For NATO, 2008 will be remembered for a number of events: first of all for the Bucharest summit, but also for the American presidential campaign which had a bearing on its activities, and finally for Russian activism.⁽¹⁾

The Bucharest Summit

The Bucharest summit aroused great interest amongst French observers, principally because of the new Sarkozy policy and the possibility of France returning to NATO’s integrated military structure. Neither a major nor a minor summit: yet one could observe a George Bush who had hardly any influence; a Vladimir Putin who has retained his influence; a Franco-German partnership surprisingly remoulded whilst everyone was talking about the disagreement between Mr Sarkozy and Mrs Merkel, and about the new Franco-British relationship; the European arguments which prevailed (Ukraine and Georgia, ballistic missile defence); and lastly, a number of successes.

Coming back to the issues, Afghanistan is revealing a great many things to the Americans. Firstly, that there is one thing worse than fighting a war with allies, and that is fighting it without them. Contrary to everything one reads, what the commanders on the ground most need is not more soldiers, but agronomists, veterinary surgeons, teachers, anthropologists, etc. All this forms part of the ongoing great strategic debate on the best way of mixing the various military and civil assets, the famous ‘comprehensive approach’. It is this which arouses renewed interest within the EU, because Europe provides economic aid, has anti-corruption assets, provides police and gendarmerie detachments, monitors elections, etc. As well as this, the concept of 1,500-man battlegroups appears to offer greater flexibility than the huge NATO Response Force machine (even if they have never been engaged on operations).