Over the coming weeks, NATO and Russia are to launch a series of super-high-end war games. These games are hardly for fun — rather, they are deadly serious practice sessions for hundreds of thousands of soldiers, thousands of combat aircraft and flotillas of combat ships. While no one will die — other than by accident, a not uncommon occurrence in such exercises — the messages going back and forth are crystal clear: We are prepared for war.
Russia’s exercise is called Vostok — which means “east” — and will be held principally east of the Ural Mountains. It is the largest military exercise by Russia since Soviet times and will deploy 300,000 troops and more than 1,000 military aircraft.
Of note, China will participate with thousands of its troops operating alongside the Russians and there will also be a token contingent of troops from Mongolia, which has been a partner to both Russia and NATO at times.
The message to the West is obvious: Russia and China might work together militarily against NATO in the East or the US and its allies in the Pacific.
The futuristic novel Ghost Fleet by Peter Singer and August Cole gives an excellent description of a high-tech war that begins unexpectedly in the Pacific with Russia and China allied against the US. These war games provide a preview of that sort of military activity could look like — and it should be very worrisome to US planners.
NATO is to conduct its own huge military exercise, named Trident Juncture 2018. It will take place on the northern borders of the alliance and will involve 40,000 troops from all 29 nations, a couple of hundred aircraft and dozens of warships. While not as spectacularly large as Vostok, it will serve as a “graduation exercise” for NATO’s new Spearhead Force, a serious, highly mobile capability that can put NATO combat troops into the Baltic states to repulse a Russian invasion within a matter of days.
Led by a highly motivated Italian unit that could be fully ready to fight in 48 hours, the spearhead force also includes Dutch and Norwegian forces.
Advance word says the exercise will include a mock invasion of Norway by US Marines.
This robust event is part of a vast improvement over the anemic states of readiness in NATO just a decade ago.
Of note, two high-capability militaries that are not NATO members, but are close coalition partners — Sweden and Finland — will participate.
When I was supreme allied commander of NATO a few years ago, I deeply admired the professionalism and military excellence of both nations, which participated with NATO in many global operations.
The Russians are deeply concerned about the possibility of Sweden and Finland considering NATO membership, and their involvement in Trident Juncture will stoke those fears in Moscow. All of this means tension and the possibility of miscalculation. We should pay particular attention to four key elements of these very serious games.
First, we need to recognize that there are internal messages working here on both sides. In the Russian case — and especially from the perspective of Russian President Vladimir Putin — the games signal the high capability and professionalism of the nation’s troops. This builds on the patriotic pride that was created by the invasion of Ukraine and the annexation of Crimea, and is a signal to the general population that their military is more than capable of holding on to those gains.
As for NATO, the message is similar, and directed toward the front-line states that border Russia — Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Norway — and NATO partners Finland and Sweden. In the West, the message is one of capability and credibility — a willingness to fight if necessary.
Second, the role of China is nuanced. The Russian games were originally conceived as a deterrent not to NATO, but to China. China, with its vastly larger population and need for economic growth, looks at the vast, natural-resource-rich tracts of Siberia the way a dog looks at a rib-eye steak. Yet a growing nationalism on the part of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and unease over the hawkish policies on trade by the administration of US President Donald Trump has China looking to develop a stronger relationship with Moscow.
Russia, frustrated with the antipathy of the US — driven these days not by the White House, but by the US Congress — is willing to draw nearer to China. While the longer-term relationship is fraught, it is a partnership — and a war game — of convenience at the moment.
Third, there is real military improvement that stems from such exercises. Pushing the European allies and Canada to deploy troops allows an increase in military interoperability on many fronts: technical synchronization of radio communications; alignment of targeting from different nations’ aircraft — a significant challenge in the NATO Libyan operation, for example; highly complex anti-submarine warfare operations; and multi-unit infantry and armor maneuver. All of these are challenging, and practice will make both sides much closer to perfect.
Finally, it is worth looking specifically at the maritime dimension of both the Russian and NATO exercises. It is not a coincidence that the NATO operation will be commanded not by a general, but rather by a four-star US admiral, Jamie Foggo. A former commander of NATO submarine forces and the legendary US Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean, Foggo has thought deeply and frequently published about maritime operations in the current NATO-Russia environment. There will be significant maritime groups both from NATO and Russia operating in the Baltic Sea, Black Sea, eastern Mediterranean and even the Arctic.
The good news from a Western perspective is that its land, air, maritime, cyber and special-operations forces will work together and emerge more capable and interoperable. The bad news is that Russia’s forces will as well and their odd alignment with China — at least in this moment — will cause further concern globally.
The US and its allies will continue to train and prepare for combat, hoping that better readiness creates deterrence and reduces the tendency for adventurism from either side.
However, we should not fool ourselves: These “games” are deadly business.
James Stavridis is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. He is a retired US Navy admiral and former military commander of NATO, and dean emeritus of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University in Massachusetts. He is also an operating executive consultant at the Carlyle Group. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
US President Donald Trump on Thursday issued executive orders barring Americans from conducting business with WeChat owner Tencent Holdings and ByteDance, the Beijing-based owner of popular video-sharing app TikTok. The orders are to take effect 45 days after they were signed, which is Sept. 20. The orders accuse WeChat of helping the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) review and remove content that it considers to be politically sensitive, and of using fabricated news to benefit itself. The White House has accused TikTok of collecting users’ information, location data and browsing histories, which could be used by the Chinese government, and pose
Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) at a ceremony on July 30 officially commissioned China’s BeiDou-3 satellite navigation system. The constellation of satellites, which is now fully operational, was completed six months ahead of schedule. Its deployment means that the People’s Republic of China (PRC) is now in possession of an autonomous, global satellite navigation system to rival the US’ GPS, Russia’s Glonass and the EU’s Galileo. Although Chinese officials have repeatedly sought to reassure the world that BeiDou-3 is primarily a civilian and commercial platform, US and European military experts beg to differ. Teresa Hitchens, a senior research associate at the University of
There are few areas where Beijing, Taipei, and Washington find themselves in agreement these days, but one of them is that the situation in the Taiwan Strait is growing more dangerous. Such a shared assessment quickly breaks down, though, when the question turns to identifying sources of rising tensions. Several Chinese experts and officials I have consulted with recently have argued that Beijing’s increasingly belligerent behavior in the Taiwan Strait is driven mostly by fear. According to this narrative, Beijing is worried that unless it puts a brake on Taiwan’s move away from the mainland, Taiwan could be “lost” forever. They
Former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝), who died on Thursday last week, coined the phrase “new Taiwanese” and used it in some of his public speeches. The concept of “new Taiwanese” was an important link in the chain of his political thought. Lee proposed the term in August 1998 on the eve of the anniversary of the end of the Pacific War. His intention was to consolidate a common understanding around the idea of “new Taiwanese,” and to embody the Taiwanese spirit of never giving up and not fearing hardship, and to create bright prospects for generations to come. However, after