While much of the country is focused on the congressional impeachment inquiry, which, in part, involves national security issues, military construction projects at home and abroad are facing a significant loss of financial support.
On September 3 of this year, seven months after President Trump declared a national emergency, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper issued a memorandum titled: "Military Construction Necessary to Support the Use of Armed Force in Addressing the National Emergency at the Southern Border." Mr. Esper stated that he had "determined that 11 military construction projects along the international border with Mexico, with an estimated cost of $3.6 billion, are necessary to support the use of armed forces in connection with the national emergency." In all, 127 military projects are slated to be defunded to help build 175 miles of wall in Yuma, San Diego, El Paso, El Centro and Laredo. Among the major domestic designated "contributors" to this program are: New York $160 million, New Mexico $125 million, Alaska $102 million, and Virginia and Washington State which each will lose $89 million of financial support.
About half of the defunded projects are located outside of the continental United States. Guam stands to lose more than $207 million, while funds removed from Puerto Rico, still suffering from the effects of Hurricane Maria, will total in excess of $402 million, money allocated for training facilities, National Guard readiness centers and maintenance facilities. Close to $800 million will come from allocations essential to the European Deterrence Initiative (EDI), previously known as the European Reassurance Initiative (ERI). These initiatives were initiated in June of 2014, three months after the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation, in response to Russia's increasingly assertive military posture, unsettling to its European neighbors. It was designed to finance activities of the U.S. military and those of its European allies. These projects included the training of forces, multinational military exercises and the development of military equipment and capabilities. Its main beneficiaries were targeted to be Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Romania.
Its creation has done little to diminish Russia's intimidating, belligerent, behavior. The country has provided leadership, ammunition, heavy weapons supplies and regular units of the Russian army in the Donbas region of Eastern Ukraine. It continues to station large numbers of military forces in Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine (30,000 Russian personnel in Crimea alone) without consent of the governments of these states. It staged large-scale exercises in close proximity to pro-western neighbors, and it has aggressively skirted the boundaries in the Arctic region. Its forces fired upon and detained three Ukrainian naval ships attempting to pass through the Kerch Strait into the Sea of Azov. In addition, it has made a point of publicizing the modernization of its military, conventional as well as nuclear. All these activities have been used effectively by its president, Vladimir Putin, in an attempt to bolster his diminishing political appeal at home.
Russia's perceived threat to its neighbors has been severe enough to elicit a warning from former Georgia President Mikheil Saaskavili, that "Russia's next land grab won't be in an ex-Soviet state. It will be in Europe." (Foreign Policy, March 15, 2019). He suggests that it could be in remote enclaves of Finland or Sweden, both E.U. members, but not part of NATO. The latter association is deemed important, since article 5 of the North Atlantic Treat Organization's charter stipulates that an attack on one member is considered to be an attack on all members and will provoke a collective response.
Secretary Esper's decision to defund multiple EDI and ERI programs significantly affects Europe's readiness to withstand Russia's aggressive behavior. Germany will lose $468 million, which was targeted for upgrading aircraft shelters; Poland $109 million from ammunition storage facilities and military staging areas; The U.K. will lose $250 million; Slovenia $105 million; Hungary $55 million; Romania $22 million, and so on. A grand total of $777 million, funds slated to support essential improvements of defensive positions.
Observers suspect that the disproportionate removal of funds from these Europe-based programs was a deliberate attempt to minimize political fall-out at home. Besides, it also appears to have been designed to send the message that the recipients are not doing enough themselves. Secretary Esper admitted as much when he stated that "part of the message is burden sharing, maybe pick up the tab."
On December 13, 2018, the "Atlantic Council," an international affairs think tank, published a paper: "Permanent Deterrence: Enhancements to the U.S. Military Presence in North Central Europe," which concluded that Russia is positioned to quickly defeat forward-deployed U.S. and NATO forces, and grab land before reinforcements could arrive. Its recommendations included many of the programs that are now facing a loss of financial support.
To quote former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia and Ukraine Michael Carpenter: "It's foolish to short-change our deterrence posture against Russia to fund a border wall that will do little, if anything, to stem illegal immigration, since much of it comes through existing points of entry anyhow."
No comments:
Post a Comment