The global security context needs to be interpreted and somehow modelled in order to better evaluate NATO\u2019s trajectory and prospects: the international system seems to be caracterized by a form of \u201caggressive multipolarity\u201d, as well as by a rather disorderly power competition across the spectrum. The US-China question has inevitably taken center stage, although the evolution of this bilateral relationship is far from clear at this stage. Russia is in many respects still a military superpower but a weak economic actor, a threat to European security but a partner in certain global challenges.<\/p>\n
On this backdrop, the EU is responding to the Covid-19 crisis in a more effective manner that many expected \u2013 although major challenges remain \u2013 and rigthly aspires to what it now explicitly defines as \u201cstrategic autonomy\u201d. There is indeed wide consensus across Europe on more strategic autonomy, which immediately brings the conversation to the EU-NATO relationship: this is a crucial requirement, but both the nature of the EU and resource constraints may stand in the way of a more constructive and balanced division of labour.<\/p>\n
Looking specifically at NATO\u2019s own evolution, in 2021 the Alliance\u2019s internal work will accelerate toward a new Strategic Concept. A significant component of the undergoing reflections toward that goal is technological innovation, which straddle the civilian-military divide in a complex \u201chybrid\u201d environment, from the cyber sector to space. Europe itself has become more aware of the importance of a cutting edge \u201cbit tech\u201d sector (currently dominated by US companies), wich in turn requires major common efforts and investments. Recent inroads made by China in this field are a wake up call for everybody. At the same time, a major challenge is to agree on a new framework for global cooperation and rule-making in emerging technologies: this cannot simply be transferred from the traditional arms control field but could try to emulate the methodology of landmark past agreements.<\/p>\n
Resilience \u2013 and the \u201cwhole of society\u201d approach, in light of the complex nature of XXI century risks and threats \u2013 \u00a0is another area where progress needs to be made by NATO, including communications networks, critical infrastructure, energy etc. Especially in these areas a close partnership with the EU is again necessary to maximize policy impact and rationalize resource allocation.<\/p>\n
An additional priority for the Alliance is a more effective approach to the MENA region and beyond toward the Sahel, which requires closer cooperation among NATO members, with a leading role for the Southern members but a full commitment by the entire Alliance. This is a fundamental component to address the fragility of the wider Middle East region, all the way to Afghanistan. It is a vast area that now directly connects, much more than in the recent past, Europe and Asia.<\/p>\n
The traditional \u201cSouthern flank\u201d is undergoing a genuine geopolitical transformation, as evidenced by the shifting alignments in the Eastern Mediterranean: in order to ensure NATO\u2019s continued coherence, the Allies also have to tackle the internal problems that have arisen especially between Greece and Turkey, through deconflicting mechanisms that are now being activated.<\/p>\n