北约和乌克兰应共同应对俄罗斯和中国的挑战（英）-CSIS-2022.2.16-62页_1mb

Summary of "NATO and the Ukraine: Reshaping NATO to Meet the Russian and Chinese Challenge"

Core Content

This document, authored by Anthony H. Cordesman with the assistance of Grace Hwang, provides a critical analysis of NATO's preparedness to address the military challenges posed by Russia and China. It highlights the strategic and operational shortcomings of NATO and its member states in the context of the ongoing Ukraine crisis and the broader geopolitical landscape.

Main Views and Key Information

1. NATO's Preparedness and Leadership

• Current NATO Preparedness: NATO and the U.S. are not adequately prepared for a serious military challenge from Russia. The alliance has failed to develop a coherent strategy and effective force mix.
• U.S. Leadership Failures: Under the Trump administration, the U.S. focused on burden-sharing and ignored the need for interoperable and modernized national forces. This led to a decline in European confidence.
• Biden's Refocus: The Biden administration has shifted back to a bipartisan focus on NATO, rejecting the "burden-sharing bullying" of the Trump era, but has yet to define a detailed force posture or modernization strategy for NATO.

2. Military Shortfalls in NATO Countries

• European Military Weakness: Most European NATO members have failed to modernize their forces despite increased defense spending as a percentage of GDP. The focus on percentages has not translated into real capability improvements.
• Interoperability and Sustainability Issues: There is a lack of focus on interoperability, sustainability, and the integration of emerging technologies (EDTs) across member states.
• National Contributions: Member countries have not developed credible national force plans or programs that reflect their unique capabilities and needs.

3. The European Option Fallacy

• EU as an Alternative: Calls for a European defense autonomy linked to the EU are seen as unrealistic. The EU lacks the military infrastructure, command structure, and funding capability to replace NATO.
• France's Strategic Autonomy: President Macron's advocacy for a "European solution" and "strategic autonomy" is criticized as a misstep, particularly due to the U.S.-Australia-UK submarine deal that undermined French interests.
• Decoupling Risks: A shift toward an EU-centric defense approach could lead to a decoupling of European forces from key NATO partners like the U.S. and Britain, weakening the alliance's overall deterrence and defense posture.

4. The Need for a Transatlantic Approach

• NATO's Role: NATO remains the only viable and effective alliance for addressing the combined threats from Russia and China. A transatlantic approach is essential for maintaining a strong deterrent and for global strategic competition.
• Global Strategic Competition: The document emphasizes that the West faces a growing threat from China, which is becoming a more significant military power than Russia. NATO must address both challenges simultaneously.
• U.S. Commitment: The U.S. must continue to be the central pillar of the Atlantic alliance and ensure its commitment to NATO, Europe, and extended deterrence is clear and consistent.

5. Recommendations

• Focus on Force Planning: NATO must move away from burden-sharing and toward effective force planning and modernization at the national level.
• Interoperability and EDTs: NATO must prioritize interoperability and address emerging and disruptive technologies (EDTs) to ensure its forces can adapt to modern warfare.
• Net Assessments: A net assessment of the relative capabilities of Russia, China, and NATO is necessary to guide force planning and budgeting.
• Transatlantic Cooperation: The U.S. and Europe must work together to counter both Russia and China, rather than pursuing separate or conflicting strategies.

Conclusion

The document concludes that NATO must be fixed, not broken, and that a transatlantic approach is the only viable path to ensure the alliance's effectiveness in the face of Russian and Chinese challenges. It stresses the importance of real-world force planning, modernization, and transparency, while rejecting the notion of a European alternative to NATO. The U.S. must reaffirm its commitment to NATO and Europe, and European members must recognize their strategic dependence on the U.S. and improve their national contributions to the alliance.