Search

Begin New Search Topic NATO Political Geography Europe

71. NATO and the EU The essential partners

Author:
Gustav Lindstrom and Thierry Tardy
Publication Date:
09-2019
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
NATO Defense College
Abstract:
The state of NATO-EU relations is currently high on the political agenda. There are at least three reasons for this. First, there is a genuine expectation that both organisations should increasingly work together and complement each other in an era where threats are multifaceted. There is a recognition that tackling such threats, while having to adapt their respective positions in light of geopolitical muscle flexing in other parts of the world, requires both organisations to strengthen the partnership. In 2016, the two institutions adopted a Joint Declaration that reflected on this necessity: “In light of the common challenges we are now confronting, we have to step up our efforts: we need new ways of working together and a new level of ambition; because our security is interconnected; because together we can mobilize a broad range of tools to respond to the challenges we face; and because we have to make the most efficient use of resources. A stronger NATO and a stronger EU are mutually reinforcing. Together they can better provide security in Europe and beyond”.1 Second, there are concerns over how NATO-EU relations are faring at a time when the transatlantic relationship is going through turbulent times. In particular, US relations with several EU member states and the EU in general are mired in disagreements on issues ranging from the future of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, also known as the Iran nuclear deal, to the possibility of introducing new tariffs on specific goods traded between the two sides. Looming on the horizon there are also concerns about the implications of Brexit for NATO-EU relations – in particular, whether it may inadvertently complicate both organisations’ ability to work together.
Topic:
NATO, Diplomacy, Regional Cooperation, and European Union
Political Geography:
Europe, North Atlantic, and North America

72. What NATO contribution to the security architecture of the Indo-Pacific?

Author:
Jean-loup Samaan
Publication Date:
10-2019
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
NATO Defense College
Abstract:
On 3rd April, 2019 in Washington, DC, US Vice Pres- ident Mike Pence addressed an audience of Western current and former statesmen gathered to celebrate the 70th anniversary of NATO. After taking stock of the Alliance’s accomplishments over the previous decades, Pence ventured on the emerging challenges and touched on an unexpected subject, the Indo-Pa- cific region: “By working together, we can maintain a free and open Indo-Pacific where independent na- tions boldly pursue their own interests”.1 Although the Indo-Pacific has by now become a central feature of policy discussions in the US, it has been relatively absent from talks within NATO circles, as the issue is perceived as a matter lying outside the organization’s mandate. But security de- velopments in this region do matter for its member countries. Moreover, there are ways the organization could play a significant role in the Indo-Pacific with- out compromising its pre-existing priorities. Against that backdrop, this Policy Brief aims to contribute to the emerging discussion on NATO’s engagement in the Indo-Pacific by first providing an appraisal of the policy implications of the US strategy towards the region, and then identifying realistic expectations for a NATO engagement in the Indo-Pacific.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, NATO, and Regional Cooperation
Political Geography:
Europe, North Atlantic, North America, and Indo-Pacific

73. The enhanced Forward Presence: innovating NATO’s deployment model for collective defence

Author:
Christian Leuprecht
Publication Date:
10-2019
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
NATO Defense College
Abstract:
The enhanced Forward Presence (eFP) is not merely a deterrence mechanism that relies on NA- TO’s reputation to guard the northeastern flank, but an innovative deployment model in response to the spectrum of emerging threats that confront the Alliance and its members. On the one hand, the eFP enables select mem- ber states to support others, harnessing the econ- omies and economics of an alliance with the legit- imacy of a NATO mandate under circumstances where not all member states want to, or are able to, opt in; or when timelines are tighter than a full- fledged NATO mission could meet. On the other hand, the eFP’s potential for crisis management and security cooperation to address the spectrum of traditional and emerging threats identified in the Wales, Warsaw, and Brussels Summit commu- niqués is considerable: collective defence aside, the current eFP is already showing promise in areas such as building societal resilience and improved security cooperation among member states that are deploying and exercising together – but, in the case of the Baltic states, for instance, without a permanent US headquarters or operational pres- ence. This study starts with a summary of the ratio- nale that informs the eFP and situates it as a quint- essential manifestation of NATO’s new mission set beyond the 2014 Wales Summit. The eFP is be- spoke for the highly dynamic and complex threat environment that is challenging NATO resources on multiple fronts, both in- and out-of-area. The Brief explicates the political and deterrence pur- poses of NATO’s enhanced Forward Presence in northeastern Europe. It also considers eFP’s strategic effects, conceptual limits, and the extent to which this new deployment model might lend itself to confronting a myriad of security risks – conventional and unconventional – that member states face in the 21st century. The final sections rationalize the prospects and value of applying the eFP framework for other conceivable in-area op- erations: the benefits that accrue from rotational forces, and in circumstances when there is NATO consensus but absent willingness by all members to make an actual contribution and commitment; all of which embodies the premium put on the shift in deterrence from political reputation to mil- itary preparedness.
Topic:
Defense Policy, NATO, Regional Cooperation, and Collective Defense
Political Geography:
Europe, North Atlantic, and North America

74. NATO at 70: what defence policy and planning priorities?

Author:
Patrick Turner
Publication Date:
10-2019
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
NATO Defense College
Abstract:
NATO at 70 shows no sign of slowing down. Indeed, the last few years have been marked by a growth in the challenges to which we must respond, and a high tem- po of decisions and adaptation. NATO’s ability to adapt to the changing security environment has always been a core strength – but this ability has been and will continue to be put to the test. In the last five years, since Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea and intervention in Eastern Ukraine in 2014, NATO has been going back to basics. Its core purpose of defending Allies has come back to the fore. But not to the exclusion of other tasks and priorities such as: NA- TO’s operations and missions, for example in Afghani- stan, Kosovo and Iraq; our broader contributions to the international fight against terrorism; or our work to build partner capacity. This Policy Brieffocuses on NATO’s efforts to strength- en its defence posture. The NATO shorthand for our efforts to improve our collective defence is deterrence, defence and dialogue (the “three Ds”). These are un- derpinned by responsiveness, readiness and reinforce- ment (the “three Rs”), as well as strengthened national resilience to attack. More investment and commitment by non-US Allies in line with the Defence Investment Pledge agreed at the NATO Summit in Wales in 2014, the shorthand for which is cash, capabilities and contri- butions (the “three Cs”), provides the crucial enablers for the three Ds and the three Rs.
Topic:
Defense Policy, NATO, Regional Cooperation, and Military Strategy
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, North Atlantic, Ukraine, and North America

75. Calibrating the scope of NATO’s mandate

Author:
Thierry Tardy
Publication Date:
11-2019
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
NATO Defense College
Abstract:
Anniversaries are opportunities to look back at what has been achieved and to look forward to what ought to be changed and, possibly, improved. Having reached a mature age, an anniversary can also be an occasion to ponder deeper questions of self-identity, purpose and ambition. In 2019 NATO turned 70, and if, overall, it can be proud of what it has achieved for the security of its citizens since 1949, there are also challenges that con- strain its full success as a security actor. More specifically, since 2014, the combination of the Alliance’s two main missions of “deterrence and defence” and “projecting stability”, furthermore in a context of transatlantic tur- bulence and deep tension among member states, has raised a number of questions about NATO’s capacity to remain united and fit for purpose. While the security environment is increasingly com- plex, with constantly evolving threats, and adversaries challenging established state actors and the way they fight, how should NATO further adapt to remain rel- evant? While conflicts are increasingly “hybrid”, should NATO embrace the largest portfolio possible to match the various layers of hybridity, or should it stay focused on what it does best – delivering hard power? Proba- bly both: staying focused might be an option in an ide- al world, but in fact, broadening the scope of NATO’s mandate will be difficult to resist.
Topic:
Defense Policy, NATO, Regional Cooperation, and Collective Defense
Political Geography:
Europe, North Atlantic, and North America

76. The Brain and the Processor: Unpacking the Challenges of Human-Machine Interaction

Author:
Andrea Gilli
Publication Date:
12-2019
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
NATO Defense College
Abstract:
This volume touches upon this and a set of related messages that ultimately put human beings at the very center of this transformation toward intelligent machines: one of the paradoxes of the second machine age – as Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee call it – is in fact that the more tasks computers take over, the more important becomes the role of people.4 Technology replaces tasks, not human beings, and human beings at each round of automation specialize in the tasks with higher added value.5 In other words, technological changes tend to complement human activities, enabling people to specialise in those areas where they have a comparative advantage. However, the transition is not bereft of problems: new skills and new organizational structures are needed to exploit the potentials of new technologies. The emergence of artificial intelligence, machine learning and big data – that in this volume will be interchangeably used alongside terms such as intelligent machines – can potentially represent a major turning point in human history. For the moment, we are dealing – and we will likely continue to do so – with weak or limited AI, namely single- purpose systems, i.e. machines that may reach an outstanding performance in one realm but cannot even fulfill the most basic task in a related field.6 Strong, or general, artificial intelligence – also referred as singularity – will occur when machines will, like human beings, be able to conduct a plurality of multidimensional activities, from driving a car to empatizing with peers, from playing video games to conducting different work activities.7 The contributions in this volume attempt to map the underlying causes, direct implications and broader consequences of the transformation at hand. Their main collective value is that they adopt different, but complementary approaches that ultimately corroborate the underlying theme of the entire volume, namely that as machines become more capable and easily available, the more important become human beings. The world of defense and security often looks with both amazement and concern at other fields. It rarely, however, truly engages with them, also intellectually. Building on a conference jointly organised in December 2018 between the NATO Defense College Research Division and the Paris-based Institut de Recherche Stratégique de l’Ecole Militaire, this volume has tried to address this shortfall by bringing together defense scholars and security practioners, economists and psychologists, historians and lawyers as well as business consultants and roboticists with the goal of looking from different angles at the domain of AI and reason, together, on its possible meanings and consequences.
Topic:
NATO, Regional Cooperation, Science and Technology, and Artificial Intelligence
Political Geography:
Europe, North Atlantic, and North America

77. Imitation, innovation, disruption: challenges to NATO's superiority in military technology

Author:
Andrea Gilli and Mauro Gilli
Publication Date:
12-2019
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
NATO Defense College
Abstract:
Analysts, academics and observers are worried that NATO countries may lose their industrial leadership in defence production. Globalization and advances in communications are widely believed to enable enemies and adversaries alike to copy NATO countries’ state- of-the-art weapon systems, and possibly even surpass them by developing next-generation weapon systems. Moreover, so-called disruptive technologies like artificial intelligence, quantum computing and additive manufac- turing are believed to offer cheaper and less technologi- cally demanding options to countries that do not possess the decades’ old defence industrial base of NATO coun- tries. These countries could then use such new technolo- gies for weakening NATO force structure. These concerns are real and deserve close scrutiny. However, adversaries and competitors still face signif- icant challenges which are more insidious than those NATO countries are facing. Because of the complexity of modern technology, imitation, innovation and disruption in armaments production have become increas- ingly demanding over the past decades – especially for naval and aerial platforms intended to operate in com- petitive environments. For NATO this implies more tar- geted defence investments and exploitation of industrial specialisation across the Alliance, as well as experimen- tation and innovation with new technologies to favour their future integration into the NATO force structure.
Topic:
Defense Policy, NATO, Globalization, Regional Cooperation, Science and Technology, and Military Strategy
Political Geography:
Europe, North Atlantic, and North America

78. Over the horizon: NATO joint intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance in the Baltic Sea region

Author:
Mark E. Ferguson, Christopher Harper, and Richard D. Hooker
Publication Date:
11-2019
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
Since the Russian occupation of Crimea in 2014, NATO threat perceptions have significantly intensified, particularly with regard to the three Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania that today face the most direct threat of any of NATO’s allies. To deter aggression in the Baltic region, NATO must deploy a credible and effective defense, grounded in a comprehensive understanding of adversary capabilities, actions and intent. A critical element of deterrence and defense is NATO Joint Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance a networked system of sensors, collectors and analysts fielded by the Alliance and its member states to provide situational awareness, early warning and if necessary, decision support for combat operations. Put simply JISR is about getting the right information to the right person, at the right time in the right format. But if a crisis erupted in the Baltic Sea region, is NATO equipped to gather and process the information necessary to give commanders on the ground a clear operating picture? What improvements, if any, could be made to the way NATO and NATO allies collect and process intelligence? To answer these and other questions, the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security assembled a task force of leading regional security experts, led by co-chairs ADM Mark E. Ferguson, III, USN (Ret.) and AM Sir Christopher Harper, RAF (Ret.) and project director Dr. Richard D. Hooker, Jr, that examined NATO’s JISR posture in the Baltic Sea region and offers a series of recommendations to improve both collection and processing of vital intelligence so that NATO is ready to meet any challenge that may be waiting over the horizon.
Topic:
NATO, Intelligence, Drones, and Surveillance
Political Geography:
Europe, Northern Europe, and Baltic Sea

79. Beyond populism: European politics in an age of fragmentation and disruption

Author:
Dalibor Rohac, Matt Browne, Max Bergmann, Ismaël Emelien, Karin Svanborg-Sjövall, Andreas Johansson Heinö, and Agata Stremecka
Publication Date:
10-2019
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research
Abstract:
Since 2016, concern over the resurgence of illiberal populist political parties and movements has been palpable in Europe and the United States. The election of Donald Trump, the United Kingdom’s referendum to leave the European Union, and the electoral advances of far-right parties in many European states, including France and Germany, created the sense that populist parties were a new, unstoppable political force in democratic politics.1 Yet in 2019, the notion that populist parties are the future of European politics seems far less certain. The term “populism” itself may have outlived its usefulness. Originally, it referred to parties and leaders who described themselves as true voices of the people against self-serving, out-of-touch elites—and it was prone to run roughshod over established political norms and institutions. Over the past three years, differences in approaches, tactics, and outlooks between different populist parties have emerged, making it clear that there is no clear populist governing strategy. Accordingly, beyond disrupting the current order, anti-establishment political forces in Europe share no actual transnational policy agenda. Yet populist and anti-establishment forces have upended European politics and contributed to fragmentation and uncertainty. As the example of the record turnout in the 2019 European parliamentary election illustrates,2 the EU itself has become an important dividing line for voters. The high turnout and raucous nature of the 2019 election portends animated debates over European policies. Gone are the days when the EU could move initiatives forward without much public attention or concern. In short, Jean Monnet’s “salami-slicing” method of incremental, technocratically driven European integration3 is dead. A more engaged and aware European public is in itself a positive development. Yet simultaneously, for better or worse, the sudden salience of European policies can present an obstacle to policy initiatives that otherwise would be seen as uncontroversial. Just as partisan divisions in the United States have plagued Washington with significant policy paralysis, the emergence of a similarly contentious and partisan politics in Europe may make it hard for Brussels to act. Europe has proven resilient over the past decade, but that resilience should not be taken for granted. The EU largely has failed to address its structural weaknesses that were exposed following the 2008 financial and fiscal crisis, meaning that the EU would confront a future economic crisis with the same limited toolbox it had in 2008.4 To make matters worse, influential populist actors could also obstruct swift action while benefiting politically at home from the EU’s failings. Unlike only a few years ago, fears of the EU’s sudden unraveling seem farfetched. Yet a protracted death by a thousand cuts, caused by populist leaders undermining EU rules and norms, remains a distinct possibility. The new instability of European politics poses a real challenge to the trans-Atlantic alliance. Unity among free and democratic states of the West is hard to sustain in the current political environment on both sides of the Atlantic. Yet at a time when the alliance faces a rising challenge from autocratic powers such as China and Russia, the case for unity and cooperation is stronger now than at any point since the end of the Cold War. This report seeks to chart a course for the EU and for the trans-Atlantic alliance, while acknowledging that the anti-establishment sentiments that reverberate through European politics are here to stay. While there is a strong case to be made for a Europe that works together to defend democratic values at home and abroad as well as a trans-Atlantic alliance that is willing to work in proactive partnership to tackle big global challenges—from climate change to terrorism to nuclear proliferation—that goal is still a long way off.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, NATO, Authoritarianism, European Union, and Populism
Political Geography:
Europe and Eurasia

80. Alliance Revitalized: NATO for a New Era

Author:
Hans Binnendijk, Daniel S. Hamilton, and Charles L. Barry
Publication Date:
08-2019
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Transatlantic Relations
Abstract:
The NATO Alliance faces simultaneous dangers to its east, to its south, and from a series of security challenges unbounded by geography, at a time when disparate allied responses to a host of challenges are tearing the seams of European unity and American political figures have even questioned the need for NATO. Europe risks turning from an exporter of stability to an importer of instability. The vision of a Europe whole, free and at peace is challenged by a Europe fractured and anxious. The Alliance must be revitalized for the new world rising before us. An overarching Alliance strategy must rely on NATO’s ability to provide a full spectrum of deterrent and defense tools to provide collective defense for all of its members, together with an ability to project stability and resilience beyond its borders using an array of tools for crisis management.
Topic:
Defense Policy, NATO, International Cooperation, Nuclear Weapons, Partnerships, and Alliance
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, and North America