top of page


NATO Defence College, May 27, 2024

NATO Allies are in the process of a dramatic change to the Alliance’s force structure, which will see the NATO Response Force (NRF) replaced with a three tiered structure of Allied forces, to include an Allied Reaction Force (ARF), all of which is designed to better defend and deter. This new NATO Force Model faces a variety of challenges. To avoid the potential pitfalls and ensure the Alliance fulfils its own vision, NATO and its member nations ought to consider an array of mitigating steps, such as using snap exercises and inspection visits to ensure forces are indeed manned, trained and equipped, and emphasizing mass and capacity in Allied acquisition plans and capability targets.


Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, December 18, 2023

With the addition of Finland and soon Sweden into the NATO fold, nearly all of the Baltic Sea littoral states will be alliance members. This has prompted some observers to label the Baltic Sea a kind of “NATO lake.” This is unfortunate framing that implies the Baltic is NATO’s alone, that the Western alliance has little to worry about from a security perspective, or that the littoral states can lean back and rest in the warm embrace of Article 5 and the United States’ commitment to their security.

Baltic Sea as NATO Lake.jpg

Center for Strategic & International Studies, September 6, 2023

Russia’s war in Ukraine has triggered the worst security crisis facing Europe since the end of the Cold War. Assessing Russia’s performance in the war thus far, and how the Russian military is evolving as a result, is an important part of that effort. This report assesses changes in the Russian military threat to NATO over the short term (two to four years), and it provides analysis on how the United States and NATO might adapt their strategies, planning, and posture in response.

Agile and Adaptable cover_edited_edited_

Atlantic Council, July 10, 2023

The Defense Investment Pledge agreed to by NATO allies in 2014 is reaching its decade-long finish line. How can the United States and like-minded allies successfully negotiate higher targets? They might start by agreeing to portray NATO burden- and risk-sharing more accurately. Although some argue that inputs like defense spending tell us a lot about outputs like contributions to Alliance operations, recently available data indicate this is not necessarily the case. If burden- and risk-sharing could be portrayed more accurately, those opposed to increasing the input targets might be more willing to reconsider. Even if they do not, improving how NATO depicts burden- and risk-sharing would benefit lawmakers, analysts, academics, and the public.

We Don't Really Know Burden-Sharing cover.jpg

China, Europe, and the Pandemic Recession: Beijing’s Investments and Transatlantic Security (with Chris Alden, Erik Brattberg, Roger Cliff, Mark Duckenfield, Evan Ellis, Nicholas Nelson, and Lauren Speranza)

U.S. Army War College Press, May 4, 2022

This multi-author monograph examines the risks posed by Chinese investment in Europe. Beijing's predatory economic statecraft builds China's soft power, weakens allied geopolitical solidarity, & places both militarily relevant infrastructure and dual-use technology at risk. Is Europe prepared & able to parry Beijing’s efforts? In support of EUCOM & DHS, this study offers actionable policy recommendations for decision-makers on both sides of the Atlantic.

China Europe cover 2.jpg

U.S. Army War College Press, October 9, 2020

This monograph examines the 2014–18 iteration of the NDPP, which represented a stunning turnaround in transatlantic burden sharing. The analysis reveals a combination of factors—the changed threat environment, political pressure from Washington, and the role of “policy entrepreneurs” working within NATO—best explain the alliance’s success in achieving more equitable burden sharing. In addition to drawing key lessons from the 2014-18 NDPP, policy-makers will find this monograph particularly useful for its forward-leaning policy recommendations to strengthen and build upon NATO’s burden-sharing successes to date.

Security Threats cover.png

U.S. Army War College Press, August 25, 2017

The Department of Defense can achieve deterrence and assurance objectives more effectively and efficiently through a rebalancing of its force posture. The Army should reverse the trend of the last 2 decades and forward station additional heavy units in Europe and on the Korean Peninsula, while ending lengthy, heel-to-toe rotational noncombat deployments.

Rotational cover.png

U.S. Army War College Press, January 1, 2016

Military engagement and forward-based U.S. military forces offer decisionmakers effective and efficient mechanisms for maintaining American influence, deterring aggression, assuring allies, building tomorrow’s coalitions, managing the challenge of disorder in the security environment, mitigating the risk of a major interstate war, and facilitating U.S. and coalition operations should deterrence fail. Unfortunately, significant cuts to overseas permanent presence and continuing pockets of institutional bias against engagement as a force multiplier and readiness enhancer have combined to limit the leverage possible through these two policy tools.

Mil Engagement cover.png

U.S. Army War College Press, October 1, 2015

American security policy rests on a three-legged stool consisting of defense, diplomacy, and development. As President Obama implied in his May 2014 speech at West Point, the United States is in the midst of a resurgence of diplomacy and development, as it seeks to leverage diplomatic influence, foreign aid, and multilateral institutions to solve the most vexing international security challenges. However, the dramatic rebalance toward diplomacy and development over the last several years has largely has failed.

Rebalancing cover.png

U.S. Army War College Press, May 28, 2015

Russian aggression in 2014 caught U.S. policy and strategy off guard, forcing reactive measures and reevaluation of the U.S. approach toward Russia. Moscow employed nonlinear methodologies and operated just beneath traditional thresholds of conflict to take full advantage of U.S. and NATO policy and process limitations. In light of this strategic problem, the U.S. Army War College (USAWC), conducted a wargame that revealed four key considerations for future policy and strategy.

Cooperation to Competition cover.png

U.S. Army War College Press, June 1, 2014

The time has come for a reappraisal of the U.S. Army’s forward presence in East Asia, given the evolving strategic context and the extraordinarily high, recurring costs of deploying U.S. Army forces from the 50 states for increasingly important security cooperation activities across the Indo-Asia-Pacific theater. Without unduly harming America's commitment to deterrence on the Korean peninsula, a reconfigured Army forward presence could help to achieve U.S. objectives throughout the theater more effectively through more regular, longer-duration engagement with critical allies and partners, while reducing the recurring transportation costs associated with today’s practice of sending U.S.-based units to conduct most exercises and training events across the Indo-Asia-Pacific region. Certainly, there are some major challenges involved in reconfiguring the Army's forward presence, but these are not insurmountable. Furthermore, to avoid trying would severely limit the effectiveness and the efficiency of the Army’s contribution to broader U.S. national security goals.

Forward Presence Pacific cover.png

U.S. Army War College Press, October 1, 2013

In 2010, NATO decided to expand its ballistic missile defense program, in part because of the American offer to include its European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA) as the centerpiece of an expanded effort. For the Allies' part, few have actually contributed tangible ballistic missile defense assets, in terms of missile interceptors, radars or other sensors, or ballistic missile defense-related platforms. This is likely to have significant implications for the U.S. Army, which has an important but largely underappreciated role in NATO missile defense today. In particular, the Army is likely to face increased manpower demands, materiel requirements, and training needs in order to meet the demand signal created by the NATO ballistic missile defense program. Additionally, Army units involved directly in or in support of ballistic missile defense are likely to face a higher OPTEMPO than currently projected. Ultimately, this will exacerbate the perceived imbalance in transatlantic burden-sharing, particularly if the EPAA provides little, if any, benefit to the defense of U.S. territory, given Washington’s decision to cancel Phase 4 of that framework.

NATO Missile Defense cover.png

U.S. Army War College Press, October 1, 2012

In this monograph, Dr. John R. Deni explores the utility of forward presence in Europe, placing the recent decisions—and, in particular, the arguments against forward presence—in the context of a decades-long tradition on the part of many political leaders, scholars, and others to mistakenly tie the forward-basing of U.S. forces to more equal defense burden sharing across the entire North Atlantic alliance. In assessing whether and how forward presence still matters in terms of protecting U.S. interests and achieving U.S. objectives, Dr. Deni bridges the gap between academics and practitioners by grounding his analysis in political science theory while illuminating how forward-basing yields direct, tangible benefits in terms of military operational interoperability. Moreover, Dr. Deni’s monograph forms a critical datapoint in the ongoing dialogue regarding the future of American Landpower, particular in this age of austerity.

Forward Presence Europe cover.png
bottom of page