WW3 Watch: U.S. Army rapid reaction force in Europe not ready for prime time against Russia
The U.S. Army has a rapid reaction force based in Italy — the 173rd Airborne Brigade — but according to a new internal study, it’s not ready to confront a high-tech, well-equipped military force like Russia or its proxies, which is what it was designed and deployed to do.
The problem is that the force, a bulwark of the NATO alliance, is under-equipped, undermanned, and inadequately organized after being sent to Iraq and Afghanistan multiple times over the past decade. The report notes that the brigade does not possess “essential capabilities needed to accomplish its mission effectively and with decisive speed,” according to the analysis.
After Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014, the 173rd’s paratroopers were the first to reach the Baltic states as a means of potentially countering any Russian or Russian-sponsored moves into any of those countries, and as a deterrent to an attack against NATO’s eastern flank.
But the new assessment lists several “capability gaps” that were seen during the unit’s recent training with Ukrainian troops that have been engaged against Russian-backed separatists who have employed low-cost drones and electronic warfare tools to pinpoint targets for artillery, even as they have destroyed Ukrainian government armored vehicles with state-of-the-art Russian antitank missiles.
The 173rd appears to be suffering from some of the same overuse/neglect that other active-duty infantry units with specific missions and skill sets are suffering: The grind of low-tech conflict in places where they were never designed to fight. The brigade is lacking air defense capabilities and electronic warfare units — capabilities it does not need or use against Islamic State militants and the Taliban, but which are vital in conventional slugfests with Russian or similar forces.
U.S. military commanders have seen first-hand the Ukrainian conflict and the capabilities fielded by Moscow. And they have seen front-line American units have their skill sets and other capabilities dulled by rag-tag police actions in a pair of long-running brush fire wars.
@culper is a former intelligence analyst who now tracks the risk and likelihood of world war.
Cc: @stevescoins
You need a graphic with your articles.
WWIII isn't going to go as expected.
I think to me this is the scariest part. I've seen some information predicting WWIII a couple of years ago and they said it usually takes place when you have a group of super powers instead of 1 and they were talking about how the US power has been slowly falling while the strength of others such as Russia and China were increasing leading to that perfect storm of another World War and a possible new world super power.
Nature hates a vacuum.
When one power weakens, another will emerge.
@gniksivart - It's called the Thucydides Trap, where a status quo power is challenged by a revisionist power (essentially what you're saying). Roughly 70% of the time, that trap results in war.
Yes, I believe that the U.S. will go to war to protect its supremacy/hegemony in the world. A U.S. that loses its pole position is one in decline and collapse. War is the only way to extend the life of Pax Americana.