Show Menu

Future NATO: Adapting to New Realities Cheat Sheet (DRAFT) by

Chapters 1-5 and 6-7

This is a draft cheat sheet. It is a work in progress and is not finished yet.

NATO Facts

North Atlantic Treaty Orgais­ation
Created 1949 in Washington
30 members
2% of GDP


NATO Strategic concept
1. NATO is determined to safeguard the freedom and security of Allies. Its key purpose and greatest respon­sib­ility is to ensure our collective defence, against all threats, from all direct­ions. We are a defensive Alliance.
Author­itarian actors not directly called a threat
China "­cha­llanges interests, security and values­"
NATO not a threat to Russia, does not seek confro­ntation
NATO Core Tasks (conti­nued)
Deterrence and defence - Increasing readiness, New Maritime domain
Crisis prevention and Management
Collective security


Critical partne­rship, NATO by itself will not work
EU economic cooper­ation pushes security cooper­ation, collective responses
Ukrain­e-R­ussia. Through NATO deterr­ence, EU sanctions

NATO and China

US and China
US interest = european interest
Technology challenges
China threat to values
Author­ita­rian, ideolo­gical (freedom, human rights, democracy)

NATO's New Task from Lecture

New tasks are old ones
Deterrence and Russia
Old fashion deterrence with new dimensions - internet, gas
Russia's weapon­isation of energy
Lots of non-mi­litary and non-tr­adi­tional
NATO has military tools, but not economic (Needs EU)
Democracy may not be enough for inclusion. Conflicts between member states (Greec­e-T­urkey)
NATO Article 4 and 5
Now Cybera­ttack included (Estonia 2007)
Article 4 says that security issues are first discussed, then Article 5 can be implem­ented
Article 3
You can free ride, you can ask for assistance
Article 10
Open-door policy provided you can defend yourself and you are a democracy

Evolution of Russian Threat to NATO

Why is Russia a challange?
Russia's economy is stagnant, no longer a great power
Kremlin can push through challanges
Cyber attacks, limited military interv­ention, and operations
Russian military still relevant
Kremlin ambitions for sphere of influence
Why are Russian tactics effective?
Credib­ility and backing of conven­tional forces
Now arguably half-c­redible seeing Russian military failure

NATO Technology

Technology and new Threats
Cyber, Space
NATO's future
Must increase Cyber prepar­ations as well
Future question of whether a cyber-­attack would qualify for article 5?
Technology can allow smoother functi­oning for example air-land

NATO's Enduring Relevance

US leadership in NATO
Russian revisi­onism gets new engagement from the US, though politics are not always stable.
Now not ideolo­gical conflict
NATO's new aims
Building up deterrence and defence
Probably not conven­tional warfare
Russia Hybrid Warfare
Stronger region­ali­sation
Question of whether just being a democracy is enough to be a member

NATO Maritime domain


Permanent Deterrence / US military in Europe

NATO Deterrence
Broadening region, for example now more emphasis on bordering countries
Reinforce NATO cohesion
Increased air and naval deploy­ments in region
Promote training and readiness to US (reinforce confid­ence)
Ensure maximum US forces flexib­ility for a quick response (training in Northern Norway)
Expand opport­unities for burden­-sh­aring
Ensure adequate host-n­ation support for NATO
NATO and expansion
1997 NATO-R­ussia Founding Act

Finland, Sweden - NATO Alberque & Schreer

Why likely to join?
Russian threat. Finland border, Sweden would break neutrality
NET gain
Big economies, good military (from being on their own)
NATO further threat now Finland border
Quick incorp­oration
US might assume big nordic economies to carry economic burden

The State of NATO - Hooker

Russia possible
Estonia, Latvia - ethnic minority
Black Sea
Turkey problem
Suppliewd drones to Ukraine, did not let Russian non-as­sidgned warships to Black Sea
No sanctions against Russia
Other actors
UK left EU, downsised army, France focus on EU and less NATO, Germany slow
Norway, Denmark stable
Southern Europe - Spain, Italy, more concerned with economies and refugees
Sweden and Finland
Increased defence by 50 and 70 percent
Germany alone with 2% GDP outspends Russia in defence
What to spend on?
Readiness is an issue, mainte­nance
UK, Germany, France - One combat division takes long time
Readiness issue, not burden­sharing
Eastern border was poorly defended. "­Tri­pwi­re"
Firm response to Ukraine
Other initia­tives
More concrete readiness UK, France, Germany
Strong Eastern flank
Cyber aggression

Brutal Examin­ation (Russia) - Dalsjö

More risk-t­aking now
Russia's conven­tional power is lacking
Russia expected Ukraine to give in (intel­ligence failure)
Centre of gravity (capital), but then no backup plan
No central commander in first 6 weeks, only regional commanders
Lack of allies - UK and US supplied a lot of inform­ation to Ukraine in the buildup, having public documents regarding NATO
Logistics problems - bad routes, lack of food
Failure of Russian Air superi­ority
Failure to coordinate ground and air
20% of tanks gone
Russian prepar­ation
Ill-pr­epared soldiers
Restricted terrain, easily blocked
Got to test missiles during Syria, 60% fail apparently
Why Russia fail to prepare?
Wishful thinking of easy takeover
Too much confidence in lacking technology
Lapping over holes in Georgia 2008