This is a historic shift for NATO. Multilateralism is weakening when great powers competition is re-emerging. China, as anticipated yesterday, was discussed as its growth offers opportunities but also raises concerns.
World is moving East, and that’s why in Madrid PM of 🇯🇵 🇰🇷 🇦🇺 and 🇳🇿 will also participate. On this, see ndc.nato.int/download/downl…
Technological acceleration is reshaping our lives, our societies, our economies and the world. NATO Allies want to preserve their tech superiority. I have written on this highlighting both our advantages direct.mit.edu/isec/article/4…
As well as the risks and opportunities. ndc.nato.int/download/downl… NATO has launched a set of important initiatives, like DIANA, which will attract further attention at the summit and in the years to come.
A third issue is climate change. Climate change affects our societies and our economies but also our security. Climate security has been high on the agenda for NATO for some time.
These three structural factors are likely going to make the work for NATO harder: this calls for difficult choices. Is climate change more important than China? Is partnering around the world more important than addressing by crises?
The two final issues are covid and the war in Ukraine. Covid reminded us that security has a broader meaning than military capabilities: in lockdown and social distancing, you cannot do mil training and exercises. Covid reminded us critical dependencies.
The war in Ukraine will receive additional attention. Yesterday’s news that NATO will increase its NRRF from 40 to 300k highlights where we are heading. Other issues like mil mobility, permanent deployments, air defenses and modernization are coming up.
Entry of 🇸🇪 and 🇫🇮 complement this complex picture: two democracies, bringing mil capabilities, in the northern part, but Allies must all agree. Nato of the future will have to balance different priorities, strike trade-offs and make difficult choices.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
From the beginning of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, I tried to explain that a peace would be much more demanding than a war. Now we have the first hints./1
Apparently, Donald Trump’s peace plan entails: freezing borders on current frontlines, no NATO for Ukraine and a European peacekeeping force to defend the demilitarized border between Ukraine and Russia./2
The challenge is not to achieve but to preserve the peace. For simplicity, let assume the front is 1.000 km & you need a brigade every 4km to defend it from further attacks. Let assume a notional brigade is made of 3k soldiers. (1000/4)x3000: It’s 750.000 deployed troops./3
Europe lags behind in both big and emerging tech. The typical explanations are that 1) we need more Europe 2) 🇺🇸 big tech trumps competition. None makes much sense. 🇮🇱 🇹🇼 🇰🇷 have emerging and big tech without EU-wide scale and emerging tech needs ecosystems not scale/1
In this report, @iep_bu looks at the figures: 🇪🇺 spends little on R&D, devotes its resources to fund existing tech, de facto subsidizing existing companies, and its research programs are questionably run. /2iep.unibocconi.eu/sites/default/…
It seems to me the problem is political, not economic or technological. Politicians are happy to fund inefficient R&D to win votes, bureaucrats are happy to manage ineffective R&D programs to have influence and companies are happy because they are subsidized/3
Seeing several comments claiming the failed attempt to kill former 🇺🇸 President Donald Trump would be staged, maybe it’s useful to clarify a few things.
1) terrorists always enjoy the advantage of striking where, when and how they want./1
The number of targets is thus possibly infinite while any country’s security forces have limited resources. 2) that the 🇺🇸 security services did a mistake — why did they not secure the roof? — is an ex post rationalization./2
Had the attacker tried to stab Trump, place a bomb, or crash a car against Trump’s vehicle the roof would have been irrelevant. 3) still, some may wonder: why did they not do it? Because security forces are organizations made of people, and people do mistakes/3
Su Marco Travaglio, stendiamo un velo pietoso. Probabilmente nel 1993 avrebbe ceduto la Sicilia alla mafia se le autobombe avessero fatto più vittime. La discussione sulla difesa europea, fatta da Magi, però, almeno così, non è del tutto corretta./1
1) in primo luogo bastava non comprare gas e petrolio dalla Russia, venderle armi e tecnologie, e non dare un sostengo militare così ridotto all’Ucraina pre-guerra. Tutti questi passi non richiedono gli Stati Uniti d’Europa: gli Europei hanno deciso in questa direzione/2
2) possibile che gli Stati Uniti d’Europa avrebbero agito diversamente su questi fronti? Forse si o forse no. Aggregare risorse non porta peró inevitabilmente a scelte strategiche coerenti o corrette: chiedere agli USA in Iraq./3
After NATO SecGen Stoltenberg claimed it may be necessary to lift some restrictions on the use of Western-provided weapons to strike targets within Russia’s territory/1
1)Sweden claimed, coherently with international law, Ukraine has the right to self-defense, i.e. strike military targets in Russia 2) France has signed an agreement to send military instructors to Ukraine 3) Poland claimed it’s ready to send troops to Ukraine/2
4) Polish Foreign Minister disclosed that the U.S. allegedly warned Russia that the use of nuclear weapons, even without casualties, would lead to targeted strikes destroying all Russian military capabilities in Ukraine 5) Belgium has donated its fleet of F-16 to Ukraine./3
Prof. Barbero, metodologia della ricerca sociale: bocciato; valutazione etica sulla sua ricerca: bocciato; competenza analitica nella sua ricerca: bocciato. Storia delle dottrine politiche: bocciato.
1) i fatti si giudicano dalle loro conseguenze, non dalle intenzioni ANCHE/1
e SOPRATTUTTO, perché da neurobiologia sappiamo che c’è estrema incertezza sulle origini delle scelte individuali. 2) anche assumendo le nobili aspirazioni del comunismo, non possiamo attribuirle ai suoi membri 3) in realtà l’ideologia comunista è profondamente violenta/2
Basta leggere Marx, Lenin o Gramsci per i quali in un modo o nell’altro la violenza è nexesaaaria e, nel caso di Marx, l’odio sociale verso i borghesi è analogo a quello dei nazisti per gli ebrei. Coincidenza: parte della borghesia tedesca era borghese./3