As Russia rises in Eastern Europe, the best deterrence against Vladimir Putin's geopolitical ambitions may not be more tanks and missiles, but new roads that can carry heavy civilian transport vehicles. That could solve NATO's big problem, which is the inability to get vehicles and supplies where they're needed fast.



Roads Win Wars

The strategic challenge for NATO is easy to see but hard to remedy. The alliance is based on collective defense, where each member rallies to help another in the event that Russian paramilitaries or tanks appear in their territory. But moving troops and equipment quickly enough to thwart Russian aggression may not be possible, and the chief problem is European roads.

"We had equipment that was stuck in Romania for more than two months"

Many roads cannot handle the weight of heavy equipment transports (HETs) that carry tanks and heavy artillery to the frontline. Regulations limit the weights allowed in various European nations. In addition, many of Europe's tunnels and bridges are too narrow for wide transports. The new nations in the Baltics have never really been integrated into the organization's ground logistics. Those nations may not enforce the same weight regulations, but their roadways would not accommodate or survive HETs carrying 60-ton tanks.

NATO's workaround has been loading tanks on trains. But even if trains do the lion's share of the work, you still need HETs to ferry tanks to where they’re needed. Train tracks and stations are also fixed targets, and Russia certainly has them mapped for possible sabotage, cyberattacks, and aerial bombing.

“In the event of a crisis,” says a recent report from the Center for European Policy. “HETs will be invaluable. They are also exceptionally limited at present. More are needed to provide for an effective deterrent; and to maximize NATO’s speed of reinforcement.”

Lost in Romania

HET Oshkosh Defense

To be sure, this is a return to a Cold War footing in Europe. One of the most vocal proponents of recapturing NATO’s mobility is Ben Hodges, a retired General Lieutenant who commanded NATO forces in Europe. In an interview this April during exercises in Romania, he said:

“What needs to be done now is to improve infrastructure rail, highways, so that the rest of the Alliance can get here. At the conclusion of the Saber Guardian exercise last year, we had equipment that was stuck in Romania for more than two months, trying to get it back to Germany. It's a combination of capacity and regulations.”

This content is imported from {embed-name}. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.

NATO tests how it can move equipment into the Baltics to be closer to Russia, it doesn’t like what it found. Hodges describes a U.S. Army HET crew embarking on such a test last year, trying to move a tank along a long, tortured route. “They drove it over the Carpathians, from Poland down to Mihail Kogalniceanu,” he said. “It was very, very difficult.”

Of course, you don’t need great roads as much when you have airplanes. But the range of Russian anti-aircraft weapons is growing and Moscow has not been shy about deploying them close to NATO borders, especially in its enclave in Kalingrad. That means NATO war planners can’t assume they will control the sky, which in turn means no cargo airplane landings or airdrops, especially during the critical opening hours of a conflict.

“They drove it over the Carpathians, from Poland down to Mihail Kogalniceanu."

Consider the Suwalki Gap, a narrow corridor that would be at risk from a quick Russian advance. “The Suwalki area is well within range of sophisticated Russian antiaircraft missiles stationed in Kaliningrad, so in combat simulations, NATO commanders have hesitated to send warplanes near the region,” the CEPA report says. “That led to the Baltics quickly being seized.”

How To Fix It

NATO has founded a new logistics command in Germany, its mission being to move troops more quickly across Europe. The command will certainly weigh in next year when the European Commission decides the best routes across Europe for military transport.

The CEPA report advocates even more flexible planning: “Allies should consider reviving Cold War-era programs that subsidized private-sector HET owners and operators — on the condition that such vehicles were made available to the armed forces as needed. This model could be updated for today’s requirements.”

As far as actually fixing the roads, here is where the war of words between allies (also known as diplomacy) comes in. President Trump has once again been calling on NATO allies to up their defense spending enough to reach the 2 percent of GDP threshold they are nominally supposed to meet. Perhaps European nations could lobby to count infrastructure spending as part of their commitment.

Spending on infrastructure may be easier to push on the domestic front—though it also makes the roads and bridges legitimate targets during a conflict. The words “dual use” can be a double-edged sword.

This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io