NATO seeks to prioritize fighting Russia and shrink forces for missions abroad
BRUSSELS — NATO allies are considering the biggest overhaul of their military planning in at least two decades — prioritizing fighting Russia over providing spare troops for places like Iraq and Afghanistan.
NATO’s 32 member countries have begun negotiating the alliance’s next capability targets, which determine the forces and weapons allies would provide in a conflict — and who would pay for them.
Under the draft planning document, allies would no longer be expected to provide enough forces to fight a major European war and conduct several smaller crisis-management missions at the same time, according to four NATO diplomats briefed on the text and granted anonymity to share the information. Instead, they said, they would plan to meet the requirements of one scenario or the other.
The proposal reflects “a very clear understanding that no matter what, for NATO, a major contingency in Europe will overtake any other priorities or events,” said Camille Grand, a former NATO assistant secretary-general for defense investment.
That dovetails with U.S. pressure for the alliance to refocus its core mission on defending Europe, a project Washington calls NATO 3.0.
The negotiations are on a document known as the Political Guidance, part of a four-year process that will culminate in allies approving new military capability requirements by 2029. Allies are expected to finalize an agreement by February.
At stake is what equipment allies will have at the ready — and how credible their deterrence is — toward Moscow, as European officials have repeatedly warned of a possible Russian incursion on NATO territory by 2029. Growing budgetary constraints for defense spending are also likely to make the process more difficult.
“This whole cycle is going to be much more scrutinized than previous cycles … governments want to know that their money is spent wisely,” said a senior NATO official. “It’s significant in the current geopolitical context of a reconstituting Russia.”
NATO did not respond to a request for comment.
Allies face a difficult choice: whether to scrap the longstanding requirement to provide enough forces for both a major European conflict and several crisis-management operations outside NATO territory. The draft would replace that “and” with an “or,” requiring forces for one scenario or the other, rather than both.
The draft text has so far opted for “or,” NATO diplomats said, noting that talks remain in the very early stages.
“It’s going to be tough,” said a fifth senior NATO diplomat. “It makes a big difference if you choose ‘and’ or ‘or.’”
“No one’s suggesting we’re moving away from being able to conduct crisis response operations,” the senior NATO official added. “Ultimately, it is a political decision to determine where [troops] go.”
The change wouldn’t automatically affect current operations abroad like NATO’s Kosovo or Iraq missions. But the debate has major implications for the alliance, as the requirement for both scenarios stretches back at least 20 years.
After the Cold War, the alliance pivoted to focus largely on out-of-area operations like Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan. However, Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 forced the alliance to reprioritize European defense.
“NATO has come full circle,” said Oana Lungescu, a distinguished fellow with London's Royal United Services Institute and a former NATO spokesperson. “It makes sense that NATO’s main effort as a defensive alliance should be to deter an aggressive Russia and keep Europe safe, especially as the U.S. is reducing its commitment.”
Historically, Southern European countries have favored the alliance's partnerships and crisis management, two NATO diplomats said, while the U.S., the Nordics and frontline countries are more supportive of prioritizing defense against Russia.
Since 2010, NATO has formally defined its three core tasks as collective defense, partnerships with third countries and cooperative security and crisis management.
Proponents of keeping the dual ambition see it as a signal of NATO not neglecting its other core missions, the two diplomats said. Those in favor of rethinking the extra requirements cite limited defense budgets, a need to focus on deterring Russia and to prioritize resources as the U.S. mulls a drawdown of its troops in Europe.
Washington has pressured allies to scrap out-of-area operations like its Iraq advisory mission. Instead, it wants Europeans to pay more for their own defense and focus on defending alliance territory.
The Pentagon is set to unveil a review of its presence in Europe next month, which could involve withdrawing some troops.
Grand, who now heads the ASD defense lobby, compared NATO’s balance among its three core tasks to a three-legged stool, warning that the proposed shift could leave it “slightly imbalanced … I’m not sure I’d want to sit on it.”
