A deck of US Navy aircraft carrier on battle station somewhere in Eurasia’s littorals (photo: Pixabay)
A symbol of XXI century power projection is the US Navy aircraft carrier combat group in Eurasia’s littorals, away from US homeports, which could not be opposed because the adversary would be defeated or destroyed, and Americans could carry out any military operations from aircraft carriers away from their home ports impacting situation on ground somewhere in rimlands of Eurasia. The military domination of the United States as a naval power after World War II was and still is based on the ability to project power in the world’s oceans and seas.
Projection of power far from one’s home area requires secure communication lines: sea, land, air, virtual, transmitting communications, etc.
It can freely project power where it wants and maintain trade or other relations with whom it wants. A power that does not or is unable to do so becomes dependent and becomes the area of influence of the one who has and controls the right communication lines. Therefore, in international relations, the control of communication lines is always a primary goal, even if unstated. The current freedom of sea communication routes is also only an illusion possible at a time when world primacy is wielded by a naval power controlling the World Ocean.
The development of aviation, including military aviation, does not fundamentally change the assumptions related to the projection of power. It only causes a “shrinkage” of space and allows the projection of power over greater distances, which only intensifies the “thickening” of geopolitical tension and the multiplication of geopolitical calculations made by various players, because aerial projection of force affects many countries and can quickly make its effect felt deep into political organisms (territories).
Where there is military strength and the capability to use it (power projection), there may be political influence that is always based on “leverage” (an instrument of pressure) to provide or remove security. Geography is ruthless and quite demanding in this respect. Without crossing the Danish Straits, the American ships will not enter the Baltic Sea. Anti-access/area denial Russian naval and air systems would complicate this option. Without Germany sharing its own territory, it will be difficult to get heavy US brigades through over to Poland and NATO’s eastern flank.
Without using Poland’s territory, it is impossible to help the Baltic states in the face of passages being blocked on the Baltic Sea through anti-access/area denial systems.
Even the most powerful NATO, well prepared for a full-scale war with Russia, could not cope with this condition. Therefore, geography gives Poland enormous power in the context of influencing its project and its allies’ strength, and at the same time responsibility in this respect, making it the focus of NATO’s eastern flank.
Well-prepared armed forces of smaller countries can prevent a foreign great power from imposing its will by raising costs and increasing the risk of power projection. Medium-sized countries will have to do just that in Eurasia with their own A2AD access system.
In the event of a further dismantling of the US led international order with United States as a “world military policeman”, such option – along with the temptation to embark on nuclear proliferation – will probably become the key wish in the menu of medium powers in order to prevent power projection of the dominant regional power and hedge against imposing the major power’s will on smaller countries.
Autor
Jacek Bartosiak
CEO and Founder of Strategy&Future, author of bestselling books.
Strategy&Future
Trwa ładowanie...