Following the NATO Summit in July, several of the Atlantic Council’s experts analyzed NATO’s Vilnius communiqué, assessing the document based on five criteria. While the document’s shortcomings on the question of Ukraine’s membership were well-documented upon its release, our reviewers dug deep into the ninety-paragraph document to assess its groundbreaking regional defense plans, how it cast an eye toward the Indo-Pacific, and more. They also weighed in on the communiqué’s holes and missteps. Here are the full assessments.

Ryan Arick

Assistant director, Transatlantic Security Initiative

The NATO Vilnius summit proved to be an important showcase for transatlantic unity. The Alliance was clear on the urgency of responding to the threat from Russia while demonstrating support for Ukraine and taking steps toward realizing Ukraine’s future in NATO. In my view, while there are certainly challenges with the communiqué’s implementation, the ninety-paragraph document successfully provides critical guidance and clear principles that will lead NATO into the next year, when the Alliance celebrates its seventy-fifth anniversary at the next summit in Washington.

Distinctiveness

Is there a clear theme, concept, or label that distinguishes this communiqué from previous communiqués and strategies?

Not surprisingly, the key theme of the Vilnius communiqué revolves around transatlantic unity, especially in the face of Russia’s illegal war in Ukraine and the broader challenge to the Euro-Atlantic community. In the first paragraph of the communiqué, NATO reaffirms the enduring transatlantic bond and solidarity in the Alliance. This theme holds true throughout the document, in which leaders strongly condemn Russia’s violations of international law, declare the Alliance’s unwavering solidarity with Ukraine, and acknowledge the challenge posed to NATO’s security from the People’s Republic of China (PRC). 

These declarations are a step forward for the Alliance in reaffirming NATO’s Strategic Concept and moving beyond last year’s communiqué, which furthered the Alliance’s mission to protect the Euro-Atlantic community. The theme is clear: NATO is a united alliance and Russia poses the most significant and direct threat to transatlantic security. 

Sound strategic context

Does the communiqué accurately portray the current strategic context and security environment facing NATO? Is the communiqué predicated on any specious assumptions?

The communiqué zeroes in on Russia at the center of the current context and security environment facing NATO. A substantial portion of the document focuses on denouncing Russia’s aggression in Ukraine, including human rights abuses, war crimes, and violations of international law. It was critical for NATO to recognize Russia’s egregious actions by name, including the forced deportation of children from eastern Ukraine, the destruction of civilian infrastructure, and sexual violence. The communiqué rightly turns its attention to Ukraine and accurately depicts the constantly evolving environment facing NATO’s eastern flank. 

The communiqué also recognizes the strategic context beyond the war in Europe. NATO leaders acknowledged the strategic importance of the Indo-Pacific region as inherently linked to Euro-Atlantic security. I hope to see NATO expand its cooperation with these allies in the Indo-Pacific region in the coming term.

In addition, NATO rightly designates hybrid warfare as a threat—not just from Russia, but from the PRC as well. The recognition of political interference in democratic institutions, economic and energy coercion, information influence activities, and cyberwarfare extends NATO’s focus beyond conventional warfare and distinguishes the multi-dimensional threat to NATO’s collective security.

Forward looking

Does the communiqué lay out key goals for the next year? Are goals forward looking and appropriately balanced between the acute threat emanating from Russia’s aggression today and other long-term challenges on the horizon for NATO?

The communiqué provides an extensive list of key goals for NATO. Whether they are attainable in the next year is a different story. While many of the objectives outlined in the communiqué will take time to complete, NATO struck a proper balance prioritizing the urgent threats of today and leaning into tomorrow’s challenges. 

At the top of the list of priorities is Ukraine. In Vilnius, NATO upgraded relations with Ukraine to a NATO-Ukraine Council and removed the requirement for Ukraine to go through a Membership Action Plan to join the Alliance. NATO also reaffirmed the organization’s provision of the Comprehensive Assistance Package and agreed to further the program into a multi-year effort. While language could have been stronger on declaring a specific timeline for Ukraine to join the Alliance, NATO still clearly defined that Ukraine’s future is in NATO.

NATO also recognized that the new security threats posed to the Alliance since members agreed to the Defense Investment Pledge in 2014 necessitate a revisiting of defense spending and capability developments. To that end, NATO enumerated a new commitment that allies will need to invest a minimum of 2 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) on defense expenditures. While it may take time for many allies to reach these targets, these goals will better equip the Alliance. 

Other goals are more long term and recognize the direction by which the Alliance needs to develop preparedness. These goals include prioritizing greater cooperation with regional partners, modernizing military capabilities, prioritizing defense production, advancing interoperability across domains, and bolstering resilience in critical infrastructure. 

Priorities and clear lines of effort

Does the communiqué establish a clear set of priorities, or does it present a laundry list of activities? Does the communiqué outline major lines of effort for achieving its enumerated objectives?

While the communiqué outlines an extensive list of priorities for the Alliance to take on in the coming term, prioritization will remain the greatest issue for many challenges, especially in striking the proper balance and focus between today’s threats and future challenges. I worry about how the Alliance will focus its implementation efforts to address the communiqué’s goals and priorities over the next year, especially as it relates to defense spending and enhancing resilience. 

The communiqué lacks specificity with respect to how the Alliance can achieve the outlined goals and activities, requiring additional action and proper coordination. However, NATO leaders have distinguished a coherent and definitive set of priorities. 

Realistic implementation guidelines

Is it feasible to implement this communiqué? Are there resources available to sustain it? Are the key goals attainable over the next year in the lead up to the 2024 NATO summit in Washington, DC?

In 2024, NATO will enter its seventy-fifth year as an organization committed to safeguarding transatlantic security, freedom, and democracy. This communiqué serves as a guiding principle for the Alliance and adequately sets the stage for a historic gathering at next year’s NATO summit. Resources for implementing these goals will certainly prove to be a challenge. 

In addition, many NATO member states will hold elections in 2024, including the United States, which will test the strength of transatlantic unity and solidarity witnessed in Vilnius. However, many of the goals and priorities enumerated in the Vilnius summit communiqué are attainable in the coming term, so long as NATO allies maintain a sense of urgency, political will, and transatlantic unity needed to deliver on these important commitments.

Joslyn Brodfuehrer

Assistant director, Transatlantic Security Initiative

Amid continued war on the European continent, allied heads of state and government came together on NATO’s eastern frontier for what proved to be a historic summit. All eyes were on what and how much the Alliance would offer Ukraine as it fights for democratic norms and values in the face of Russia’s onslaught. Although NATO did not deliver everything Ukraine had hoped for, the summit and communiqué it produced should not be dismissed as unsuccessful. The Alliance welcomed Finland and prepared for Sweden’s accession, adopted what Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg called “the most comprehensive defense plans since the end of the Cold War,” and committed to defense investment—all while maintaining a forward-looking approach that addressed challenges on the horizon with the same unprecedented unity and urgency. What will happen next remains to be seen, but what is clear is the criticality of NATO’s ability to sustain this momentum in the months leading up to next year’s summit. Vladimir Putin,  Xi Jinping, and their band of aspiring autocrats will be watching.

Distinctiveness

Is there a clear theme, concept, or label that distinguishes this communiqué from previous communiqués and strategies?

The full-scale invasion of Ukraine altered the Euro-Atlantic security environment, bringing a more aggressive Russia closer to NATO’s doorstep and in direct confrontation with the rule of law, human rights standards, and democratic values that bind it. 

For the second year in a row, the NATO summit took place against this backdrop—only this year, NATO leaders gathered on the Alliance’s eastern flank. Flexing its muscles just twenty miles from the border of Belarus, NATO set the stage for an equally distinct and proportionately bold communiqué that revolved around the “enduring transatlantic bond, unity, cohesion, and solidarity” of the Alliance at a moment of unprecedented uncertainty. The unity enumerated in the first paragraph of the communiqué is the central line that guides the document, as NATO leaders reaffirm their “unwavering solidarity” with Ukraine and react to emerging challenges posed by a PRC employing tools to “subvert the rules-based international order” in concert and without hesitation. While the backdrop and themes of unity persist from the last wartime summit, what makes this communiqué distinct is the robust diction and conditions underlying its release.

Unity conveyed throughout the communiqué was, however, clouded by the Alliance’s inability to deliver a concrete path to NATO membership for Ukraine that would have moved the needle beyond what was promised in Bucharest in 2008. This critical misstep undermines the otherwise sound foundation of unity upon which the document was constructed. As NATO prepares for next year’s summit, allies’ ability to make progress on Ukraine’s membership will be critical.

Sound strategic context

Does the communiqué accurately portray the current strategic context and security environment facing NATO? Is the communiqué predicated on any specious assumptions?

The Alliance’s ninety-paragraph communiqué is illustrative of the complexity of the contested security environment it faces. With war raging in Ukraine, it is unsurprising that the document proclaims Russia to be “the most significant and direct threat to Allies’ security.” Russia’s blatant disregard for Ukraine’s territorial integrity, attack on critical infrastructure, and war crimes underpin this assessment. The document also acknowledges Russia’s nuclear modernization, military build-up in the Baltic Sea, and integration with fellow autocrat-in-arms Alyaksandr Lukashenka in Belarus to illustrate the depth and hydra-like quality of the Russian threat confronting NATO allies.

Although NATO is a transatlantic alliance, the challenges it faces are multidimensional in nature and emanate from many sources. Situated within the communiqué were references to the asymmetric threat posed by terrorism, “irresponsible behavior” of adversaries in the space domain, and hybrid threats such as malign influence activities in the information space. Perhaps what was most exciting to see was the dedication of four paragraphs to the challenges presented by Xi’s China. Collective recognition of the China challenge is illustrative of the continued alignment between the United States and its European allies and reflects a significant shift in NATO’s recognition of its role beyond the confines of the Euro-Atlantic area. 

When assembled, the communiqué’s ninety puzzle pieces create a comprehensive picture of NATO’s security environment. The document, however, is built upon the assumption that the Alliance is adequately equipped to address each constituent piece of its threat environment—which could prove erroneous without proper resourcing and prioritization among allies.

Forward looking

Does the communiqué lay out key goals for the next year? Are goals forward looking and appropriately balanced between the acute threat emanating from Russia’s aggression today and other long-term challenges on the horizon for NATO?

Commensurate with the expanded scope of challenges facing the transatlantic community, the communiqué puts forth an ambitious list of goals for NATO’s pursuit in the lead-up to the Washington summit and into the long term. Defeating the Russian threat—via support for Ukraine and a renewed commitment to bolstering defense and deterrence “at the heart of the Alliance”—was preeminent among other goals. To enhance the Alliance’s force posture, NATO leaders adopted robust regional defense plans, updated the Defense Investment Pledge, and accelerated efforts to build effective military mobility. The commitment to strengthening NATO’s collective defense was complemented by a substantial package of support for Ukraine, including establishment of the NATO-Ukraine Council. Although a concrete path to membership was missing, allies did away with the requirement for a Membership Action Plan and affirmed that “Ukraine’s future is in NATO.” 

Enumerated priorities in response to the threat emanating from Russia were balanced against forward-looking goals intended to build capabilities and readiness in response to long-term challenges on the horizon—reflective of the 360-degree approach agreed upon last year in Madrid. Chief among these was a commitment to bolstering resilience, countering hybrid tools that could be used by malign actors to strike below the threshold of war, deepening cooperation with Pacific partners to combat China’s growing footprint, and addressing the multiplying effects of climate change. Perhaps most strikingly, the document recognizes the urgency of digitalization to drive the long-term transformation needed for the Alliance to prevail on the battlefields of tomorrow. 

NATO’s resolve to “prevail against any aggressor and defend every inch of Allied territory” could not be clearer but obstacles may emerge when allies are faced with investing time and capabilities to address forward-looking goals amid more acute threats knocking at NATO’s door.

Priorities and clear lines of effort

Does the communiqué establish a clear set of priorities, or does it present a laundry list of activities? Does the communiqué outline major lines of effort for achieving its enumerated objectives?

The communiqué’s comprehensive set of goals form a blueprint for how NATO can defeat the threats of today while preparing for challenges on the horizon. Although the document’s breadth captures the complexity of NATO’s strategic environment, it makes it difficult to distill priorities. 

As NATO allies and partners gear up for Washington, they must grapple with how to operationalize the 360-degree approach guiding NATO’s responses across theaters and against all threats and challenges. Clear lines of effort emerge—including preparations to welcome Sweden, implementation of the new regional defense plans and Defence Production Action Plan, efforts to develop key emerging technologies, and delivery of support for Ukraine—but the communiqué lacks precision and fails to provide tangible steps to guide NATO’s pursuit of its enumerated aims. A dearth of priorities and an uncoordinated approach to tackling the communiqué’s goals sets the stage for an Alliance frozen in the face of not knowing where to start or how to achieve the strategic successes needed to prevail over emboldened adversaries. 

Realistic implementation guidelines

Is it feasible to implement this communiqué? Are there resources available to sustain it? Are the key goals attainable over the next year in the lead up to the 2024 NATO summit in Washington, DC?

Despite NATO leaders’ best efforts to produce a communiqué capable of guiding the Alliance’s response to its evolving security environment, real questions surround the feasibility of its implementation. The updated Defense Investment Pledge’s inclusion of member states’ commitment to investing at least 2 percent of their GDP annually on defense is a step in the right direction. In theory, collective commitment to scale defense investment will help the Alliance to resource its new defense plans and finance NATO operations, but I would be surprised to see an Alliance that has long struggled for members to meet the 2 percent mark surpass it overnight. Should NATO be able to secure buy-in from national authorities, the Vilnius communiqué will lay the groundwork for success at next year’s landmark summit in Washington. 

Successfully bridging the gap between summits will require NATO allies to strike a balance between making progress on attainable goals such as officially welcoming Sweden and implementing new defense plans to ready the Alliance to prevail on battlefields of the future. Finding success in Washington is predicated on NATO leaders’ ability to both deliver on the communiqué’s key goals and build upon the unity that they brought to Vilnius. 

Giedrimas Jeglinskas

Nonresident senior fellow, Transatlantic Security Initiative; former assistant secretary general for executive management, NATO

Distinctiveness

Is there a clear theme, concept, or label that distinguishes this communiqué from previous communiqués and strategies?

While Vilnius was a historic summit due to a number of decisions taken, the language in the communiqué remains as always short of ambition and, naturally, reflects the challenge of reaching consensus among the thirty-one allies. Thus, while I understand the difficulty of agreeing on all the wording, to call the communiqué distinct would be to a step too far.

Sound strategic context

Does the communiqué accurately portray the current strategic context and security environment facing NATO? Is the communiqué predicated on any specious assumptions?

Yes, the strategic context, which also must be agreed by all, is defined clearly and does not leave doubt on the threat that the North Atlantic area is facing. I loved the expanded text on the Russian threat and inclusion of Belarus in the context. Devoting three paragraphs to the PRC is also a significant move forward in the Asia-Pacific threat assessment, while also realizing that security is a global phenomenon. The geographic scope of the communiqué is incredibly wide, signifying that for NATO to be an effective defense and deterrence organization, it has to take a global view of the challenges. Equally crucial is the breadth of issues discussed—from climate to women, peace, and security; from cyber to space to technologies to resilience. In fact, the paper is so broad that it is often hard to distill what is the priority in terms of actions.

Forward looking

Does the communiqué lay out key goals for the next year? Are goals forward looking and appropriately balanced between the acute threat emanating from Russia’s aggression today and other long-term challenges on the horizon for NATO?

Sure, there are many actions in the communiqué that NATO says it will do collectively and will encourage allies to deliver individually. That is a good thing. But anyone who has dealt with NATO will attest that when push comes to shove, nations need to commit the necessary resources to accomplish all those promises. The most concrete of these is an updated Defense Investment Pledge rewording the commitment to reach 2 percent of GDP for defense into a floor. Yet it remains only a guideline (like most decisions at NATO), and it will be up to national authorities to commit the needed resources.

Priorities and clear lines of effort

Does the communiqué establish a clear set of priorities, or does it present a laundry list of activities? Does the communiqué outline major lines of effort for achieving its enumerated objectives?

There are many priorities, yet the clarity is lacking. When there are too many priorities, none of them is a priority. Priorities need to be prioritized too.

Realistic implementation guidelines

Is it feasible to implement this communiqué? Are there resources available to sustain it? Are the key goals attainable over the next year in the lead up to the 2024 NATO summit in Washington, DC?

Well, immediately post-Vilnius, we have heard voices expressing optimism that now big decisions (Ukraine etc.) will have to be taken in DC. Again, that is more of the same. At the end of the day, it’s the nations that will have to make hard decisions on defense spending, on implementing resilience guidelines, on setting up more meetings and collaboration activities with partner nations, etc.

In summary, the Vilnius summit was a successful meeting. While not strongly distinct from previous summits in terms of deliveries and big decisions, the communiqué clearly points to one trend—the domain of security is ever expanding, and it is clearly seen that while the military part is crucial, the breadth of issues NATO has to deal with is growing every year. The war in Ukraine has demonstrated that “weaponization of everything” is real, hence NATO too must look at threats increasingly through a wider lens than ever before. I expect this lens to continue to widen in the future.

John Manza

Nonresident senior fellow, Transatlantic Security Initiative; former assistant secretary general for operations, NATO

Distinctiveness

Is there a clear theme, concept, or label that distinguishes this communiqué from previous communiqués and strategies?

The clear theme is the defense of democracy and the rules-based international order in the face of threats by Russia and China. Russia is called out in the starkest terms as the nation that “shattered” the peace in Europe. While the language on China is less severe, the allies do not shy away from language that describes Beijing’s “coercive policies” and the threat that the PRC poses to the rules-based international order.

Sound strategic context

Does the communiqué accurately portray the current strategic context and security environment facing NATO? Is the communiqué predicated on any specious assumptions?

Allies have more accurately described the security environment in this communiqué than they have in past efforts. The descriptions of Russian military activities, extending from the High North down to the Mediterranean Sea, and the warning of increased cooperation with Belarus provide an unusually blunt assessment of the threats to Euro-Atlantic security.

Forward looking

Does the communiqué lay out key goals for the next year? Are goals forward looking and appropriately balanced between the acute threat emanating from Russia’s aggression today and other long-term challenges on the horizon for NATO?

The communiqué provides grand plans for the improvement of allied defenses through the approval of the regional defense plans and an increase in defense production. In the past, such plans have fallen short, when the bill comes due. I will remain skeptical until I see funding approved by parliaments to cover the costs and the implementation of realistic readiness actions by the Alliance’s armed forces.

Priorities and clear lines of effort

Does the communiqué establish a clear set of priorities, or does it present a laundry list of activities? Does the communiqué outline major lines of effort for achieving its enumerated objectives?

As in the past, this communiqué devolves, from the establishment of clear goals in the first paragraphs, to a laundry list of previously attempted actions. Cooperation with the European Union, the African Union, and the Gulf Cooperation Council have appeared in communiqué after communiqué, with little impact. Considering the broad interests of thirty-one allies, however, such laundry lists are to be expected.

Realistic implementation guidelines

Is it feasible to implement this communiqué? Are there resources available to sustain it? Are the key goals attainable over the next year in the lead up to the 2024 NATO summit in Washington, DC?

The communiqué is stronger than those of the past decades and clearly reflects the unity that has been rediscovered in the wake of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. However, the chances of meaningful implementation are slim. My hesitancy stems from the gap that lurks between what allies say they will do in a charged political setting, like a summit, and what they will do when the dust settles and the bills come due. It’s all talk until the allies put the required resources into hard military readiness.

Valbona Zeneli

Nonresident senior fellow, Europe Center; chair of strategic engagements, George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies

The Vilnius summit was one of the most important, productive, and consequential in NATO’s history. It primarily focused on collective defense in meeting today’s challenges, including a war in Europe. Further, it continued and accelerated the adaptation of the Alliance while enlarging NATO, deepening Asia-Pacific partnerships, investing in capabilities, and agreeing on future challenges. The most important outcome of the summit is the adoption of the supreme allied commander Europe’s (SACEUR) regional plans, the most ambitious military plans for the defense of Europe since the Cold War that give credibility to NATO’s primary core mission of defense and deterrence. The most tangible deliverable was the consensus for the ratification of accession protocols for Sweden, which is important for the political unity and credibility of the Alliance. When it comes to Ukraine’s aspiration to join the Alliance, despite the lack of a detailed pathway for membership, the Vilnius summit was the moment when a true consensus emerged that Ukraine will be part of NATO when “conditions” are met, like in no other case before in NATO’s enlargement history.

Distinctiveness

Is there a clear theme, concept, or label that distinguishes this communiqué from previous communiqués and strategies?

Yes, “resolve” is the label. All communiqués are by their nature comprehensive; however, this one is unique in that it laid out a blueprint for how NATO will meet the rapidly developing challenges of today and tomorrow and told a compelling story to its one billion citizens that these are things we must do. The Vilnius summit had a solid agenda citing a wide range of fundamental issues for the future of the Alliance that were clearly expressed in the communiqué. Allies delivered by understanding the fundamentals of the new geostrategic reality, including the evolution of NATO’s strategy toward China, and approving a package of clear, definable, and achievable ambitions. The distinctiveness of this communiqué is the message of unity and cohesion of the Alliance and fundamentally the resolve of NATO’s members to rise to the challenge.

Sound strategic context

Does the communiqué accurately portray the current strategic context and security environment facing NATO? Is the communiqué predicated on any specious assumptions?

Yes, the communiqué accurately portrays today’s reality, and while assumptions that allies will actually deliver on their commitments are implied, these assumptions are not specious given the improvements almost all allies have made since the 2014 Wales summit. The communiqué does a very good job in describing the current security environment, reiterating the stipulations of the 2022 NATO Strategic Concept that Russia is “the most significant and direct threat to allies security and to peace and stability in the Euro-Atlantic area.” It also uses more direct language in asserting that the PRC’s “stated ambitions and coercive policies challenge our interests, security and values,” while the Alliance remains open to “constructive engagement” with the PRC for building reciprocal transparency. In addition, the document called out “the deepening strategic partnership between the PRC and Russia.” That allies agreed to this language at this level is noteworthy.

Forward looking

Does the communiqué lay out key goals for the next year? Are goals forward looking and appropriately balanced between the acute threat emanating from Russia’s aggression today and other long-term challenges on the horizon for NATO?

Yes. The communiqué addresses long-term challenges related to the global commons, such as protecting undersea infrastructure, including the agreement to establish NATO’s Maritime Centre for the Security of Critical Undersea Infrastructure within NATO’s Maritime Command. It also discusses cyberspace and hybrid threats to democratic systems and critical infrastructure, energy security, and the Arctic. The communiqué cites the need for the Alliance to adopt and integrate new and disruptive technologies to maintain its technological edge and describes the work that NATO’s Defence Innovation Accelerator for the North Atlantic has launched to develop the transatlantic innovation ecosystem, and the NATO Innovation Fund. One must recall that in NATO the actual implementation timelines and processes for advancing summit conclusions are classified. In that context, the tasking to NATO and the allies is clear in the communiqué.

Priorities and clear lines of effort

Does the communiqué establish a clear set of priorities, or does it present a laundry list of activities? Does the communiqué outline major lines of effort for achieving its enumerated objectives?

For the first time in more than thirty years NATO has an objective plans-based statement of requirements. The agreed plans drive the organization forward. A classified comparison of tasks and shortfalls by SACEUR will provide the necessary priorities, lines of effort, and milestones. This is why one of the most important and tangible outcomes of the NATO summit was the agreement to take measures to “enhance NATO’s deterrence and defense posture in all domains, including strengthening forward defenses,” putting in place a new generation of detailed regional defense plans that represent a new chapter in NATO’s collective defense.

These plans will serve as a roadmap for the military modernization of the Alliance. However, the adoption of the plans is the first step. What is important for the future is how allies will implement the capability targets, resource their defense forces, and follow up on modernization.

Another major line of effort is the endorsement of a Defense Production Action Plan to promote sustainable defense industrial capacity. What is most needed is the clear commitment of allies to dedicating resources to defense industry for production and modernization efforts and overcoming industrial protectionism in their domestic markets.

Realistic implementation guidelines

Is it feasible to implement this communiqué? Are there resources available to sustain it? Are the key goals attainable over the next year in the lead up to the 2024 NATO summit in Washington, DC?

The communiqué is visionary in that it is intended to drive the organization and allies forward, to challenge them to do better, and to achieve more, but it is also realistic and its aims are attainable. This statement gives the heads of state and government a political lever to prod their parliaments to action. This is why the adoption of NATO’s three regional defense plans is the most important commitment of the Vilnius summit because it constitutes a structural change in NATO’s approach to collective defense that will require funding for implementation and domestic politicians need to muster the political will to invest and modernize their armed forces in line with NATO’s requirements and demands. Yes, it is feasible.

---

The Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security works to develop sustainable, nonpartisan strategies to address the most important security challenges facing the United States and its allies and partners.

The Transatlantic Security Initiative, in the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, shapes and influences the debate on the greatest security challenges facing the North Atlantic Alliance and its key partners.

Further reading