NATO AFTER 2014 BACK TO THE ROOTS OR FORWARD TOWARDS THE FUTURE?
NATO PO LETU 2014 NAZAJ H KORENINAM ALI NAPREJ V PRIHODNOST?

UROŠ LAMPRET, STAŠA NOVAK
2014 CONTEMPORARY MILITARY CHALLENGES  
In spite of the question and the possibility of a simplified understanding, the title "Back to the Roots or Forward towards the Future?" is not necessary a dilemma regarding the future development of the Alliance. Back and forward is not about two directions, but more about the need to combine the lessons learned, while strengthening the bonds that have been underpinning NATO throughout its history, and reinforcing the strong core of the Alliance with the mechanisms that are going to provide
more » ... going to provide the necessary protection against the full spectrum of threats. Threats that are known, the ones we can predict and those that cannot yet be foreseen. The key word for the latter is flexibility. With this in mind, we can clearly recognise the farsighted nature of the 2010 Strategic Concept, which remains the guiding document for the Alliance for the future years despite the turmoil in Eastern Europe and Middle East and the related increased perception of threat felt by some Allies. Going back to the roots means ensuring a credible preparedness for collective defence, while going toward the future signifies the importance of being able to use the capabilities for defence against the whole spectrum of threats, and perform other core tasks of the Alliance. There is no need for the revolution to ensure the credibility of the Alliance, but there is a 'simple' demand to fulfil the commitments given in the past regarding the provision of capabilities. This has been a challenge for many Allies, and their slowness has had negative implications for the Alliance's credibility. In light of this, the Russian-Ukrainian dynamics can also be an opportunity for the national defence systems to convince the political elites that defence matters and that there are costs associated with it. Naslov kljub vprašaju in možnosti poenostavljenega razumevanja ne predstavlja nujno dileme o prihodnosti razvoja zavezništva. Nazaj in naprej ne pomenita dveh smeri, temveč bolj združevanje naučenih lekcij in poudarjanje veznega tkiva, ki je Nato skozi zgodovino ohranjalo tako močno, ter opremljanje tega zdravega jedra z mehanizmi, ki nas bodo še naprej ščitili pred celotnim spektrom groženj. Pred tistimi, ki jih poznamo, tistimi, ki jih lahko predvidevamo, ter nekako tudi pred tistimi, ki jih ne moremo predvideti. Pri slednjih je ključna beseda fleksibilnost. V takšnem prikazu lahko prepoznamo daljnovidnost zavezniškega koncepta iz leta 2010, ki kljub pretresom v Vzhodni Evropi in na Bližnjem vzhodu ter s tem povezanim povečanim občutkom ogroženosti v nekaterih zaveznicah ostaja temeljni smerokaz organizaciji tudi za prihodnja leta. Vračanje h koreninam pomeni zagotavljanje prepričljive pripravljenosti na kolektivno obrambo, usmeritev v prihodnost pa možnost uporabe zmogljivosti za obrambo pred spektrom različnih groženj in izvajanje drugih temeljnih nalog zavezništva. Za zagotavljanje verodostojnosti organizacije ni nujna revolucija, temveč preprosta izpolnitev preteklih zavez za zagotavljanje zmogljivosti. Prav s tem so imele članice veliko težav in ravno njihova počasnost je negativno vplivala na zavezniško verodostojnost. S tega vidika je lahko rusko-ukrajinska dinamika samo priložnost za obrambne sisteme, da opozorijo politične elite na pomen obrambe in dejstvo, da ta stane.
doi:10.33179//bsv.99.svi.11.cmc.16.3.1 fatcat:2t5ropdj6ncjzplrskvthzj35i