Monthly Archives: February 2017

It has been a nervous year, Tom Lehrer once remarked, and people have begun to feel like aChristian Scientist with appendicitis. That was 1965, and he was speaking of the escalation in Vietnam and the Dominican Civil War. With President Donald Trump steering foreign policy, Americans surely know how he felt.

The latest news is that Defense Secretary James Mattis has told NATO allies that if they dont start carrying their weight, the U.S. is going to moderate its commitment to the region. Now, as an abstract matter of principle, Im firmly behind this. Only five NATO countries actually hit their targets, and three of them are a lot poorer than the sponging grifters that have cut their militaries back while enjoying the safety of the U.S. security umbrella.

The freeloading countries dont even send a fruit basket to Washington to say thanks. In fact, as a rightish American whos spent a bit of time abroad, I can personally attest that many of those NATO members citizens feel free to disparage our massive military budget, as if their smaller budgets were some sort of moral sacrifice rather than an unearned benefit paid for by U.S. taxpayers.

There, I got that off my chest. I hope we all feel better.

Nonetheless, even for me, Mattiss statement is a sort of gulp moment. The Europeans arent the only people who benefit from the American security umbrella. The fact that the worlds biggest rich economy is willing to spend so much of its GDP on the military doesnt just mean that other countries dont have to; it also means that other countries dont bother, because they cant possibly catch up.

There are downsides to this. Countries with a big hammer will inevitably end up using it in ways that turn out to be stupid. (See: Iraq.) It also, inevitably means that the security umbrella of the world will be used in ways that the country that owns it likes. (See complaints by every country except the U.S., many of them justified.) But for all that, you can certainly imagine a country with an America-sized military advantage doing much worse things with it. Many worse things. In fact, when you think about alternative histories, were pretty far into the happy zone of the spectrum. Not all the way to utopia, mind you. But a lot better than youd imagine, if youd never heard of the United States of America and you were plotting out your science fiction novel with a dominant, heavily armed nation.

A more evenly multi-polar world would look like -- well, perhaps youre acquainted with a little tiff known to historians as World War I. You may even have read about the exciting sequel they made when the first production turned out to be so great. That was terrifying enough when the nastiest stuff in the worlds arsenal was toxic gas. It gets even more terrifying when you have bombs that can flatten a city or worse.

Unfortunately military spending is the ur-example of what economists call a public good. These provide a benefit to everyone, and once the benefit has been created, it cannot be taken away from anyone.

Imagine a public health campaign that eliminates HIV, wiping it off the face of the planet. Thats an enormous benefit to the world. But if I pay to get rid of HIV, I have no way to charge you for the benefit I provided. Once Ive gotten rid of HIV, you benefit from my investment, whether you pay me back or not.

Public health, defense, crime control -- these are classic public goods because for some people to get the benefit, everyone has to. Unfortunately, the optimal self-interested strategy is therefore to let other people pay for the stuff, while you free ride. If everyone practices the optimal strategy, no one gets the benefit. Enter government, which has to secure these things, if were going to have them, and force everyone to pay the bill.

Thats fine for crime, because its effects are local and the cost of management relatively moderate. If the Topeka City Council figures out a way to wipe out crime, theres probably very little spillover effect in San Luis Obispo, and zero cost to San Luis Obispoans. But in the case of plagues and national defense, we can run into a problem, which is that the effects are very large, and the investment required can be huge. Imagine that we didnt treat national defense as a federal responsibility, and handed it to the states. Maine and Texas would have gigantic militaries; places like Connecticut and Oregon might have sizeable Coast Guards. But the rational military budget for a place like Nebraska would be pretty close to zero. Because border states are of limited size and financial capacity, the militaries of those places would probably be smaller than everyone would like, even as the proud people of Montana labored under gruesome taxes to protect Coloradans from the fearsome Canadian horde.

In fact, you see this problem with NATO. Of the five countries that are actually pulling their weight, only two can be said to be doing so for reasons that arent strictly rational self-interest (the U.S. and Britain). The other three -- Greece, Poland and Estonia -- border non-NATO countries and are pretty worried about future conflict with a military power that meets or exceeds their own. The problem is that neither Poland nor Estonia could ever even remotely hope to repel a Russian invasion. If the U.S. gets fed up with its NATO partners and withdraws, Germany would be depending on the Poles to fend off any Russian aggression -- or hoping that Russia got sick of all the winning after they took Poland and stopped there. (See: World War II.)

Military capacity takes time to build up; even the famous mobilizations of the 20th century were built around a core of officers who had spent their lives thinking about little things like the best tactics to repel invasions, and how to transport large numbers of troops and supporting items to the front while keeping them in condition to fight, and how to get people to overcome their self-interest to pick up a gun and run into harms way.

Only the U.S. has consistently invested so much in this buildup. Because the U.S. has decided to provide this public good of military protection to much of the world, other countries have let those skills atrophy. If the U.S. actually decided to become isolationist, other countries might quickly become willing to assume its military roles, but would not immediately be able to. Pouring money into the defense budget now will not create the majors and lieutenant colonels and generals you need; those arise only if you invested in lieutenants years back.

All of humanity now benefits from this public good: a world in which major wars are pointless. No government except the U.S. can possibly provide that. (Even if you think youd fancy a world policed by China better, its economy does not yet throw off enough surplus to play lone superpower, and neither does Russias.) Multilateral institutions can step into the breach somewhat, but multilateral institutions dont have the same taxing power that a territorial state does, and it shows. All NATO can really do is complain that members arent meeting their targets. The U.S., as the member picking up the tab, can threaten to pull out if other states don't contribute more. But following through on that threat would hurt us as well as them.

Given those two choices, Ill grit my teeth and pay the taxes and practice my frozen smile for my next trip to Europe. But if Trump makes the other choice, then I, like everyone else in the world, will have to live with the result.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

To contact the author of this story: Megan McArdle at mmcardle3@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Philip Gray at philipgray@bloomberg.net

The rest is here:
Tragedy of the Public Good: Why the U.S. Shouldn't Quit NATO ... - Bloomberg

The US is preparing to deploy 1,000 troops and vehicles to northeastern Poland by the end of March to reassure Nato'sEastern European allies in the face of rising tension with Russia.

The unit, which will be part of 4,000 US troops deployed in rotation along Nato's eastern flank, will be located at Orzysz,Deutsche Wellereports.

The town sits 85 miles from Russia's Kaliningrad exclave, which is wedged between Poland and Lithuania.

Poland's leaders hold ceremony to welcome US troops as part of Nato build-up

It comes after Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov described NATO as a "Cold War institution" whose expansion had led to unprecedented tensions in Europe over the past thirty years.

Worried since Russia's 2014 seizure of Ukraine's Crimea that Moscow could invade Poland or the Baltic states, Nato is bolstering its eastern flank with troops, war games and warehoused US equipment ready for a rapid response force of up to 40,000 personnel.

A map showing Nato's military buildup in Eastern Europe (Statista)

The first German troops have arrived in Lithuania, where Berlin is leading a battalion of some 1,000 troops.

From around April, Britain will head the deterrent force in Estonia, while Canada is deploying in Latvia and US troops are arriving in Poland and across the Baltics.

Kremlin officials claim the build-up is the largest since the Second World War andsayit threatens the stability of central Europe.

Russia has some 330,000 troops amassed in its Western military district around Moscow, Nato believes.

See the original post:
US to deploy 1,000 troops to Poland as Russian foreign minister ... - The Independent

PRISTINA, Kosovo A senior NATO commander has assured Kosovo that the military alliance will maintain troops in the Balkan country "for as long as it's necessary."

NATO's Supreme Allied Commander for Europe, Gen. Curtis Scaparrotti, met with local officials and Western ambassadors during a visit Tuesday to Kosovo.

Some 4,500 troops from 31 countries have been deployed in Kosovo since June 1999, after NATO's 78-day air campaign to stop a bloody Serbian crackdown against ethnic Albanian separatists. Kosovo declared independence from Serbia in 2008, but Serbia has not recognized it as a country.

"We will keep in place a flexible, determined presence and will make changes only when the security situation allows. KFOR remain a robust and credible force, capable of carrying out its mission for as long as it's necessary," Scaparrotti said.

He also expressed concern about Russia's attempted influence in the region "particularly in the media with disinformation, political influence, etc."

Earlier this month, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg also visited Kosovo to urge it and Serbia to normalize their ties. Tensions between Kosovo and Serbia have been building again after a series of inflammatory incidents.

Serbia, backed by Russia, has also sought to maintain influence in Kosovo's north, where most of the country's Serb minority lives.

Read more here:
NATO general: Troops will stay in Kosovo as long as needed - Minneapolis Star Tribune

Nikki Haley, US Ambassador to the United Nations, speaks at a Security Council meeting on February 21, 2017 at the UN Headquarters in New York City (AFP Photo/KENA BETANCUR)

United Nations (United States) (AFP) - US Ambassador Nikki Haley on Tuesday said the United States is ready to improve ties with Russia but will not compromise on its support for NATO and the European Union.

Haley told a Security Council debate on conflicts in Europe that "Russia's attempts to destabilize Ukraine" were among the most serious challenges facing the continent.

"The United States thinks it's possible to have a better relationship with Russia - after all, we confront many of the same threats," Haley said.

"But greater cooperation with Russia cannot come at the expense of the security of our European friends and allies."

The remarks came as European governments are seeking reassurance after US President Donald Trump applauded Britain's decision to leave the European Union, criticized NATO members over burden-sharing and praised Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Haley said the United States was committed to "the institutions that keep Europe safe" and that it "will not waver" in its support for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

The United States wants to deepen cooperation within NATO while "keeping the door open to new allies," she said.

Enlarging NATO has been a major bone of contention with Russia, which sees any expansion of the military alliance in eastern Europe as a policy of containment directed against Moscow.

Haley described US ties with the European Union as "deep and enduring" and said differences with European governments should not be seen as a shift in US support.

"No one should misinterpret occasional policy differences and debates as a signal of anything less than total commitment to our alliances in Europe. That commitment is strong," she said.

The ambassador stressed that the US and the EU were united in the view that sanctions against Russia would remain in place until Russia returns Crimea to Ukrainian rule.

A recent flareup of fighting in east Ukraine "show the consequences of Russia's ongoing interference in Ukraine," said the US ambassador.

Haley said Russia's decision to recognize passports issued by separatists in Ukraine's Lugansk and Donetsk regions was "another direct challenge in the efforts to bring peace to eastern Ukraine."

See the article here:
Trump's envoy at UN warns Russia US stands firm on NATO, EU - Yahoo News

Like the A-10, the Su-25 was all about winning a titanic clash between the ground forces of NATO and the Warsaw Pact by busting tanks and blasting infantry in Close Air Support missions. This meant flying low and slow to properly observe the battlefield and line up the plane for an attack run.

Flying low would also help the Su-25 avoid all the deadly long-rangeSAMsthat would have been active in a European battlefield. However, this would have exposed it to all kinds of antiaircraft guns. Thus, the pilot of the Su-25 benefited from an armored bathtubten to twenty-five millimeters of armor plating that wrapped around the cockpit and even padded the pilots headrest. It also had armored fuel tanks and redundant control schemes to increase the likelihood of surviving a hit. And in their extensive combat careers,Su-25shave survived somereallybadhits.

TheSu-25Frogfoot, known as theGrachor Rook by Russian pilots, is one of those aircraft that may not be at the cutting edge of technology, but still has seen widespread service around the world because it offers an effective and useful solution to the need to blast targets on the ground.

As such, its obviousstablemateis the AmericanA-10 Thunderbolt IIattack plane. But while the U.S. Air Force wants toretirethe A-10 starting in 2022, the Su-25 isundergoing extensive upgradesto keep with the times.

Also unlike the Thunderbolt, it has been disseminated it all over the world and seen action in over a dozen wars, including in the air campaigns over Syria, Iraq and Ukraine.

Not only has Russia had a lot of experience flyingSu-25sin combatit has shot several down as well.

During World War II, Russias armored Il-2Sturmovikattack planes, nicknamed Flying Tanks, were renowned for their ability to take a pounding while dishing it out to German Panzer divisions with bombs, rockets and cannon fire.

Unlike the U.S. Air Force in the1960s, which was enamored with the concept of winning nuclear wars withstrategic bombers, the Soviet air service, theVVS, placed more emphasis on supporting ground armies in its Frontal Aviation branch. However, no worthy successor to theShturmovikimmediately appeared after World War II

In 1968, the VVS service decided it was time for another properly designed flying tank. After a three-way competition, the prototype submitted by Sukhoi was selected and the first Su-25 attack planes entered production in 1978 in a factory in Tbilisi, Georgia. Coincidentally, the American A-10 Thunderbolt had begun entering service a few years earlier.

Like the A-10, the Su-25 was all about winning a titanic clash between the ground forces of NATO and the Warsaw Pact by busting tanks and blasting infantry in Close Air Support missions. This meant flying low and slow to properly observe the battlefield and line up the plane for an attack run.

Flying low would also help the Su-25 avoid all the deadly long-range SAMs that would have been active in a European battlefield. However, this would have exposed it to all kinds of antiaircraft guns. Thus, the pilot of the Su-25 benefited from an armored bathtubten to twenty-five millimeters of armor plating that wrapped around the cockpit and even padded the pilots headrest. It also had armored fuel tanks and redundant control schemes to increase the likelihood of surviving a hit. And in their extensive combat careers, Su-25s have survived somereallybadhits.

Despite the similarities with the A-10, the Su-25 is a smaller and lighter, and has a maximum speed fifty percent faster than the Thunderbolts at around six hundred miles per hour. However, the Frogfoot has shorter range and loiter time, can only operate at half the altitude, and has a lighter maximum load of up to eight thousand pounds of munitions, compared to sixteen thousand on the Thunderbolt.

More importantly, the types of munitionsusuallycarried are typically different. The Thunderbolts mainstays are precision-guided munitions, especiallyMaverickantitank missiles, as well as its monstrous, fast-firing GAU-8 cannon.

Read this article:
Russia Has Its Own A-10 Warthog (And It Was Meant to Be a NATO-Killer) - The National Interest Online (blog)