|
歐洲各國領袖積極準備第三次世界大戰 – David Averre
|
瀏覽583 ｜回應5｜推薦1 |
|
|
|
請至原網頁查看照片和圖表；並請參考欄下一篇《讀後》。
How Europe and Britain are getting ready for 'WWIII'
Interactive graphic reveals how West will stop Putin unleashing Armageddon, with nukes at Russia's doorstep, mass conscription at 18 and arms factories firing up
* More than two years into the Ukraine war, Vladimir Putin has doubled down
* UK and European allies are steeling their economies and armed forces for war
DAVID AVERRE, 05/14/24
Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 saw the horrors of a large-scale war darken Europe's doorstep for the first time since the end of World War II.
For a short while, hope endured that a swift resolution to the conflict would materialise, but before long the prospect of a speedy diplomatic solution lay in tatters as Moscow's drones and missiles continued to batter Ukraine's cities.
Now more than two years into the conflict, Vladimir Putin has doubled down.
His forces have made noticeable gains on the frontlines in recent weeks as they pressure war-weary and ammo-starved Ukrainian defenders, and his decision to appoint civilian economist Andrei Belousov as defence minister suggests the Kremlin is committed to sustaining its war economy over the long run.
Meanwhile, the president's long-serving and intensely loyal foreign minister Sergei Lavrov earlier this week challenged what Russia calls the 'collective West', declaring Moscow's troops are ready to meet NATO on the battlefield.
In light of the downward spiral of East-West relations - not to mention the alarming escalation of tensions further afield in the Middle East and Indo-Pacific - the UK and its European partners could soon be forced to contend with any number of major military threats.
As a result, many countries are reversing decades of peacetime policy to reignite their war engines. Others never stopped and are only consolidating efforts to ensure they are fit for conflict.
But there is little doubt that all Europe is now scrambling to prepare in anticipation of what may lie over the horizon.
Here, MailOnline assesses what Britain and its continental allies are doing to ready their armed forces, economies and citizens for the prospect of war.
Defence spending
Armies can only fight with the resources made available to them.
There is no clearer example of this axiom than on the frontlines of Ukraine where Kyiv's troops have only been able to hold off Russian invaders thanks to a huge quantity of Western supplied weaponry.
After years of drawing down military capabilities in the UK and Europe following the collapse of the Soviet Union, such resources were until recently languishing at levels far below those maintained during the Cold War.
But now, in the words of Britain's Defence Secretary Grant Shapps: 'The peace dividend is over'.
NATO expects two-thirds of its members to commit 2% of their GDP to defence spending by the end of this year, of which at least 20% must go toward the development of new military technologies and equipment.
Rishi Sunak declared last month the government would raise defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by the end of the decade - part of Britain's transition to a 'war economy'.
On the continent, the European Commission has earmarked almost €2 billion to ramp up defence production among EU member states.
€500 million of these funds will go toward the production of artillery shells, with the stated target of producing 2 million shells per year, among other ammunition, by the end of 2025 for Ukraine.
The rest of the budget is to facilitate procurement, boost manufacturing capacity and enhance research and development in crucial defence domains, including 'countering hypersonic missiles, developing a range of unmanned vehicles in the air and on the ground, and ensuring secure space communication,' as well as 'next generation defence systems, such as helicopters and mid-size cargo aircraft'.
Meanwhile, Norway - a member of NATO but not part of the EU - is leading the charge in the Nordics.
Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre proposed last month a 'historic' 12-year defence spending plan that commits a whopping 1.6 trillion NOK (£118 billion) to revitalise his nation's armed forces, with a particular focus placed on upgrading naval capabilities in view of its proximity to Russia's nuclear submarine fleet, and the increasing maritime prowess of China.
And Finland, a country already renowned for its military preparedness, has tested its defence procurement contracts and has built up a huge stockpile of fuel, grains and ammunition in preparation for a possible war.
It has also invested heavily in defence infrastructure - there are now enough air shelters scattered across Finland to house the entire population.
Conscription and military service
It was revealed this past weekend that Germany is considering a reintroduction of mandatory national service, according to leaked documents, with military planners discussing three potential approaches to preparing future generations for large-scale conflict.
It is understood that officials are in the final stages of discussions with German defence minister Boris Pistorius, and are expected to go public with official plans next month, The Sunday Telegraph reported.
In one proposal being considered by military planners in Berlin, all men and women would be subject to conscription once they turned 18, provided a constitutional amendment to include women in mandatory service is passed.
But many European countries still maintain national service - and others have recently reintroduced it following Russia's invasion of Ukraine more than two years ago.
The Baltic and Nordic states are all well ahead of their Western European counterparts when it comes to military preparedness - perhaps as a result of their proximity to Russia.
Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania all maintain some form of national service, with Latvia having reintroduced the policy in 2023 as concern over Russian aggression in Ukraine prompted a rethink of defence strategy.
All male citizens aged 18 to 27 are now required to complete a year of service there.
Further North, Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Finland all maintain their own programmes, with Sweden having reactivated their national service policy in 2018.
Denmark announced earlier this year women would also be subject to mandatory service and revealed plans to extend the duration of the training.
Meanwhile, one in three Finns are reservists, meaning Finland boasts one of Europe's largest armies despite having a tiny population of just 5.6 million.
Austria, Greece and Switzerland are the other three European nations to maintain national service, albeit with varying durations and degrees of intensity.
For now, the UK continues to resist calls from the continent to reintroduce national service, which was abandoned in 1960.
But several top military figures in Britain have also backed the calls following a years-long policy of reducing the size of the UK's armed forces.
The British Army shrunk by 28% in the past 12 years to around 103,000 soldiers, of which around 76,000 are regulars and 27,000 are reservists, according to YouGov figures.
General Sir Patrick Sanders Chief of the General Staff of Britain's Armed Forces, said in January that Britain should 'train and equip a citizen army' to prepare for the possibility of a land war in Europe in the coming years.
And General Sir Richard Shirreff, a former NAT commander, warned that the UK might need to introduce a system akin to Finland's, in which all 18-year-old males are required to perform 6-12 months of service in the military, or with border guard units.
They subsequently enter the reservist programme until age 60.
Sir Richard, the Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe from 2011 to 2014, said earlier this year: 'I think now... is the time to start thinking the unthinkable and really having to think quite carefully about conscription if we are to deliver the numbers needed.'
War games and enhanced security cooperation
Perhaps the most overt display of Europe's renewed focus on improving its military readiness comes in the form of NATO's stunning war games.
Steadfast Defender 2024, a suite of training exercises running from January to June, is among the largest military drills ever conceived by the security bloc since the Cold War.
Before its end, the mammoth undertaking will have witnessed the involvement of 90,000 troops from all 32 members of the alliance in a host of different missions including live fire exercises, strategic and logistical game-planning, and the deployment of cross-continental forces from the High North above the Arctic Circle to Central and Eastern Europe.
The drills are not just reserved for land forces - hundreds of military aircraft and more than 50 naval vessels will also perform drills to gauge and strengthen NATO's air and maritime capabilities.
An area of renewed focus for military exercises this year is the Arctic, which could soon become a new frontier where world powers clash for strategic superiority, control of new trade routes and access to previously untapped natural resources.
Russia reveres the Arctic as an 'indisputable priority' and has committed to building up military and civilian infrastructure in the region.
But the accession of Finland and Sweden to NATO in recent months means Europe's Nordic powers are now able to operate more closely than ever before and are helping the US to upgrade its own understanding of the Arctic and approach to polar policy.
Norway has hosted NATO's Cold Response winter training exercises since 2006, but this year launched 'Nordic Response' - a dramatically enhanced programme that saw 20,000 troops participate in expanded drills on the frozen coasts of the remote Finnmark region some 300 miles north of the Arctic Circle.
Meanwhile, Oslo has worked with counterparts in Stockholm and Helsinki to help formulate Washington's brand-new Arctic Strategy.
This is set for publication in the coming weeks - almost 18 months after the US Department of Defense announced the creation of a new office dedicated to improving America's capabilities in the High North.
Elsewhere, the invasion of Ukraine prompted a reinforcement of NATO's eastern flank, with more European nations willing to welcome foreign troops on their soil.
Romania, Slovakia and Bulgaria and Hungary are all now hosting a contingent of NATO forces, upping the total of multinational battlegroups in Europe to eight from the original four in the Baltic states, plus Poland.
And in move defying pressures from the Kremlin, Moldova is reportedly set to deepen its defence ties with the EU.
The country, which shares a land border with Ukraine, is close to signing a new defence pact that would see Chisinau increase its intelligence sharing with European partners, participate in joint military drills and win inclusion into the EU's joint weapons procurement programmes, according to the FT.
Hosting US nukes and upgrading Europe's nuclear deterrent
Europe's nuclear deterrence relies massively on the US, which has the second largest stockpile of nukes at around 5,200 to Russia's 5,800 - though more a thousand of them are thought to be retired and awaiting disarmament.
Several hundred of these warheads are deployed in various European territories - primarily at locations in Germany, Italy and the Netherlands.
But Sweden earlier this week announced it would be willing to host US nuclear weapons on its soil in a time of war, a move that has been hotly criticised by de-armament advocates.
NATO's newest member sensationally abandoned two centuries of military non-alignment to join the security bloc in March this year, and its parliament is now set to vote on a Defence Cooperation Agreement (DCA) with the United States in June which will give the US access to military bases in Sweden.
The Swedish Peace and Arbitration Association, among others, is campaigning for the government to put in writing in the DCA agreement that Sweden will not allow US nuclear weapons on its soil.
But Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson said hosting US nukes may be necessary 'in a war situation'.
'In the absolute worst-case scenario, the democratic countries in our part of the world must ultimately be able to defend themselves against countries that could threaten us with nuclear weapons,' he told Swedish public radio.
Kristersson's declaration came weeks after Polish President Andrzej Duda said last month his nation would be ready to station American weapons on its territory, given Russia's decision to deploy intercontinental ballistic missiles in neighbouring Belarus late last year.
Meanwhile, Britain and France - the only European countries to have their own nuclear arsenals - are both in the process of upgrading their existing capabilities and adding new ones in the coming years.
In March, defence contractor Babcock announced a contract with the Submarine Delivery Agency (SDA) - an MoD agency - to perform a £560 million overhaul of HMS Victorious, one of the UK's four Vanguard-class ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs).
HMS Vigilant - another SSBN - is already next in line to undergo such transformative maintenance as soon as Victorious' upgrades are completed.
Though the Vanguard class vessels continue to maintain Britain's nuclear deterrent, these submarines will be replaced in the next decade by four fearsome 'Dreadnought' class submarines - three of which are already under construction.
Defence Procurement Minister James Cartlidge said earlier this year the Dreadnought programme is on track to replace the Vanguard fleet at a cost 'within the original £31 billion plus £10 billion contingency budget'.
All the while, Britain continues to increase its stock of nuclear weapons from 225 to 260 - bringing it closer to France's total - and is also thought to be manufacturing a new class of warheads.
France is also embarking on an overhaul of its nuclear sub arsenal, announcing in March that construction had begun on its latest generation of SSBNs called 'SNLE 3G'.
Three more are planned to enter service before 2035 and are said to be so advanced that they will remain in service until the 2080s and beyond.
本文於 修改第 3 次
|
|
《5個在2025可能引爆第三次世界大戰的地區》小評
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
0. 前言
法禮教授這篇文章的第一個缺點是他沒有釐清「世界大戰」這個概念；第二個缺點是他搞不清楚戰爭的本質(請見本欄上一篇貼文)。
1. 「『世界』大戰」定義
即使不需要半個世界捲入戰火，但既稱「『世界』大戰」，至少也要5個國家的土地淪為殺戮場域，才當得起「世界」兩字。韓戰、伊拉克戰爭、和阿富汗戰爭當年都有十幾國聯軍參戰；但因為「戰場」局限於一、兩個國家的土地上，它們並沒有上升到「世界大戰」的層級。只被定位在「區域」衝突/戰爭。
我相信法禮教授列舉的5個「引爆點」，在2025都可能產生大規模、聯軍型態的戰爭。但是，只要核武沒有被動用，真正會演變成上述「世界大戰」(定義)的地區，只有中東和烏克蘭兩者。
在「地理因素」之外，法禮教授5個「引爆點」中其它三個地區的衝突很難「上綱」到「世界大戰」。我做這個判斷的理由如下：
2. 戰爭本質
1) 決策行為
不論主張「行為學派經濟理論」學者如何振振有詞(請參見此欄開欄文)，在大多數重大或重要情況下(> 75%？)，人們的決策過程還是「理性」的；即使說不上深思熟慮，至少會「過過腦子」。從而，孫子說的：「兵者，國之大事；死生之地，存亡之道，不可不察也」還是「硬道理」。
中東和烏克蘭兩地的衝突，屬於「存在危機」(此處借用此心理學術語)；一旦軍事行動升溫，當事國和鄰近國家的領袖與人民，即使不做「彈腿反應」，也沒有很大的迴旋空間和很長的集思時間；「自衛」是第一時間的本能反應。也就自動或被動的捲入戰爭。另一方面，敘利亞，南、北韓，和台灣海峽三個地區的衝突，基本上是「內政問題」(1)；對鄰近國家沒有「切身利害」(2)。從而，這場群架打不起來。
2) 正當性
或許有人會認為我把戰爭和「正當性」並提有些迂腐，其實不然。我們只要回顧美國詹森總統放棄連任，黯然下台，就可以看出：在某些條件下，「戰爭」和「正當性」並不互斥。我說的這個「條件」指的是：實行民主政治的國家。因為，在民主國家中，戰爭不完全由國家領袖一個人或統治集團一小撮人來決定。
做為一個政治現實主義者，此處的「正當性」並不是指它「道德」上的意義；一般老百姓其實也沒有什麼強烈的「道德感」(包括區區、在下、不才、老夫、敝人、我)。所謂「正當性」，我指的是一般老百姓意識中的「利益」。我可以再拿越戰做例子：當年「反越戰」運動在美國校園如火如荼，並不是因為美國大學生酷愛「和平」，而是因為他們不願意到一個鳥不生蛋，聽都沒聽過的地方去送死。也就是說，當戰爭並不符合大多數老百姓的「利益」時，民主國家的人民支持度在一定程度下，能制約國家領袖的「決策過程」。
戰爭的基本目的是「爭奪資源」。如果一位政治領袖，在不能得到人民支持的情況下參與戰爭，通常會通過選舉或在大規模抗爭下，被迫去職。如此一來，爭奪到的資源再多，也只是為人作嫁；白忙活一場。智者不為也。這是「民主政治與戰爭」能成為政治學研究課題的原因之一。
敘、韓、和台灣海峽三個地區的衝突和鄰近國家絕大多數的人民沒有切身利害關係；冒然出頭的該國領袖，必定被叮個滿頭包。
3) 實力懸殊
這個因素只限於台海。在實力不相當的情況下，政治領袖會更加謹慎處理是否參戰的決定。隨著中、美武力在西太平洋的持續長、消，美國政、軍領袖不會搬個時頭砸自己的腳。因此，我兩年前「台海無戰事」的判斷現在仍然成立。
附註：
1. 無論美國蛋頭學者、軍火掮客、和意識型態打手如何說謊，台灣曾長期屬於「歷史中國」的事實不會改變。關於敘利亞，請參看此欄(2024/12/06)。
2. 如果北韓「統一」南韓，日本當然會感受到威脅。這不是現在、立馬、當下的危機；也就無「切身」可言。
本文於 修改第 3 次
|
|
5個在2025可能引爆第三次世界大戰的地區 -- Robert Farley
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
5 Places World War III Could Break Out in 2025
請參考隨後刊出的《小評》。
Robert Farley, 12/04/24
World War III in 2025?
The year 2024 is promising to leave a dangerous legacy for its successor. Not in decades has the world witnessed a more dangerous international environment, with unsettled, ongoing conflicts in some of the world’s most critical regions. It will take deft, mature statesmanship to avoid even greater conflict in 2025, but the situation that we find ourselves in demonstrates that deft statesmanship is in short supply.
5 Places World War III Could Start in 2025
No one wants another global conflict, but in some ways we are already in a potential World War III. The Russia-Ukraine War, one of the largest conventional conflicts that the world has seen since World War II, has had far-reaching global effects. These have necessarily touched upon the parts of the world where Russia, China, the European Union, and the United States have interests, which in effect is the entire international system. None of the conflicts discussed here are separate from the others; just like the different theaters of WWII, they each have an effect on the balance of power and threat in the other regions.
Russia-Ukraine
We are three months short of the three-year anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and an end to the war is still hard to foresee.
Russian forces have resumed the offensive and are taking significant swaths of Ukrainian territory, but evidently not enough to threaten the integrity of the Ukrainian state.
For its part, Ukraine has taken advantage of permission from the Biden administration and its patrons in Europe to launch long-range strikes against targets deep in Russia. Russia has responded to this by launching the first operational conventional MIRV-equipped missile attack against Ukraine.
Tensions between Russia and the West (including both the United States and the European Union) remain at all-time highs. The Russian economy is showing signs of severe deterioration, which may be forcing Moscow into the conduct of high-cost, high-risk military operations.
In other words, the worst war the world has seen in decades could still grow in intensity, and could still draw other countries into its maw.
The Wars of October 7
The fallout from the dramatic and deadly attacks of October 7, 2023, continues to destabilize the Middle East.
The attacks sparked an intense war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, followed by an intense conflict between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Along the way, Israel and Iran exchanged strikes, and the Houthi movement in western Yemen launched an anti-shipping campaign into the Red Sea. Some theaters of the conflict seem to be cooling down, with Israel and Hezbollah having reached an uneasy ceasefire and the IDF running out of targets in Gaza.
U.S. Army Image. Image Credit: Creative Commons. 請至原網頁觀看相關照片
Prospects for escalation between Iran and Israel remain dangerously high, however. Iran’s relationship with Russia has improved dramatically over the course of the conflict, as Tehran has supplied Moscow with much-needed drones and missiles in return for advanced military technology. Iran may also decide that, having failed to deter or defeat Israeli attacks, it needs to go for broke on its nuclear program. Such a decision would invite further Israeli attacks, potentially supported by the United States and the Gulf monarchies.
World War III: Could America Stop China from Invading Taiwan? 請至原網頁觀看相關視頻
China-Taiwan: The Path to World War III?
In some ways, the quiet that continues to reign over the Taiwan Straits is more frightening than the chaotic symphony of the Russia-Ukraine War.
The political conflict is essentially irresolvable, and the opposing sides are preparing for war as if it is inevitable. China continues to rapidly expand its navy, in particular its amphibious assault capabilities. Taiwan and the United States are working on systems and tactics that would make holding a beachhead impossible for the People’s Liberation Army. At the same time, commerce continues virtually unchecked across the Straits.
It is unlikely that China will be prepared to assault Taiwan in 2025. However, China’s calculus could change if developments in other parts of the world take a turn or if President Trump takes steps to worsen ties between Washington and Beijing dramatically.
Any war over control of Taiwan is likely to expand to include the United States and Japan rapidly and will immediately carry the threat of the use of nuclear weapons.
North Korea-South Korea
Pyongyang’s decision to intervene directly in the Russia-Ukraine War shook the always tense relationship on the Korean Peninsula.
North Korea’s participation in the war seems to guarantee a quid pro quo from Moscow, giving the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) the patron that it has sought since the collapse of the Soviet Union.
The overall effect of Russian support for North Korea remains uncertain, but it will undoubtedly help shore up the DPRK’s energy situation and make it easier for Pyongyang to acquire advanced military technology. It may also make North Korea more adventurous with respect to its relations with the Republic of Korea (ROK).
For its part, South Korea is considering expanding its relationship with Ukraine as a response to the deployment of North Korean troops. Moreover, South Korean domestic politics have been shaken by an apparent attempted autogolpe, in which President Yoon Suk Yeol cited the North Korean threat as justification for the imposition of martial law.
The eventual fallout from these decisions is impossible to predict, but could spell considerable danger for crisis stability on the Peninsula.
Syria
Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad took pains to stay out of the Wars of October 7, even as Israeli jets and missiles pounded Iranian installations within Syria.
His reluctance may well have been based on concerns about the stability of his regime. These concerns were dramatically confirmed last week when the city of Aleppo fell to a coalition of rebel groups. This has left the Syrian Arab Army and its Russian and Iranian allies scrambling to mount a defense against advancing rebel forces. The rebels themselves are a hodgepodge of different groups, each with its own backers and its own agenda.
A B-1B Lancer, tail number 86-0094, is moved across Douglas Blvd. to the Maintenance Repair and Overhaul Technology Center (MROTC) to receive an initial portion of Gate 1 of programmed depot maintenance April 21. 567th AMXS personnel will perform three days of maintenance which include single system checks on 40 individual actuators validating voltage outputs as well as interrogating each actuator for hydraulic leaks. After single systems are completed, the horizontal stabilizers will be removed from the aircraft. This is the first time that horizontal stabilizers have ever been removed at the MROTC. Once complete, the aircraft and horizontal stabilizers will be brought back across Douglas to the 569th AMXS strip facility for plastic media blasting. Once stripped, the horizontal stabilizers will be routed to the 76th Commodities Maintenance Group for overhaul and repairs. (U.S. Air Force photo/Kelly White) 請至原網頁觀看相關照片
The Syrian Civil War drew in much of the region at its height during the 2010s, and it is not difficult to see Russia, Turkey, Israel, Iran, Jordan, and the United States intervening in some fashion.
If the Assad government falls from either internal or external forces, the entire region could be thrown into chaos, possibly reigniting the Israel-Iran conflict and drawing Turkey into direct combat.
World War III: Could It Happen Next Year?
We can take some solace in the fact that wars rarely happen by accident. No one really wants a Third World War. Every major player has a particular set of goals and outcomes that it would like to pursue, and either overthrowing the global system or imposing it in violent fashion is outside of those pursuits.
Nevertheless, it is often difficult for leaders to grasp the global impact of their decisions; a bomb dropped on Kyiv may cause a thunderstorm in Tehran or a cyclone over Taipei. We can hope that the New Year will bring a deep breath, a new perspective on these conflicts, and new hope for heading off World War III.
About the Author: Dr. Robert Farley
Dr. Robert Farley has taught security and diplomacy courses at the Patterson School since 2005. He received his BS from the University of Oregon in 1997, and his Ph. D. from the University of Washington in 2004. Dr. Farley is the author of Grounded: The Case for Abolishing the United States Air Force (University Press of Kentucky, 2014), the Battleship Book (Wildside, 2016), Patents for Power: Intellectual Property Law and the Diffusion of Military Technology (University of Chicago, 2020), and most recently Waging War with Gold: National Security and the Finance Domain Across the Ages (Lynne Rienner, 2023). He has contributed extensively to a number of journals and magazines, including the National Interest, the Diplomat: APAC, World Politics Review, and the American Prospect. Dr. Farley is also a founder and senior editor of Lawyers, Guns and Money.
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
|
歐洲各國準備迎接第三次世界大戰 -- Ellie Cook
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
Europe Quietly Prepares for World War III
Ellie Cook, 12/03/24
With warnings swirling over a possible war with Russia in a matter of years, NATO's European members have already started laying the groundwork for defenses, should Russian troops set foot on alliance soil.
"Russia is preparing for a war with the West," Bruno Kahl, the head of Germany's foreign intelligence service, said in late November.
But it's not likely to be a large-scale attack into NATO territory, the intelligence chief warned. Moscow could opt for a limited incursion or upping its hybrid warfare tactics to probe the alliance's conviction, Kahl said.
NATO is trying to prepare for both scenarios: an all-out war, and less obvious techniques designed to undermine stability in the alliance's member countries.
A Newsweek graphic shows various weapons of war along with iconic images from a number of European cities. European NATO members have made visible preparations for a war against Russia. Photo Illustration by Newsweek/Getty Images 請至原網頁觀看照片
"There are multiple options for Russia to test the cohesion of the alliance," including limited land grabs, the former head of NATO's Multinational Corps Northeast based in northwest Poland, Lieutenant General Jürgen-Joachim von Sandrart, told Newsweek just before leaving his post in November.
The urgency is now obvious from senior military and political officials. Andrius Kubilius, the European Union's commissioner for defense, said in September that defense ministers and NATO commanders "agree that [Russian President] Vladimir Putin could be ready for confrontation with NATO and the EU in six to eight years."
Estonia's foreign intelligence service warned in February NATO "could face a Soviet-style mass army in the next decade" if Russia successfully reforms its military. The army would be "technologically inferior" to NATO forces in areas other than electronic warfare and long-range strikes, the service said, but its "military potential would be significant."
"If we take these assessments seriously, then that is the time for us to properly prepare, and it is a short one," Kubilius, a former Lithuanian prime minister, told the Reuters news agency. "This means we have to take quick decisions, and ambitious decisions."
The main catalyst is Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, prompting Sweden and Finland to abandon their long-held policies of non-alignment and join NATO, lengthening Russia's border with the alliance.
Across Europe, NATO is now battling to raise defense spending up and beyond the two percent of GDP requested—but not enforced—by the alliance. Many countries have historically fallen far short of this benchmark in the decades since the end of the Cold War.
But times are changing. European nations have pledged to meet or exceed the target, and officials and experts broadly expect the incoming administration of President-elect Donald Trump to double down on pressure on Europe to increase military spending further.
The countries snaking along NATO's eastern flank are way ahead. How quickly Europe will be able to pull up spending and prop up the companies producing more equipment, however, remains to be seen. NATO's top military official, Admiral Rob Bauer, said in late last November that businesses "need to be prepared for a wartime scenario and adjust their production and distribution lines accordingly."
"While it may be the military who wins battles, it's the economies that win wars." Bauer said.
Already, there are visible signs of preparations across Europe, particularly striking in the countries closest to Russia's borders.
Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić said in July that NATO was "not ready now" for a possible war with Russia but that they "will be ready" in the future.
"They are already preparing for a conflict with the Russian Federation and are preparing much faster than some people would like to see, in every sense," he told Serbian television, in remarks reported by Russian state media.
"We know this from military preparations. We know how they are being conducted. And I want to tell you, they are preparing for a military conflict," Vučić said.
Germany has started putting together plans for how Berlin would shield important buildings and installations in the event of an attack, and how Germany would be a conduit for hundreds of thousands of soldiers heading further east in Europe, the German daily newspaper, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, reported in November.
The first draft of the strategy paper, labeled "Operationsplan Deutschland," is 1,000 pages long, the newspaper reported.
Baltic Defense Line
The three Baltic states of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia signed an agreement back in January this year to beef up protection along their land borders with Russia and Belarus.
Belarus is a key Russian ally, and the Kremlin used Belarusian territory to launch the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. The country also links Russia with its isolated Kaliningrad exclave, sandwiched between NATO members Poland and Lithuania.
"We are undertaking this effort so that the people of Estonia can feel safe, but if the slightest risk emerged, we would be ready for various developments more promptly," said Estonia's defense minister, Hanno Pevkur.
Tallinn said there would be a "network of bunkers, support points and distribution lines" along the border.
Lithuania's defense ministry said in early September that it had "set up a blockade" on and near the bridge in Panemunė, the Lithuanian border settlement that connects the NATO country with Kaliningrad.
Vilnius said it had set up mines, and other defenses, like dragon's teeth, against tanks and armored vehicles.
Dragon's teeth are concrete blocks used to halt tank advances and prevent mechanized infantry from gaining territory. This type of anti-tank fortification has littered Ukraine.
"This is a precautionary step to ensure more effective defense," Lithuania's government said.
Lithuania's neighbor to the north, Latvia, has put similar defenses in place. The Latvian government has said around €303 million ($318 million) will be funneled into building up defenses on its eastern border with Russia over five years. There will be outposts for support personnel, reinforced structures, anti-tank trenches and storage dumps for ammunition and mines, Riga said.
"We will be able to slow down and block the movement of potential aggressors more efficiently," Latvian Defense Minister Andris Sprūds said in a statement in January.
In July, Riga said that obstacles designed to hamper military movements were now being "procured and transported to temporary storage areas near Latvia's eastern border." Russia lies to the east of Latvia.
Estonia's ERR broadcaster reported in October that the Latvian military was testing barriers making up the Baltic Defense Line, including dragon's teeth.
Kaspars Lazdinš, from the Latvian armed forces, said the military had used a T-55 tank to "simulate conditions similar to those our eastern neighbors might present." The T-55 is a Soviet-era main battle tank.
"The anti-tank barriers held up well," Lazdinš told the broadcaster, adding: "The concrete blocks successfully protected people and infrastructure from direct fire."
Anti-tank defenses are seen in Karsava, Latvia, on August 16, 2024. The Latvian government has said around €303 million will be funneled into building up defenses on its eastern border with Russia over five years. GINTS IVUSKANS/AFP via Getty Images 請至原網頁觀看照片
Further to the south, staring down Kaliningrad and Belarus, Poland has started construction of what it has called its "East Shield," costing over $2.5 billion and described by Warsaw as "the largest operation to strengthen Poland's eastern border, Nato's eastern flank, since 1945."
Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk visited the Polish border with Kaliningrad over the weekend to inspect fortifications being built on Warsaw's territory.
"Poland's investments have been a mix of building up both defensive capabilities and offensive capabilities, designed to deter Russia by convincing them that any attack would fail to achieve its objectives and come at very high cost," said William Freer, a research fellow in national security at the U.K.-based think tank, the Council on Geostrategy.
"Poland's 'East Shield' fortifications build on the lessons of the fighting in Ukraine, which have shown how hard it is to push through heavily entrenched defenders," Freer told Newsweek. "In combination with traditional fortifications such as dragon's teeth, East Shield will make use of a suite of electronic warfare and surveillance systems."
Mass Evacuation Plans
The preparations aren't just military, they're civil, too. In mid-November, NATO's newest member, Sweden, published a brochure it said helped the country's residents to "learn how to prepare for, and act, in case of crisis or war." The pamphlet outlines what a heightened state of alert would mean, how each inhabitant would pitch in to a war-time effort, and what different sirens sound like.
"Military threat levels are increasing," the leaflet warns the Scandinavian country's citizens. "We must be prepared for the worst-case scenario—an armed attack on Sweden."
Norway, too, has published a leaflet on how to deal with "extreme weather, pandemics, accidents, sabotage—and in the worst case acts of war."
Finland has publicly-available guides on how it prepares for "the worst possible threat, war."
In the Baltics, Agnė Bilotaitė, Lithuania's interior minister, said in September that each of the country's local authorities had to quickly draw up evacuation plans that are "ready" to be put in motion.
"It is important to note that we are at the forefront, so today, civil defense has become a priority on our agenda," Bilotaitė said. The Lithuanian minister has urged neighbouring countries to do the same.
Latvian Interior Minister Rihards Kozlovskis said in September that the Baltic state had roughly 5,000 underground buildings that Riga hoped to have "ready for use as shelters by November."
Bilotaitė said in October that Vilnius would spend €12 billion in 2025 to install and upgrade shelters.
"If necessary, we could shelter two cities like Vilnius underground," Vilnius Mayor Valdas Benkunskas said in remarks reported by domestic media.
Germany's government has also said it is putting together a list of bomb shelters that will be available for citizens to see where their closest shelter is.
Air Defenses
In January, the Baltic states also stressed the need they felt to build up NATO air defenses on the eastern flank, according to a Latvian government readout.
Hungary's defense minister, Kristof Szalay-Bobrovniczky, said in November that Budapest will place an air defense system in the northeastern region of the country.
"We still trust that there will be peace as soon as possible, through diplomacy instead of a military solution," Szalay-Bobrovniczky said in a video address. "However, to prepare for all possibilities, I ordered the recently purchased air control and air defense systems and the capabilities built on them to be installed in the northeast."
Europe has a chronic shortage of air defenses, although military and political officials have swerved providing specifics.
East Versus West
While Poland, the Baltic states, Finland and Sweden, as well as Romania, which borders western Ukraine, have significantly upped defense investment, western Europe is lagging behind.
"It is no coincidence that the greatest increases in defense spending in NATO are coming from those closest to Russia," Freer said. "Behind NATO's eastern flank, other allies are acting with less urgency and have proven far less willing to increase investment at the same level."
Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, the head of the British armed forces, conceded in November that the U.K. was in a "slightly weaker" position than many countries closer to Russian soil.
"We don't have some of the civil aspects or planning aspects that other countries within NATO have as part of their traditions," Radakin said.
The U.K. has committed to increasing defense spending to 2.5 percent of GDP. France is on course to hit the NATO target of 2 percent this year, as is Germany.
Estonia's defense spending is hovering at around 3.4 percent of its GDP, with plans to hike this to 3.7 percent by 2026. Lithuania said in March it would raise defense spending to 3 percent from 2025, and its defense minister has floated hitting 4 percent, to finance new long-range air defenses and other equipment. Poland has said it will spend 5 percent of its GDP on the military in 2025.
Western European countries are taking "some meaningful steps," Freer added. Countries in the alliance are looking at how to improve NATO's integrated air and missile defense capabilities, pulling lessons from Russia's hammering of Ukraine.
Read more
NATO Opens Amphibious Warfare Hub in Arctic Amid Turf Wars With Russia
NATO State Announces New $190 Million Artillery Ammo Plant
Putin ally predicts nuclear "radiation zone" could end war in Ukraine
Russia's New Breed of Gonzo Spies Revels in the Spotlight
Should NATO Members Deploy Troops to Ukraine?
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
|
外籍兵團重回歐洲--S. Maitra
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
In Europe, Foreign Legions Are Back
As great power conflict re-emerges, muscle memory kicks in.
Sumantra Maitra, 05/28/24
At its peak, the three presidency armies of the East India Company, based at Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras, had a combined field ready force of over 260,000 troops, roughly three quarters of whom were Indians. Compared to that, the current British army in total is roughly around 75,000, small enough to fit into a football stadium, a fact that has invited comments from the current British army chief about the necessities of a conscription in case of a major European war.
“Within the next three years, it must be credible to talk of a British Army of 120,000, folding in our reserve and strategic reserve. But this is not enough,” General Patrick Sanders told POLITICO. “We will not be immune and as the pre-war generation we must similarly prepare—and that is a whole-of-nation undertaking…. Ukraine brutally illustrates that regular armies start wars; citizen armies win them.”
Does it? The question isn’t completely out of the realm of debate. Yet a better question to ask is, What will the army be for? A citizen army and total war effort is, of course, required for an existential struggle, faced with a great-power threat that might end a nation’s very way of life. But does a great power require a citizen’s army, for, say, colonialism, or global policing? Britain historically was never an army-heavy land power, as was some of her contemporaries. The Empire, however, had a massive foreign manpower reserve. The British-Indian army itself had around 1.5 million men volunteer during the Great War.
There are two ways of enhancing and ameliorating mass force power. One—and this will be ever more necessary in the coming days—is introducing high technology, and keeping it away from both allies and adversaries. The Romans did it. The British did it. Soviets and Americans did it all the way through the Cold war, till the Soviets bankrupted themselves and collapsed. The other classical way is to have foreign foot soldiers. The Romans had foederati and later, auxilia. The former were tribes aligned with the republican core used as force-enhancers. The second were auxiliary forces during the empire, members and people from the provinces who were technically not Roman citizens. Both were used to boost the aggregate power. A current version of this is the Légion étrangère of France, the French Foreign Legion, where one can apply for French rights and republican citizenship once wounded in battle or after three years’ service by the doctrine of “Français par le sang versé,” or French by spilled blood. Recently, Ukraine started the Legion for the Defense of Ukraine, and found out to their dismay that more people will tweet with the hashtag of NAFO than actually go and join a conflict.
The beleaguered Conservatives in the UK, facing an election that they’re all but sure to lose, have chosen a different path. According to this plan, all 18-year-olds in Britain will need to spend a year of mandatory military or civilian national service as the government plans to bring back a form of the historic national service for the first time in more than 60 years. Britain had military conscription for men and women during World War II, and mandatory military service for men between 1947 and 1960. Since then, however, the armed forces have been all volunteer, and have also steadily shrunk.
And Europe has also taken note. There’s a debate currently happening in Germany. “Foreigners could be allowed to join the German army as Boris Pistorius, the country’s defense minister, tries to recruit an extra 20,000 troops in the face of threats from Russia. “We would not be the first armed forces in Europe to do that”, Pistorius said.
All in all, it’s not a bad thing. Forced martial service can install a sense of national solidarity among immigrant groups, while testing who genuinely wants to assimilate to the host country. With the world gearing towards an emerging multipolarity and structural shifts in aggregate power leading to the very prudent retrenchment of the hegemon, powers with global interest will increasingly look towards older, time-tested strategies. That will include rapid industrialization and automation for richer powers. That will also include privatization of force—BlackWater or Wagner—as well as foreign legions similar to those of the colonial era.
It all boils down to three questions.
First, what is the purpose of the force being created?
Second, who is creating the force, and what benefits are offered in return? And
third, how is the force is being used?
The answer naturally differs between say France and Ukraine, for example. Ukraine is creating a foreign legion purely for survival. It therefore only interests people who are will fight on conviction, knowing that the rate of survival is low. For France—with more imperial experience and more policing and counter-insurgency operations in line, and with an offer of French rights, if not French citizenship—acquiring a foreign legion is easier.
Everything starts with strategy in this business, as Barry Posen once commented. The traditional British grand strategy was predicated on a small expeditionary army and a gigantic navy. In Canning’s words: “Non-intervention; no European police system; every nation for itself, and God for us all; balance of power; respect for facts, not for abstract theories; respect for treaty rights, but caution in extending them…England not Europe...Europe’s domain extends to the shores of the Atlantic, England’s begins there”.
Britain’s geography dictates that it focuses on a navy and an active foreign legion. National service for Britain is therefore good in theory, especially in a multicultural and multiracial society—an inward neo-feudal empire where governance is essentially only nominally democratic with a minimalist maintenance of social order and harmony. A national service is the only thing that might forge some semblance of national unity, given Britain’s lack of an actual empire or an East India Company. In fact, in all across Europe, one thing to use to deter mass migration as well as assimilate the current crop of migrants is to have rigorous national service.
Ultimately, however, British power, as opposed to French or German power, was predicated on having proxies to fight its wars, proxies that were often smaller foreign countries needing British assistance in technology and strategy and British military leadership, either directly or through private entities. Europe, if it ever wants to get serious, needs to tap into its past. The muscle memory is there; it will kick in when time comes.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Dr Sumantra Maitra is the Director of research and outreach, at the American Ideas Institute, and a senior editor at The American Conservative. He’s also an elected, Associate Fellow at the Royal Historical Society, London. You can follow him on Twitter @MrMaitra.
本文於 修改第 2 次
|
|
《歐洲各國領袖積極準備第三次世界大戰》讀後
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
阿菲爾先生這篇分析相當深入詳細。雖然不能排除是一種政治「唬叫」(1)，但只有笨蛋或瘋子才會認為：面對俄國在烏克蘭的軍事優勢，歐洲各國領導人不會做最壞的打算。普丁絕不是笨蛋，也不是瘋子；但他是否偏執到近於「被迫害狂」，恐怕不好說。
從馬克洪的「出兵援烏論」開始，歐、美政界和輿論節節升高配合(並請參見本欄下一篇貼文)。另一方面，克里姆林宮的宣傳機器也沒閒著。雙方開始在媒體上玩「誰先做慫蛋」的把戲。或許，這就是戰爭的前奏曲。
除了各國加強武備來充實國力外，請注意該文提到「北極地區」；由於氣候暖化，這種鳥不生蛋的地也成了「地緣政治狂」心中的兵家必爭之地。
國際政治似乎跟市場經濟一樣，有「週期性」的毛病；隔個幾十年就有位瘋子出來擔任「誰怕誰」或「我是武林盟主」的主角。
烏克蘭有兵源不足的先天劣勢，擋不住俄國的人海戰術。目前影響歐洲領袖群「決策過程」的兩大因素將是：「骨牌效應」和記憶猶新的「慕尼黑協定陰影」；如果俄國仍然步步進逼，第三次歐戰勢必很快到臨。如果中國決定趁機試圖完成「統一大業」，或者伊朗/以色列想混水摸魚，幹掉對方；那就是第三次世界大戰了。
有宗教信仰的朋友，趕快跟上帝們祈禱、溝通吧！
附註：
1. 在以紙牌為賭具的賭錢遊戲中，bluff是一種雙面刃的賭技(動詞 – 定義2)。在網上找不到我認為「信、達」的中譯，姑且翻譯為「唬叫」。我本來想譯之為「詐叫」，但此詞已經被玩橋牌的朋友先行採用。此外，網上將「以紙牌為賭具的賭錢遊戲」稱為「撲克」。但是，「撲克『牌』」泛指有四種花色、每種花色13張、和一付總共52張的紙牌(附帶兩張或用或不用的鬼牌)；如橋牌、大老二等等也用「撲克牌」為道具。所以，用「撲克」來翻譯poker難稱「信、達」。一時想不到適當的中文名稱，只能從俗。
本文於 修改第 2 次
|
|
|
本城市首頁
看回應文章
等級：8
