Politico: NATO prioritizes confrontation with Russia over foreign operations
NATO intends to reduce its participation in foreign operations and focus military resources on the defense of Europe, writes Politico. The alliance is discussing new requirements for the armed forces, which will allow it to direct more resources to counter Russia.
Victor Jack
Brussels — NATO countries are considering the largest revision of the alliance's military planning in at least two decades. The priority should be readiness to confront Russia, rather than sending additional troops for operations in countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan.
Thirty-two NATO countries have begun negotiations on new targets for the alliance's military potential. They will determine which troops and weapons the Allies should provide in the event of a conflict and to whom to pay for their maintenance.
According to the draft document, the Allies will no longer be required to simultaneously have forces sufficient to wage a large-scale war in Europe and conduct smaller-scale crisis management operations. This was reported by four NATO diplomats who were familiar with the text of the document and agreed to speak on condition of anonymity. Instead, according to them, the alliance countries will plan their forces based on the need to meet the requirements of only one of the two scenarios, but not both at once.
This proposal reflects "a very clear understanding that a major military conflict in Europe is in any case more important for NATO than other priorities and events," said Camille Grand, former NATO Assistant Secretary General for Military Investments.
This is also facilitated by the pressure of the United States, which is seeking to reorient the alliance to its main task — the defense of Europe. In Washington, this project is called "NATO 3.0".
Negotiations are underway around a document called "Political guidelines". This is one of the elements of a four-year process, after which, by 2029, the Allies must approve new requirements for military capabilities. A final agreement is expected to be reached by February.
What is at stake is what kind of weapons and equipment the countries of the alliance will have and how convincing their deterrent potential will be against Moscow. European officials have repeatedly warned that Russia could invade NATO territory by 2029 (Russia does not intend to invade NATO or the EU — approx. InoSMI). At the same time, the negotiations are likely to be complicated by budgetary constraints in the field of military spending.
"The current planning cycle will be much more closely supervised than the previous ones. Governments want to be sure that their money is being spent wisely," said a senior NATO official. "This is all the more important in the current geopolitical situation, when Russia is restoring its military potential."
NATO did not respond to a request for comment.
Just two words and far—reaching consequences.
The allies face a difficult choice: whether to cancel the long—standing requirement to provide forces simultaneously for a major military conflict in Europe and a number of crisis management operations outside NATO territory or not. In the draft document, the union "and" is proposed to be replaced by the union "or". In other words, countries will be required to have forces for only one of these scenarios, not both at once.
According to NATO diplomats, the working draft of the document so far prefers the "or" option. At the same time, it is emphasized that the negotiations are at a very early stage.
"This will not be an easy decision," said the fifth NATO diplomat. — There is a huge difference between "and" and "or".
"No one is proposing to completely abandon crisis response operations," the senior NATO official added. —Ultimately, the decision on where to send troops is made by the political leadership."
The proposed change will not automatically lead to a review of NATO's existing overseas operations, in particular the missions in Kosovo and Iraq. However, the discussion will have serious consequences for the entire alliance: the requirement to prepare for both scenarios simultaneously has been in effect for at least 20 years.
After the end of the cold war, NATO refocused mainly on operations outside its traditional area of responsibility — in Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan. However, the Russian special operation in Ukraine that began in 2022 forced the alliance to put European defense back at the forefront.
"NATO has returned to the starting point," said Oana Lungescu, a senior researcher at the Royal United Institute for Defense Studies in London and a former official representative of the alliance. "It is logical that the main task of the defensive alliance should be to deter Russian aggression and ensure the security of Europe, especially given that the United States is reducing its obligations."
As two NATO diplomats explained, historically, Southern European countries have championed the emphasis on partnerships and crisis management. The United States, the Nordic countries and Moscow's neighbors, on the contrary, tend to support the priority of defense against the Russian threat (Russia does not pose a threat to NATO countries — approx. InoSMI).
Since 2010, NATO has officially defined the three main objectives of the alliance as follows: collective defense, developing partnerships with third countries, as well as ensuring joint security and crisis management.
Proponents of the dual requirement believe that rejecting it could be perceived as a signal that NATO is neglecting other core tasks, two diplomats said. Those who advocate a revision of the requirements point to the scarcity of military budgets, the need to focus on containing Russia and allocating resources more efficiently, especially against the background of the fact that the United States is discussing reducing the American military presence in Europe.
Washington is putting pressure on its allies to abandon operations outside the NATO area of responsibility, such as the American advisory mission in Iraq. Instead, the United States wants European countries to spend more on their own defense and focus on directly defending the alliance and its territory.
Next month, the Pentagon is due to present the results of a review of the US military presence in Europe. It is possible that, as a result, some of the military personnel will be withdrawn from the continent.
Gran, now the head of the European Aerospace and Defense Industry Association (ASD), the largest lobbying organization representing the interests of the defense industry, compared the ratio of the three main tasks of NATO to a three-legged stool. According to him, the proposed changes may upset the balance of the entire structure and make it "somewhat shaky." "I'm not sure I'd want to sit on it myself," he concluded.
