Assessing the Conventional Force Imbalance in Europe: Implications for Countering Russian Local Superiority

Boston, Scott; Johnson, Michael; Beauchamp-Mustafaga, Nathan; Crane, Yvonne K.

doi:10.7249/rr2402

Cited by 21 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, they also emphasize that steps should be taken to mitigate potential areas of vulnerability in the interest of ensuring a stable security relationship between all NATO members and Russia. The authors conclude that NATO has sufficient resources, personnel, and equipment to enhance conventional deterrence against Russia (Boston et al, 2018).…”

Section: Literature On Conventional Threat Scenarios In the Baltic Rementioning

confidence: 97%

Researching Baltic security challenges after the annexation of Crimea

Veebel

2019

Journal on Baltic Security

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The article aims to provide an insight into academic and military studies that investigate security challenges in the Baltic region after the annexation of Crimea. To do this in a systematic way, numerous academic and military studies and analyses in this field are divided into six broad categories: literature on conventional threat scenarios in the Baltic region; studies on nuclear escalation scenarios; publications that describe Russian viewpoints in the current confrontation with the West; studies that discuss security policy and security perceptions of the Baltic countries and the national security models of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania; studies on anti-access and area denial; and articles that analyse the dilemmas and challenges in association with understanding the essence of deterrence in the context of modern hybrid warfare and the build-up of a viable deterrence model in the Baltic region. In total, about 40 publications from the period between 2014 and 2019 are represented in this article. While some studies are already well known, others have undeservedly remained somewhat overlooked. This article attempts to correct this by highlighting and comparing the results of the most interesting and intriguing studies in this field. Through this, the author strived to maintain a balance between studies conducted both by military experts and by academics.

show abstract

Section: Literature On Conventional Threat Scenarios In the Baltic Rementioning

confidence: 97%

Researching Baltic security challenges after the annexation of Crimea

Veebel

2019

Journal on Baltic Security

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…86 As shown in Figure 3.1, Russia is organizing the ground forces under the 6th, 1st Guards Tank, and 20th Guards Armies, as well as around the 11th Corps, which is headquartered in Kaliningrad. IISS, 2017, p. 218;and Boston et al, 2018. NOTE: The dotted lines have been added to distinguish which units we assess to be assigned to each of the Army and Corps commands.…”

Section: European Operational Situationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…91 David A. Shlapak and Michael W. Johnson, Reinforcing Deterrence on NATO's Eastern Flank: Wargaming the Defense of the Baltics, Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation, RR-1253-A, 2016. 92Boston et al, 2018. …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

America's Strategy-Resource Mismatch: Addressing the Gaps Between U.S. National Strategy and Military Capacity

Bonds¹,

Mazarr²,

Dobbins³

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Limited Print and Electronic Distribution RightsThis document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.

show abstract

“…While these evolving threats are an important motivation for this 1 For the most thorough public assessment of trends in the U.S.-China military balance, see Eric Heginbotham, Michael Nixon, Forrest E. Morgan, Jacob L. Heim, Jeff Hagen, Sheng Li, Jeffrey Engstrom, Martin C. Libicki, Paul DeLuca, David A. Shlapak, David R. Frelinger, Burgess Laird, Kyle Brady, and Lyle J. Morris, The U.S.-China Scorecard: Forces, Geography, and the Evolving Balance of Power, 1996, Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation, RR-392-AF, 2015. For more on the Russian threat to North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), see Michael O'Hanlon, The Future of Land Warfare, Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2015;David A. Shlapak and Michael W. Johnson, "Outnumbered, Outranged, and Outgunned: How Russian Defeats NATO," War on the Rocks, April 21, 2016;and Scott Boston, Michael Johnson, Nathan Beauchamp-Mustafaga, and 2 For more on the impact of these threats on the modern American Way of War, see Alan J. Vick, Air Base Attacks study, the specifics of these threats and assessment of mitigating options are outside the scope of this analysis. 3 Second, in some cases (e.g., defense of air bases from cruise missile attack), service stakes and responsibilities are misaligned, inhibiting the U.S. Department of Defense's (DoD's) ability to correct shortfalls.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Aligning Roles and Missions for Future Multidomain Warfare

Zeigler¹,

Harting²,

Bae³

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In light of new priorities established in recent strategic-level guidance such as the 2018 National Defense Strategy (NDS); 1 the rapid evolution of the U.S. Air Force (USAF), sister service, and joint concepts for Multidomain Operations (MDO); and the creation of the U.S. Space Force (USSF), Headquarters USAF asked the RAND Corporation to explore how and where USAF roles and functions might change to better align with these new demands and opportunities. This report seeks to inform USAF deliberations on whether service roles and functions should be modified and, if so, where and how. The report begins with a short history of major roles and functions events, first at the level of the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), and then focuses on the events of greatest salience for the USAF. It then assesses the implications of roles and functions as regards recent strategic-level guidance, such as the 2018 NDS; emerging operational concepts; and the creation of the USSF within the U.S. Department of the Air Force. Finally, the report considers the relationship between the USAF institutional vision and roles and functions, and specifically how the USAF's vision of its purpose determines which roles and functions should be protected, pursued, or divested.

show abstract

Assessing the Conventional Force Imbalance in Europe: Implications for Countering Russian Local Superiority

Cited by 21 publications

References 0 publications

Researching Baltic security challenges after the annexation of Crimea

Researching Baltic security challenges after the annexation of Crimea

America's Strategy-Resource Mismatch: Addressing the Gaps Between U.S. National Strategy and Military Capacity

Aligning Roles and Missions for Future Multidomain Warfare

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About