NATO touts country pairings as key to defending the eastern flank

WASHINGTON — NATO officials at the Madrid summit revived a Cold War-era concept of spelling out which alliance countries are responsible for securing specific, vulnerable European members situated closer to Russia.

The idea is wrapped up in a shift in the alliance’s force posture that walks a fine line between filling countries from the Baltics to Romania with actual combat forces and the mere promise of shipping them there quickly in the event of an attack.

“We need to understand that these forces, of course, will be paid and organized by the different NATO allied countries, so they will be based in their home countries but they will be pre-assigned to specific territories, to specific countries and territories, to be responsible for the protection of these territories,” Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg told reporters in Madrid this week.

The new emphasis on pre-assigned forces comes with a plan for more prepositioned equipment that arriving troops could quickly access from storage. In addition, static capabilities, like air-defense weapons, are to be moved closer to the would-be front lines with Russia.

Many details of the posture plan have yet to be sorted out, with specifics still obscured by an arithmetic of wishful thinking under which the alliance tends to count force packages from member nations as highly ready to fight simply by saying so.

But the focus on divvying up smaller geographic areas of responsibility along the eastern flank is here to stay, according to analysts. Rooted in NATO’s enhanced forward presence concept, enacted after Russia’s annexation of Crimea from Ukraine in 2014, the plan envisions, for example, a French brigade-sized formation focusing on Romania, while the Germans would increase their commitment to Lithuania and the British would take responsibility for Estonia.

The posture change aims to move the character of NATO’s eastern deployments from that of a tripwire force, by which invading Russian forces would be held up long enough for help to arrive, to more of a “brick wall” at the border that would deny them any gains at all, said Kelly Grieco, a senior resident fellow at the Atlantic Council think tank.

“But the devil is in the details,” she said. Would the forces in western Europe and North America be tasked with anything other than their mission of defending their assigned eastern flank regions when needed, for example, she asked.

It’s also unclear if the larger member nations will be able to sufficiently fill prepositioned stocks in their assigned areas, a key ingredient in NATO’s surge calculus, Grieco added.

Jim Townsend, a former Pentagon official on Europe and NATO now with the Center for a New American Security, said the the summit plan amounts to a half-step toward the permanent alliance presence eastern European allies have been seeking since 2014 annexation. While the Baltic states felt American boots on the ground would provide extra deterrence against Russian aggression, Pentagon leaders saw the expense of basing troops and their families in Eastern Europe as too high, he said.

“I think what they’re trying to do is have it both ways: They’re going to have the familiarity with a region that you would have if you were permanently deployed, but they’re going to get that as rotational forces,” Townsend said.

Kremlin officials have said in recent days they see NATO preparing for war with Russia. Townsend thinks the new moves, which include home-porting two U.S. Navy destroyers in Rota, Spain, will stoke fear and respect in Moscow.

“For sure it’ll be perceived as a provocation, and they’ll make a big deal out of it in Moscow, but I think they’ll respect it too because it shows we’re serious, that we’re putting our money where our mouth is,” Townsend said. “Certainly the Russians will notice that we didn’t pull back on the throttle.”

Still, the new force model is “quite restrained on the part of NATO,” said Sean Monaghan, a former British defense official now a visiting fellow with the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies.

That’s because the idea of true “forward defense,” as the eastern member states wanted, exists only as an ambition, he told Defense News.

“The question is, will that provide a credible enough deterrent to Russia,” he asked.

According to Grieco, there are political pitfalls wrapped up in the emphasis on pre-assigned forces from the West. “Europe could become a first responder that way,” she said. But having American troops on their territories is ultimately considered more valuable for many vulnerable NATO members, she added.

Sebastian Sprenger is associate editor for Europe at Defense News, reporting on the state of the defense market in the region, and on U.S.-Europe cooperation and multi-national investments in defense and global security. Previously he served as managing editor for Defense News. He is based in Cologne, Germany.

Joe Gould was the senior Pentagon reporter for Defense News, covering the intersection of national security policy, politics and the defense industry. He had previously served as Congress reporter.

华盛顿——北约官员在马德里峰会上重提冷战时期的一个概念，即明确规定哪些盟国负责保护位于俄罗斯附近、较为脆弱的特定欧洲成员国。

这一想法的核心在于联盟力量态势的转变，这种转变既要向从波罗的海国家到罗马尼亚等国部署实际作战部队，又要避免仅仅承诺在遭受攻击时迅速将部队运送到那里。

“我们需要明白，这些部队当然将由不同的北约盟国支付薪酬和组织，因此它们将驻扎在各自的祖国，但它们将被预先分配到特定的领土、特定的国家和地区，负责保护这些领土，”秘书长延斯·斯托尔滕贝格本周在马德里对记者说。

新一轮对预先部署部队的重视，伴随着一项预置装备计划，以便抵达的部队能够迅速从仓库中取用这些装备。此外，防空武器等固定作战能力也将部署到更靠近未来与俄罗斯交战前线的位置。

姿态计划的许多细节仍有待确定，具体细节仍然被一厢情愿的算术所掩盖，在这种算术下，联盟倾向于仅仅因为成员国声称其部队已做好充分的战斗准备就将其视为高度准备。

但分析人士认为，将东翼的责任区域划分得更小的这种做法将会持续下去。该计划源于北约在2014年俄罗斯吞并克里米亚后实施的“增强前沿部署”概念。例如，该计划设想法国将部署一个旅级规模的部队重点部署在罗马尼亚，德国将加大对立陶宛的投入，而英国则将负责爱沙尼亚。

大西洋理事会智库高级常驻研究员凯利·格里科表示，此次姿态转变旨在将北约东部部署的性质从“绊线部队”（即阻止入侵的俄罗斯军队前进，以便援军抵达）转变为在边境筑起一道“砖墙”，彻底阻止俄罗斯军队取得任何进展。

“但魔鬼藏在细节里，”她说。例如，她问道，西欧和北美的部队是否还会被赋予除保卫其所负责的东翼区域之外的其他任务？

格里科补充说，目前还不清楚较大的成员国是否能够充分补充其指定区域内的预置库存，这是北约增兵计划中的一个关键因素。

曾任五角大楼欧洲和北约事务官员、现任职于新美国安全中心的吉姆·汤森德表示，此次峰会计划相当于向东欧盟国自2014年吞并以来一直寻求的永久联盟存在迈出了一小步。他指出，尽管波罗的海国家认为美军地面部队能够对俄罗斯的侵略行为起到额外的威慑作用，但五角大楼领导人认为在东欧驻军及其家属的费用过高。

“我认为他们想两全其美：既能像永久部署部队那样熟悉该地区，又能以轮换部队的形式获得这种熟悉感，”汤森德说。

克里姆林宫官员近日表示，他们认为北约正在为与俄罗斯开战做准备。汤森德认为，包括将两艘美国海军驱逐舰的母港设在西班牙罗塔在内的这些新举措，将激起莫斯科的恐惧和敬畏。

“这肯定会被视为挑衅，莫斯科方面也会大做文章，但我认为他们也会尊重我们的行动，因为这表明我们是认真的，我们说到做到，”汤森德说。“俄罗斯人肯定会注意到，我们没有退缩。”

不过，前英国国防官员、现任华盛顿战略与国际研究中心访问学者肖恩·莫纳汉表示，新的部队模式“在北约方面相当克制”。

他告诉《防务新闻》，这是因为东部成员国所希望的真正的“前沿防御”理念仅仅是一种愿望。

“问题是，这能否对俄罗斯构成足够可信的威慑？”他问道。

格列科认为，过分强调西方预先部署的部队存在政治隐患。“这样一来，欧洲可能会成为第一响应者，”她说。但她补充道，对于许多处境脆弱的北约成员国而言，让美军驻扎在其领土上最终被认为更有价值。

塞巴斯蒂安·斯普伦格是《防务新闻》欧洲版副主编，负责报道该地区的防务市场状况，以及美欧在防务和全球安全领域的合作和多国投资。此前，他曾担任《防务新闻》执行主编。他现居德国科隆。

乔·古尔德是《防务新闻》的资深五角大楼记者，负责报道国家安全政策、政治和国防工业的交汇点。他此前曾担任国会记者。