Many nations.

Many strategies.

Shared defence.

Discover how NATO and the EU make it work.

img src

This fourth and concluding Fireside Chat in the RMCSD National Security Strategy series shifts the perspective from how states develop national strategies to how alliances make them function together.

After examining the internal playbooks of individual allies, this session turns to the institutions responsible for turning many national approaches into a single, credible framework for collective defence. The discussion will feature Andrzej Fałkowski, former Polish Military Representative to the NATO and European Council Military Committees, alongside additional NATO and EU presenters to be announced. Together, they will focus on the processes, systems, and structures that allow divergent national defence policies to be reconciled, aligned, and operationalized at the alliance level.

For a Canadian audience, this discussion offers valuable insight into the internal dynamics of the EU and its functional relationship with NATO, illuminating how unity is achieved without uniformity—and why process is as central to deterrence and defence as strategy itself.

Thursday, 29 January 2026
1200 hours (Mountain) via Zoom
(1100 PST / 1400 EST / 2000 CET / 2100 EET)

Watch Video

Video Highlights

How do NATO and the European Union actually make defence decisions — and why is coordination between them sometimes difficult, even when many of the same countries sit at both tables?

In this Beyond National Playbooks fireside chat, two senior practitioners take us inside the black box of allied decision-making at the highest levels of European and transatlantic security.

Drawing on experience inside both the NATO and the European Union systems, the discussion explores:

• How national security strategies flow from capitals into NATO and EU institutions
• Why consensus decision-making both stabilizes alliances and slows action
• The structural differences between NATO’s collective defence role and the EU’s security and crisis-management functions
• Where NATO–EU cooperation works in practice — and where it still struggles
• How events since 2014 exposed institutional blind spots, particularly regarding Ukraine
• Why alignment among allies requires constant effort, not assumptions

The conversation also examines:

• Article 3, 4, and 5 of the NATO Treaty
• EU Article 42.7 and the ambiguity around “armed attack” vs. “armed aggression”
• Hybrid threats, cyber operations, and actions below the threshold of war
• Defence planning, capability targets, and burden-sharing
• The growing importance of military mobility and logistics across Europe

This is not a theoretical discussion. It is a candid, experience-based examination of how allied defence actually functions — with all its friction, bureaucracy, and necessity.

Chapters

Presentation

00:00 — Welcome & series context
Overview of the Beyond National Playbooks series and how this session reverses the recent focus by examining what happens after national strategies are written.

01:42 — Inside the “black box” of allied decision-making
Introducing the focus on NATO and EU institutions and why their internal processes matter for collective defence.

02:18 — Experience across NATO and EU military committees
Andy reflects on serving inside both NATO and EU structures and the perspective this provides.

03:54 — Ideal roles vs. reality: UN, EU, and NATO
Why political, economic, and military responsibilities are deeply intertwined in practice.

06:50 — Decision-making architecture in NATO and the EU
How authority flows from capitals to committees, and where key political–military decisions are shaped.

08:48 — Consensus decision-making explained
Why NATO decisions require unanimity — and what that means in practice.

13:33 — Strengths and limits of consensus
How consensus stabilizes alliances but can slow action in crises.

16:07 — Political vs. military authority in NATO and the EU
Comparing how civilian control and military advice function in each system.

19:19 — NATO defence planning and capability targets
How capability requirements are set, allocated, implemented, and reviewed.

27:10 — NATO–EU cooperation in practice
Where coordination works at staff level — and where political friction still complicates alignment.

30:09 — 2014 as a turning point
Why Russia’s actions in Ukraine exposed institutional blind spots, particularly within the EU system.

34:43 — PESCO and military mobility
What Permanent Structured Cooperation is designed to do — and what it cannot.

41:25 — Legal thresholds for collective defence
Article 5 (NATO) vs. Article 42.7 (EU): armed attack, armed aggression, and ambiguity by design.

48:34 — Key takeaways from the speakers
Future rebalancing within NATO, the EU’s role, and why bureaucratic systems endure despite frustration.

Audience Q&A

52:02 — Q&A begins

52:22 — How quickly could NATO respond to an attack on the Baltic states?
Concerns about timelines, readiness, and whether fears of delayed response are realistic.

56:02 — What is being done to reduce risk and strengthen deterrence?
Capability targets, military planning, and closing known gaps.

01:02:47 — Is there overlap between NATO and EU roles — and is that a problem?
Discussion of “single set of forces,” duplication, and why overlap may be preferable to neglect.

01:08:13 — Hybrid attacks, aviation incidents, and acts below the threshold of war
How alliances interpret cyber incidents, sabotage, and ambiguous hostile actions.

01:17:59 — Is Russia a paper tiger — or a long-term threat?
Perspectives from Poland and the Netherlands on deterrence, preparedness, and strategic patience.

01:26:19 — Do EU military headquarters and multinational formations still matter?
Interoperability, training, and the limits of standing multinational commands.

01:30:21 — At what point does restraint become appeasement?
Ethical, political, and strategic limits of diplomacy in the face of aggression.

Closing

01:33:11 — Closing reflections & what comes next
Wrapping up the series and previewing the next discussion on vital national interests and the rule of law.