Step ahead of the enemy

Gen. defends Peter Blazeus

Except the Donald Trump administration seems to have put the case on the blade. At once, any experts said that NATO must completely redefine itself. Or he'll just disappear.

NATO will not vanish for a simple reason – both the US and its another members have a fundamental interest in keeping it going. erstwhile we observe current events, we frequently forget that the Alliance has already been through a variety of turmoil in the past. After all, there was a crisis in the Suez Canal area, the temporary withdrawal of France from military structures, the Greek-Turkish conflict over Cyprus, a wave of protests over the deployment of Pershing II missiles in Europe or interior divisions in the context of the Iraq war. On the another hand, after the end of the Cold War, there were voices in general questioning the legitimacy of the Alliance. The ZSRS fell, the danger is gone... As it turned out, not for long. present we face Russian neo-imperialism and aggressive politics of this country. A possible extension of the Kremlin's influence in Europe would besides be detrimental to the US. due to the economical ties that we have. And NATO is the best warrant that this will not happen. The possible of its members is in favour of the organisation, but let us besides not forget the systems of command, communication and operational procedures created and tested over decades, which has influenced the experience of interoperability.

Americans have their imagination of the Alliance, and the expectations associated with this article frequently in a very direct way. The French president Emmanuel Macron correctly described this, which the US compared to electroshocks. However, this shock was in his opinion essential to wake Europe. NATO's adaptation and transformation process has definitely accelerated.

But one more time – what we see now is the consequence of earlier processes. In front of us, what has happened is happening. It is worth noting that NATO remains the most effective collective defence mechanics in the Euro-Atlantic space, and the debate on its future all time, despite lively discussions and disagreements, ended with its adaptation to the fresh realities.

But what can Europe do? In colloquially speaking, can we stand on our own feet?

The key question is, are we ready to sacrifice in the name of our own safety? I think so.
Ukraine shows that this is possible if there is simply a will to fight, consistency and belief in victory. At the last NATO summit, European countries declared that they would spend 5% of GDP on defence. expanding these expenditures allows us to build the essential strength and capacity, increase the possible of the defence manufacture and the resilience of our countries and societies. And that's what happens in Europe.

Not everywhere. Spain has large doubts whether it should spend up to 5% of GDP on defence.

That is correct, but it is hard for 32 countries to have complete unanimity. The confederate countries of Europe are by far little threatened by Russia. For them, illegal migration across the Mediterranean is simply a more serious problem. However, no 1 questions the request to increase defence spending. The only issue remains the pace of change, and here we are talking about isolated cases.

Another thing – economical potential. Europe has the chance to make the arms industry, and it does so. We get and implement fresh technologies. It should, of course, be remembered that armies besides request cheaper and little complicated equipment, but it is mass-produced and delivered much faster. This is shown perfectly by the war in Ukraine, where inexpensive and simple drones are able to origin immense havoc in the ranks of the opponent. The problem is that large companies are not always curious in producing low-cost platforms. They do not always want to adapt their ammunition equipment to another maker so that it becomes more universal. On the 1 hand, we have the needs of troops, on the other, the law of the free market. And this is where you gotta find the balance.

However, it is hard to imagine that Europe will become full self-sufficient?

Full self-sufficiency is an illusion in today's world. The dream of building a European army should be abandoned as shortly as possible. Creating an option another than the Alliance doesn't make any sense, due to the fact that we just can't afford it, and that's not right.

But the European Union is creating military structures. We have, for example, the Eurocorpus you commanded.

Only Eurocorpus is not the birthplace of the European armed forces. It was created as a French-German initiative in 1992, but was offered for usage within NATO a year later. Eurocorpus so remains the command that can carry out tasks both under the aegis of the European Union and the Alliance. He's kind of an organization.

It doesn't make sense to double NATO, like I said. Europe's safety foundation is the North Atlantic Alliance and the transatlantic bond with the US. The European Union can, however, take various economical initiatives, simplify regulations and procedures, strengthen the possible of the European defence industry, facilitate the improvement and implementation of innovation and make financial mechanisms that will strengthen the collective safety system. This increases the European contribution to NATO, but it will not replace the Alliance itself.

Europe's countries are expanding their armed forces to deter possible opponents and to be ready to defend themselves. For example, we increase our ability to hit deep. Polish land troops are already capable of damaging targets over a distance of 300 km, and the air force at a distance of up to 1000 km. However, it is known that in any respects the Alliance will gotta trust on the possible of the US.

Are we talking atomic weapons?

Not only that. Scare distant is simply a full strategy of capabilities both atomic and conventional. I mean, even F-35 aircraftIn his class, the most modern in the world. any European countries already have specified aircraft. shortly they will besides become a basic platform in Polish air forces. However, the question of scale remains. That's why transatlantic ties are so important.

Meanwhile, NATO members are increasingly eager to establish local coalitions and alliances. In 2014, the United Kingdom activated the Combined Expeditionary Forces, a coalition involving, among others, Scandinavian and Baltic states, which organizes exercises in northern Europe. Poland strengthens political and military ties with Sweden, with Denmark... But isn't that proof that we want to be safe in case the Alliance turns out to be out of control?

Absolutely not. akin coalitions have always been formed. They do not undermine NATO's competence in any way. On the contrary, they can lead to strengthening it. Signal the Alliance with a peculiar threat, transfer developed mechanisms in a given format above. In this way, individual states or groups of states become kind of translators...

Translators?

Yes, I mean, they see threats the earliest, they realize them, they explain to another members of the Alliance and they reenforce the common message. In the context of the Russian threat, Poland has played this function and continues to play this function with the countries of our region. erstwhile I took the position of Deputy Head of Staff for strategical improvement and Planning in the ultimate office Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) in 2019, NATO was already undergoing a process of profound change. These included even operational planning. Step by step, there were assumptions about the deterrence and defence of the Euro-Atlantic area. Another 5th operational domain was then identified as space. As head of the J5 strategical Planning Board, the J7 Training and Exercise Board or the Force Generation Branch, I was straight active in all this. My colleagues and superiors were keenly curious in Polish experiences from the east flank. Our perspective. And this 1 turned out to be completely different from Western. Poland was already provoked and tested in various ways by the Russian Federation. Thus, the Alliance’s regional sensitivities translate into the safety and decision-making of the full organization.

But the West didn't precisely believe in Russian threat, did it?

Western decision-makers have long been convinced that a good relation can be established with Russia due to common ties and economical benefits. This was not changed by informing signals in the form of Vladimir Putin's 2007 appearance, which clearly outlined the objectives of Russian politics, or the subsequent invasion of Georgia. The alarm signal just became Crimea and war in east Ukraine. That's erstwhile NATO started preparing for the Russian threat. Although any politicians inactive a fewer weeks before a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, despite a readable Russian ultimatum, believed the war could be stopped. Meanwhile, it has been over 4 years.

And there is no uncertainty that NATO remains the most crucial point of reference.

It brings many challenges. surely in specified a situation, it is crucial to keep unity and coherence. And besides a more proactive attitude towards Russia. The leaders had long wondered whether the launch of any activities ahead of the Kremlin's movements would lead to escalation. We were waiting for Putin's move, and he had no opposition to cross the line.

Now it's changing. Regional defence plans are a good example. Although they are invariably defensive, they presume preemptive movements in any respects. The same goes for the cognitive war that the Russians are moving against us. Social media in the West is flooded with misinformation. The Alliance not only wants to fight them actively – it itself checks the possibilities of influencing Russian society.

This isn't over. It is surely a major challenge to sustain aid to Ukraine and to fight against a fleet of shadows, an armada of old tankers who smuggle the sanctioned oil and thus fuel the Russian war machine. The natural material is sometimes processed in refineries located in associate States and ships pose a immense threat to the environment due to their age and method condition. This device should be stopped. Here, too, step by step, fresh solutions are being developed and implemented. All of this will surely be discussed by allies during the upcoming NATO summit in Ankara in July.

With what expectations will Poland go there?

It is surely in our common interest that the allies of the east flank or the long-term and systemic support of Ukraine proceed to be collectively secured – nothing has changed here. Poland has a strong position in NATO. We can guarantee our own safety and support another members. We are already spending almost 5% of GDP on defence. In many ways, we are pioneers. I mean, at least the mechanisms associated with responding to Russian provocations, securing the logistics center. POLLOGHUB, acting as the host state: hosting, centering and logistical safety of allied troops in our territory. Building is besides a good example Eastern Shields and associated warehouses, warehouses, shelters, dam system, mine preparation, expansion of sensor strategy and ability to combat drones. There are many more specified examples.

So, the rumors of NATO's death are far besides much?

Definitely, though we're watching a rough time for NATO. The alliance will now change and adapt to fresh realities, it's a natural process, but I have no uncertainty that it will survive. Moreover, after the changes, he has the chance, as the past of NATO shows, to become an even stronger warrant of Euro-Atlantic security.