3rd live video session, “The future of NATO’s Partnerships”
Dear contributors,
Thank you again for your continuing participation in our online question-and-answer series. Our third live session, scheduled for 15 December at 16:00 CET, will examine the future of NATO’s Partnerships. This online session will complement both the discussion in our online Forum, and the third seminar of the Group of Experts that will take place in Norway in January. The Group of Experts seminar will also examine NATO’s evolving Partnerships.
The panelists for this session for this session will be HE Veronika Wand-Danielsson, Swedish Ambassador to the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council; Brigadier General Pavel Adam, Deputy Assistant Director for Cooperation and Regional Security with NATO’s International Military Staff; and Mr James Mackey, staffer with NATO’s Euro-Atlantic Integration and Partnership Directorate. The session will be moderated by Dr Gerlinde Niehus, Head of NATO’s Corporate Communications Section.
Please submit your questions by leaving a reply below. We will make every effort to pose your questions to our panel participants. If time permits, we will also raise follow-up questions that we receive during the live video session. Do not hesitate to submit your questions well in advance of the event.
Before commenting, it may be useful to read our online Topic pages on the Partnership for Peace, Partnerships with non-NATO countries, NATO’s relations with Contact Countries, and the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council.
We look forward to hearing what you think!
Best regards,
The Moderating Team
Watch the live discussion here
NATO-Russia Relations
From the blog of the Secretary General
comments
-
Dear Dr. Gerlinde Niehus
Head Corporate Communications Section NATOI very appreciate discussion about The future of NATO’s Partnerships. I fully agree that wider and broader capacity of NATO bring a very strong challenges. Fist of all it concerns of brend ‘NATO’. It will be awful if aliance lose its brend. I think this point may be such a concession – NATO would accept Russia with her own identification and Russia wouldn’t say of changing brend. Russia also is the North country. And if we talk about farthest countries – Australia for example. In this case I think NATO also needn’t change the brend. Otherwise it would lose a big part of ’security culture’ and ‘military culture’. NATO is the brend, brend of smart, responsible and open-minded military structure. I wish Russia had numerous education NATO centres because strong partnership needs being engrafted since ‘teenagerhood’. We must make ‘antiallergic’ generation grow on the Euro-Atlantic space.
Olga Kolesnichenko from Moscow
newspaper ‘Military Industrial Courier’
http://www.vpk-news.ru/ -
NATO is on a good path for a new strategic concept epec if Russia could be brought in a kind of partnership. Best example helecopter and crews in Chad.
Even the rus radar early warning system should be warmheartly appreciated in European defence strategy.
Pfp countries should be (strongly) invited to come closer to NATO strategies eg (environment) catastrophy units DACH Germany Austria Swizerland.
Military staff of EU and NATO should be merged. Int join venture staff should be trained practically. For inst battle group`s management could be trained in teams. -
Thank you very much for the opportunity to contribute to this discussion on NATO’s new Strategic Concept. I have two questions for the panel, should they (kindly) have the time to answer both:
1. The Strategic Concept of 24 April 1999 stated, on the topic of NATO-Russia relations, that a “strong, stable, and enduring partnership between NATO and Russia is essential to achieve lasting stability in the Euro-Atlantic area,” (36). The diplomatic fall-out between these partners, following Operation Allied Force, made this a clear necessity. But once again, improvements in NATO-Russia relations were quickly reversed after the tumultuous events of August 2008. The Alliance came under public criticism for breaking off contact with Russia through the NATO-Russia Council (NRC) at a time of heightened tensions, when it was the most needed. Since the war in Georgia, the NRC remained paralysed for almost a year, and relations have only slowly been resumed. My question is this: How will the new Strategic Concept deal with the divisive question of a resurgent Russia, and a partnership with that country, as long as divisions and mistrust linger in Alliance countries on the fringes of the Russia Federation? Can NATO reconcile its historic ‘open door’ policy with Russian intransigence vis-à-vis possible membership for Ukraine and Georgia? Indeed, has the Georgian experience indefinitely postponed the idea of any further eastern enlargement of NATO?
2. Secondly, in a recent ‘Foreign Affairs’ article, Zbigniew Brzezinski proposed a new and ambitious future roadmap for NATO. The Transatlantic Alliance, he argued, could and should become the centre of a global web of inter-related alliance systems and non-NATO partner states, reaching across most regions of the world. Firstly, is it feasible—economically, militarily and politically—for the Alliance to take on such a key role in global security for the Twenty-First Century? If so, should we expect resistance from powerful international players, who may not see this global expansion of NATO’s role in a benign light?
Thank you once more. I hope that these questions can positively contribute to this discussion, which is both difficult and necessary.
Daryl Morini,
Australia -
I see possibilities , stil.
allians en consepts .
strategies, in discussion , about the dutch to remain troops in afganistan, is one off a biggest error,
The part they have , to stay involved. is one off significant importants,
Things should be arranged in to right prospects, The eu on track, the nato on track.
One big familie.
and allied partners outside offf it as friends….
with regards and sinsere.
LYA -
The current NATO Strategic Concept states that the Alliance security interests can be affected by the disruption of the flow of vital resources. The new Strategic Concept will most probably confirm this assessment. At their Bucharest Summit (2008), the Allies noted a report on “NATO’s Role in Energy Security” that identifies a number of key areas where NATO can provide added value. One of them is advancing international and regional cooperation.
In this context, as consultations are ongoing as to the depth and range of NATO’s involvement in energy security, how do you see the linkage between further advancing NATO partnerships, on the one hand, and the need to secure the supply flow of vital resources, including energy, on the other? Do you think that the new NATO Strategic Concept should explicitly bring to light this correlation?Mihail Naydenov
Bulgaria-
Mihail,
I hope that your question was answered to your satisfaction. I think you hit the nail on the head. I think Bulgaria is a very important ally in the new energy puzzle.Happy New Year.
-