Twenty-nine Allied Chiefs of Defence and invitee North Macedonia met in Brussels, Belgium for the 181st Military Committee in Chiefs of Defence Session.

Ahead of the Meeting of Defence Ministers in June, the Chiefs of Defence came together to discuss NATO’s new Military Strategy, Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR)’s Area of Responsibility and the development of the Alliance’s deterrence and defence posture.

The Chiefs of Defence began their day by meeting with NATO’s Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, where discussions focused on the key strategic issues facing the Alliance.

The Allied Chiefs of Defence then signed the new Military Strategy. The signature marks an important step in adapting the Alliance for the increasingly complex security challenges that NATO faces.

Air Chief Marshal Sir Stuart Peach stated:

The strategy will guide Allied military decision making and provide NATO’s Military Authorities with a definitive policy reference, enabling us to deliver our core mission – defending almost 1 billion people.”

The Chiefs of Defence received a detailed briefing on the current security situation in and around Ukraine, and the ongoing challenges emanating from the Black Sea region.

16
Leave a Reply

avatar
2 Comment threads
14 Thread replies
10 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
10 Comment authors
keithdwatDaniele Mandellidave12SoleSurvivorJonathan Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest
Notify of
maurice10
Guest
maurice10

Can’t help making a direct comparison with the EU method of working…..unwieldy? Okay, I’m being a bit bitchy, and it’s a far better situation, than just a few reluctant participants and should be a warning to those who want to do us harm. I’m hopeful that the NATO organization can survive the calls for a new European Defence Organisation, and lukewarm American views on long-term European defence?

John Clark
Guest
John Clark

I would echo everyone else’s concern. NATO is stretched far to thin, with many countries spending way too little and in military terms, virtually useless. Germany leads the way and tops the charts in the the utterly useless stakes, with appalling levels of readiness and massive under investment. The EU wants to spread this underinvestment even further …. It could end up killing NATO. We need to insure we work the back channels and be ready to establish new strategic relationships if the unthinkable happens and NATO collapses. Personally, I would say 2% GDP (as an absolute minimum) on defence,… Read more »

SoleSurvivor
Guest
SoleSurvivor

NATO is an alliance for the worst case scenario, not Middle East interventions or Falkland type scenarios, a massive western alliance would be our side of a world war type scenario, or a very major conflict. Now possible adversaries in that are who, China and to a lesser extent Russia possibly if it were on China’s side which is very debatable. Now in a strict hypothetical sense if we were at war with China, a nation like Germany with an 85m population, 4th largest economy in the world, massive manpower pool, advanced transport network and a highly skilled workforce would… Read more »

SoleSurvivor
Guest
SoleSurvivor

An example of my comment being US defence spending leading up to both world wars, 1% leading up to World War One and 1% to 2% leading up to World War Two.

But the US had every factor in it being able to spend more and for it to be affective, economy, transport, manpower, technology and resources.

Germany is a sleeping giant in many ways in a military sense.

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

I do worry for a future of nato. It’s to large and diverse for it aim. Unless every nation is in clear step and totally committed to it, a treaty based alliance like NATO is potentially a risk to its members. The reason I think this is that a lot of our great conflicts have occurred because of a catastrophic miss understanding of one power group by another. Let’s be Honest if it’s own member states are not all totally clear on NATO’s role and their support, how can our potential enemies understand the red lines and outcomes of crossing… Read more »

Harry Bulpit
Guest
Harry Bulpit

Russia was invited to join NATO and honestly from the end of the Cold War to the mid 2000s NATO and Russia where on good terms. It’s only been with putins recent aggression that we’ve had to go back to the old way.

Steven
Guest
Steven

NATO’s pre-Putin expansions east never an issue ? SMH

Ulya
Guest
Ulya

NATO is an American controlled organisations so of no use to Russia. You are right relations have gone bad, but we see it for different reasons

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

I agree, the end of the Cold War was an opportunity to end 70 years of mistrust and conflict on both sides. There needed to be significant give on the side of the West at the point the nations of the Soviet Union moved away from Bolshevik vangardism (which was the main driver of the soviet need to aggressively try and overthrow even social democratic movements in Europe). Unfortunately instead of a joining together, which would have including ending NATO and agreeing a new model of security, the old model was perpetuated and 30 years later we have returned to… Read more »

dave12
Guest
dave12

lol!! I dont think NATO would take Russia in now anyway even before all its GRU antics. Russia under putin does not have much credibility in the west and now its taking up the role in the world of propping up every dodgy regime.

dave12
Guest
dave12

I cant see Russia under putin and his friends in power improving relations much with NATO. Putin has utter control of Russias media brainwashing its people with the aggressive NATO narrative and pushing general nationalistic view deflecting away from russias poor performing economy while being one that is actully the aggressor.Russia has lost its chance to be a to a democracy under putin with out NATO or America ,Russia would be taking the mick even more and we should feel lucky we have that deterrent.

Daniele Mandelli
Guest
Daniele Mandelli

Agree with this. Has NATO, like the EU, become too large? The EEC was a group of Western European nations concerned with trade. It has expanded into something else like NATO has. “NATO was in reality a single purpose alliance, the defence of the West against the Soviet Union.” There I see the problem. The West was seen as Western European nations, West Germany westwards. Turkey and Greece a sideshow and the alliance was only interested in their waters and airspace for the purpose of attacking and spying on Russia. Now we have Ukraine interested, Georgia, the Baltic States members,… Read more »

Ulya
Guest
Ulya

Always the sensible comment Daniele looking at both sides

dave12
Guest
dave12

Do you think Russia invading the Ukraine is the right way to go about it though Daniele? it does sort of force ukraine towards the west even more so then before dont you think.

Daniele Mandelli
Guest
Daniele Mandelli

Probably not dave. Seeming as NATO, EU, the US is like a moth to a candle concerning Russia.

keithdwat
Guest
keithdwat

Completely agree here, NATOs expansion eastward has definitely influenced Russian aggression in recent years. Slowly these ‘enemy’ nations are creeping around them and to them they have every right to see this as aggressive.

From a Russian perspective Europe is almost a peninsula, and the west, particularly the Americans since the 90s have taken over ex Russian allies and have backed them into a corner almost, I can see the reason they want to expand their military.