NATO Can’t Be a One Trick Pony: The Future of Alliance Crisis Prevention and Managemen

Paul Schaffner, Anca Agachi and Jack Lashendock

Source Link

Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, NATO has gone back to basics and its raison d’etre of collective defense. That doesn’t mean, however, that the alliance can afford to neglect its commitment to dealing with emerging incidents and crises before they devolve into bloody military conflicts. As Supreme Allied Commander Europe Gen. Chris Cavoli recently told the Senate Armed Services Committee, “NATO is not a one problem alliance.”

Even as its top priority remains deterring and defending against Russian irredentism, failing to maintain its crisis management capabilities presents its own security risks. NATO should seek to bolster its crisis management efforts through targeted prevention, enhanced readiness, and strategic partnerships to address security threats worldwide.

The definition of NATO crisis management has evolved over the years. In the 1990s and 2000s, it was primarily associated with out-of-area peacekeeping and stabilization operations. Today, the need for crisis management operations can arise from a broad range of events— from military aggression to humanitarian disasters to technological disruptions. The lines between Article 5 defense missions and crisis management are becoming blurrier—so-called hybrid warfare that exploits the gray area between peace and war are a case in point—which means NATO cannot be optimally prepared for either mission without being prepared for both.

NATO is trying to adapt for future contingencies. Rather than managing crises as they arise, the NATO 2022 Strategic Concept focuses on preventing and responding to crises that “have the potential to affect Allied security” and the recent 2024 Summit Declaration reiterates this objective. This approach is aimed at ensuring that NATO can better maintain regional stability by preventing adversaries from exploiting minor incidents to promote instability for geopolitical gain.