DOCSLIB.ORG

The EU's Battlegroup in Perspective

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The EU's Battlegroup in Perspective FOKUS | 7/2013 The EU‘s Battlegroup in perspective: addressing present challenges for future deployments Ana Isabel Xavier Origins and goals – Brief background the name “Battlegroups“ (British) or “Tacti- used anywhere and globally. After “notice perspective cal Groups“ (French), but the final “label” to move“, the BG has then 10 days to its was only approved on 10th February 2004 projection, guarantee its capability up to The European Union Battlegroup (EU BG) when France, Germany and the United 30 days, and if replenished, remain on the was designed as a military unit within the Kingdom released a document proposing field up to 120 days. framework of the Common Security and a number of autonomous groups based Defence Policy (CSDP) and reached Full on Artemis. The “Battlegroup concept” was On 1st January 2005, the BG reached its Operational Capability (FOC) on the 1st finally approved and then submitted to Initial Operational Capability (IOC) and January 2007 to perform mainly in North the Political and Security Committee (PSC) on 1st January 2007 has reached its FOC Africa, Middle East, Balkans and Caucasus. which, in turn, requested the advice of the with ability to «undertake if so decided It is composed of an infantry battalion- EU Military Committee (EUMC). The EU by the Council two concurrent single sized force (1500 troops) based on the BG started to gain force after the informal Battlegroup-sized rapid response opera- contributions from a coalition of member meeting that brought together ministers tions, including the ability to launch both states set under a “lead nation” on existing of defence and chiefs of staff on 5 and 6 such operations nearly simultaneously» ad hoc missions that the EU is undertaking April 2004, with higher expectations to be (European Union Council, 2007), «either as under the political control and strategic operational early in 2007. stand-alone actions or as part of a larger direction of the Council. operation» (Consilium, 2013). The EU Military Staff (EUMS) soon devel- The EU BG concept was officially created in oped the Battlegroup Concept which was The initial thirteen Battlegroups were pro- 2004 due to the success of the Operation finally agreed upon in June 2004. These posed on 22 November 2005, but further Artemis as requested by the United Na- groups would be at the disposal at short groups have joined them since then. In tions to intervene in the Democratic Repu- notice for any UN request and be rapidly order to assure full capability, the Battle- blic of Congo. At the time, the Secretary- tailored to specific missions including groups rotate every six months (EUMC, General Kofi Annan emphasised the value conflict prevention, evacuation, humani- 2006). The principles of multina tionality of the Battlegroups in helping the United tarian aid or initial stabilisation. Moreover, (European Parliament, 2007: 4) and inter- Nations to deal with instability crisis all the Battlegroups would have enough operability are of great importance to over the world. Indeed, Artemis showed range to deal with all those tasks, although ensure the effective use of military forces the ability of the EU to rapidly react and ought to be limited in “size and intensity“ on the field. deploy in a short time and distance scale due to the small nature of the groups. since, in just three weeks, the EU managed They were defined as combat-trained, so Challenges and prospects – to agree on the Crisis Management Con- their full potential would be best realised a critical insight cept (CMC) and launch the operation. In in tasks of combat forces in crisis manage- fact, in only 20 days the deployment took ment, bearing in mind their limited Though the BG concept is properly up- off. As a result, the success of the Artemis size. Battlegroups operations would be dated and appears to be conceptually mission gave the impression that all future conducted under a UN Security Council appropriate for the missions and tasks rapid response deployments would be Resolution (UNSCR), although operations that were designed to for the EU to rapidly easily putted in practice. could be drawn in situations with no need react in trouble spots, there are still some of such procedure, like the evacuation of major problems dealing with political In 24th November 2003, a Franco-British EU citizens. decision making and military force deploy- Summit concluded that the EU should be ment deadlines, as well as lack of additio- able to respond to all the requests made The BG succeeds in an area of employment nal resources for strategic force multiplier by the UN, both in Africa and anywhere at a distance up to 6000 km from Brussels assets (transports, satellites). else in the world. The proposal suggested as the centre of the range, but can be 1 FOKUS | 7/2013 Furthermore, to be consistent with a com- the substantial costs associated with the In addition, another future challenge refers prehensive approach, there is the need to preparation and the possible deployment to ongoing initiatives encouraged by include a robust civilian component and of Battlegroups, combined with cur- groups of “small” states that seem to have review the Athena mechanism (Paccaud, rent financial crisis and austerity, pose, less money available but more interest 2012) in order to address and mitigate however, challenges to fill the Battle- in gathering interests and capabilities for the current impact of the financial crisis group Roster. This situation has triggered defence. No wonder that «in consequence, on the European defence capabilities, inten sive work and initiatives to mitigate their added-value [BG] has been more namely following the pooling and sharing existing shortfalls» (Consilium, 2013). significant for individual member states milestones. than for the Union as a whole, and for its One of the reasons that may explain the role as a global actor» (Hatzigeorgopoulos, In fact, Europe surely wants to take care of difficulties to pursue its mission is the lack 2012). One of the best examples is Sweden its backyard, but without supporting an of political will of the EU member states and Finland that recently announced the expensive model or duplicating its efforts to send troops abroad (frequently the “re- creation of a joint Nordic Battlegroup in similar structures such as the NATO mote” abroad off to the neighbourhood), and urged a Non EU country (Norway) to Response Force (NRF). In fact, EU and NATO as well as (or specially) the already menti- gather in order to make up the required members need proper planning, coordina- oned economic constraints. In fact, the EU 1500 elements. tion and cooperation in order to assure the BG formations are based on contributions different commitments towards collec- from the member states and the troops Nonetheless, this kind of initiatives may tive security, both in terms of troops and and equipment are drawn from the EU also warn us on a “two speed” EU BG, since specially the financial resources. In addition, member states under a “lead nation“. the larger member states will generally a unit cannot be on stand-by for the EU contribute with their own Battlegroups, Battlegroup and the NRF at the same time. Along with the lack of political will two while smaller members are expected to Therefore, though it is a project running other “classic” obstacles still remain: first, create common groups. In fact, each group within the European framework, a perma- the huge differences on the national must have a ‘lead nation‘ or ‘framework na- nent tactical group clearly presents relevant perceptions of security and safety; and tion‘ which will take operational command implications for both EU and NATO. If the EU second, the time-consuming discussion, and will also be associated with a deploy- Battlegroups were available for future NATO approval and launching process of ex- able headquarters in order to assure that operations or used as a contribution to the tremely short-notice combat missions. In at least one Battlegroup is on standby NATO Response Force, European security fact, many of the nations that supply the every six months. However, although the and defence could also highly benefit in troops need a parliamentary approval for Battlegroup concept is open to non EU terms of lessons learned (always useful for such assignments and the very short time- countries (Norway and Turkey, participate building the alliance’s security and defence line between the approval of the CMC, the in a group each) other EU member states framework) as well as certification process political decision to launch the operation already stressed its opting out clauses and (NATO’s pre-planned trainings and exercises and the troops to be projected on the “a la carte” solutions. Those are the cases could be plugged into the Battlegroup ground frequently doesn’t converge on. of Denmark that is not obliged to partici- certification process and vice-versa). pate in the common defence and security To overcome these problems, Gros-Ver- policy according to its accession treaty, Another feature that deserves to be heyde (2012a) present us some solutions, as well as Malta that doesn´t participate highlighted is that the EU Battlegroups are including: the gathering of the member in any Battlegroup. Other Member States not permanent, but created on an ad hoc States and the formation of each lead decided to focus in specific capabilities in basis to fill the roster and always based on nation (in turn, the smaller States should support of the EU Battlegroups: Cyprus voluntary offers. For that particular reason, crowd and organize themselves into (medical group), Lithuania (a water purifi- Gros-Verheyde (2012a, 2012b) warns us regional partnerships to build leading cation unit), Greece (the Athens Sealift Co- about some “holes” on the Battlegroup nations); the inclusion of a civilian compo- ordination Centre) and France (structure calendar.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • NATO Enlargement: Poland, the Baltics, Ukraine and Georgia
    University of Central Florida STARS Honors Undergraduate Theses UCF Theses and Dissertations 2018 NATO Enlargement: Poland, The Baltics, Ukraine and Georgia Christopher M. Radcliffe University of Central Florida Part of the Comparative Politics Commons, and the International Relations Commons Find similar works at: https://stars.library.ucf.edu/honorstheses University of Central Florida Libraries http://library.ucf.edu This Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the UCF Theses and Dissertations at STARS. It has been accepted for inclusion in Honors Undergraduate Theses by an authorized administrator of STARS. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Recommended Citation Radcliffe, Christopher M., "NATO Enlargement: Poland, The Baltics, Ukraine and Georgia" (2018). Honors Undergraduate Theses. 400. https://stars.library.ucf.edu/honorstheses/400 NATO ENLARGEMENT: POLAND, THE BALTICS, UKRAINE AND GEORGIA By CHRISTOPHER M. RADCLIFFE A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Honors in the Major Program in International and Global Studies in the College of Sciences and in the Burnett Honors College at the University of Central Florida Orlando, Florida Spring Term, 2018 Thesis Chair: Houman Sadri, Ph.D. i ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This is the most difficult project that I’ve ever taken on. At this time, I’d like to thank a number of people that helped me through this process. I’ve had the pleasure of working with two brilliant professors – Dr. Houman Sadri, who is my thesis chair and Dr. Vladimir Solonari, a member of my thesis committee. Thank you for all of the motivation over the past year and time you both have taken to assist me with completing this project.
    [Show full text]
  • The European Union Challenge As an Actor in Crisis and Conflict Management
    AIR & SPACE POWER JOURNAL en Español 4th Trimester 2018 The European Union Challenge as an Actor in Crisis and Conflict Management MAJOR MANUEL LOPEZ-LAGO, SPANISH AIR FORCE fter an apparently easy victory in the Afghan war by American troops in October 2001, Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) had reached a crossroad by the time Obama en- tered office. In his campaign for the presidency during 2008, he had claimed that Ame- rican Armed Forces were losing the war in Afghanistan. Regretfully, the International ASecurity Assistance Force in Afghanistan (ISAF) mission, led by NATO, had failed to fulfill the political goal of stabilizing the country, “the graveyard of the empires,” and the European Union (EU) itself did not actively fight. To make things worse, NATO troops had to work within a lot of caveats, which kept them from implementing many military operations. Consequently, nations less burdened with caveats like theUnited States, the United Kingdom and Australia, had to take most of the burden of the military operations. On December 1, 2009, President Barack Obama announced in a national televised address at the Military Academy in West Point that he was ordering a surge of 30,000 troops in Afghanistan. Despite Obama’s decision, the process to approve the surge required a great deal of “pulling and hauling” by the major actors who had access to and influence on the president.1 Consequently, the plan for the surge included a date of withdrawal, which gave a clear message to military com- manders that the time to achieve political ends had a deadline.
    [Show full text]
  • Norway: Defence 2008
    Norwegian Defence 2008 Norwegian Defence 2008 2 CONTENT NORWEGIAN SECURITY And DEFEncE POLICY 4 1. Security Policy Objectives 5 Defence Policy Objectives 5 2. Defence Tasks 6 3. Areas of Government Focus 7 4. International Cooperation 8 UN 8 NATO 9 EU 10 Nordic cooperation 11 5. National Cooperation 12 DEFEncE STRUCTURE And AcTIVITIES 14 1. Constitutional Division of Responsibility in Norway 15 2. The Strategic Leadership of the Armed Forces 15 The Ministry Of Defence 16 3. The Defence Agencies 17 The Norwegian Armed Forces 17 4. The Norwegian Armed Forces 18 5. The Service Branches 19 The Norwegian Army 19 The Royal Norwegian Navy 20 Royal Norwegian Air Force 21 Home Guard 22 6. Personnel Policy 23 7. National Service 23 8. Materiel and Investments 24 Overview of Forces Engaged in International Operations 25 SUppLEMENt – THE FACTS 26 1. The Defence Budget 27 2. International Operations 27 3. Ranks and Insignia 28 4. Non-Governmental Organisations 29 5. Addresses 32 Norwegian Security and Defence Policy 4 1. SECURITY POLICY OBJECTIVES The principal objective of Norwegian security policy is to safeguard and promote national security policy interests. This is best achieved by contributing to peace, security and stability both in areas adjacent to Norway and in the wider world. Nationally Norway must be in a position to uphold its sovereignty and sove- reign rights and to exercise authority in order to safeguard our interests. At the same time, the progress of globalisation means that geo- graphical distance is no longer a determining factor for potential threats to our security.
    [Show full text]
  • Doubling NATO: Functional and Geographical Enlargement of the Alliance Ergodan Kurt Old Dominion University
    Old Dominion University ODU Digital Commons Graduate Program in International Studies Theses & Graduate Program in International Studies Dissertations Spring 2010 Doubling NATO: Functional and Geographical Enlargement of the Alliance Ergodan Kurt Old Dominion University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/gpis_etds Part of the International Relations Commons Recommended Citation Kurt, Ergodan. "Doubling NATO: Functional and Geographical Enlargement of the Alliance" (2010). Doctor of Philosophy (PhD), dissertation, International Studies, Old Dominion University, DOI: 10.25777/4bgn-h798 https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/gpis_etds/75 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Program in International Studies at ODU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Program in International Studies Theses & Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ODU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. DOUBLING NATO: FUNCTIONAL AND GEOGRAPHICAL ENLARGEMENT OF THE ALLIANCE by Erdogan Kurt B.A. August 1996, Turkish Military Academy M.A. July 2001, Naval Postgraduate School A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of Old Dominion University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL STUDIES OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY May 2010 Approved by: ©2010 Erdogan Kurt. All rights reserved. ABSTRACT DOUBLING NATO: FUNCTIONAL AND GEOGRAPHICAL ENLARGEMENT OF THE ALLIANCE Erdogan Kurt Old Dominion University, 2010 Director: Dr. Regina Karp This dissertation studies NATO expansion as institutional adaptation. More specifically, it examines the interaction between NATO's functional and geographical enlargement. This study asserts that there is a close relationship between NATO's new functions and its enlargement.
    [Show full text]
  • Finnish Defence Forces International Centre the Many Faces of Military
    Finnish Defence Forces International Finnish Defence Forces Centre 2 The Many Faces of Military Crisis Management Lessons from the Field Edited by Mikaeli Langinvainio Finnish Defence Forces FINCENT Publication Series International Centre 1:2011 1 FINNISH DEFENCE FORCES INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FINCENT PUBLICATION SERIES 1:2011 The Many Faces of Military Crisis Management Lessons from the Field EDITED BY MIKAELI LANGINVAINIO FINNISH DEFENCE FORCES INTERNATIONAL CENTRE TUUSULA 2011 2 Mikaeli Langinvainio (ed.): The Many Faces of Military Crisis Management Lessons from the Field Finnish Defence Forces International Centre FINCENT Publication Series 1:2011 Cover design: Harri Larinen Layout: Heidi Paananen/TKKK Copyright: Puolustusvoimat, Puolustusvoimien Kansainvälinen Keskus ISBN 978–951–25–2257–6 ISBN 978–951–25–2258–3 (PDF) ISSN 1797–8629 Printed in Finland Juvenens Print Oy Tampere 2011 3 Contents Jukka Tuononen Preface .............................................................................................5 Mikaeli Langinvainio Introduction .....................................................................................8 Mikko Laakkonen Military Crisis Management in the Next Decade (2020–2030) ..............................................................12 Antti Häikiö New Military and Civilian Training - What can they learn from each other? What should they learn together? And what must both learn? .....................................................................................20 Petteri Kurkinen Concept for the PfP Training
    [Show full text]
  • The Future of the Benelux Defence Cooperation
    The Future of the Benelux Defence Cooperation Sven Biscop Jo Coelmont Margriet Drent Dick Zandee About the authors Prof Dr Sven Biscop is Director of the Europe in the World Programme at the Egmont Institute. Brigadier General (Ret.) Jo Coelmont is Senior Associate Fellow at the Egmont Institute and Senior Fellow Royal High Institute for Defence Dr Margriet Drent is a Senior Research Fellow at the Research Department of the Netherlands Institute of International Relations ‘Clingendael’. Dick Zandee, MA, is a Senior Research Fellow at the Research Department of the Netherlands Institute of International Relations ‘Clingendael’. About the report This report is based on input for a seminar on Benelux Defence Cooperation which took place on 9 April 2013 in Brussels. The seminar was jointly organised by the Egmont Institute and the Netherlands Institute for International Relations ‘Clingendael’. Civilian and military representatives from the three Benelux countries and armed forces plus representatives from the Belgian Federal Parliament, the European Defence Agency, the EU Military Staff and several think tanks participated in the seminar. Clingendael / Egmont Report – April 2013 Introduction The close cooperation between the Belgian and Netherlands Navies with an integrated command, common training and maintenance facilities for frigates and mine hunters (Benesam) has existed for quite some time. It has been promoted as a model for other countries. In the Benelux Declaration of the three Ministers of Defence signed in Brussels in April 2012 Benesam was also mentioned as the example for broadening and deepening defence cooperation. The growing gap between capability needs and available budgets was considered as the driving factor behind the Benelux Declaration.
    [Show full text]
  • Re Energising Europe S Security and Defence Policy
    ���������������������������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������������������������������ ������������������������ ������������������������������������������������������������������������ ������������������������������������������������������ ��������������������������� ���������������������������� ����������� ����������������������������������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������������������������������� ������������ ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ���������������������� ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������� ���������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������������������������
    [Show full text]
  • Policy Briefs
    Rethinking EU Crisis Management From Battlegroups to a European Legion? Niklas Nováky Summary June 2020 This paper discusses an idea to create a European Legion that has been put forward by Radoslaw Sikorski, MEP. This would be a new kind of EU military unit, made up of volunteers rather than national contingents contributed by the member states. The idea stems from Sikorski’s desire to reform the EU’s existing battlegroups, which have been operational for 15 years but have never been used, despite numerous opportunities. The paper argues that although the EU’s 2007 Lisbon Treaty imposes heavy restrictions on the Union’s ability to deploy military force, it does not rule out conducting operations with a volunteer force. At the same time, a volunteer-based European Legion force would have to be created initially by a group of member states outside the EU framework. These states could then make it available to the EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy as, for example, a permanent battlegroup. An existing model would be the multinational Eurocorps. Keywords CSDP – Crisis management – Battlegroups – European Legion – European Council – Eurocorps 1 Introduction Since the EU’s Common (formerly European) Security and Defence Policy (ESDP/CSDP) became operational in 2003, the Union has launched a total of 13 military operations within its framework. Of these, eight have been executive in character, meaning that they were authorised to use force if this had been deemed necessary to fulfil their mandate. The most recent CSDP military operation is Operation IRINI in the Mediterranean, which the EU launched on 31 March 2020 to help enforce the UN’s arms embargo on Libya.
    [Show full text]
  • Defence and Security After Brexit Understanding the Possible Implications of the UK’S Decision to Leave the EU Compendium Report
    Defence and security after Brexit Understanding the possible implications of the UK’s decision to leave the EU Compendium report James Black, Alex Hall, Kate Cox, Marta Kepe, Erik Silfversten For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/RR1786 Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif., and Cambridge, UK © Copyright 2017 RAND Corporation R® is a registered trademark. Cover: HMS Vanguard (MoD/Crown copyright 2014); Royal Air Force Eurofighter Typhoon FGR4, A Chinook Helicopter of 18 Squadron, HMS Defender (MoD/Crown copyright 2016); Cyber Security at MoD (Crown copyright); Brexit (donfiore/fotolia); Heavily armed Police in London (davidf/iStock) RAND Europe is a not-for-profit organisation whose mission is to help improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions. Support RAND Make a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute www.rand.org www.rand.org/randeurope Defence and security after Brexit Preface This RAND study examines the potential defence and security implications of the United Kingdom’s (UK) decision to leave the European Union (‘Brexit’).
    [Show full text]
  • Nato Enlargement: Qualifications and Contributions—Parts I–Iv Hearings
    S. HRG. 108–180 NATO ENLARGEMENT: QUALIFICATIONS AND CONTRIBUTIONS—PARTS I–IV HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION MARCH 27, AND APRIL 1, 3 AND 8, 2003 Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 90–325 PDF WASHINGTON : 2003 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:42 Nov 12, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 90325 SFORELA1 PsN: SFORELA1 COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana, Chairman CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island PAUL S. SARBANES, Maryland GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio BARBARA BOXER, California LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee BILL NELSON, Florida NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire JON S. CORZINE, New Jersey KENNETH A. MYERS, JR., Staff Director ANTONY J. BLINKEN, Democratic Staff Director (II) VerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:42 Nov 12, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 90325 SFORELA1 PsN: SFORELA1 CONTENTS Thursday, March 27, 2003—Part I Page Allen, Hon. George, U.S. Senator from Virginia, opening statement .................
    [Show full text]
  • Den Nordiska Stridsgruppen – Nordic Battlegroup 2011 Den Nordiska Stridsgruppen - Nordic Battlegroup 2011 Riksrevisionen Granskar: Försvarets Förmåga
    riksrevisionen granskar: försvarets förmåga RiR 2012:11 Den nordiska stridsgruppen – Nordic Battlegroup 2011 den nordiska stridsgruppen - nordic battlegroup 2011 riksrevisionen granskar: försvarets förmåga till riksdagen datum: 2012-04-25 dnr: 31-2010-1467 rir 2012:11 Härmed överlämnas enligt 9 § lagen (2002:1022) om revision av statlig verksamhet m.m följande granskningsrapport över effektivitetsrevision: Den nordiska stridsgruppen – Nordic Battlegroup 2011 Riksrevisionen har granskat Försvarsmaktens uppsättande av den nordiska stridsgruppen 2011 (NBG11). Resultatet av granskningen redovisas i denna granskningsrapport. Företrädare för Försvarsdepartementet och Försvarsmakten har fått tillfälle att faktagranska och i övrigt lämna synpunkter på utkast till slutrapport. Rapporten innehåller slutsatser och rekommendationer som avser Försvarsdepartementet och Försvarsmakten. Riksrevisor Jan Landahl har beslutat i detta ärende. Revisionsdirektör Charlotta Edholm har varit föredragande. Revisionsdirektör Johan Brandström och revisionsdirektör Alexander von Gussich har medverkat vid den slutliga handläggningen (revisionsledare Katarina Johansson var projektledare t.o.m. 2011-12-18). Jan Landahl Charlotta Edholm För kännedom: Regeringen, Försvarsdepartementet Försvarsmakten Försvarets materielverk den nordiska stridsgruppen - nordic battlegroup 2011 riksrevisionen granskar: försvarets förmåga Innehåll Sammanfattning 9 1 Inledning 13 1.1 Motiv till granskningen 13 1.2 Granskningens syfte och avgränsningar 14 1.3 Bedömningsgrunder 15 1.4 Granskningen
    [Show full text]
  • NATO Summit Guide Brussels, 11-12 July 2018
    NATO Summit Guide Brussels, 11-12 July 2018 A stronger and more agile Alliance The Brussels Summit comes at a crucial moment for the security of the North Atlantic Alliance. It will be an important opportunity to chart NATO’s path for the years ahead. In a changing world, NATO is adapting to be a more agile, responsive and innovative Alliance, while defending all of its members against any threat. NATO remains committed to fulfilling its three core tasks: collective defence, crisis management and cooperative security. At the Brussels Summit, the Alliance will make important decisions to further boost security in and around Europe, including through strengthened deterrence and defence, projecting stability and fighting terrorism, enhancing its partnership with the European Union, modernising the Alliance and achieving fairer burden-sharing. This Summit will be held in the new NATO Headquarters, a modern and sustainable home for a forward-looking Alliance. It will be the third meeting of Allied Heads of State and Government chaired by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg. + Summit meetings + Member countries + Partners + NATO Secretary General Archived material – Information valid up to 10 July 2018 1 NATO Summit Guide, Brussels 2018 I. Strengthening deterrence and defence NATO’s primary purpose is to protect its almost one billion citizens and to preserve peace and freedom. NATO must also be vigilant against a wide range of new threats, be they in the form of computer code, disinformation or foreign fighters. The Alliance has taken important steps to strengthen its collective defence and deterrence, so that it can respond to threats from any direction.
    [Show full text]