国际战略研究中心-未来北约扩大：部队需求和预算成本（英）-2021.9-118页_6mb

Future NATO Enlargement: Force Requirements and Budget Costs

Core Content

This report, authored by Mark F. Cancian and Adam Saxton, explores the military and financial implications of future NATO enlargement, focusing on five countries—Georgia, Ukraine, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Sweden, and Finland—that are considered closer to membership than others. The analysis is conducted in the context of a changing European security environment, particularly due to the resurgence of Russian military aggression and the associated risks of territorial disputes.

Main Views

NATO's Role and Success

• NATO has been successful in maintaining peace in Europe for 70 years and has expanded its membership significantly after the Cold War.
• The alliance has facilitated the development of democratic institutions and collective responses to global challenges like terrorism.
• However, the recent assertiveness of Russia has reintroduced the threat of territorial aggression in Europe.

Article 5 Commitment

• Article 5 is a core principle of NATO, stipulating that an armed attack on one member is an attack on all.
• The interpretation of this commitment is critical: it could mean full territorial defense or just ensuring political autonomy and sovereignty.
• The report emphasizes the importance of maintaining a credible Article 5 guarantee to deter potential aggression.

Military and Budget Considerations

• The report highlights the need for a detailed assessment of force structure and budget costs to defend potential new members.
• It argues that future enlargement will require more robust military commitments than previous expansions due to the current security environment.
• The U.S. is expected to bear a significant portion of the burden due to the lack of readiness among other NATO members.

Defense Options

• Trip-wire forces (minimum deterrence): A low-cost, low-force option that relies on threats of retaliation, including nuclear weapons. However, it is considered risky and insufficient in the event of a full-scale conflict.
• Conventional forward defense: A more substantial approach where NATO forces are stationed closer to potential threats, allowing for a quicker and more effective response. This includes pre-positioned equipment, infrastructure upgrades, and enhanced training for local forces.
• The report rejects the use of nuclear weapons and insurgencies as primary defense mechanisms due to their high risks and limited effectiveness.

Key Information

Georgia

• Security Risks: Highly exposed to Russian aggression, with border disputes and a long distance from NATO military centers.
• Force Requirements: A permanent NATO presence is needed, including a multinational brigade, a U.S. air and missile defense task force, and a U.S. division headquarters.
• Costs: One-time costs of $9.5 billion and annual costs of $3.8 billion.
• U.S. Share: $3.2 billion one-time and $550 million annually.

Ukraine

• Security Risks: Open terrain and ongoing disputes with Russia make it particularly vulnerable.
• Force Requirements: Three NATO brigades, a U.S. air and missile defense task force, a composite airwing, and an advisory brigade.
• Costs: One-time costs of $32.6 billion and annual costs of $13 billion.
• U.S. Share: $27 billion one-time and $11 billion annually.

Bosnia and Herzegovina

• Security Risks: No direct border with Russia, but still faces ethnic tensions and potential unrest.
• Force Requirements: Peacekeeping forces of up to 60,000 personnel, with a decline as stability improves.
• Costs: One-time costs of $45–240 billion and annual costs of $1.1 billion.
• U.S. Share: $3.2 billion one-time and $550 million annually.

Sweden

• Security Risks: While not directly bordering Russia, it is exposed through the Baltic Sea.
• Force Requirements: A brigade-sized air and missile defense task force and infrastructure improvements.
• Costs: One-time costs of $6.4 billion and annual costs of $1.1 billion.
• U.S. Share: $3.2 billion one-time and $550 million annually.

Finland

• Security Risks: Highly exposed to Russian military threats, particularly along its long border.
• Force Requirements: A forward defense program including prepositioned fires brigades and helicopter units.
• Costs: One-time costs of $5.2 billion and annual costs of $550 million.
• U.S. Share: $3.2 billion one-time and $550 million annually.

Recommendations

• NATO should explicitly consider military force requirements and associated costs as part of any future enlargement process.
• The United States should conduct independent assessments of these requirements.
• NATO should maintain its current mechanisms for partnerships and military support for countries that desire a relationship and contribute to European security, as an alternative to full membership.

Conclusion

• The report underscores the importance of military readiness and budget preparedness in the context of potential NATO enlargement.
• It stresses that while NATO's expansion has historically been beneficial, the current security environment necessitates a more thorough evaluation of the military and financial commitments required to protect new members.
• The findings highlight the need for a balanced and credible defense strategy to ensure the continued stability and security of the alliance.