Search

Begin New Search Topic Diplomacy Political Geography North Atlantic

21. Deterring hybrid threats: the need for a more rational debate

Author:
Michael Ruhle
Publication Date:
07-2019
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
NATO Defense College
Abstract:
Since Russia’s hybrid war against Ukraine in 2014, the Western strategic community is trying to come to grips with the concept of hybridity.1 Some ob- servers were quick to point out that the idea of combining military and non-military tools was far from new, and they warned against exaggerating hy- brid warfare.2 However, Russia’s apparently seam- less and effective blending of political, diplomatic, economic, electronic and military tools in order to annex Crimea and support separatists in the Don- bas seemed to herald a new era of hybrid warfare: a revisionist power was using both old and new means to undermine and, eventually, tear down a post-Cold War order it considered unfair and un- favourable.
Topic:
NATO, Diplomacy, Regional Cooperation, and Military Strategy
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, North Atlantic, Ukraine, and North America

22. Russia and China: “axis of convenience” or “stable strategic partnership”?

Author:
Marc Ozawa
Publication Date:
07-2019
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
NATO Defense College
Abstract:
s the growing relationship between Russia and China a short term “axis of convenience” as some have suggest- ed or rather a “stable strategic partnership” described by China’s former vice Foreign Minister, Fu Ying”.1 Based on current events, it is still too early to tell how substan- tive this relationship will develop. On the one hand, there are impressive achievements in cooperation with clear sig- nals from Moscow and Beijing of their future aspirations, which are serious and long-term. On the other hand, there are indications that things could fall apart quickly consid- ering a contentious history that is still in living memory, lingering distrust and socio-cultural obstacles. Although both countries have finally agreed on a mutually recog- nized border, growing Chinese influence and the sheer disparity of populations in the border region raise con- cerns that even Russian leadership privately acknowledge. For the time being, however, the forces bringing both countries together are enough to overcome these obsta- cles. Although the current direction of bilateral relations is towards cooperation, it is still a fragile sort. Because co- operation requires the participation of Russian and Chi- nese leadership, it could recede without their active pro- motion. In the long term much will depend on how the leadership navigates through the phases of cooperation, both military and economic. For NATO, this underscores the need to incorporate Far East developments into its strategic awareness of the Eastern Flank, particularly with respect to the convergence of political, military and eco- nomic forces.
Topic:
NATO, Diplomacy, Regional Cooperation, and Military Strategy
Political Geography:
Russia, China, Europe, North Atlantic, Asia, and North America

23. 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

24. Shaking the Foundation: the Trump Administration and NATO’s East

Author:
Metthew Bryza
Publication Date:
01-2018
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Warsaw East European Review (WEER)
Institution:
Centre for East European Studies, University of Warsaw
Abstract:
This is a very powerful place for me to be, here at the University of Warsaw, I am totally Polish by background, 100 percent. I was looking in front of my hotel today, at the monu- ment to the victims of Soviet repression and the deportations, it is very powerful. I looked at all the towns that victims came from, and I thought about my grandmother’s region – Sambor, She was only from a small village, but you know, it made me think that had she, like so many other Poles, not taken a very difficult decision at that time I probably would not exist, would not be here speaking before you, and the changes that this country has gone through, would have never have happened. Fundamentally, my talk, is going to end up being optimistic, but it’s going to start pessimistic, because the title is, U.S. relations with NATO’s East under Trump: Shaking the foundation. But before that I just want to build on some other things that were said already and thank all the excellencies who are here, the ambassadors, the other members of the diplomatic and academic communities. Professor Micgiel referred to my new life outside of diplomacy. I have a joint venture with a Finnish company, Lamor Corporation, which is the world’s largest oil spill response company. I am on their global board – a fantastic en- vironmental technologies company, and it’s really fun to be involved in entrepreneurial en- deavor, even if it’s scary, because, well, all my meager savings are on the line and I have to succeed. So, it’s very nice to be back here and have a chance to think and stretch my mind in the way I did in my previous career, to be here with you in a place that my grandparents may have never been able to enter. So it’s a very powerful moment for me, thank you. And also to be an opening speaker, together with Secretary of State Szczerski and with my favorite boss of all time, Ambassador Daniel Fried closing the conference. Dan taught me so much about this part of the world, which I’ll get to in a moment, enabled me and my dear friend Kurt Volker, who is now the new special representative for Ukraine, to make it, to move through the State Department system, when there were all sorts of bureaucratic obstacles, If you go back and google us, you will see we were attacked by The Washington Post, when we were brought to the State Department from the White House in 2005. There is a position in the State Department called DAS – Deputy Assistant Secretary. That’s the first level at which things get serious, where you actually can have an impact on policy. And, we were called the baby DASes, because we were brought over at younger age than normal, thanks to Secretary Rice and Ambassador Fried, and Dan suffered because of that, inside the bureaucracy, a lot of people disliked him because he enabled Ambassador Volker and me, and then another ambassador, Mark Pekala, a Polish American guy as well who became ambassador to Latvia. I remember, Mark at that time was 50, and he said: “Boy, only in the State Department and in Washington could a 50-year-old guy be criticized for being a baby”. So, it’s great to be outside Washington, it really is. I live in Istan- bul now, by the way.
Topic:
NATO, Diplomacy, Regional Cooperation, and Military Strategy
Political Geography:
Europe, North Atlantic, North America, and United States of America

25. Defending the Free World

Author:
Daniel Fried
Publication Date:
01-2018
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Warsaw East European Review (WEER)
Institution:
Centre for East European Studies, University of Warsaw
Abstract:
ne week ago President Trump spoke at Plac Krasińskich and gave the best foreign policy address of his presidency. He spoke of a community of nations, an alliance of coun- tries united by values, among those values the rule of law, freedom of expression, freedom of speech. He spoke of a strong alliance of free nations. He spoke a strong Europe. He then mentioned that Russia is acting in Ukraine and other ways, as a destabilizing factor in the world. And therefore reaffirmed America’s Article 5 commitment to Poland and to all the other NATO members. As I said, I think this was the best foreign policy speech of President Trump’s new presidency. He reaffirmed in essence America’s commitment to the free world. The free world is sometimes termed the liberal world order but I really don’t like the phrase “the liberal world order,” because there are many people who don’t describe themselves as liberals, who belong in it, not outside it. I prefer “the free world”. And in re- committing the United States to the free world, President Trump was following a centu- ries-old tradition in the West. In Europe, the notion of a just international order, rooted in transnational values, is at least as old as Erasmus. Emmanuel Kant elaborated the theory of perpetual peace between states committed to the rule of law and republican values. As my country, as America, emerged as a world power at the end of the 19th century, we developed our own American Grand Strategy, our version of the free world. We thought of ourselves as distinct from the European empires and spheres of influence of the time. In contrast, America sought an open, rules-based world, more just and simultaneously more profitable for ourselves and for others, because we Americans recognize that our interests, our prosperity and our security are tied to the prosperity and security of other nations. We believe that the advanced democracies of the world should set the global agenda along the lines of this vision. An objective, ambitious, but also generous vision, because we un- derstand America’s national interests in broad, not narrow terms. In his memoirs, Kurier z Warszawy, Jan Nowak-Jeziorański writes of astonishment at American humanitarian as- sistance to Poland in 1920 and wondered what sort of nation helped others and asked nothing for itself. But America understood that as we helped others, we in fact advanced our own interests, because America could not do good business with poor countries. We wanted to make the world a better place so we could all get rich. That was our American ambition and confidence. My nation developed the outlines of this grand strategy starting in 1900, but my country failed to apply it in the 1930s when Europe needed us most.
Topic:
NATO, Diplomacy, International Cooperation, and Military Strategy
Political Geography:
Europe, North Atlantic, United States of America, and North America

26. The Great War legacy for NATO

Author:
Ian Hope
Publication Date:
11-2018
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
NATO Defense College
Abstract:
On 11 November commemorations occurred throughout North West Europe and the British Commonwealth, marking the hundredth anniversary of the Armistice that ended the First World War. A significant commemoration was held in the city of Mons, Belgium, location of Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE), and another in Brussels, location of NATO Headquarters. Many attending these commemorations will have had little knowledge of the direct link between the events of 11 November 1918 and the structure and workings of the Alliance today. This Policy Brief seeks to reveal this legacy by explaining the First World War origins of the North Atlantic Council, Military Committee, Alliance committee structure and the importance of the principles behind supreme command, summit consultations and consensus. These entities and practices, essential to the institutional design and culture of NATO, were established at the inception of the Alliance by civilian and military leaders who had participated in the Second World War and who knew their value to the maintenance of Alliance cohesion, and their importance to effective strategy formulation. These same leaders had derived their knowledge directly from the lessons learned during the final stages of what was supposed to be “the war to end all wars”.
Topic:
NATO, Diplomacy, Regional Cooperation, and Military Strategy
Political Geography:
Europe, North Atlantic, and North America

27. Will artificial intelligence challenge NATO interoperability?

Author:
Martin Dufour
Publication Date:
12-2018
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
NATO Defense College
Abstract:
NATO has arguably been the most successful alli- ance of its kind, and much of this success can be attributed to its cohesion in the face of various threats. At the heart of this cohesion lie two import- ant notions: burden sharing between members; and interoperability. The Alliance’s cohesion however has increasingly come under pressure over the last two decades, and there are growing challenges with the level of interoperability between member coun- tries. While numerous technical and political factors influence interoperability, the emergence of disrup- tive technologies such as genetic engineering, nano- technology, additive manufacturing and robotics, are likely to make this challenge more acute in the next two decades. Of the many technologies rapidly emerging, none is likely to have as significant an impact as that of artificial intelligence, which combines with other technologies and multiply their effect by allowing the development of advanced autonomous systems. And while the latter holds the promise of develop- ing new classes of weapons with great military po- tential, its asymmetrical adoption among the various NATO allies could also lead to significant interoper- ability problems.
Topic:
NATO, Diplomacy, Science and Technology, and Artificial Intelligence
Political Geography:
Europe, North Atlantic, and North America

28. Projecting Stability: Elixir or Snake Oil?

Author:
Ian Hope
Publication Date:
12-2018
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
NATO Defense College
Abstract:
NATO’s internal security is intrinsically linked to external stability, and its quest for optimal security for its member states’ citizens therefore requires a presence at its periphery. This is what Projecting Stability is about. With this concept and activity, NATO takes stock of the indivisibility of security that is no longer composed of two distinct spaces. This is probably not new. After all, NATO’s crisis management and cooperative security efforts over the last 25 years have had a lot to do with handling the consequences of the internal-external security nexus. To a large extent therefore, NATO has been in the business of Projecting Stability since the end of the Cold War, just as Molière’s Mr Jourdain was speaking in prose without knowing it. Nonetheless, the Projecting Stability agenda was formalized at the 2016 Warsaw Summit, and is now being run in parallel with Deterrence and Defence as NATO’s main effort. This poses at least three sets of questions. First, beyond the above-mentioned internal-external security nexus, what is it that Projecting Stability is really about and aims to achieve? How does stability relate to security, and how can one “project” it? Does it contain a value-promotion agenda, or is the concept a retrenchment from the ambitious democratization goals of the past? Second, to what extent can Projecting Stability be prioritized, given the prominence of the Russian threat and therefore the necessity to “deter and defend”? Can NATO do both? And how much consensus is there among NATO member states on the need for Projecting Stability? Third, where is Projecting Stability supposed to happen, with what local buy-in and level of intrusiveness, and through what sets of instruments? Does the activity carry potential unintended consequences by which, in lieu of Projecting Stability, the Alliance’s presence would bring instability? Are there any past activities that attest to this risk, and about which lessons must be learned? Overall, is Projecting Stability an elixir, i.e. the appropriate response to a well- posed question, or is it rather some sort of snake oil, i.e. a false solution or a concept that is doomed to stumble against innumerable political and operational obstacles? These issues are what Ian Hope’s edited volume Projecting Stability – Elixir or XII Snake Oil? aims to explore. It does so through a collection of chapters, authored by a group of scholars and NATO officials, which offer an open analysis of the potential and challenges of Projecting Stability. This NDC Research Paper is the first issue of a new series created by the NATO Defense College. NDC Research Papers deal with NATO-related issues from a multiplicity of angles that can be historical, political, operational or prospective; they can have an obvious research – or, even more so, policy – angle; they are analytical in nature, and must be relevant to the understanding of NATO’s challenges and policy making. May this NDC Research Paper be the first of a long list of analytically sound, thought-provoking, and academically rigorous publications by the NDC Research Division.
Topic:
Defense Policy, NATO, Diplomacy, and Military Strategy
Political Geography:
Europe, North Atlantic, and North America

29. NATO-EU maritime cooperation: for what strategic effect?

Author:
Stefano Marcuzzi
Publication Date:
12-2018
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
NATO Defense College
Abstract:
EU-NATO maritime cooperation is essential to a co- ordinated response to a variety of Mediterranean is- sues, including terrorist threats, the protracted conflicts in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), and the refugee emergency. The EU’s Operation EUNAV- FOR Med Sophia is deployed in the Southern-Central Mediterranean, whilst NATO’s Operation Sea Guard- ian operates in the whole Mediterranean basin. NATO also launched a new activity in the Aegean in 2016. Although each operation has its own mandate, their coordination was defined as crucial in the 2016 Joint Declaration on EU-NATO cooperation. At a tactical level, these operations have by and large been successful in enhancing situational awareness in the Mediterranean; monitoring migration networks; constraining the activity of human and arms smug- glers on the high seas; and to a degree in providing as- sistance to migrants. However, they also face strategic challenges, including the failure to dismantle the smug- glers’ networks, their relatively low deterrent effect, and a limited degree of inter-institutional cooperation.
Topic:
NATO, Diplomacy, Regional Cooperation, European Union, and Maritime
Political Geography:
Europe, North Atlantic, and North America

30. EU-NATO Cooperation and Strategic Autonomy - Logical Contradiction or Ariadne's Thread?

Author:
Jolyon Howorth
Publication Date:
08-2018
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
The Kolleg-Forschergruppe (KFG)
Abstract:
The EU’s common security and defence policy (CSDP) was launched in the 1990s as a quest for “autonomy.” Fifteen years of efforts failed to deliver that objective. The coherence of the EU member states in their security dealings with the US was always vulnerable to the potentially incompatible objectives of the UK and France. But as EU leaders post-Brexit re-launch the CSDP, as the 2016 European Global Strategy rediscovers the virtues of “strategic autonomy,” and as the world juggles with a US president who appears to question the basis of the Atlantic Alliance, it is time to radically re-think the relations between the EU and NATO. This paper argues that, in the longer term, it is through the strengthening of the EU-NATO relationship that EU strategic autonomy will become possible, and that a consolidation of the transatlantic bond will emerge.
Topic:
NATO, Diplomacy, Regional Cooperation, Military Strategy, European Union, and Regional Integration
Political Geography:
Europe, North Atlantic, and North America