The Crimean Crisis Isn’t Just About the Crimea by “Jack Hays”, The Bridge
The Crimean situation, or the “Situation Formerly Known as the Ukrainian Situation,” has no good solutions. But there are some worse than others. On one level, it doesn’t matter much to America, nor to Europe, whether Russia or Ukraine (or, if you want to get really old school, the Turks) controls the Crimea. From a popular-sovereignty point of view, the peninsula is largely Russian and so it makes sense that it would wish to be part of Russia. From a force-majeure point of view, Russia has a fleet and forces on the scene, first mover advantage, and plenty of motivation. So there is a powerful case for acceding to the fait accompli, because after all, who wants to be the last man to die for Simferopol? …
Comments
I think you're correct that the Russian economy would be seriously hurt by a really aggressive combined US/EU sanctions regime, but do you really think the EU would go along with it? It doesn't look likely. The US alone can't do much with unilateral sanctions. The EU has the economic connection, but will they use it?
You are correct say when one looks at history---but this time and I repeat this time Putin choose an event that he is using to directly challenge the US/entire world as he feels that he holds all the cards and can in fact prove to the entire world that Russia is back so to speak and he has embarrassed the US in front of the world.
The core problem is he completely forgot that his sinking/slumping economy is not as strong as it was say six years ago and it cannot take being embargoed for months and all assets of the banks and oligarch being frozen and visas required for all Russians in order to travel in the EU/US and this is the critical point. His economy is right now in free fall and there is talk that he might have to devalue his currency again as they had to in the previous economical collapse---his population at some point will start to see this and question WHY?
Secondly, Putin feels that at some point the US needs Russia in order to solve the Syrian and Iranian issues---this is also where he misfired as the US now fully sees the game and in fact Syria is going no where so why does one need Russia and it is the financial embargo by the West and not Russia that has the Iranians talking again not Russia.
Lastly it has been Putin that has said in both Syria and Iran-- that international territories/bounderies must be respected and now?
Besides I am not sure that Putin would believe that what he does and or says in the future will be believed if you have demonstrated once to the world that international agreements mean nothing.
Again he is acting as a Czarist from the 1800s which some in Russia have claimed in recent years.
The talk of the tired and reluctant hegemon misses, I think, an important point. The great powers of today, going back to the start of the nuclear age, prefer to avoid direct confrontation, for obvious reasons. That's why the Cold War was fought by proxy. When one great power sets up to intervene, the rival great powers can be counted on to denounce, oppose, issue vague threats, possibly throw in a symbolic act or two (boycotting Olympics or summits), but they don't directly confront. It's easier and safer to sit back, watch, and hope the other guy steps in a mess and opens an opportunity for some proxy action. Given the complexities and nature of intervention, that very often happens.
This is less "waning US power" than business as usual: it's the way these things have been played out for the last 50+ years. It's the way the Russians and Chinese have responded to US intervention, and the way the US has responded to Russian and Chinese intervention. It's not a new development.
Ned---this is an interesting article on the role of Germany right now---large part of it is actually good.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/03/05/angie_the_good_cop_mer…
There are indications that the Crimea decision to immediately hold an election for annexation could have been either with Putin's blessings and or in fact unknown to him in fact jamming him up. Tend to think he knew.
If they vote for annexation and Russia annexes then he is long or short going to take more hits on the sanctions side and he loses further leverage with the Ukrainians which he is really after in order to create his envisioned Russia led economic group similar to the EU---if you look at the only going trade talks with the EU/Russia there were discussions of lowering customs/enhancing trade/more internal development opportunities etc. so there was something on the table.
But if we wants to maintain pressure on the Ukraine to not join the EU and NATO then he could turn down the annexation request which then places him at odds in the expectations he has awoken in the Russian community there and that will not be an easy sale---he will lose some face as this whole thing was about protecting them from the evil nationalists in Kiev then he rejects them. Appears the Ukrainians are ahead of him in that they are driving a quick EU association treaty acceptance before he can respond to the eastern portion of the Ukraine.
What today you are hearing now is that he is angry that the world has massively rejected his Crimea bid and he "feels" misunderstood and he feels angry about being called Hitler and a dictator for what he thinks he is correctly doing---first time I have heard that he pays attentions to his feelings---does not quite fit the role of an ex KGB man who worked in Dresden (anyone know what he did there?)
You are also hearing constant threats against the possible sanctions but nothing against the US Army logistics route---and you will not as they earn over 1B per year on it.
The oligarchs are now growing restless in the fear that they will take a personal hit in their accounts and they are not use to having to apply for visas with their wealth if the EU implements that move. Moscow stock market did not take the news of the immediate election well at all.
How Putin handles this Crimea election result will tell you were he is headed and how Germany/US/EU/NATO needs to respond---problem is the Germans feel that the time for dialogue is running out and if it does then they must support some form of harder sanctions whether they like it or not---that is their fear currently.
They are also concerned that Putin is playing them for more time as the things he spoke with Merkel (a fact finding committee/OSCE observer team) he has avoided up to today gaining another day or two to maneuver.
For the moment I will respond with a for me short reply as I have a longer one on the NATO article in the works.
Move Forward is correct in his comments---the core problem MF is alluding to is our inherent foreign policy shift which has been going on with this WH and the previous WH for Europe which I refer to as "soft power"---more away from the traditional "policeman of the world" to more interaction and reliance with/on partners in responses, less on power ie military projection and heavy emphasis on diplomacy.
Remember Bush did not even mutter a single word when Putin marched into Georgia---not a single word.
While the idea of soft power actual fits my ideas of a "normal world" -- this world is not currently "normal" and has not been "normal" since we literally "upset the apple cart" in Iraq and the Russians on their own seem to want to follow us down the same path with their adventures in Georgia, Moldavia and now the Crimea.
The US military has since 2003 been in Europe on a gliding downward disarmament road ie losing troops, equipment, depots and installations---WHY because hey things are quiet in Europe and hey they need to step up and carry the burden since they have been constantly critiquing us as "policeman of the world" and seem to know better.
Now the dirt hits the fan ---Europe is no longer quiet and we have WHAT to engage with in the game of international relations and believe me it is not game ---talk and economics both of which are not much against tanks, SF troops, and Putin.
So maybe it is a dance of weakening superpowers that is causing this issue all the while there is a far eastern emerging superpower that both we and the Russians one day will have serious problems with.
What the WH does not understand is the depth of this problem---with the Putin Doctrine now in place---in the world of international affairs-- absolutely no treaty with a US signature on it guaranteeing the territorial integrity and security of a country can be seen as valid since the Ukraine lost territory that was supposedly "protected" by our signature.
So if you are Israel do you now really trust your security to the US when you see how the US reacted when the Budapest Agreement was breached badly by Putin and we did not respond militarily.
The Ukraine was the third strongest nuclear arms power behind the US/UdSSR in 1994 and they gave up the weapons in exchange for security agreements signed by the US/UK and Russia---that Agreement is no long worth the paper it is signed on. We know how Russia stands on the agreement---what has been the response really from both the US/UK?---The UK is afraid of losing the Russian oligarch money in the City investment community and all those yearly bank bonuses, and the oligarchs have been buying up London---does not take a genius to see the UK response of dragging their feet with sanctions so much for being the strong partner of the NSA.
So will Iran give up their unspoken goal for nuclear weapons--think not, will Assad leave think not and the list go on.
What about the Far East---they are rearming as they see China as a threat and will view US inaction on a signed Ukrainian agreement as a sign of weakness---so they are now going into an arms race against time.
In the realm of international relations--in the future it will be the goal each country to protect themselves as they see fit and treaties mean nothing.
There is a German saying -a kind of play on words---"legal, illegal, ganz egal"---means "legal, illegal, and who really cares".
Soft power has failed as a foreign policy ---just the WH did not get the message.
<blockquote>MF, are you saying we could deploy troops immediately to Ukraine and the ability to execute that deployment would, in itself, be a deterrent to further moves against Ukraine by the Putineer? Or would the trip wire be a physical presence of U.S. or N.A.T.O. troops in Ukraine? </blockquote>No, we don't need to imply that either ground, air, or sea-based troops would enter Ukraine. They only would enter adjacent NATO countries on a rotational basis to preclude further adventurism on Putin's part. It appears that neither the U.K. nor Germany are willing to approve major sanctions and it is equally unlikely they would contribute troops outside their home territory. Perhaps that would change if the U.S. set the example.
As Outlaw points out, very little Army ground presence remains in Europe and it all is very far from threatened NATO neighbors and (if not mistaken) is composed of Stryker units posing little threat to Russian tanks. A 420,000 military is too small considering the greater dangers we face now vs. in the 90s when we still had a 490,000 strong Army under a Democratic administration.
Just flying aircraft overhead and putting ships in the Black Sea is not a deterrent because Putin knows we won't use them particularly if his forces hug civilians. In contrast, ground troops already in NATO countries could block roads and other key avenues of approach into NATO member territory without firing a shot using ground OPs, roadblock obstacles, and non-stealthy unmanned aircraft ISR flights flown along NATO member borders and over the Black Sea. Systems like JSTARS could pinpoint Russian massing and our own and NATO member ground forces could maneuver to block entry and lay Volcano and FASCAM minefields in any future aggressor's path.
You cannot do that with a depleted stateside Army with no prepositioned equipment and a largely reserve component armored BCT base. If you plan to cut three out of 13 Combat Aviation Brigades and lots of armored BCTs, some of that equipment most certainly could be prepositioned in NATO countries near the Ukraine and in the Pacific in Japan and perhaps the Philippines (if permitted) or islands near Guam with C-17 capable runways.
MF---where were you when they decided to send everything back to the states as the "cold war" was over "never" to reoccur again?
Soft power and the third way---when one sits in the middle of all this in Berlin seven hours to Kiev, four to White Russia and one hour to Poland one tends to hear the media from multiple sources---Russian, Polish, German, CNN, BBC not to mention the online social media that has been great these days.
What stuck me late last night was in listening to the talking heads from CCN that are accompanying Kerry-just how little they 1) understand what a journalist is, 2) they do not speak anything other than English, 3) how little do they really know about the EU/history and lastly do they realize how they are being spun by the KGB/FSB who is conducting a massive I/O campaign the likes of the old SF psychological warfare units of the 60/70s.
When all is said and done this KGB/FSB I/O campaign would be worth a Ph.D thesis.
It is really telling when US journalists do not even recognize being spun when they pick up and pass on stories adding creditability to them ---and if they were say knowledgeable in the areas and the languages they could effectively call out the spin stories---hey it is all about the news cycle not about truth and reality.
Listened to the CCN talking heads state that the EU was dragging its feet on sanctions and they were having a hard time coming to agreement among themselves since they have so much business (over 300B per year and thousands of jobs) with the Russians they would never go to an embargo format---and they went on to critique the WH for apparently being out of step with the EU.
All the while the EU special summit had in fact decided among 28 different countries a three step threat to Putin---meaning if you do not engage in step one with us then this will happen and on to step two which is a visa requirement for all Russians entering the EU which effectively locks in the Russian population and lastly step three a full economic embargo NOT just some kind of sanctions. What is interesting the EU did not specify the embargo areas since they want Putin to be left fully in the dark ---adds to the pressures and lessens any counter planning abilities.
They indicated that while it would extremely hurt them (364B in trade) they wanted to show/stress to Putin just how serious they take his changing the international laws his country signs and the threat they perceive from a Putin led Russia. Even the Germans got a tad heavy on the Russia critique---unusually blunt tones from Merkel who is quietly growing in self confidence towards Russia.
The message was hey we can effectively bring the Russian economy to a standstill faster than any blowback damage can hit us if that is what Putin wants if he refuses the diplomatic way forward. Cut our gas not a problem then you lose additional millions in revenue and who does that hurt? Putin has got to be rethinking now some of his moves as this did not happen after Georgia or after Moldova.
This threat is actually now far more potent that any military threat---must compliment the DoD for their subtle movement of aircraft and a ship (part of planned exercises) that lends a military card or creditability to the EU economic threat of an embargo. Finally a clear military warning shot that we will defend NATO countries.
That does not sound like a uncoordinated/ineffective/weak/undecided EU nor an out of step US WH---in fact this is the middle way between soft and hard power---deliberate diplomatic steps coupled with a stick in a calm fashion after deliberate dialogue among themselves even if it means damaging the EU in the end---that is just how serious we take Putin's moves. By the way I see no inclination by US politicians' to back a full embargo not just sanctions on Putin---American businesses would loudly complain in public about lost earnings and jobs.
Meaning we will go the diplomatic route step by step and if nothing occurs then this is the result---not the soft route via the US that just lashes out in anger. Since WW2 the Europeans really do believe in diplomatic methods instead of force.
We in the US with our politics and parties often go from zero to 100 in five minutes and fail to think thoroughly through each move.
Would be interesting to see how the general US media handles the telling of the EU decision to the US population and especially to US politicians.
With all the sanctions the US placed on Iran there was never the threat of a full economic embargo against say the oil industry or to their shipping.
Move Forward and Outlaw-09,
A million thanks, gentlemen, for taking the time to educate a civilian (i.e., me) on the options as they are realistically available as well as for the self-spun web in which that President Putin may be getting himself entangled. Ironic that the spy would be caught in his looking glass. One interesting possibility is for the U.S. military personnel who conducted this cross-training to reach out to their counterparts in Russia to maintain a steady and steadying relationship among professionals.
Thank you again, each of you,
Ned.
<blockquote>Leading up to: do we have any alternative to soft power? Such a necessity smells of appeasement. Would you support some deployment to Western Ukraine in addition to other neighbors?</blockquote>
Yes, the alternative to soft power is forward presence of ground forces that can withstand A2/AD missile attacks. You can fly over land and sail near it to your heart's content, but only ground force's ensure control of land beyond a few minutes of bombing (if they can find hidden/hugging targets). IMHO, deployment of ground forces into Western Ukraine would be too escalatory. Ukraine turned down NATO membership. However, it could be made clear that Ukraine military forces would be offered safe sanctuary in adjacent NATO countries for guerilla warfare across the border should Putin expand his territorial ambitions.
<blockquote>What do you think of dispatching Special Forces to Western Ukraine to train Ukrainian special police or special forces to contain the excesses of local 'defense militias' with the evident extension of opposing Russian special forces, should they deploy to the Western half of the country?</blockquote> Train Ukrainian forces inside NATO neighbor countries using both SF and SFA general purpose forces. Ship excess MRAPs to NATO neighbors and offer them to the Ukrainian and NATO neighbor militaries, prepositioning others for U.S. forces.
Let Romanian-origin Ukrainians know that they would be welcome in Romania and would be provided aid as refugees should Putin succeed in advancing into south central Ukraine where apparently many of the 300,000+ reside.
Now for clarification of my initial comments on this topic. An hour or so ago, Representative Bradley Byrne of Alabama solicited an opinion from Secretary Hagel about an upgraded variant of LCS being an option to flesh out the remaining 20 canceled LCS ships. You can guess which variant Byrne was supporting.
Again, it would be low cost to leave the main hull of the Independence class the same width perhaps only extending its forward length to allow vertical launch cells for a few SM missiles. However the two trimaran outrigger hulls could be expanded outward a few feet to allow an elevator to drop vehicles down into the water (between the main and outrigger hulls) or onto a narrow landing craft for non-amphibious armored vehicles. The radars for air and missile defense would need to be permanent but additional missiles could be containerized and placed on the elevators for LCS+ variants fulfilling that role.
An LCS variant would be ideal for the Black Sea as they could land armor onto Romania without forcible entry. We see the Russians sinking a ship outside the Ukrainian harbor to preclude its ships from exiting. It is doubtful Russia could succeed in blocking an LCS+ or its amphibious armor or smaller landing craft from successfully making it to Romanian shores or smaller harbors.
Gentlemen,
Thank you for taking the time spell out the many dimensions of what is going on to someone who really knows very little beyond the newspapers (sporadically). There was something a military history professor told me 35 years ago, "It is easier to judge an opponent's capability than its intentions. Which is more reliable to use in making decisions?"
Leading up to: do we have any alternative to soft power? Such a necessity smells of appeasement. MoveForward, would you support some deployment to Western Ukraine in addition to other neighbors? Outlaw-09, MoveFroward's ideas make sense, do you think backing down on the missile defenses in Polan and the Czech Republic by the Obama Administration lowered the threshold against a military occupation of Eastern Ukraine?
http://nedmcdletters.blogspot.com/2014/03/letters-to-friends-and-family…
This is a link of letter to my 'friends and familiares'. Outlaw-09, I know you have read the article, as evidenced by the argument against deploying 10,000 troops (which do not exist); I have edited that part. I would be interested in your thoughts on the comment. All of this and the push-back my views got were civilian views.
MoveForward, what do you think of dispatching Special Forces to Western Ukraine to train Ukrainian special police or special forces to contain the excesses of local 'defense militias' with the evident extension of opposing Russian special forces, should they deploy to the Western half of the country?
Finally, MoveForward and Outlaw-09 (as well as any others who slave their way through this hand-wringing by me): Why are we not taking immediate steps like freezing government bank accounts and not issuing visas (as well as cancelling peace-keeping and Special Forces training)? We can impose these in a day and lift them in a day. At least it is something.
Oops, one more question: Did either or both of you two watch the Putin press conference? http://www.c-span.org/video/?318109-1/pres-putin-russian-intervention-u… I would be interested in your thoughts on translation versus actual utterances of President Putin....
Hate to use the term in the old days but it seems like it---we could signal our dislike of a action but placing USAREUR in a steady alert status increase and the media would carry the movements indicating to the other side maybe they have gone to far.
Now there are no troops in Europe outside the two last combat Bdes one of which is gone---so it is now nearly impossible to play the increase in status as part of the overall concept.
Putin pulled his military card by what-- going into a field exercise and ending in it with the firing an ICBM.
We are now in a soft power mode under this WH thus the military card is no longer on the table thus the WH has to find other ways which is hard if your partners cannot for many reasons pull in the same direction.
Some would call it the core problem in diplomacy-which this WH has now placed full emphasis as part of their soft power.
MoveForward and Outlaw-O9,
Thank you for fleshing out the mechanics of deterrence for the uninitiated. MF, are you saying we could deploy troops immediately to Ukraine and the ability to execute that deployment would, in itself, be a deterrent to further moves against Ukraine by the Putineer? Or would the trip wire be a physical presence of U.S. or N.A.T.O. troops in Ukraine?
The latter, even with one hundred men, would make me a whole lot more comfortable that this 'red'-line would stick. Would closing the Dardanelles be effective as a counter-move of some force by keeping the Soviet fleet locked down in Sevastopol and the Black Sea?
Why doesn't President Obama suggest to the E.U. and to the Putinista that Ukraine accede to both unions? It will be several years before a common currency in the Central Asian region will be negotiated and established. Such a suggestion would smoke out Russian interests quickly, especially if the intention had been for the ruble to be the common currency.
Posing that question could also could nudge the Russians into pressing hard for another unpalatable possibility, that the Ukraine be severed with the East being annexed by Russia into its Central Asian Confederation while the West would bring the truncated Ukraine into N.A.T.O. and the E.U.
And why not press N.A.T.O. to step up by stationing troops in Bulgaria and Romania while the U.S. installs missile defenses -- earlier promised but later cancelled unilaterally by President Obama under pressure from President Putin -- in Poland and the Czech Republic?
Yes there are economic ties between Russia and the E.U. with the central powers of the latter thriving off of plentiful oil sold to it by the former. Nevertheless, I am willing to bet that a concerted show of determination by President Obama would rally Germany, given the fate of the East under the erstwhile U.S.S.R.
The Army's emphasis on regionally-aligned forces is a perfect fit for reacting to Putin's attempts to renew the Cold War. Why not preposition combined arms battalion equipment and an appropriate BCT slice in Poland, Romania, and Slovakia, all NATO members, and rotate an infantry and armor company's Soldiers to that equipment every six months. Without the schools, commissaries, housing and dependent services related to past USAREUR deployments, the costs would be far less and the Clinton-era 490,000 strong Army could continue to exist to deter conflicts beyond the Pacific. Relative proximity near the Middle East and Africa is another reason for such forces that can be rapidly air-deployed ala Bashur, Iraq during the first OIF.
Build austere concrete shelters for AH-64s in those NATO countries using the tanks and Bradleys not being manned by rotational forces to park alongside shelters to provide further armor protection. These same shelters could be evacuated by Army forces (moving to field assembly areas) in the event of tensions and replaced by USAF F-35s and Reapers.
The Air and Sea services talk a lot about permissive flight environments without considering the cost per flight hour of expensive stealth UAS and forward-positioned stealth aircraft. More costly stealth systems could fly rapidly to threatened regions when needed from places like Germany and Italy (or Hawaii, Alaska, and Guam+). In peacetime (99.9% of the time) Army Gray Eagles, USAF Reapers, and Global Hawks could fly adjacent to Russian or Chinese-controlled territory, along threatened borders, and at the 12nm sea limit until the cows come home costing far less in flight hours than for a stealth UAS and F-22/F-35. The same could apply in Japan and the Philippines with non-stealthy UAS patrolling at reduced cost. Once threat radar air defenses and figher aircraft are defeated, non-stealthy UAS return to being fully battle capable.
As we see in Crimea, ground forces and Army aviation provide options missing with strictly sea and air threats of action. Ground forces actually controlling the ground backing NATO allies create both a trip wire effect and combat peacekeeping and escalation capability. In contrast, sea and air forces are merely a threat of action that cannot stop ground occupation unless lethal action actually is attempted.
Ground forces can stare down other ground forces as Putin's forces are doing now. They can disperse and hide from nearby threat missiles and airpower, digging in, and using armor to defeat bombs, missile, and artillery fragment. If we field active defenses to current tanks and Bradleys, these (and systems like tactical laser trucks) could augment other air and missile defenses in protecting aircraft shelters and defeating other G-RAMM submunitions. Russia deployed airborne ground forces to Serbia after it was bombed to preclude the U.S. from doing the same. The capacity for intratheater air and JHSV/LCS+ deployment of heavier armor in Europe and the Pacific would be just as effective in deterring conflict.
Move Forward---watch the actions now by Romania and Bulgaria--especially Romania which borders the Black Sea. Romania stated voicing concerns this evening over Russian actions. Both are full NATO members.
The US needs to gain control over this---if in fact any of the former east bloc countries now in NATO come to feel threatened by this Russian move and Russia makes the mistake to threaten them in any form they can call NATO to support them under Article 5 of self defense and NATO is required to respond.
NATO had to throttle back Turkey recently when they almost called Article 5 when Syria shot down one of their planes over the open Med.
Move Forward---while this is in German it came through the ticker moments ago and supports a lot of the quoted paragraph and why I greatly differ with Robert on this topic ie is it really about spheres of influence that Russia is claiming and some say that is OK.
"Vor dem Konflikt zwischen Russland und der Ukraine fürchten sich vor allem ehemalige Ostblock-Staaten. Sie fürchten Machtverhältnisse wie zu Sowjet-Zeiten."
What it basically alludes to is that the former East Bloc countries that broke away from the SU fully understand that this Russian move is in fact the reestablishment of the Soviet empire.
Putin has an inherent hatred for those former Russian leaders that he blames for the collapse of the SU and has since he has been in power-had his one goal---the reestablishment of the SU empire and Russia boosted to a superpower status that he thinks they have been sidelined on--BY the way shared by the Russian military leadership down to the LTC levels.
Putin's beliefs have been out there for all to see and his real politik has as well and I am stunned that US leadership has not seen this coming as it has been building since the Georgian event in 2008.
But if the US fully understands how they can press the counter threat finance abilities they have built against AQ into pressing the buttons of the Russian oligarchs and especially Russian banks this can be over in the coming weeks if in fact the US is determined to lead which I am not so sure about.
The US must in all clearness and in all openness and in all media state the simple fact that economically they can in fact shut down Russia within months if all banks and oligarch assets are frozen world wide.
Military----- they can do a few things ie shadow Black Sea fleet movements and use of ISR abilities in all openness in legal territorial waters, assist Ukraine with intel and advice---but it is the economics that will shut this down as Russia is really economically hurting something Putin has been hiding from his own population.
And this economic pressure message must make it to the Russian population that is starting to signal an unwillingness for war especially against the Ukraine.
<blockquote>And if that revisionism — if that reassessment of the great settlements of 1989-1991 — gets underway, then there are other revisionist powers watching and waiting to see just how much Vladimir Putin gets away with. They’ve been waiting, and they’ve seen, and they’ve learned. They’ve seen that the hegemon of the post-1991 order is exhausted and reluctant. They saw Benghazi. They saw Syria’s illusory “red line.” They saw the Iranian capitulation-deal. They saw the Chinese ADIZ. They saw all this, and so this Crimea invasion happens — as much an experiment as anything, mind you — with a bill that may eventually come due in the Senkakus.</blockquote>
I've been impressed by Outlaw's arguments elsewhere, and believe this quote from this article captures the current dangers of a too small Army and a too eager Navy and Air Force attempting unsuccessfully to maintain our world influence and ability to deter conflict solely on their own.
Outlaw notes the obvious. Our ground military forces in Europe have declined to levels that embolden Putin and give him and China confidence that there is neither the will nor capacity to intervene. We should not intervene militarily in Crimea, but if Putin were to move on to the rest of Ukraine, would we have a sufficiently large Army (with 420-440,000) to replicate a forward presence in Poland the same way we deterred war in Germany for decades?
Beyond that, there is a reluctance by Air and Sea services to admit that a need exists for a large Army conflict presence even in the Pacific. There is a failure of imagination in how the Army could accomplish Joint support if Joint facilitators existed to get the Army into the fight anywhere in the world in a more rapid manner. Army forces bring a variety of capabilities impossible to fit in numbers on an amphibious ship. Given airlift capabilities to the Pacific, Army forces would not face the same surprise missile attack threats as forward Navy, Air Force, and Marine forces would face.
For instance, we see the USAF arguing that the A-10 is a single-purpose aircraft which is a convenient argument to kill it ignoring how much of their remaining force is single purpose. The proposed Long Range Strike-Bomber (LRS-B) is certainly single purpose as is a C-5 and C-17. Only the C-130 provides insight into possibilities if the USAF were to expand the requirements of the LRS-B. Think low-observable aerial refueler. Think stealthy airdrop for small vehicles and SOF/Airborne troops and their supplies.
Then look at the current decision to curtail the LCS at 32 ships. Good decision...because it allows a variant of the LCS to be improved to fill out the remaining requirement of 20 ships and then some to also supplement amphibious ship capability and partly solve the ship-to-shore connector dilemma. Secretary Hagel mentioned that an LCS variant would be considered as one of the alternatives to fill out the remainder of the requirement. I'll make an argument for one LCS variant that could be improved to solve a number of problems.
The Independence class LCS has had far fewer horror stories and has far more potential. Imagine if the trimaran was expanded in beam to allow elevators on each side to lower amphibious tractors into the water from its wide enclosed 15000+ square foot mission bay. In the opposite direction vehicles and supplies could be elevated to the flight deck for external sling load transport to shore. We know that amphibious ships face grave peril if they move to 12nm or closer to launch tractors. We also know that Marines could not be asked to endure 6-8 hours of ship-to-shore transit if launched from a more survivable 75-100nm. Launch from an LCS would create the speed to get to 12nm more rapidly limiting the time for tractors in the water.
Finally, modular anti-aircraft and anti-missile mission packages could be moved onto the elevator to launch vertically or other modular packages with torpedoes could lower to launch. The expanded beam would create an even larger flight deck to facilitate lily pad movement of transitting Army aircraft with no intention of staying to encroach into Marine marinized aircraft domains but with capabilities and numbers far surpassing what can fit on an amphibious ship let alone an LCS.
Unless the DoD and all services embrace a Joint philosophy in using the Army more effectively in the air and sea domains, our options will continue to be limited. If a modified future LCS could evolve to a small amphibious ship and mini-destroyer, it could assist the Joint force in executing an Offshore Control strategy by boarding/stopping ships and placing Army and Marine troops on the ground adjacent to sea chokepoints. If we could more effectively get airborne and amphibious troops onto Taiwan to fight guerilla warfare, or into other areas where supposed A2/AD threats exist, then those who would otherwise exploit our unwillingness to act given our limited options...might see the light.