战略与国际研究中心-NATO-s--Brain-Death--Burdensharing-Blunders--Focusing-on-the-Right-Investment,-Force-Strength,-and-Readiness-Needs_51页_2mb

Summary of NATO’s “Brain Death” Burdensharing Blunders

Core Content

This report by Anthony H. Cordesman and Max Molot critically examines NATO's current defense spending goals and their impact on the alliance's effectiveness in addressing real security threats. It argues that the focus on fixed spending targets, particularly the 2% of GDP and 20% of defense expenditure on new equipment, is not aligned with the actual military needs and strategic priorities of the alliance. The report highlights that these goals are politically driven and fail to address the complexities of force planning, deterrence, and readiness.

Main Points

• Burdensharing Goals Are Misleading: The 2% of GDP and 20% of defense expenditure on equipment goals are criticized for being irrelevant to NATO's real security challenges, particularly from Russia. These goals prioritize spending numbers over strategic effectiveness and force modernization.

• Strategic and Political Divisions: The report emphasizes that NATO is suffering from "brain death" due to the lack of strategic coordination between the U.S. and its European allies. It also points out that the U.S. has been using a bullying approach to push for higher European spending, which undermines the alliance's cohesion and effectiveness.

• European Defense Initiative Gains Momentum: President Macron's call for a European Defense Initiative reflects growing awareness among European countries of the need for a more independent and coordinated defense strategy. Countries like Finland and Estonia are showing increased alignment with NATO, despite previous skepticism.

• Current Spending Levels Are Already Sufficient: NATO's European members and Canada are already spending significantly more on defense than Russia. In 2018, NATO Europe alone spent over 4 times more than Russia, and the U.S. accounted for almost 70% of NATO's defense spending.

• Spending Does Not Equal Readiness: The report highlights that the percentage of GDP spent on defense does not correlate with actual force levels or military readiness. It shows that even countries meeting the 2% goal have seen declines in force strength and major equipment.

• U.S. Claims of 70% Share Are Inaccurate: The U.S. does not contribute 70% of NATO's defense budget. The report challenges the narrative that the U.S. is overburdened, arguing that its overseas military presence is smaller than often claimed, and that its defense budget is not being used to support NATO in the way it is portrayed.

• Need for a New Force Planning Approach: The report advocates for a new, more strategic approach to NATO force planning that takes into account net assessments of threats, force strength, readiness, and modernization. It stresses the importance of transparency and open debate on defense issues, similar to how Western democracies discuss domestic matters.

Key Findings

• Deficit in Strategic Planning: NATO's current approach to burdensharing ignores the need for strategic coordination and is based on arbitrary goals that do not reflect real military needs.

• Quantitative Evidence of Ineffectiveness: The report presents six critical defects of the current spending goals:

  • They are irrelevant to the actual level of NATO resources relative to the Russian threat.
  • They have no relation to force planning and mission capabilities.
  • They are not based on any threat assessment or net evaluation of NATO and Russia's capabilities.
  • They ignore the varying economic and military conditions of member states.
  • Meeting the goals does not ensure that a country has the right forces or is on the right path for modernization.
  • They are divisive and substitute American strategic pressure for meaningful planning.

• Comparative Spending Data:

  • In 2018, NATO spent $970.3 billion on defense, compared to Russia's $64.1 billion.
  • NATO Europe alone spent $276.0 billion, which is over 4 times Russia's spending.
  • The U.S. defense budget in 2018 was $730.1 billion, while NATO's estimate of U.S. spending was $694.3 billion, indicating a significant gap in how the U.S. is reported.

• Growth of NATO Spending: European NATO members and Canada have made real increases in defense spending, with a cumulative increase of over $41 billion from 2016 to 2018. However, these increases are not reflected in GDP percentages due to economic growth and changing priorities.

• Russia's Spending Trends: Russia's defense spending, while growing, remains significantly lower than NATO's. Despite fluctuations in the ruble-dollar exchange rate, Russia's military spending as a percentage of GDP has not kept pace with NATO's, and the U.S. continues to outspend Russia by a wide margin.

• Call for Reform: The report concludes that NATO needs to move beyond the current spending goals and focus on force planning that is strategic, transparent, and based on a realistic assessment of threats. It also urges the U.S. to stop using its spending goals as a tool for bullying its allies and instead work toward a more cooperative and effective defense partnership.

Conclusion

The report underscores the need for NATO to re-evaluate its approach to defense spending and force planning. It argues that while NATO remains the keystone of Western security, its current strategy is flawed and ineffective. A more strategic and coordinated effort is necessary to ensure the alliance can deter and defend against the full spectrum of threats, particularly from Russia. The U.S. must stop using burdensharing as a political weapon and instead support a more unified and effective defense posture for the entire alliance.