Asad K.’s Post

So, what makes NATO worthwhile to the United States? After all, at 1.3 million active-duty service members, almost 770,000 reservists and a $800 billion budget, the U.S. has the largest, best-funded military in NATO. On the other hand, Russia has roughly 1.15 million active-duty personnel and another 800,000 reservists. But the alliance is about more than how many troops any one nation can bring to the fight. NATO's members have a collective defense budget that's north of $1.2 trillion. NATO nations share advanced training, tactics, equipment and often, weapons platforms. There are also NATO's overflight agreements, basing arrangements, intelligence-sharing protocols, common command structures and day-to-day familiarity with each other. Critically, NATO can maintain and sustain its forces. And about those troop numbers: The 32 NATO nations together have about 3,368,000 active-duty personnel, and each NATO nation has its own reserve forces, along with some paramilitary formations. This is deterrence in the flesh. https://lnkd.in/gbZV6eau

MONS, Belgium—It was the summer of 2022. Russian President Vladimir Putin’s full-scale war in Ukraine was 6 months old. NATO officials feared more than ever that they would one day have to send hundreds of thousands of troops to fight and die against the Russians. With war on NATO’s doorstep, the alliance faced an existential question: Was it up to the job of defending every square inch of its turf? Christopher Cavoli, the four-star U.S. Army general tapped as the alliance’s military chief that July, decided it wasn’t. Cavoli ordered his top lieutenants to come up with a plan to transform Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE)—NATO’s military headquarters in Mons, Belgium, which had lost most of its power after the Cold War—into a proper war command center. “His initial guidance and direction that started all of this was: I need to be able to command,” said Col. Bryan Frizzelle, the project manager for SHAPE’s strategic warfighting headquarters. The effort to remake the alliance’s headquarters is just one element in the most ambitious military reforms that NATO has embarked on in years. NATO is growing the size of its response force by eightfold. The war room in Mons has been remade to call up troop reinforcements and map out long-range military strikes on Russian soil even before a war breaks out. For the first time, NATO forces are exercising those brand new war plans in Europe’s hinterlands this spring. Foreign Policy's latest reported feature comes to you from Mons, Belgium, NATO's military headquarters which had a Soviet nuclear target on its back during the Cold War. Over the past four months, I talked to more than two dozen NATO officials in Washington, Brussels, Mons, and Munich about the plans to remake the 31-nation alliance (soon to be 32) for a potential Article Five conflict with Russia. The plans could take years more to put in place. “We are talking decades—potentially plural,” said Becca Wasser, a senior fellow for the defense program at the Center for a New American Security, a Washington-based think tank. “That’s the open question,” Wasser said. “Does NATO actually have that time?” READ MORE:

There are no easy options for NATO Allies when it comes to closing the delta on the number of required forces for the necessary defensive plans. What are the options? It’s probably based on the size of your nation. Smaller countries will need to turn to conscription NOW before it is too late. Larger countries will need to better incentivize services… or they will also have to turn to conscription (but it will also, be too late). The time for these decisions is NOW. Not waiting for after a conflict starts to try and figure out a way ahead. However, these decisions are ALL political decisions. The militaries of the respective Allies will have no control on whether conscription is implemented OR incentives are increased. #NATO #Allies #Army https://lnkd.in/daZYZBFd

What is the case for burden shifting in NATO and why does it matter? 1. NATO should be reconfigured to shift the primary responsibility for defending Europe to Europeans. This far-reaching change is appropriate given Europe’s transformed security environment. 2. Reducing or ending the American military presence in Europe should not depend on whether European governments implement burden shifting; indeed U.S. force reductions are a prerequisite for burden shifting. 3. Europe has the economic and technological resources needed to assume the principal responsibility for its own defense. 4. Burden shifting is not merely about increased European defense spending; it also requires better military coordination among European states. 5. Russia’s attack on Ukraine has revealed the weaknesses of the Russian military, which makes burden shifting even more appropriate. Check out the full explainer for more information. 👇

NATO desperately tries to prevent the Kiev regime’s total defeat In the immediate aftermath of the (First) Cold War, Russia was forced to rely on its strategic arsenal for security, as the massive Soviet conventional military power dwindled into a mere shadow of its former self during the troubled 1990s. The compliant liberals in power at the time took it upon themselves to destroy Soviet/Russian military power in peacetime, a task their Western sponsors couldn’t have even dreamed of in anything short of a global confrontation. By the late 1990s/early 2000s, the legacy of the USSR was seemingly gone. However, in reality, the former Soviet military proved to be far more resilient than previously thought. Commanders and high-ranking military officers in general put massive amounts of conventional weapons into long-term storage, waiting for better days. Several decades later, that decision to do so proved to be more than just wise. Namely, it was essential to preserve much of that https://lnkd.in/gHSet9Jx

Can Russia’s Military Rebuild Sustain the Ukraine War? The ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine has been marked by significant shifts and developments, with various experts offering differing perspectives on the current state and future of the Russian military. Recent assessments reveal that Russia has “almost completely” reformed its #military capabilities despite suffering heavy losses early in the war. This article examines the factors contributing to this revitalization and explores whether the #russian military might ultimately lose the war. #thinktankpk #thinktankjournal #thinktank #research United Nations U.S. Embassy Islamabad, Pakistan UNDP Pakistan

To paraphrase Hamlet: To trade or to warmonger: that is the question. Excellent & concise article by the economist Philip Pilkington. […] In the meantime, countries such as Ireland are cutting trade deals and becoming wealthier — and so more powerful and influential. In a nuclear age, with many large powers, military might is far less important than economic strength because an all-out war would only lead to all-out obliteration. Britain needs to decide. Does it want to go down the route of remobilisation, allocating men and money away from growing the economy and toward the building of a large army? Or does the country want to build bridges in trade and commerce and try to make itself more prosperous and influential? Right now, it seems like Britain doesn’t know. […] #nato #ww3 #military #china #russia #iran #weapons #geopolitics #ireland #uk #army #soldiers #geopolitics #globalsouth #investment #currencies #gold

So one thing that is fascinating is why the US is trying to expand NATO into the Pacific now, when during the Cold War, NATO was kept focused to Western Europe. And the answer is *nukes*. The Soviet Army had the West massively outgunned and would have been able to destroy the Western military in any conventional war. So it was made clear that if Soviet tanks moved into West Germany that the US would start dropping tactical nukes and move up to strategic nukes. Whereas the US did not want to provide these sorts of guarantees for Asia, and they were kind of unnecessary since the Soviets really didn't have a navy and the Russians weren't able to invade Japan. So this gets into the weird discussion of deterence against Russia and the US wanting the Europe to spend more money. If Russia starts moving toward the Baltics or Poland, then NATO can just fire a few tactical nukes and that would vaporize any Russian tank columns. Nukes are pretty cheap and quite effective.

Thanks, Murray, we need to keep the pressure on. The hard disscussion is to pay for security. I see three CoAs. 1. Raise taxes, (ugh); 2. Increase the deficit, (ugh); or 3. Reduce spending elsewhere like social programs, (ugh too). So, because we have been allowed to get here by multiple parties and goverments, we only have three ugly courses of action to increase security in Canada. Unfortunately, I only see the CoA as a combination of all three. Which means we need to put some effort into preparing the Canadian public, and develope a narrative that explains why we need to do this. We seem to be making a small difference with our writing, how do we scale it up? CBC CTV News Global News Toronto Star, The Globe and Mail Ottawa Citizen National Post, Inc. (although NP, I'm pissed you didn't think twice before putting out the training piece, who exactly were you targeting? Infighting doesn't get us an increase in security funding.)

The 2024 NATO Summit kicks off this week, marking 75 years of an alliance that has stood united in collective defense since the years following #WWII. #NATO heads of state, government officials and key partners will convene in Washington, D.C., as the world faces its most dangerous security environment since the Cold War. Learn the history behind this crucial alliance and why it continues to be important today. #WeAreNATO #1NATO75Years