NATO needs more than money to solve its Russia problem

Donald Trump knew what he was going to do threat He said he would not defend NATO if the alliance refused to increase defense spending and would tell Russia “they can do whatever they want.”

Double digits on both sides of the Atlantic reaction Caused on the political Richter scale. NATO official Pressured allies who had not met their 2% of GDP defense commitments to do so.

But reality has to intervene. Counterintuitively, indeed, the more the US and UK spend on defense, the more more their army shrunken. The reason is the rising cost of everything from humans to precision weapons and even pencils. The annual rate of increase in uncontrolled real costs for NATO countries is between 3 and 7 percent, depending on the country. Adding inflation makes the problem even worse.

In the United States, the Navy Struggling to reach 300 ships, a number set by Congress.The Department of Defense faces significant hiring Not enough.The British army is exactly Over 72,000 will be cut into 148 Tank. And the Royal Navy, which once ruled the seas, can now only manage. 16 destroyers and frigates.

Of course, NATO members who do not keep their 2% commitment will have to do so. But that doesn’t solve the problem. If you read NATO’s combat concept, its six “out“—“out-thinking,” “outperforming,” “out-fighting,” “out-pacing,” “out-partner,” “out-last”—the enemy ignores strategy and force and uses deliberate have ambitions for And they needed the budget to deter and defeat a Russian attack.

One logical conclusion is that NATO leaders are likely to develop a solid strategy with important objectives before they pull out their checkbooks. The first is to build an affordable military capable of defeating Russian military aggression. To achieve that, strategies must recognize and integrate the harsh realities and constraints that are currently ignored due to the mistaken belief that increasing spending is itself the solution. it’s not.

Some of these realities require a deeper understanding of the capabilities and limitations Russia faces.If reports are accurate, Russia has enormous military power. loss In terms of personnel and equipment in Ukraine.On the other hand, Russia Strengthen We have a defense industrial base and a huge population of about 140 million people from which we can recruit.hollow military” Actions cannot be taken beyond Ukraine.

The US military recover from vietnam. part of NATO Predict Russia could attack NATO within the next few years. But be careful. No matter how the Ukraine war ends, Russia will not be able to completely withdraw, unlike in Afghanistan and Iraq, where the United States was able to bring its troops home. A significant number will remain to wage guerrilla warfare or occupy parts of Ukraine and Crimea.

NATO must also recognize the strategic advantages offered by its Finnish membership, and perhaps Sweden.Russia must now protect itself 830 miles of border Together with Finland. And from Russia’s point of view, Sweden is under a dagger. Kaliningrad and St. Petersburg In the Baltic Sea.

In the early 1960s, the Kennedy administration’sFlexible response” doctrine required military force in virtually every level of conflict, from insurrection to nuclear war.Following this, NATO hamel report It was named after the Belgian Foreign Minister.

Regardless of the origin of the name, NATO needs a new Hamel report to assess the growing threat from Russia, the Ukraine war and its aftermath. Iran, North Korea, and China also need to be considered. For example, if the United States and China go to war over Taiwan and the mainland United States is attacked by China, Article 5 Will it be invoked as it was after 9/11?

The role of technology in Ukraine’s war must be integrated, from the use of communication drones and Starlink satellite internet to the astonishingly shortened timeframes for fielding new weapons. All of this must be incorporated into “”.Porcupine defenseIt would increase the cost of a Russian attack on NATO and make it unacceptable. If designed correctly, this defense does not necessarily require additional expenditures, but merely redirects funds.

This will not be easy given the current intense bureaucratic, political and economic resistance. But don’t get me wrong. Without a new strategy, increasing NATO spending is not the solution.

Harlan Ullman is a senior advisor to the Atlantic Council and the primary author of the “Shock and Awe” military doctrine. He spent 12 years on the advisory boards of a series of Supreme Allied Commanders in Europe. His 12th book is “The Fifth Horseman and the New MAD: How Massive Attacks of Disruption Became the Pooming Existential Danger to a Divided Nation and the World at General.” You can reach him on Twitter @harlankullman.