From Robert D. Kaplan, STRATFOR:  [T]he very weakening of the European Union because of its debt woes makes NATO more crucial than at any time since the Berlin Wall fell — crucial as a political stabilizing agent within Europe itself. Especially for Eastern Europe, NATO serves as a seal of approval for these former communist states struggling to obtain foreign investment and thus prevents Russia from undermining them. Geography still rules. Russia, because of its own history of invasion from Europe, still requires a row of friendly buffer states in Eastern Europe. Therefore, Russia will do everything it can to undermine states from Poland southward to Bulgaria. NATO is a political, diplomatic and military mechanism directed against that Russian design. Moreover, the more that Europe reels from its debt crisis, the greater the possibility of geopolitical inroads made by Russia, and thus the more relevant NATO becomes.

NATO is also relevant concerning the future geopolitical direction of Germany. As long as NATO exists and Germany is a member, playing a substantial political if not military role, then the chances of Germany pivoting toward an alliance with Russia in future years is lessened.

Analytically, it is a mistake to assume that just because a political-military organization is less useful now than it was a quarter-century ago it is useless altogether. NATO has a bureaucracy, protocols, interoperability between member militaries and all manner of standard operating procedures honed over decades that would simply be irresponsible to get rid of. NATO can act fluently in humanitarian emergencies with which European publics are comfortable and thus somewhat reduce the burden on the United States. NATO, like the United Nations on occasion, still provides diplomatic cover of varying degrees for American actions. NATO is American hegemony on the cheap. Imagine how much less of a fiasco the Iraq War would have been were it a full-fledged NATO operation, rather than a largely unilateral one. Without organizations like NATO and the United Nations, American power is more lonely in an anarchic world.

Aside from the mundane security details provided by some NATO countries in Afghanistan, NATO is not going to get much better at fighting hot wars because Western European publics are not willing to pay the budgetary price that hot wars entail. In any case, land engagements are especially problematic for militaries in pacifist-trending societies. NATO might be ideally suited for air and naval rescue missions in Africa and points beyond. But NATO will be kept alive so that it can continue to serve as a vehicle for European political coherence. The “smart defense” initiative is a case in point, whereby individual countries will increasingly coordinate their weapons acquisition policies. For example, the Dutch are disbanding their tank battalions and putting trust in German units and others to defend Dutch territory. With the savings, the Dutch are investing in ballistic missile defense radars for their frigates, a capability that will benefit all alliance members.

Those who casually belittle NATO assume that Europe will face no geopolitical nightmares in its future. But that assumption might be wrong. Just look at these revitalized military configurations: a Nordic Battlegroup to include the Baltic and Scandinavian states as well as Ireland; and the Visegrad Group to include Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia. These might on some future morrow partially replace NATO; but they might continue to fall under the NATO umbrella. And they are all responses to a militarily powerful Russia lying to the east.

A more dynamic Russia, a more chaotic North Africa and continued unrest and underdevelopment in the Balkans might all pose challenges to Europe. If they do, NATO will provide a handy confidence-building mechanism. The United States needs NATO to help organize European defense, precisely so that Washington can focus on the Middle East and Asia. NATO is not great, but for the time being it is good enough.  (photo: Julia Shea)

In a just released Atlantic Council-Foreign Policy survey, experts voted Greece as the country they were most likely to “kick out of NATO.” Heads of state, ministers of defense and foreign affairs, a head of intelligence, plus current and former members of Congress were among the dozens of expert respondents from the U.S., Canada, and Europe.
 
As international leaders converge on Chicago this week for the NATO Summit, the Atlantic Council and Foreign Policy partnered to ask about the relevance and future of the world’s most powerful alliance. None of the respondents thought NATO should cease to exist or that the United States would be better off leaving the Alliance, but they were less certain that NATO can adapt to a changing geopolitical and military landscape—and just who will foot the bill for future operation.
 
Some key findings:

•    More respondents think NATO should not intervene in Syria, with one stating, “Are you kidding? NATO does not have the resources: no will, limited skill, no tools.”
•    Respondents are nearly split equally on the question of whether or not Al Qaeda will return to Afghanistan once the International Security Assistance Force mission ends.
•    Most participants believe that the European members of NATO could not have conducted the Libya operation without US assistance.
•    Almost all of the respondents feel NATO should have offensive cyber capabilities.

Read the entire survey results and see the full list of respondents athttp://www.acus.org/event/atlantic-councilforeign-policy-survey-future-nato.

From the White House:  The President met today with NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen in the Oval Office in order to discuss preparations for the May 20-21 NATO Summit in Chicago.  The President and Secretary General Rasmussen agreed that the Summit would focus on three important topics: Afghanistan, defense capabilities, and partnerships. 

On Afghanistan, the President and the Secretary General agreed that the NATO Summit should reaffirm allied commitment to the transition framework agreed to at Lisbon, while planning for the final stages of that transition  — including a shift next year from combat to a support role, as well as enduring support for sufficient and sustainable Afghan forces.  The President and Secretary General also agreed that the Summit should highlight the commitment of allies to field the defense capabilities that NATO needs for the 2st century.  They discussed their expectation that allies would be in a position to announce progress on a number of key capabilities initiatives, including on missile defense. 

Finally, the President and the Secretary General discussed the importance of NATO’s partnerships with non-NATO countries.  NATO is now a hub for a global network of security partners which have served alongside NATO forces in Afghanistan, Libya, and Kosovo.  Recognizing the important contributions provided by partner nations, the President and Secretary General welcomed the recent decision by allies to invite a group of thirteen partner nations to Chicago for an unprecedented meeting to discuss ways to further broaden and deepen NATO’s cooperation with partner nations.  (photo: Reuters)

From NATO:  NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen held talks to prepare for this month’s Chicago Summit with US President Barack Obama at the White House on 9 May 2012. The Secretary General and the US president discussed the summit agenda ahead of the 20-21 May high-level meeting which will be NATO’s largest summit, gathering representatives from around 60 nations and organisations.

The Chicago Summit will focus on three key priorities: Afghanistan, capabilities and partnerships.  “At the summit we’ll discuss the next phase in our engagement in Afghanistan, how we can provide security in a time of austerity and how we can further strengthen our partnerships around the world”. Mr. Fogh Rasmussen said. “We agreed we’re in good shape,” the Secretary General said after his talks with the US President. “Chicago will show the strength of the transatlantic link between North America and Europe.”

During his visit the Secretary General praised the pivotal role played by the United States in the 28-nation Alliance and expressed thanks on behalf of the Allies to the US for hosting the Summit in Chicago.  The summit, which is being held in the US state of Illinois, will be the third time that NATO holds such a gathering in the United States.“The United States is vital to our Alliance,” Mr. Fogh Rasmussen said. “Your service men and women are doing an extraordinary job in Afghanistan – and in all our operations.”

He stressed during his visit that NATO remains the most effective Alliance in the world and this would be reinforced in Chicago.“We will make sure it stays strong and fit for the future,” said the Secretary General, adding that all Allies shared the security burden of membership. “In some operations like Afghanistan, the US has made the largest contribution. In others, like Libya, European Allies and Canada took the lead. They contributed the most assets,” said Mr. Fogh Rasmussen.

The Secretary General added that on Afghanistan, NATO “will make sure we successfully complete the transition to Afghan security lead by the end of 2014, and we will make clear continue to support the Afghan security forces after 2014.”

During his visit to Washington, the Secretary General also met with members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee at the US Congress, to thank them for their commitment to the Alliance and discuss the summit agenda and priorities.  (photo: NATO)

From AFP:   [I]incoming president Francois Hollande will soon have to reassure NATO allies about his decision to end combat earlier than planned.

Hollande made a campaign promise to start bringing 3,300 French soldiers home this year, ending his country’s combat role two years earlier than NATO’s carefully crafted plan to fully hand security control to Afghans by 2014.

“I believe that, without taking any risks for our troops, it is the right thing to withdraw our combat troops by the end of 2012,” Hollande said last week.

The Socialist leader will bring this message to fellow NATO leaders when they meet at a summit hosted by US President Barack Obama in Chicago on May 20-21, just days after Hollande’s oath of office.

NATO military officials say the alliance had already made contingency plans in the event Hollande defeated right-wing incumbent President Nicolas Sarkozy.

Nevertheless, a diplomat acknowledged that the new leader’s stance “was not warmly welcomed” at alliance headquarters… .

But the early French pullout challenges NATO assurances that there would be no “rush to the exit” in Afghanistan, even though the war is unpopular in the West after a decade of fighting that has killed almost 3,000 foreign troops… .

Canada and the Netherlands have already switched to training missions while Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard indicated last month that her troops could begin leaving as early as next year… .

Francois Heisbourg, special advisor at the Foundation for Strategic Research in Paris, said the NATO alliance wanted to avoid any drama as it attempted a smooth withdrawal from Afghanistan, even if success was uncertain in the end.

“Everybody is aware of this, and NATO has no interest in creating a controversy” with Hollande, he said. “The priority is to avoid giving the impression of a disorderly withdrawal.”

A senior NATO military official said the Afghan transition would be “fairly well managed” despite Hollande’s plan, as commanders had already anticipated the possibility that he might be elected and prepared accordingly.

NATO military planners “are paying attention to various nations and political situations all the time,” the official said.   (photo: ISAF)

From AFP:  Defence ministers from Visegrad Group states grouping the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia agreed Friday to create a 3,000-strong joint combat unit to be put at the EU’s disposal.

“We want to put into place a combat unit for EU forces before the end of the first quarter of 2016,” Czech Defence Minister Alexandr Vondra told reporters at Litormerice, north of the capital Prague… .

The unit will be under Polish command and its first exercise is due to take place in 2015, before it becomes fully operational, Vondra said.

From CTK:  The joint statement was signed by Vondra, his Hungarian and Polish counterparts,Csaba Hende and Tomasz Siemoniak, and Slovak ambassador to Prague Peter Brno who acted on behalf of the newly appointed Slovak defence minister, Martin Glvac. …

The V4 representatives today agreed to continue with joint military training after NATO´s mission to Afghanistan ends. Approximately 3600 Czech, Hungarian, Polish and Slovak troops are operating within the Afghan mission now… .

The Visegrad Group countries also plan joint purchases of military equipment… .

Siemoniak said the V4 countries discussed their stances before the forthcoming NATO summit in Chicago.

“Our joint voice will certainly be very well heard in Chicago,” Siemoniak said.  (photo:Agnieszka Pomaska/Polish Parliament)

From Philip Hammond, British Ministry of Defense:  The responsibility of European nations to defend their citizens can no longer be discharged by a strategy of homeland defence and a Fortress Europe.

The threats we face are no longer territorial, so a passive defence of national territory is no longer adequate protection for our citizens.Our security requires that we do not sit back and let threats come to us - but that we project power to meet them - wherever in the world they are forming… .

During the Cold War, a posture of homeland defence, with a large citizen army, was the right response to the conditions Germany faced at that time.

But the decision to end conscription and move to an all volunteer force is the right response to the conditions that Germany faces now, recognising that across Europe, we cannot afford a surplus of high-cost manpower, when the deficit is in deployability.

A new phase, and a significant step forward in Germany’s post-cold war reconfiguration to face the future Symbolised by the commitment made to the mission in Afghanistan.

As the third largest contributor, the Bundeswehr is working alongside, and sharing the risks with, 49 other nations, including Britain, to ensure that Afghanistan does not again become a safe haven for the international terrorism and radicalisation which is the most immediate threat we all face.

For both Britain and Germany, the test of transformation will be the ability to generate the level of military capability set out in our plans.

But it will also rely, in Germany in particular, on the ability to generate the political will and public support for the deployment of military resources more widely in the future in support of Alliance operations beyond our borders.

By re-focussing existing budgetary resources on more deployable capabilities, Germany has probably a greater capacity than any other European NATO partner to contribute to short-term enhancement of the Alliance’s capabilities.

Excerpts from speech by Secretary of State for Defence Philip Hammond at the British Embassy, Berlin (hosted by German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP).  (photo: Getty)

From John Pollock, Technology Review:  Publicly, NATO and its secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, do use social media, including Twitter, Facebook, and a video blog—albeit as an adjunct to standard press-office fare. They took the trouble to ensure that the first announcement of the end of the Libyan operation came via Twitter and Facebook. Further, in one press briefing, NATO explained that its “fusion center” used open-source information like Twitter to deliver “usable intelligence.” Less publicly, the story is somewhat different… .

One NATO official to whom Technology Review spoke did confirm that NATO took advantage of civilian communications coming out of Libya, adding that the organization had never before had this kind of information. However, the role of civilians in providing intelligence, up to and including identifying targets, is an uncomfortable subject for NATO. Alongside a military concern for operations security, there are political sensitivities, given that countries including South Africa, Russia, and China complained that NATO forces were exceeding the mandate to protect civilians. Yet throughout the conflict, civilians did feed intelligence to NATO: in fact, they were asked to.

SOCIAL NETWORK INTELLIGENCE

When NATO called Nagi Idris out of the blue in search of intelligence, he was “very, very scared.” He was a research scientist living in Leeds, England, with his wife, Gihan Badi, and young son; the intelligence world was new to him. His contribution to the Libyan effort had been to gather information about the medical needs of civilians and freedom fighters in Benghazi, Misrata, and the Nafusa Mountains, raise the funds to address those needs, and secure humanitarian supplies and transport. As Libyans, Idris and Badi decided to call the British government to ask whether the NATO caller was a real contact and, if so, whether they should coöperate. It took half an hour for an official to confirm the name and verify that U.K. authorities were happy for them to work with NATO.

Their contact was from NATO’s Civil-Military Co-operation (CIMIC) group, whose website says its task is to “intensify the involvement of civilian actors in a more comprehensive and integrated way into planning.” With her husband concentrating on humanitarian relief, Badi took the lead, supplying regular updates including, at NATO’s request, precise coördinates. Badi knew NATO wanted multiple sources for cross-checking, so she created Chinese walls to separate herself from others—including her husband—who had their own networks.

Another Libyan civilian who contributed important intelligence is a man I will call Asim (he requested anonymity because he believes that his work, providing targeting information to NATO, led directly to the deaths of people who may still have family in Libya). An influential, well-connected Libyan working in the media, Asim smuggled most of his family out of the country and then set up “op rooms” in Tunisia, Dubai, and Spain. “I don’t think any intelligence agency in the world knows Qaddafi as well as the Libyan people,” he says.

Asim’s network of information smugglers brought thumb drives and disks out of Tripoli and got approximately a hundred Thuraya satellite phones into the country. They supplied NATO with blueprints, troop locations and movements, and a detailed diagram of Qaddafi’s family connections. His estimate of Qaddafi troop numbers in Brega, between Benghazi and Misrata, came through a contact in the catering company supplying their meals.

Asim’s op rooms conveyed their intelligence to NATO, he says, via “a super-node in Dubai… .”

In today’s world, as the U.S. Army Field Manual for Operations notes, “information has become as important as lethal action in determining the outcome of operations.” Now the traditional networks through which information flows—from the mass media to military units—are being rewired. By and large, military and intelligence organizations still see the new networks, and the coöperation and collaboration they engender, as a threat, not an opportunity.

But as military budgets shrink, the world urbanizes, and Kilcullen’s “presumed consensus” collapses, cheap handheld technology is making citizen networks an inevitable feature of the information battle space.

John Pollock is a contributing editor to Technology Review. He wrote about the uses of social media during the Arab Spring in the September/October 2011 issue.  (photo: Getty)

From Anders Fogh Rasmussen, NATO:  Europe cannot afford to be inward-looking or self-absorbed… .

Today’s economic difficulties may tempt European nations to become introverted.  But the need for a confident, compelling, outward-looking Europe has never been greater.

This is why European nations must continue to invest in critical military capabilities – smartly and sufficiently.  And they must continue to show willingness to use them when needed.

The good news is that Europe is not starting from scratch. Today we have a more capable and more willing Europe than 20 years ago. More European troops are deployed in more places than ever in recent history. Even smaller nations, like my own, have shown their capacity to punch above their weight.

In Libya last year, European nations clearly demonstrated that they are willing and able to lead a NATO operation. Without significant American contributions, however, Operation Unified Protector would have been less effective. Assets like air-to-air refueling, surveillance, and intelligence, made all the difference.

For Europeans to provide such assets requires political commitment, just as much as financial resources. Because individual nations can no longer afford these military capabilities on their own – now or in the future.

However, if we pool and share resources, if we help each other, if we go for multinational solutions, then we can afford the capabilities we need in the 21st Century. This is Smart Defence. And a crucial part of Smart Defence involves closer coordination and closer cooperation between NATO and the European Union.  So that we reinforce each other, rather than compete with each other. Because, we all know we share 21 members. And they only have one set of forces. And one set of tax-payers. This is why I welcome the European Union pooling and sharing initiative – and I particularly welcome the current project on air-to-air refueling… .

Europe must invest sufficiently in our common security. And Europe must continue to invest in the vital transatlantic bond - in political, economic, and military terms.

I believe in Europe. I believe in Europe’s commitment to promote peace and security on this continent and beyond. And I believe in Europe’s ambition to play its part in the world. 

Excerpts from address by NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen to the joint meeing of the European Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs and Sub-committee on Security and Defence.  (photo: Getty)

From the AP:  Poland’s air force will continue policing the airspace of three Baltic countries as part of its role in a NATO mission, despite one of them — Lithuania — refusing to attend joint talks, the president said on April 17.

Bronislaw Komorowski spoke at a news conference following two days of talks with Estonian President Toomas Hendrik Ilves and Latvian President Andris Berzins ahead of a NATO summit in Chicago in May.

He said he had signed the declaration extending Poland’s rotating participation in NATO’s Air Policing mission over Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, none of which has an air force.

“Polish troops will continue to protect the skies over the Baltic states. This is our contribution to the region’s security,” he said. Four Polish Air Force MiG-29 fighters continue policing the airspace from April 27 through August.

Lithuanian President Dalia Grybauskaite had declined Komorowski’s invitation to the talks amid a souring of bilateral ties and Warsaw’s pressure for more rights for some 200,000 Poles who live in Lithuania.

From Bartosz Glowacki, Flightglobal:  Comprising 99 personnel, including eight pilots from the 41st Tactical Air Squadron at Krolewo Malborskie air base, Warsaw’s “Orlik 4” contingent took over the duty from the German air force’s JG71 squadron… .

To run until 31 September, the Orlik 4 detachment will cost Poland about 6.5 million zlotys ($2 million), the nation’s defence ministry says. Its air force has previously held responsibility for protecting the airspace of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania during other MiG-29 detachments made in 2006, 2008 and 2010.  (photo: Lithuanian Air Force)