Attending a lecture, before

Warsaw NATO summit

LTC Aurelian-Corneliu Moraru, MD, MA

The lecture has been presented by Mr. Jeffrey

LARSEN, Director of Research Division at
NATO Defence College, Rome, Italy

2014 Events

No desire to return to Cold war

But an obvious need to respond
Clear, growing, and dangerous military imbalance in Eastern Europe could
potentially be exploted by Moscow
And rise of new threats to South that are destabilizing
NATO response to date:
East:: Uncertainty and dedging
Alliance divided between need for deterrence and assurance and desire for dialogue
Some modest conventional enhancements in region

South: mostly hands-off (leave to US-led coalition)

North: hands off (leave to Artic Council)

Officially adapting to new world

Political
Military
International

Wales Summit

NATO Wales Summit Initiatives (enhanced by Defense Minister decisions

post-Wales)

Readiness Action Plan (RAP)

Established Very High Readiness Joint Task Force (VJTF)
Enhanced & enlarged NATO Response Force (NRF)
Created multiple NATO Force Integration Units (NFIUs)
Beefed up NATO Multinational Corps NE HQ in Szczecin, Poland
Created Joint Logistics Support Command HQ ar SHAPE
Increased air policing
More vigourously military exercises
Developed strategy to counter Hybrid Warfare
Created series of Graduated Response Plans
Agreed to Defense Investment Pledge (2% / 20% / 10 years)
Forward deployed some equipment in NE Europe
Confirmed suspension of formal dialogue with Russia
Nothing announced regarding strategic deterrence

Warsaw Summit

Likely agenda items

Cleanup items, such as ensuring Wales initiatives on track
Russia and the East
Including announcing new conventional capabilities, pre-positioning

ISIL and the South

Continued adaptation to new world
Greater emphasis on collective defence
Emphasize assurance
Announce hybrid strategy
Discuss nuclear deterrence - but not publicly
Enlargement announce Montenegro membership, continued support for
additional future members
Partners - what role? How maintain ties post-ISAF
New issues not traditionally in NATOs mandate:
Migration
Counterterrorism

Russia

Moscow has 19th century view of world

Great power balancing, spheres of influence, no unipolar leader

Wants to be considered a major power and key player

Concerned over NATO enlargement
Upset by out of area operations in NATOs near abroad (e.g. Kosovo, Libya)
Rejection of Western culture, rules, morality, different civilization?

What motivates Russian leadership?

Fear or opportunism?
Wests policy responses depend on ones answer
If fear, dont add forces or build up, instead, emphasize dialogue
If oppotunims, we need to show strong response

This is behind the debate within Alliance: defence or dialogue

No concensus on danger from Russia
Is bigger threat from East or South?
Can the Alliance pursue both simultaneously?

Most Dangerous Scenario?

Baltic States are threatened

Russian large scale snap exercise, nuclear sabre ratting
A decision to turn West unlikely, but possible
Russia could capture Baltic states in 3 (consecutive) days (RAND)

The Alliance has few good options in this scenario

Little conventional defence
Kaliningrad A2/AD bubble and geography means we could not retake conventionally in
the short term
Pressures to escalate to nuclear use

How to prevent this: enhanced conventional forces

Stationed or rotational presence

Deter and serve as trip wire
Defend if necessary
Preclude early escalation (keep threshold high)

What response might we expect from Russia if we enhance defenses in region?

Action/reaction cycle
Does it matter? Our duty as a military alliance

Deterrence

Renewed emphasis on collective defense and deterrence in face of Russia

threat
Deterrence rests in appropriate mix of conventional, nuclear, missile
defense forces
Nuclear leg is supreme guarantee of Alliance security
United States extended deterrence over ~40 nations, including NATO
French and British nuclear arsenals
As long as nuclear weapons exist, NATO will remain a nuclear alliance
Requires robust, well trainned, modern, reliable nuclear forces

2012 Deterrence and Defense Posture Review stated that NATOs preferred option is
status quo policy

DCA, widespread nuclear sharing arrangements

But DDPR assumtions no longer true
Allied DCA fleets aging out
Does this require revised policy?

Conclusion

NATO remains the guarantor of European security

NATO is placing renewed emphasis on its core mission
It is a political & military alliance charged with defending its members territory,
people, and interests
All other missions added since early 1990s are secondary to this

The Alliance may choose to remind the world of this core responsibility in
Warsaw

Epilogue
Synchronize political/military scenario TJ Exercise
Already played
trauma scenarios (series of MASCALs)
biological events

To be considered (discussed)
C2 Up scenario (challenge C2 SMEs, structures, Medical
Advisors, etc)
Increase complexity by building different syndicates or tasks
forces to solve a specific problem, including other actors, apart
from military ones
Avoid static display, create a dynamic move
Avoid playing article 5 leaded scenarios if there is no such play
in TJ Exercise series