It is said that a small Russian force could break NATO - as an American general, this is my opinion

If America cannot act quickly, it would be wise for Europe to think about how it will defend itself.

By: Lieutenant General Ben Hodges, former US Army officer who served as commander of US Army Europe / The Telegraph
Translation: Telegrafi.com

A newly released war game conducted in Germany has made headlines after suggesting that Russia could seize significant areas of NATO territory without the need for large numbers of troops and without suffering heavy casualties.

The war game was organized by the German newspaper The World, in collaboration with the German armed forces' military games center. The scenario, set in October 2026, envisioned Russia, using a humanitarian crisis in its Baltic enclave, Kaliningrad, as a pretext, to invade the Suwalki Corridor - a strip of Polish and Lithuanian territory between Kaliningrad and Russian ally Belarus.

In the war game, the pretext of a humanitarian intervention was enough to keep the US from intervening, and Russia was able to occupy the Lithuanian city of Marijampolė. This city is located at a key road junction, through which most of the traffic between Poland and Lithuania passes. The Russians, in this scenario, manage to incite a rift between the Baltic states that are members of NATO and their allies to the south and west.

The two most powerful NATO nations, which are normally expected to operate in this corridor even without US support, are Poland - in the south - and Germany, which maintains a brigade of troops in Lithuania. Britain has an armoured battle group in the Baltics, but it is located further away, in Estonia.

In the game, Poland mobilized but did not cross the border into Lithuania - partly because Russia would portray this as an attempt to obstruct humanitarian aid going to Kaliningrad. Germany hesitated and its ground forces did not act, partly because Russia used drones to lay mines on the roads leading to the German base.

In the endgame, NATO's credibility was shattered and the breakaway Baltic states slipped back under Russian domination. Russia deployed only about 15 troops.

In my opinion, this war game teaches us some very valuable lessons.

Lithuania's weakness

The first and most obvious is that the best way to protect Europe is to make sure that Ukraine defeats Russia. Russian forces significantly outnumbered Ukraine’s before the 2022 invasion, but Ukraine stopped them. In fact, helping Ukraine defeat Russia would show Putin that he has no chance of winning against the much more powerful NATO forces.

Then, it is clear that the failure of the Western alliance to address Russia's operations in the gray zone, over the past few years, has emboldened them and informed them of our weaknesses - perhaps the most serious of which is the collective lack of will to respond in kind to Russian provocations.

We must develop a sense of urgency in strengthening our cyber defenses of transportation, energy, and financial networks. We must also ensure that our cyber offensive capabilities are ready and devastating.

I believe, from the reports I have seen, that the German war game was well-designed, but it did not seem to take much account of air power. Reluctant governments are usually more willing to use air forces than ground troops, and NATO air forces are superior to those of Russia.

European NATO states, even without the US, now have more than 150 fifth-generation F-35 fighter jets: Russia has only a few Su-57 functional, and these are not true fifth-generation aircraft. NATO also has a strong force of radar-evading aircraft: Russia may no longer have this critical air warfare capability, thanks to Ukrainian efforts.

The game scenario strongly emphasizes the need to deter Russia by being able to act elsewhere in the event of a move in the Suwalki Corridor. Any such move would mean that cyberattacks would cripple Russia’s oil and gas infrastructure, for example, and that any Russian use of the Baltic Sea would be stopped. This would cut off the flow of illicit oil via the “shadow fleet” tankers to China and India, which would have a devastating effect on the Russian economy.

Any such move should also be discouraged by rendering futile - through neutralizing the Russian bases and missiles there using air power and precision strikes from a distance - the opening of the corridor to Kaliningrad. It would not be necessary to violate Russian soil or land that Russia considers its own, but Kaliningrad should be eliminated immediately as an asset of the Kremlin.

As an additional deterrent, NATO should make it clear that in such a scenario the Kola Peninsula would be immediately attacked through air power, long-range strikes, and cyberattacks, neutralizing Russia's submarine bases there.

As I said, I believe the war game was well-designed. However, I have considerable experience with NATO and German military mentality, and I have much more confidence - than the scenario suggests - that Bundeswehr forces in Lithuania, integrated with their Lithuanian allies, would perform very well.

However, I believe that the Baltic states should be prepared - in the worst case scenario - to fight without additional reinforcements for up to two weeks. If we were caught off guard (although this is a very unlikely scenario given the modern intelligence tools monitoring Russian forces in the region), it would take that long to assemble enough ground forces to enter and pass through the Corridor. So these states need a concept of general defense, similar to that of Finland, in which the entire society - if necessary - could quickly go to war.

We should also remember that Sweden and Finland are now members of NATO. This was a colossal strategic mistake on Putin’s part. The Baltic is now a NATO lake and there is now a “depth” for the Baltic States that did not exist before. For example, Latvia is supported by Sweden. The recent fortification by Sweden of the island of Gotland is extremely important. Similar processes should take place in Svalbard (by the Norwegians) and the Faroe Islands (by Denmark).

We must also assume that Russia will launch air/missile/drone strikes against all NATO ports and airports as part of any attack on the same scale - like the one the Ukrainians face every night. We are not yet prepared for this. NATO air defenses are potentially strong enough to mitigate or repel such attacks, but we do not train enough for such operations and do not have the necessary aircraft and weapons reserves.

Personally, as an American, I would stand with our European allies without hesitation. However, I believe it would be very smart for Europe to think and practice how it would defend itself if America did not act - or did not act quickly and decisively.

In such a case, speed and decisive action from Europe would be even more important - as this war game shows. /Telegraph/