Participants:
Baiba Braže, Assistant Secretary General of NATO for Public Diplomacy
Erik Brattberg, Director of Europe Program, Carnegie Endowment for Peace
Amb Tomasz Szatkowski, Permanent Representative of the Republic of Poland to the North Atlantic Council
Moderator: Prof Julian Lindley-French, Chair & Founder of TAG – Geopolitics, Strategy and Innovation; Chairman of The Alphen Group
The first discussant highlighted that large adjustments have taken place already in favor of credibility. Space and cyber, AI policies, autonomy questions, quantum computing, and robotics are all advancements in the scope of current NATO initiatives. These should improve defensive readiness based on awareness which will be critical to respond to incidents and build the resilience of societies. It will take some time to disseminate the NATO efforts, however. The private sector, for example, are the ones experiencing most cyber-attacks, but they get the least coverage from defensive organizations like NATO. Thus, a holistic response is critical, and cooperation and commonality of different settings among member states is critical to retaining the operational credibility of NATO in the modern age of warfare.
The speakers also discuss that the previous strategic concept lacked strategic focus. Much has changed since the previous incarnation: Crimea, new technology, and new threats. The upcoming strategic concept is thus about redefining and reinventing alliances, and to get EU alliances themselves to understand the need for unity. It cannot be the lowest common denominator but must provide a real strategic framework and inform defense planning, while looking ahead to the next decade. However, NATO needs to match assessment with capability without going out of bounds.
The next speaker mentions that a rising issue is restoring the centrality of collective defense for the alliance. The last strategic concept was the least defense-heavy that was ever adopted, and the next strategic concept has to significantly shift this trend. The future of crisis management is also important – currently there is not much of a pan-NATO framework for handling issues that are not direct military incursions. The Polish would like the alliance would to be the most important and most ambitious institution in the west, so the focus should remain on it. The discussant notes agreement with the need for NATO to stay pragmatic and realistic with regards to member state stability, and partnerships. This is especially true toward Russia. Lastly, the speaker noted the rising importance of resilience in collective defense, noting that it is still a new issue with many debates coming on as it goes significantly outside of the scope of NATO, yet is critical to its functioning.
The speakers agree that allies shouldn’t dilute the mission of NATO any longer. There are already many defensive capabilities in Europe, but NATO now needs to consolidate them. Mission creep should be avoided, but NATO should play a role in resilience building efforts in a support capacity. This role could manifest in terms of partnerships in resilience issues for engaging in tech and supply chain issues in the indo-pacific, for example. Panelists agree that the documents need to be clear enough, though it has evolved from its previous alliance which was against Germany – that is no longer the case. The data-enabled threats of today do not recognize borders so there is a risk that the strategic concept is more complex than it used to be. Hybrid threats of non-military threats will be a priority, but there’s more continuity than change from the previous concept, which may not be the most effective reality, but will be critical to restore the ability of the alliance to effectively operate. The risks of this continuity is the lack of a real response mechanism for hybrid warfare scenarios.