Carnegie Europe
1 to 7 of about 7
A slimmed down NATO could do a better job of harmonizing transatlantic positions in crisis situations, be the hub of multinational, high-end military operations, and develop expertise and capabilities to deal with new threats such as cyber attacks.
While the obsession with global rebalancing stokes currency and protectionist tensions, it diverts attention from what is really needed—reforms at home.
Policy makers should heed the lessons of the Great Recession and enact the structural and regulatory reforms needed to protect the world against the next crisis.
As NATO grapples with the future of its deterrence posture, it faces the contentious question of whether reducing or withdrawing forward-based U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe would unacceptably reduce the security of its member states.
When NATO leaders convene in November, they will undertake a reexamination of the alliance’s policy on nuclear weapons, a review that, spurred by recent nonproliferation initiatives, could split NATO’s members if not handled carefully.
Recent arguments against a withdrawal of U.S. nuclear weapons from Germany are based on anachronistic perceptions regarding NATO’s nuclear weapons capacity, but bring up important points concerning broader implications for nuclear disarmament.
Russian policy makers need to open space for public debate and engage in substantive discussions on critical global issues, and Western governments and institutions need to open the door to independent Russian voices.