My take on the developments of the recent days and the NATO Summit by Jochen M. Richter, Chairman Diplomatic Council Global Security Forum

Is NATO no longer brain-dead as President Macron alarmed his European partners back in 2019? Potentially because of the smooth orchestration of The Hague Summit. And of course, for promise of massive European investment into military capabilities, threat prevention and supporting infrastructure. While this is positive, it is for now just an expected line of action. Only when the relevant budgetary procedures in the NATO countries have passed through national parliaments, one can objectively measure the level of commitment. Having said this, the respective staff be it military or construction, to name only two, is still a challenge that must be addressed. I see here a complex mixture with issues linked to migration and our fast-aging population.

Looking at the official photo above, one is reminded that on such occasions nothing is left to coincidence. While President Erdogan’s place is a recognition of the location for the next NATO Summit, it is also a sign for what a NATO official in a recent meeting stated: “Europe needs more Türkiye than Türkiye needs Europe”. But what exactly means this in the context of an envisaged strengthening of the European part of NATO?

Is this level of defence sufficient given the threats? Eventually yes, given the agreed need to make up for more than 20 years of decline in or negligence of relevant spendings. Yet, a new strategic orientation away from purely national planning into a shared vision of Europe’s defence capabilities and needs is imperative for an efficient use of resources. Some will claim that such a coordinated planning has been delivered by respective analysis both from NATO and the EU. However, I remain to be convinced that this has led to an encompassing European strategy what is needed for our joint defence. The investment across Europe should lead to much more economies of scale. This could even have a positive effect on the overall bill. At the same time the mind-blowing innovation cycle seen in Ukraine require a fresh thinking for procurement and products alike.

Can the transformation happen fast enough? Again, we must hope so. In all government and military structures responsible for planning, procuring and executing contracts much more agility is needed. Likewise, industry should come back to a much more risk-oriented approach in deciding about capacity building. No NATO state can afford to backtrack on the defined demand. Therefore, this must be good enough for companies to leave their comfort zone and increase capacities now! Contracts will still take a little while but should not delay readiness for production.

Are all threats well analysed? Very likely, but as usual the devil lies in the details. To give an example, the need to increase scenarios long forgotten about such as turning tunnels under hospitals into a germ-free operation zone or blocking part of a motorway training the landing of military aircrafts are slowly coming back into respective programs. None of this are easy or cost-free operations. However, in a context of scenarios well beyond any military or defence considerations, such measures will also increase our resilience in situations of natural disasters.

Has sufficient information given to the broader public? Nor necessarily, because we still see the public opinion be rather divided about the need to spend so much public money. Which comes back to my earlier point that more effective cooperation is needed. Projects like a European alternative for the F35 are still in peril. Furthermore, the discussion about more troops is a discussion that needs to be taken up with the next generation. We cannot expect that part of society to jubilantly take up duties. And we shouldn’t be shy in bringing in all parts of society. Even my generation can still be used for certain tasks linked to civil defence.

Is the meaning of NATO article 5 now clear? According to the agreed text I seems so. But I would observe that it probably never was. To put this way: which state would be ready to risk becoming a target of a nuclear attack by offering to protect others by its nuclear weapons? Does this mean this option is meaningless? Not at all, but we should think about what is today needed for an effective deterrence. In my view, there is also a need to return to or reinvent instruments that secure non-proliferation and reduction of nuclear weapons.

Is international law being defined by those who have the means to adhere or ignore it? That’s what it looks like following action taken in recent days. While many comments supported the military strikes against Iran the effectiveness is debated. Leaving this element aside I see two problems. First, every state having such a potential – and there are already too many – will think twice how much negotiations are worth if an attack cannot be excluded. Secondly, when does international law apply, especially when it comes to the integrity of another nation? But some will say that I am blind to the danger the Iran nuclear program poses. Not at all but diplomacy did not get sufficient time and space to act. We will see which conclusions the Chinese leadership will take from these developments in relations to its Indo-Pacific ambitions including Taiwan.

Is the world now a safer place? Unfortunately not, because despite the promise to continue the support to Ukraine a foreseeable end of the aggression against Ukraine is not visible. We remain at keeping a nation just alive but cannot get the head around for a strategy that brings the Russian side to the negotiation table. The recent words by the Russian president that those are either starting by accepting their demands or military force will lead to surrender couldn’t have been clearer. In the same logic, the cease-fire between Israel and Iran is still very fragile. Both leaders are more interested in their political survival than ending the respective humanitarian and economic crisis.