The Pentagon’s Military Strategy Does Not Focus on Russia

Moscow’s recent invasion of Ukrainian territory could change the Pentagon’s priorities.

Heavily-armed soldiers without identifying insignia guard the Crimean parliament building next to a sign that reads: 'Crimea Russia' after taking up positions there earlier in the day on March 1, 2014 in Simferopol, Ukraine.
National Journal
Sara Sorcher
March 4, 2014, 11:24 a.m.

Rus­sia has shocked the world by send­ing troops in­to Ukraine, and a new De­fense De­part­ment long-term threat as­sess­ment proves that the U.S. mil­it­ary was no ex­cep­tion.

The de­part­ment re­leased its Quad­ren­ni­al De­fense Re­view on Tues­day, and in all of its 64 pages, only one para­graph of the sweep­ing U.S. mil­it­ary strategy out­lines the pos­sible risks Rus­sia may pose to Wash­ing­ton’s or its al­lies’ in­terests:

“The United States is will­ing to un­der­take se­cur­ity co­oper­a­tion with Rus­sia, both in the bi­lat­er­al con­text and in seek­ing solu­tions to re­gion­al chal­lenges, when our in­terests align, in­clud­ing Syr­ia, Ir­an, and post-2014 Afgh­anistan,” the doc­u­ment said. “At the same time, Rus­sia’s multi-di­men­sion­al de­fense mod­ern­iz­a­tion and ac­tions that vi­ol­ate the sov­er­eignty of its neigh­bors present risks. We will en­gage Rus­sia to in­crease trans­par­ency and re­duce the risk of mil­it­ary mis­cal­cu­la­tion.”

The doc­u­ment largely fo­cuses on how the mil­it­ary will shrink and still be equipped to “win de­cis­ively” in con­flicts in the Middle East, “re­bal­ance” its forces to the Asia-Pa­cific re­gion, and com­bat a range of threats from ter­ror­ists to a nuc­le­ar-armed Ir­an. The mil­it­ary strategy was re­leased along with the Pentagon’s $496 bil­lion budget re­quest for next year.

But Rus­sia cer­tainly has the mil­it­ary’s at­ten­tion now: The Pentagon is keep­ing a close eye after Mo­scow sent thou­sands of troops to Ukraine’s Crimean Pen­in­sula in the past week. And in re­sponse to what Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion of­fi­cials have de­cried as a Rus­si­an “in­va­sion” and “oc­cu­pa­tion” of Ukrain­i­an ter­rit­ory that vi­ol­ates in­ter­na­tion­al law, the Pentagon has sus­pen­ded its mil­it­ary re­la­tions with Mo­scow.

To be fair, the Pentagon has a lot on its plate — es­pe­cially as it slashes hun­dreds of bil­lions of dol­lars from its planned budgets. Mil­it­ary plan­ners are trans­par­ent about the “rap­idly chan­ging se­cur­ity en­vir­on­ment” the United States faces as it emerges from an era of long wars in Ir­aq and Afgh­anistan.

So it’s hardly sur­pris­ing that the Pentagon’s mil­it­ary strategy does not dwell on Rus­sia, which has in fact co­oper­ated with some of Pres­id­ent Obama’s dip­lo­mat­ic ini­ti­at­ives in re­cent months,  in­clud­ing con­vin­cing em­battled Syr­i­an Pres­id­ent Bashar al-As­sad to sur­render his chem­ic­al-weapons stock­piles, and help­ing to seal a land­mark deal with Ir­an to curb the ma­jor as­pects of its nuc­le­ar pro­gram.

In this un­ex­pec­ted crisis in Ukraine, the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion will likely fo­cus on a show of dip­lo­mat­ic strength — and eco­nom­ic force — to isol­ate Putin, rather than rely on mil­it­ary might. So far, the U.S. has not ad­jus­ted its mil­it­ary as­sets in Europe or the Medi­ter­ranean. As Na­tion­al Journ­al‘s Mi­chael Hirsh wrote this week, “Obama and his part­ners in the G-8 and the West must now wrangle with some grim real­it­ies: First, a mil­it­ary re­sponse is un­think­able between the nuc­le­ar-armed former ad­versar­ies of the Cold War.”

Still, it’s pos­sible that the re­cent Rus­si­an in­cur­sion may spot­light the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion’s plans to close down mil­it­ary bases and fa­cil­it­ies in Europe. The United States has already shuttered about one-third of its in­fra­struc­ture in Europe, where few­er than 66,000 Amer­ic­an troops are sta­tioned, primar­ily in Ger­many, Italy, and Bri­tain. De­fense Sec­ret­ary Chuck Hagel has already warned more cuts are com­ing.

Tues­day’s mil­it­ary strategy fleshes out those ob­ject­ives. “We will con­tin­ue to study U.S. in­fra­struc­ture and headquar­ters in Europe to bal­ance fur­ther con­sol­id­a­tion in a time of fisc­al aus­ter­ity with our en­dur­ing re­spons­ib­il­ity to provide forces in re­sponse to crises in the re­gion and bey­ond, and to train with NATO al­lies and part­ners,” the strategy said.

“The de­part­ment will make every ef­fort to en­hance train­ing with European na­tions, re­cog­niz­ing their role as primary U.S. part­ners in op­er­a­tions glob­ally. We will con­tin­ue to work to achieve a Europe that is peace­ful and pros­per­ous, and we will en­gage Rus­sia con­struct­ively in sup­port of that ob­ject­ive.”

Now, however, with the mil­it­ary’s re­la­tions with Mo­scow cut off, it’s clear that en­ga­ging Rus­sia “con­struct­ively” for a safer Europe will be a tough­er task.

MOST READ
What We're Following See More »
1.5 MILLION MORE TUNED IN FOR TRUMP
More People Watched Trump’s Acceptance Speech
1 days ago
THE DETAILS

Hillary Clinton hopes that television ratings for the candidates' acceptance speeches at their respective conventions aren't foreshadowing of similar results at the polls in November. Preliminary results from the networks and cable channels show that 34.9 million people tuned in for Donald Trump's acceptance speech while 33.3 million watched Clinton accept the Democratic nomination. However, it is still possible that the numbers are closer than these ratings suggest: the numbers don't include ratings from PBS or CSPAN, which tend to attract more Democratic viewers.

Source:
×