Practice (for War with Russia) Makes Deadly: NATO and U.S. Army Conducting Massive Exercises

Again, a provocation where war NATO is involved in. That Russia is the enemy is no doubt about, but to start this big exercise against Russia is a great provocation. One is wondering how the US would react if Russia and China start an exercise against the US on their borders. I am quite sure that would be the start of the third world war.

These exercises, which will closely resemble the weapons, tactics and combat strategies joint forces would be called upon to perform in the event of major enemy attack, will span across air, sea, land, cyber and space domains throughout Europe.

by Kris Osborn

(Washington, D.C.) NATO and U.S. Army Europe forces will conduct “forcible entry” combat exercises in Lithuania, Georgia and Poland to prepare rapid response attack units for the possibility of war on the European continent.

The Army’s 82nd Airborne division will drop into hostile territory to lead air assaults in as many as five attack operations across three allied countries of enormous strategic significance to NATO forces.

“Having our troops and allies involved in what is called a joint forcible entry will enable us to go in and take an area such as an airfield so it can used by friendly forces,” Col. Joe Scrocca, Director of Public Affairs, U.S. Army Europe, told reporters at the Association of the United States Army annual symposium in Oct.

These exercises, which will closely resemble the weapons, tactics and combat strategies joint forces would be called upon to perform in the event of major enemy attack, will span across air, sea, land, cyber and space domains throughout Europe.

It is all part of a massive NATO-Army exercise called DEFENDER, the largest U.S.-based Army exercise of forces to Europe in the last 25 years, intended to mobilize large scale deployments with 20,000 Army soldiers and as many as 17,000 U.S. allied forces.

Unlike many previous exercises at the Brigade Combat Team level, this operation will encompass large portions of the U.S. Army to include National Guard, Reserve and active units, Scrocca explained; the ops will be expansive, reaching numerous seaports, convoys and land-based combat facilities.

“We are going to bring this all together at the same time…multiple countries, multiple ports and multiple bases. Interoperability is about relationships, technology and systems. You have to be interoperable at the tactical and strategic level,” Scrocca said.

DEFENDER is scheduled to take place from April to May 2020, with personnel and equipment movements occurring from February through July 2020, an Army report said.

Overall, Eighteen countries are expected to participate, with exercise activities occurring across 10 countries. Some of the key participants include Germany, the U.K., Norway, Sweden, Canada, Italy, Poland, Lithuania and others. Defender will include intermediate staging bases, river crossings, air and sea movements, rapid deployment ops, equipment transport and use of Army Prepositioned Stocks in Belgium and Germany.

While the exercise is of course intended to function as a massive deterrent against any kind of great power European attack on NATO, such as a Russian invasion, Scrocco emphasized that DEFENDER will operate with a 360-degree focus to include the prospect of enemy attack from any direction.

At the same time, the countries chosen for forcible entry exercises clearly include areas of substantial strategic value when it comes to deterring possible Russian aggression. Furthermore, there has been a long process of escalating tensions with Russia, not only including the invasion of Ukraine several years ago but more recent problems as well. Some of these include the cancellation of the INF Treaty, increased development of low-yield nuclear weapons, new weapons testing, Eastern European force maneuvering and tense global hotspots including the two countries.

Nonetheless, Scrocca stressed that while the exercise may have some parallels to a large-scale training and preparation event during the Cold War called Reforger, DEFENDER will be much different. Unlike a linear, mechanized attack against force concentrations in a fixed area of Europe, DEFENDER will rely heavily upon dispersed combat networking, Air-Ground-Sea coordination, allied interoperability and newer technology.

“With Reforger we brought a lot of forces together into a fixed point in Germany against a known enemy in a known location.. With Defender we will fight an unknown enemy in an unknown location. While there is a lot of attention paid to Russia, we do not know who our next enemy is going to be, so we have to be prepared for anything,” Scrocca said.

Again, a provocation where war NATO is involved in. That Russia is the enemy is no doubt about, but to start this big exercise against Russia is a great provocation. One is wondering how the US would react if Russia and China start an exercise against the US on their borders. I am quite sure that would be the start of the third world war.

Osborn previously served at the Pentagon as a Highly Qualified Expert with the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army – Acquisition, Logistics & Technology. Osborn has also worked as an anchor and on-air military specialist at national TV networks. He has appeared as a guest military expert on Fox News, MSNBC, The Military Channel and The History Channel. He also has a Masters Degree in Comparative Literature from Columbia University.

 

Germany wants again be a Military Force

CDU Chairwoman and Defence Minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer gave a keynote speech on the new security policy orientation of Germany and the associated tasks for the Bundeswehr. Among other things, it is now a question of containing “China’s claim to power” in the “Indo-Pacific region” in order to defend Germany’s global economic interests. Just a few years ago this would have been a taboo break and Kramp-Karrenbauer would have triggered a storm of indignation. But today? Leaden silence. By Jens Berger.

“My assessment, however, is that, overall, we are on the way to understanding in the broadest sense of society that a country of our size with this foreign trade orientation and thus also dependence on foreign trade must also know that in case of doubt, and in an emergency, military action is necessary in order to protect our interests, for example to prevent free trade routes, for example entire regional instabilities, which will certainly have a negative impact on our chances through trade, jobs and income. All this is to be discussed and I believe we are not on such a bad path.”

No, these sentences are not from Kramp-Karrenbauer’s keynote speech, but from an interview given to Deutschlandfunk on 22 May 2010 by the then Federal President Horst Köhler. The criticism that followed these sentences was enormous. The then SPD faction leader Thomas Oppermann announced “We don’t want an economic war”. Green faction leader Jürgen Trittin said, “We need neither a gunboat policy nor a loose rhetorical deck cannon at the head of state” and found that Köhler’s remarks were no longer based on the Basic Law. There was also criticism from the then governing parties CDU and FDP. Köhler’s statement was “not a particularly happy formulation, to say the least” (Ruprecht Polenz, CDU) and “somewhat alienating” (Rainer Stinner, FDP). Even security policy hawks went too far with these statements. Michael Wolffsohn called on Köhler to correct himself publicly. The constitutional lawyer Ulrich Preuß of the Hertie School of Governance in Berlin summed up: “This is an extension of the permissible reasons for a Bundeswehr mission to include economic interests, which is hardly covered by the Basic Law. There is an imperial tongue blow recognizable”.

A political debate quickly turned into a social debate and the criticism of Horst Köhler was so present that a few days later he felt compelled to resign and resigned from office. That was a little more than nine years ago. Take another look at Köhler’s remarks and compare them with the remarks in Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer’s keynote speech …

There is broad agreement that Germany must become more active in view of the strategic challenges. […] A country our size and our economic and technological power, a country our geostrategic position and with our global interests, cannot simply stand on the sidelines and watch. Not simply waiting to see whether others act and then more or less resolutely join in or not. […] Our partners in the Indo-Pacific region – above all Australia, Japan and South Korea, but also India – feel increasingly pressured by China’s claim to power. They want a clear sign of solidarity. […] We are the trading nation that thrives on international reliability.

Besides China, we are leaders in international container shipping – and depend on free and peaceful sea routes. […] Germany, like every other country in the world, naturally has its own strategic interests. For example, as a globally networked trading nation in the heart of Europe.

In August, Albrecht Müller had already taken a stand on the fundamental question of whether it makes sense to secure world trade militarily. What is particularly striking here is that while Köhler’s remarks nine years ago were still perceived as a breach of taboo and were correspondingly controversially discussed, Kramp-Karrenbauer’s keynote speech triggered one thing above all else: Silence.

Apparently it has become part of normal political discourse to formulate global power claims for economic motives and to “defend” these claims militarily, or rather to enforce them. What was perceived as a taboo break nine years ago is now the norm.

It would also be wrong to focus this on the person of Kramp-Karrenbauer. It is hardly conceivable that the CDU Chairwoman and Defence Minister did not agree her statements beforehand with the Chancellor and certainly also with her international partners from NATO and the USA. There one will have heard this thrust surely with joy, demands Kramp Karrenbauer – with support of the Kanzlerin – in its speech nevertheless also other things, which would be only a few years ago still a Tabubruch – e.g. it wants to defend Germany security in the future also in the Sahel zone and demands emphatically a substantial armament in accordance with the 2% goal.

And the reactions? As expected, the Left Party criticises the statements, and discreet criticism can also be heard from the ranks of the Greens. What is astonishing is that Green Party leader Habeck himself recently considered a military protection of the trade routes to be “conceivable”. This is understandable, as there have also been attempts in this direction from their ranks in recent months. The media even proactively defend Kramp-Karrenbauer against the non-existent criticism. The Tagesspiegel thinks it is “on the right track” and the FAZ is secondary, “Yes, we have to get involved”. And the rest is silence. It is hopeless.

An article from: Jens Berger translated by alfonso