logo
NATO needs to get ready for modern war — and fast, top commander tells BI

NATO needs to get ready for modern war — and fast, top commander tells BI

NATO still has work to do before it becomes the 21st-century fighting force that it needs to be, and allies need to invest heavily in their domestic defense industries, a top commander told Business Insider.
"I think it's a struggle," Adm. Pierre Vandier, NATO's Supreme Allied Commander Transformation and the man overseeing alliance modernization efforts, said during an interview this week at his office in Norfolk, Virginia.
In recent decades, NATO militaries have been focused predominantly on lower-end counterinsurgency operations in places like Africa or Afghanistan, depending heavily on expeditionary forces enabled by uncontested airpower. In this context, allies thought differently about their own defense, and supporting industries were not sufficiently focused on preparing the alliance for a modern war against a top adversary.
Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 set off alarm bells throughout NATO, with Western officials warning that Moscow could feel emboldened to push deeper into Europe if it wasn't adequately deterred, presenting the alliance with the possibility of a large-scale conventional war or worse.
The past three years have seen many NATO states dramatically boost their defense spending and buy more weaponry. Countries along the eastern and northern edges — the front lines of the alliance, as they share borders with Russia — are hardening their defenses. However, many still argue that there's more work to be done.
"I think we forgot all the big principles of a symmetric war, and so it's where we need to reinvest," Vandier said, referring to a conflict in which combatants are more evenly matched. He added that because the defense industrial base shrank so much over the years, ramping it up is "very difficult."
Delivering on high-end platforms like warships, fighter jets, and missiles can be a yearslong process. A single F-35 stealth aircraft, for instance, takes around 18 months to build.
Vandier warned that if a fight breaks out before NATO has sufficiently bolstered its defenses, the alliance could have a major problem.
He acknowledged that NATO still has a long way to go to reach its full potential as a modern fighting force. Member countries are pledging to spend more of their respective GDPs on defense, but the process of going from funding projects to delivery is far from quick.
"It's a question of speed," Vandier said.
In 2014, when Russia illegally annexed the Crimean peninsula, NATO members agreed to spend 2% of their national GDP on defense. Since then, amid increased Russian aggression, the number of allies that have met or exceeded that goal has steadily risen from three to 22 last year.
Earlier this week, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte said all allies will reach the 2% target this year, though he is calling for heads of state to agree to a new target — 5%, in line with calls from the Trump administration — at a summit later this month.
"The fact is, we need a quantum leap in our collective defense," he said Monday at an event in London. "We must have more forces and capabilities to implement our defense plans in full. The fact is, danger will not disappear even when the war in Ukraine ends."
Modernizing at speed
In its quest to become a modern fighting force, NATO is also focused on integrating asymmetric solutions like drones and other new emerging technologies into its planning. The conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East have highlighted the value of uncrewed systems.
Vandier and his Allied Command Transformation are at the forefront of these efforts. One initiative they've rolled out is Task Force X, an experiment underway in the Baltic Sea that uses drones, artificial intelligence, and other tech to monitor and deter aggressive Russian activity in the region.
Unlike the West's traditional weapons procurement process, which can be slow, Task Force X is NATO's attempt to showcase its speed by quickly deploying cheap and readily available systems to counter Russia. It is simultaneously working to integrate emerging tech with traditional maritime operations.
Vandier emphasized the importance of achieving what he described as "digital transformation at speed." He said that another crucial element in NATO's efforts to modernize is leveraging commercial space to improve command, control, communications, and computers, simply known as C4, and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities.
"These are, I think, the two most critical domains for the alliance at war," the commander said.
Meanwhile, NATO just shared it has signed a contract with US commercial satellite imaging company Planet Labs PBC in a first-of-its-kind agreement that will give the alliance expanded surveillance capabilities, helping it track potential threats such as new defensive fortifications or large troop build-ups along the eastern edge.
Vandier said that, aside from the US, no other country in NATO had this capability and stressed that if America pivots all its surveillance focus to the Pacific, the alliance needs to be self-sufficient and have the resources to keep tabs on Russia, Ukraine, and the rest of Europe, from the Arctic down to the Black Sea.
The seven-figure agreement is another example of NATO's efforts to modernize at speed and firm up Europe's defenses.
"We've been able to do that in three months, from idea to delivery," Vandier said. "Three months to find the money, make the contract, put that in the field."
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

How Donald Trump's Plan to Arm Ukraine Differs From Joe Biden's
How Donald Trump's Plan to Arm Ukraine Differs From Joe Biden's

Newsweek

time13 minutes ago

  • Newsweek

How Donald Trump's Plan to Arm Ukraine Differs From Joe Biden's

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump's push for European NATO members to purchase U.S.-made weapons for Ukraine marks a shift from the more direct military support for Kyiv of his predecessor, Joe Biden. But unlike Biden, Trump has been more direct in engaging with Moscow, and both have taken their own approaches to economic measures to pressure Russian President Vladimir Putin. Why It Matters The United States is the world's biggest provider of military support for Ukraine, but when Trump took office, there were fears that the Republican president would cut or curb this lifeline. Trump's move in the first half of 2025 to reset economic ties with Moscow also raised concerns about whether Biden-era sanctions aimed at choking revenues for Putin's war machine would be eased. The president's tone has shifted both towards Putin and regarding the continuation of U.S. military support for Ukraine, raising hope in Kyiv that the U.S. commitment to Ukraine may be as significant, albeit delivered differently, as Biden's. Then-President Joe Biden (L) and Donald Trump arrive at Trump's presidential inauguration ceremony on January 20, 2025. Then-President Joe Biden (L) and Donald Trump arrive at Trump's presidential inauguration ceremony on January 20, To Know Putin invaded Ukraine just over 13 months into Biden's White House term. Between February 24, 2022, and January 20, 2025, the U.S. became the world's biggest supplier of weapons and aid for Ukraine's fight, pledging over $175 billion in support. The Democratic president also signed the Ukraine Democracy Defense Lend-Lease Act of 2022 and led the Ukraine Defense Contact Group, a coalition of about 50 countries coordinating military assistance. "President Biden was able to organize a broad coalition of Western countries that helped transform the Ukrainian military into a formidable force, capable of resisting a much larger and better-funded Russian army supported by Iran and North Korea," Yuriy Boyechko, the CEO of Hope for Ukraine, told Newsweek. But his approach to arming Ukraine was criticized as piecemeal, as the Biden administration took pains to avoid escalation, opposing Kyiv's use of American equipment against military targets within Russia. Volodymyr Zelensky and Joe Biden on the sidelines of the 79th Session of the United Nations General Assembly in New York on September 25, 2024. Volodymyr Zelensky and Joe Biden on the sidelines of the 79th Session of the United Nations General Assembly in New York on September 25, 2024. ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/AFP via Getty Images By July 2022, the U.S. had supplied HIMARS (High Mobility Artillery Rocket System), and on July 6, 2023, Biden approved cluster munitions to Ukraine. However, deliveries of long-range ATACMS (Army Tactical Missile System) missiles were delayed and eventually allowed, provided they would never be used to hit targets within Russia. Ukraine had been requesting U.S.-made F-16 fighters since 2022, but only started receiving them in July 2024 through third countries. Other weapons systems that were blocked or held up included Patriot surface-to-air missiles, M1 Abrams tanks, and Gray Eagle drones—delays which Kyiv said have added to battlefield losses among its forces. Sanctions Not Talks Rather than focusing on direct talks with Moscow, Biden's actions towards Putin centered on sanctions. As a parting shot, his administration imposed another round of measures, bringing the total to over 3,500, according to Statista, which are still in place today. "The Biden administration's approach did not really include direct negotiations with the Russians," George Beebe, former director of the CIA's Russia analysis and director of grand strategy at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, told Newsweek. "They approached this by saying 'we're going to put enough economic and military pressure on Russia and isolate Russia internationally and diplomatically turn Russia into a persona non grata,'" Beebe said. The aim was to force the Russians to recalculate the costs and benefits of the invasion and capitulate, he said, "and that didn't work." Trump's Approach NATO chief Mark Rutte and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz have welcomed Trump's proposal for the U.S. to provide new weapons to Ukraine. The NATO-coordinated arms plan for Kyiv was unveiled as a novel approach to the direct aid from Biden, which is touted as ensuring the continued flow of American arms to Ukraine, paid for by Europe. Trump has repeatedly stated that the U.S. had spent $350 billion on helping Ukraine, although the actual amount was significantly less. But a deal in which NATO and European Union states purchase U.S.-made weapons systems, deliver some to Ukraine, and replace them through agreements with Washington could satisfy Trump's MAGA base, who do not want to see American taxpayers footing the bill. "Clearly a situation where the Europeans are paying for this is a better deal for the United States than providing aid directly to Ukraine that probably will never be paid back," said Beebe, "that certainly was one of the considerations that President Trump bore in mind." Rutte said the deal included missiles, ammunition, and air defense, while Trump announced that Patriot missiles—critical to defend against Russia's drone and missile bombardment on civilian structures—were "already being shipped," to Ukraine. U.S. President Donald Trump (L) and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at the White House on February 28, 2025. U.S. President Donald Trump (L) and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at the White House on February 28, Tariffs The prospect of weapons shipments follows Trump's issuing an ultimatum to Moscow of "severe" tariffs unless Russia agrees to a peace deal within 50 days to end its war in Ukraine. He has since teased a shorter time frame. These would be, according to Trump, 100 percent secondary tariffs, in which any country doing business with Russia would face a significant levy on selling their products to the U.S. Demanding Russian action within a deadline is a tactic that differs from Biden's approach, although there are questions about its effectiveness. Beebe said the Biden administration likely considered such a move but concluded it would rebound against the U.S. in terms of inflation and the prospect of higher global oil prices. However, Russia realizes that imposing these tariffs on Europe, as well as its major trading partners, Turkey and China, "would go very poorly for the United States," he added, with potential impacts on inflation and global oil prices. What People Are Saying President Donald Trump on July 14 at the White House: "We're gonna be doing very severe tariffs if we don't have a deal in 50 days." U.S.-based Nova Ukraine said in a statement to Newsweek regarding the 50-day deadline and delivery of U.S weapons: "We have long advocated for decisive U.S. leadership to help Ukraine defend itself and deter further Russian aggression." Brian Taylor, a political science professor at Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, told Newsweek: "The good news for Ukraine is has finally figured out that Putin is the main obstacle to peace." George Beebe, the director of grand strategy at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, told Newsweek: "We have to focus on a geopolitical compromise that the West concedes that Ukraine won't be in NATO and NATO forces won't be in Ukraine, and Russia, in turn, concedes that it will not block Ukrainian accession to the European Union. So far, neither Biden nor Trump has focused on pursuing that compromise." What Happens Next Boycheko, whose group provides support to Ukrainian communities on the frontline, said Trump's approach to aiding Ukraine is so far mostly just promises and statements. If Trump follows through on promises like secondary sanctions and the deployment of the most advanced military capabilities to Ukraine, "then we will be able to compare what was done by the current administration vs the previous administration," he said. Meanwhile, Taylor said that by deferring these proposed sanctions for 50 days, "Trump left himself plenty of time to change his mind again, while Putin keeps bombing Ukrainian cities nightly and his army remains on the offensive."

Video: U.S. Secretary of State Rubio meets Chinese Foreign Minister Wang at ASEAN
Video: U.S. Secretary of State Rubio meets Chinese Foreign Minister Wang at ASEAN

American Military News

time14 minutes ago

  • American Military News

Video: U.S. Secretary of State Rubio meets Chinese Foreign Minister Wang at ASEAN

This article was originally published by Radio Free Asia and is reprinted with permission. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on Friday that he had 'positive and constructive' talks with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, amid tensions over tariffs and trade. Rubio was in Malaysia on his first Asia trip since taking office, looking to stress U.S. commitment to the region at the East Asia Summit and ASEAN Regional Forum, as countries received notices of U.S. tariffs announced by U.S. President Donald Trump this week. At a Thursday photo-op before the start of the U.S, Japan, Philippines trilateral meeting, Rubio learned the summit's signature 'ASEAN-way' handshake. 'How do we do that?' Rubio asked. 'The ASEAN-way' replied Philippines' Foreign Secretary Theresa Lazaro. Japan's Prime Minister Takeshi Iwaya then grabbed Rubio's hands and crossed them, with the three standing and smiling with the traditional cross-armed handshake for cameras. Rubio also met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov where they discussed the Russia-Ukraine war.

How an email error sparked a secret scramble to bring Afghans to Britain
How an email error sparked a secret scramble to bring Afghans to Britain

Chicago Tribune

time42 minutes ago

  • Chicago Tribune

How an email error sparked a secret scramble to bring Afghans to Britain

LONDON — British governments past and present face allegations of avoiding scrutiny and undermining democracy after the revelation that thousands of Afghans have been resettled in the U.K under a program that was hidden from the media, the public and lawmakers in Parliament. Key information was also kept from the Afghans themselves, who had assisted U.K. forces and whose personal details had been disclosed in a huge data leak. Many plan to sue the British government for putting them in danger from the Taliban. Some are left in Afghanistan as the current British government says the resettlement program will end. Here's what happened in an extraordinary chain of events. The saga was triggered by the chaotic Western exit from Afghanistan in August 2021 as the Taliban, ousted from power 20 years earlier, swept across the country, seized Kabul and reimposed their strict version of Islamic law. Afghans who had worked with Western forces — as fixers, translators and in other roles — or who had served in the internationally backed Afghan army were at risk of retribution. Britain set up a program, known as the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy, or ARAP, to bring some to the U.K. In February 2022, a defense official emailed a spreadsheet containing the personal information of nearly 19,000 ARAP applicants to someone outside the Ministry of Defense. The government says the individual thought they were sending a list of about 150 names, not the whole set. The British government only became aware of the leak when a portion of the data was posted on Facebook 18 months later by someone who threatened to publish the whole list. The leak sparked alarm among British officials who feared as many as 100,000 people were in danger when family numbers of the named individuals were added. The then-Conservative government sought a court order barring publication of the list. A judge granted a sweeping order known as a super injunction, which barred anyone from revealing not only information about the leak but the existence of the injunction itself. Super injunctions are relatively rare and their use is controversial. Most of the handful of cases in which they have come to light involved celebrities trying to prevent disclosures about their private lives. This is the first known case of a super injunction being granted to the government. Former Defense Secretary Ben Wallace said Wednesday that he sought the legal order to gain 'time and space to deal with this leak, find out whether the Taliban had it' and protect those at risk. Wallace said he asked for an ordinary injunction — not a super injunction — for a period of four months. The gag order remained in place for almost two years. The government began bringing to Britain the Afghans on the leaked list who were judged to be most at risk. To date, some 4,500 people — 900 applicants and approximately 3,600 family members — have been brought to Britain under the program. About 6,900 people are expected to be relocated by the time it closes, at a cost of 850 million pounds ($1.1 billion). In all, about 36,000 Afghans have been resettled in the U.K. since 2021. Meanwhile, several news organizations had learned of the leaked list but were barred from publishing stories about it. They challenged the super injunction in court, and a judge ordered it lifted in May 2024 — but it remained in place after the government appealed. Britain held an election in July 2024 that brought the center-left Labour Party to power. Prime Minister Keir Starmer and his Cabinet learned of the injunction soon after taking office and grappled with how to proceed. In January, the government ordered a review by a former senior civil servant. They found little evidence that the leaked data would expose Afghans to a greater risk of retribution from the Taliban. The review said the Taliban had other sources of information on those who had worked with the previous Afghan government and international forces and is more concerned with current threats to its authority. Given those findings, the government dropped its support for the super injunction. The injunction was lifted in court Tuesday, and minutes later Defense Secretary John Healey stood in the House of Commons to make the saga public for the first time. Healey said the secret settlement route was being closed, but acknowledged Wednesday that 'the story is just beginning,' and many questions remain unanswered. Immigration critics including Reform UK leader Nigel Farage are demanding to know what screening was done on the people who came under the secret program. Lawyers for Afghans on the leaked list want to know why the information was kept from them. Adnan Malik, head of data privacy at U.K. legal firm Barings Law, said he was assembling a class-action lawsuit by hundreds of former translators, soldiers and others. Lawmakers and free speech advocates say the use of a super injunction is deeply worrying. They ask how Parliament and the media can hold the government to account if there is such stringent secrecy. Judge Martin Chamberlain, who ruled that the injunction should be lifted, said Tuesday at the High Court that the super injunction 'had the effect of completely shutting down the ordinary mechanisms of accountability.' Healey acknowledged that 'you cannot have democracy with super injunctions in place,' and said the government had acted as quickly and safely as it could. 'Accountability starts now,' he told the BBC.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store