To rebuild robust land forces, Europeans should think a little like Americans, a little like Russians, and otherwise for themselves.
For years, Russia’s armed forces have conducted offensive exercises directed at Europe, such as the recent Zapad field exercise series. The exercises, aimed at reminding the West of Russia’s ability to defend its western flank, raise a troubling question: If Russia were actually to challenge the territorial integrity of a new NATO member in Eastern or Central Europe, how well could these countries respond to the crisis? Setting aside their all but meager military capabilities, often overlooked is that these countries have incoherent national chains of command that undermine democratic governance by confusingly entrusting leaders with authorities, not in keeping with their political responsibilities (Slovenia, Estonia, and Latvia arguably are notable exceptions). I argued recently in another forum that by using the lens of organizational sociology, one can see that these governments wittingly or unwittingly impede the effective development of “commanders.” Here, I posit a related question: Can the newest NATO states exercise national-level command effectively and in a predictable fashion in crisis and war?
NATO's chief says the military alliance will send two experts to attend Russia's war games with Belarus, after Minsk invited them to take part.
The war games, known as Zapad (West in Russian) and starting on Sept. 14, have raised tensions between NATO and Russia. Zapad will see thousands of troops and equipment from Russia and Belarus deployed near the borders with NATO members Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland.
In the wake of the presidential election, we’ve all been asking simplistic questions about how Donald Trump won. Was it economics? Was it racism? Was it misogyny? Did it come down to identity? We know that it can’t have been just one thing, and that President Trump’s triumph was a concoction of many things. Nonetheless, several factors came together in a peculiar way, with serious electoral consequences. Millions of white voters began to see themselves more openly not as white supremacists but as white identified.