NATO 75 Essay: The Sad, the Mad, and the Bad

 

“…the Americans have not yet reached the stage where they regard themselves as equal partners in the enterprise [NATO]…They still feel that they are in the position of a kind of fairy godmother handing out favours for less fortunate Western European countries – provided always that the latter can justify their claims to such favours…it is up to the European countries to make the running and to provide the administration with the necessary ammunition to enable it to deal with Congress”.

Top Secret Memo from British Ambassador to Washington Sir Oliver Franks to British Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin, August 1948.

Ernie’s Vision

July 10^th, 2024. Much of the ‘noise’ at the NATO 75 summit in Washington will be rightly about Ukraine at which the Allies will again commit to keeping Kyiv the fight, but baulk at giving the Ukrainians anything like enough weapons to kick Putin out.  The real issue will be precisely the three issues that will not be addressed – the patent lack of strategic direction, the lack of leadership and Europe’s sad inability to deliver its own defence requirements.

There are many who can claim to be the real founder on NATO but one who has a real claim is Britain’s Foreign Secretary at the time of the April 1949 Treaty of Washington, Ernest ‘Ernie’ Bevin.  He was ably assisted by the then British Ambassador to Washington, Sir Oliver Franks. Having forged the 1948 Brussels Pact of European countries in mid July 1948.  Bevin came away from a meeting in The Hague firm in his belief that unless the US committed itself formally to the defence of Western Europe Europeans would be easy prey to the 350 Red Army divisions stationed close to the inner-German border.  Bevin’s assessment was as much political as strategic.  Germany was still as much the enemy as the Soviets, France had no government, Britain was broke, President Harry S. Truman was facing re-election and the rest of Western Europe did not matter militarily. Today? France has no government, Britain is broke, Germany only plays at defence, still uses World War Two to avoid responsibility, and just announced a real terms cut to its defence budget.  The only other European of defence note is Poland, forever brave enough but never big or rich enough of offset the weakness of its big neighbour. Worse, the Americans face an electoral choice in November between an increasingly cognitively impaired President Biden who is simply no longer up to leading the free world, and Donald J. Trump who does not want to lead the free world.   

Plus ca change? 

Bevin knew that only a Herculean effort on the part of the British and other war-devastated Europeans could really convince the Americans to re-commit to Europe at a time when much of America simply wanted to ‘bring the boys home’.  Bevin vision was for the Americans to guarantee European security through a North Atlantic Pact, in return for Europeans committing to ‘self-help’.  To that end, London committed to retain British forces in strength in Germany indefinitely at great cost. This was something which the strategically illiterate Cameron government did not understand when they withdrew HQ Allied Rapid Reaction Corps from Rheindahlen in December 2013.  HQARRC was the last vestige of the once mighty British Army of the Rhine. Moscow has and always will see power in military terms and the withdrawal of HQ ARRC was yet another symbol Putin understood only too well at a time when much of NATO was also mired in Afghanistan. At the time, I was associated with HQARRC and made my concerns clear to London about the dangerous political symbolism of closing down Rheindahlen. London did not listen. It never does. In February 2014, Russia seized Crimea.

If the Allies really believe in NATO they will once again have to make a Herculean effort to convince over-stretched, over-spent, over-wrought America to continue to guarantee Europe’s security.  THAT is the REAL issue at this Summit in a political vacuum and what awaits the new NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte.  He will need to use all his powers of persuasion because as Dutch prime minister he gutted the Dutch armed forces.  The only way the Americans can guarantee the future of Europe’s defence is if the Europeans bear the increasing burden of self-help. That will mean many of Western Europe’s political leaders breaking habits of a political lifetime and end the sad mealy-mouthed nonsense about the unaffordability of sound defence due to cost of their bloated welfare states. Bevin, a Labour politician, would be appalled.

NATO 80?

What will Hercules demand of NATO’s European pillar not the mention the Canadians?  The Alphen Group has just published a new Transatlantic Compact https://thealphengroup.com/2024/07/09/to-their-excellencies-the-permanent-representatives-on-the-north-atlantic-council/ which was superbly led by two American colleagues and NATO experts, Diego Ruiz Palmer and Stanley Sloan.  At its core is an assessment of the forces and resources Europeans will need to provide as the minimum political and force requirement.  The Compact acknowledges the new Allied Reaction Force (ARF) is an important milestone on the road to the vital NATO Force Model, but only if it is far more than simply re-badging the now defunct NATO Response Force.  It also acknowledges the superb work done by SACEUR and his team to create the ‘Family of Plans’ which provide the bedrock for a future Allied minimum force requirement.  The ARF is a high readiness, highly mobile and responsive mainly European force capable of deploying rapidly throughout SACEUR’s Area of Responsibility to reinforce forward defences, prevent a fait accompli by an adversary, and demonstrate unity.

So far, so good.  By 2030, the New Force Model envisages the NATO Response Force of some 40,000 troops being transformed into a future force of some 300,000 troops maintained at high alert, with 44,000 kept at high readiness. Whilst the new force will be held at 24 hours ‘Notice to Act’ the bulk of the NATO Force Structure will be held at 15 days ‘Notice to Move’.  Given that both air and naval forces will also need to be included a land force of, say, 200,000 would need at least 50 to 60 European rapid reaction brigades together with all their supporting elements. There are only 20 at best 30 today. 

The Compact is clear: by 2030 European Allies will need to provide collectively two thirds or more of NATO’s overall required operational capacity as measured in the rapidly usable forces, enablers and other capabilities needed.  Moreover, no Ally must be expected to contribute more than 50% of any individual NATO capability area, as pursued through the NATO Defence Planning Process, with non-US Allies providing 67% or more of any given capability area, recognizing that progress will be easier and faster in some areas than in others.

 

Deterring is doing! 

What NATO plans mean in practice are that NATO Europe plus Canada must by 2030, no later than 2035, deploy a combined MINIMUM operational land capacity of four fully-capable, fully-enabled, fully-ready Warfighting Corps (WFC), together with all the required combat, combat support and combat service support units.  Three fully-capable, fully-enabled, fully-ready Composite Air Strike Forces (CASF) with the full complement of defensive and offensive aircraft. Two fully capable, fully-enabled, fully-ready Non-US Standing Fleets in the Atlantic and the Mediterranean with sufficient operational capacity to be augmented at short notice.

By return, and given US commitments world-wide, Washington would need to permanently station in Europe a fully-capable, fully-enabled and fully-ready WFC (US Army’s V Corps); a fully-capable, fully-enabled and fully-ready CASF (US Air Force’s 3rd Air Force); and a fully-capable, fully-enabled and fully-ready US Navy 6th Fleet and  its  NATO  component  (STRIKFORNATO)  for  Allied  multi-carrier operations, and complemented by US Marine Corps and Special Operations Forces.  This force would provide SACEUR with five fully capable war fighting corps, four CASF air packages and three fleets.

European allies and Canada will also need to take further steps in every other domain of NATO European military capacity including strengthened missile defences, nuclear policy and practice and in both the space and cyber domains, as well as supporting civil measures to reinforce resilience.

Pillar Talk

At a meeting of the GEN 75 committee (aka the atomic bomb committee) in October 1945 Ernie Bevin famously said “We have to got to have the bloody Union Jack on top of it (the bomb)”.  Prime Minister Clement Attlee, Churchill’s wartime deputy, and Bevin understood the need for British power, not just to deter the Soviets, but also to influence the Americans.  Bevin wanted not only to demonstrate to Stalin that Britain still mattered but to the Americans that Britain could also add value to American security and defence.  It is precisely that which NATO Europe must again demonstrate to Washington.

In December 1948, Bevin rose in the House to make an impassioned plea for what he called the North Atlantic Pact.  “…I wish to submit to the House a further consideration in this matter, which is vital. All these instruments which unfortunately have to be provided to defend ourselves today are tremendously costly. To try to maintain an adequate Navy, Air Force and Army is almost too big a burden for any one country to carry by itself, that is if it is to stand by itself. Once we can, in the West, get this basis of collective security with the United States and Canada and the Western Powers, and others if they will come in, it should be possible to work out a rationalised system of defence so that while we assure our collective defence we shall not be draining off too much manpower from our economic resources and the development of our economic requirements”. 

THAT was the real reason for NATO 1949.  It is the also real reason for NATO 2024 given the need to deter Russian aggression and Chinese expansionism. Peace through strength.

Julian Lindley-French