By Muhammad Alaraby

Shortly before the 75th NATO summit took place in Washington DC in July 2024, "Politico" ran a feature report highlighting 12 figures to watch during the event. Among these political and military luminaries was Benedetta Berti, a young researcher heading NATO's policy planning unit. Berti's rich academic and policy background, specializing in the MENA region's security and its complex landscape of non-state actors, had prepared her well for this role.

As the architect of the alliance's long-term strategy, Berti played a crucial role in shaping the 2022 strategic concept. Under her guidance, NATO broadened its priorities to encompass defense innovation, engagement with the Indo-Pacific region, and addressing the challenges posed by China.

In this interview, FARAS engaged Berti in a conversation about the rationale behind NATO's grand strategy, her perspectives on strategic planning, and her insights on preparing for future conflicts, among other pressing issues.

As the person responsible for developing the strategic concept of the alliance, you face a complex geopolitical landscape. Against the backdrop of global transformation and the ongoing contest between NATO and its adversaries, particularly Russia and China, as well as developments in the Middle East and Ukraine, how do you envision the elements of this grand strategy? Is its primary aim to restore the alliance's deterrence capability, which was shaken by Russia's invasion of Ukraine, or does it extend beyond to expand the alliance's influence and reach?

I would say that the 2022 strategic concept provides an assessment of how the alliance perceives the world, describing the current security environment as the most complex and unpredictable in generations. Since the end of the Cold War, NATO primarily focused on how threats and challenges from outside the Euro-Atlantic area could affect our security. We essentially believed that the Euro-Atlantic area itself was a space of peace and stability, allowing us to concentrate on other issues.

However, this assessment began to shift in 2014 with Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea. Russia's use of force to alter borders in 21st century Europe triggered a profound reflection within NATO. The alliance realized it could no longer take the territorial defense of Europe for granted, necessitating a renewed focus on strength and credibility against potential threats to the security and stability of our allies.

Over the past decade, NATO has worked to operationalize the understanding that the Euro-Atlantic area is not at peace, rebuilding and reinforcing our collective defense. This adaptation has focused on developing stronger forces, capabilities, and postures to deter and defend against any threat to Allies. The reset of our collective deterrence and defense posture has been a driving principle for NATO's adaptation, which is also reflected in the strategic concept.

The strategic concept acknowledges our global and interconnected world, recognizing that while focusing on deterrence and defense of the Euro-Atlantic area is necessary, it's not sufficient to ensure security. Consequently, NATO has two additional core tasks: (1) contributing to stability through crisis prevention and management, and (2) investing in cooperative security by collaborating with partners to address shared security challenges.

The direction of travel in the strategic concept involves refocusing and rebuilding the ability to ensure Europe's territorial defense, strengthening deterrence and defense after decades. However, it also acknowledges the world's complexity and interconnectedness, emphasizing the need to work with others, address asymmetric threats and challenges, and manage a broader set of non-kinetic, non-military security challenges.

Staying within the realm of strategic concepts, as someone responsible for planning, how do you ensure adherence to a specific mechanism outlined in the strategic concept? This question is particularly relevant given the common discrepancies between planners and those required to execute plans. Moreover, how can you guarantee that state members and various parts of the organization, as actors, align with and follow this strategic concept and its associated mechanism?

Right, the strategic concept serves as essential guidance for all NATO allies. Negotiated and agreed upon collectively, it reflects their shared understanding of the current security environment, identifying main threats and challenges. Based on this assessment, it outlines NATO's focus on three core tasks: deterrence and defense, crisis prevention and management, and cooperative security.

This grand strategy, as you aptly described it, requires translation into concrete actions. On the military side, it informs the development of military plans and operational requirements. Politically, it shapes follow-on strategies and policies. The work, however, is ongoing. For over 70 years, NATO has renewed its strategic concept approximately every decade. Yet, even after adopting a new concept, the alliance continues its adaptation work.

Since 2022, significant adaptations have been made, and this process will persist. The goal is to ensure alignment between our stated political priorities and our actual actions. This constant effort to match words with deeds forms the cornerstone of the alliance's work.

During my visit to NATO’s headquarters last year, I found that the alliance is more interested in, let's say, non-traditional threats or a non-traditional sense of security. For example, they're focusing on climate change and how to adapt the military organization to it, along with other aspects of non-traditional security. However, this approach requires more resources. NATO now has a role in mitigating climate change, in addition to addressing traditional threats of interstate wars and other non-traditional forms of insecurity. So, the question arises: how do you adjust to ensure you have enough resources to handle all these responsibilities for a military alliance?

Yes, this is crucial because we live in an exceptionally complex world. We face an unprecedented number of challenges, some traditional and military in nature, which we're already equipped to handle. However, newer, nonmilitary challenges require investment in civilian planning and resilience of critical infrastructure, among other areas. These issues aren't all traditional NATO concerns.

Nevertheless, if we ignore them—take climate change, for instance—we'll be less effective in carrying out our core mission of ensuring the security of allies. We need to examine these nontraditional issues through that lens: how do they affect our ability to provide for the security of allies? If they do have an impact, we must consider how to mitigate, address, and respond to them.

As you rightly pointed out, we cannot tackle everything ourselves. This is why working with partners is so crucial. For example, regarding the impact of climate change on security, NATO focuses on adapting our armed forces to be resilient and effective in a changing climate. However, we also need to collaborate with partners—other countries, the European Union—to leverage each other's assets and competencies. We simply cannot do it all alone.

Speaking of the alliance's future and perceptions thereof, let's consider the evolving nature of warfare. As a scholar and planner, how do you envision the future of war? Furthermore, how might NATO, currently the world's strongest military alliance, adapt to the potential changes in warfare and conflict dynamics in the coming years?

Indeed, that's a very interesting question. The answer is multifaceted, considering the shift in the global balance of power within a world of strategic competition. As a result, we observe increased contestation in areas such as geoeconomics, disinformation, and hybrid attacks. When contemplating future warfare, it's crucial to recognize that competition and contestation will increasingly occur below the threshold of armed conflict, involving non-kinetic tools. These tools include disinformation, cyber threats, hybrid warfare, and economic coercion, necessitating our preparedness and resilience to address these challenges. Unfortunately, warfare in the more traditional sense will persist, underscoring the importance of maintaining readiness for such scenarios as well.

There are many lessons we are drawing from Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine. One crucial lesson is the importance of having the ability to produce and provide equipment at scale and speed. This capability is particularly significant because, in Europe, our defense industry had become somewhat less effective over the last decades. Therefore, increasing production capacity is vital for future warfare.

Another critical issue is innovation and how maintaining a technological edge provides important advantages on the battlefield. However, looking at Ukraine, we're learning that technological superiority is not something that is ever assured. The speed of innovation is such that retaining that edge requires constant adaptation and integration of new technologies, which is very challenging.

Consequently, the ability to retain technological edge, procure and field new equipment, and integrate new and emerging technologies into armed forces will be key in determining who has the best advantages on the battlefield in future warfare. In essence, we're learning a great deal about what it takes to be effective in modern military operations.

Speaking of learning from the Russian ambition in Ukraine and the ongoing war there, a related question arises: Have you made any assessment of NATO interventions in Afghanistan and Libya? These cases also involved NATO as a main actor in military operations. If you'd like to answer briefly, how do you view these interventions in comparison?

NATO, as a political military alliance, maintains a constant process of lessons identified and learned, much like most militaries. This process involves examining all activities and operations, assessing what went right and what didn't, understanding why certain things didn't go as planned, and adapting to avoid repeating mistakes.

One example of this learning process is NATO's increased focus on crisis prevention. Drawing from experiences in expeditionary operations, NATO has recognized the crucial importance of working with, by, and through partners. The alliance now emphasizes empowering these partners to tackle security challenges within their own countries. As a result, NATO's current approach centers on building capacity, providing training, and collaborating closely with partners. This shift in strategy has been largely shaped by experiences from past decades.

In one of your lectures, you mentioned that Ukraine's success is crucial for securing NATO and European security, particularly given Ukraine's position as Russia's immediate neighbor. However, considering the need for security, how do you envision the end state of this war? Furthermore, what would constitute a victory or prevalence for Ukraine in this conflict?

Right, when it comes to definitions of victory, I'm very keen to emphasize that it is ultimately up to Ukraine to define their end state. They're the ones fighting and defending their country, so they need to clearly articulate what it would take for them to prevail in this conflict.

As NATO, we have outlined several important points. Firstly, we believe that the future stability of Europe relies heavily on having an independent, sovereign, and democratic Ukraine. For Ukraine to prevail as a sovereign, independent country is essential to rebuilding stability and peace in the Euro-Atlantic area.

Additionally, we have serious concerns about the lessons other authoritarian actors might draw if Putin were to succeed in Ukraine. For instance, what would actors in Beijing learn about the use of force? Therefore, it's crucial that Ukraine is able to exercise its right to self-defense and maintain its status as a sovereign, independent country.

You mentioned Beijing, China, and the strategic concept that China is attempting to undermine or exploit the weakening of the rule-based international order. NATO has a role in ensuring this does not occur. However, do you believe this might be overextending the task, mission, and mandate of NATO as a military alliance primarily focused on Europe and the Western Hemisphere?

NATO's approach to the Indo-Pacific region requires clarification: the alliance is not considering establishing a military presence there. Rather, the discussion centers on recognizing the systemic challenges posed by the People's Republic of China's international behavior, its support for Russia's aggression against Ukraine, and its hybrid activities targeting allies in the Euro-Atlantic area.

Practically, NATO's response involves several key initiatives. First, we are working to increase our shared understanding and convergence in addressing the China challenge. Secondly, we are focusing on enhancing our resilience against hybrid threats, particularly in critical infrastructure, energy grids, and societal systems. Additionally, we're strengthening partnerships with Indo-Pacific nations like Australia, Japan, the Republic of Korea, and New Zealand to address shared challenges that transcend geographical boundaries, such as cyber and hybrid threats.

Our perspective on the China challenge is not about altering NATO's mandate or expanding its military footprint. Instead, it focuses on understanding and mitigating the impacts of China's actions on Euro-Atlantic security. Ultimately, this approach aligns with our core mandate of ensuring the security of allies in the Euro-Atlantic area.

With the situation intensifying in Lebanon, Gaza, Palestine, and the expanding war in Israel and now Iran, there's concern about a potential resurgence of extremist groups and terrorism, including ISIS. Given that this is occurring on NATO's southern flank, how do you prepare for such a challenge?

First and foremost, I would emphasize that NATO considers the southern neighborhoods, encompassing the Middle East, North Africa, and Sahel regions, to be of strategic importance. Stability and security in these areas are crucial for Euro-Atlantic peace and stability, highlighting the interconnected nature of global security. Instability or conflict in the MENA region inevitably impacts NATO members, which is why we've intensified our focus and efforts in recent years to collaborate more effectively with our partners in the southern neighborhood.

Through the Mediterranean Dialogue and the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative, NATO has established an extensive network of partners in the Middle East and North Africa. Our engagement with these partners has deepened, primarily through political dialogue and, more significantly, through practical cooperation. A key aspect of this cooperation centers on countering terrorism.

One concrete example of this commitment is NATO's training and advisory mission in Iraq. We work alongside various components of the Iraqi government to bolster their efforts in maintaining national security, with a particular focus on preventing terrorist groups like ISIS from gaining influence and power.

NATO is acutely aware of the importance of supporting partners in their counter-terrorism efforts. Simultaneously, we serve as a platform for coordination and information sharing among allies. The past year has witnessed a significant escalation in the Middle East, and we recognize that any further escalation would exacerbate existing security challenges. Consequently, we are closely monitoring the situation and will continue to work with our partners to address these complex issues.

As a planner, you face a challenging question: how do you think of the unthinkable? Considering your role, how do you approach the unthinkable in various contexts - be it security, war, or other significant challenges?

Thinking about the unthinkable, such as black swans or scenarios that would disrupt our thinking, is very important. It's uncomfortable for governmental bureaucracies, yet increasingly crucial in a world where predicting the future is both more challenging and more critical than ever. We approach this systematically by identifying the main issues, threats, challenges, and areas of interest to the alliance. For each of these, we methodically examine potential disruptions that could alter the course of events, incorporating these worst-case scenarios into our planning. This approach is particularly vital in security and defense, where readiness for the worst is always necessary.

We also try to think about what I would call uncomfortable futures - issues that are becoming increasingly obvious but remain politically challenging. This is why governments employ policy planning and foresight experts; their job is to focus on these difficult political realities that are inevitably approaching, prompting us to initiate the necessary thinking.

We approach this task both systematically within our organization and by engaging with external experts. From my perspective, it's very important that we conduct this process systematically and regularly, making it a constant part of our planning culture rather than an intermittent exercise.

Moreover, we maintain intellectual honesty by reporting the world as we see it, even when it doesn't align with our preferred scenario. Importantly, as we consider worst-case scenarios, we're careful not to overlook potential opportunities. We recognize that as the world becomes more complex, it presents both challenges and opportunities. It's vital that we never miss these opportunities, so we make a concerted effort to identify them alongside the challenges.