TO ACT SUMMIT TIME - SECURITY IN - New Direction
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
SPRING/SUMMER 2016
TIME
NATO
WARSAW
SUMMIT
TO ACT
Anders Fogh Antoni Macierewicz Peter Brookes
Rasmussen SECURITY IN A NEW NATO FOR
A NATO FIT EUROPE - HOW A NEW AMERICAN
FOR PURPOSE TO CHANGE THE ADMINISTRATION
NEGATIVE TREND
EDITORIAL
Tomasz Poręba
NATO
Tomasz Poręba is a Member of the
European Parliament and President of
New Direction – The Foundation for
European Reform.
THE
FOUNDATION
OF EUROPEAN
SECURITY
C
ontrary to popular belief wave of migrants and refugees
prevailing since the end towards Europe. Almost all of our
of the Cold War, the end neighbourhood is touched by open
of the military stand- or frozen conflict, unrest and civil
off between NATO and Soviet war, whilst exposed to the threat of
Union did not mark a new era terrorism.
of peace and safety. Under the
rule of Vladimir Putin, Russia is Both Europe and NATO face
trying to once again assert itself unprecedented threats on many
as a world power and regain lost different fronts. These range from
influence and prestige by pursuing conventional warfare through
an increasingly aggressive and the expansion of terrorist groups,
revanchist policy. This coincides radicalisation of our own citizens
with the fact that while doing so, to information warfare and
the Kremlin is seeking to distract propaganda fuelled mainly by
Russian citizens from the country’s the Russia regime. Therefore, the
growing internal problems. Warsaw Summit is timely and
Turmoil in the Middle East and should be used as an opportunity
North Africa, civil war in Syria, to decisively respond to these new
and conflicts in Yemen and Libya, forms of threats, which include
has brought an unprecedented hybrid warfare and cyber attacks.
THE “WEAPONISATION OF INFORMATION” BY THE KREMLIN IS A WELL-THOUGHT THROUGH AND WELL-FUNDED STRATEGY AND SHOULD BE REGARDED AS A THREAT EQUAL TO MORE TRADITIONAL ONES. Despite predictions by numerous that Moscow wanted to change NATO’s Eastern flank and to project the need to dismantle terrorist cells coming to Europe. NATO is aware of the problem and experts that future warfare the political configuration in stability beyond our borders. Today, operating in our own countries. its Stratcom Centre of Excellence in will predominantly belong to Europe and move towards separate not only Ukraine, but also Moldova Last but not least, we have recently Latvia does a great job at exposing special forces and not tanks and agreements between Russia and and Georgia are under threat. Another directly linked threat is the witnessed the revival of a threat Russian lies and manipulation. artillery, the situation in Eastern individual, chosen countries. spread of radicalisation amongst which has already been very Ukraine (and to some degree in However, Moscow’s vision of The second key challenge for the young people. Europe’s population creatively used by the Soviet Union In this publication, we have brought Syria) clearly shows that this is divide et impera rule was much security of NATO countries is is suffering from terrorist attacks before - information warfare together key decision makers and not the case, at least not yet. The broader than just diplomacy. terrorist groups such as Daesh or led by radicals and militants whom targeting both NATO and the EU. The security and defence experts, to threat posed by Russia is much What has followed – including the Al Qaeda. NATO should be ready have been either trained abroad strategic communications employed provide their views ahead of the bigger than it has been since the annexation of Crimea, aggression to militarily counter and fight or have been recruited by terrorist by Russia are not only undermining crucial Warsaw NATO Summit end of the Cold War. As Antoni against Ukraine and intervention terrorist groups which use partisan organisations in Europe and security on Europe’s Eastern border, in Warsaw. The importance Macierewicz, Polish Minister in Syria on the side of Assad regime tactics and often melt into civilian America. These individuals often it is also targeting our partners like of this Summit should not be of Defence, underlined when - clearly shows that the Kremlin is populations or use human shields have European citizenship and are Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova. The underestimated. Wales 2014, saw talking about preparation for determined to pursue its goal of on their own soil. This requires therefore much more difficult to “weaponisation of information” the Alliance change direction to face the NATO Summit in Warsaw, in working on different fronts and a completely different way of track. We also have to remember by the Kremlin is a well-thought a more dangerous world. Warsaw August 2009, one year after the using a variety of tools. Therefore thinking about warfare, especially that experienced radical Islamist through and well-funded strategy 2016 will decide if the needed level meticulously planned aggression the Warsaw Summit should be used in cities and densely populated fighters may - and almost certainly and should be regarded as a threat of support and commitment to this against Georgia, Putin had said as a key platform to strengthen areas. Another side of this coin is do - infiltrate the waves of refugees equal to more traditional ones. change is fully carried out. ■
TABLE OF CONTENTS
14 18 26 28
Antoni Macierewicz Geoffrey Van Orden MEP Anders Fogh Rasmussen Anna Fotyga MEP
SECURITY IN EUROPE TIME FOR NATO TO A NATO FIT FOR PURPOSE INDIVISIBLE SECURITY
– HOW TO CHANGE THE NEGATIVE TREND GET MORE SERIOUS
NATO MEMBERS
& PARTNERS 8
NATO WORKING
STRUCTURES 10
10 THINGS YOU NEED
TO KNOW ABOUT NATO 12
NATO ON DUTY 24
WORLD DEFENCE
BUDGETS 2014 30
EXPENDITURE LEVELS
IN NATO 31
NATO DEFENCE SPENDING
AS GDP 36
NATO-RUSSIA RELATIONS
- THE BACKGROUND 42
ALLIED LAND COMMAND
IN EUROPE 46
RUSSIA’S TOP 5 MYTHS
ABOUT NATO 53
32 44 48
Peter Brookes Dr Roberts Zile MEP Dr Przemysław Żurawski vel Grajewski
A NEW NATO FOR A NEW WISHFUL THINKING RUSSIA AS AN EXPORTER OF INSTABILITY
AMERICAN ADMINISTRATION VERSUS REALITY
New Direction – The Foundation for European Reform, a non-for-profit organisation (ASBL/VZW) registered in Belgium and partly funded
www.europeanreform.org follow us @europeanreform by the European Parliament. Registered Office: Rue Du Trône 4, Brussels, 1000, Belgium. Director General: Naweed Khan. The European
Parliament and New Direction assume no responsibility for the opinions expressed in this publication. Sole liability lies with the author.
NATO MEMBERS & PARTNERS
NATO members
Partnership for Peace partners
Mediterranean Dialogue partners
Istanbul Cooperation Initiative partners
Partners across the globe
HEADS OF STATE
ALBANIA BELGIUM BULGARIA CANADA CROATIA CZECH REPUBLIC DENMARK ESTONIA FRANCE GERMANY GREECE HUNGARY ICELAND ITALY
Bujar Nishani King Philippe Rosen Plevneliev Queen Elizabeth II Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović Miloš Zeman Queen Margrethe II Toomas Hendrik Ilves François Hollande Joachim Gauck Prokopis Pavlopoulos János Áder Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson Sergio Mattarella
LATVIA LITHUANIA LUXEMBOURG NETHERLANDS NORWAY POLAND PORTUGAL ROMANIA SLOVAK REPUBLIC SLOVENIA SPAIN TURKEY UNITED KINGDOM USA
Raimonds Vējonis Dalia Grybauskaitė le Grand-Duc Henri King Willem-Alexander King Harald V Andrzej Duda Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa Klaus Werner Iohannis Andrej Kiska Borut Pahor King Felipe VI Recep Tayyip Erdoğan Queen Elizabeth II Barack H. Obama
8 9
NATO WORKING
STRUCTURES
MEMBER COUNTRIES
NATO DELEGATIONS MILITARY REPRESENTATIVES
NUCLEAR NORTH
PLANNING ATLANTIC
GROUP COUNCIL
MILITARY International
COMMITTEE Military Staff
SECRETARY GENERAL
SUBORDINATE International Staff
COMMITTEES
ALLIED ALLIED
COMMAND COMMAND
AGENCIES OPERATIONS TRANSFORMATION
Integrated Military Command Structure
10 11
THINGS YOU NEED TO
KNOW ABOUT NATO
10 NATO funding
Member countries make direct and indirect contributions to the costs of running NATO and implementing
its policies and activities. The greatest part of these contributions is indirect and comes through the Allies’
participation in NATO-led operations. Member countries incur the costs involved whenever they volunteer
forces to participate in a NATO operation. For example the cost for providing a fighter jet lies with the nation
that makes it available. Direct contributions to NATO’s common budgets are made by members in accordance
with an agreed cost-sharing formula based on relative Gross National Income. These contributions finance
the costs of NATO’s integrated structures, collectively-owned equipment or installations.
6
1 7
An international Security Hub Deterrence
In the five decades after World War II, the Alliance successfully prevented the Cold War from becoming
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is one of the world’s major international institutions. It is a “hot”. Under the security umbrella provided by NATO, the people of Europe, Canada, and the United States
political and military Alliance of 28 member countries from Europe and North America. The Alliance takes enjoyed the benefits of democratic choice, the rule of law and substantial economic growth. The Alliance’s
all its decisions by consensus. Every member country, no matter how large or small, has an equal say in deterrence is based on an appropriate mix of nuclear and conventional capabilities, which remain a core
discussions and decisions. Member states are committed to individual liberty, democracy, human rights and element of NATO’s strategy. This is matched by Allies’ commitment to arms control, disarmament and non-
2
the rule of law. These values are at the heart of NATO’s transatlantic bond.
8
proliferation.
Collective Defence Crisis Management
The greatest responsibility of the Alliance is to protect and defend NATO’s territory and populations. Article The Alliance has frequently acted to uphold international peace and security. In 1995, NATO helped to end
5 of NATO’s founding charter, the Washington Treaty, sets out the Alliance’s collective defence commitment. the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina and implemented the peace agreement. In 1999, NATO helped to stop mass
It states that an attack on one shall be considered an attack on all. Article 5 has been invoked only once in killings and expulsions in Kosovo, and NATO troops continue to serve in Kosovo to this day under a United
3
NATO’s history, on 12 September 2001, the day after the terrorist attacks on the United States. Nations mandate. Since 2003, NATO’s UN-mandated presence has helped to ensure Afghanistan will never
again become a safe haven for terrorists. In 2011, NATO enforced a UN mandate to protect the people of Libya.
NATO’s Command Structure NATO ships are fighting piracy off the coast of Somalia and are conducting counter-terrorism patrols in the
Mediterranean. On several occasions, NATO forces have also delivered relief supplies, including to the United
NATO has a permanent, integrated military command structure where military and civilian personnel from States after Hurricane Katrina and to Pakistan after the October 2005 earthquake. NATO Defence Ministers
all member states work together. The Alliance has two top-level Strategic Commands (Allied Command took swift decisions on 11 February 2016 to deploy ships to the Aegean Sea to support Greece and Turkey, as
Operations, in Mons, Belgium, and Allied Command Transformation, in Norfolk, United States). Under these well as the European Union’s border agency Frontex, in their efforts to tackle the refugee and migrant crisis.
NATO’s Standing Maritime Group 2 arrived in the Aegean Sea within 48 hours of the Ministers’ decision.
9
Strategic Commands are two Joint Force Commands (in Brunssum, Netherlands and in Naples, Italy) that
can deploy and run military operations. The Command Structure also includes one air command (Ramstein,
4
Germany), one land command (Izmir, Turkey) and one maritime command (Northwood, United Kingdom).
Cooperative Security
Standing forces Threats like terrorism, piracy, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and cyber warfare know
no borders. That is why NATO has developed a global network of security partners that includes over 40
NATO has a number of standing forces on active duty that contribute to the Alliance’s collective defence on countries from around the globe, as well as international organisations including the United Nations, the
a permanent basis. These include NATO’s four standing maritime group fleets, which are ready to act when European Union, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the African Union.
called upon. Additionally NATO has an integrated air defence system that links national air defence capabilities The Alliance’s Resolute Support mission in Afghanistan includes 14 partner countries. NATO’s operation in
together and includes the Alliance’s ballistic missile defence capabilities. The Alliance also conducts several Kosovo includes 10 partners. Other than partners taking part in NATO missions and operations, the Alliance
air policing missions in which Allied fighter jets patrol the airspace of member nations who do not have has developed a wide network of partnerships since the early 1990s, including the Euro-Atlantic Partnerships
fighter jets of their own. They defend NATO airspace over Albania, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Slovenia on Council, the Mediterranean Dialogue, the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative, and many partners across the globe,
5 10
a 24/7 basis, 365 days per year. including Australia, Japan and South Korea.
Troops and Equipment The “Open Door”
NATO benefits from being able to draw on the military expertise and capabilities of its members. This includes Any European state which can contribute to the security and principles of the Alliance can be invited to
tanks, submarines or fighter jets. When the Alliance collectively decides to conduct an operation it asks Allies join. It is up to the country concerned to decide if it wishes to seek membership. On six occasions, between
for troops and equipment to be placed under NATO command. While personnel serving in a NATO operation 1952 and 2009, a total of 16 European countries chose to seek membership and were admitted. This process
are often referred to collectively as “NATO forces,” they are strictly speaking multinational forces from NATO has contributed to peace and security in Europe. Following the December 2015 decision by NATO Foreign
member countries, and in some cases, partner countries or other troop-contributing countries. The only Ministers to start accession talks, Montenegro is currently an invitee. At the moment, three further countries
military equipment that NATO owns itself is a fleet of AWACS (Airborne Warning and Control) aircraft. From aspire to NATO membership: Bosnia-Herzegovina, Georgia, and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.1
2018, NATO will also operate five Global Hawk surveillance drones. The procedure for requesting forces and Allies assess each applicant country according to its own merits. A wide range of political, economic and
equipment for an operation is often referred to as “force generation.” security reforms need to be implemented before any country can join.
Source: www.nato.int 1. Turkey recognizes the Republic of Macedonia with its constitutional name.
12 13
SECURITY IN HOW TO CHANGE
EUROPE
Antoni
THE NEGATIVE TREND
Antoni Macierewicz,
Defence Minister of
Poland
Macierewicz
14 15
DISTURBED SECURITY deployment of missile systems in are a part of a wider geopolitical Georgia should become members of
IN EUROPE Syria, Kaliningrad and other places scheme. There is one long frontline the NATO. As we know, this concept
significantly reduces NATO defensive along the EU/NATO borders from was rejected. The war in Georgia
W
ithin just two years, potential. What is more, the Norway to Spain. The division broke in August 2008.
the security of irresponsible provocations, border on Eastern and Southern flank is
Europe dramatically incidents and air space violations not much relevant. Therefore, the The EU and NATO have to cooperate
deteriorated. The increase the tension to a hardly foremost necessity is the unity of the in a complementary way. They
Russian invasion of Ukraine in bearable level. EU and NATO members in designing have unique competences and
Crimea and Donbas in 2014 led to an applicable solution to the capabilities that combined together
major violations of international In the same time, the migrations problem. Internal conflicts between may bring the necessary solutions
law and international order. from the East and South bring social the members of the Western to the problems defined above.
Then mass-scale migration crisis changes to Europe that are difficult community may only decrease the The concepts of the EU Global
occurred, only partially related to the to analyse and predict. About a resilience of them to the threat. In Strategy and the 360-degree NATO
humanitarian disaster in the Middle million migrants from the Middle particular, this Summit needs to defence will have to be effectively
East. So far, Europe was unable to East and North Africa (MENA) region show the world that we are united implemented.
find an effective solution to them. entered the EU through Greece and and stand as one.
Unfortunately, more and more Italy and another wave from Ukraine Without cooperation of the two
events suggest that this still may came to Poland only. Regardless of Situation awareness is another organisations, we will not be able
not be the end of problems, as the political correctness, which to a large factor of effective response to the to properly respond to the existing
tensions in international relations extent is a reason of the present challenges faced by the West. We and emerging threats. The migration
are rising even above the Cold War troubles, it has to be noticed that need an increased intelligence crisis can only be stopped by solving
levels. The NATO Summit in Warsaw there is a strong correlation between cooperation which would help to the problems that caused them.
should be an important step to tackle the wave of Muslim migrants and paint a better picture of what is This requires both terminating
these challenges effectively. the terrorist attacks and acts of actually taking place around us. the armed conflicts in the MENA
sexual violence in Western Europe But we need also a realist analysis, region as well as the economic aid in
First, we have to identify reasons (Paris, Brussels, Germany). It also taking under consideration all kinds reconstruction of countries affected
for which all of this occurred. Sadly must be stated openly that not all of perils, even those that may not by them. As far as the aggressive
enough, it has to be stated that the the migrants are genuine refugees, seem very probable at the moment. and hawkish attitude of Russia is
analysts and policy planners either that they are penetrated by radical Hardly anyone could predict Crimea considered, only the combination
underestimated or ignored some of Islamists, organized crime and that and the migrant crisis back in 2013. of economic sanctions and military
the dangerous processes that have WITHOUT COOPERATION OF THE TWO the entire phenomenon is used to Just a year later they became reality. deterrence may bring back stability
been taking place for several past ORGANISATIONS, WE WILL NOT BE achieve political purposes by the and ensure security of Eastern
years. Before the present migration ABLE TO PROPERLY RESPOND TO THE third parties. However, there is one exception to Europe. Speaking of the latter – it
crisis started, Spain experienced the EXISTING AND EMERGING THREATS. that. The late President of Poland has to include real reinforced
crisis of the cayucos in the Canary THE MIGRATION CRISIS CAN ONLY BE WHAT SHALL WE DO? Lech Kaczyński and his party (Law presence of military force, not just
Islands back in 2006, whereas Italy
STOPPED BY SOLVING THE PROBLEMS and Justice, now ruling in Poland) declarations. This is why the NATO
has had permanent problems with
THAT CAUSED THEM. Europe has to realize that the threats argued during the NATO Summit in Summit in Warsaw is so important.
Lampedusa since at least 2011. In the mentioned above should be treated Bucharest in April 2008 that this kind It simply has to bring answers to the
same time, the conflicts that caused as one complex peril and challenge. of expansion of Russia could have arising questions about the future of
July 2014. Circumstances of both annexation of Crimea brought to
the massive inflow of migrants in They are interdependent and they taken place and that Ukraine and our security. ■
bear characteristics typical to acts mind some of the most dreadful
2014-2015 were already brewing. of terror. For several years, the historical memories of Europe. It was
Millions of refugees from Syria have West experienced increasingly frequently compared to Anschluss of
been living in refugee camps in THE EU AND NATO HAVE
frequent provocative behaviours Austria by Germany in 1938, Munich
Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan since at
TO COOPERATE IN A
of the Russian military, especially Agreement of 1938 and the Soviet COMPLEMENTARY WAY.
least 2011. air forces, as well as verbal threats, invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968.
propaganda, disinformation and Having said that, how can anyone
On the other hand, before the intensified espionage. In fact, the deem any scenario impossible? If
terrorists also known as “the little present crisis has been developing we already experienced a cyber and
green men” invaded Crimea and led for years and what we see now is hybrid war, why would we disregard
to the annexation of the peninsula merely a consequence of the past the possibility of a conventional one?
by Russia, and to the outbreak of negligence. We cannot close our eyes or turn our
war in Donbas, Russia performed a heads away from the manoeuvers
mass-scale cyberattack on Estonia in MORE TO COME of the Russian army that exercises
2007 and militarily invaded Georgia the possible conflict with NATO,
in 2008. We saw two mysterious Spring 2014 marked an end to the including preventive nuclear attacks.
air crashes: of the Polish Tu-154 fairly peaceful period of European We cannot disregard the increasing
in Smolensk in April 2010 and the history. Hybrid war launched Anti-Access/Aread Denial (A2/AD)
Malaysian Airlines flight MH-17 in by Russia and the subsequent means adopted by Russia. The
16 17
Geoffrey Van Orden MEP
TIME FOR NATO TO
GET MORE SERIOUS
T
he Presidents and Prime The NATO Alliance needs a single- about the role of the Alliance. Austria. All have engaged at some France about its former colonies in
Ministers of the 28 NATO minded focus on the part of all allies Someone needs to have the courage stage with NATO. There is not a the Sahel should not be an excuse for
members, the NATO allies, if it is to be revitalised and made to spell it out, thoughtfully, to the sub-set of soft military tasks which inventing some faux EU military role.
are gathering in Warsaw ready to deal with the immediate assembled political leaders. let some armies off the hook or
on 8 July 2016 for one of the most challenges and the threats that will which require a different, cheaper In the Adriatic in the 1990s we had a
vital Summits in the history of develop in the coming years. The EU AMBITIONS ARE organisational approach. situation where two separate naval
the Alliance. Not since the tensest United States cannot be expected to A DANGEROUS task forces, drawing ships from
moments of the Cold War has the continue to bear a disproportionate DISTRACTION International intervention in the the same navies, were deployed
international security scene been so share of the military burden. At the Bosnian conflict should have taught simultaneously - one under NATO
fraught. A full spectrum of threats same time, European allies must There are no uniquely “European” the lesson that professional troops command and the other under
to the security of our democracies not be distracted from their NATO threats, challenges or military equipped for high intensity conflict European (at that time, the WEU).
has emerged - nuclear, cyber, responsibilities by the divisive requirements and the EU has no could be flexible enough to deal with Even France came to realise that this
terrorist and conventional - all ambitions among a few to create additional military capabilities or non-combat situations while the was a farce. But memories are short.
Geoffrey Van Orden
requiring a united, effective and some separate European Defence other “instruments”, which are not reverse was not the case. There isn’t Nearly 20 years later, when France MEP is a former senior
credible response. Yet the Summit Union which will bring no additional available to the Alliance as a whole - some training or advisory mission thought it would be a good idea to British Army officer
with NATO experience.
is in danger of being side-tracked military capability. NATO cannot if all NATO allies were so minded. It which doesn’t require rigorous have a maritime dimension to EU Since 1999 he has been
by inopportune efforts by the EU to continue to respond to crises in is no excuse to hang the EU ambition military experience or which might defence policy using its facilities in Conservative Defence
breathe more life into its defence piece-meal fashion. It is time for on its so called ‘neutrals’ - Sweden, not morph into something more Djibouti, Operation Atalanta, was Spokesman in the
European Parliament.
ambitions. some hard-headed strategic thinking Finland, the Irish Republic and serious. The rightful concerns of invented while a NATO maritime
18 19force was already operating in necessary in the face of an armed THERE ARE NO UNIQUELY is to describe CSDP in terms of a The important point is that none countries need to take primary
the Red Sea area. Now we are attack on one of their number. “EUROPEAN” THREATS, “comprehensive approach” with of the troops involved are new. responsibility for the security of
repeating the same folly with the NATO does not leach powers from CHALLENGES OR the EU claiming unique ability They are just the same national their continent. Where large-scale
EU using naval vessels to haul its members, it empowers them MILITARY REQUIREMENTS to combine political, financial units but with an EU tag, facing the intervention beyond the military
economic migrants and refugees with allied muscle. AND THE EU HAS NO and military instruments in possibility of deployment under and political resources of an
out of the Mediterranean with ADDITIONAL MILITARY dealing with crises. The reality an EU command structure. The individual country is concerned,
NATO persuaded to join in with a The EU’s Common Security and CAPABILITIES OR OTHER is that such an approach is used EU does not add one extra tank, then the African Union is being
maritime surveillance effort. Defence Policy (CSDP) is precisely “INSTRUMENTS”, WHICH by all democratic governments aircraft or soldier to the forces endowed with the necessary
the opposite. It is predicated on the ARE NOT AVAILABLE and organisations in their crisis already available for national or capability for multi-national
It makes no sense for two different EU’s decision-making autonomy. It
TO THE ALLIANCE AS A management. NATO’s ‘Provincial NATO use. operations, particularly through its
organisations comprising more or is specifically designed to exclude
WHOLE - IF ALL NATO Reconstruction Teams’ in incipient African Standby Force.
ALLIES WERE SO
less the same countries, facing the the USA and does not recognise Afghanistan are a good example. In Worryingly, even the United States The United States has been as
MINDED.
same security threats, drawing on NATO primacy in terms of crisis any case, the EU only has financial now seems to be taken in. It has committed as the Europeans in
the same, limited, national military management. It has tried weakly assets at its disposal provided by its been persuaded of the utility of support for this. If indeed there
assets, and often operating in the to copy NATO - even to the extent the Foreign Ministers of Austria, member states. some EU missions, in the Sahel is a serious military-terrorist
same geographical area, to develop of having a “mutual defence” Belgium, Denmark, France, Italy, region, for example. None stand up threat coming from the Sahel then
separate military capabilities. clause (Article 42.7) which it is Germany, Luxembourg, the Over the years there have been to scrutiny. They have very limited concerted action is required and
palpably unable to back up. In Netherlands, Poland, Portugal and various attempts to create armed effect and are only useful through NATO should be engaged with the
The solution to the refugee crisis trying to create its own set of Spain stated: “In the long term, forces at the EU’s disposal. “EU the collaboration of a limited African Union and African partners
is political. Meanwhile, NATO defence institutions, replicating in we should seek more majority Battlegroups“ were invented number of countries, some not in this. It is beyond being a matter
should be considering how it will pale imitation what is already in decisions in the [foreign policy] in 2004 following the failure of even EU members. The EU as an of policing, border management,
deal with the real military threats existence in NATO, it wastes scarce sphere, joint representation in the more ambitious project of a institution is irrelevant to what are or training.
to its East and South. The Russian resources, diverts intellectual international organisations, where 60,000-man rapid reaction force. effectively coalitions of the willing -
threat has temporarily abated energy, sends a confusing message possible, and a European defence Theoretically, the battlegroups and those willing also happen to be THE PESCO DILEMMA
but needs credible deterrence. to both friends and potential policy. For some members of the have been operational since NATO members.
The Daesh threat is extending its enemies, and seeks gradually to Group this could eventually involve January 2007 but they have never Germany and Belgium, in particular,
reach. Certainly there needs to be increase the powers of central EU a European army”. been used in spite of efforts to It is worth taking a moment to look want to push the idea of a
political action to restore proper structures, thereby eroding the find somewhere to deploy them at military involvement in Africa. “European Defence Union”, separate
government to Libya and other powers currently exercised by CSDP needs therefore to be in order to justify the concept. There is consensus that African from NATO, using EU Treaty
ungoverned spaces, but Daesh national capitals. understood for what it is - a
power needs to be destroyed in its political project to take forward
heartland. That is an urgent task EU DEFENCE POLICY European integration and equip
for NATO in close partnership with - CSDP the EU as a state-like global
Arab allies. actor, separate from the United
Under David Cameron, the British States. Some may want this. If so
THE EU AND NATO government has rejected the EU’s they should make it clear so that
ambition for “ever closer union” others may position themselves
Some imagine the EU is some sort and for a “European Army”. So accordingly.
of useful adjunct to NATO. Maybe far, it has managed to restrain the
it could be if it focused on getting EU’s separatist defence aspirations Ostensibly, defence remains a
its civil capabilities right. But but its involvement in many of matter for national governments.
the EU has other ambitions and the EU’s defence structures gives However, there has been a gradual
there are key differences between tacit encouragement to their accretion of defence powers by the
the two organisations. NATO of development. EU institutions using the favoured
course includes the United States Monnet tactic of “small steps”. The
and Canada among its 28 allied The EU ambition therefore remains Maastricht Treaty’s “firewalls,”
nations; it has well tried military and there are indications that whereby the European Commission
structures binding the United Berlin, Paris and Brussels will was excluded from any role in
States to the security of Europe - seize on a British ‘remain’ vote to defence policy, were done away
this is what gives it enormous and push ahead with their ideas. Once with by the Treaty of Lisbon. EU
overwhelming military credibility. the British referendum is safely structures have been created that
Secondly, and crucially, NATO out the way, the German Defence duplicate NATO; defence ministers
has no supra-national powers. White Paper will be published, and officials now meet under EU
Its powers are entirely inter- closely coordinated with the EU’s auspices; and there is a narrative of
governmental. Even its vital mutual new Security Strategy which will EU-badged military activity.
defence clause, Article 5, leaves it appear a few days later. Both will The justification for EU
to each member nation to respond call for more defence integration involvement in defence has varied
with whatever action it deems within the EU. Three years ago, over the years. The current fashion
20 21powers to create a permanent EU military capabilities, as so often, Belgium, Spain and others will be A primary objective of the military capabilities and that would Alliance at a time when solidarity is
military headquarters and integrate it is seen by others as the means tempted to make use of PESCO and Europeans must surely be to also revitalize NATO” but by the essential.
military assets using EU budget of integrating armed forces under Britain will be under pressure to ensure that the United States French in particular “as a tool with
enticements. German Defence EU auspices. The decision to do so participate. remains fully committed to their which to further the construction At the moment Britain has a veto
Minister Ursula von der Leyen can be taken by Qualified Majority security and they will do this only of a Europe politique.” This over EU defence arrangements.
endorsed Commission President Voting - in other words, without a THE BURDEN SHARING by demonstrating willingness as fundamental difference of view But it still allows British forces to
Juncker’s call for a European Army veto. QUANDARY reliable, capable allies, sharing characterises and confuses the be involved in some EU military
in March 2015, saying that: “This risk and shouldering more of the whole discussion of CSDP. activities, often playing a leading
interweaving of armies, with the The British government has so In the NATO context, a long-standing defence burden. This requires role. This merely encourages
perspective of one day having a far been able to resist movement concern has been the imbalance enhanced military capabilities, In defence terms, the UK is doing further steps by the EU.
European Army, is, in my opinion, towards PESCO by expressing its in transatlantic burden-sharing political will, and an informed and its bit. It is one of only five allies
the future.” informal objection, safe in the between the North Americans and supportive public. that is currently meeting the NATO At some stage, the UK must come to
knowledge that the EU had little their 26 European allies. Whoever obligation to spend 2% of GDP on terms with the fact that its view of
The particular device for all this military capability at its disposal becomes the President of the United All Europe’s major military defence but this figure is only a CSDP developments is not shared
is Article 46 of the Treaty on without Britain. States will show less willingness contributors are NATO allies. But guide. What matters is deployable, by other nations in Europe. Britain
European Union which deals with to subsidise the security of rich their single-minded commitment sustainable military capability takes a pragmatic military view;
“permanent structured cooperation Germany has just announced a allies and European countries to the NATO Alliance is distracted backed by political will. Britain the continentals have an ideological
in defence” or PESCO for short, modest increase in its defence will therefore need to spend more by the political pressure from other is one of only three, possibly four intent - European integration.
a mechanism for defence co- expenditure. After 23 June a money, wisely, on defence. It is European capitals to promote an EU powers that has global reach with
operation within the framework of number of governments may not enough for them just to be role. For many European countries full spectrum military capabilities. Under a Conservative Government,
the EU. While this was originally wish to flex their politico-military ‘rearranging the deckchairs’; more which spend little on defence, the the UK will continue to veto an “EU
intended to encourage improved muscles. Germany, France, deckchairs are needed. prospect of an “EU army” is an As the British Prime Minister Army”. But PESCO is a dangerous
opportunity to do even less. made clear in his speech on 9 May stepping stone to this which David
2016, “Britain’s unique position Cameron has said he will also
It is also noteworthy that only four and power in the world is not block. But it is not clear that he
European countries are currently defined by our membership of can - and where will that leave
engaged with the United States the EU”. He saw Britain as once the UK. There may well be a case
and its other allies in military again a country that is advancing, for adopting the Danish approach,
operations against ISIL, regarded not retreating. The East of Suez opting out of CSDP, or the French
as the most immediate threat to policy has been reversed with the approach at NATO from the mid-
European security. construction of permanent military 60s to the 1990s - sit at the military
bases in the Gulf. The independent table but remain detached.
THE BRITISH ROLE British nuclear deterrent is being
renewed. Two new aircraft carriers Certainly the UK should take
The UK is caught in an ambivalent will be operational by 2020, the the lead in revitalisation of
position. It is Europe’s most biggest warships the Royal Navy NATO. This means encouraging
capable military power and has has ever put to sea. Membership increased defence expenditure
the strongest commitment to the of the EU is seen as one of the tools by European allies and creation
transatlantic alliance. Yet ever – just one - which Britain uses, of additional, highly capable and
since 1998, when Prime Minister along with its role as one of the rapidly deployable forces for
Blair took the British foot off the five Permanent Members of the UN NATO and other use; rehearsal of
EU defence brake and did a deal Security Council, membership of reinforcement of Europe by United
with President Chirac in St Malo, NATO, the Commonwealth, the Five States follow-on forces; improved
the UK has been fighting a rear- Eyes Intelligence Agreement with public education in defence; and
guard action to protect NATO and Australia, New Zealand and other political willingness by all allies
constrain CSDP. It is dismissive of allies, and, if course, its special to take on difficult and dangerous
EU defence pretensions but anxious relationship with the United States. tasks, such as the defeat of Daesh.
to play the good European and to
prevent others assuming a leading CONCLUSIONS The forthcoming NATO Summit
THE FORTHCOMING NATO role in an area which it claims as in Warsaw should focus on the
SUMMIT IN WARSAW
its own. Hence the dilemma that The EU is determined, step by step, creation of military capability, to
SHOULD FOCUS ON THE
PESCO will present. to take forward defence integration match an emergent Russian threat
CREATION OF MILITARY
CAPABILITY, TO MATCH for political purposes. and deal with the new threat
AN EMERGENT RUSSIAN Some have seen the St Malo from the South. The EU should be
THREAT AND DEAL WITH agreement as a “constructive The consequence will be even less encouraged to focus its efforts on
THE NEW THREAT FROM misunderstanding”: viewed by military capability, a dangerous civil capabilities, which, where
THE SOUTH. the British as “an instrument lack of strategic credibility, and appropriate, could complement
designed to improve European a fracturing of the transatlantic NATO’s military power. ■
22 231 ICELAND
Since 2008, fighters aircraft have been deployed to provide a quick-reaction capability.
2 AWACS
NATO maintains a fleet of AWACS aircraft as a deployable air command and control capability.
These aircraft have been deployed to enhance NATO’s situational awareness over Poland and
Romania in the light of the Ukraine crisis.
3 AIR POLICING BALTIC STATES, SLOVENIA AND ALBANIA
Aircraft from NATO Allies are assisting the Baltic States, Albania and Slovenia to preserve the
integrity of their sovereign airspace in peacetime, and to ensure their collective security.
1
4 KFOR
The NATO-led Kosovo Force is helping to maintain a safe and secure environment and
freedom of movement for all people in Kosovo.
5 ACTIVE ENDEAVOUR
After the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States, NATO launched Operation Active
Endeavour as an expression of the Alliance’s collective defence against terrorism. NATO ships
patrol the Mediterranean and monitor shipping to help deter, defend, disrupt and protect
against terrorist activity.
3
6 NATO SUPPORT TO TURKEY
On 4 December 2012 Patriot missiles batteries have been deployed to augment Turkey’s air
defences to defend the population and territory of Turkey in response to the Syrian crisis.
2 7 RESOLUTE SUPPORT MISSION (RSM)
RSM is a non-combat mission which provides training, advice and assistance to Afghan
security forces and institution which was launched on 1 January 2015.
3
8 SUPPORT TO THE AFRICAN UNION
Since 2005, NATO has been providing different forms of support to the African Union at its
request, including strategic air- and sealift, and providing expert and training support.
9 OCEAN SHIELD
Operation Ocean Shield was launched in August 2009 to contribute to global efforts to fight
piracy in the Gulf of Aden and off the Horn of Africa and build the capacity of countries in the
4 region to combat piracy.
3
10 NATO DEPLOYMENT TO AEGEAN SEA 2016
NATO
NATO has deployed ships to the Aegean Sea to support Allies Greece and Turkey, as well as
the EU’s border agency Frontex, in their efforts to tackle the migrant and refugee crisis.
6
10
ON DUTY
5 7
NATO MISSIONS & DEPLOYMENTS
9
8
24 25R
ussia’s aggression against After a decade of divestment, THE KEY QUESTION
Ukraine and its ambition NATO’s reduced defence posture TO BE ASKED AT THE
to revive the Cold War of the post-Cold War era is not WARSAW SUMMIT IS
conflict have reminded sufficient to deter the Russian WHETHER THE PRESENT
NATO DEPLOYMENT
Anders Fogh Rasmussen us that the West needs to protect
its societies and values against
threat. I am hopeful that the
Alliance has reached a turning AND DETERRENCE CAN
A NATO FIT
tyranny and oppression. The peace, point with regard to its military PREVENT A RUSSIAN
security, and democratic stability spending. In Central Europe alone, ATTACK ON ALLIES THAT
we have enjoyed since the end of spending was up 13 percent in BORDER RUSSIA?
the Cold War, can no longer be 2015, and the United States has
taken for granted. The key objective sent an important message with its we have to keep all options
FOR PURPOSE
at the Warsaw Summit should be decision to quadruple its military open. NATO needs to use the full
to revert this alarming trend and budget for Europe in 2017. The spectrum of tools at its disposal to
deliver a clear strategy for a Europe UK, France, and Germany have create an effective deterrence.
whole and free. all announced plans for modest
spending increases in the coming Russia will do whatever it can to
At the Warsaw Summit NATO should years. In total this will help deter dilute the outcome of the Warsaw
face the new security environment Russian aggression. Summit. It will argue fiercely
imposed by Russia and agree policies that NATO presence in Eastern
that can enhance deterrence and The NATO decision to create a Europe is in violation with the
defence. We in the West should hold spearhead force and rotate military 1997 NATO - Russia Founding Act.
no illusions about Russia’s intentions forces in its Eastern allies on a We should remind Russia that this
and its willingness to apply raw permanent basis has been an is a self-inflicted wound. Their
force. We have seen that in Georgia immediate and necessary step illegal actions in Ukraine have
and Ukraine. Unfortunately, Russia is taken following Russia’s illegal dramatically changed the European
no longer a partner, but a revisionist actions in Ukraine, but they are landscape and forced NATO to
state determined to create a new unlikely to be sufficient. In order respond in defence of its allies.
Iron Curtain. One can only wonder to create credible deterrence,
why the leaders in Kremlin want the West should establish a more Russia’s actions have unveiled
to revive an old conflict, when they permanent presence in Eastern its real intentions. Moscow aims
could offer their public a peaceful Europe, for as long as necessary. to undermine the law-based
and prosperous future with the One could question whether principles of European security
Western world as a trusted partner. NATO’s military bases would be of and the liberal world order that the
Instead Russia has opted for a greater use in the Eastern than the United States established following
competitive relationship. Western Western part of Europe. World War II. NATO reacts to
inaction would in the Kremlin be Russia’s assertive behavior because
interpreted as an open invitation At the Warsaw Summit allies would its member countries have an
for Russia to continue its assertive also have to agree on a strategy interest in the preservation of
policies toward NATO members and to boost NATO’s hybrid warfare the international system – which
partners. capabilities. In Ukraine, Russia has secured peace and prosperity
demonstrated the efficacy of on the European continent since
The key question to be asked at ‘hybrid warfare’ and unveiled how World War II. I find it quite
the Warsaw Summit is whether ill-prepared NATO was to grapple apprehensible as democracies and
the present NATO deployment and with a military action below the law-based societies have a natural
deterrence can prevent a Russian threshold of overt invasion. stake in preserving this global
attack on allies that border Russia? security order.
I think this is a big question mark. However, Russia’s threatening
I fear a scenario where Russia could tactics are not confined to Russia will play a long game,
use the cover of a snap exercise to conventional weapons or hybrid and NATO allies and partners in
create a small invasion of NATO warfare. Under President Putin, cooperation with the EU and key
territory. NATO allies would face the Russia has enhanced its reliance on international players should be
choice of surrendering territory and nuclear weapons and is engaged in ready to do the same thing. The
Anders Fogh credibility or risk a costly escalation dangerous nuclear brinkmanship Warsaw Summit comes at a crucial
Rasmussen is the involving a Russian military with and threats. Nuclear deterrence time in history. The Summit should
founder and Chairman
of Rasmussen Global. highly sophisticated, layered air is a taboo among NATO allies. send a clear message about the
He is the former defences. As is always the case, And rightly so, it is weapon we resilience of the Alliance and agree
Secretary General
of NATO and Prime prevention is less expensive and should never seek to use. But in on concrete steps to counter threats
Minister of Denmark more effective than treatment. the current security environment to our way of life. ■
26 27Anna Fotyga is
Member of the
European Parliament,
Chair of the
Subcommittee on
Security and Defence.
Anna Fotyga MEP
INDIVISIBLE
SECURITY
I
n the second half of the (CEE) countries, rebellions erupted in fundamental UN and OSCE our security. During his recent conflicts and introducing effective both political and budgetary
1940s, major steps were throughout the decades of the Cold documents is still valid. visit to Warsaw (30 May 2016), post-conflict rehabilitation by use endeavours furthering military
taken to finally consolidate War. Jens Stoltenberg, the Secretary of diverse development measures. security. One by one, countries of
the West in both military After years of meandering policies, General of NATO underlined my region have launched national
and economic terms. The creation We saw prospects for a better despite Western efforts, Russia that during the Warsaw Summit, We, the NATO and EU countries programs aimed at fulfilling NATO
of NATO on the 4th April 1949 future with the victory of Polish finally decided to go its own the Alliance will take decisions must stand united in combatting requirements. Countries of my
and provision of the ‘Marshall Solidarity and the subsequent way. Russia openly disregarded to strengthen its deterrence terrorism, as after the Paris and region like Poland and Estonia have
Plan’ for Europe are considered collapse of the Berlin wall. international obligations, and defence, as well as step Brussels terrorist attacks have already reached the NATO defence
to be milestones on this path. threatened territorial integrity of up efforts to project stability shown, the menace seems to be as expenditures target. We are
During the same period, in Nations of my region were certain neighbouring countries such beyond its borders. Effective palpable as ever. aware of the necessity to engage
Poland, armed partisan groups jubilant not only after regaining as - Ukraine and Georgia, as well as deterrence requires greater in peacekeeping and stabilisation
were engaged in combatting sovereignty, but also after the being engaged in social, economic financial efforts, in particular Unity, both in practical and operations in the South, deployed
communist regime imposed reaffirmation of this status by or political destabilisation of many in Europe. We have to dedicate ideational terms, is necessary to within NATO, UN or EU formats. We
on us by the Yalta agreements. joining the NATO Alliance. We were other countries. Most recently, this even more than required by tackle the challenges, as common modernise armies, we train people
The last of those protesters naturally aware of the ongoing dubious activity is visible also in the already agreed expenditure perception of threats is still an in the territorial defence tasks,
were captured and killed by the diplomatic efforts vis-a-vis Russia. place of our utmost concern - Syria. goals. The cooperation between important target for our societies. nevertheless, to be able to maintain
communists in October 1963. Our However, it was important that NATO and the EU may bring real The Russian aggression in Ukraine this ambitious program we need
future was bleak despite the huge no third country was granted a Despite many years of NATO’s added value, provided we, the changed geopolitical situation a NATO presence in our part of
contribution Poland gave in fight veto right in NATO decisions. The existence, due to Russia in the Europeans, focus on the use of in CEE. The people of this region Europe. Such measures enable real
against Nazi Germany. In almost principle of self-determination of East and radical Islam from the existing tools at our disposal. have become sensitive to security empowerment of Europe in defence
all of Central and East European sovereign nations as stipulated South, we still face challenges to We are capable of preventing issues and therefore support matters. ■
28 29WORLD DEFENCE BUDGETS 2014 NORTH AMERICAN VS EUROPEAN
TOP 15 DEFENCE BUDGETS (BILLION US$)
EXPENDITURE LEVELS IN NATO
DEFENCE EXPENDITURES (BILLION US$)
687.1 279
288
275 266
261
257
254 253
CHINA 129.4 SAUDI ARABIA 80.8
581
777 798
739 746
705
662
630 618
USA 581 RUSSIA 70
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
NORTH AMERICA NATO EUROPE
UK 61.8 FRANCE 53.1 JAPAN 47.7
World military spending, while falling for the third year in a row should
not hide the increase in Eastern Europe. However, current US military
spending is still 45 per cent higher than in 2001, just before the 11
September terrorist attacks on the USA. Within the EU, the conflict in
Ukraine is prompting central European countries, the Baltics states and
the Nordic countries to increase military spending, reversing downward
trends in military budget. However, Western Europe is not following a
similar trend despite the fact that NATO is asking its member states to
INDIA 45.2 GERMANY 43.9 SOUTH KOREA 34.4
spend 2 per cent of GDP on military spending.
BRASIL 31.9 ITALY 24.3 ISRAEL 23.2
USA
Rest of the Top 15
AUSTRALIA 22.5 IRAQ 18.9
Source: Prof Malcolm Chalmers, RUSI/BBC (2015) ‘Can the UK afford to defend itself’ Source: NATO (2016) Defence Expenditures of NATO Countries (2008-2015)
30 31Peter Brookes
A NEW NATO
FOR A NEW AMERICAN
ADMINISTRATION
I
t seems almost a certainty that War it has slowly drifted away from to try to return Russia to its former
the next American President that central purpose. It is time to Soviet glory if at all possible.
will face a large number of return to NATO’s founding principle.
foreign policy and national This strategic ambition could come
security challenges. It is arguable It is understandable why and at NATO’s expense in the Baltics
that one of those will be working to how NATO got to where it is today and or Central/Eastern Europe.
reinvigorate and strengthen NATO. after the fall of the Berlin Wall.
Its long-standing, driving purpose While global oil and natural
There is, of course, a significant disappeared with the collapse of gas prices may hinder Russia’s
debate in Washington, D.C. and the Soviet Union. The post-Cold planned military modernisation
elsewhere within NATO about War period was thought to be, and political adventurism abroad,
this issue. Not everyone agrees perhaps, the ‘end of history’, as Moscow has not given up on
that NATO needs to make any some posited. recapitalising the Russian armed
adjustments at all. I differ with that forces as a means of advancing
assessment. That is not to say that NATO has the Kremlin’s perceived national
failed to accomplish important interests.
Consequently, the purpose of this missions within and without Europe
short essay, written in advance of since then, but due to the resurgence Indeed, Russia is developing and or
the upcoming Warsaw summit, of Russia, it is time to unwaveringly fielding some of the most advanced
is to present some ideas that return to the task of defending the weapons in the world today,
the next American Presidential sovereignty and territorial integrity including fighter aircraft (e.g.
Administration should consider of its member states. Su-35), air defenses (e.g. S-400),
for the purposes of bolstering ballistic missiles (e.g. RS-26 and -28)
transatlantic security. RESURGENT RUSSIA and offensive cyber capabilities,
among others.
Dr Peter Brookes
is The Heritage LOSING OUR WAY Russia’s seizure of Crimea from
Foundation’s Senior Ukraine in 2014 and the ensuing The Cold War-like return of
Fellow for National
Security Affairs and The reason for NATO’s existence is insurgency in Eastern Ukraine is Russian nuclear-capable bomber
a former U.S. Deputy well-known: the defence of Europe a geostrategic ‘wake-up call’ that flights along NATO’s periphery,
Assistant Secretary of from aggression. This is its core NATO cannot ignore. Russian unprofessional airmanship by
Defence.
mission. But since the end of the Cold President Vladimir Putin intends its pilots around NATO patrol
32 33aircraft and warships and reported and continue security
submarine incursions are all engagement with regional
deeply troubling. non-NATO states as
appropriate;
Moscow’s violations of the
conventional Armed Forces in • Ensure robust U.S. troop
Europe and the Intermediate- presence and capabilities for
Range Nuclear Forces treaties, NATO, including basing at
continued occupation of Georgia least four Brigade Combat
and build-up of forces in its exclave Teams in Europe and
of Kaliningrad should not be of • Take steps to build and or NATO forces for military providing for appropriate
comfort to NATO members. recapitalize the capabilities operations; levels of prepositioned
and readiness of American stockpiles of equipment and
ground, air and naval forces, • Restore American and allied materiel;
Today, NATO must ask itself: Is
including complementary intelligence resources and
Russia deterred? • Focus defence deterrence
cyber and space forces; collection and analysis
operations that focus on the efforts on potentially
THE WAY FORWARD • Undertake a comprehensive Russian threat to NATO; vulnerable frontline NATO
inside- and outside- states, which face aggression
There is no shortage of possible • Promote increased most directly and immediately.
government review of the
paths for NATO to follow in the investment in allied
direction of U.S.-Russia
coming years, but a new American military technology, the NATO is as important to peace
relations and develop
President would be well advised NATO defence industrial and stability in Europe in the
effective policies in light of
to consider implementing the base, and weapons systems 21st century as it was in the 20th
recent events;
following suggestions in order to development across NATO; century. As such, the Alliance
ensure NATO meets its core mission • Reinvest in its political, needs to return to its basic task
in the years to come. economic and military IT IS UNDERSTANDABLE of providing for the security of its
relationships with allies and WHY AND HOW NATO membership. Without question,
THE NEW AMERICAN partners in the Baltics and in GOT TO WHERE IT IS NATO must be able to resolutely
PRESIDENT SHOULD: Central and Eastern Europe; TODAY AFTER THE FALL meet its core political and military
OF THE BERLIN WALL. mission in Europe.
• Publicly state that the United • Improve our security ITS LONG-STANDING,
States will resolutely live relationship with Finland DRIVING PURPOSE
up to its treaty obligations While NATO’s willingness to operate
and Sweden so that NATO DISAPPEARED WITH
to NATO, reaffirming our outside Europe should be lauded,
would have access to THE COLLAPSE OF THE
it does not need to be everywhere,
commitment to defend necessary airfields, ports, SOVIET UNION. THE
especially if it is not able to meet
it from aggression and, bases and logistics support POST-COLD WAR PERIOD
if necessary, liberate WAS THOUGHT TO BE, its fundamental mission tasking.
should NATO need to be
its member states from PERHAPS, THE “END If everything is important, then
defended;
occupation; OF HISTORY,” AS SOME nothing is important.
• Base appropriate levels of POSITED.
• Conduct an internal U.S. NATO troops — permanently The next American President
Government and external - in the Baltics and in Central should take steps with America’s
• Encourage increased focus
expert review of the threat and Eastern Europe; NATO allies to return the Alliance
on ballistic and cruise missile
NATO faces to determine if to its founding principles of
• Shift NATO military training defence programs to meet the
U.S. and NATO forces are deterring aggression and defending
from counterterror/ existing and evolving ballistic
ready for that challenge; member states’ sovereignty and
counterinsurgency and cruise missile threat to
territory if necessary.
• Help allies develop military operations towards large- NATO countries;
capabilities and capacity scale force-on-force and Fighting and winning in Europe is
• Conduct more high-level,
so that NATO members can collective security operations NATO’s key mission—and it must
high-visibility, political-
better take responsibility focused on the European be determinedly ready and able to
military engagement with
for their own defence and theater; do so. ■
NATO partners both in
national security;
• Pursue regular, small- Europe and in the United
• Strongly encourage NATO scale and large-scale NATO States as a demonstration of Dr Peter Brookes wishes to
allies to increase their training exercises in order solidarity and assurance; acknowledge that this essay was
defence expenditures to two to ensure high-levels of deeply informed by the thoughtful
• Continue efforts to enlarge research of Heritage colleagues, but
percent of gross domestic cohesion, interoperability NATO, develop candidate the views ultimately expressed here
product (GDP), if not more; and the readiness of countries for membership are his own.
34 35You can also read
