This paper explores potential future reforms of the NATO command structure. The intent is to stimulate thought on the current structure's fit to oversee the forces and operations of a growing array of NATO missions. From capacity building with partners to peace operations, humanitarian assistance, and combat operations, Alliance forces are continuously engaged in multiple theaters. These challenges demand a command structure with organizational flexibility, an agile and competent international staff, highly integrated information systems, and deployable elements to accompany mobile forces for sustained periods of time. The context of the next reform of the command structure is a combination of its history, including earlier reforms, and its current and anticipated future operations. This paper discusses how to think about command structure reform in all its facets. It is a mission-based analysis that assesses the roles of component and joint commands, of ACO and ACT. It offers illustrative options for the future and indicates which of these might better meet NATO's future requirement in terms of being minimally viable and capable of carrying out core missions.

This paper explores potential future reforms of the NATO command structure. The intent is to stimulate thought on the current structure's fit to oversee the forces and operations of a growing array of NATO missions. From capacity building with partners to peace operations, humanitarian assistance, and combat operations, Alliance forces are continuously engaged in multiple theaters. These challenges demand a command structure with organizational flexibility, an agile and competent international staff, highly integrated information systems, and deployable elements to accompany mobile forces for sustained periods of time. The command structure and the interoperable communications and information systems that support it are the sinews that tie together the national and multinational forces of NATO and its partners. They also serve to link those forces to the political direction and decisions of the North Atlantic Council (NAC).

This paper explores potential future reforms of the NATO command structure. The intent is to stimulate thought on the current structure's fit to oversee the forces and operations of a growing array of NATO missions. From capacity building with partners to peace operations, humanitarian assistance, and combat operations, Alliance forces are continuously engaged in multiple theaters. These challenges demand a command structure with organizational flexibility, an agile and competent international staff, highly integrated information systems, and deployable elements to accompany mobile forces for sustained periods of time. The context of the next reform of the command structure is a combination of its history, including earlier reforms, and its current and anticipated future operations. This paper discusses how to think about command structure reform in all its facets. It is a mission-based analysis that assesses the roles of component and joint commands, of ACO and ACT. It offers illustrative options for the future and indicates which of these might better meet NATO's future requirement in terms of being minimally viable and capable of carrying out core missions.

A series of essays on the changes in command and control (C&C) and the reorganization of a reduced NATO force structure at the end of the Cold War. Topics addressed include: reorganizing NATO C&C structures; the NATO CJTF C&C concept; command authorities and multinationality in NATO; Canadian forces in Europe; France's military command structures in the 1990s; centralizing German operational C&C structures; Italy's command structure; Portugal's defense structures and NATO; present and future command structure: a Danish view; and NATO restructuring and enlargement. Charts and maps.

At the EU's Helsinki summit in 1999, European leaders took a decisive step toward the development of a new Common European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP) aimed at giving the EU a stronger role in international affairs backed by a credible military force. This report analyzes the processes leading to the ESDP by examining why and how this new European consensus came about. It touches upon the controversies and challenges that still lie ahead. What are the national interests and driving forces behind it, and what steps need to be taken to realize Europe's ambitions to achieve a workable European crisis mgmt. capability?

Airpower remains the cornerstone of NATO’s military advantage, so maintaining the ability to win air superiority over peer opponents in a conflict is key to long-term deterrence stability in both Europe and the Pacific. This Whitehall Paper examines the various modernisation and future capability development efforts being undertaken within NATO, and analyses the major threat systems and overall modernisation trends of the West’s main peer-competitors – Russia and China. US airpower capability development efforts are increasingly focused on countering the growing challenge from the Chinese military in the Pacific. To meet this challenge, the Pentagon is planning to transform the way it operates across all domains over the next 15 years. New platforms, weapons systems and increasing automation of command and control threaten to leave NATO allies behind. Current acquisition and modernisation plans of European air forces may eventually close the capability gap with current US theatre entry standard capabilities, but by then the US will have leapt ahead once more. Furthermore, many of the airpower capabilities which the US is pursuing for the Pacific theatre are significantly less relevant for the demands of deterrence against Russia in Europe. Given continuing dependence on US enablers on the part of other NATO members, a significant divergence in capability plans threatens to undermine crucial Alliance interoperability if not recognised and managed early.