United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1325 on Women, Peace, and Security (WPS) recognized the disproportionate impact of violent conflict on women and girls, and the critical role that women play in peace and security processes. Passed in October 2000, UNSCR 1325 called for strategies to protect women and girls in conflict, and to engage women in all mechanisms, at all levels, and in all stages of conflict. Today, the WPS Agenda is a legal and political framework for gender in international security that is based on four pillars for policy-making: prevention, protection, participation, and relief and recovery. Implementation is usually measured in each of these four pillars. The United Nations Security Council has passed nine additional resolutions since 2000, which have updated WPS’s concepts and definitions, and reinforced the continuing importance of UNSCR 1325.1 Together, these resolutions and an emerging set of global norms guide the work of security organizations like NATO, steering them toward gender equality and the promotion of women’s participation, protection, and equal rights under law.

NATO is party to the turbulent birth of a new era, one that began when the use of computer power, algorithm sophistication, and very large data sets converged to make digital technology the defining feature of the coming decade. It affects almost every aspect of human endeavor, and it underpins the future of warfare and non-military competition among state and non-state actors vying for influence, markets, and power. For NATO to carry out its enduring mission to protect the populations, territories, and forces of allied states, it must reconcile conventional diplomatic and military power with data as a strategic capability. It needs a strategy for digitalization to compete and win the conflicts of tomorrow.

The hard power of the United States and its NATO allies is a deterrent of last resort against very real military threats in Europe and well beyond it. But a growing concern is the creeping, quiet influence of China on democratic societies, especially with respect to critical 5G infrastructure under development across the world. The transatlantic community is rightly concerned about the threat that Chinese investment in critical infrastructure poses to our nations. At NATO’s London Summit in December 2019, allied leaders for the first time recognized the challenges posed by China and the need for secure and resilient 5G communications systems. As Representatives on the House Armed Services Committee, we have warned for years that Chinese investment leads to undue influence in democracies around the world, whether through political and economic leverage and subversion or technological espionage and trade secret theft. In other words, China isn’t selling—it’s buying. In response, the transatlantic community, led by the United States, needs to create a Digital Marshall Plan to secure its communications in a modern, free ecosystem.

NATO needs “a grand strategy” that draws on “all the tools at its disposal—economic, political, diplomatic as well as military” to counter emerging security threats, NATO’s deputy supreme allied commander, General Sir Adrian Bradshaw, told the BBC months before he stepped down from his role in 2017.1 Three years later, the problem has gotten worse as a global pandemic challenges nearly every aspect of our societies, Russia has become even more belligerent, and China has emerged as a competitor in a number of areas. Allies still lack, but badly need, a grand strategy to address current and emerging challenges together. While all allies acknowledge this gap in theory, they see the development of a collective grand strategy as politically risky in practice. Key Takeaways: 0:00 Intro 2:23 Timo explains what NATO is doing now that does not qualify as a grand strategy to counter emerging security threats 3:59 Timo also explains why their recommendation qualify as a blueprint for a grand strategy and if some of other recommendations chime with theirs 4:40 Ivanka also talks about the purpose of the recommendation that they wrote with Timo and the importance it would have on countering the emerging security threats 6:51 Timo talks about if the secretary general would update the strategic concept and also talks about why it’s time to update it 9:25 Ivanka also explains how Wargaming and some of the other methods that she’s talking about help NATO come to decisions as allies are not confronting their political differences 12:35 Timo explains how the Alliance to get allies, big or small, to not think first about their own national interest and things that make reaching conclusions at NATO difficult 15:00 Timo and Ivanka talks about the importance of having an extra tool that helps in getting the right data to help in decision making in the Alliance 19:13 Timo talks about looking at things that have a pretty slow timeline that you can have the time to add this extra layer of analysis, negotiation and compromising 22:17 Timo explains how they would apply their recommendation and move military mobility as fast as it needs to be moved 23:57 Ivanka talks about ways in which they used Wargaming and the potential courses of action and outcomes that might produce and why NATO needs to be better at defining strategic objectives 26:13 Ivanka also talks about the objectives that NATO said it had in Ukraine that it achieved 27:58 Timo and Ivanka talks about if NATO integrates the information of Wargaming into policy planning since it has been using Wargaming for years and why NATO should compete with China on high seas, maritime chokepoints, the Arctic and cyberspace 33:34 Ivanka and Timo explain if the process in their recommendation will be adopted and adapted by the other NATO allies and why 35:46 Timo also explains why NATO doesn’t need to wait for a strategic concept to start using the kind of tools they are proposing Shows Mentioned: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/content-series/nato20-2020/revitalize-natos-grand-strategy/ https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/ The National Defense Strategy (NDS) provides a clear road map for the Department of Defense to meet the challenges posed by a re-emergence of long-term strategic competition with China and Russia. The United States Department of Defense's Office of Net Assessment was created in 1973 by Richard Nixon to serve as the Pentagon's "internal think tank" that "looks 20 to 30 years into the military's future, often with the assistance of outside contractors, and produces reports on the results of its research". The 2014 Wales Summit of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was a meeting of the heads of state and heads of government of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, held in Newport, Wales on 4 and 5 September 2014. The Crimean Peninsula, north of the Black Sea in Eastern Europe, was annexed by the Russian Federation between February and March 2014 and since then has been administered as two Russian federal subjects—the Republic of Crimea and the federal city of Sevastopol. The 2016 Warsaw Summit of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was the 27th formal meeting of the heads of state and heads of government of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, held at the National Stadium in Warsaw, Poland, on 8 and 9 July 2016. The North Atlantic Council is the principal political decision-making body of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, consisting of Permanent Representatives from its member countries. Quotes Mentioned: “With the enlargement of NATO, it has become more difficult to reach agreement on what that grand strategy should be about.” “NATO needs to use Wargaming to come to understanding and decision making about what its priorities are in terms of responses to all those new challenges that we see in the world around us.” “It's about time to update the strategic concept because some of the new challenges are lacking as some of the old challenges have changed.” “Many small allies lack the necessary capacity and capability to do strategic analysis.” “You need to be thinking about the long term.” “There’s no single theory.” “Military mobility in itself has a lot of facets.” “NATO is not always very clear about what its objectives are.” “Ungoverned spaces breed terrorism, proliferation of mass destruction, weapons of mass destruction and migrants trafficking.” Guests Social Media Links: Ivanka Barzashka: Website: https://www.kcl.ac.uk/people/ivanka-barzashka Email: ivanka.barzashka@kcl.ac.uk Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/ibarzashka Ambassador Timo Koster: Website: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/expert/timo-s-koster/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/tskos

Sun Tzu, the Chinese military strategist from the sixth century BC, in his classic work The Art of War emphasized the importance of securing the “precipitous heights” before one’s adversary, due to the advantages elevated positions afforded a defending army. There is no “higher ground” on Earth than the Arctic. The Arctic is rapidly changing as it experiences climate change at a rate greater than twice the global average and polar sea ice recedes and thins.1 The first ice-free Arctic summer, under a high-emissions scenario, could occur as soon as 2042.2 These changes are resulting in increased human activity in the region as global actors explore opportunities to exploit its natural resources and strategic geographic location. Key Takeaways: 0:00 Intro 2:00 Jim talks about why he believes that NATO is not doing much in the Arctic as opposed to other parts 4:13 Marisol explains if the Alliance feels like it is behind in times when it comes to its presence in the Arctic and why it should be in the region 7:17 Marisol also explains what is hindering the Alliance from doing anything in the Arctic region and the challenges it faces 9:18 Jim explains why the strategy on China is being formulated but not a strategy on the Arctic, which is on the territory of NATO 13:14 Jim also talks about NATO increasing its attention in the Arctic now that the Russians started to move into the region and if the Alliance is late 16:29 Jim and Marisol talk about if it is more expensive for the US to move back to Iceland as compared to if they had stayed there and why they regret ever moving out of Iceland 21:09 Jim also talks about why NATO needs to move forward in terms of reaffirming the rules-based order in the Arctic and focus on deterrence 24:02 Jim also explains if there’s a big appetite for moving into another multinational agreement between Russia and the US since it’s pulling out of agreements with Russia 26:09 Marisol explains the purpose of their paper and how the Russian would feel if it were to be considered by NATO and what would be the consequences 29:21 Jim also talks about if the Secretary General of the Alliance support their recommendation and what he says about it 32:24 Marisol and Jim talk about China and it presence in the Arctic and how that will push NATO to also increase its presence there and why 34:56 Marisol also talks about the unique governance structure of Svalbard and why it could be an area of concern Shows Mentioned: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/content-series/nato20-2020/set-natos-sights-on-the-high-north/ https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/ The Arctic is a polar region located at the northernmost part of Earth. The Arctic consists of the Arctic Ocean, adjacent seas, and parts of Alaska, Canada, Finland, Greenland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, and Sweden. As the White Paper makes clear, the Polar Silk Road essentially refers to the shipping routes comprising the Northeast Passage, Northwest Passage and Central Passage that cross the Arctic Circle and connects the three economic centers of North America, East Asia and Western Europe Crimea is a peninsula located on the northern coast of the Black Sea in Eastern Europe that is almost completely surrounded by both the Black Sea and the smaller Sea of Azov to the northeast. The status of Crimea is disputed. The NATO-Russia Council (NRC) was established as a mechanism for consultation, consensus-building, cooperation, joint decision and joint action. Within the NRC, the individual NATO member states and Russia have worked as equal partners on a wide spectrum of security issues of common interest. The Munich Security Conference is an annual conference on international security policy that has taken place in Munich, Bavaria since 1963. Former names are Wehrkundetagung and Münchner Konferenz für Sicherheitspolitik. It is the world's largest gathering of its kind. The South China Sea is a marginal sea of the Western Pacific Ocean. It is bounded in the north by the shores of South China, in the west by the Indochinese Peninsula, in the east by the islands of Taiwan. Svalbard is a Norwegian archipelago between mainland Norway and the North Pole. One of the world’s northernmost inhabited areas, it's known for its rugged, remote terrain of glaciers and frozen tundra sheltering polar bears. Quotes Mentioned: “Arctic will be the terrestrial domain of consequence for the 21st century and if not, we should act as if it will be.” “NATO is a consensus based organization and some actors within NATO just aren't thinking about the Arctic because they have more immediate concerns in other parts of the world.” “Russia is on a trajectory of wanting to be the dominant Arctic power in the 21st century.” “NATO shows that it can operate effectively and have a persistent presence in the Arctic, nothing it wants to do or steer the debate or influence countries regarding the Arctic are going to matter at all.” Guests Social Media Links: Jim Danoy: Website: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/expert/james-p-danoy/ LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jim-danoy-b459521a2/ Company Website: https://nationalsecurity.gmu.edu/jim-danoy/ Marisol Maddox: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/marisolmaddox/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/Marisol_Maddox Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/marisolmaddoxofficial/ Website: https://www.wilsoncenter.org/person/marisol-maddox

NATO is vitally important; but unless you work there, or at the Atlantic Council, you wouldn’t necessarily know that. For those who don’t work for NATO or follow it closely, the organization can seem like an indecipherable blob of bureaucracy and acronyms, a mysterious realm of complicated elite politics, or a major strain on national budgets. The Alliance has a strong and active presence on the European continent. But it has become a political punching bag for the Trump administration, and the misunderstandings about NATO, its mission, and its role in today’s world run deeper than campaign rally rhetoric. To secure its future, NATO must speak to its future—both in terms of its mission and its audience.

A transatlantic alliance became a reality in 1949 only when the promise of the end of war was overshadowed by the threat of communism. The North Atlantic Treaty, also known as the Washington Treaty, was an effective answer to an inflection point in the history of the international order,1 founding an alliance that succeeded in safeguarding the free world. More than seventy years later, the global system sits at another inflection point.2 Increasing challenges from authoritarian regimes, namely Russia and China, combined with democratic erosion, abandonment of norms, and a dramatically changed geopolitical and technological landscape demand a reexamination of the only alliance capable of organizing free nations’ defense and guaranteeing their prosperity. What would the Washington Treaty look like if it were written today? How should NATO meet today’s new and more complex geopolitical challenges while maintaining the elegant simplicity and flexibility of its founding treaty? Key Takeaways: 0:00 Intro 1:40 Will and Damon explain what the Washington Treaty is, what they meant when they used the word reimagine in their recommendation Reimagine the Washington Treaty 5:15 Damon explains why the reimagined NATO would position the Alliance as the backbone of the free world and not the original Washington treaty 7:17 Will and Damon talk about how allies will be able to recommit to meeting democratic values and principles to free people when they face the same problem themselves 9:10 Damon talks about whether Turkey was adhering to democratic principles when the coup happened and why NATO didn’t deal with it and it’s one of their recommendation 11:07 Damon also explains how their recommendation is different from that of NATO and yet no word is spoken when some allies take part in anti-democratic practices 13:22 Damon also explains how their recommendation is going to help NATO be able to hold its members to account to be able to face of the challenge of authoritarian and autocracies 15:22 Will and Damon explains what the standalone article would look like in ensuring NATO can compete in an era of geo-economics by protecting allies’ economic security in the midst of rapid technological change and great power competition 19:54 Will and Damon explain how their recommendation would help change some of the EU governments strategic thinking so as to stop signing some deals with China to make them understand that this can also pose a geostrategic risk in the long term 24:24 Damon explains how to use NATO to help bring disparate actors on board while thinking about some of the big global challenges and develop common strategies and approaches 28:05 Will talks about having other small pieces linked to NATO’s network handling some of the global issues more specifically in order to create global stability and prosperity 31:23 Damon also shares his thoughts on having other parties within the network of the Alliance dealing with some of the global issues since NATO has a lot on its plate 33:31 Will shares his thoughts if NATO needs a new treaty or if it needs to talk about the old treaty more and talk about how it can be enlivened 34:45 Damon also shares his thoughts on what NATO should do, if it should have a new treaty or revise the old one 37:53 Damon explains if their recommendation is something that the Alliance would be willing to do to Reimagine the Washington Treaty Shows Mentioned: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/content-series/nato20-2020/reimagine-the-washington-treaty/ www.atlanticcouncil.org The North Atlantic Council is the principal political decision-making body of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, consisting of Permanent Representatives from its member countries. The Andrew W. Mellon Auditorium is a 750-seat historic neoclassical auditorium located at 1301 Constitution Avenue NW in Washington, D.C. The auditorium, which connects two wings of the William Jefferson Clinton Federal Building, is owned by the U.S. government but available for use by the public. The European Union is a political and economic union of 27 member states that are located primarily in Europe. Its members have a combined area of 4,233,255.3 km² and an estimated total population of about 447 million. Quotes Mentioned: “NATO’s adaptability is one of its strengths.” “In 1949, the Alliance emerged in part out of fear that European democracies couldn't survive in the face of communism and Soviet expansionism.” “Over most of the 70 years since the signing of the original Washington treaty, democratic free societies have made their point by proving that they can bring prosperity and economic opportunity.” “We realize that we can't be dependent on China for certain supplies.” “We need a more coherent approach as allies to this geo-economic competition.” “When the NAC talks about an issue, it shouldn't mean that the NATO bureaucracy goes into action.” Guests Social Media Links: Damon Wilson: Website: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/expert/damon-wilson/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/damonmacwilson LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/damon-wilson-b272682b/ Will O’Brien: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/wmtobrien/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/wmthobrien?lang=en

The NRF was launched in November 2002 at the Alliance’s Prague Summit. The brainchild of US defense leaders, the NRF was intended to strengthen NATO’s readiness and responsiveness as well as act as a catalyst for capability development (especially in Europe). As one of its conceptual forebears has written,1 the goal was to create a “real-life force with a C4ISR structure and assigned combat units, not merely a disorganized troop list,” pulled together on an ad hoc basis. The problem is this original defining strength of the NRF has been revealed as its Achilles heel.

NATO should adopt a digital .2 percent policy, whereby member states commit to spend .2 percent of their gross domestic product (GDP) on cybersecurity and digital defense modernization, evoking the existing two percent guideline utilized by the Alliance for traditional defense expenditures. While some NATO members are awash in cybersecurity capabilities, others are not, preventing the Alliance as a whole from most effectively addressing adversaries increasingly focused on digital and information-centered threats. Cyber defense, collective response, adequate protection of current and future weapon systems, digital integration, leveling up Joint Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (JISR)—the debates about burden sharing are missing critical dimensions of digital transformation. NATO is grappling with how to navigate and operate in cyberspace and must follow strategy with resources.

NATO has a critical capability gap that is hindering its ability to guarantee the security of its member states: its inability to finance defense. If nothing is done, this gap will only grow in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic. Paying for military forces and deployments has traditionally been the responsibility of individual member states, with NATO ensuring those forces are able to fight together as one. But an alliance built on collective defense must do more than just come to the defense of its members. It must also, as Article 2 of the Washington Treaty holds, “encourage economic collaboration.” As such, NATO should create its own bank.

Long before the coronavirus battered European economies, NATO’s European allies were finding it difficult to produce the cash or the political will to spend 2 percent of their GDP on defense. Now, with the COVID-19 pandemic straining government budgets, defense spending is likely to be on the chopping block. This will have serious implications for transatlantic security. Even as budgets shrink, security challenges will remain. China has shown an increasing willingness to intimidate democracies, while Russia remains a spoiler in Europe and the Middle East. Financial calamity does not mean that European cooperation within NATO should take a step back. In fact, now is the perfect time for European militaries to work together and no better opportunity exists than to use HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales as hubs for a NATO carrier strike group (CSG). A NATO CSG would be a powerful symbol of Alliance unity and would bolster the Alliance’s force posture and interoperability. Key Takeaways: 0:00 Intro 2:11 Michael John Williams talks about why he thinks NATO needs a Carrier Strike Group and the capabilities it would give the Alliance that it doesn't already have 8:42 Michael John Williams talks about if NATO needs a Carrier Strike Group and whether all the other allies wants NATO to have one 11:11 Michael John Williams talks about the actual capability of Carrier Strike Group, how it could be done so and why NATO needs it 12:53 Michael John Williams also talks about the NATO countries that have aircraft carriers that NATO could use 18:11 Michael John Williams talks about who would have the command and control over the Carrier Strike Group if NATO was given one by its allies 19:29 Michael John Williams talks about other needs that NATO does not know it has at the moment that Carrier Strike Group would fulfill 22:46 Michael John Williams shares his thoughts on whether the call to NATO having a Carrier Strike Group is largely US driven 24:04 Michael John Williams also shares his thoughts on if this whole process of having Carrier Strike Group in NATO require a new spending 25:50 Michael John Williams talks about if a Carrier Strike Group in NATO could be really a useful tool and a flexible one not just for the United States or Great Britain, but for all the allies 28:54 Michael John Williams explains if China is an enough threat and a motivating factor for NATO to have and use a Carrier Strike Group 30:27 Michael John Williams talks about China and Russia, if they are a threat to an extent of NATO having the Carrier Strike Groups, and if so, which is the major threat 34:24 Michael John Williams shares his thoughts if European allies need to see China as a big enough threat to justify more investment in an idea like a Carrier Strike Group Shows Mentioned:https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/content-series/nato20-2020/christen-a-carrier-strike-group/ The Lancaster House Treaties of 2010 are two treaties between the United Kingdom and France for defense and security cooperation. They were signed at 10 Downing Street on 2 November 2010 by British Prime Minister David Cameron and French President Nicolas Sarkozy. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/content-series/nato20-2020/nato20-2020-podcast-rethink-and-replace-2-percent/ Brexit refers to the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community at the end of 31 January 2020 CET. An illiberal democracy is a governing system in which, although elections take place, citizens are cut off from knowledge about the activities of those who exercise real power because of the lack of civil liberties; thus it is not an open society. Quotes Mentioned:“Under the Trump administration, NATO has really come in for a lot of bludgeoning on defense expenditure, on investment, etcetera.”“A lot of times, Carrier Strike Groups are about the symbolism.”“The symbolism of a very tangible asset that is sovereign but is under a NATO hat has a lot of value.”“The US is increasingly strained.”“The NATO carrier group would be a one star command.”“Germany can become a slightly more problematic ally because the Bundestag has to approve everything.”“From the United States point of view, policymakers need to be very concerned about how European allies view the United States.”“The US needs much less hubris in its foreign policy.” Guests Social Media Links:Website: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/expert/michael-john-williams/ Website: http://www.mjwilliams.com/aboutx Twitter: https://twitter.com/TheOpenMike

The danger of nuclear war in Europe is greater than it has been since the Cold War—and growing. A sputtering economy dragged down by low energy prices impedes Russia from competing with the West in advanced technology and conventional military capabilities. Yet, under Vladimir Putin, Russia is menacing its neighbors, including NATO’s Baltic members, diverting attention from its domestic woes. As a result, Russia is increasing its reliance on nuclear weapons and the threat to use them first, and it is pursuing an advantage in nuclear forces in Europe. In the face of this challenge, NATO’s stated nuclear strategy is too stale, vague, and timid to ensure deterrence. This podcast offers an alternative strategy to reduce the danger of nuclear war in Europe. Key Takeaways: 0:00 Intro 2:17 David talks about reasons why Russia is more reliance on using the nuclear weapons in an event of an attack and what makes the situation now more dangerous than in the 80s and 90s 4:47 David explains what would happen is Russia attacked a NATO member and what would happen if NATO attacked Russian territory 5:56 Hans also explains why they think the risk of potential nuclear war is greater today than it's been in the past 8:04 Hans and David also share their thoughts on what NATO needs to do to prevent additional risks that might occur since Russia has more nuclear warheads that NATO Nations 10:26 Hans and David also explains how NATO would have command to the nuclear weapons from its members since it don’t have the nuclear weapons itself 12:54 David talks about NATO’s Nuclear strategy, if the strategy is clear and how Russia interprets the strategy 14:15 David shares his thoughts on the nuclear strategy of NATO on the use of the nuclear weapons 15:30 Hans and David talk about why there is no consensus on the use of nuclear weapons inside the Alliance due to lack of one voice in members 17:13 Hans and David explains the difference between threaten and retaliate used in their essay, the purpose of those words and the term first use in terms of nuclear weapons 18:32 Hans and David share their thoughts on if NATO would retaliate if at any circumstance it were attacked using the nuclear weapons 21:51 David and Hans talk about if Russia would doubt that NATO wouldn’t use nuclear weapons to retaliate and the US started testing its missiles 25:37 David also talks about the reasons that are making the INF situation very difficult to term it as dead 29:21 Hans shares what he would recommend NATO to do in terms of trying to solve the INF problem and destroying the nuclear tipped weapons 32:47 David and Hans talk about New START, what it is, its importance and how verification problems lead to its failure 35:33 Hans talk about how the strategic stability between the US and Russia has to be rebuilt to have a meaningful strategic arms control 36:55 David and Hans talk about why China would not agree to be a part of the arms control, and if it would, what would be the impact 40:07 David and Hans share their thoughts on why they think NATO should take the lead and declare that Russia does not have the right to act first in using nuclear weapons Shows Mentioned:https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/content-series/nato20-2020/threaten-decisive-nuclear-retaliation/ https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/ https://twitter.com/hashtag/strongerwithallies?lang=en Quotes Mentioned:“Russia now is in the position where it knows if it got in any protracted conflict with NATO, it would lose and not only would it lose, but it could be threatened.”“Because of weak and conventional forces, Russia is relying increasingly on nuclear weapons.”“NATO doesn’t have a consensus on use of nuclear weapons.”“The purposes of nuclear weapons that are assigned for use on behalf of NATO are not for use unless NATO is attacked with nuclear weapon.”“If Russia is attacked with conventional weapons, it will use nuclear weapons.”“US statement on behalf of NATO really doesn't mean much.”“New START is a president.” Guests Social Media Links:David Gompert: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/content-series/nato20-2020/threaten-decisive-nuclear-retaliation/ Hans Binnendijk:https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/expert/hans-binnendijk/

The West is recognizing that China’s rise has fundamentally shifted the global balance of power. For the first time, the European Union (EU) declared China as a “systemic rival” in 2019.1 NATO leaders also mentioned China for the first time in the 2019 London Declaration, identifying both the “opportunities and challenges” of China’s growing influence.2 As the West grapples with a strategy to address China’s rise, it faces a full-spectrum challenge from China in traditional and non-traditional security spheres that NATO is best positioned to confront. Key Takeaways: 0:00 Intro 2:13 James explains why they use the bold language in their paper that NATO should formalize Atlantic Pacific Partnership to counter China's hostile and malign activities 3:20 James talks about why NATO doesn’t use the big words to refer to China but uses the word bully instead of hostile or malign as used in their paper 4:58 Monica shares her thoughts if NATO has been asleep, let’s too much go on under its nose in putting out the warnings such as buying of strategic assets 6:17 Harry and James share their thoughts on China buying more ports in different states and if that presents a threat to the state or makes China a smart business operator than others 10:12 James and Monica talk about how China is intensively building economic connections around the world and if that posses national threats to US and Europe 14:32 Monica, Harry and James talk about the disinformation campaigns that China is having against the United States and Europe and how that presents itself as a threat 18:28 Monica, James and Harry talk about how China’s extended economic hand to states is being the reason that most states can’t counter Chinese influence and what NATO should do 23:41 James and Harry explain why NATO should focus more on the multilateral instead of bilateral in terms of neutralizing China becoming a threat 25:42 Harry also talks about the seven baseline requirements for resilience by NATO to combat non-traditional threats 26:41James reiterate on the point of multilateral and bilateral and what he thinks that NATO should do regarding this 28:41 James talks about sanctions for disinformation, what NATO should do with regard to this and what China reaction would be 30:15 Harry, James and Monica all share their thoughts on if NATO feels like China is a threat like Russia and how other allies of NATO feel and if it’s a good thing 33:34 Monica and Harry predict what would be the outcome if China and Russia worked together and if other states should be worried about that 37:52 James, Monica and Harry share their predictions on what NATO will do and what China will do in response to their paper and rethinking paper that NATO recognize China as a threat, analyze it and take action Shows Mentioned: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/content-series/nato20-2020/build-an-atlantic-pacific-partnership/ https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/ https://twitter.com/hashtag/strongerwithallies?lang=en ASEAN: https://asean.org/ Quotes Mentioned:“NATO has been asleep at the wheel, but so is the rest of the world.” “It is predicted that Southeast Asia will be the new place for global supply chains.” “We can't get a consensus on everything.” “We have a really complex economic interdependence that crisscrosses the entire world.” “We must compete where we must and cooperate where we can.” “Russia also is afraid of China too.” “China has one of the greatest military forces in the world right now.” Guests Social Media Links: James Hildebrand: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jamesdhildebrand/ Monica Michiko Sato:LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/mmsato/ Website: https://monicamichikosato.wordpress.com/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/_mmsato?lang=en Harry W.S. Lee:LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/hwslee/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/harrylee8917

At NATO’s 2008 Bucharest Summit, the allies refused to go along with a US push to offer Georgia a Membership Action Plan (MAP), but agreed that it would someday become a member of the Alliance.1 Germany and France intended for this equivocation to allay Russian objections, yet it was seized upon by Vladimir Putin as an opportunity to block Georgia’s path to the Alliance. In August 2008, a mere four months after the Bucharest Summit, Russia invaded Georgia and occupied twenty percent of its internationally recognized territory. With some creativity and bold political will, however, Georgia’s accession into NATO is still feasible, despite the Russian occupation. Key Takeaways: 0:00 Intro 1:55 Luke talks about the Bucharest summit that happened in 2008 and reasons why Georgia was denied the Membership Action Plan in the Alliance 4:20 Alexis and Luke shares their thoughts on what caused Russia invade Georgia after Russia felt that NATO has abandoned Georgia 6:02 Alexis and Luke also share their thoughts that if Membership Action Plan would have been offered to Georgia, would have Russian invasion been blocked 8:14 Luke explains which events were taking place that Russia took advantage of and was able to invade Georgia 10:27 Luke talks about what it takes for a country to attain the Membership Action Plan and why Germany and France didn’t also want Georgia in the Alliance 12:54 Luke also talks about why he thinks it time to get new systems or mechanisms to get countries inside NATO apart from MAP 15:35 Alexis gives three reasons why she thinks Georgia should be in NATO and talks about what’s holding NATO up to letting Georgia become a member 17:41 Luke explains what NATO wants from Georgia to make it a member of the Alliance even after Georgia has done everything required 20:39 Luke explains why NATO allowed Montenegro and North Macedonia in but still left Georgia out even after all the efforts it has put 21:41 Luke talks about Article 6 in NATO, what it is and where Article 6 says Article 5 applies 25:13 Alexis and Luke also talk about how likely Russia is going to feel threatened if Georgia was to overcome the block and be able to get the MAP 28:56 Alexis explains why there is no appetite to invite Georgia in the Alliance like there was in the Balkans even though there are plenty of reasons to invite Georgia 29:47 Alexis speaks of what would happen if Georgia got tired of waiting for NATO to allow it to be a member 30:30 Luke talks about if the US has provided enough leadership on Georgia being offered the MAP to join NATO if all members agreed apart from Germany and France 32:17 Luke talks about what Georgia and NATO need to do together to come up with a solution to the problem so that Georgia can become a member and if Georgian officials know this 35:07 Luke shares his thoughts if with the Biden’s administration there would be a responsible, realistic and reasonable path for Georgia to join the Alliance Shows Mentioned: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/content-series/nato20-2020/end-the-russian-veto-on-georgian-accession/ https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/ https://twitter.com/hashtag/strongerwithallies?lang=en Quotes Mentioned: “Membership Action Plan is the current mechanism that NATO uses to create a roadmap for entry into the Alliance.” “What Russian policymakers do is they wait for that right opportunity to take advantage of a situation.” “MAP is not a security guarantee; it’s merely a tool that's used to get a country inside of the Alliance.” “Georgia remains a beacon of hope for the Eurasian region.” “It only takes one in NATO.” “No country should have a veto on a potential ally coming in.” Guests Social Media Links: Luke Coffey: https://www.linkedin.com/in/luke-coffey-5566184/ https://www.heritage.org/staff/luke-coffey https://twitter.com/LukeDCoffey Alexis Mrachek: https://www.linkedin.com/in/alexismrachek/ https://www.heritage.org/staff/alexis-mrachek https://twitter.com/AlexisMrachek

The scope, scale, and impact of future non-traditional threats require NATO allies to think outside the framework of traditional security concepts and prepare the Alliance for missions that do not neatly fit an Article 5 scenario. To this end, the Alliance should approve a fourth core task focused on resilience, preparing the Alliance to protect the populations of member states against novel threats while reinforcing collective defense. Key Takeaways: 0:00 Intro 1:56 Anca shares her thoughts on why NATO allies should build resilience for an era of shocks and why it’s not redundant 2:54 Jim also shares his thoughts on NATO’s allies building resilience in case of shocks and why it is important 6:01 Jim explains bureaucracy and three things that NATO is doing to minimize it in providing PPE to other states as opposed to the EU 9:39 Anca talks about why NATO was able to be more efficient in the case of providing PPE than EU 11:27 Jim also explain the roles that the EU was built to do and how different they are from the roles that NATO was built to do 13:24 Jim talks about how NATO deals with roles that it does not typically deal with like the climate change, refugees flow and food scarcity and their impact on allied security 16:55 Anca and Jim talks about how NATO and EU are cooperating and doing tasks that you can say are neither NATO’s nor EU’s for the greater good 19:27 Anca talks about why they want to formalize resilience as another requirement for NATO as a fourth core task and including it as part of the NATO Defense Planning Process 21:11 Jim also supports Anca’s point on formalizing resilience as another core task for NATO and why it is important especially in this time and age 24:25 Jim and Anca discuss if there should be new ministerial guidance given to NATO headquarters in regards to resilience as a core task 26:49 Jim talks about how NATO help create capability goals from documents that every country needs to meet to help them get better at their own resilience through International Staff 30:02 Anca and Jim talk about the good idea of making resilience a core task in NATO that would in the long run, help countries in difficult situations and if it’s going to stretch people Shows Mentioned: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/content-series/nato20-2020/build-resilience-for-an-era-of-shocks/ https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/ https://twitter.com/hashtag/strongerwithallies?lang=en Quotes Mentioned: “We need to be much more ambitious when it comes to resilience.” “EU sees NATO as someone who can respond to such crises.” “EU wasn't built to have structures or a mission role to be proactive, and to get out there and to do something.” “The EU was developed as a regulator, but not an action organization.” “It's a new day and age with these new threats that call for resilience.” “Even if it's obvious, that doesn't mean that you got to do it.” “Resilience is the new currency of national power.” “Investing in resilience is actually a cost saving measure in the long term.” “You have to think about national security and protecting your people in ways other than tanks.” “We need to think big.” Guests Social Media Links: Anca Agachi: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/expert/anca-agachi/ https://twitter.com/ancaagachi?lang=en https://www.linkedin.com/in/ancaagachi Jim Townsend: https://twitter.com/jteurope?lang=en

Eventual Mexican membership in NATO may be a necessary ingredient for keeping the United States invested in European security over the long term. This suggestion is made with an eye toward the reality that economic and political power in the United States is shifting to places and populations with fewer traditional ties to Europe such that broadening NATO’s appeal to a diversifying US public is imperative. Key Takeaways: - 0:00 Intro - 1:59 Christopher talks about how NATO is changing in the United States and why the European needs to address that quickly - 4:36 Christopher shares reasons why he think that it is important for the United States to support NATO - 7:44 Christopher and Gabriela talk about some of the benefits that Mexico's membership could bring to NATO - 12:36 Christopher talks about why it’s much easier to seek membership for Mexico to create a strong commitment to Mexican security with US and Canada than to use NAFTA - 17:54 Christopher and Gabriela explains why NATO choose to make Mexico a member and not other countries in hot spot that would serve NATO better such as Georgia and Ukraine - 22:34 Christopher and Gabriela explains the large number of active duty personnel in Mexico’s military and their capabilities even though they are not be to the level of US Military - 25:47 Christopher talks about the importance of taking baby steps before joining on the full membership and why they decided to quickly seek membership for Mexico - 27:49 Christopher and Gabriela talks about diversity in the population of United States and the case of diversifying United States public support for NATO - 32:40 Christopher speaks of the geopolitical situations being different and what they are doing to solve this problem in NATO - 34:29 Gabriela also talks about if Mexico wants to be a member of NATO and reasons proving that they want that Shows Mentioned: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/content-series/nato20-2020/seek-membership-for-mexico/ https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/ https://twitter.com/hashtag/strongerwithallies?lang=en Quotes Mentioned: “You have to make the Alliance matter to people on a day to day basis.”“NATO is one of the most exclusive and special clubs in international relations.”“The enlargement debate in the Alliance is kind of stuck.”“NATO doesn't matter without the United States.”“The Latinx people are the second largest ethnic groups in the United States.”“Just because Mexico joins doesn't mean that Georgia and Ukraine can't.”“Quantity is a quality of its own.”“Becoming a NATO partner, or becoming somewhere along the spectrum being affiliated with NATO only encourages greater co-operation.” Guests Social Media Links: Christopher Skaluba:https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/expert/christopher-skaluba/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/christopher-skaluba-63630051/ Gabriela R. A. Doyle:https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/expert/gabriela-r-a-doyle/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/gabrielaradoyle/ https://www.instagram.com/gabrielaradoyle/?hl=en https://www.facebook.com/gabriela.alvarez.528

As the world reenters an era of great power competition, many of the geopolitical and ideological certainties that lend NATO its sense of purpose are dissolving. However, the Western democratic values on which the Alliance was founded, on which its success has been built, and from which it continues to derive its moral authority, endure. The principles of consensus and mutually assured security are as important as ever. As challenges proliferate, one of the greatest threats to NATO could be a lack of confidence—not in the organization’s central purpose or relevance, but in its ability to succeed in an increasingly fluid, fast-moving, and ambiguous world. Key Takeaways:0:00 Intro1:52 Christopher sums up the essence of his recommendation, complexity and how we can use the available technology to harness complexity2:39 Christopher talks about the importance of agility and speed and the reason why NATO is failing is because it lacks this3:37 Christopher also speaks of distributed computation and the ability to use it so as to create a virtual world and how it’s important5:23 Christopher explains the alternate reality which is the Single Synthetic Environment7:47 Christopher talks about how Single Synthetic Environment is going to work practically in the NATO’s sphere of control9:57 Christopher also talks about the impact that NATO could experience if it made the consensus building process easier than it currently is in the decision making12:48 Christopher encourages NATO to have different approach to visualizing crises and conflicts below and above the classic threshold as they're occurring14:46 Christopher suggests of finding ways to protect data, rather than data transmitting18:03 Christopher talks about the use of technology in NATO, why it is important and how it promotes human imagination and experience21:16 Christopher speaks of how his model helps analyze the best course of action to take when faced with a version in crisis 24:12 Christopher explains how synthetic environments could be extremely useful and how it assists in decision making25:29 Christopher also speaks of how NATO sometimes seems so slow to get on board with new ideas Shows Mentioned:https://improbable.io/ https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/content-series/nato20-2020/game-out-decision-making/ https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/ https://twitter.com/hashtag/strongerwithallies?lang=en Quotes Mentioned:“The world that we inhabit today is drowning in data.”“Distributed computation brings together multiple models of the world in which we are in at the moment.”“Potential to speed up the decision making on the crisis should be made easier because every single person is able to see the same information.” “We’ve concentrated a lot on the strategic decision makers and how synthetic environments could be extremely useful, not replacing, but assisting that decision making.”“If we don't speed up that consensus process, then arguably, we're going to lose the competitive edge that NATO has enjoyed.”“If this technology can help, then it's technology that should be adopted.” Guests Social Media Links:https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/expert/am-sir-christopher-harper-kbe-raf-ret/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/sir-chris-harper/?originalSubdomain=uk

Over the last few years NATO has been called many things, from obsolete, to brain-dead, to warmongering. So we must be doing something right. In truth, built on the common values of individual liberty, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law, NATO is an unparalleled defensive Alliance which has kept the Euro-Atlantic region and beyond safe for more than seventy years. It has played a crucial role in bringing security and stability to Europe and its neighborhood, as its role in the Balkans showed. The importance of this can’t be underestimated in this seventy-fifth anniversary of the end of the Second World War. NATO continues to act as a platform for shared values and interests, now with partnerships across the world. The world is growing more dangerous. Technological advances have the potential to transform warfare as significantly as nuclear weapons did after WW2. We need to be clear with our publics what NATO does now and needs to do in the future. Tellingly, a lot of Russian energy still goes into trying to undermine the North Atlantic Alliance every day. NATO is fit for the challenges of today. But it will only remain successful over the next seventy years if it continues to modernize its capabilities and its message.

NATO needs to increase the costs for Russian aggression while building back crucial dialogue if there is any prospect for improved relations with Moscow. Key Takeaways:0:00 Intro2:06 Alexander talks about the recent relationship between NATO and Russia, when the Kremlin annexed Crimea from Ukraine and summarizes his paper 3:20 Alexander elaborates on the two track policy that NATO has on Russia which is defense and dialogue where dialogue doesn’t seem to work4:20 Alexander gives his top recommendations to NATO on the policy on Russia6:32 Alexander speaks of The EU putting sanctions on Putin for Crimea so that he could live up to what he agreed to when he signed the Minsk agreements, but it’s all in vain8:32 Alexander covers on NATO not having tools of sanctions, review it so as to have a strategic review of the transatlantic approach to Russia10:00 Alexander discusses why Putin does not take NATO countries seriously even after they impose some threats on him10:55 Alexander also states ways or recommendations in which NATO can make sure that the Russians don't invade NATO territories14:05 Alexander speaks about NATO Russia Founding Act, what it states and how it’s being violated16:07 Alexander talks about who is the most immediate threat to transatlantic security and deserves top billing on NATO’s list of threats 19:40 Alexander talk of what they can do on the dialogue part, now that you can say that the NATO Russia Council is basically dead21:19 Alexander discusses the legitimate subjects for the NATO Russia Council in 2016 which was risk reduction21:43 Alexander and Teri elaborates on what Vienna Document is and the requirements of the document 24:45 Alexander also talks about the New START, what it is and why they think it might die in the near future and the remedy to keep it going30:39 Alexander comments on the hallmarks of the Biden presidency when it comes to the relationship with Russia Paper Mentioned:https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/content-series/nato20-2020/ramp-up-on-russia/ Shows Mentioned:https://medium.com/dfrlab identify, expose, and explain disinformation where and when it occurs using open source research; to promote objective truth as a foundation of government for and by people; to protect democratic institutions and norms from those who would seek to undermine them in the digital engagement space.https://www.osce.org/ is the world's largest security-oriented intergovernmental organization. Its mandate includes issues such as arms control, promotion of human rights, freedom of the press and fair elections. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/ Quotes Mentioned:“Be tougher on pushing back, but also be aggressive with diplomacy in hopes that we can break the deadlock and move to a much more constructive relationship with Russia.” “Take what we've done well, and now broaden it to those areas where we're not having the necessary effect on Putin and changing his calculus in the way that we need to.” “You can raise the domestic political costs, in addition to the economic costs, by being more proactive with the release of classified information and open source information that can document exactly what Putin lies about.” “Biden doesn’t feel that talking with Russia is rewarding their bad behavior, but it's a way to try to convince them to end their bad behavior.” Guests Social Media Links:Website: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/expert/alexander-sandy-vershbow/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/arvershbow?lang=en

This conversation was recorded on October 27th, 2020. In today’s fun and educative episode, freelance journalist in Brussels Teri Schultz had a discussion with her guests Derek Chollet, Steven Keil and Chris Skaluba, about their recommendation that NATO rethink and replace its 2% spending guideline. You will learn what this is, reasons to rethink and replace it and how it’s measured, all in this episode. That’s why this is a must watch if you want to learn about this and much more. In this episode, we learn:• The 2% pledge that was made at the Wales NATO Summit of 2014 that, countries should start to someday spend 2% of their GDP on their own militaries.• Why it's time to drop the 2%, why it hasn't worked and its shortcomings and also the way forward suggested.• Reasons why countries spending 2% of their GDP on militaries was an imperfect metrics to use and what responsible Alliance partnership looks like.• Also that the 2% is not the only metric by which a country's contribution is measured• How the US measures its defense spending versus how Germany measures its own defense spending and how it looks at what it needs to defend.• About the imperfections that arose due to the metrics that the conference came up with in 2014 and how it brought up the spending. • That the 2% is measurement by inputs, but it’s recommended that it should be measured by inputs and outputs and why.• If adding some of the costs such as cyber spending and saying that that should be part of the 2% would work so as to expand the definition of what could be considered a contribution to 2%.• The most important of the recommendations on the 2% pledge issue. About:Derek Chollet: Executive Vice President at German Marshall Fund of the United Stateshttps://www.linkedin.com/in/derek-chollet-a7155b1b4/ Christopher Skaluba: Director, Transatlantic Security Initiative, Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, Atlantic Councilhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/christopher-skaluba-63630051/ Steven Keil: Fellow at the German Marshall Fund of United Stateshttps://www.linkedin.com/in/steven-keil-1755b33/ Show Resourceshttps://www.atlanticcouncil.org/ https://www.nato.int/