SPRING/SUMMER 2016 Peter Brookes A NEW NATO FOR A NEW NATO A NEW AMERICAN ADMINISTRATION

SECURITY IN Antoni Macierewicz EUROPE - HOWEUROPE TO CHANGE THE

NEGATIVE TREND NEGATIVE TIME Rasmussen Anders Fogh

A NATO FIT A NATO

FOR PURPOSE TO ACTTO SUMMIT WARSAW NATO EDITORIAL

Tomasz Poręba Tomasz Poręba is a Member of the European Parliament and President of New Direction – The Foundation for European Reform. NATO THE FOUNDATION OF EUROPEAN SECURITY 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 Coff 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 NATO funding

THINGS YOU NEED TO 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’ KNOW ABOUT NATO 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 6 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 10 the costs of NATO’s integrated structures, collectively-owned equipment or installations. 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 7 1 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- the rule of law. These values are at the heart of NATO’s transatlantic bond. 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 2 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 8 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. 3 Strategic Commands are two Joint Force Commands (in Brunssum, Netherlands and in Naples, Italy) that NATO’s Standing Maritime Group 2 arrived in the Aegean Sea within 48 hours of the Ministers’ decision. can deploy and run military operations. The Command Structure also includes one air command (Ramstein, 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. 9 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 4 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, 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 5 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 10 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 Antoni Macierewicz, Defence Minister of Antoni Poland Macierewicz EUROPE THE NEGATIVE TREND

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 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 WRussian 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 STOPPED BY SOLVING THE PROBLEMS and Justice, now ruling in Poland) declarations. This is why the NATO Islands back in 2006, whereas Italy THAT CAUSED THEM. has had permanent problems with 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 of expansion of Russia could have arising questions about the future of same time, the conflicts that caused July 2014. Circumstances of both annexation of Crimea brought to as one complex peril and challenge. taken place and that Ukraine and our security. the massive inflow of migrants in bear characteristics typical to acts mind some of the most dreadful They are interdependent and they ■ 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 TO COOPERATE IN A Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan since at 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

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 Ton 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 Spokesman in the 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 European Parliament. ambitions. some hard-headed strategic thinking Finland, the Irish Republic and serious. The rightful concerns of invented while a NATO maritime

18 19 force 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 TO THE ALLIANCE AS A It makes no sense for two different EU’s decision-making autonomy. It WHOLE - IF ALL NATO management. NATO’s ‘Provincial NATO use. operations, particularly through its organisations comprising more or is specifically designed to exclude ALLIES WERE SO Reconstruction Teams’ in incipient African Standby Force. less the same countries, facing the the USA and does not recognise MINDED. Afghanistan are a good example. In Worryingly, even the United States The United States has been as 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 21 powers 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 SUMMIT IN WARSAW role in an area which it claims as in Warsaw should focus on the SHOULD FOCUS ON THE its own. Hence the dilemma that The EU is determined, step by step, creation of military capability, to CREATION OF MILITARY PESCO will present. to take forward defence integration match an emergent Russian threat 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 23 ICELAND 1 Since 2008, fighters aircraft have been deployed to provide a quick-reaction capability. AWACS NATO maintains a fleet of AWACS aircraft as a deployable air command and control capability. 2 These aircraft have been deployed to enhance NATO’s situational awareness over Poland and Romania in the light of the Ukraine crisis. AIR POLICING BALTIC STATES, SLOVENIA AND ALBANIA 3 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 KFOR The NATO-led Kosovo Force is helping to maintain a safe and secure environment and 4 freedom of movement for all people in Kosovo. ACTIVE ENDEAVOUR After the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States, NATO launched Operation Active 5 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 NATO SUPPORT TO TURKEY On 4 December 2012 Patriot missiles batteries have been deployed to augment Turkey’s air 6 defences to defend the population and territory of Turkey in response to the Syrian crisis. RESOLUTE SUPPORT MISSION (RSM) 2 RSM is a non-combat mission which provides training, advice and assistance to Afghan 7 security forces and institution which was launched on 1 January 2015. SUPPORT TO THE AFRICAN UNION 8 Since 2005, NATO has been providing different forms of support to the African Union at its 3 request, including strategic air- and sealift, and providing expert and training support. OCEAN SHIELD Operation Ocean Shield was launched in August 2009 to contribute to global efforts to fight 9 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. NATO DEPLOYMENT TO AEGEAN SEA 2016 3 NATO has deployed ships to the Aegean Sea to support Allies Greece and Turkey, as well as 10 the EU’s border agency Frontex, in their efforts to tackle the migrant and refugee crisis. 6 NATO 10 ON DUTY 5 7 NATO MISSIONS & DEPLOYMENTS

9 8

24 25 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 Rus that the West needs to protect threat. I am hopeful that the NATO DEPLOYMENT Anders Fogh Rasmussen its societies and values against Alliance has reached a turning AND DETERRENCE CAN 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 A NATO FIT taken for granted. The key objective sent an important message with its we have to keep all options 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 FOR PURPOSE 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 27 Anna Fotyga is Member of the European Parliament, Chair of the Subcommittee on Security and Defence.

Anna Fotyga MEP INDIVISIBLE SECURITY 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 Iand 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 29 WORLD 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 INDIA 45.2 GERMANY 43.9 SOUTH KOREA 34.4 similar trend despite the fact that NATO is asking its member states to 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 31 Peter Brookes A NEW NATO FOR A NEW AMERICAN ADMINISTRATION

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 Isecurity 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 Defence. from aggression. This is its core NATO cannot ignore. Russian unprofessional airmanship by mission. But since the end of the Cold President Vladimir Putin intends its pilots around NATO patrol

32 33 aircraft 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 • Restore American and allied Today, NATO must ask itself: Is ground, air and naval forces, materiel; 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 government review of the • Promote increased most directly and immediately. paths for NATO to follow in the direction of U.S.-Russia investment in allied coming years, but a new American relations and develop military technology, the NATO is as important to peace President would be well advised effective policies in light of NATO defence industrial and stability in Europe in the to consider implementing the recent events; base, and weapons systems 21st century as it was in the 20th 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 While NATO’s willingness to operate up to its treaty obligations and Sweden so that NATO DISAPPEARED WITH outside Europe should be lauded, to NATO, reaffirming our 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 its fundamental mission tasking. if necessary, liberate should NATO need to be WAS THOUGHT TO BE, If everything is important, then its member states from defended; PERHAPS, THE “END 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 should take steps with America’s - in the Baltics and in Central • Encourage increased focus expert review of the threat NATO allies to return the Alliance and Eastern Europe; on ballistic and cruise missile NATO faces to determine if to its founding principles of defence programs to meet the U.S. and NATO forces are • Shift NATO military training deterring aggression and defending existing and evolving ballistic ready for that challenge; from counterterror/ member states’ sovereignty and and cruise missile threat to counterinsurgency territory if necessary. • Help allies develop military operations towards large- NATO countries; capabilities and capacity scale force-on-force and • Conduct more high-level, Fighting and winning in Europe is so that NATO members can collective security operations high-visibility, political- NATO’s key mission—and it must better take responsibility focused on the European military engagement with be determinedly ready and able to for their own defence and theater; NATO partners both in do so. ■ 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 deeply informed by the thoughtful to ensure high-levels of • Continue efforts to enlarge percent of gross domestic research of Heritage colleagues, but cohesion, interoperability NATO, develop candidate product (GDP), if not more; and the readiness of the views ultimately expressed here countries for membership are his own.

34 35 NATO DEFENCE SPENDING AS GDP

ALLIANCE EXPENDITURE NATO DEFENCE OVERALL 1990-2014 SPENDING AS GDP DEFENCE EXPENDITURES NATO EUROPE (BILLION US$) 4.94 4.46 4.42 4.09 320 3.78 3.51

300

1.70 1.64 280 1.56 1.53 1.51 1.47

260 Billion US$

240 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

220 North America Europe

200 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014

The cuts to defence expenditures, deepened by the financial crisis, diminish the options available to the Alliance and reduces the extent to which Allies equitably share responsibilities. The defence investment pledge is an important signal that Allies are committed to addressing the mismatch between challenges faced and resources available.

In Wales, NATO leaders pledged to stop the cuts to defence budgets, to increase investment as economies recover, to make the most effective use of available funds, and to strive for a more balanced sharing of the costs and responsibilities of their common defence. This is the first time NATO Heads of State and Government have made this kind of commitment.

Source: NATO (2015) ‘The Secretary General’s Annual Report 2014, Chapter 2 Source: NATO (2016) Defence Expenditures of NATO Countries (2008-2015)

36 37 ALLIANCE REAL GDP DEFENCE DEFENCE EXPENDITURES AS GDP EXPENDITURE AND CHANGES VS SPENDING ON EQUIPMENT FROM PREVIOUS YEARS 2007-2013 BASED ON 2010 PRICES - ESTIMATES FOR 2015

40% 16%

Since 2008, economies in Europe and

North America have been challenged MEDIAN 1.18 14% by the persisting global economic crisis. Declining or low-level economic 35% 2% NATO GUIDELINE 2% NATO growth among many member states 12% has increased government budget deficits, raised the levels of government indebtedness and prompted tighter 30% 10% constraints on government spending. However, as economic conditions in many NATO countries have begun to stabilise, the cuts to defence spending 8% have begun to level off. 25%

6%

20% NATO GUIDELINE 4% 20%

2%

15% MEDIAN 14.60 0% EQUIPMENT EXPENDITURES % OF DEFENCE EQUIPMENT

-2% 10%

-4%

5%

-6%

-8% 0%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 3.0% 3.5% 4.0% DEFENCE EXPENDITURES % OF GDP GDP DEFENCE EXP.

Source: NATO (2014) ‘Secretary General’s Annual Report 2013’, Economic pressures on defence spending Source: NATO (2016) Defence Expenditures of NATO Countries (2008-2015)

38 39 32 31.9 32 31 31 30 30 29 29 28 28 27 DEFENCE 27 26 26 EXPENDITURES AS 25.3 25 25 24 GDP VS SPENDING 24 23 ON EQUIPMENT 23 22 22 ANNUAL REAL CHANGE 21 21 21.7 20 2013 2014 2015 20 19.0 19 19 18 18

17 16.6 17

16 15.6 16 15 15 14 14 13 13

12 11.5 12 11 11 10.1 10.0 10 9.6 10 8.6 8.6 9 8.3 8.4 9 8 8 7.3 7.2 7 6.8 7 6 5.6 6 5.1 5 4.7 4.7 4.3 5 4 3.7 4 3.1 3.0 3.2 2.6 3 2.3 2.4 2.5 3

2 1.6 1.5 2 1.2 1.0 0.5 1 0.3 0.3 0.2 1 0.0 0 0 -0.1 -0.1 -0.2 0.3 -0.4 -0.3 -1 -0.9 -1 -1.0 -1.1 -1.3 -1.3 -1.3 -1.3 -1.5 -2 -1.9 -2 -2.2 -2.0 -3 -2.9 -3 -3.1 -3.1 -3.5 -4 -3.9 -4 -4.2 -4.6 -4.4 -4.8 -4.8 -5 -4.8 -4.9 -4.8 -5 -5.0 -5.1 -5.1 -6 -5.8 -6 -6.0 -6.0 -6.3 -6.1 -7 -6.7 -6.6 -6.7 -7 -7.4 -8 -8 -8.3 -8.3 -9 -8.7 -8.6 -9

-10 -9.8 -10 -11 -10.5 -11 -12 -11.8 -12 -12.4 -13 -12.8 -13 Italy Spain Latvia Turkey France Poland Greece Croatia Estonia Canada Albania Norway Belgium Bulgaria Slovenia Hungary Portugal Romania Germany Denmark Lithuania Netherlands Luxembourg United States United NATO - TOTAL NATO Czech Republic Czech Slovak Republic Slovak United Kingdom United - EUROPE NATO NORTH AMERICA NORTH

Source: www.nato.int

40 41 NATO-RUSSIA THE RELATIONS BACKGROUND

ATO began reaching out to Russia in 1990. Over Nthe following two decades, the Alliance proposed to Russia an unprecedented series of partnership initiatives and practical 1990 1994 1997 2002-2008 2008 2010-2014 2014-2016 cooperation activities against common LONDON SUMMIT: THE PARTNERSHIP THE NATO-RUSSIA COOPERATION THE GEORGIA SEEKING A RESPONDING security challenges. “NO LONGER FOR PEACE FOUNDING ACT THROUGH THE CRISIS NEW STAGE OF TO THE UKRAINE ADVERSARIES” NATO-RUSSIA COOPERATION CRISIS However, in March 2014, COUNCIL in response to Russia’s aggressive actions On 5-6 July 1990, the NATO In June 1994, Russia became On 27 May 1997, NATO On 28 May 2002 in Rome, NATO found Russia’s At a NATO-Russia Council In March 2014, Russia illegally against Ukraine, NATO Summit in London proposed the first country to join leaders and President NATO leaders and President military action in Georgia held during the Lisbon and illegitimately annexed suspended practical to the countries of the NATO’s Partnership for Boris Yeltsin signed the Vladimir Putin signed a to be “disproportionate Summit in November 2010, Crimea, part of Ukraine’s then Warsaw Pact a joint Peace (PfP), a programme of Founding Act, expressing declaration, “NATO-Russia and inconsistent with its NATO leaders and President sovereign territory. In response, cooperation with Russia. declaration stating that: practical bilateral cooperation their determination to Relations: A New Quality,” peacekeeping role, as well Dmitry Medvedev agreed to NATO Foreign Ministers At the same time, NATO between NATO and partner “build together a lasting establishing the NATO- as incompatible with the embark on “a new stage of decided to suspend all has kept channels for “We are no longer adversaries countries. and inclusive peace in the Russia Council (NRC) as a principles of peaceful conflict cooperation towards a true practical civilian and military communication with and reaffirm our intention Euro-Atlantic area on the consensus-based body of resolution set out in the strategic partnership”, based cooperation with Russia on 1 Russia open. This fact to refrain from the threat The Brussels Summit principles of democracy and equal members. Russia was Helsinki Final Act, the NATO- on the goals and principles April 2014. Since then, Russia sheet sets out the key or use of force against the Declaration defined the cooperative security.” the only NATO partner offered Russia Founding Act and the of the Founding Act and has continued its aggressive territorial integrity or political goals of PfP as expanding such a privileged partnership. Rome Declaration.” the NATO-Russia Rome actions against Ukraine, dates and events in the independence of any state.” and intensifying political The Act established the NATO and Russia declared to Declaration. including through continued relationship. and military cooperation in goal of cooperation in areas open a new page in relations At the Summit in Strasbourg and deliberate destabilisation In this spirit, the Alliance Europe, increasing stability, such as peacekeeping, arms aimed at “enhancing our and Kehl on 4 April 2009, NATO met its commitment of eastern Ukraine. As a result, invited President diminishing threats to peace control, counter-terrorism, ability to work together in NATO leaders recognised to cooperation. The Alliance our cooperation remains Mikhail Gorbachev and and building strengthened counter-narcotics and theatre areas of common interest disagreements with Russia invited Russia to explore the suspended. However, channels representatives of Central and relationships by “promoting missile defence. and to stand together against over Georgia but decided to potential for cooperation on for dialogue remain open. Eastern European countries the spirit of practical common threats and risks to resume practical and political missile defence. NATO and The NATO-Russia Council to address the North Atlantic cooperation and commitment In the Founding Act, NATO our security.” cooperation. They also Russia agreed to reinforce has met three times since Council. to democratic principles that and Russia agreed to base expressed readiness to make cooperation against terrorism the suspension of practical underpin our Alliance.” their cooperation on the The NRC led to stronger the NATO-Russia Council and piracy. cooperation, most recently on The London Declaration principles of human rights cooperation in areas including a more efficient vehicle for 20 April 2016. The Secretary emphasised the need to and civil liberties; refraining counter-terrorism, crisis cooperation. In the following years, NATO General and Deputy Secretary conclude arms control from the threat or use of force management, arms control and Russia worked together in General also engage regularly agreements and reduce against each other or any and theatre missile defence. support of the Afghan army’s with their Russian counterparts. reliance on nuclear weapons other state; respect for the NATO and Russia cooperated helicopter fleet, conducted following the full withdrawal sovereignty, independence to support the ISAF mission joint counter-piracy and At the Wales Summit in of Soviet forces from Central and territorial integrity of in Afghanistan. The joint work submarine-rescue exercises, September 2014, NATO Heads and Eastern European states. all states and their inherent included Russian provision and discussed a joint military of State and Government The Declaration stated NATO’s right to choose the means of transit routes for ISAF, mission to help dispose of made it clear that the nature determination to begin a to ensure their own security; counter narcotics training Syria’s chemical weapons in of the Alliance’s relations with major transformation and prevention of conflicts for police and customs 2013 and early 2014. Russia and our aspiration for work with all the countries and dispute settlement by officers from the region and partnership will be contingent of Europe to create enduring peaceful means. support for the Afghan army’s on us clear, constructive change peace on the continent. helicopter fleet. in Russia’s actions which demonstrates compliance with international law and its international obligations and responsibilities.

Source: www.nato.int

42 43 Dr Roberts Zile MEP WISHFUL Dr Roberts Zīle, Member of the European Parliament, Member of the ECR THINKING Bureau VERSUS REALITY NATO’S INCREASED PRESENCE IN EASTERN EUROPE IS A NECESSITY, NOT PROVOCATION

ATO’s Wales Summit Not so for Latvia and its two Baltic troops in the Baltic States and DESPITE ALL THE assumed that there is a unified provoked. Such claims are unfounded in 2014 was a positive neighbours Estonia and Lithuania Poland. Yet that is precisely what PROGRESS ACHIEVED voice within NATO that lists the and the opposite is in fact true. It was event for Eastern which were not naive enough to is needed to ensure real security THUS FAR, THERE IS STILL security of the Baltic States and indeed a lack of opposition and a Europe and especially believe that there is such a thing for Eastern Europe. This is all the WORK TO BE DONE TO Poland as its number one priority. credible threat that enabled Russia’s Nso for the three Baltic States. Back as a “softer” or “more pragmatic” more necessary as recently two INCREASE THE DEFENCE annexation of Crimea. Baltic States then NATO’s member countries Russia. The Baltic States have NATO generals were quoted in the CAPABILITIES OF Understanding all of the above and are no different. Russia’s imperial agreed to enhance the deterrence suffered under the Soviet Union news, stating that the VJTF, whilst EASTERN EUROPE. in order to overcome the current ambitions have not diminished whilst capabilities of the Alliance – a set for long enough to build an an important step forward, is “too risks, NATO’s Warsaw Summit in July the wishful thinking of certain people of measures called the Readiness immunity against the lies of the vulnerable” and would be at risk provides the perfect opportunity to in the West only plays into Russia’s More importantly, there is the Action Plan (RAP). The core feature giant neighbour to their East. It of being overrun by Russia given hammer out the details for stationing hands. In a way one can hope that weak spot of Suwalki corridor of RAP would see the creation of might be a different matter for the country’s substantial military of four battalions in Poland and people advocating a “dialogue” with – a 100-kilometer-long land gap a five thousand-strong Very High those inhabitants of Latvia who infrastructure along its borders. the Baltic States. This would show Russia are at least benefiting from connecting the two NATO Member Readiness Joint Task Force (VJTF). are still living pre-independence that the Alliance is serious about this because otherwise one has to States, Lithuania and Poland. By This new, yet very significant memories which includes a large One could also add that the Baltic its commitments and provide the conclude that Putin’s propaganda war controlling the gap, Russia can element within the broader 40,000 daily dose of Russian TV news and States, particularly Latvia, are Eastern EU States with greater has also gained an audience in the literally cut the Baltic States off not strong NATO Response Force (NRF) thereby belonging to a different still reliant on Russian gas as peace of mind. More practically, the West. only from Poland, which is one of would insure that the Alliance society – notwithstanding their well as being partly incorporated stationing of troops would enable the the most important NATO partners had a new tool to counter Russia’s failure to becoming fully-fledged in the ex-Soviet electricity grids Alliance with a capacity to actually I believe in the right of every of the three countries, but the rest newfound reliance on hybrid citizens. and rail market – thus already defend the territories of Eastern country to choose its own foreign of Europe too. warfare. being involuntary integrated in Europe, not just deter the risks. policy, including mine. I am certain Despite all the progress achieved the wrong region to some degree. that the Baltic States and Poland On the other hand, it needs to be Russia’s tactics and actions thus far, there is still work to Given the slow and painful As NATO’s presence in Eastern choose security. If we do not, Russia understood that NATO is made up within the context of the illegal be done to increase the defence progress of the Rail Baltica railway Europe increases, there are voices will choose for us. The sooner the of a number of countries whose annexation of Crimea and, more capabilities of Eastern Europe. project that aims to connect the calling for this to be reversed. The wishful thinkers understand this, interests are somewhat divergent. generally, the “internal conflict” in The measures agreed in Wales did region with the rest of Europe, the argument goes that Russia feels the better for everyone. More NATO For that reason it should not be Ukraine were a surprise to some. not include a plan to station NATO situation is even gloomier still. threatened and should not be means more security. ■

44 45 ALLIED LAND COMMAND IN EUROPE

ALLIED COMMAND Joint Warfare AIRCOM, 1 (GE/NL) NATO School, Joint Forces MNC-NE, JFC BRUNSSUM, TRANSFORMATION, Center, Ramstein, Corps, Oberammergau, Training Center, Szezecin, Brunssum, NLD Norfolk, VA, USA Stavanger, DE Munster, DE DE Bydgoszcz, POL POL NOR

ARRC, EUROCORPS, Innsworth, Strasbourg, GBR FRA

MARCOM, Allied Command Northwood, Operations / GBR SHAPE, Mons, BEL

NSPA Capellen, NSHQ, LUX Mons, BEL

NATO Science NAEW&C FC, and Technology Mons, BEL Organisation, Brussels, BEL

NCI Agency, RRC-FR, Lille, Brussels, FRA BEL

NSA, Brussels, NRDC-GR, BEL Thessaloniki, GRC

Joint Analysis STREKFORNATO, NRDC-ESP, NRDC-IT, NATO Defense College, JFC NAPLES, LANDCOM, NRDC-TUR, & Lessons Oeiras, PRT Valencia, Solbiate, ITA Rome, ITA Naples, ITA Izmir, TUR Istanbul, TUR Learned Centre, ESP Monsanto, PRT

46 47 Dr Przemysław Żurawski vel Grajewski RUSSIA AS AN EXPORTER OF INSTABILITY RUSSIA HAS ADVANCED SPECIALLY BECAUSE NOBODY OBSERVED, WATCHED AND UNDERSTOOD WHAT SHE WAS DOING. EXPOSE HER PLANS, AND YOU HALF DEFEAT THEM. RAISE PUBLIC OPINION AGAINST HER AND YOU DOUBLE HER DIFFICULTIES... DEPEND UPON Dr Przemysław IT, THAT IS THE BEST WAY TO SAVE YOU FROM THE NECESSITY OF Żurawski vel MAKING WAR AGAINST HER. LORD HENRY PALMERSTON’S (FOREIGN Grajewski, Professor at the University of MINISTER) LETTER TO LORD WILLIAM LAMB MELBOURNE Lodz, Poland – THE PRIME MINISTER - OCTOBER 1835 R.

48 49 hurchill was wrong. Russia Balkanisation is still a synonym Lord Palmerston said to show what CHURCHILL WAS WRONG. is not “a riddle, wrapped of disorder. In the 20th century the Russian goals are for the world, RUSSIA IS NOT “A RIDDLE, in a mystery, inside an Russia destabilised the entire world half the job is to prevent Russia WRAPPED IN A MYSTERY, enigma”, and “the key” to it by plotting with Hitler to blow up from achieving them. What are INSIDE AN ENIGMA”, AND Cfor sure is not the “Russian national the international order hoping for therefore the Russian goals today? “THE KEY” TO IT FOR SURE interest”. Everybody knows a worldwide revolution. Today IS NOT THE “RUSSIAN millions of people were killed Russia continues this tradition by NATIONAL INTEREST”. in the struggle for power inside warming up the frozen conflicts RUSSIA WANTS: Kremlin in the 20th century, very in the Caucasus (Georgia 2008), few remember that the Russian inspires new ones in Ukraine IN EUROPE political class was able to dissolve (2014-?), gives fuel to the on-going the USSR for the same reason ones (Syria) and prepares future • to turn Ukraine into a failed in 1991. It is the struggle for the conflicts (perhaps in the Baltic state. The potential success Kremlin among post-soviet siloviks basin?). of Ukrainian reforms (as mafias that shapes Russia’s internal well as the Georgian ones in politics. According to Russian The only region in Europe having Shaakashvili’s government) sociologist Olga Krishtanovskaya, been affected by wars and then constitutes an existential 78 per cent of the Russian political being effectively stabilised after the challenge for Putin’s elites have their roots in either cold war was the post-Yugoslavian ‘suzerain democracy’ and KGB or GRU (Military Intelligence) area where peace was restored not “must be prevented with all where they were taught how to in the cooperation with Russia but the means”. manipulate people and how to kill in spite of its support for the main • to destroy transatlantic them. There is only one ultimate source of troubles (the Milošević ties – to get rid of American goal for all of them – to be in power, dictatorship) and in spite of its presence in Europe and to derive profits from that and to desperate efforts to maintain the to destroy the EU system remain unpunished. That was the tension (for example the Russian turning it into the 19th core of the deal between Yeltsin battalion involved in the Priština century type concerto of and Putin while the latter was airport seizure). the powers with Russia taking over Russia. What he needed as a major player and the to take power was effectively war Russia sponsored terrorism in the countries between Russia and destabilisation and he created Soviet times. Putin was a Colonel and Germany as non- this with the terrorist bomb attacks in the KGB then. Today while existing factors. This is why on his own compatriots in Moscow, portrayed by Kremlin’s propaganda Russia supports all radicals Volgodonsk and Buynaksk to as a “leader of the civilised world from the left and from launch the second Chechen war in the struggle against Islamist the right, manipulates the in 1999. Alexandr Litvinenko who terrorism” and a “defender of the migration crisis, provokes revealed the truth behind this was traditional Christian values against new waves of refugees to flee poisoned. decadent ‘Gayropa’ ” he should from Syria and undermines provoke nothing but mockery – a the prestige of European Putin has ruled Russia since 1999 KGB officer as a “Christian knight” Governments such as and the exporting of instability is – come on. the German Government the main tool of his foreign policy. attacked with the story of the It is not his invention but has been Russia exports four goods: oil, gas, Russian-German repatriate for a long time a Russian historical corruption and destabilisation. teenager allegedly raped by tradition. He inherited this modus Raw materials are the main immigrants. operandi from the past both source of money in Russian directly in the frozen conflicts in budget spent on armaments (used Russia inspires disorder in its Transnistria, Nagorno Karabakh, to blackmail other countries or neighbourhood in Norway and South Osetia and Abkhasia and to invade them) and to corrupt Finland (Russian sponsored more remotely from the plethora of the European political class immigration route to Europe), historical conflicts that Russian has (Schröder) or to support radical Sweden (air and submarine been part of. In the 17th and 18th parties in the West. intrusions) the Baltic states centuries Russia was destabilising (Russian minority riots – 2007 and Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth The Russians made ‘gas wars’ citizens kidnapping – the Kohver in order to conquer it. In the 19th destabilising the supply of energy case) in Poland, Hungary and century it did the same to Turkey raw materials to Europe with its Romania (the propaganda war and to the Habsburg Monarchy climax in 2009 must be mentioned aimed at the revitalisation of the to dominate the Balkans and too in order to complete the image. memory of historical conflicts

50 51 RUSSIA’S

TOP 5

MYTHS ABOUT NATO

ACCORDING TO RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGIST OLGA NATO is trying to encircle Russia. KRISHTANOVSKAYA, 78 PER CENT OF THE RUSSIAN This claim ignores the facts of geography. Russia’s land border is just over 20,000 kilometres long. Of that, POLITICAL ELITES HAVE THEIR MYTH 1,215 kilometres, or less than one-sixteenth, face current NATO members. ROOTS IN EITHER KGB OR GRU FACT 1 Claims that NATO is building bases around Russia are similarly groundless. Outside the territory of NATO (MILITARY INTELLIGENCE) nations, NATO only maintains a significant military presence in three places: Kosovo, Afghanistan, and at sea WHERE THEY WERE TAUGHT off the Horn of Africa. All three operations are carried out under United Nations mandate, and thus carry HOW TO MANIPULATE PEOPLE the approval of Russia, along with all other Security Council members. Before Russia’s aggressive actions in AND HOW TO KILL THEM. Ukraine began, Russia provided logistical support to the Afghan mission, and cooperated directly with the counter-piracy operation, showing clearly that Russia viewed them as a benefit, not a threat.

NATO has partnership relationships with many countries in Europe and Asia. Such partnerships, which between Poland and Lithuania, would consume Western Putin has ruled the country since are requested by the partners in question, focus exclusively on issues agreed with them, such as disaster Poland and Ukraine, Hungary and resources and political 1999 – long enough not to be able preparedness and relief, transparency, armed forces reform, and counter-terrorism. These partnerships cannot legitimately be considered a threat to Russia, or to any other country in the region, let alone an Ukraine, Hungary and Slovakia, attention by drawing them to blame his predecessor. The attempt at encirclement. Romania and Ukraine, Romania away from Europe. Russia only way to manage this internal and Hungary etc. The best example also wants the oil price to crisis is to blame the “Americans of this is the Russian official increase (due to its financial and their European puppets”. proposal of March 2014 for Poland, reliance on this resource) NATO has tried to isolate or marginalise Russia. Hungary and Romania to partition and to prevent the building When the war started in Ukraine Since the early 1990s, the Alliance has consistently worked to build a cooperative relationship with Russia on Ukraine). up of gas and oil transit a deputy from the Russian MYTH areas of mutual interest.

route from the Persian Parliament said of the West FACT IN THE MIDDLE EAST Gulf to the Mediterranean “They will scold and scold and 2 NATO began reaching out, offering dialogue in place of confrontation, at the London NATO Summit of July 1990. In the following years, the Alliance promoted dialogue and cooperation by creating new fora, the – a way to supply energy then they will stop scolding”. • to maintain Russian Partnership for Peace (PfP) and the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC), open to the whole of Europe, to Europe out of Russian Putin needs “small victorious including Russia. influence by having military control. wars”. War and destabilisation bases in Tartus and Latakia abroad is his only instrument to In 1997 NATO and Russia signed the Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security, creating the NATO Russia Permanent Joint Council. In 2002 they upgraded that relationship, creating the NATO- and therefore maintaining The only real goal of Putin and manage the internal crisis and its relationship with the Russia Council (NRC). They reaffirmed their commitment to the Founding Act at NATO-Russia summits in his siloviks is to stay at power. to stay in power. Acknowledging Rome in 2002 and in Lisbon in 2010. Assad regime by supporting The Russian raw material the Russian perception of the Alawite stronghold on exporting economy is declining “Western weakness” and Russia Since the foundation of the NRC, NATO and Russia have worked together on issues ranging from counter- the coast. in an irreversible way. The having international impunity narcotics and counter-terrorism to submarine rescue and civil emergency planning. We set out to build a unique relationship with Russia, one based not just on mutual interests but also on cooperation and the decreasing standard of living for • to have a never ending war will result in more aggressive shared objective for a Europe whole, free and at peace. No other partner has been offered a comparable ordinary Russians is causing his in the interior (in Syria and behaviour by Russia in the relationship, nor a similar comprehensive institutional framework. government a serious problem. Iraq) – in a conflict that future. ■

Source: www.nato.int

52 53 NATO missile defence targets Russia and the Iran agreement proves it. EUROPE’S FASTEST MYTH NATO’s missile defence system is not designed or directed against Russia. It does not pose a threat to Russia’s strategic deterrent.

3 FACT GROWING POLITICAL As explained by NATO Deputy Secretary General Alexander Vershbow, geography and physics make it impossible for the NATO system to shoot down Russian intercontinental missiles from NATO sites in Romania or Poland. Their capabilities are too limited, their planned numbers too few, and their locations MOVEMENT too far south or too close to Russia to do so.

Russian officials have confirmed that the planned NATO shield will not, in fact, undermine Russia’s deterrent. Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin, Russia’s missile defence envoy, said on January 26, 2015, that “neither the current, nor even the projected” missile defence system “could stop or cast doubt on Russia’s strategic missile potential.” Finally, the Russian claim that the framework agreement on Iran’s nuclear programme obviates the need for NATO missile defence is wrong on two counts.

The Iranian agreement does not cover the proliferation of ballistic-missile technology which is an issue completely different from nuclear questions. Furthermore, NATO has repeatedly made clear that missile defence is not about any one country, but about the threat posed by proliferation more generally. In fact, over 30 countries have obtained, or are trying to obtain, ballistic missile technology.

The Iran framework agreement does not change those facts.

NATO exercises are a provocation which threatens Russia. Every nation has the right to conduct exercises, as long as they do so within their international obligations, MYTH including notifying the actual numbers and providing observation opportunities when required. FACT 4 In order to promote mutual trust and transparency, OSCE members are bound by the Vienna Document to inform one another in advance of exercises which include more than 9,000 troops, unless the exercises are snap tests of readiness.

NATO and Allies have consistently stood by the terms and the spirit of the Vienna Document. Those exercises which crossed the notification threshold were announced well in advance. This is why Russia was invited to send observers to the NATO exercise Trident Juncture in October- November 2015.

Russia, on the other hand, has repeatedly called snap exercises including tens of thousands of troops, with some of them taking place close to NATO territory. This practice of calling massive exercises without warning is a breach of the spirit of the Vienna Document, raising tension and undermining trust. This is especially the case because Russia’s military takeover of Crimea was masked by exactly such a snap exercise.

It is therefore Russia’s exercises, not NATO’s, which are a threat to stability.

NATO’s Open Door policy creates new dividing lines in Europe and deepens existing ones.

MYTH NATO’s Open Door policy has helped close Cold War-era divisions in Europe. NATO enlargement has contributed to spreading democracy, security and stability further across Europe.

5 FACT By choosing to adopt the standards and principles of NATO, aspirant countries gave their democracies the strongest possible anchor. And by taking the pledge to defend NATO, they received the pledge that NATO would protect them.

NATO membership is not imposed on countries. Each sovereign country has the right to choose for itself whether it joins any treaty or alliance.

This fundamental principle is enshrined in international agreements including the Helsinki Final Act which says that every state has the right “to belong or not to belong to international organisations, to be or not to be a party to bilateral or multilateral treaties including the right to be or not to be a party to treaties of alliance.” And by signing the NATO-Russia Founding Act, Russia agreed to respect states’ “inherent right to choose the means to ensure their own security.”

Over the past 65 years, 28 countries have chosen freely, and in accordance with their domestic democratic processes, to join NATO. Not one has asked to leave. This is their sovereign choice. Article 13 of the Washington Treaty specifically gives Allies the right to leave should they wish to.

54 55 www.europeanreform.org Follow us @europeanreform