NATO was formed in 1949, in the aftermath of World War II, to ensure peace in Europe. Under article 5 of the treaty, an attack on one member nation is considered an attack on all – and therefore a military response is required. Since 2006, NATO countries have committed to spend a minimum of 2 percent of their GDP on the military – a promise most have not upheld.
Now there is a proposal to standardize military equipment across countries. The hope is that this will make battlefield coordination easier and simpler. In practice, however, it would lead to far more negative consequences – cancelled contracts, broken supplier relationships, and unhealthy national interdependencies – than they realize.
In this episode of Dial P, Kelly Barner reviews the classic dilemma presented by multi-stakeholder strategic sourcing projects and the unintended consequences they can have:
- You don’t get something for nothing… what would NATO have to trade to get military standardization?
- What are the geopolitical implications of causing over concentration in the global industrial military complex?
- How detrimental is it to this effort that so many of NATO’s members do not live up to their spending commitments?