NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) General Christopher G. Cavoli holds a joint press conference within Military Committee in Chiefs of Defence Session at NATO Headquarters, in Brussels, Belgium on May 10, 2023. Photo by Dursun Aydemir/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images
NATO Details Defense Plans—And Reiterates Call for More Member Spending
One leader said the updated plans help make the case for nations to meet the 2%-of-GDP guidelines.
NATO is adding unprecedented detail to its plans to fend off Russia and terror groups, but mustering the needed forces will require members to meet their funding commitments, officials said Wednesday.
“This is the first time in more than 30 years that we have an objective plans-based statement of requirements. And that's a real advantage for all nations in the alliance. It will give focus to their national defense planning for collective defense purposes,” U.S. Army Gen. Christopher Cavoli, the commander of U.S. European Command and Supreme Allied Commander Europe, told reporters after NATO’s Military Committee met at its Brussels headquarters.
NATO is updating its geographic regional plans to align with the strategic concept adopted at last year’s Madrid Summit, adding details on how it would defend itself from Russia and terrorist organizations. Those plans will be used to determine what troops and weapons and equipment are needed, said Royal Netherlands Navy Adm. Rob Bauer, the chair of NATO’s Military Committee. The plans and force-structure details will be presented at July’s NATO summit in Vilnius, Lithuania.
Just seven of NATO’s 30 members met their pledge to spend 2 percent of their gross domestic product on their defense last year. Then-president Donald Trump and others have criticized those who fell short.
Bauer said the new plans will help members see the value of pitching in.
“If all the nations are collectively doing what they have agreed with NATO, then we are able to properly deter and defend those two threats. So this is the first time that we have an objective way from the threat to the investment targets, sort to say, of the nations,” he said at the press conference. “And I think that is a big change. And I think that will help to convince the nations to actually do what they have agreed with NATO.”
Bauer said that if some member nations need more time or come up short on funds, “it will have an impact [on] reaching that ideal situation.”
“So the executability of the plans is the result of not only the investments, but it's also on the forces that need to be available in the right number and with the right readiness,” he said. “It is the result of more recruitment, it is the result of more training, it is the result of investments, and that will, whether we like it or not, will take some time.”
Bauer said the Vilnius summit will include discussions on the defense investment pledge, and that will have an effect on the force structure requirements they are working on.
Cavoli said the updated regional plans and the new force structures that come from them sit under NATO’s Deterrence and Defense of the Euro-Atlantic Area strategic concept.
“The plans that come out of DDA, the strategic plans as well as the regional plans, these will drive our structure, our operations, our activities, and importantly…our investments into the future. And this will include changes in our command and control structures,” he said.
Cavoli said the plans focus on “large-scale operations to defend every inch of the alliance’s territory,” a change from “out-of-area contingency operations” such as the 18-year NATO mission in Afghanistan.
“We are rapidly increasing the readiness and enablement of our forces, and we're making sure that they are ready to face current as well as future threats,” he said.
Part of that “enablement” is logistics. Bauer noted that Russia failed to plan for resupply before it launched its invasion of Ukraine.
“After a couple of days they ran out of fuel with a tank army. That is not because they don't have fuel in Russia, but because they had it in the wrong place,” he said. “So logistics is–every war after, let's say four-five-six days, becomes about logistics. And that's what you see in Ukraine.”
Bauer acknowledged that NATO has for decades “neglected the larger-scale logistics that is connected to collective defense” because it was planning for operations out of its operational area.
“This is also part of the discussion on making sure that we understand what we need, which is part of the force structure requirements, and then making sure that we start in a very planned way to move towards executability. Because this will not be a light switch. This is not something that happens overnight,” he said.” This requires infrastructural investments, this will require investments in logistic capabilities that we do not have any more.”The regional plans and force-structure changes are focused on fending off Russia and terrorist organizations and not China, because China is only seen as a “challenge” and not a “threat” by NATO, said Bauer.
“That doesn't mean that there aren't allies in the alliance that also look at China and are planning on that as well. But that is not a collective effort based on the policy decisions that was taken by the leaders in Madrid,” he said.
NATO is adding unprecedented detail to its plans to fend off Russia and terror groups, but mustering the needed forces will require members to meet their funding commitments, officials said Wednesday.
“This is the first time in more than 30 years that we have an objective plans-based statement of requirements. And that's a real advantage for all nations in the alliance. It will give focus to their national defense planning for collective defense purposes,” U.S. Army Gen. Christopher Cavoli, the commander of U.S. European Command and Supreme Allied Commander Europe, told reporters after NATO’s Military Committee met at its Brussels headquarters.
NATO is updating its geographic regional plans to align with the strategic concept adopted at last year’s Madrid Summit, adding details on how it would defend itself from Russia and terrorist organizations. Those plans will be used to determine what troops and weapons and equipment are needed, said Royal Netherlands Navy Adm. Rob Bauer, the chair of NATO’s Military Committee. The plans and force-structure details will be presented at July’s NATO summit in Vilnius, Lithuania.
Just seven of NATO’s 30 members met their pledge to spend 2 percent of their gross domestic product on their defense last year. Then-president Donald Trump and others have criticized those who fell short.
Bauer said the new plans will help members see the value of pitching in.
“If all the nations are collectively doing what they have agreed with NATO, then we are able to properly deter and defend those two threats. So this is the first time that we have an objective way from the threat to the investment targets, sort to say, of the nations,” he said at the press conference. “And I think that is a big change. And I think that will help to convince the nations to actually do what they have agreed with NATO.”
Bauer said that if some member nations need more time or come up short on funds, “it will have an impact [on] reaching that ideal situation.”
“So the executability of the plans is the result of not only the investments, but it's also on the forces that need to be available in the right number and with the right readiness,” he said. “It is the result of more recruitment, it is the result of more training, it is the result of investments, and that will, whether we like it or not, will take some time.”
Bauer said the Vilnius summit will include discussions on the defense investment pledge, and that will have an effect on the force structure requirements they are working on.
Cavoli said the updated regional plans and the new force structures that come from them sit under NATO’s Deterrence and Defense of the Euro-Atlantic Area strategic concept.
“The plans that come out of DDA, the strategic plans as well as the regional plans, these will drive our structure, our operations, our activities, and importantly…our investments into the future. And this will include changes in our command and control structures,” he said.
Cavoli said the plans focus on “large-scale operations to defend every inch of the alliance’s territory,” a change from “out-of-area contingency operations” such as the 18-year NATO mission in Afghanistan.
“We are rapidly increasing the readiness and enablement of our forces, and we're making sure that they are ready to face current as well as future threats,” he said.
Part of that “enablement” is logistics. Bauer noted that Russia failed to plan for resupply before it launched its invasion of Ukraine.
“After a couple of days they ran out of fuel with a tank army. That is not because they don't have fuel in Russia, but because they had it in the wrong place,” he said. “So logistics is–every war after, let's say four-five-six days, becomes about logistics. And that's what you see in Ukraine.”
Bauer acknowledged that NATO has for decades “neglected the larger-scale logistics that is connected to collective defense” because it was planning for operations out of its operational area.
“This is also part of the discussion on making sure that we understand what we need, which is part of the force structure requirements, and then making sure that we start in a very planned way to move towards executability. Because this will not be a light switch. This is not something that happens overnight,” he said.” This requires infrastructural investments, this will require investments in logistic capabilities that we do not have any more.”The regional plans and force-structure changes are focused on fending off Russia and terrorist organizations and not China, because China is only seen as a “challenge” and not a “threat” by NATO, said Bauer.
“That doesn't mean that there aren't allies in the alliance that also look at China and are planning on that as well. But that is not a collective effort based on the policy decisions that was taken by the leaders in Madrid,” he said.
NEXT STORY: Bipartisan Group Aims to Fix ‘Hopelessly Obsolete’ Classification System