suggestion is intriguing. But it only really applies to the small Baltic States right now rather than all small NATO states. 

I had a suggestion for incorporating non-border small armies into U.S.-led combined arms brigades in Army magazine.

NOTE: TDR Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here. 

NOTE: You may also like to read my posts on Substack, at The Dignified Rant: Evolved. Go ahead and subscribe to it. It's the right thing to do!  

NOTE: Photo of American infantry under fire in World War II.