On the heels of President Donald Trump’s Middle East tour and the terror attack in Manchester outside of an Ariana Grande concert this week, Trump and his fellow European heads of state are gathering in Brussels for a NATO summit. The Cipher Brief’s Kaitlin Lavinder asked former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Admiral James Stavridis about NATO’s current priorities. Stavridis, who is Dean at The Fletcher School at Tufts University, said the recent Manchester attack will impact the Alliance’s position on fighting terrorism.
The Cipher Brief: Will the Manchester attack change the focus of the NATO heads of state meeting Thursday? How? What’s the way forward for NATO’s involvement in fighting terror?
Admiral James Stavridis: The Manchester terror attack will force NATO to take a more aggressive stance toward terrorism and engage in more counter terrorism operations. That will manifest most immediately in the mission to Iraq, with a need to train local forces against the Islamic State. Also, this strengthens the case for sending more troops to Afghanistan, where the fight against the Taliban terrorists continues.
TCB: Army Gen. John Nicholson, commander of U.S. Forces Afghanistan, has – before the Manchester attack – recommended NATO nations increase the number of troops deployed to Afghanistan. How would this work?
JS: General “Mick” Nicholson’s call for 3,000-5,000 additional troops is designed to strengthen the capabilities of the 360,000 security forces of the Afghan Army and Police. The intent is not to return to front-line fighting, but rather to mentor, train, and equip the Afghan National Security Forces down to the Battalion level. This is in response to Taliban gains on the battlefield throughout the spring, which are worrisome but not fatal to the overall mission. The additional troops would bring the total NATO commitment to around 20,000, up from the current 15,000.
TCB: What are or should be NATO’s priorities right now?
JS: NATO’s top four priorities should be:
- deterring cyber attacks, where the Alliance is highly vulnerable;
- coming together as an Alliance to crush the Islamic State;
- positioning forces strategically to deter any further adventurism by Russia in Europe, especially in the Baltic States;
- strengthening the training mission in Afghanistan.
TCB: President Trump has been critical of NATO in the past. What does his attendance at the NATO heads of state meeting signal?
JS: Trump’s attendance at the NATO summit is a bit of a reset in his views of the Alliance, and a welcome one to the rest of the nations. He famously declared NATO “obsolete” during the campaign but now seems to accept that the Alliance represents the best pool of partners the United States has in the world. While still critical (appropriately) of the misbalance in defense spending, the President seems poised to work with NATO on fighting the Islamic State, cyber security, and deterring Russia.
TCB: With regards to Russia, the Baltics – as you mentioned – are an area of heightened concern. Steven Pifer at Brookings recently told a Senate Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe that military action there by Russia is not likely, but it’s not a zero probability, like it was a few years ago. Do you agree? What should NATO be doing here?
JS: Russia is highly unlikely to cross a NATO border with an overt military operation (as they did to non-NATO Ukraine). More likely is that they would use “hybrid warfare” (a combination of special forces, unmarked troops, cyber attacks, propaganda, social networks, and fake news) to attempt to destabilize a NATO ally like Estonia. NATO needs to get better at preparing to respond to unconventional techniques that were on display in Ukraine. By strengthening forces in the Baltics with more exercises, training missions, and rotating troop units Russia can be deterred.
TCB: Should increasing instability further south in the Balkans – from ethnic and political tensions to Russian influence campaigns – be concerning NATO? How can NATO address the Russia problem there? That is, that Russia is trying to “sow chaos and instability,” in the words of Michael Carpenter, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia, Ukraine, Eurasia.
JS: The Balkans are moving in the wrong direction, especially Bosnia-Herzegovina, which suffers from an inherently unstable, tri-partite governance structure (Bosniaks, Serbs, and Croats in a rotating Presidency). Russia will work with Serbia to further complicate matters.
NATO needs to improve its work in the Western Balkans, particularly coordinating efforts with NATO members Greece, Albania, Croatia, and Bulgaria. A better working relationship with Serbia would help as well. Macedonia should be kept on track for membership after Montenegro is finally admitted. We do not need slip back into the chaos of 20 years ago, when the Balkans looked a lot like Syria does today.
TCB: Montenegro is slated to become NATO’s newest member soon – as early as June 5, according to Prime Minister Dusko Markovic. What does Montenegro bring to the Alliance? What does the Alliance bring to Montenegro?
JS: Montenegro does not bring any military capability to the Alliance – it is a tiny, proud nation of about 500,000 souls. But it does help fulfill a strategic goal of integrating the Balkans and ensuring trans-Atlantic alignment in the region, thus ensuring peace and prosperity.
Over time, the hope would be to see other nations of the region (Macedonia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo, Serbia) also move toward membership. For the Montenegrins, membership will hopefully deter further Russian adventurism, interfering in their elections, and exerting their influence. Both for Montenegro and the Alliance, their membership is a win.
