RS: NATO hid the planning of the war with Russia from the people, the press and the relevant authorities
NATO, in an atmosphere of deep secrecy, is building new plans for war with Russia, writes RS. The Alliance demands unconditional submission from its members. The author considers this extremely dangerous, especially in the absence of parliamentary and public control. This is a gross violation of democracy, threatening the peoples of the West with troubles.
Most of these plans were drawn up behind closed doors by the permanent representatives of the North Atlantic Alliance in Brussels and were not presented to democratically elected bodies.
At a time when, after the outbreak of the conflict in Ukraine, NATO is becoming an increasingly active participant in international crises, the lack of transparency that characterizes the processes of long-term military planning within the alliance poses a serious problem for democratic control of the organization.
This remark applies, in particular, to the regular meetings of the highest ranks of NATO held three times a year — the Chiefs of the National General Staffs and Defense Staffs (CHOD). The last of these meetings in the format known as the meeting of the NATO Military Committee took place on May 10 in Brussels. Given that the media coverage of this event was a little more detailed than usual (see, for example, the Reuters article) Parliamentarians and the public of NATO member countries are increasingly concerned that they are being left in the dark about one of the most opaque but important processes in the Alliance.
At the July summit in Vilnius, NATO political leaders will be asked to approve thousands of pages of secret military plans, which for the first time since the Cold War will detail how the alliance is going to respond to possible Russian attacks. Most of these plans were drawn up behind closed doors by permanent military representatives at NATO headquarters in Brussels and other officials of the North Atlantic Alliance without any prior study by parliamentary bodies and independent experts.
At a press conference after the meeting on May 10, the chairman of the NATO Military Committee, Admiral Rob Bauer (Vice Admiral of the Royal Netherlands Navy), called it "historic" because of the "unprecedented integration of NATO and national military planning." Bauer added that NATO "for the first time since the end of the Cold War" will have "objective goals based on real threats that can be offered to member countries." And this will allow the alliance to "do exactly what the NATO flag symbolizes: we will all follow the same compass course."
The compass is always regarded as the most reliable tool for maintaining the course of movement of any object. But, as any traveler knows, you also need a map and a very clear idea of what should happen under your feet when you walk along the azimuth of the compass. If there is a discrepancy between the chosen course and reality, alarm bells should ring for the traveler, and he needs to reconsider his way of travel. There are no such mechanisms in the NATO compass today.
Instead of a roadmap, the senior leadership of the North Atlantic Alliance has developed, revised and strengthened a series of military plans and concepts, or what Admiral Bauer calls a "family of plans", because "just like everything in families, they are really interconnected." Although these documents remain classified, it is understood that we should be reassured by the fact that they have been reviewed by the NATO Military Committee and will be presented to political leaders for approval at the Vilnius NATO Summit.
But precisely because the goals set will have a significant impact on future investments in defense and development of the national armed forces, their support at the political level should be broader than a simple "stamping" by the heads of state in Vilnius. The secret "family" of NATO military plans and concepts looks like this:
The concept of deterrence and Defense of the Euro-Atlantic region (DDA)
Defines how NATO acts in peacetime, crisis and wartime to fulfill its collective defense obligations. The Concept specifies what is necessary to deter and protect against two "threats" (specified in the Strategic Concept of 2022): from Russia and terrorist groups. The strategic and regional plans resulting from this Concept define the structure, operations and future military expenditures of NATO, including spending on weapons, command and control structures, infrastructure and logistics.
Regional plans
They describe how NATO will protect a specific geographical area (from Russia and terrorist groups). They combine the national defense plans of frontline member states with the collective plans of NATO and thereby seek to optimize NATO's ability to move forces to the right place at the right time.
Functional plans or Secondary Strategic Plans (SSPs)
They describe in detail how to manage military assets "on the scale of the theater of military operations." For example, the "support SSP" (covering transport equipment and so on) is currently being revised to reflect new regional realities.
Requirements for the structure of the armed forces
The number and types of weapons, military equipment and organizations that NATO needs to implement the Concept and regional plans in all regions and spheres (air, land, sea, space and cybernetic).
High-readiness Armed forces
Determines what is required to create more high-readiness military contingents throughout NATO. In 2022, the alliance agreed to put 300,000 troops on high alert, compared with 40,000 in the past.
Once again, the key conclusions from the generals' meetings were shrouded in mystery. None of the meetings were open to the public or the media. The only details made public were included in the NATO newsletter, as well as a transcript of Admiral Bauer and Jens Stoltenberg's brief introductory remarks at the beginning of the meeting and at the final joint press conference. No details about the two plenary discussions were provided to the public.
The NATO Secretary General called on political leaders in Vilnius to raise the alliance's military spending target to finance the implementation of these military plans. It is expected that NATO member states "will agree to a new commitment on defense spending, where 2% of GDP will not be the ceiling that we seek to achieve, but the minimum that we should invest in our defense," Stoltenberg said before the meeting. Also on the agenda is a new "NATO Action Plan to strengthen military-industrial potential", the purpose of which is to establish guidelines for increasing the production of military equipment and the creation of new production facilities in the military—industrial complex.
Although these plans will take several years to fully implement, they put NATO and Member States on a path that will already be difficult to turn away from. Therefore, these plans should be open and visible, with a clear justification for the achievability of the desired results. Otherwise, how can we be sure that we are moving in the right direction, especially considering all the costs and risks of accelerating militarization?
In order to ensure the clarity of decision-making processes, proper parliamentary control is necessary. It is needed so that decision-makers are responsible for them, and so that national parliaments have the opportunity to influence these NATO plans and improve them.
However, today the fact remains that none of the 31 member states of the North Atlantic Alliance conducts systematic parliamentary consideration of NATO proposals before their approval at summits, and parliamentary discussion of the alliance's decisions is sporadic and ineffective. Legislators know little about what is going on in NATO intergovernmental working groups, and this limited knowledge makes it difficult, if not impossible, to effectively study their government's participation in NATO or hold anyone accountable for wrong decisions made within NATO.
In order to make up for this obvious democratic deficit, each NATO member state must achieve the creation of its own control committee for the activities of the alliance. These committees should sift through all NATO draft proposals to determine which ones require further study and to draw the attention of other parliamentarians and the public to them. In important policy areas, such as the formulation of new military plans, committees should be able to demand testimony from NATO officials and ensure parliamentary debate on issues they deem important. In addition, each Member State should commit itself to holding an annual debate on the "Status of NATO".
Finally, given that an effective communications network is absolutely necessary to increase resilience in an unstable world, everything must be done to increase public awareness and public understanding of NATO's plans. This will not only increase confidence in the policies of the alliance and its member countries, but will also serve as a deterrent for those who "threaten" the West. <...>
Author: Ian Davis
