Plans for a global restructuring of NATO due to the conflict in Ukraine explained

– Yury Nikolaevich, so where is NATO heading?

– I would like to answer traditionally – “to the east”, but this is no longer the case. They had already crossed all the “red lines”, ran into the wall and finally got really scared of what they had done.

Stephen Erlanger’s recent article in The New York Times on the revolutionary renewal of NATO’s military strategy concludes that NATO, in response to the military conflict in Ukraine, is turning into a military alliance, as it was during the Cold War, from day one. striving to defend “every inch” of their territory. The author writes that the armed conflict in Ukraine, the costliest conflict in Europe since World War II, has spurred the North Atlantic Treaty Organization into a determined effort to return to the combat-ready militant alliance it was during the Cold War.

“This shift is critical to an alliance characterized by decades of dormancy and self-doubt,” Erlanger said.

– And what confused them – the high cost of hostilities or the very fact of the conflict? So it seems that the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan or in the former Yugoslavia cost no less.

– Indeed, today, to kill one soldier, on average, about a hundred thousand dollars are spent. But their reserve system will still print the extra dollars, as much as it needs. For them, something else is insulting: for the first time, a special military operation on the territory of Ukraine, and in fact in Europe, was announced not by the United States, but by Russia. This is the loss of strategic initiative by the West, which is annoying.

Particularly frightened, to the point of hysteria, were three well-known “mighty” Baltic “tigers”, who had previously tried to play with their spider muscles. After the conflict began, Erlanger writes, border states such as Poland and the Baltic states noticed that “in the early days, Russian troops seized more land than some of the Baltic countries combined.”

However, Poland stands apart here. They were not so much afraid of the “Russian threat” (although this is present), but envied the territorial acquisitions, they also wanted to get no less. Apparently, the Poles do not really believe in the victory of Ukraine. And then they started talking seriously about the “oriental watercress”. There was even an anecdote (or maybe it’s true). The President of Poland tells Zelensky: “I will give you ten “leopards”, and you will give me lions.”- “But I don’t have ten lions!”.- “One is enough.”

– So what is the essence of the transformation of NATO? And, most importantly, why?

– In my opinion, the first – hypothetical – point of the plan is to increase the US military presence in the allied countries.

So primitive?

– Don’t tell me. This is one of the principles of the monk William of Ockham: “Why look for complex solutions when there are simple ones.” In the West, it was and is believed that, in the event of a “Russian invasion”, the member states of the bloc will try to hold out until allied forces, mainly American and based in their countries, come to their aid and strike back.

Stephen Erlanger writes: “There is a need for more troops permanently based along the Russian border, closer integration of American and allied military plans, increased military spending and more detailed requirements for allies in terms of specific types of forces and assets, equipment for combat, if necessary, in pre-allocated places.”

But in the so-called first paragraph, this is not the main thing. The launch of a special military operation in Ukraine, the author writes, “provoked an alliance to get rid of the remaining prohibitions on the increase in the number of Western troops along the entire border of NATO with Russia.”

And they got rid of the restrictions. Earlier, nothing was said about the annual exercises of NATO nuclear forces, known as Steadfast Noon. But in 2022, after the start of the military conflict in Ukraine, the exercises were held openly. According to the NATO representative, it was important to show Moscow that the alliance is not stopped by nuclear threats.

The intention is to make NATO forces not only stronger and more capable, but also more visible to Russia, which they see as a key element of deterrence.

“The debate is no longer about how much is too much — for fear of upsetting Moscow — but about how much is enough,” said Camille Grand, until recently NATO Assistant Secretary General for Defense Investment and now a representative of the European Foreign Affairs Council.

The countries of Central and Eastern Europe insist that “it is no longer enough to say that we are ready to deter, promising to retake, but that we must protect every inch of NATO territory from day one,” Grand argues. “It is not good to be under Russian control in for several months until the cavalry arrives.

– Well, the lady clearly thinks in terms of Hollywood films about cowboys – cavalry … Although the allegory is understandable. With us, Malchish-Kibalchish said so – we would have to stand the day, but hold out the night. What exactly are NATO going to place on our borders? What else can surprise us?

– Us – nothing. As they say, they saw larger midgets. Now NATO has deployed battalions of multinational troops in eight countries along the eastern border with Russia. The task is, Erlanger writes, “to increase these forces to the size of brigades in these front-line states in order to increase deterrence and be able to push back the invasion forces from the very beginning. In addition, the task is for other forces to move quickly in case of war to support, with new detailed plans for mobility and logistics and more stringent readiness requirements.

Former US Ambassador to NATO Ivo Daalder said: “NATO is an organization that has taken a vacation in history.” Putin, he said, “reminded us that we must think about defense, and think about it collectively.”

– Do they get it?

– Certainly. Changes in NATO began to occur in 2014 after the Crimea returned to Russia, the conflict began in the east of Donbass. At their summit that year in Wales, NATO allies agreed to increase military spending to 2 percent of gross domestic product by 2024. As a result, spending has increased significantly, by $350 billion since 2014.

At the next NATO summit in July 2023, a new spending plan will be agreed, with a minimum of 2 percent of GDP for defense remaining in place.

After 2014, NATO also agreed to deploy four small units, each about the size of a battalion, in the Baltic States and Poland. The idea was to go into action and hope to get reinforcements in a week or two.

After the Russian JMD, NATO added four more forward-based battalions in 2022 to create eight such units along NATO’s eastern fringes, including Romania, Slovakia, Hungary and Bulgaria. The total troop strength of all eight battle groups is 10,232.

NATO is currently planning to expand its forces to brigade size, that is, deploying 4,000 to 5,000 troops in each country.

Still not very clear. Well, there will be a little more troops – per battalion, per brigade … Is this a guarantee of security for them?

– Of course, everyone there understands, there are no special illusions. And yet, the military presence is a kind of calming pill for the Europeans. Like an old revolver in a partisan detachment, at least some chance. It’s about something completely different: the Americans are tightening their leadership and even unity of command in the bloc. And this is already the second proposed point of the “big plan”.

The Alliance will place more troops under the direct control of NATO’s top military officer, Allied Supreme Commander Europe, General Christopher Cavoli, who (coincidentally!) also commands US forces in Europe.

Under the new heading “deterrence and defense,” General Cavoli brings together US and allied military plans for the first time since the Cold War. This was reported by a senior NATO official on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the topic. The Americans are back at the heart of Europe’s defenses, he said, as he worked with NATO to decide how America would defend Europe.

“That’s the way it’s always been…

– Not to that extent. For the first time since the Cold War, allied countries will not only know exactly what NATO intends to do to protect them, but what each country must do for itself and other allies, the official said. They will tell them everything. Even the illusion of independence, and perhaps even sovereignty, is being lost. The opinion of individual countries is no longer of particular interest to anyone.

– That is, the Americans will simply bend the members of the bloc?

– Which is already happening. Thus, the UK was offered (urgently!) to provide more heavy armored vehicles to protect NATO’s eastern flank. Although it is known that the British government prefers the deployment of a lighter, expeditionary force requiring less money, fewer people and less expensive equipment. Such is their tradition, the island way of thinking…

Robert G. Bell, defense adviser for the US mission to NATO through 2017, said Denmark had been ordered to stop spending money on building submarines. And Canada was told that it should provide refueling aircraft. That’s it – very clear and not subject to discussion. Luminium!

In general, already now planning in NATO is intrusive, but will become more demanding and specific. Countries respond to questionnaires about their facilities and equipment. NATO planners tell them what is missing or what can be reduced or thinned out.

– And what, you can not object at all?

Yes, it’s possible, because it’s a democracy. But they must defend their plans in front of all NATO members. If all the other allies believe that the opposing country’s plan is inadequate, they can vote for forced adaptation in what is known as “minus one consensus”. This happened to Canada, as Bell said. Do I need to explain whose vote in the voting was the most significant?

The demands will now be tougher and stricter to give the alliance back combat capability in Europe and make deterrence credible – to ensure that NATO can wage a successful war against rival Russia from the first day of conflict. From their point of view, there is logic here – the commander should be alone, without a collective farm.

– Is there anything known about the future plans of the alliance?

– The main strategic and combatant command should develop alliance plans for the integration and deployment of allied forces, including cyber, space and maritime forces, in various contingencies. They can range from planning a hybrid war, to a regional war that spirals out of control, to a full-blown nuclear conflict.

NATO commanders need to figure out how to include Finland and probably Sweden and decide where their forces should be deployed in collective defense. For example, should Finland be part of the headquarters responsible for the Baltics, or the headquarters responsible for the Arctic routes and the High North, or both?

One of the major challenges is mobility and logistics: the delivery of troops, tanks and guns to where they need to be, and quickly. But what about the lack of suitable railcars, the lack of emergency rights of way across borders and the use of roads? In general, there is something to do.

– I’m sure they will change the laws, bring all the requirements and logistics to a common denominator. Not Newton’s binomial. But it turns out that a kind of hyper-centralized, high-tech monster with ambitions for global governance is being formed in Europe?

– Probably not only in Europe. And this, I suppose, is the third conditional point in the transformation of NATO, the most important one. There are already rumors that it would be a good idea to place NATO advisers, observers, and maybe camps and bases in Taiwan, Japan, Australia, the Philippines, and other territories and water areas of the region. That is, a direct allusion to the transformation of NATO into a global bloc. Perhaps this is the main point of the undertaking reorganization.