High-ranking military officials in the United States deliberately hype the “Russian threat” in order to increase the defense budget of the country. This position is increasingly meets criticism and resistance both in the Pentagon and among authoritative retirees, says the American edition of Politico.
The American edition of Politico claims that the Pentagon intentionally inflates Russian threat to increase the budget allocated for the defense of the country. Mark Perry, a summary of the article which leads Inotv, recalls how a month ago during the meeting of the Subcommittee of the Senate armed forces sounded a grim warning about the future of the American army”: if the defence budget will not be increased, the US risks to be outdone in firepower, and the number of soldiers in the next war, particularly in the confrontation with Russia.
“The army of the future is too small to ensure the security of the nation” in comparison with the growing potential of Putin’s army — this was stated in the Senate four of the most influential military, among whom was Lieutenant-General Herbert McMaster. This perception is extremely common among the highest military ranks, the author of the article, but not everyone shares it.
As reported by Mark Perry one of the officials of the Pentagon, this view is “alarmist”, in the spirit of “the sky is falling”. “These guys want us to believe that the Russian 3 meters in height. But there is a simpler explanation: the US army is looking for a goal and wants to obtain a greater share of the budget. The best way to achieve this is to declare that the Russian is able to land at the same time in our rear and from both flanks. What nonsense!” — leads the author of the words of anonymous military official.
As the author of the article, the opinions in the Pentagon about how to respond to the reduction of the military budget, divided. At stake is the strategic future of the American army: whether it should modernize the Arsenal or opt for this increase of personnel? In April military authorities have made their choice: to counter Russia needs to implement both options. However, more of the military in the Pentagon believe that their bosses have not learned the lessons of Afghanistan and Iraq and inflates a foreign threat to “grab a piece of the larger defense budget,” writes mark Perry.
Numbers are probably on the side of those who favor reform. Perry cites the results of recent calculations, according to which the United States spends on defense is 7 times more than Russia ($598 billion against $84 billion), serving in the American army is almost two times more soldiers than the Russian armed forces (1.4 million 766 thousand). In the Arsenal of the Americans almost 6 times more helicopters (6 million vs. 1.2 million) and 3 times more fighters. However, the author clarifies, it is also true that in service in the Russian army is two times more tanks (15 million versus 8.8 thousand). Reformers believe that it is absurd to say that the American army is in trouble, looking at these numbers.
Among the most prominent critics of “alarmists” is a retired Lieutenant General, U.S. air force David Deptula. He said Mark Perry the following: “it is Time to stop waving the red shirt. To require more resources due to the fact that we have a loss — Wake-up call in order to develop a new approach, not in order to send more soldiers into the meat grinder”. According to Deptula, it is highly unlikely that the US army will be defeated, and Lieutenant-General Herbert McMaster did not consider in their calculations the scale of the U.S. air force.
When retired General Wesley Clark told Politico that Russia has developed tanks that are almost invulnerable to anti-tank missiles, some military criticized his words. “What nonsense! If Russian made tanks that cannot be destroyed, it would have happened for the first time in the history of warfare”. Public statements Clark look as if he is seeking confrontation with Russia: he even once compared Putin’s Russia to Nazi Germany, and recently suggested that withdrawal of the Russian troops from Syria was to reinforce the troops on the border with Ukraine, which in practice can mean “the end of European Union”.
Such panic rhetoric, said mark Perry, used not only in the US army. Some high-ranking officials of the Pentagon announced the author of the article, which is very concerned about the provocative statements of Philip Breedlove, who until recently held the post of commander of NATO forces in Europe. However, replacing Curtis Breedlove, Scaparotti known for their more balanced approach to the military buildup of the United States in Europe.
In early March, Breedlove told reporters that the situation in Ukraine is “getting worse every day” and that Russia in this conflict, “upped the ante”, sending to over a thousand combat vehicles, the Russian troops, the most modern anti-aircraft systems and artillery. One Pentagon official said Mark Perry, it is not so: “I have no Idea what it is.” Moreover, advisors of German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s statement called Breedlove’s “dangerous propaganda”. The German newspaper Der Spiegel even has published a collection of statements of Breedlove, which “played into the hands of anti-Russian hardliners in Congress and NATO.”
Disagree with the McMaster both military and civilian believe his dire predictions sidestep the real issue: whether the army is going to change the way of warfare. According to Deptula, the American army outnumbered since 1945, but she opposes the number of enemy soldiers to their potential. The army claims Deptula, always resisted that approach and demanded more soldiers.
Opinion Deptula shares and retired Colonel Douglas MacGregor. According to him, the McMaster and his colleagues are asking for money to increase the combat potential — “they just want a larger army, but more is not necessarily better”. McGregor also criticized the words of the former chief of staff Gordon Sullivan, who justified the demand to increase spending on the army by concern for the common soldier.
“If the generals really cared about soldiers, the last 15 years would have been very different. What became of thousands of lives and trillions of dollars squandered in Iraq and Afghanistan? What happened to the billions lost during the various modernisation programmes since 1991?” — quotes Politico review of McGregor.
