General’s strategy

Lieutenant-General Wolf-Dieter Loeser, Commandant of the Rome-based NATO Defense College since March 2008, has every reason to be proud of his record. Having begun to serve in the Bundeswehr on July 1, 1968, at the 142nd Mechanized Infantry Battalion stationed in Coblenz, he was promoted brigadier general in 1998. In August 2003 Maj.-Gen. Loeser was appointed Deputy Commanding General of the Eurocorps in Strasbourg, took part in the operations of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan from August 2004 until February 2005, and served at the VI Mission Contingent as Deputy Commander Operations.

Last week the German general participated in the ninth International NATO Week at the National Defense Academy of Ukraine. Does the Europeanization of NATO put the North Atlantic Alliance at risk, as some said at a security conference in Munich? Are Ukrainian officers capable of leading NATO missions? What should be the new strategic concept of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization? This is the subject of an exclusive interview that Lt.-Gen. Loeser granted to The Day.

“WE MUST FOCUS ON THE JOINT FUNCTIONING OF NATO”

Sir, it is widely claimed on the eve of the NATO jubilee summit on April 3-4 this year that it is necessary to revise the strategic concept of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. What is your vision of the alliance’s new strategic concept?

“Indeed, the current strategic concept was adopted in 1999, i.e., before Sept. 11, 2001, when terrorists attacked the US. The situation with threats, risks, and challenges has radically changed since then. So it is only natural that a new strategic concept of NATO needs to be drawn up. The question is whether we need an entirely new strategic concept or whether we should develop the existing one.

“As President Sarkozy and Chancellor Merkel stated recently, NATO is the backbone of the Euro-Atlantic region’s defense and collective security. This means we should further develop the strategy and focus on the joint functioning of NATO, which, in turn, means collective defense. Besides, we should take into account new factors, such as the failed states, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the necessity of energy security, the consequences of climate change, and migration. All this should be taken into account.

“One must clearly understand in this respect that NATO is not only a military but also a political organization. This means that accession to NATO does not necessarily entail the use of military force. Article 4 of the Washington Treaty says that it is necessary to discuss problems in order to take up challenges. One more reason why we should map out a new strategic concept is the necessity of responding to future challenges when we have insufficient military resources for this. As we can see in Afghanistan and other countries, we need a comprehensive approach that includes, first of all, a combination of diplomatic means, economic aid, and military instruments to guarantee security in a region. Therefore, NATO should closely cooperate with other organizations, such as the EU and the UN, as well as with non-governmental organizations.”

What about cooperation with the Collective Security Treaty Organization “CSTO”? Should NATO cooperate with an organization where Russia holds sway?

“NATO must consider all the options in order to cooperate with the organizations that aim to support freedom and peace. And even if Russia is making proposals about a new architecture of security, aimed at estranging the US from Europe, this does not mean that we should not discuss this with Russians. But, naturally, NATO, as a Euro-Atlantic organization, regards the US as the main player.”

DEFENSE PLANS AND SHARING THE NATO BURDEN

Sir, some new NATO member states, especially the Baltic States and Poland, have been raising lately the question of defense “Responsibility for planning lies with the command of NATO military forces in Europe. It is this command that must draw up such plans.”

As is known, the alliance always has to deal with the problem of who will share the burden of foreign missions. Many think that the existing order is unfair. Can a fair solution to this problem be expected? How can this be done?

“Yes, this is always being debated. There are two problems. Firstly, there is the distribution of the financial burden inside NATO—according to the country’s size and troops contribution. My country, Germany, is one of the main contributors of funds. The other burden is about direct local involvement of troops. There is a general rule here: the expenses fall on the one who takes up the mission. If a country is sending its troops, it pays for them. And this is a problem.

“A debate is now underway in NATO on whether some missions, such as, for example, the deployment of helicopter units, should be funded jointly. There are also other ways to relieve the burden for some countries that not only make contributions but also send their troops to accomplish missions. But, as there are 26 countries in NATO, so there are 26 opinions. It is common knowledge that the alliance rests on the principle of consensus, but it is not always easy to reach it because member states are taking different stands and making different financial contributions. If a country has already made its financial contribution and is asked to pay something in addition, it will naturally disagree to this. Meanwhile, some other countries, which have made a lesser contribution, would like to support precisely this policy.”

The recent conference in Munich heard so many words about the Europeanization of NATO. Will this put the North Atlantic Alliance at risk and diminish its role?

“There could be a danger in the past that the European Union and NATO might be perceived as pursuing rivaling policies. But this never happened in reality. As President Nicolas Sarkozy of France and Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany stressed in a joint article on their vision of NATO, they see no rivalry between the alliance and the European Union. In their words, this is more of a complementary approach. The EU has better access to non-military resources and can thus render support to NATO. In some cases, as it was, for example, in Bosnia, the EU works on its own and does not need NATO’s support. There are circumstances when one of the organizations is taking a better approach to the accomplishment of a mission, but it is the case of complementing, not rivaling, each other.”

Do any concrete organizations of European security and defense really exist?

“Yes, such organizations do exist. They may become more viable when the Lisbon Treaty is approved. There is the EU Military Committee. We have an agreement known as ‘Berlin Plus,’ which means that under certain circumstances the EU can act without coordinating its actions with NATO.”

And is there an article in the Lisbon Treaty, which resembles Article 5 of the Washington Treaty?

“No, we do not have Article 5, but in the old Western European Union “WEU” there was a far stronger Article 5 than that of NATO. The WEU clearly stated that its member states must assist one another. Meanwhile, Article 5 of the Washington Treaty says that there is no automatic assistance. Naturally, in both cases the goal is to help the country that has suffered an aggression. But this is not done automatically. A specific decision is to be made with due account of the details of situation in every country.”

Can Ukraine become member of the Western European Union?

“The Western European Union no longer exists. It grew into the European Union. This is a fact. But there is a policy of joining the community, and it takes time and hard work to become a European Union member. One should also meet certain requirements, above all, in economy and politics.”

“IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT VALUES ARE BEING DISCUSSED AND IT IS EMPHASIZED THAT WE ARE COMING OUT FOR, NOT AGAINST, SOMETHING”

Sir, you took part in many peacekeeping operations. You apparently know that Ukraine is also a contributor to security and Ukrainian servicemen are taking part in almost all NATO-sponsored operations. You may have cooperated with Ukrainian peacekeepers. Could you assess the role of Ukraine in peacekeeping?

“I have been to Afghanistan and many other countries. I had no personal experience of serving with Ukrainian peacekepers. But, naturally, I have had contacts with Ukrainian officers. They are professionals well-suited to accomplish our missions. I have often heard positive comments on the performance of Ukrainian servicemen in a number of missions.”

And what do you think of the level of strategic thinking among Ukrainian officers, all the more so that since February 9 you have been taking part in the 9th International NATO Week in Kyiv and have had an opportunity to contact many of them at the National Defense Academy?

“In general, I am positively impressed with the openness and sincerity of Ukrainian officers. We can discuss any matters. I worked in many groups. I asked them questions, and they asked me in return. This was an open dialogue. And it is always a good signal, a good sign in society. Junior officers are not only talented but also bold enough to ask and discuss things with senior officers in a frank manner.”

Do you think Ukrainian officers are skilled enough to lead NATO missions?

“They have different living experience and different traditions. And you cannot overcome this within a few years, let alone weeks. Of course, there are differences. All this takes time. But Ukrainian officers are on the right track, as they were during the International NATO Week, when problems were discussed openly. It is very important that values are being discussed and it is emphasized that we are coming out for, not against, something. For many people are still sticking to the old pattern: two blocs, aggression on the part of them, and so on. This must be overcome. For this reason, this International NATO Week in Kyiv is very important. My impression is that National Academy officers are moving in the right direction.”

Can you assess the reforms in our armed forces and their preparedness to work with the military units of NATO member states?

“I am not an expert on the Armed Forces of Ukraine. What I saw at the National Academy is that officers are working hard to teach servicemen to be prepared for such cooperation. As potential leaders in the future, they are prepared to work together with NATO troops and, later, in NATO itself. It is too early to forecast Ukraine’s membership in the alliance, but let us see how the political situation develops. I cannot judge about the preparedness of all units. All I can say is that they are moving in the right direction”

“WE SHOULD LOOK ON RUSSIA AS A PARTNER RATHER THAN AN ENEMY”

Sir, your biographical reference says that you are fond of politics and modern history. You remember the August 2008 events in Georgia. The French president told the Munich conference that Russia is not a threat to Europe and NATO. He is a politician, of course. But do you, a person who has devoted all his lifetime to service in the army, think that the military, in this case NATO, should draw up a plan of defense against a likely Russian attack?

“Naturally, we must watch the situation and the circumstances and be prepared for anything. At the same time, I believe we should look on Russia as a partner rather than an enemy. The situation in Russia has been evolving in this very direction since the 1990s, except for what happened in Georgia. Yes, as far as Georgia is concerned, it was Russian aggression. But, taking into account all the challenges and risks that await us in the globalized world, we should say that they are much more serious, so we need Russia as a partner. We must carry out our policies together with Russia, if and when possible, but, at the same time, tell Russians in no uncertain terms that we do not approve of what they did in Georgia.”