The 75th North Atlantic Treaty Organization Summit convened earlier this summer among an ever rising tide of transatlantic crises that continue to push and stress the alliance in ways not experienced since the Cold War. Europe is in the third year of Russia’s full scale war on Ukraine, domestic political tensions are rising in the US, threats of hostilities are growing in the Balkans, and the NATO family of 32 countries settles further into an era of threatening action by Russia with direct support from China, North Korea, and Iran.
As Mark Rutte takes on the role of NATO Secretary General, he inherits these challenges and more, illustrating the importance of the alliance in its mission to maintain transatlantic security. And yet, these challenges are all overshadowed by one gap that NATO must make a priority in Rutte’s tenure: modernizing and enhancing the alliance’s approach to and capacity for reducing civilian harm during its military operations.
At first read, what I suggest may seem redundant as NATO has an established policy on reducing civilian harm in combat, and it is a strategic and moral need of the alliance’s goal of a safe and secure Europe. But NATO’s policy has not received the scrutiny and clear-eyed discussions necessary, nor has the policy been updated to reflect the harsh realities of large-scale combat operations seen in Ukraine.
Coming Conflicts
At the recent 2024 NATO Youth Summit event, outgoing NATO Secretary General Jens Stolltenberg noted the alliance can’t predict what the next conflict will look like, calling out the truth that not all conflicts are the same in scope or participants. Yet, based on the counter-ISIS conflicts in Syria and Iraq, the ongoing Russian war of aggression in Ukraine, and Israeli military operations in Gaza, we do know who the next victims and those under threat will be: civilian men, women and children.
For the past 20 years, much of the alliance’s thinking about protecting civilians and cultural heritage sites tended to focus on the smaller-scale conflicts of America’s launched Global War on Terror. But with the realities of strategic competition in full view in Europe and troubling concerns in Asia, alliance members are working to modernize their forces to defend themselves and defeat enemies in large-scale combat.
For the past 20 years, much of the alliance’s thinking about protecting civilians and cultural heritage sites tended to focus on the smaller-scale conflicts of America’s launched Global War on Terror.
So too should they update their thinking about how their weapons systems, soldiers, and planners will fight in communities and cities that are densely populated and where intelligence assets and quality information about the battlefield are likely to be obscured or not trustworthy. An environment where they will be operationally and strategically forced to both prevent civilian harm actions by the alliance’s enemies and accidental civilian harm from their member forces.
Hard Questions
With Finland and Sweden’s full ascension to membership, the alliance now has several members aligned with a Total Defense security model that encompasses whole-of-society and whole-of-government approaches. This model which is inherently inclusive, aims to protect a country’s safety and sovereignty through the combined government and society efforts, involving all sectors relevant to national security, including the private sector, civil society organizations, and local governments — not just the military or security services — in preparing for and responding to armed threats from neighbors or natural disasters, while also not degrading freedoms of the population.
While this makes Europe stronger with entire societies prepared in some capacity to mobilize and fight for their sovereignty, it could also provide Russia with ample rationale to target civilians and their communities more readily, as the lines between military and civilians blur. Administrative, cultural, and religious sites, which are likely to become rallying points for civil defense groups and civilians during times of crisis or invasion, could be portrayed by Russia as justifiable targets whether truly militarized or not.
With interest in Total Defense, encoding security throughout all major aspects of life beyond formalized defense apparatuses, increasing across the continent, as evidenced by it being the featured topic at this year’s Helsinki Security Forum, it is highly likely that more alliance members will adopt a more comprehensive security approach that integrates both civilian and military aspects. Further strengthening the continent, while also opening it to hard questions about applying civilian harm practices that were thought of during stability operations in the Middle East or the smaller-scale beginnings of Russia’s war on Ukraine and not large-scale conflicts.
Increased Threats
Given the increased threats from Russia and the risks of war spreading beyond Ukraine’s borders, alliance member militaries will likely be asked to engage in conflicts unlike any they have experienced in their modern histories. They will need to account for civilian harm from collateral damage while facing intense barrages from enemy forces, and the effects of engagements will also impact nearby civilians.
Additionally, they will need to manage mobilized citizenry who could be mistakenly identified, more so than in previous military operations, due to a degraded information environment caused by Russian information warfare. Coordination challenges between national security forces protecting their country’s sovereignty and alliance members arriving and fighting in support will further complicate this scenario.
There is also a realistic expectation that Russian security forces will deliberately harm civilians, as they have done in Ukraine, Georgia, and Chechnya. The 2021 update to NATO’s “Policy for the Protection of Civilians” is a good start to updating for the modern era.
Major Change Needed
Yet, that policy is too focused on soft suggestions for increased more thought and encouraging NATO partners to include civilian protection in training, as appropriate‘ rather than mandating it further large-scale conflict erupting in Europe, and new members with new security models that blend whole-of-society and whole-of-government in their defense, requires urgent thinking and implementation of major change, not suggestions for when feasible.
Rutte is well-known for his pragmatic style and while he is inheriting a multitude of challenges as he begins his tenure this fall, it’s vital that he and NATO prioritize updating the alliance’s standards on reducing civilian harm. This should be addressed through doctrine, training, and integrating this challenge into all aspects of the alliance’s work today and not for the future. As Rutte recently noted, the alliance is the cornerstone of European security. Protecting Europe’s civilians at all costs must be the highest priority.
