A Nato defence plan

SIR – Listening to our politicians discussing defence spending, one has heard very little mention of Nato, which is the foundation on which the defence of western Europe is built.

During the Cold War, the 12 original Nato countries assigned forces to a unified command, with which the Nato planning staffs, under the command of the Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR), made their plans to defend western Europe against an attack by the Warsaw Pact countries. If the planners felt that they had insufficient forces available to meet the threat, member nations were asked to assign more, until a viable defence could be planned and practised. This, combined with the nuclear deterrent, enabled us to win the Cold War without a shot being fired.

After the collapse of the Warsaw Pact, much of the Nato Command Structure was closed down and Nato operated on an ad-hoc basis. If, as many believe, Russia’s attack on Ukraine marks the start of a second Cold War and Nato is, once again, to be the foundation on which the defence of its now 32 countries is built, is it not time to re-establish a viable unified command structure?

To make an overall plan, each Nato country must provide commanders and staff officers to the new HQS and assign their fair share of forces to Nato.

Apart from the military advantages of a unified command structure, this course has two political advantages. First, if the SACEUR, who is a US general, tells the president of the US that he has a viable plan for the defence of western Europe, in which each Nato country is playing its part, the president would be highly unlikely to withdraw his support. Secondly, if any member, including the US, decided to leave the Nato Command Structure, the plan could be adjusted without losing credibility.

Only when the cost of our commitment to Nato is added to our other worldwide commitments can the percentage of GDP required for defence be established.

Colonel Dion Beard (retd) Sunningdale, Berkshire