NATO’s transformation
Dear Visitors,
Thanks again for your continuing participation!
As you know, our online discussions follow the themes of the Seminars held by NATO’s Group of Experts on the developing Strategic Concept. The fourth such Seminar will take place on 23 February, in Washington, DC. Hosted by Supreme Allied Command Transformation and the US National Defense University, the subject of the Seminar will be the Alliance’s transformation of its structure, forces, and capabilities.
Accordingly, our next topic for discussions is, “What changes in structures, forces and capabilities are required for NATO’s transformation into an Alliance that can deal successfully with 21st century challenges?”
Please share your thoughts, concerns or questions. We will try to respond to your ideas and summarize the discussion with another live video session.
As background, please consider reading the most recent two-part edition of NATO Review, available at www.nato.int/review. The edition examined issues related to the new Strategic Concept, the Comprehensive Approach and NATO’s transformation.
Let us know what you think!
The Moderating Team
comments
-
Given the current economic recession, which has already caused significant pressure on the national defense budgets of some NATO allies, especially the smaller members, do you think that the coming to the fore of the idea of “niche capabilities” (role specialisation) could prove to be the adequate answer to guarantee the maximum possible contribution of every ally?
Mihail Naydenov,
Sofia -
NATO’s news Strategic Concept : fourth live video session on 03 Feb.
To whom it my concern:
As you all may agree, NATO operations will take place on larger geographical scales than today with a major demand of civil-military interagency coordination and more complex military-civil objectives.
Having said that, I am deeply concerned about the “lack” of willingness of (some) NATO members to get engaged in large deployments and long-term conflicts.
How NATO expects to match those strategic demands – that can be envisioned for the near future – with the current “lack” of engagement?
What would be the role to be played by easy-to-deploy armoured units in such larger geographical scales?
On which key points the current Bundeswehr – an army designed on defensive capabilities – should be transformed as a way to improve/increase its large scales deployments?
Hopefully, my remarks/questions can be useful for your purposes.
Hernan L. Villagran
Physicist (MSc)
Analyst/Consultant – Science, Technology and Public Policy (Chile)END OF MESSAGE
-
Thank you for this opportunity.
I would like to know which is the NATO vision over the concept of Human Security and if is there any intent to exploit this term within the new Strategic Concept.
Thank you! -
21st century brought “new threats” to world’s security. First of all, beside regular armies and headquarters system, NATO’s structure must also include flexible and rapid troops. I mean more and smaller bases, forward stations from the Middle East to Center Asia.
Currently, fighting with terrorism is not an exception. Like Al Queda there are new types of terroristic organisations. NATO countries’ internal infrastructures have to develop intra network against terrorism. Military operations and criminal network must have a regular interaction.
Non state actors have to be described clearly in NATO’s concepts. And the infrastructure can be evaulated for new types of counter terror activities.
Not only non state actors but also some countries can threat world’s stability. Non proliferation of WMD is one of the essential mission of NATO. Afghanistan’s stability is so important why Taliban is also active in Pakistan and could capture nuclear weapons in Pakistan. North Korea’s situation and Iran’s position is so important.
North Korea can destabilize Pacific’s situation. On the other hand, Iran has a regional periphery from the Mediterranean to the Gulf. Iran can activate Hizballah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. Islamic Republic has connections with Shia militants in Yemen and has a tangible influence in Southern Iraq. If Iran would have nuclear weapon(s), regional balances will be broken against Western axis.
So NATO is in a critical examination. Non-proliferation is related with diplomatic activites but if the countries can not be persuaded with political attempts, NATO’s structure provides “persuasion” with deterrence. It means “hard power”.
I will summarize my approach with these outlines:
* NATO will keep her regular forces
* NATO will produce smaller and rapid forces in the “out of area”. It provides more bases and forward stations.
* NATO’s new threats: Terrorism, proliferation of WMD, dictatorships
* NATO’s operations currently deploys from Balkans to Center Asia.
* NATO’s enlargement will reach Japan and Australia. It means transatlanic relations will enrich Pacific depth.changes to NATO’s structure, forces and capabilities.
-
1) Is NATO’s focus on expeditionary forces sacrificing its collective defense capabilities?
2) What are the challenges of defending the Baltic states and what are NATO’s plans to overcome these challenges?
Thank you,
Rich (University of Oklahoma) -
My question -
How are the financial responsibilities decided/allocated when there is a decision to proceed on military intervention/involvement?
I have 1 more question-
Regarding Africa – What is NATO’s position on the ongoing security struggles in Africa? Some of the countries are democtratic in nature but have security issues. What is happening in Africa can affect North America and Europe. -
I believe that the Strategic Concept should include something substantive on missile defence for (continental) Europe. Can the panel at the 4th live video session please address this issue, and suggest a position that NATO should take?
-
Security has a Social Dimension
Governments and society have a ‘duty of care’ towards military personnel, i.e. a duty to ensure that all who serve, where there is significant risk of physical, mental or emotional harm, receive appropriate care. Soldiers are called upon to make personal sacrifices – including the ultimate sacrifice – in the service of the nation and the international community in UN, NATO and EU missions. By putting the needs of the nation and the Armed Forces before their own, soldiers must always be able to expect in return fair treatment, to be valued and respected, and that they and their families will be sustained, rewarded and provided for by the Nation.
Financial limitations on defence budgets cannot be used as an excuse to circumvent the duty of care owed to soldiers when sending them into harm’s way.
The success of modern military missions depends on motivated, adequately trained, equipped and provided for soldiers who can rely on solid welfare schemes which also include their dependants. The policies that define the support available must state in clear terms what can be expected, as it is clear that inadequate care before, during and after deployment of soldiers will result in higher attrition rates and lesser numbers in recruitment. Either of these two eventualities affects future force generation capabilities. Conscious emphasis on operational welfare has in the Netherlands resulted in increased re-enlistment among experienced soldiers. This should encourage the political and military leadership of other nations as well, especially in the current circumstances with recruitment faltering and mission overstretch, to focus more than before on the soldiers’ welfare, the “human factor” in international military missions.Therefore, EUROMIL offers 10 Recommendations for Armed Forces in times of Multinational crisis-management and peace-keeping missions
1. That political mandates best reflect the reality of the theatre and the mission, that the number and effect of national caveats are minimised, and forces operate according to common rules of engagement.
2. That adequate pre-deployment training – including the use of identical types of combat gear, equipment and systems as in the mission area – is provided to enhance the skills, effectiveness and safety of the individual soldier and the unit.
3. That appropriate instruction is provided on international law, language skills and cultural awareness during pre-mission training.
4. That combined pre-deployment training of multinational troops occurs in order to optimise the co-operation and interaction of different national contingents in theatre.
5. That priority is given to the provision of appropriate personal combat equipment and to ensuring that the standard of armour protection of vehicles is commensurate with the mission, and that logistic supply structures are effective and appropriate.
6. That the families of soldiers are automatically involved in all support and adaptation programmes in each deployment stage.
7. That appropriate physical and psychological medical care is ensured during military operations.
8. That long-term medical surveillance and treatment of returning soldiers and veterans is guaranteed through military medical facilities and/or the civilian health care system. PTSD should be recognised as an occupational sickness of peace-keeping veterans.
9. That vocational and retraining schemes are established which facilitate the employment of veterans in the public administration or civilian labour market.
10. That employment and training schemes are established which permit seriously injured military personnel to be employed by the public/military administration or civilian labour market.
The European Organisation of Military Associations is an umbrella organisation of 35 national military associations that promots the social and professional interests of military personnel of all rank in Europe. Stretching across 25 countries, EUROMIL is the main Europe-wide forum for co-operation and the exchange of experience among professional military associations on issues of common concern.
Military associations entirely respect and abide by the chain of command, and neither condone or support insubordination and mutiny.
Associations do not comment on strategic or operational matters. -
Who will not aggre of change, reason if nato will not transform we will not able to change our pathway in near future in wiuv of the future, mil sharing with alies/+china ,russia wi will not adeqate to response future threat.So we mast change to survive future shok which will came to us.
Ivan
-
Canada’s withdrawal of its forces from ‘fighting’ in Afghanistan because of the continuing failure of many of NATO’s European memebers to provide robust military forces with the necessary rules of engagement and military capabilities to fight the Taliban should have been a wakeup call.
NATO would be better employed in discussing and ensuring that burden sharing of the death and destruction element of military capability was better and more equitably shared particulary in Afghanistan.
If NATO doesn’t improve its Burden sharing of military capabailites then it won’t need a new Strategic Concept, more Unusable military forces or a revised structure as it will deservedly fall by the wayside – as indeed it is already in many people’s minds post Georgia v Russia.
-
Canada decision to withdraw its troops from Afghanistan happened not because of NATO European members egotism. Canada is a typical victim of postbipolar system and Bush foreign policy. Canada as a developed country of “second echelon” lost their positive international potential which the country created in the era of cold war. This potential was eaten by Afghan strategy of the USA. It is impossible for Canada to change the strategy of the so called Afghan reconstruction. So Canada choosed the right way in the present situation.
-
The withdrawal of the NATO military forces from Afghanistan is the right decision because of in this case there isn’t military solution. Thinking in categories such as ‘burden sharing of the death’ wouldn’t be the best and hight-level solution in current era of globalisation, especial for smart European-Atlantic community. Russia had had this experience, we said – stop increasing the number of soldiers death in Afghanistan! Anybody don’t need it! The best way to fight against the rebel troops is to provide the education for indigenous forces and supply aid for development. Now Afghanistan is the ‘black hole’ for NATO budget and allies budgets. NATO has had more important aim – missle defence systems, which are very-very expensive. Let think about Euro-Atlantic stability, unemployed, health care, economic capability, innovation, demographic situation. Turn on the ‘remote control’ for Afghanistan.
Olga Kolesnichenko
Russian jurnalist from Moscow
-