Air Force Discharges First Service Members for Refusing COVID-19 Vaccine

Dec. 14, 2021 | By Greg Hadley

The Department of the Air Force discharged 27 service members for refusing to get the COVID-19 vaccine, marking the first known instance of military personnel being kicked out of the service for failing to follow Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III’s order that all service members receive the vaccine.

An Air Force spokeswoman confirmed the discharges to Air Force Magazine on Dec. 14, saying all of those discharged were Active-duty members, but the exact breakdown between Airmen and Guardians was not immediately known.

The number of those discharged is almost certain to grow—when the department’s first-in-the-military deadline of Nov. 2 passed, 800 Airmen and Guardians were recorded as refusing the vaccine. Since then, the number of refusers has grown past 1,000 in the Active duty, and includes 3,234 across the total force.

This first wave of discharges includes Airmen and Guardians for whom the separation process was the most straightforward. None of those discharged sought a religious or medical exemption, the Air Force confirmed—if they had, they would have been considered in compliance with the vaccine mandate while their request was pending. And the majority were in their first term of enlistment—Airmen who have six or more years of service, as well as those who are noncommissioned officers or who are being discharged under anything less than honorable conditions, have the right to a hearing by an administrative discharge board.

Those discharged were counseled on the benefits of the vaccine, and their commanders were allowed to impose punishments short of separation, an Air Force spokeswoman said. In the end, however, they continued to refuse the vaccine, disobeying a lawful order.

On Dec. 7, the Air Force released its procedure for dealing with vaccine refusers, giving those who refuse and are denied an exemption five days to either start the vaccination process, file an appeal, or request to separate or retire. Those who still refuse “will be subject to the initiation of administrative discharge,” according to the memo signed by Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall.

The vast majority of Airmen and Guardians have followed the order to get the vaccine—the department’s most recent data show 97.3 percent of the Active-duty force and 95.4 percent of the total force are at least partially vaccinated, with roughly another 1 percent currently holding medical or administrative exemptions.

On Nov. 1, the Air Force announced that it had discharged nearly 40 basic military and technical trainees for refusing the COVID-19 vaccine. Unlike the 27 Active-duty members discharged, though, those individuals were recruits and not yet members of the military, an Air Force spokeswoman said.

No Accountability for Kabul Airstrike That Killed 10 Civilians, Pentagon Says

Dec. 13, 2021 | By Greg Hadley

A pair of combatant commanders reviewed the Air Force Inspector General’s report on the erroneous Aug. 29 airstrike that killed 10 civilians in Kabul, Afghanistan, and made no recommendations related to accountability, the Defense Department’s top spokesperson said Dec. 13.

U.S. Central Command head Gen. Kenneth F. McKenzie Jr. and U.S. Special Forces Command boss Gen. Richard D. Clarke both reviewed the report from Air Force IG Lt. Gen. Sami D. Said and reported back a variety of recommendations to Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III, Pentagon Press Secretary John F. Kirby said. Not included, however, was any recommendation of punishment or discipline for the service members involved in the strike.

“None of their recommendations dealt specifically with issues of accountability,” Kirby said in a press briefing. “The Secretary reviewed their recommendations—I won’t get into all of them; some of them are understandably classified—but he approved their recommendations. So I do not anticipate there being issues of personal accountability to be had with respect to the Aug. 29 airstrike.”

Kirby later confirmed that Austin is not calling for any accountability measures in relation to the strike, which came after 13 U.S. service members were killed in a terrorist attack at Hamid Karzai International Airport.

Austin’s decision, Kirby added, was in line with the conclusion reached by McKenzie and Clarke—that the airstrike, which killed aid worker Zemari Ahmadi and nine members of his family, was caused by a breakdown in process and execution, “not the result of negligence, not the result of misconduct, not the result of poor leadership,” Kirby said.

As to whether lower-level commanders will be able to implement any accountability measures as a result of the strike, Kirby deferred to McKenzie and Clarke.

The original investigation by Air Force Inspector General Lt. Gen. Sami D. Said found that a strike cell in Qatar, studying video footage for eight hours, believed Ahmadi’s white Toyota Corolla was a vehicle of interest and that he was involved in planning a terrorist attack against American service members at Hamid Karzai International Airport in Kabul. Only three days earlier, the 13 Americans had been killed in a terrorist attack at the airport checkpoints, and the investigation found that the attack, in part, led to confirmation bias and the erroneous strike, though no laws were broken.

Shortly after Said’s report was released in early November, the New York Times reported that in a 2019 strike against ISIS in Baghuz, Syria, dozens of civilians were killed along with 16 fighters before U.S. Central Command allegedly covered up wrongdoing and disallowed an investigation of war crimes.

A few days after the Times report, Austin briefed the media on civilian casualties and said DOD has “more work to do in that regard, clearly.” When asked if he would impose disciplinary action or otherwise hold people accountable, Austin said that “leaders in this department should be held to account for high standards of conduct and leadership.”

In the case of the Afghan airstrike, Austin did not believe accountability measures were needed, Kirby said. Generally speaking, though, Kirby said the department is open to changes “to the way we analyze information and intelligence, act on that intelligence, target, and … the actual execution procedures of a strike.”

No such changes were announced Dec. 13.

Dr. Steven Kwon, the head of the aid group Nutrition & Education International, where Ahmadi worked, issued a statement calling the lack of discipline for the airstrike “shocking,” according to CNBC.

“How can our military wrongly take the lives of 10 precious Afghan people and hold no one accountable in any way?” Kwon said. “What message is it sending to family members who lost their loved ones—and my employees who lost a beloved colleague?”

Kwon’s statement also criticized the Pentagon for not yet evacuating family members of those killed from Afghanistan or paying reparations. Kirby responded by saying DOD remains committed to both options.

“We are working very hard with [Kwon] and his organization to affect the relocation of the family members,” Kirby said. “And I think as you can understand that, with respect to an ex gratia payment, which we’re absolutely willing to make, we want to make sure that we do it in the most safe and responsible way, so that we know it’s getting to the right people and only to the right people.”

USAFE Watchful, But Operating Normally, as Tensions Build Between Russia, Ukraine

Dec. 13, 2021 | By John A. Tirpak

U.S. Air Forces in Europe hasn’t changed the way it operates even though Russia is massing forces on the Ukraine border, but U.S. and NATO allies are keeping a close watch on the tensions, USAFE commander Gen. Jeffrey L. Harrigian said Dec. 13.

Speaking at an AFA Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies virtual event, Harrigian said the NATO air arms are “working closely together to understand” what Russia’s activities, in all domains, are in order to have a “shared understanding” of what’s going on.

“We’re largely focused on … how we ensure our team is ready, our posture is where it needs to be, and we’re working that in cooperation” with allies and regional partners, Harrigian said, indicating no change in the posture of USAFE in light of Russia’s movements. If partners spot a change in Russian activities or status, they will alert the U.S., he said, and “we [will] all have a better understanding of what options would be available to us.”

He said his “Job 1” is to “offer my best military advice to General [Tod D.] Wolters, [Supreme Allied Commander, NATO], and … up through the Secretary” of Defense.

“Our focus internally is we’ve got to make sure we’re ready. And that readiness piece is across not just the airplanes but the people,” Harrigian said.

“We all want diplomacy to work,” but “as we work through the options we’re going to present, it’s going to all be about avoiding miscalculation” and anything that “takes decision space away from our superiors.”

He’s also communicating to the Airmen of USAFE the seriousness of the Ukraine tensions and emphasizing that Airmen remain resilient.

Harrigian said USAFE and Ukraine have not conducted any joint air exercises in the last couple of years and that non-flying joint drills have been about “force development activities” on which he did not elaborate.

Retired Lt. Gen. David A. Deptula, dean of AFA’s Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, talks with U.S. Air Forces in Europe-Air Forces Africa boss Gen. Jeffrey L. Harrigian during a Dec. 13 Mitchell event.

The October 2018 Clear Sky Exercise was the last joint air drill between the two countries. It paired U.S. Air National Guard and Lakenheath, U.K.-based F-15s with Ukrainian MiG-29 Fulcrums, Su-27 Flankers, and Su-24 Fencers to “increase the level of interoperability” between the air arms, according to a USAFE release. U.S. C-130s and KC-135 tankers participated as well.

Harrigian has had conversations with the Ukrainian air chief, but not recently. “There’s a relationship there. We expect that to continue,” he added.

Relative to operating in proximity to Russia, Harrigian said, “We have, over the last 18 months, continued to execute operations in international waters,” and “that has not changed at this point.” USAFE has exercised with the U.S. Navy and partner navies in the Baltic and Black Seas, refining tactics, techniques, and procedures “and the way we do business,” he said. This practice will ensure an up-to-date shared understanding of TTPs in the event of a crisis, Harrigian added.

He said Bomber Task Forces dispatched to Europe by Air Force Global Strike Command have been a great success delivering the message that the U.S. is able to rapidly deploy heavy airpower to the continent. Harrigian said allies and partners are lining up to participate in future such deployments, either running intercepts or escorting American bombers.

The 9th Expeditionary Bomb Squadron completed a six-week bomber task force mission Nov. 15 across the North Sea, Baltics, and Black Sea region, integrating coalition capabilities and practicing agile combat employment. The next such deployment will happen soon, Harrigian said. The deployments are also essential in familiarizing bomber pilots with operating in Europe so that if they need to conduct a real-world contingency, “it won’t be the first time” they’ve flown in the region.

Oklahoma Air National Guard Member Awarded Distinguished Flying Cross

Dec. 13, 2021 | By Amy Hudson

An Oklahoma Air National Guard Member received the Distinguished Flying Cross—the nation’s fourth-highest award for valor in combat—earlier this month for his actions during a Taliban attack in Afghanistan in 2018.

On April 30, 2018, Lt. Col. Michael Coloney was assigned to the 125th Expeditionary Fighter Squadron when more than 80 Taliban fighters attacked U.S. and Afghan Special Forces who were clearing a village in the Kapisa province.

The F-16 pilot was already airborne on another previously assigned mission when he immediately retasked to provide air support to the U.S. and Afghan troops as the Taliban launched rockets and grenades and shot small arms and high-powered machine guns at them.

He worked with combat controllers on the ground for approximately five hours, employing GPS-guided bombs and conducting high-angle strafe attacks on the Taliban fighters, sometimes less than 30 meters from friendly forces.

There were 11 casualties that day, including one American Soldier who was killed in action, but Coloney’s fire power enabled the friendly forces to escape the enemy without further loss of life.

“It was his exemplary skill, outstanding airmanship, and devotion to duty under extremely hazardous conditions that allowed Coloney to save the lives of so many U.S. and Afghan Special Forces troops that day, for which he earned the Distinguished Flying Cross,” according to an Air National Guard release.

Moving at the Speed of the Mission With Data Fabric

Dec. 13, 2021

As the DoD presses forward with Joint All-Domain Command and Control (JADC2) programs and architectures the Air Force is working to stand up technology centers that will not only allow for the sharing of data but for the sharing of data in motion. Our warfighters and peacekeepers need real time data to make decisions in the field and the traditional database structure, modernized with data lakes cannot operate at the speed of the mission.

What is Data Fabric?

Gartner defines data fabric as a design concept that serves as an integrated layer (fabric) of data and connecting processes. This layer utilizes continuous analytics over existing, discoverable, and inferenced metadata assets to support the design, deployment, and utilization of integrated and reusable data across all environments. It continuously identifies and connects data from disparate applications to discover unique, business-relevant relationships between the available data points. A Data Fabric approach enables software factories that practice continuous integration/continuous delivery (CI/CD) to deploy faster and automate version control with their internal and external data integrations.

Why do we need it?

There is an acute need to avoid the same mistakes of past data modernizations efforts. Attempting to create yet another centralized data lake with all an agency’s data would just add to data sprawl as existing databases aren’t likely to be going anywhere. More importantly, data at rest in a datastore isn’t useful when it isn’t being actively queried. Instead, as DoD has shown with JADC2, there is a real need to start thinking about creating a central connective tissue that conducts data across organizations. Doing so allows for data to stay in motion, becoming available across the enterprise as it is created and available to those who need it precisely when they need it.

“Data-in-motion is really about inverting the longstanding dynamic of data at rest. Rather than storing the data away in silos where it’s static and asking retroactive questions, what you want to do is publish the data as a stream and constantly deliver it for real-time analysis,” said Will LaForest, public sector chief technology officer at Confluent.

By removing the storage resting place, you are decoupling the producers of the data from the consumers. Data Fabric provides the connective tissue of decoupling all the different actors within an organization, so they can all produce and consume independently. This is key to making solutions scalable across a large organization – even one as big as the DoD.

How do we weave data into fabric?

A U.S. Air Force Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Phase III contract was recently issued to focus on deploying a Data Fabric in the Air Force. Run out of the Chief Architect Office (CAO) of the Department of the Air Force (DAF), this project aims to invigorate innovation for data centralization using event streaming architecture and integrated solutions for easier data analysis.

The CAO mission objective is to ease data visibility with an enterprise data architecture prototype that allows users to access previously siloed data, platforms, or producers by changing users’ interaction with data. A tactical Data Fabric will become a global “source-of-truth” that will make it easier to integrate disparate applications by unlocking mission silos and sharing data in real-time between analytics and mission systems.

The CAO solution is utilizing Kafka, an open source distributed event streaming platform capable of handling trillions of events a day. Kafka’s enterprise scalability has made it the open-source industry standard in not just messaging, but event streaming, allowing for real-time processing, curation, and transformation of the data in motion To support the enterprise use of Kafka, they are implementing Confluent, engineered and released by the original creators of Kafka. Confluent is the mission-ready form of Kafka with significant enhancements for developers, operations and administrators along with critical security features required by Federal programs and supported 24/7.

Turning Data Fabric into a full outfit

The Confluent Platform provides security, encryption, and monitoring capabilities including Confluent Control Center, Role-Based and Policy-Based Access Control, and FIPS 140-2 Compliance. These capabilities allow for the handling of the most sensitive data sets for critical mission operations while preserving the speed, flexibility, and scalability of Kafka.

Connectors, pre-delivered integration points to external sources of data, are key to the functioning of a data fabric. Confluent provides and supports a large collection of connectors to make integration with the data-fabric a low-no code endeavor and accelerate mission data integration from existing and emerging programs. These connectors, unlike legacy systems dependent on slower transactional REST APIs, allow for real-time streaming of data and avoid time consuming and costly creation of custom data endpoints.

A Fabric Future

A data fabric architecture meets all eight guiding principles in the DoD Data Strategy from viewing data as a strategic asset to collective stewardship and enterprise access to being designed for compliance. By “dressing” DoD systems in data fabric, our military can better utilize data to meet the vision of JADC2 and share information at speed and scale for operational advantage and increased efficiency.

NATO’s Plan to Grow Trust in Military AI

Dec. 13, 2021 | By Amanda Miller

Western militaries—already “late to the party” in the creation of artificial intelligence—risk unforeseen consequences by adopting AI made for the commercial sector, said NATO’s David van Weel.

That’s why the alliance is publicizing a new plan by which it hopes its governments will get involved in AI development from the start, both for security reasons and to “bridge a gap of distrust” in the technology.

Though he acknowledged that sharing the plan is a bit out of character for NATO, all 30 nations, including the U.S., have signed on.

“We are not known, at NATO, for publishing a lot,” said van Weel, assistant secretary general for emerging security challenges. “We try to keep secrets a lot.”

Van Weel introduced NATO’s AI strategy, published in October, during an American Enterprise Institute webinar Dec. 7. The webinar “Artificial Intelligence: Can We Go From Chaos to Cooperation?” accompanied the release of AEI’s paper, “Artificial Intelligence: The Risks Posed by the Current Lack of Standards.”

As a “pervasive technology,” AI will “have an impact on everything we do,” said van Weel. Setting aside “the killer robot discussion,” van Weel dismissed the notion of excluding AI from all military uses: “The idea that AI would not be used for defense purposes is like saying that the steam engine, when it was invented, could only be used for commercial purposes, or electricity would not be supplied to the military.”

But being behind the private sector in AI development has left governments “in a situation where regulation comes after the broad use and misuse of technology,” van Weel said. “So we need to be early to the party and make sure that we understand new technologies, not to militarize them—no, but to understand the security and defense implications.”

Van Weel said military uses of AI should be regulated, but “you don’t want to over-regulate if you don’t know that you can defend yourself within the regulations that you’re proposing.” He provided the example of drone swarms “that collectively, powered by AI, are able to follow an intrinsic pattern—for example, our water supply or one of our cities. So how do we defend against them? Well, we can’t, frankly, because you need AI in that case in order to be able to counter AI.”

But even among peers, he describes skepticism.

“I’ve been on panels quite a lot where people say, ‘Well, please, I don’t trust the defense use of artificial intelligence,’ and that’s something we need to address,” van Weel said. “We are a trusted user. We—NATO, all the 30 allies—we all subscribe to the democratic values. We all subscribe to the values our societies are built upon, and we’re there to protect them.”

NATO’s strategy proposes six principles of responsible use of AI similar to the Defense Department’s Ethical Principles for Artificial Intelligence adopted in 2020—but with a plan to verify that the principles are followed. According to NATO’s list of attributes, military AI should be lawful; responsible and accountable; explainable and traceable; reliable; governable; and having bias mitigation.

To engender confidence in the principles, NATO has also proposed a new initiative.

“Principles are nice, but they need to be verifiable as well, and they need to be baked in from the moment of the first conception of an idea up until the delivery,” van Weel said.

To that end, to verify new AI, NATO wants to create test centers, co-located with universities throughout the alliance. This includes “existing test centers with knowledge, where allies that are thinking about co-developing AI for use in the defense sector can come in and verify, with protocols, with certain standards that we’re setting, that this AI is actually verified,” van Weel said.

“It’s not a world standard yet, but if the 30 nations, Western democracies, start out by shaping industry to adhere by these standards, then I feel that we are making an impact, at least in the development of AI and hopefully also in the larger world setting standards.”

70th Annual Operation Christmas Drop Delivers Supplies to Remote Pacific Islands

Dec. 10, 2021 | By Greg Hadley

The Pentagon’s longest-running humanitarian mission hit a new milestone this month as Pacific Air Forces kicked off the 70th annual Operation Christmas Drop on Dec. 5.

Operation Christmas Drop involved Airmen from the 36th Wing, 515th Air Mobility Operations Wing, and 374th Airlift Wing gathering, packing, and dropping pallets of supplies from C-130s to more than 55 remote islands in the southeastern Pacific, including the Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of Palau.

The operation first began in 1952 when a B-29 aircrew flying over the island of Kapingamarangi, 3,500 miles southwest of Hawaii, saw islanders waving at them, according to a PACAF release. The crew dropped supplies attached to a parachute to them, starting an annual tradition.

In 2021, the Air Force and partner nations dropped some 25,000 kilograms worth of supplies, including school supplies, clothing, rice, fishing equipment, and toys, impacting about 20,000 people, said Capt. Dan Mumford, one of the C-130J pilots flying the mission, in an interview released by the 36th Wing.

“These islands are some of the most remote in the world. They may get a boat of supplies every 4 to 5 months, but there are no airports and little to no visitors,” Mumford said in the interview. “However, we do communicate with the islands through a system of ham radios, and although many do not speak English, the stories of excitement and gratitude that are sent back to us are touching. The thing that really got me was when I was told the children on these islands don’t believe Santa Claus flies a magical sleigh—he flies a C-130.”

Speaking at a ceremony to commemorate the start of Operation Christmas Drop at Andersen Air Force Base, Guam, on Dec. 5, Larry Raigetal recalled his childhood on one such island.

“I was curious where the toys were coming from, much less being fascinated with the Air Force guys standing in the C-130 and tossing down those boxes,” Raigetal said. “I wanted to find out where they came from. I wanted to know what the source was.”

Donated supplies are gathered from private donors, charitable organizations, and the University of Guam and sorted by volunteers before being packed into pallets, Mumford said. From there, crews execute low-cost, low-altitude air drops over the course of a week. And it’s not just a humanitarian mission.

“This training mission is not only a tradition but provides relevant and real training necessary for our Airmen and partner nations in the Indo-Pacific region,” Gen. Kenneth S. Wilsbach, Pacific Air Forces commander, said in a release.

Similar to last year, precautions were taken to lessen the risk of COVID-19. All pilots and aircrew were fully vaccinated; all volunteers handling donations wore face masks and gloves; and pallets were left untouched for hours before being closed.

Ukraine Says It Can Deter a Russian Invasion With Air Defenses; NATO Calls for ‘Adjustments’

Dec. 10, 2021 | By Abraham Mahshie

NATO members closest to the Russian threat are seeking “adjustments” to the alliance’s defense posture to show Russian President Vladimir Putin that America will defend NATO’s eastern flank in the event of hostilities in Ukraine. Meanwhile, a Ukrainian defense official who spoke to Air Force Magazine on condition of anonymity said “a signal” that the U.S. will deliver needed air defenses to Ukraine would be enough to deter Russia from mounting an invasion.

In recent weeks, President Joe Biden and Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III promised that Ukraine will get the assistance it needs to defend itself. A last-minute visit to Washington by Ukrainian Defense Minister Oleksii Reznikov on Nov. 19 detailed an urgent need for air defense capabilities, and an American air defense team visited Ukraine to assess the country’s needs Nov. 29. But still, there has been no new announcement of defense assistance to Ukraine.

Meanwhile, Russia appears to be preparing for war.

“First, Russia will use its Air Force and missiles,” said the Ukrainian defense official, describing a buildup of military medical supplies, blood, and plasma along the Russian border with Ukraine that is consistent with casualty care. Further, hundreds of empty tents are positioned and ready for the arrival of Russian combat brigades. Only a small number of those tents are heated for soldiers who maintain the readiness of waiting Russian tanks.

“We have to prepare now,” the official said. “Point No. 1 is air defense.”

The swampy, soft land of the Donbas region in southeastern Ukraine will freeze in January, making it easy for Russian tanks to roll in with air support. American-supplied and Ukrainian-purchased javelin anti-tank weapons will help push them back. But Ukraine’s air defenses are insufficient to stop Russian fighter jets, bombers, and attack helicopters from striking positions in eastern Ukraine “in a matter of hours.” The ability to shoot down Russian aircraft can deter Putin from invading, Ukraine believes.

In Georgia in 2008, several Russian aircraft were shot down in the opening salvo, including a strategic bomber, before Russia pulled back its air offensive.

“Even with weak air defenses, we can shoot down a couple aircraft,” the Ukrainian official said. “How many casualties will they sustain?”

Until now, Russian deaths in the seven-year, low-intensity conflict with Ukraine have been hidden from public view, buried in unmarked graves near the Russian frontline, Ukrainian intelligence has found.

A recent Russian troop buildup of some 100,000 personnel has surrounded Ukraine and its army of 250,000 troops. An estimated 35,000 to 40,000 Russian and Russian-backed separatists are near the breakaway republics of Donetsk and Luhansk in southeastern Ukraine, requiring a roughly equivalent Ukrainian force on a three-pronged rotation. Russia’s joint Zapad exercises with Belarus in September positioned additional equipment and forces along Ukraine’s northern border, and the Belarusian Army is believed to act at the command of Putin. To the west of Ukraine’s principal port Odessa, on the southern coast, is the disputed Transnistria region of Moldova. An additional 1,500 Russian soldiers are positioned there with reinforcements to assist a potential amphibious attack from the Black Sea, where Russia maintains a powerful naval presence.

“Any weapon is a deterrent,” the Ukrainian defense official said.

“It’s the signal,” the official added, describing how Ukraine can prevent a Russian invasion with U.S. defense assistance. “It can declare openly that, ‘We will provide assistance with the appropriate capabilities.’”

NATO’s Defense Posture

The Eastern flank of NATO, from the Baltic countries to Poland to the Black Sea countries of Romania and Bulgaria, were part of the Soviet Union or members of the Warsaw Pact. The Russian exclave of Kaliningrad shares borders with both Poland and Lithuania, and Russian-occupied Crimea is just 200 miles from Romania on the Black Sea. These heavily defended non-contiguous outposts are separated by a buffer zone of non-NATO countries. The largest country among them is Ukraine.

Ukraine’s drift to the West, including a constitutional mandate to seek European Union and NATO membership, has been a redline Putin has sought to stop.

The 2014 Russian invasion by “little green men” that bore no identifying flag on their shoulders seized Crimea and created a low-intensity conflict in the Donbas region of southeastern Ukraine. A full-scale Russian invasion would destabilize Europe and bring Russia closer to the NATO borders of the countries that once formed part of the Russian Empire.

The Biden administration and the Defense Department have indicated that deterrence on the eastern flank is currently sufficient. Eastern flank defense officials who spoke to Air Force Magazine said otherwise.

“We kind of signaled to the U.S. that certain adjustments [should] come, even right now, to signal resolve,” an eastern flank defense official close to discussions at NATO headquarters in Brussels told Air Force Magazine.

“We suggested some kind of a visible signal of resolve and then preparing options for possible escalation,” the official said. “Then, the U.S. and NATO in general should be in position to be prepared, should be prepared basically, to reinforce the east.”

Former George W. Bush-era deputy assistant secretary of state Mark Gunzinger said the eastern flank nations have serious concerns about the possibility that Putin would invade Ukraine.

“He already successfully seized and occupied Crimea,” said Gunzinger, now director of future aerospace concepts and capabilities assessments at AFA’s Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies.

“If he should do that in the eastern provinces of Ukraine, that escalates tensions throughout Europe, of course,” he continued. “So should we expect that three, four, or five years from then, maybe he makes a similar move against Estonia, or Latvia, or Lithuania, under the pretense of, ‘Well, we’re protecting our Russian nationals in the eastern provinces and countries—this is defensive in nature.’”

Gunzinger added: “It could erode, frankly, confidence in NATO and its ability to deter threats.”

The U.S. has committed to support a Baltic integrated air and missile defense system. All that currently exists in the three nations sandwiched between Kaliningrad and Belarus are a hodgepodge of small European and Soviet-era systems for short and medium-range air defense. The Baltic nations are also without an air force and depend on European NATO air policing aircraft to regularly push Russian jets out of NATO airspace. All while heavily guarded Kaliningrad is armed with Russia’s most exquisite anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) weapon system, the S-400.

“Kaliningrad Oblast remains the most militarized area in our region,” a Lithuanian defense official told Air Force Magazine, noting that 500 U.S. troops are currently in Lithuania as part of a rotational battalion.

“[It] continues to pose a threat to all of the Baltic region, as well as a majority of the Western European capitals, because of the operational reach of weapons systems that are deployed,” he added.

The official said that similarly, preventing a Russian invasion of Ukraine is a matter of national security for the Baltic nations.

“We should do everything to prevent that,” he added. “Doing everything that’s possible, both from Lithuania and, collectively, to prevent anything like Russia occupying Ukraine. So, that would be the main objective.”

The NATO posture on the eastern flank is not designed to do that.

“This is not a process that is meant to deter a Russian incursion into Ukraine,” the Brussels official said of alliance capabilities in the region. “This was meant in terms of the reinforcement of the eastern flank.”

The official said nonetheless additional U.S. presence and capabilities to counter Russian A2AD and long-range precision strike capabilities are still needed to deter Russia.

“I don’t think that the intent of the U.S. right now is to deter militarily Russia from attacking Ukraine,” the official said, citing President Biden and National security Advisor Jake Sullivan’s warning to Russia about strong economic sanctions and political measures should Russia invade Ukraine.

‘De-escalation and Diplomacy’

Briefing journalists after President Biden’s 90-minute Dec. 9 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and a separate call with the Bucharest Nine group of Eastern European NATO allies, a senior administration official said Biden told Putin that Ukraine would receive additional defense assistance “if Russia further invades Ukraine.” That is, after a potential invasion.

That assistance would be coupled with economic sanctions and further capabilities for NATO allies on the eastern flank. The official said Biden called on Putin to choose “de-escalation and diplomacy.”

“What I can say from the President’s perspective is that he did make very clear to President Zelensky what he had also said to President Putin, which is a strong and ongoing commitment by the United States to Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, [citing] the continuing security assistance that we have been continuing to provide to Ukraine,” the senior administration official told reporters.

The Ukrainian defense official said Russia reacts to strength and Putin is provoked to act when he sees weakness and opportunity.

The range of creative solutions to deter Russia from invading Ukraine has included diverting bought and paid for military hardware that was originally intended for the former government of Afghanistan; inviting U.S. aircraft to land and refuel at Ukrainian air bases; and an invitation for the U.S. to train troops further east than the Yavoriv Combat Training Center, where the Florida National Guard’s 53rd Infantry Brigade Combat Team recently arrived for a training mission.

“It would show the flag,” the Ukrainian official said, referring to the deterrent effect of U.S. troops on Ukrainian soil.

So far, those offers have been declined, with Biden saying Dec. 8 that the option of U.S. troops in Ukraine was “not on the table.”

The Brussels official said there is a split between Eastern and Western European NATO allies over defense support to Ukraine.

“This can only be done by individual allies,” the official said.

“We welcome U.S. assistance to Ukraine,” the official added. “We think that is a step to deter possible aggression—if it’s effective, if it’s in time. Air defenses would certainly provide dilemmas to Russian plots.”

Members of Congress wrote a letter Dec. 8 calling on the President to deliver more defense assistance to Ukraine. In addition, a hefty Ukraine defense assistance package lingers as part of the as-yet un-passed National Defense Authorization Act, though enacting and delivering such a thing could take months or years.

Only the President can use drawdown authorities to authorize and quickly deliver defense assistance to Ukraine as he did with a $60 million package when Zelensky visited Washington in August.

“I don’t think he would give it the level of assistance that would be needed for Ukrainian forces to inflict that kind of a punishment against an invading force,” Gunzinger said.

“This is more than a temporary crisis involving Ukraine,” he added. “This involves defense of NATO’s eastern flank, and more needs to be done.”

Space Command’s Goal of Uniting All US Military Space Functions

Dec. 10, 2021 | By Amanda Miller

The leaders at U.S. Space Command plan to figure out over the long term how to turn their command’s service-affiliated component commands—units from the Air Force, Army, Marine Corps, and Navy—into “functional components.”

The Space Force, on the other hand, already contributes “the lion’s share of what we have,” said U.S. Space Command’s deputy commander, Space Force Lt. Gen. John E. Shaw, during the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies’ virtual Spacepower Forum on Dec. 10.

Shaw said he’d seen “tremendous change” not just within the command but “across the space enterprise” since becoming deputy commander in November 2020. That’s included “integration” of U.S. Space Command and the Space Force into other military services and other combatant commands “and across the department of defense and beyond—allies and partners and other parts of our government.”

Bringing on service-affiliated component commands, such as 1st Air Force with its mission of homeland defense, brings together the abilities that all services have to reach space one way or another.

“For example, the Navy may have some terrific radars on some of its vessels that are capable of reaching up into—beyond—the atmosphere and tracking objects in orbit,” Shaw said. “The Army may have some sort of a similar capability to conduct electromagnetic warfare that could extend into the space domain. Gen. Dickinson needs that capability,” he said, referring to U.S. Space Command’s commander Army Gen. James H. Dickinson.

“We need the capabilities of all services, and we need integration with all of the services, to make sure that we are providing space capabilities to joint warfighters in the terrestrial domains—but also to leverage everything that all of the other services can bring to meet Gen. Dickinson’s missions,” Shaw said.

Formalizing the relationships between the joint-service combatant command and the service-affiliated components will address how they coexist in terms of “giving orders as joint functional components,” Shaw said.

Space Command already has two functional components, Shaw said: Combined Force Space Component Command at Vandenberg Space Force Base, Calif., and Joint Task Force-Space Defense at Schriever Space Force Base, Colo.

After “executing operations day to day through those functional components, we are looking at a way to make this look, maybe, more like other combatant commands where we … have service components also serving as functional components,” Shaw said. “How do we, maybe, look at this long term.”

Dickinson announced U.S. Space Command’s initial operational capability in August.

Addressing when the command might reach full operational capability, Shaw said that likely depends on when it finds out where its permanent headquarters will be. The Defense Department’s Office of Inspector General and Congress’ Government Accountability Office are investigating the Trump administration’s decision to base the command at Redstone Arsenal, Ala.

Editor’s note: This story was updated at 2:20 p.m. Dec. 14 to reflect that Space Command is the organization with two functional components.