Preparing NATO for the Future – Operating in an Increasingly Contested Environment

References

• Biddle, S., and I. Oelrich. “Future Warfare in the Western Pacific: Chinese Antiaccess/Area Denial, U.S. AirSea Battle, and Command of the Commons in East Asia”. International Security 41, no. 1 (2016): 7–48.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bildik, M. “NATO military strength at the Aegean Sea and Montreux Convention”. Turkish Weekly, 16 February 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Brimley, S. “The Third Offset Strategy: Securing America’s Military-Technical Advantage”. Testimony before the House Armed Services Committee Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces, Washington DC, 2 December 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Bugajski, J., and P. Doran. Black Sea Imperatives, CEPA Strategic Report No. 3. Warsaw: Center for European Policy Analysis, November 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Colby, E. The Role of Nuclear Weapons in the U.S.-Russia Relationship, Task Force White Paper. Washington DC: Carnegie Endownment for International Peace, 26 February 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Colby, E., and J. Solomon. “Facing Russia: Conventional Defence and Deterrence in Europe”. Survival 57, no. 6 (2015).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Haas, M. Russia’s Military Reforms: Victory After Twenty Years of Failure, Clingendael Report No. 5. Wassenaar: Clingendael, November 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Deni, J. “NATO’s new trajectories after the Wales Summit”. Parameters 44, no. 3 (2014): 57–65.
   Google Scholar
• Frühling, S., and G. Lasconjarias. “NATO, A2/AD and the Kaliningrad Challenge”. Survival 58, no. 2 (2016): 95–116.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giles, K. Russia’s ‘New Tools for Confronting the West: Continuity and Innovation in Moscow’s Exercise of Power. Research Paper Russia and Eurasia Programme. London: Chatham House, March 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Gorenc, F. “USAFE-AFAFRICA Update”. Air & Space Conference and Technology Exposition, 15 September 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Grygiel, J. “Arming Our Allies: The Case for Offensive Capabilities”. Parameters 45, no. 3 (2015): 39–49.
   Google Scholar
• Grygiel, J., and A.W. Mitchell. “A Preclusive Strategy to Defend the NATO Frontier”. The American Interest, 2 December 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, D. Russia’s Approach to Conflict – Implications for NATO’s Defense and Deterrence, Research Paper No. 111. Rome: NATO Defence College, April 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Krepinevich, A. F. Jr. “The Pentagon’s Wasting Assets”. Foreign Affairs 88, no. 4 (2009).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krepinevich, A. F. Jr., B. Watts and R. Work. Meeting the Anti-Access and Area Denial Challenge. Washington DC: Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Kroenig, M. “Facing Reality: Getting NATO Ready for a New Cold War”. Survival 57, no. 1 (2015): 49–70.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lanoszka, A. “Russian Hybrid Warfare and Extended Deterrence in Eastern Europe”. International Affairs 92, no. 1 (2016): 175–95.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lanoszka, A., and M.E. Hunzeker. “Confronting the Anti-Access/Area Denial and Precision-Strike Challenge in the Baltic Region”. The RUSI Journal 161, no. 5 (2016): 12–18.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lasconjarias, G. The NRF: From a Key Driver of Transformation to a Laboratory of the Connected Forces Initiative, Research Paper 88. Rome: NATO Defence College, 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Lasconjarias, G., and A. Marrone. How to Respond to Anti-Access/Area Denial (A2/AD)? Towards a NATO Counter-A2/AD Strategy, NATO Defence College Conference Report 01/16. Rome: NATO Defence College, 2 March 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Mahnken, T.G. “Weapons: The Growth and Spread of the Precision-Strike Regime”. Daedalus 140, no. 3 (2011): 45–57.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mahnken, T.G. “China’s Anti Access Strategy in Historical and Technological Perspective”. Journal of Strategic Studies 34, no. 3 (2011): 299–323.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Majumdar, D. “Can America Crush Russia’s A2/AD ‘Bubbles’”. The National Interest, 29 June 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Martinage, R. Towards a New Offset Strategy: Exploiting U.S. Long-Term Advantages to Restore U.S. Global Power Projection Capability. Washington DC: Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, 27 October 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Mattelaer, A. The NATO Warsaw Summit: How to Strengthen Alliance Cohesion. Strategic Forum 296. Washington DC: Institute for National Strategic Studies, June 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Mitchell, A.W. “A Bold New Baltic Strategy for NATO”. The National Interest, 6 January 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Mitchell, A.W. “The Case for Deterrence by Denial”. The National Interest, 12 August 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Posen, B. “Command of the Commons: The Military Foundation of U.S. Hegemony”. International Security 28, no. 1 (2003): 5–46.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Richardson, J. “Deconstructing A2/AD”. The National Interest, 3 October 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Ruiz Palmer, D. Back to the Future? Russia’s hybrid warfare, revolutions in military affairs, and Cold War comparisons, Research Paper No. 120. Rome, NATO Defence College, October 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Shlapak, D. A., and M. W. Johnson. Reinforcing Deterrence on NATO’s Eastern Flank: Wargaming the Defense of the Baltics. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation, 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Simón, L. “Demystifying the A2/AD Buzz”. War on the Rocks, 4 January 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Simón, L. “The ‘Third’ US Offset Strategy and Europe’s ‘Anti-Access’ Challenge”. Journal of Strategic Studies 39, no. 3 (2016): 417–45.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simón, L. “Assessing NATO’s Eastern European Flank”. Parameters 44, no. 3 (2014): 67–79.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, J., and J. Hendrix. Assured Resolve: Testing Possible Challenges to Baltic Security. Washington DC: Center for a New American Security, 7 April 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Thomas, J. “‘Protraction’: a 21st century flavor of deterrence”. Small Wars Journal, 11 September 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Ulgen, S., and C. Kasapoglu. “ A Threat-Based Strategy for NATO’s Southern Flank”. Research Paper. Brussels: Carnegie Europe, 10 June 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Vershbow, A. “NATO Needs Strategy to Address Threats from the South and the East”. New Eastern Europe 14, no. 6 (8 November 2015).
   Google Scholar
• Watts, B. The Evolution of Precision Strike. Washington DC: Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Williams, M. NATO, Security and Risk Management: From Kosovo to Kandahar. New York, NY: Routledge, 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Yoshihara, T., and J. Holmes. Red Star Over the Pacific: China’s Rise and the Challenge to U.S. Maritime Strategy. Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 2010.
   Google Scholar