Long before the coronavirus battered European economies, NATO’s European allies were finding it difficult to produce the cash or the political will to spend 2 percent of their GDP on defense. Now, with the COVID-19 pandemic straining government budgets, defense spending is likely to be on the chopping block. This will have serious implications for transatlantic security. Even as budgets shrink, security challenges will remain. China has shown an increasing willingness to intimidate democracies, while Russia remains a spoiler in Europe and the Middle East. Financial calamity does not mean that European cooperation within NATO should take a step back. In fact, now is the perfect time for European militaries to work together and no better opportunity exists than to use HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales as hubs for a NATO carrier strike group (CSG). A NATO CSG would be a powerful symbol of Alliance unity and would bolster the Alliance’s force posture and interoperability. 

Key Takeaways:

0:00 Intro

2:11 Michael John Williams talks about why he thinks NATO needs a Carrier Strike Group and the capabilities it would give the Alliance that it doesn't already have

8:42 Michael John Williams talks about if NATO needs a Carrier Strike Group and whether all the other allies wants NATO to have one

11:11 Michael John Williams talks about the actual capability of Carrier Strike Group, how it could be done so and why NATO needs it

12:53 Michael John Williams also talks about the NATO countries that have aircraft carriers that NATO could use 

18:11 Michael John Williams talks about who would have the command and control over the Carrier Strike Group if NATO was given one by its allies 

19:29 Michael John Williams talks about other needs that NATO does not know it has at the moment that Carrier Strike Group would fulfill

22:46 Michael John Williams shares his thoughts on whether the call to NATO having a Carrier Strike Group is largely US driven

24:04 Michael John Williams also shares his thoughts on if this whole process of having Carrier Strike Group in NATO require a new spending

25:50 Michael John Williams talks about if a Carrier Strike Group in NATO could be really a useful tool and a flexible one not just for the United States or Great Britain, but for all the allies

28:54 Michael John Williams explains if China is an enough threat and a motivating factor for NATO to have and use a Carrier Strike Group

30:27 Michael John Williams talks about China and Russia, if they are a threat to an extent of NATO having the Carrier Strike Groups, and if so, which is the major threat

34:24 Michael John Williams shares his thoughts if European allies need to see China as a big enough threat to justify more investment in an idea like a Carrier Strike Group 

Shows Mentioned:

The Lancaster House Treaties of 2010 are two treaties between the United Kingdom and France for defense and security cooperation. They were signed at 10 Downing Street on 2 November 2010 by British Prime Minister David Cameron and French President Nicolas Sarkozy.

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/content-series/nato20-2020/nato20-2020-podcast-rethink-and-replace-2-percent/ 

Brexit refers to the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community at the end of 31 January 2020 CET.

An illiberal democracy is a governing system in which, although elections take place, citizens are cut off from knowledge about the activities of those who exercise real power because of the lack of civil liberties; thus it is not an open society.

Quotes Mentioned:

Guests Social Media Links:

The danger of nuclear war in Europe is greater than it has been since the Cold War—and growing. A sputtering economy dragged down by low energy prices impedes Russia from competing with the West in advanced technology and conventional military capabilities. Yet, under Vladimir Putin, Russia is menacing its neighbors, including NATO’s Baltic members, diverting attention from its domestic woes. As a result, Russia is increasing its reliance on nuclear weapons and the threat to use them first, and it is pursuing an advantage in nuclear forces in Europe. In the face of this challenge, NATO’s stated nuclear strategy is too stale, vague, and timid to ensure deterrence. This podcast offers an alternative strategy to reduce the danger of nuclear war in Europe.

Key Takeaways:

0:00 Intro

2:17 David talks about reasons why Russia is more reliance on using the nuclear weapons in an event of an attack and what makes the situation now more dangerous than in the 80s and 90s

4:47 David explains what would happen is Russia attacked a NATO member and what would happen if NATO attacked Russian territory 

5:56 Hans also explains why they think the risk of potential nuclear war is greater today than it's been in the past

8:04 Hans and David also share their thoughts on what NATO needs to do to prevent additional risks that might occur since Russia has more nuclear warheads that NATO Nations 

10:26 Hans and David also explains how NATO would have command to the nuclear weapons from its members since it don’t have the nuclear weapons itself  

12:54 David talks about NATO’s Nuclear strategy, if the strategy is clear and how Russia interprets the strategy

14:15 David shares his thoughts on the nuclear strategy of NATO on the use of the nuclear weapons 

15:30 Hans and David talk about why there is no consensus on the use of nuclear weapons inside the Alliance due to lack of one voice in members

17:13 Hans and David explains the difference between threaten and retaliate used in their essay, the purpose of those words and the term first use in terms of nuclear weapons 

18:32 Hans and David share their thoughts on if NATO would retaliate if at any circumstance it were attacked using the nuclear weapons 

21:51 David and Hans talk about if Russia would doubt that NATO wouldn’t use nuclear weapons to retaliate and the US started testing its missiles

25:37 David also talks about the reasons that are making the INF situation very difficult to term it as dead 

29:21 Hans shares what he would recommend NATO to do in terms of trying to solve the INF problem and destroying the nuclear tipped weapons 

32:47 David and Hans talk about New START, what it is, its importance and how verification problems lead to its failure

35:33 Hans talk about how the strategic stability between the US and Russia has to be rebuilt to have a meaningful strategic arms control 

36:55 David and Hans talk about why China would not agree to be a part of the arms control, and if it would, what would be the impact 

40:07 David and Hans share their thoughts on why they think NATO should take the lead and declare that Russia does not have the right to act first in using nuclear weapons

Shows Mentioned:

Quotes Mentioned:

Guests Social Media Links:

Hans Binnendijk:

The West is recognizing that China’s rise has fundamentally shifted the global balance of power. For the first time, the European Union (EU) declared China as a “systemic rival” in 2019.1 NATO leaders also mentioned China for the first time in the 2019 London Declaration, identifying both the “opportunities and challenges” of China’s growing influence.2 As the West grapples with a strategy to address China’s rise, it faces a full-spectrum challenge from China in traditional and non-traditional security spheres that NATO is best positioned to confront.

Key Takeaways:

0:00 Intro

2:13 James explains why they use the bold language in their paper that NATO should formalize Atlantic Pacific Partnership to counter China's hostile and malign activities 

3:20 James talks about why NATO doesn’t use the big words to refer to China but uses the word bully instead of hostile or malign as used in their paper

4:58 Monica shares her thoughts if NATO has been asleep, let’s too much go on under its nose in putting out the warnings such as buying of strategic assets

6:17 Harry and James share their thoughts on China buying more ports in different states and if that presents a threat to the state or makes China a smart business operator than others

10:12 James and Monica talk about how China is intensively building economic connections around the world and if that posses national threats to US and Europe 

14:32 Monica, Harry and James talk about the disinformation campaigns that China is having against the United States and Europe and how that presents itself as a threat 

18:28 Monica, James and Harry talk about how China’s extended economic hand to states is being the reason that most states can’t counter Chinese influence and what NATO should do

23:41 James and Harry explain why NATO should focus more on the multilateral instead of bilateral in terms of neutralizing China becoming a threat 

25:42 Harry also talks about the seven baseline requirements for resilience by NATO to combat non-traditional threats 

26:41James reiterate on the point of multilateral and bilateral and what he thinks that NATO should do regarding this 

28:41 James talks about sanctions for disinformation, what NATO should do with regard to this and what China reaction would be

30:15 Harry, James and Monica all share their thoughts on if NATO feels like China is a threat like Russia and how other allies of NATO feel and if it’s a good thing 

33:34 Monica and Harry predict what would be the outcome if China and Russia worked together and if other states should be worried about that

37:52 James, Monica and Harry share their predictions on what NATO will do and what China will do in response to their paper and rethinking paper that NATO recognize China as a threat, analyze it and take action 

Shows Mentioned:

Quotes Mentioned:

Guests Social Media Links:

Monica Michiko Sato:

Harry W.S. Lee:

At NATO’s 2008 Bucharest Summit, the allies refused to go along with a US push to offer Georgia a Membership Action Plan (MAP), but agreed that it would someday become a member of the Alliance.1 Germany and France intended for this equivocation to allay Russian objections, yet it was seized upon by Vladimir Putin as an opportunity to block Georgia’s path to the Alliance. In August 2008, a mere four months after the Bucharest Summit, Russia invaded Georgia and occupied twenty percent of its internationally recognized territory. With some creativity and bold political will, however, Georgia’s accession into NATO is still feasible, despite the Russian occupation.

Key Takeaways:

4:20 Alexis and Luke shares their thoughts on what caused Russia invade Georgia after Russia felt that NATO has abandoned Georgia

6:02 Alexis and Luke also share their thoughts that if Membership Action Plan would have been offered to Georgia, would have Russian invasion been blocked

8:14 Luke explains which events were taking place that Russia took advantage of and was able to invade Georgia 

10:27 Luke talks about what it takes for a country to attain the Membership Action Plan and why Germany and France didn’t also want Georgia in the Alliance 

12:54 Luke also talks about why he thinks it time to get new systems or mechanisms to get countries inside NATO apart from MAP

15:35 Alexis gives three reasons why she thinks Georgia should be in NATO and talks about what’s holding NATO up to letting Georgia become a member 

17:41 Luke explains what NATO wants from Georgia to make it a member of the Alliance even after Georgia has done everything required

20:39 Luke explains why NATO allowed Montenegro and North Macedonia in but still left Georgia out even after all the efforts it has put 

21:41 Luke talks about Article 6 in NATO, what it is and where Article 6 says Article 5 applies 

25:13 Alexis and Luke also talk about how likely Russia is going to feel threatened if Georgia was to overcome the block and be able to get the MAP 

28:56 Alexis explains why there is no appetite to invite Georgia in the Alliance like there was in the Balkans even though there are plenty of reasons to invite Georgia 

29:47 Alexis speaks of what would happen if Georgia got tired of waiting for NATO to allow it to be a member 

30:30 Luke talks about if the US has provided enough leadership on Georgia being offered the MAP to join NATO if all members agreed apart from Germany and France

32:17 Luke talks about what Georgia and NATO need to do together to come up with a solution to the problem so that Georgia can become a member and if Georgian officials know this

35:07 Luke shares his thoughts if with the Biden’s administration there would be a responsible, realistic and reasonable path for Georgia to join the Alliance

Shows Mentioned:

Quotes Mentioned:

Guests Social Media Links:

Alexis Mrachek: 

The scope, scale, and impact of future non-traditional threats require NATO allies to think outside the framework of traditional security concepts and prepare the Alliance for missions that do not neatly fit an Article 5 scenario. To this end, the Alliance should approve a fourth core task focused on resilience, preparing the Alliance to protect the populations of member states against novel threats while reinforcing collective defense.

Key Takeaways:

2:54 Jim also shares his thoughts on NATO’s allies building resilience in case of shocks and why it is important

6:01 Jim explains bureaucracy and three things that NATO is doing to minimize it in providing PPE to other states as opposed to the EU

9:39 Anca talks about why NATO was able to be more efficient in the case of providing PPE than EU

11:27 Jim also explain the roles that the EU was built to do and how different they are from the roles that NATO was built to do

13:24 Jim talks about how NATO deals with roles that it does not typically deal with like the climate change, refugees flow and food scarcity and their impact on allied security

16:55 Anca and Jim talks about how NATO and EU are cooperating and doing tasks that you can say are neither NATO’s nor EU’s for the greater good

19:27 Anca talks about why they want to formalize resilience as another requirement for NATO as a fourth core task and including it as part of the NATO Defense Planning Process

21:11 Jim also supports Anca’s point on formalizing resilience as another core task for NATO and why it is important especially in this time and age

24:25 Jim and Anca discuss if there should be new ministerial guidance given to NATO headquarters in regards to resilience as a core task

26:49 Jim talks about how NATO help create capability goals from documents that every country needs to meet to help them get better at their own resilience through International Staff

30:02 Anca and Jim talk about the good idea of making resilience a core task in NATO that would in the long run, help countries in difficult situations and if it’s going to stretch people 

Shows Mentioned:

Quotes Mentioned:

Guests Social Media Links:

Jim Townsend:

Eventual Mexican membership in NATO may be a necessary ingredient for keeping the United States invested in European security over the long term. This suggestion is made with an eye toward the reality that economic and political power in the United States is shifting to places and populations with fewer traditional ties to Europe such that broadening NATO’s appeal to a diversifying US public is imperative.

Key Takeaways:

- 0:00 Intro

- 4:36 Christopher shares reasons why he think that it is important for the United States to support NATO

- 7:44 Christopher and Gabriela talk about some of the benefits that Mexico's membership could bring to NATO

- 12:36 Christopher talks about why it’s much easier to seek membership for Mexico to create a strong commitment to Mexican security with US and Canada than to use NAFTA

- 17:54 Christopher and Gabriela explains why NATO choose to make Mexico a member and not other countries in hot spot that would serve NATO better such as Georgia and Ukraine

- 22:34 Christopher and Gabriela explains the large number of active duty personnel in Mexico’s military and their capabilities even though they are not be to the level of US Military

- 25:47 Christopher talks about the importance of taking baby steps before joining on the full membership and why they decided to quickly seek membership for Mexico

- 27:49 Christopher and Gabriela talks about diversity in the population of United States and the case of diversifying United States public support for NATO

- 32:40 Christopher speaks of the geopolitical situations being different and what they are doing to solve this problem in NATO 

- 34:29 Gabriela also talks about if Mexico wants to be a member of NATO and reasons proving that they want that

Shows Mentioned:

Quotes Mentioned:

Guests Social Media Links:

Gabriela R. A. Doyle:

As the world reenters an era of great power competition, many of the geopolitical and ideological certainties that lend NATO its sense of purpose are dissolving. However, the Western democratic values on which the Alliance was founded, on which its success has been built, and from which it continues to derive its moral authority, endure. The principles of consensus and mutually assured security are as important as ever. 

As challenges proliferate, one of the greatest threats to NATO could be a lack of confidence—not in the organization’s central purpose or relevance, but in its ability to succeed in an increasingly fluid, fast-moving, and ambiguous world.

Key Takeaways:

Shows Mentioned:

Quotes Mentioned:

Guests Social Media Links:

Over the last few years NATO has been called many things, from obsolete, to brain-dead, to warmongering. So we must be doing something right. In truth, built on the common values of individual liberty, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law, NATO is an unparalleled defensive Alliance which has kept the Euro-Atlantic region and beyond safe for more than seventy years. It has played a crucial role in bringing security and stability to Europe and its neighborhood, as its role in the Balkans showed. The importance of this can’t be underestimated in this seventy-fifth anniversary of the end of the Second World War. NATO continues to act as a platform for shared values and interests, now with partnerships across the world. The world is growing more dangerous. Technological advances have the potential to transform warfare as significantly as nuclear weapons did after WW2. We need to be clear with our publics what NATO does now and needs to do in the future. Tellingly, a lot of Russian energy still goes into trying to undermine the North Atlantic Alliance every day. NATO is fit for the challenges of today. But it will only remain successful over the next seventy years if it continues to modernize its capabilities and its message.  

Key Takeaways:

Shows Mentioned:

Quotes Mentioned:

Guests Social Media Links:

NATO needs to increase the costs for Russian aggression while building back crucial dialogue if there is any prospect for improved relations with Moscow.

Key Takeaways:

Paper Mentioned:

Shows Mentioned:

Quotes Mentioned:

Guests Social Media Links:

This conversation was recorded on October 27th, 2020.

In today’s fun and educative episode, freelance journalist in Brussels Teri Schultz  had a discussion with her guests Derek Chollet, Steven Keil and Chris Skaluba, about their recommendation that NATO rethink and replace its 2% spending guideline. You will learn what this is, reasons to rethink and replace it and how it’s measured, all in this episode. That’s why this is a must watch if you want to learn about this and much more.

In this episode, we learn:

About:

Christopher Skaluba: Director, Transatlantic Security Initiative, Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, Atlantic Council

Steven Keil: Fellow at the German Marshall Fund of United States

Show Resources