Łukasz Zalesiński sits down with LtGen Piotr Błazeusz, Strategic Advisor to the Chief of the General Staff of the Polish Armed Forces, to talk about the future of NATO, a proactive stance toward Russia, and strengthening Europe’s capabilities.

Over the coming years, we will see NATO that is more European-led – the organization’s Secretary General, Mark Rutte, told reporters at the Munich Security Conference. It seems we are witnessing a revolution.

More like an evolution. The idea of Europe assuming more responsibility for its own security has actually been discussed since the dawn of NATO. In 1951, General Dwight Eisenhower, Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe, even stated that if US troops did not return home within a decade, it would prove the failure of the North Atlantic Alliance project. That vision was quickly verified by geostrategic circumstances, but no one ever fully invalidated it. As part of the so-called peace dividend, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Americans significantly reduced their presence in Europe. Several brigades were also withdrawn from the Old Continent during the presidency of Barack Obama, who began to emphasize a strategic pivot toward the Indo-Pacific. President Donald Trump, already during his first term, urged allies to take on greater responsibility for Europe’s security. The Secretary General’s words signify a shift in the balance of responsibility within the same, transatlantic alliance structure. In this context, Poland must continue to develop its own capabilities and help to shape Europe’s contribution to NATO.

The thing is that Donald Trump’s administration seems to have brought the issue to a head. Some experts immediately declared that NATO must completely redefine itself, or it will simply disappear.

NATO will not disappear for one simple reason: both the USA and its other members have a fundamental interest in its existence. Looking at the current events, we often forget that the Alliance has already weathered various crises in the past. There was the crisis in the Suez Canal region, temporary withdrawal of France from military structures, the Greek-Turkish conflict over Cyprus, a wave of protests against the deployment of Pershing II missiles in Europe, and internal divisions over the war in Iraq. After the end of the Cold War, there were voices questioning the relevance of the Alliance’s existence altogether, since the USSR had collapsed and thus the danger had disappeared. As it turned out, not for long. Today, we are facing Russia’s neo-imperialism and aggressive policies. A possible expansion of the Kremlin’s influence in Europe would also be detrimental to the US, if only because of our economic ties. NATO is the best guarantee that it will not happen. The organization’s strength lies mainly in the capabilities of its members, but we must also consider the command and control systems, communications systems, and operational procedures, which have been developed and tested over decades, contributing to our experience in building interoperability.

The Americans have their own vision of the Alliance, and they often articulate their expectations in a very direct manner. French President Emmanuel Macron aptly described this when he compared US actions to an electroshock. However, he also argued that this shock was necessary to wake Europe up. The process of NATO’s adaptation and transformation has definitely accelerated. Once again – what we are witnessing now is the result of earlier processes, and it is something that was bound to happen anyway. It is worth emphasizing that NATO remains the most effective mechanism for collective defense in the Euro-Atlantic area, and every debate regarding its future, despite heated discussions and differences of opinion, has always resulted in its adaptation to new circumstances.

But what can Europe do? Simply put: will we be able to stand on our own two feet?

The main question is: are we ready to make sacrifices in the name of our own security? In my opinion, we are. Ukraine has shown that it is possible with the will to fight, consistency, and faith in victory. At the last NATO summit, European countries committed to allocating 5% of their GDP to defense. Increasing this spending allows us to build the necessary forces and capabilities, boost the potential of the defense industry, and strengthen the resilience of our nations and societies. That is exactly what is happening in Europe.

Not everywhere. Spain has major doubts about committing 5% of its GDP to defense.

That’s true, but it’s difficult to achieve complete unanimity among 32 countries. Naturally, the countries of southern Europe feel less threatened by Russia. They are more concerned about illegal migration across the Mediterranean Sea. However, no one is questioning the need to increase defense spending. The only matter of contention is the pace of the changes, and even in this context we can only speak of isolated cases.

Another aspect is economic potential. Europe has the capacity to develop its defense industry, and it is doing so. We are acquiring and implementing new technologies. Of course, it’s important to remember that armies also need equipment which is cheaper and less complex, yet mass-produced and delivered much faster. This is perfectly illustrated by the war in Ukraine, where cheap and simple drones are capable of wreaking havoc on enemy lines. The problem is that large corporations are not always interested in producing low-cost platforms or adapting their equipment to ammunition from other suppliers in order to make it more versatile. On the one hand, we have the needs of the military, and on the other, the rules of the free market. The key is to find balance between the two.

However, it is difficult to imagine that Europe will become entirely self-sufficient.

In today’s world, complete self-sufficiency is an illusion. We must also quickly abandon the pipe dream of building a European army. Creating an alternative to the Alliance makes no sense whatsoever, because it is unjustified and we simply cannot afford it.

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

The Eurocorps is not the seed of European armed forces. Although it was established as a Franco-German initiative in 1992, it was made available for use within NATO only a year later. Therefore, it remains a command that can carry out missions under the auspices of both the European Union and the Alliance. It serves as a sort of link between the two organizations.

As I said before, duplicating NATO makes no sense. The North Atlantic Alliance and the transatlantic bond with the USA remain the foundation of Europe’s security. The European Union, on the other hand, can undertake various economic initiatives, simplify regulations and procedures, strengthen the capabilities of the European defense industry, facilitate the development and implementation of innovations, and establish financial mechanisms that will reinforce the collective security system. All this increases Europe’s contribution to NATO, but it will not replace the Alliance itself.

European states are expanding their armed forces to deter potential adversaries and prepare for a possible defense. For example, we are increasing our deep-strike capabilities. The Polish army is already capable of striking targets at a distance of 300 km, and the air force up to 1,000 km. Nevertheless, it is clear that in some respects the Alliance will inevitably have to rely on American capabilities.

Are we talking about nuclear weapons?

Not only that. Deterrence is an entire system of capabilities, both nuclear and conventional. I’m thinking, for example, of the F-35 aircraft, the most advanced in their class in the world. Some European countries already have this type of aircraft. Soon, they will also become the backbone of the Polish Air Force. Nevertheless, there is the question of scale, which is precisely why transatlantic relations are so important.

Meanwhile, NATO members have become more willing to form local coalitions and alliances. In 2014, the United Kingdom launched the Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF), a partnership with Scandinavian and Baltic nations, among others, that organizes military exercises in Northern Europe. Poland is strengthening its political and military ties with Sweden, Denmark. Isn’t this proof that we want to secure ourselves in case the Alliance proves unmanageable?

Absolutely not. Such coalitions have always been formed. They do not undermine NATO’s authority in any way. On the contrary, they can lead to its strengthening. They can alert the Alliance to specific threats and take the mechanisms developed within a given framework to a higher level. In this way, individual countries or groups of countries become, in a sense, translators.

Translators?

Yes. What I mean is that they identify threats earlier, understand them, explain them to other Alliance members, and reinforce the common message. In the context of the Russian threat, this role was and still is performed by Poland, together with the countries of our region. When I took up the position of Deputy Chief of Staff for Strategic Development and Planning at the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) in 2019, NATO was already undergoing profound changes, also in the area of operational planning. It was a time of developing guidelines for deterrence and defense of the Euro-Atlantic region. It was also then that space was recognized as the fifth operational domain. As the head of the Strategic Planning Directorate (J5), the Training and Exercises Directorate (J7), and force generation division, I was directly involved in all of these processes. My colleagues and superiors were very interested in Poland’s experiences on the eastern flank, in our perspective – which turned out to be completely different from the Western one. Back then, Poland was already being provoked and tested in various ways by the Russian Federation. It is therefore clear that the Alliance’s regional awareness translates into the security and decisions of the entire organization.

It seems that the West didn’t entirely believe in the Russian threat.

For a long time, Western decision-makers were convinced that it was possible to establish good relations with Russia on the basis of mutual ties and economic benefits. Their attitude was not affected by warning signs, such as Vladimir Putin’s 2007 speech, in which he clearly outlined the goals of Moscow’s policy, or the subsequent invasion of Georgia. It was only the annexation of Crimea and the war in eastern Ukraine that became a wake-up call for them. It was only then that NATO began preparing for the Russian threat. However, even a few weeks before the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, despite Russia’s clear ultimatum, some politicians still believed that the war could be stopped. Meanwhile, it has already been going on for over four years.

There is no doubt that it remains NATO’s most important point of reference.

It poses many challenges. Certainly, in such a situation, the most important thing is to remain united and coherent, but also to adopt a more proactive stance toward Russia. Leaders long debated whether taking any action to preempt the Kremlin’s moves would lead to an escalation. We waited for Putin’s next steps, and he had no scruples in crossing one red line after another.

That is currently changing. Regional defense plans are a good example. Although they remain defensive in nature, they do involve preemptive measures in certain respects. The situation is similar with the cognitive war Russia is waging against us. Social media in the West is flooded with disinformation. The Alliance not only wants to actively fight it, but is also exploring the possibilities of influencing the Russian society.

Another major challenge is certainly continuing the aid to Ukraine and combating the shadow fleet – an armada of old tankers that smuggle sanctioned oil, thereby fueling the Russian war machine. Sometimes, the crude is processed in refineries located within member states, and the ships pose a massive threat to the environment due to their old age and poor technical condition. Currently, new solutions are being developed and implemented step by step to stop this illegal process. The allies will certainly discuss all of this during the upcoming NATO summit in Ankara this July.

What are Poland’s expectations regarding the summit?

It is certainly our common interest as allies to continue collectively securing the eastern flank and to provide long-term, systemic support to Ukraine – nothing has changed in this regard. Poland holds a strong position within NATO. We are capable of ensuring our own security and providing support to other members. We are already allocating nearly 5% of our GDP to defense. In many respects, we are pioneers. I am referring to mechanisms associated with responding to Russian provocations, securing the POLLOGHUB logistics hub, and acting as a host nation: receiving, concentrating, and providing logistical support for allied forces on our territory. Another good example is the construction of the East Shield along with associated depots, warehouses, shelters, and barrier systems, as well as the preparation of minefields, expanding the network of sensors, and anti-drone capabilities. There are many more such examples.

Judging by what you are saying, it seems that the rumors about NATO’s demise are greatly exaggerated.

Definitely so, although we are witnessing a difficult time for NATO. The Alliance must now change and adapt to a new reality. It is a natural process and I have no doubt whatsoever that NATO will get through it. Moreover, once the changes are implemented, the Alliance has a chance – as shown by its history – to become an even stronger guarantor of Euro-Atlantic security.

LtGen Piotr Błazeusz

He is a Strategic Advisor to the Chief of the General Staff of the Polish Armed Forces. In the past, he served as First Deputy Chief of the General Staff of the Polish Armed Forces, Deputy Chief of Staff for Strategic Development and Planning at the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe. He was also the Deputy Polish Military Representative to NATO and EU Military Committees. He commanded the 15th Mechanized Brigade in Giżycko, as well as the 10th rotation of the Polish Contingent in Afghanistan as part of NATO’s ISAF. He served as the commander of Eurocorps.