Transport & logistics
stood together to protect security and enhance the defence of the bloc. Tossing aside its ‘tripwire’ posture, Nato agreed to bolster its presence in Eastern Europe, leading some to suggest we were back to Cold War objectives. It’s likely that Nato itself would not agree, but the reality is Europe’s military landscape has fundamentally evolved.
In its 75 years, Nato has focused on safeguarding the freedom of its 30 members through political and military means. Those two words are key: ‘political’ and ‘military’. Although many would tell you the two are working in sync – even more so today than at any time in its history – the reality is markedly different. The summit resulted in Nato plans to significantly increase the level of high-readiness forces, with battlegroups stationed in Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and Slovakia; more ships and planes in the region; a permanent US military base in Poland; and Finland and Sweden making urgent applications to join the alliance.
Glen Grant, a military and diplomatic veteran specialising in defence and security at the Baltic Security Foundation, says that, while there is political togetherness across Nato right now, the same can’t be said for the collective force structure it operates within. Branding the organisation “a bit shaky”, he laments its current position, singling out some for particular criticism. “We’ve got countries like Germany – well, their defence is broken, to be blunt,” he notes. “A lot of other countries have been playing games with defence since independence: Slovakia, Slovenia, the Czech Republic. They’ve all gone through stages of having more generals than soldiers, not actually grasping the nettle of what defence is – an organ of fighting on behalf of the state,” he says. His views raise questions for both political and military leaders of the alliance: aside from rhetoric, is it really well-positioned to defend against Russia? Grant says there’s been some “serious eye opening”, with some nations realising the challenge ahead and the need to act. “But that change is not going to be a five-minute job,” he says. “There’s not been a hard enough look at countries like Germany and France, and actually what they’re delivering. Even Britain is shrunk down to a level that they put tanks in Estonia and pulled them back out again at a time when, actually, they’re badly needed. [They did this] because the [British military] structure is just too small.” This perfectly illustrates the difficulties Nato faces
if it’s to defend Eastern Europe. But, says Grant, the conflict in Ukraine has gone some way to waking up alliance members and their military leadership. “I think what’s happened with Ukraine has actually kicked logistics extremely hard,” says Grant.
The politics of action
Grant believes that a lack of understanding – and even willpower – among Nato and Europe’s political leaders
has been challenged by the war, forcing them to address matters that had for too long gone ignored. “What we’re actually producing for Ukraine is now probably a good model for supporting Nato in the region. But, by goodness, hasn’t it taken us a long time to get there?”, he says. For him, while Nato’s support for Ukraine is an improvement, it still has work to do in enhancing its logistics function and its shortfalls. Aside from the lack of leadership and focus, a significant obstacle Nato faces in the region is infrastructure. Regardless of national and international support for the alliance, it has been said that roads, runways and ports in the countries bordering Ukraine are not up to the task of large-scale military mobilisation. “The infrastructural constraints facing Nato, in particular in Eastern Europe, have been well-known for a long time,” says Bosbotinis, “and addressing them needs to be prioritised.”
Above: Soldiers dismount an M2A3 Bradley Fighting Vehicle during a squad live-fire exercise at Drawsko Pomorskie, Poland.
Opposite page: US Army paratroopers load onto a CH-47 Chinook helicopter to conduct joint air assault training in Poland.
“Even Britain is shrunk down to a level that they put tanks in Estonia and pulled them back out again at a time when [...] they’re badly needed.”
Glen Grant
To be fair, this is fast becoming the priority Bosbotinis calls for. Across the region, military planners and civil authorities are working together to assess current capabilities and determine worthy projects. These include potential military reinforcement routes, fortifying bridges and complementing civilian airports with military transport functions, according to a Reuters report from November 2022. In that same article, Dutch admiral and chair of Nato’s military committee, Rob Bauer, noted that: “In many, many nations – not only the eastern flank – but in many, many nations, there are shortfalls in infrastructure.” In a bid to address this challenge, Brussels announced a new plan for military mobility in July
Defence & Security Systems International /
www.defence-and-security.com
€1.69bn
The budget assigned to the EU’s plan for military mobility, announced in July 2021.
European Commission 53
US Department of Defense
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57
