2016/12/04

Multinational tripwire battalions in Baltics, Poland

.
I'm typical German in that I want it done right if done at all, even if I'm not in favour of doing it at all.
My opinion on tripwire forces is cast in stone; they're stupid ideas of politicians who are too lazy to come up with anything smart.



Still, the application of the tripwire forces concept in the Baltic countries is even more stupid than expected. They get the details wrong.
Participation by Norway (which should mind its own national defence), for example.


Here's how I would recommend to pull it off if I was professionally obliged to recommend any tripwire forces scheme:

Three composite battalions, one in each Baltic country:

HQ (LIT = host country)
1st Combat troops company including a MBT platoon(FRA)
2nd Combat troops company (ESP)
3rd Combat troops company (ITA)
Logistics company (smaller NATO members)

HQ (LAT = host country)
1st Combat troops company including a MBT platoon (UK)
2nd Combat troops company (GER)
3rd Combat troops company (NL)
Logistics company (smaller NATO members)

HQ (EST = host country)
1st Combat troops company including a MBT platoon (US)
2nd Combat troops company (TUR)
3rd Combat troops company (HUN)
Logistics company (smaller NATO members)

Not participating:
POL, NOR (which have their own borders to care about),
ROM (which has a terrible army that's stuck in 1950's-1970's tech),
GRE, BEL, POR (should focus on domestic issues and don't need to bear much responsibility due to their small sizes)


Such a design of a tripwire force would
  • have all three Baltic states covered (tripwire force in Poland is pointless even if one believes in tripwire forces)
  • have one nuclear power present in all three Baltic states
  • have the foreign components by major alliance members as combat troops (thus bound to be involved in combat in case of invasion)
  • commit authoritarian governments that cuddled with Putin to NATO defence
  • not distract NATO frontier countries from minding their own national defence
  • spare most countries that really, really should focus on domestic issues first (exception ESP and ITA due to their size)
  • have host country HQs and especially COs (!!!), which means that any component of the tripwire force that doesn't defend in the event of invasion would need to disobey orders to do so (in the public impression, not necessarily according to command regulations)
The composite battalions would be utter crap as combat formations unless the companies know how to fight well as isolated companies, but at least the political angle would be done well. The mixed battalions that are being raised for real are pretty much random designs by comparison.

S O
.

2 comments:

  1. The whole failure of composite forces also applies to the European battlegroup concept, which should actually be the force for this specific purpose. Unfortunately they are utterly useless.
    It would be preferable to augment the host nations incomplete formations (all three Baltic countries have one) with necessary capabilities, which those nations can't muster themselves in a short enough time. Estonian 2nd brigade would need an armored battalion and an artillery battalion with the required support troops. Latvias one (and only) brigade would need the same, as would Lithuanian 2nd brigade. I think the current composite force nations for Estonia make sense. British and Danish forces fought together with Estonian troops in Helmand. German troops going to Lithuania also make at least a modicum of sense, given the two nations quite long co-operation in procurement and training, and the Dutch are naturally used to co-operating with German troops. However, a Canadian led battalion in Latvia seems both politically and militarily pointless. The only reason that passed was probably because NATO ran out of European volunteers.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Our PM had to demonstrate that he's not too pretty to back up rhetoric with action. It fulfills the "back to basics" push within the Canadian Forces as a whole and fits his political "I will be hard on Putin" stance. We have a long tradition of pretty pointless attachments; see 4CMBG especially after the 1965-ish heyday where somehow a chronically understrength two-bn BDE was supposed to hold off 3rd Shock Army. It "kind of" made sense prior to that when it was a division (-) and sat on the linkage between BAOR and US V/VII Corps.

    In short, we just really like getting participation badges.

    ReplyDelete