Category Archives: NATO

Mareike Mller

Policy Researcher at Politheor: European Policy Network

Mareike Mller studies International Security and Political Economy at the LSE and Sciences Po. Prior to her studies she has gained professional experience among others at the World Health Organization, the German Development Agency GIZ and the Federal Foreign Office.

Increased contributions to NATOs budget might not significantly alter member states security situation the aggressive rhetoric around them could.

Rumour has it that at their much-discussed meeting in Washington, Donald Trump handed Angela Merkel an invoice, amounting to the alleged 300 billion US Dollars Germany owed the US for not living up to its NATO budget quota. Although both parties denied this happened, the news still sparked heated debates about NATOs budget and its relevance for security in Europe and the world. To fully understand the breadth and consequences of the discussion, a closer look at NATOs history and recent changes in military spending is needed.

NATO was established in 1949 as an intergovernmental military alliance to provide peace and security for its member states. Based on the principle of collective defence, last reiterated on September 12, 2001, the North Atlantic Treaty Organizations member states are committing to defend each other in case of an external attack. NATOs budget is to consist of two percent of the member states GDP leaving every member to contribute according to national capabilities. This rule was agreed upon in 2014, leaving member states until 2024 to fulfil this goal. Although experts doubt the accuracy of the measure to assess security efforts, debates persist already about some countries paying less, while others, the US in the first place, pay more.

Despite the current debate, Sean Kay from Carnegie Europe points out that most challenges to stability in and around Europethe Eurozone, refugee pressures, energy security, and terrorismhave little to do with conventional military spending. In fact, defence spending diverts resources necessary to meet these challenges. Still, rising challenges and insecurities cause increasing defence spending already. It is actually a strong sense of unpredictability that strengthens the will to secure ones nation against possible surprises regarding recent or potential political changes on both sides of the Atlantic just as much as rising instability in other parts of the world, leading to what some would argue is a redefinition of the post-cold war order.

For instance, for those smaller states at the borders of NATO, fear is rising about potential interventions, and them turning into the playground for disputes between Russia, China, and the US and Europe. In 2016, only Estonia, Greece, Poland, and Great Britain met NATOs two percent goal. Willingness to increase defence spending in the Baltic states is however going up. Secretary General Stoltenberg announced though that Romania too will meet the target this year, followed by Lithuania and Latvia in 2018.

While defence spending is not a predictor of actual security or insecurity, it is a crucial indicator of international tensions. In fact, most of the times rather than expenditures reflecting real threat, an upward spiralling effect leads countries to increase defence expenditures when their neighbours do so. Since Russias annexation of Crimea in 2009, the growth of the Islamic State, and the fear failed or failing states, like Syria, around the same time, defence spending around the globe is not decreasing, and unlikely to do so any time soon. In Europe, Germany is NATOs second largest financer of the civil and military budget, followed by the UK and France.

What economic consequences arise from this? Although increased military spending supports weapon and defence industries, which especially countries like France, Germany, India or South Korea profit from, also negative economic effects exist, which are more far reaching than it appears at first sight: protectionism, increasing nationalism, and a reduction of trust in the international system, combined with the fear of overall security problems, is at the root of crumbling transnational trust and hence increasing defence efforts. In a market-oriented understanding of international economics, the downward spiral of (perceived) insecurity and economic protectionism, manifesting itself in limits to trade, investment, and financial cooperation a prominent example are economic sanctions is thus hardly economically beneficial on neither side of the Atlantic.

Altogether, whether countries meet their NATO target or not does not matter for security what does though is the rhetoric around it. Words have the power to create security, or insecurity respectively. When Donald Trump demands increased spending in order for the US to continue protecting Europe, the real security threat is not NATOs limited budget or need for additional economic resources. Its an aggressive rhetoric that creates an ambiance of instantaneous insecurity and imminent threat, and sets the tone for future debate. Instead, Jan Techau suggest that stepping up defence capabilities consists not only of spending, but more defense cooperation, more shared threat assessments, and more leadership by hitherto reluctant nations. European leaders should hence continue to stay cool and deescalate.

Tags: Europe, NATO, Op-ed, security, United States

The rest is here:
The flawed rhetoric around NATO's two percent - Politheor: European Policy Network

Published on Tuesday, 18 April 2017 10:39 Category: Articles and Commentary Written by Scott Carlson

President Donald Trumps NATO policy is confusing. Regardless of the administrations evolving National Security Strategy, United States role in Europe is in transition. Trumps March 17th meeting with the German Chancellor Angela Merkel reiterated his America First emphasis at home, and an insistence that other NATO members pay their fair share abroad. A picture a "Perfect Storm" of Russian military resurgence, European Union instability skating on thin politico-economic ice and a 20 trillion dollars US cold front. This Trans-Atlantic ice age is capable of putting the freeze on any potential warming of the Alliances regional security efforts. To make the move from a more measured Western European Allied Assurance (2014 Wales Summit) to greater Russian Deterrence (2016 Warsaw Summit) NATO will require greater operational funding. With "Great Recession" contagion and an anaemic economic growth the question we should be asking is whether NATO can afford another Cold War. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Yet the cold, hard truth comes down to cold, hard cash.

Current Balance Sheets: The European Reassurance Initiative

To fund the Alliances mission, 28 NATO members unanimously agreed at the 2014 Wales Summit that they would aim to move towards the 2 per cent guideline within a decade. Three years later, only five countries are fully fulfilling this obligation. Against this backdrop, nervous EU diplomats are pushing for more US financial support to counter a Russian military now on the rebound. All Alliance members are in support of the mission, even if they do not currently meet the 2 per cent threshold. Allies have increased activities along five lines of effort (troops, training, equipment, infrastructure and building capacity) through an enhanced strategic exercise design known as the Readiness Action Plan. This strategy will train elements of the NATO response force, joint NATO elements that build capacity through stability operations.

These efforts arise from the European Reassurance Initiative (ERI), a combined effort that demonstrates a united NATO commitment designed to deter growing Russian aggression. Funded as part of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act of 2015, this additional military spending supplements Operation Atlantic Resolve (OAR), a multi-year US led NATO endeavour. ERI recently quadrupled, growing from less than one billion to over 3.4 billion US dollars in fiscal year 2016. From US Air Force hangar upgrades in Iceland to US Navy Baltic, Mediterranean and Black Sea operations, Operation Atlantic Resolve demonstrates the US commitment to the security of NATO. In the US Army alone, ERI funding will bring almost 5,000 personnel, more than 2,600 vehicles and 84 aviation assets to Europe. Yet with deficit spending, overleveraged European governments and the US approaching its 20 trillion dollar debt limit, can NATO actually continue to follow the money?

Accounts Past Due

As defined by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), military expenditures include all current and capital expenditures on the armed forces, peacekeeping forces, defence ministries and other government agencies engaged in defence projects, paramilitary forces, and military space activities. Of note here is a critical point when the trend lines crossed in 2013: A 1.5 per cent GDP rise in Russian spending in comparison to a 1.5 per cent GDP decline in UK and US expenditures. The Russian Federation is now spending twice the amount of what it produces domestically on its military than the United States, Greece, the UK, Estonia and Poland.

As the Alliances largest contributor, the US's GDP per capita is two times that of Russias GDP. As a result, Russias economic ambitions for military development are not only elevated, but clearly claim a higher national priority at the expense of other Russian domestic programmes. Spending is not the only criteria for measuring military advantage, however if these trends continue Russia will be able to further leverage its regional influence through an enlarged military presence. It is already a reality.

Future Lines of Credit: How NATO Warms Up the Cold War

Not only has Russian military spending doubled from the mid-1990s, the Federations debt has decreased by 90 percent, from almost 100 percent to 10 percent of the GDP. Inversely, with the exception of Estonia, NATO members government debt increased, in some cases dramatically. Notably, US government debt has doubled in the past 15 years.

Combining the data reveals a sobering reality. In the past 15 years, Russias military spending has doubled while debt levels have decreased by 90 per cent. US military spending has been cut in half while debt levels have doubled. If current trends continue, US and Alliance credit lines will have to be raised. The end result is greater national debt, further deficit spending and less funding for other domestic programmes. Although this is not optimal, the alternative is even worse.

Correlation is not necessarily causation. Factors that shape European regional security are not limited simply to straight line economic comparisons. The strategic effects of Russian and NATO funding entail more data analysis than basic correlations between military spending as a percentage of GDP and government debt. Fiscal numbers alone are not the sole indicator of military advantage. Quantitative evidence is more helpful when assessed qualitatively.

Two conclusions are offered. First, a strategic view. The US will likely continue to fund the largest portion of the NATO budget (22 per cent at the end of the Obama Administration). Yet according to the National Intelligence Councils Global Trends 2030 report Alternate Worlds, it is highly likely that Americas global economic impact over the next decade will diminish. As first among equals the US will continue its role in world leadership, however, unless reversible steps are taken US debt service will continue to grow. To advance the Alliances mission, increased NATO monetary contributions will be required from other members. Second a tactical view. Anticipate Trumps "America First" mantra to be tweeted only with regards to domestic social programmes. With a ten per cent requested increase in defence spending, expect the debt ceiling to be raised. Follow the money NATO for as long as possible.

Scott Carlson is United States Naval Reserve Officer and Operations Officer for the US military with 25 years of Department of Defense service in training, education, critical thinking and policy formation. He holds an MA degree in National Security and Strategic Studies from the United States Naval War College. His research interests focus on European-Russian geo-political interactions.

Visit link:
Follow the money: Can NATO afford another Cold War? - New Eastern Europe

A former candidate for UK Prime Minister suggests that the United Kingdom could use its military to counteract Spanish attempts to influence the status of a British outpost. A major British newspaper adds fuel to that fire by arguing that the Royal British Navy could defeat the Spanish Navy should it come to war. When did this happen? 1805? Perhaps the 1760s?

No, this actually took place in 2017, over accusations that the Spanish were attempting to influence Gibraltars status post-Brexit. This spat serves as a grim reminder for the United Statesit encourages European nations to spend more on defense at its own peril. The history of European military might is not a happy one, and the recent U.S. demand that European nations spend 2 percent of their GDP on defense to meet the NATO target could, in fact, harm U.S. interests.

In short, when faced with the choice of guns or butter, the United States should allow European leaders to choose butter. The United States can bring the guns.

Americans expect a baseline of unity among their Western European allies. They therefore assume that any European military buildup will help achieve U.S. strategic goalsconfronting the Soviet Union and Balkan unrest previously or terrorism and a resurgent Russia today.

Yet diplomatic unity of purpose has always been the antecedent to military unity. Today, however, that diplomatic unity has dissipated. Brexit and the election of Donald Trumpwho has expressed skepticism of NATO and the European Unionhave highlighted the fragility of the European order. As Brexit negotiations continue, tension between European powers will only grow, and it will become increasingly difficult for Europe to maintain a unified diplomatic front.

U.S. policy does not reflect this new disunited reality. Under the current U.S. outlook, the assumption is that Europeans agree on how to wield power while anti-EU and anti-NATO sentiments are secondary factors. This understanding explains the insistence of President Trump as well of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis that NATO members reach the 2 percent threshold.

The U.S. focus on burden sharing raises concerns primarily for two reasons. First, better military capability without proper coordination on its use would either be useless or could hurt European unity. For example, the United States has no stake in whether the United Kingdom can better deter Spain from interference in Gibraltar. If anything, the United States strives to minimize intra-NATO friction. U.S. leaders should only call for increased military expenditures if certain that they would serve U.S. strategic interests like deterring Russian aggression in the Baltic states or in the North Atlantic.

Second, increased burden sharing may actively hurt the cause of EU stability. Military buildup in Europe would sap the political capital and limit the nondefense spending options of establishment pro-American leaders confronting the gravest threat to the EU and U.S. power on the continent, the insurgent populist movement.

Many EU countries are in a cycle of elections that could be decisive for the future of Europe and the West. Dissatisfaction over lackluster economic prospects and opposition to immigration have powered anti-EU and anti-NATO parties like Marine Le Pens National Front and placed electoral victories within their grasp. Brexit proved that EU integration is neither inevitable nor irreversible. Now, populist parties are trying to follow the example and reshape Europe in a more nationalistic vision.

The example of Italy shows the potential dangers of prioritizing military spending. The country currently spends 1.1. percent of its GDP on military capabilities. It also boasts an 11.5 percent unemployment rate, (35.2 percent for youth), 1 percent GDP growth and a caretaker government following Matteo Renzis resignation. Spending toward the NATO target would divert resources and embolden the populist parties opposing the government. This budgetary trade-off suggests the fundamental calculation of burden sharing. Between a reliable partner or a 2 percent contribution, the United States will choose the former. The 1.1 percent of GDP military spending under Italian prime minister Paolo Gentiloni of the Democratic Party will always be preferable to 2 percent under Beppe Grillos Five Star Movement.

Caution in increasing military spending does not mean allowing partners to shirk collective responsibility indefinitely. It does mean abandoning the current approach. Secretary Tillersons ultimatum calling for spending increase plans before the May 25 NATO meeting is particularly counterproductive. If allies do not comply (which is likely given the unclear enforcement mechanisms), the disorganization will hurt U.S. and European credibility. If they do comply, the increased spending will force EU leaders to remove other pressing reforms from the priority list while handing populists additional electoral ammunition.

Originally posted here:
NATO Funding Frustration Could Cause Friction in Europe - The National Interest Online

NATOs European members, especially the newest members in eastern Europe, incessantly fret about the threat that Vladimir Putins Russia poses to their countries and the continent. Their worries were noticeable even before the eruption of the Ukraine crisis in 2013 and 2014. Moscows 2008 military intervention in Georgia to support South Ossetias secessionists alarmed those countries. So, too, did Russias gradual but significant military restoration and modernization programs.

But it was Putins reaction to the overthrow of the pro-Russian government of Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych in early 2014 that greatly intensified their worries and led to a surge of warnings to NATO partners that the alliance must become more serious about deterring a growing Russian menace. Putins annexation of Crimea and his support for secessionist forces in eastern Ukraine seemed especially ominous. Estonian president Kersti Kaljulaid noted that in 2008, they moved on Georgia . . . I am afraid now that the resolve of the Western countries may not hold in the case of Ukraine. We need to stand very firm against giving again a message to Putin that it will blow over.

German chancellor Angela Merkel cited the impact of Moscows actions in Ukraine, especially on the former Soviet satellite nations. She charged that Moscow had undermined European security in words and deeds by infringing on Ukraines borders and profoundly disturbed NATOs eastern members who therefore require the unambiguous back-up of the alliance. Edgars Rinkvis, Latvias minister of foreign affairs, was even more specific. We have to be prepared that the little green men [disguised Russian military personnel] may try to create confusion, just like they did in Crimea, he said.

Despite the upsurge in dire warnings, most of those same countries have not translated their professed alarm into meaningful efforts to strengthen their own military capacities. Granted, even the largest nations in NATOs eastern European cohort, such as Poland and Romania, could never hope to match Russias military power on their own. But considerations of national self-interest should motivate them to adopt a porcupine strategyhaving a sufficient defense capability that it would make any invasion so costly in blood and treasure that no rational Kremlin leader would consider adopting that course.

Unfortunately, the eastern European nations have done nothing of the sort, even as their warnings become increasingly shrill and their demands that the United States do more to protect them from Russia grow more insistent. The continuing mismatch between rhetoric and action raises obvious questions about how serious those countries are about their own security.

Their leaders exhibit no trace of doubt that Russia is a dangerous, menacing power. In a March 2017 interview, Dalia Grybauskait, president of Lithuania, stated bluntly: Russia is a threat not only to Lithuania but to the whole region and to all of Europe. We see how Russia is behaving in Kaliningrad, a Russian enclave on our border. There they have deployed nuclear-capable missiles that can reach European capitals. It is not just about the Baltic region anymore. Polands foreign minister, Witold Waszczykowski, was equally alarmist, insisting that Russia's behavior posed an existential threat to Poland and the rest of democratic Europe even greater than ISIS.

One would think that if the threat were that serious, NATOs European membersespecially those in the Eastwould be engaged in crash programs to strengthen their militaries. Yet there are few signs of such determination. At the 2006 NATO summit, there was a commitment that every country would spend a minimum of 2 percent of its gross domestic product on defense. At the time of the Ukraine crisis, other than the United States, only Britain and Greece (because of its worries about fellow NATO member Turkey) had met that goal. Since then, Estonia and Poland have done sobarely.

The other eastern European nations lag far behind. The other two Baltic republics, Lithuania and Latvia, spend 1.49 and 1.41 percent, respectively. Romania and Bulgaria devote 1.41 percent and 1.30 percent. Slovakia and Hungary spend a mere 1.12 percent and 1.02 percent, and the Czech Republic brings up the rear at 1.01 percent. NATOs leading countries dont do significantly better. The figures for France and Italy are 1.79 and 1.11 percent, respectively. Perhaps most telling, democratic Europes leading economic power, Germany, spends a pathetic 1.20 percent.

See the original post here:
NATO's Real Alliance Dilemma - The National Interest Online (blog)

The U.S. Air Force has fielded several Lockheed Martin-built F-35A Lightning IIaircraft in England for the first time to carry out training exercises with NATO member countries, the Defense Department said Saturday.

The F-35A fighter jets from the 419th and 388th fighter wings at Hill Air Force Base in Utah arrived Saturday at England-based Royal Air Force Lakenheath and will stay for several weeks in Europe to train with allied countries as part of the European Reassurance Initiative.

The deployment seeks to help the Air Force demonstrate the fighter jets operational capabilities and streamline the requirements for positioning the aircraft in Europe as the continent prepares to get F-35As by early 2020s, DoD said in a separate news release published Friday.

The service branchs Air Mobility Command supported the F-35A deployment in Europe and several refueling planes from four various military bases offered at least 400,000 pounds of fuel during the tanker bridge operation between the U.S. and Europe.

The military branch used C-5 Galaxy and C-17 Globemaster IIIaircraft to fly staff and maintenance equipment to England.

Read the rest here:
Air Force Deploys F-35As to England for NATO Training Exercises - ExecutiveGov

French presidential candidate Marine Le Pen blasted President Trump Friday for changing his mind about NATO after saying during his presidential campaign that the body was obsolete.

Le Pen said in a radio interview with France Info that Trump may have been swayed by his administration to change his mind. Trump made his comments at the White House in a press conference after a meeting with NATO secretary general Jens Stoltenberg.

Undeniably he is in contradiction with the commitments he had made, Le Pen said. I am coherent, I dont change my mind in a few days. He had said he would not be the policeman of the world, that he would be the president of the United States and would not be the policeman of the world, but it seems today that he has changed his mind.

The far-right French candidate has made terrorism and immigration key parts of her campaign and wants France to quit NATO despite calling for a big coalition of countries which fight Muslim fundamentalism in which there will be of course the U.S., Russia, countries like Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and Chad.

Le Pen is believed to be on track to make it to the next round in the France presidential election.

Click for more from Bloomberg.

See original here:
Le Pen blasts Trump for reversing stance on NATO - Fox News

Defence minister Claus Hjort Frederiksen revealed the Danish Government wants to conscript more Danes into the army to increase the forces readiness if a conflict should break out.

Earlier this year the cabinet minister announced funds would be allocated to strengthen Denmarks armed forces following Russian aggression.

Speaking to TV2.DK, Mr Frederiksen suggested one of the proposals is to increase the number of men and women conscripted for military service.

I would like to see little more conscription, he said. Its one of the things we are looking at and I think it is a relevant discussion.

GETTY

The defence minister also said there are large holes in Natos defence around the Baltic Sea, as he added Russia was the greatest threat facing Denmark.

Mr Frederiksen said: We need to achieve more in the army. It is a question about capacity and endurance if it should come to a conflict.

The warning about Natos defence around the Baltic Sea cameas Donald Trump on Wednesday backtracked on his previous statements about the military alliance.

Speaking during a joint press conference with Nato chief Jens Stoltenberg, he said: I said it was obsolete. Its no longer obsolete.

We need to achieve more in the army

Claus Hjort Frederiksen

The US contributes around 70 per cent of Natos total defence spending and while President Trump conceded that the alliance was still very important to him, the Republican blasted other members that do not contribute enough.

President Trump added: If other countries pay their fair share instead of relying on the United States to make up the difference, we will all be much more secure, and our partnership will be made that much stronger.

The secretary general and I had a productive discussion about what more Nato can do in the fight against terrorism.

I complained about that a long time ago and they made a change, and now they do fight terrorism.

Meanwhile, speaking to Fox News on Thursday, Mr Stoltenberg said the Republican hadthe supportof Nato in the war against terrorism, just hours before the US military blitzed ISIS with the mother of all bombs in Afghanistan.

Getty Images

1 of 11

Every member country, no matter how large or small, has an equal say in discussions and decisions. Photo shows: Signing the North Atlantic Treaty which marked the beginning of NATO, 1949.

The Nato chief said: Natos core task is to defend Nato allied countries, the 28 European countries, and the United States and Canada.

We are addressing the root causes of the terrorist threats we see against many Nato allied countries. We are in Afghanistan to fight international terrorism.

The main reason for Nato being there for so many years is to prevent Afghanistan from becoming a safe haven for international terrorists once again. We are in Iraq training Iraqi forces, enabling them to stabilise their own country and to fight terrorism, to fight [ISIS] in Iraq.

"Nato is supporting the US-led coalition fighting [ISIS] in Syria with our surveillance planes helping to improve the air picture.

All Nato allies are a part of the coalition, some of them are active on the ground Syria. So Nato and Nato allies participate and contribute in many different ways to the international fight against terrorism.

See the rest here:
Denmark set to BOLSTER up army in 'Nato commitment' amid ... - Express.co.uk

The Hill (blog)

Trump's tone on NATO has changed, but he still puts 'America first' The Hill (blog) During Wednesday's press conference with North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, President Trump announced what many interpreted as a key policy change: I said [NATO] was obsolete. It's no longer obsolete.. Trump's Previous View of NATO Is Now ObsoleteNew York Times NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg Encourages Debate Between MembersU.S. News & World Report What is Nato? Why did Donald Trump say Nato is 'no longer obsolete'?Express.co.uk Chicago Tribune -Aljazeera.com -ABC15 Arizona -Wall Street Journal all 749 news articles »

Continued here:
Trump's tone on NATO has changed, but he still puts 'America first' - The Hill (blog)

"Undeniably he is in contradiction with the commitments he had made," Le Pen said in an interview with France Info radio. "I am coherent, I don't change my mind in a few days. He had said he would not be the policeman of the world, that he would be the president of the United States and would not be the policeman of the world, but it seems today that he has changed his mind."

Her comments come just two days after Trump hosted NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg at the White House and declared that the military alliance is no longer outdated, which had been a frequent refrain of his during the 2016 campaign.

"I said it was obsolete," he said Wednesday. "It's no longer obsolete."

Le Pen, leader of The National Front, went on to say that while she does not know if Trump would continue to abandon his "America First" approach, she herself would stick to a France first approach if elected president.

"Will he persist, or is it a political coup which facilitates his domestic policy, I have absolutely no idea. But I am coherent in my analyses. When something favors France I say so, when it doesn't I say so too," she said.

Le Pen has been a strong critic of NATO during the French presidential campaign and has included pulling France back from NATO in her campaign platform. The leader of the National Front party, on track to make it through to the run-off election on May 7, has recently seen her momentum slowed.

"I consider that France does not have to submit to the calendar of the United States, so I want France to leave the integrated command of NATO," she said.

Continue reading here:
Le Pen criticizes Trump's new found NATO stance - CNN

New York Times

Trump's Previous View of NATO Is Now Obsolete New York Times WASHINGTON As a candidate, President Trump disparaged NATO as a musty relic of old thinking, an alliance focused on long-gone adversaries rather than new-era threats, a burden that drained American resources on behalf of ungrateful partners who ... Montenegro has the US greenlight to join NATO - now what?Chicago Tribune NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg Encourages Debate Between MembersU.S. News & World Report What is Nato? Why did Donald Trump say Nato is 'no longer obsolete'?Express.co.uk Washington Times -Aljazeera.com -The White House (blog) -Wall Street Journal all 478 news articles »

Visit link:
Trump's Previous View of NATO Is Now Obsolete - New York Times