NATO allies are considering the most significant changes to the alliance’s military planning in two decades, aiming to prioritize defence against Russia over the deployment of troops to Iraq or Afghanistan, reports Politico.The 32 NATO member states have begun discussions regarding the alliance’s future capability targets—which determine the forces and weaponry allocated to conflict zones, as well as the associated costs. According to four NATO diplomats who spoke on condition of anonymity, a draft of the planning documents suggests that allies would no longer be required to maintain sufficient forces to simultaneously fight a war in Europe and conduct smaller-scale missions elsewhere. Instead, planning will be structured around deploying forces to either one theater or the other.Camille Grand, a former NATO Assistant Secretary General for Defence Investment, stated that the proposal reflects a clear understanding that, above all else, NATO’s presence in Europe takes precedence over operations elsewhere. This aligns with pressure from the United States to shift the alliance’s primary focus toward the defence of Europe. Discussions are underway regarding a so-called political guidance document—part of a four-year process that will culminate in the approval of new military capability requirements in 2029. Allies are expected to reach an agreement on this in February 2027.At stake are the types of equipment to be prepared and the credibility of the Alliance’s deterrence posture against Moscow. European officials have warned of a potential Russian invasion of NATO territory by 2029. Growing budgetary constraints on defence spending could further complicate this process.A high-ranking NATO official noted that this cycle will be subject to much greater scrutiny than previous four-year cycles. Governments want assurance that their funds are being spent prudently—a critical consideration in the current geopolitical climate, as Russia seeks to rebuild its capabilities.The Allies face a difficult choice: whether to abandon the long-standing requirement to maintain sufficient forces for both a major conflict in Europe and multiple crisis-management operations outside NATO territory. The draft proposes allowing a choice between the two, rather than requiring resources to be allocated for both simultaneously. NATO diplomats stated that the current draft leans toward one particular option, though discussions remain in the early stages. Another diplomat from the alliance noted that there is a significant difference between the various choices, and that negotiations will be complex. He added that no one is suggesting the abandonment of the capability to conduct crisis management operations; ultimately, the decision of where to deploy troops is a political one.The changes will not automatically affect current operations outside the alliance—such as missions in Kosovo or Iraq—but the discussion will have a major impact on NATO, given that the requirement to be prepared for both types of scenarios dates back at least 20 years. Following the end of the Cold War, the alliance focused primarily on operations beyond its own territory—in places like Kosovo, Iraq, and Afghanistan—but Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine has necessitated a re-evaluation of European defence.Oana Lungescu, an associate fellow at the Royal United Services Institute, pointed out that NATO has come full circle. It is only logical that the primary focus of NATO, as a defensive alliance, should be the deterrence of an aggressive Russia and the safeguarding of European security—especially as the United States reduces its level of engagement. Two NATO diplomats stated that, historically, Southern European nations have prioritized alliance partnerships and crisis management, whereas the United States, the Nordic countries, and states near the Russian border advocate for strengthening defences against Moscow. Since 2010, NATO has defined its three core tasks as collective defence, cooperation with third countries, and joint security and crisis management.Proponents of maintaining both approaches view this as a necessary signal to demonstrate that NATO is not abandoning its core tasks. Conversely, those who support shifting to a single scenario for force deployment point to constrained defence budgets, the need to focus on deterring Russia, and the necessity of prioritizing resources at a time when the United States is reducing its level of engagement.
NATO to focus more on defence against Russia; reduce missions elsewhere
