Media: NATO seeks to prioritise countering Russia and scale back overseas missions

NATO allies are considering the biggest overhaul of their military planning in at least two decades, prioritising countering Russia over providing additional troops for missions in places such as Iraq and Afghanistan.

As reported by Politico, the 32 NATO member states have begun negotiations to determine what forces, weapons and funding allies will provide in the event of a conflict.

Under the draft planning document, Allies would no longer be expected to both provide sufficient forces to fight a major war in Europe and conduct smaller crisis-management missions at the same time, four NATO diplomats familiar with the text told Politico on condition of anonymity. Instead, they said, allies would plan to meet the requirements of just one of the two scenarios.

Camille Grand, a former NATO assistant secretary general for defence investment, said that the proposal shows "a very clear understanding that no matter what, for NATO, a major contingency in Europe will overtake any other priorities or events."

This proposal goes hand in hand with an initiative Washington calls "NATO 3.0", which employs US pressure for the Alliance to refocus its core mission on defending Europe.

The negotiations concern a document known as Political Guidance, which forms part of a four-year process culminating in Allies approving new military capability requirements by 2029. Allies are expected to finalise the agreement by February.

At stake is what equipment allies will have ready – and how credible their deterrence against Moscow will be – as European officials have repeatedly warned of a possible Russian invasion of NATO territory by 2029. Growing budgetary constraints on defence spending are also likely to complicate the process.

Allies face a difficult choice over whether to scrap the longstanding requirement to maintain sufficient forces for both a major European conflict and several crisis-management operations outside NATO territory. The draft proposes replacing "and" with "or", which would require forces to be available for one of these scenarios rather than both.

According to NATO diplomats, the draft text currently favours the "or" option, although they stressed that negotiations are still at a very early stage.

"No one's suggesting we're moving away from being able to conduct crisis response operations. Ultimately, it is a political decision to determine where [troops] go," a senior NATO official added.

The change would not automatically affect ongoing overseas operations, such as NATO missions in Kosovo or Iraq. However, the discussion has significant implications for the Alliance, as the requirement to maintain forces for both scenarios has been in place for at least 20 years.

The US is currently reviewing its military presence in Europe. Reports in the media said that the US could withdraw around a third of its troops from Europe, or even more.