NATO does indeed need to get with the program

While Trump expressed what he did at the breakfast in Brussels in his characteristically boneheaded way, the underlying facts on the ground are indisputable, as former US ambassador to Afghanistan, Iraq and the UN and former DoD director of policy planning Zalmay Khalilzad makes clear at The National Interest:

The alliance is ill-structured, ill-equipped and ill-financed to deal with the European region’s two major security problems—an aggressive Russia and the spillover of instability and terrorism from the Middle East and North Africa—leaving aside emerging global security challenges. Worse, at times some members can even be said to have enabled the threat. One example being the massive German purchase of Russian gas, which provides Putin with ongoing financing. To deal effectively with these challenges on an equitable and sustained basis among allies, the terms of the partnership must be renegotiated and its common ground redefined. This is in Europe’s best interest too. 

What does he specifically recommend?

- Develop integrated defense plans within the NATO military committee for dealing with the Russian threat in northeast Europe, and instability and terrorist threats emanating from the Middle East and North Africa, thereby creating a strategy and a division of labor. This will entail a combined planning effort of the major NATO powers and the members living nearest or most directly affected by these threats. 

- Agree to specific outputs—forces, weapons systems, operational capabilities, logistics support, and command and control—that each NATO member must develop and maintain at high readiness. This should take into account the capabilities that are needed now but also look to exploit emerging technologies to solve military problems more effectively as these technologies mature. 

- Engage in realistic large-scale annual exercises—analogous the Exercise REFORGER of the Cold War—that will serve as a deterrent for would be aggressors, demonstrate resolve and compliance with NATO commitments and identify shortfalls for remediation. 

In addition, the United States should candidly inform the European NATO members that the larger share of these agreed upon capabilities must come from them. We must explain that geopolitical realities require the United States to augment our own defense commitments in other priority regions, especially the Western Pacific. They must also understand that the American public expects wealthy countries to defend themselves principally on their own, with the United States playing a supporting role on an as-needed basis. 

A rather tall order, given the fact that Europe, over the last seventy years, has come to take for granted that the heavy lifting was going to come from the US. A continent mired in cultural decay and declining native population is not going to be easily roused to the urgency of the moment.

Be that as it may, what specific steps would a NATO so reconfigured need to take?

- An integrated air defense and surface-to-surface strike capability that would create an anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) belt covering the territory of NATO members and extending into adjacent areas of Russia.

- A counter-A2/AD capability that would defeat Russia battle networks and weapons systems, and Moscow’s ability to threaten NATO forward-deployed forces and reinforcements.
- A special operations forces capability sufficient to counter Russia’s sub-conventional operations involving the so-called “little green men.” 

- A ground maneuver force that would combine the kind of light infantry that Hezbollah used against Israel’s offensive forces with heavy armor and artillery units that would consolidate territorial control. 

As part of the new NATO security construct, the United States should offer to take the following steps: 

- Maintain a small, highly capable ground maneuver force in Europe that would partner with a larger European force. 

- Maintain a POMCUS capability in Europe, proximate to the locales where it would likely be needed, that would enable a surge of U.S. capability on a rapid basis if needed. Other major NATO powers, such as France, Germany and the UK should also provide POMCUS-style capability. 

- Sell to European allies and partners, or license the right to produce, the high-end weapons systems needed to create the required European A2/AD, counter A2/AD, and maneuver force capabilities. Interoperability is vital and should be programmed into the strategy and plans. 

- Agree to back up European arsenals of precision-guided munitions with U.S. stockpiles and production capabilities. 

- Provide European NATO members with access to U.S. high-fidelity training capabilities and technologies. 

- Provide the C4ISR capabilities that would enable integrated NATO operations in the event of conflict. 

- Undertake a new look at what would be needed at every step in the escalation ladder—including tactical and intermediate-range nuclear forces—to ensure that Russia would not gain an advantage though escalating to high levels of conflict. This would be a first step to address any deficiencies in our deterrent 

Hopefully, there's a level of conversation going on in Brussels this week among those with a capacity for consistent vision and understanding of detail that moves the needle on this.