NATO strategic priorities, 10 commandments
Facing fresh threats from Russia, reminiscent of the Cold War, the transatlantic security alliance must adapt its posture in Europe to counter these challenges.
In a nutshell
- NATO’s political and strategic priorities in Europe need revisions
- The concept of a pro-active “preemptive defense” carries promise
- The recent efforts to strengthen European defense will not suffice
Russia’s full-scale aggression against Ukraine is approaching the three-year mark and the post-Cold War security landscape in the Euroatlantic region has irreversibly changed. This marks the onset of a second cold war, declared by Russia against the transatlantic alliance and epitomized by the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. Considering this prolonged confrontation, which has the makings to endure for decades akin to the First Cold War (1947-1989), the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) faces a need to adopt a robust deterrence and defense strategy tailored to current realities. This strategy should encompass a decalogue, or ten commandments, of critical priorities essential for ensuring strategic stability in Europe and, to an extent, globally.
Three main political and strategic goals
The foremost priority is undoubtedly maximizing support for Ukraine in its defensive war against Russia. This support is crucial not only for its strategic significance but also as the first step in a broader implementation strategy. The future of Euroatlantic security hinges on the outcome of NATO-assisted efforts by Ukraine to repel Russian aggression, which will shape the scale and nature of threats from the Kremlin, thereby defining the strategic landscape for the foreseeable future.
The current kinetic war in Eastern Europe is akin to the initial phases of most large conflicts, significantly influencing its trajectory and potential outcomes. A Russian victory would likely inflate threats to NATO, particularly for eastern flank countries. Moscow may pursue a land bridge through Poland and Lithuania to its strategically vital Kaliningrad enclave on the Baltic Sea, mirroring its objectives around Crimea on the Black Sea. Conversely, if Kyiv can maintain the territorial integrity of the land it still controls, it would bolster NATO’s strategic dominance for years, deterring Moscow from posing a credible threat to the transatlantic alliance. This strategic logic underscores the critical importance of the ongoing conflict in shaping the future security landscape of Europe and beyond.
A prolonged, unending war would perpetuate the current high-risk security situation in Europe, with negative implications on the global scale. Consequently, the effectiveness of NATO’s subsequent activities will hinge on the seriousness, strength and consistency with which the alliance addresses the present challenge. Its ability to stabilize the region and mitigate risks depends fundamentally on NATO’s commitment to a decisive and proactive response to the ongoing conflict.
NATO’s ability to confront the challenges of the second cold war depends on a clear and credible commitment to this unity.
The second priority is ensuring unconditional allied unity, particularly in transatlantic ties. These connections are vital; without the United States’ strategic presence in Europe, NATO would not function. This unity is an existential necessity for the alliance, yet it faces risks from both sides of the Atlantic. NATO’s ability to confront the challenges of the second cold war depends on a clear and credible commitment to this unity. It must be evident to allies and adversaries alike. Tightening transatlantic cooperation is essential for maintaining NATO’s collective defense and effectively responding to evolving security threats.
Effectively addressing the two most significant global threats posed by Russia (primarily to European NATO members) and China (mainly to the U.S.) is crucial. Undermining transatlantic ties or questioning their credibility would not only embolden these two newly assertive nations but also significantly enhance their chances of confronting the old-world industrialized countries. NATO must recognize this reality.
The third priority is to strengthen the European defense effort. The current disparity in defense burdens between the U.S. and European NATO members poses risks to transatlantic ties. Europe’s strategic weaknesses in critical military capabilities hinder NATO’s ability to conduct full-scale operations without U.S. support. This reliance makes it easier for potential adversaries to anticipate and plan attacks, particularly in the early stages of a conflict. Therefore, European nations are facing a critical necessity of ramping up their contributions to Euro-Atlantic defense capabilities and shoring up their collective security framework.
The recent initiation of efforts to strengthen European defense is encouraging, but the backlog in meeting urgent needs is significant. Getting on track requires a rapid acceleration in European NATO member states preparing to respond to Russia’s aggression in Ukraine and threatening moves toward Europe. The European Union has substantial potential to launch supportive programs in this regard. Establishing robust NATO-EU defense relations is essential. Enhanced cooperation can lead to a more effective response to the challenges, ensuring that both organizations work synergistically to bolster Euroatlantic defense capabilities. This partnership is vital for addressing the evolving threats posed simultaneously by Russia and China.
There is currently little systematic approach to enhance European defense capabilities, and ad hoc projects are insufficient. A strategic division of roles between NATO and the EU would be beneficial, similar to the divided operational and general command structure in military command. In this model, the EU would act as a “provider” of military capabilities – focusing on defense industry support and armed forces transformation – while the military alliance would serve as the “user,” deploying these capabilities in operations. The EU possesses the political and economic resources to fulfill this role, whereas NATO has developed extensive military operational competencies over decades.
Four deterrence and crisis-response objectives
A critical priority within NATO’s deterrence strategy is neutralizing Russia’s doctrine of nuclear escalation “to de-escalate conflicts”, which leverages tactical nuclear weapons to impose terms on conventional warfare and intimidates European NATO member states. By threatening nuclear escalation, Russia aims to discourage effective responses from targeted countries and their allies. In the final analysis, this mechanism increases the likelihood of aggression.
The ability to detect preparations for aggression in advance is a prerequisite to an ability to respond swiftly and mitigate the destructive effects of an attack.
Recent developments underscore the urgency of NATO’s response, as Russian President Vladimir Putin has lowered the threshold for nuclear weapon use, allowing for a potential mass-destruction response even to conventional attacks supported by nuclear powers. Previously, the doctrine invoked only existential threats to the Russian state. This shift necessitates a NATO deployment of land-based nuclear delivery systems in Europe to match Russia’s capabilities and also an expansion of member states’ nuclear-sharing arrangement with the U.S. Such measures are essential for maintaining credible deterrence and reinforcing NATO’s collective defense commitments in light of Russia’s changed nuclear doctrine.
Additionally, NATO needs to invest in anti-surprise capabilities (the term in military parlance refers to a set of strategies, technologies, and practices designed to prevent or mitigate the effects of surprise attacks by adversaries) to enhance its readiness against potential aggression. The ability to detect preparations for aggression in advance is a prerequisite to an ability to respond swiftly and mitigate the destructive effects of an attack. Such a capacity requires robust intelligence, counterintelligence, reconnaissance and extensive monitoring systems. Moreover, signaling NATO’s possession of such capabilities to potential adversaries would serve as a significant strategic deterrent.
Given the urgency of this need, its development should be regarded as a “priority of priorities” for the entire alliance, particularly in frontline countries. By creating solid anticipatory measures, NATO can improve its collective defense posture and reduce vulnerability to unexpected threats.
Read more from Gen. Stanisław Koziej
- The Visegrad Group and Europe’s security system: a story to watch
- Strategizing the European Union
- The U.S. and China: The rivalry escalates
- The quest for military superiority in Ukraine
The proposed systemic integration between NATO and the EU is crucial for effectively addressing the expanding need for defense from hybrid attacks. The ongoing Russian hybrid operations, which include disinformation campaigns, cyberattacks, espionage and covert military provocations, have become increasingly commonplace. These tactics occur below the threshold of open aggression but are intended to destabilize NATO member states.
These states, particularly those closest to Russia’s borders, are especially vulnerable to hybrid threats and must not face these challenges alone. To enhance their defenses, the alliance could consider establishing specialized “anti-hybrid” formations in these regions. For instance, Poland is exploring the creation of units based on its territorial defense forces and border guard units, and all military and non-military security entities in that country would need to collaborate in anti-hybrid defense efforts. This necessity further emphasizes the urgent need for joint action between NATO and the EU.
In the context of the current cold war-like conditions, NATO requires a new, proactive crisis doctrine, termed “deterrent crisis response.” This approach emphasizes the preemptive development of rapid response forces in regions at risk of aggression from Russia, rather than merely reacting after a crisis has emerged. Given Moscow’s tendency to engage in risky behavior and its reliance on the fait accompli steps – often referred to as the “salami strategy”– which seeks to achieve limited objectives under the threshold of provoking a full-scale conflict, NATO must shift its focus.
Having troops pre-positioned in the border zone enhances the strength of resistance against any aggressor. To accentuate this strategic shift, it may be beneficial to change the terminology from “response forces” to “crisis deterrence forces.” This rebranding would better capture the proactive nature of NATO’s intended actions in deterring potential aggression before it escalates into open conflict.
Three strategic defense priorities
If NATO genuinely intends to defend “every inch” of member states’ territory, as declared at recent summits in Vilnius and Washington, it must adopt a strategic concept of preemptive defense. This doctrine involves engaging the aggressor’s forces as soon as a clash is imminent and attack orders are issued, rather than waiting until after an attack has occurred. By initiating action before a conflict escalates, NATO can effectively deter potential aggressors.
Preemptive defense is fully justified and consistent with international law, unlike preventive defense, which is prohibited. Adopting a preemptive defense strategy would be a crucial element of deterrence by denial against any aggressor contemplating action. The effectiveness of NATO in implementing such a doctrine relies heavily on the credibility and accuracy of its intelligence assessments, which can be bolstered by ensuring the alliance possesses necessary anti-surprise capabilities.
To deter aggression, it is crucial to make potential adversaries aware of the challenges they would face and to significantly reduce their chances of success in the initial stages of a conflict. This can be achieved by demonstrating the durability of defense in the border zone – a solid defensive posture from the first line of defense, particularly in the border areas. Two key factors contribute to this effective deterrence:
- Troop deployment: Having troops pre-positioned in the border zone, especially from as many allied countries as possible – not just frontline states – enhances the strength of resistance against any aggressor.
- Defense infrastructure: Establishing robust defense infrastructure in this area is essential for sustaining a durable defense.
Frontline states are already undertaking these initiatives through projects like the “Baltic Defense Line” and Poland’s “East Shield” (Tarcza Wschód). Therefore, enhancing military presence along the eastern flank and providing financial support for infrastructure development there would enhance the security of both NATO and the EU. This approach will strengthen collective defense and deter potential threats more effectively.
NATO adopting all key strategic capabilities includes the neutralization of Russia’s tactical nuclear blackmail doctrine.
Final among the big 10, equally important as others, is the enhancement of strategic logistics to ensure continuous and versatile defense support, particularly in the event of a full-scale and prolonged conflict. It is essential to convey a clear and credible message to Russia that it will not win a war of attrition against NATO, as it currently aims to do in Ukraine.
Two aspects of strategic logistics crucial for NATO’s defense strategy on the eastern flank are developing a permanent logistics base and ensuring strategic mobility. Establishing a permanent logistics base in advance within the anticipated operational theater is essential for preparing and deploying weapons and material supplies – such as ammunition, fuel, spare parts and food – to support reinforcement troops arriving from deeper strategic locations. The other is ensuring the efficient and rapid transfer of troops, particularly American forces, across Europe to the eastern flank, which is vital for a timely response to counter aggression.
Scenarios
Possible scenarios for NATO to further refine its strategy under current conditions depend primarily on political will and practical determination among the member states in embracing new security priorities.
Less likely: NATO and the European countries adopt all essential priorities
NATO adopting all key strategic capabilities includes the neutralization of Russia’s tactical nuclear blackmail doctrine and the adoption of a preemptive defense concept. Once the measures are effectively implemented, Russia stands little chance in its cold war-like challenge to European NATO members, ultimately facing failure similar to that of the Soviet Union in the Cold War.
Less likely: An impasse and collapse of the credibility of transatlantic ties
A break between Europe and the U.S. could result from an inability to achieve a consensus on radical changes in the strategy of the transatlantic alliance. A breakdown of Western resolve to support Ukraine, leading to a Russian victory, would be particularly destructive. In this scenario, Moscow would gain the freedom to pursue its intentions without restraint, and NATO would be unable to guarantee the security of its eastern flank member states. This situation could ultimately lead to the collapse of established security structures within the community of developed countries.
More likely: An intermediate continuation scenario
Under this scenario, the most pressing priorities will be implemented reactively rather than proactively or comprehensively, responding only to the necessities imposed by the situation, including Russia’s aggressive behavior. While Moscow may be deterred in Ukraine, it will not be defeated. NATO’s unity will be maintained, but only at a minimal common denominator. In terms of tactical nuclear weapons, there will be adjustments rather than a radical strategy overhaul, and no consensus will be reached on adopting a preemptive defense concept. The challenges posed globally by Russia, China and other autocracies will persist, with the final outcome remaining uncertain.
For industry-specific scenarios and bespoke geopolitical intelligence, contact us and we will provide you with more information about our advisory services.
Sign up for our newsletter
Receive insights from our experts every week in your inbox.
