[..]Article 3 of the 1949 North Atlantic Treaty, NATO’s founding document, states that members will, at a minimum, “maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.” Only a handful of NATO members can say they are living up to their Article 3 commitment. Defense spending has been decreasing over the years to the point that New York City spends more on policing than 14 NATO members each spend on national defense. Since 2008, Russian defense spending has increased 31 percent while defense spending in Europe has decreased 15 percent.[..]
[..]The biggest danger to infrastructure assets in Europe pertains to any potential NATO conflict with Russia in one or more of NATO’s eastern states. In such a scenario, infrastructure would be heavily targeted in order to deny or delay the alliance’s ability to move significant manpower, materiel, and equipment necessary to retake any territory lost during an initial attack. In such a scenario,the shortcomings of NATO’s force posture would become obvious.[..]
[..] There are also threats to the territorial integrity of NATO countries of a non-military nature for which the alliance is completely unprepared. The biggest threat to the Baltic States, for example, may not come from Russian tanks rolling into the country but from Russian money, propaganda, establishment of NGOs, and other advocacy groups—all of which undermine the state. Russia’s aggressive actions in Ukraine have proven how effective these asymmetrical methods can be at creating instability, especially when coupled with conventional power projection. [..]
vara bungas: Saite liekama grāmatzīmēs, jo satur ļoti informatīvu ASV armijas kapacitātes un ASV draudu analīzi globālā mērogā. Tagad skaidrs, kur LT izlūki smeļas iedvesmu 😉 Patīkami lasīt, ka VB nav kļūdījušies savās prognozēs par Arktikas kā sāncensības reģiona augošo nozīmi.