Skip Navigation

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has made the decision to expand its membership. The alliance has not chosen which nations to admit and thus has not estimated the costs of expansion. The public debate, however, has centered around admitting Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Hungary. This Congressional Budget Office (CBO) paper, prepared at the request of the House Committee on International Relations, examines hypothetical options to defend those four nations if they were admitted to the alliance and estimates the cost of undertaking each option.

CBO was aided in formulating the options for expansion by a framework developed by Richard Kugler of RAND. CBO also used information from the U.S. military services, U.S. military commands, the Office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, former war planners, independent defense experts, and federally funded defense think tanks. In keeping with the Congressional Budget Office's mandate to provide objective analysis, this paper makes no recommendations.

Ivan Eland of CBO's National Security Division wrote the paper under the general supervision of Cindy Williams and R. William Thomas. Jeannette Van Winkle of CBO's Budget Analysis Division provided the cost analysis. Frances Lussier and Lane Pierrot provided analytical assistance, Nathan Stacy ensured that the report was factually correct. Frank A. Tapparo of the Logistics Management Institute reviewed the paper's assumptions, options, and content. However, responsibility for the study remains with the Congressional Budget Office.

Paul L. Houts edited the paper, Christian Spoor provided editorial assistance, and Judith Cromwell prepared it for publication.
 

June E. O'Neill
Director
March 1996
 
 

SUMMARY

I - INTRODUCTION

II - VIEWING THE FUTURE OF NATO

• NATO's Mission Has Ended: Terminate the Alliance
• Without a Resurgent Russia, Retain NATO in Its Present Form
• Expand NATO, but Slowly
• Expand NATO More Quickly
• Expand NATO Widely and Include Russia
• Analyzing Military Options for Expansion

III - THE BASIC OPTION TO ENHANCE THE SECURITY OF THE VISEGRAD STATES

• Option I: Strengthen Visegrad Defense Forces and Provide for NATO Reinforcement
• Conclusion

IV - OPTIONS TO FURTHER ENHANCE THE SECURITY OF THE VISEGRAD STATES

• Option II: Project NATO Air Power East to Defend the Visegrad States
• Option III: Project Power Eastward with Ground Forces Based in Germany
• Option IV: Move Stocks of Prepositioned Equipment East
• Option V: Station a Limited Number of Forces Forward

APPENDIXES

A - Expanding NATO Beyond the Visegrad States
B - Analyzing the Security Situation in the Visegrad States: Terrain, Geography, and Armed Forces
 

TABLES
S-1.	Military Options to Expand the NATO Alliance and Their Costs
1.	Distribution of Expenses for Expanding NATO
2.	Summary of the Costs for the 1996-2010 Period to Carry Out Option I: Enhance Visegrad Defense Forces and Facilitate NATO Supplemental Reinforcement
3.	Upgrading Older Weapons and Buying New Ones: Projected Needs of the Visegrad Nations
4.	Summary of the Costs for the 1996-2010 Period to Carry Out Option II: Project NATO Air Power East
5.	Summary of the Costs for the 1996-2010 Period to Carry Out Option III: Project Power Eastward with Ground Forces in Germany
6.	Summary of the Costs for the 1996-2010 Period to Carry Out Option IV: Move Stocks of Prepositioned Equipment East
7.	Summary of the Costs for the 1996-2010 Period to Carry Out Option V: Station a Limited Number of Forces Forward
B-1.	Security Situation of Poland
B-2.	Security Situation of the Czech Republic
B-3.	Security Situation of Slovakia
B-4.	Security Situation of Hungary
B-5.	Comparing the Size of Visegrad Armed Forces and Defense Budgets
FIGURES
S-l.	Map of Central and Eastern Europe
BOX
1.	Nuclear Guarantees to New Members

 

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has lost its primary mission--to deter or defend against an attack on Western Europe by the Soviet-led Warsaw Pact alliance. Because of the breakup of both the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, NATO must now redefine its role. As part of that redefinition, the leadership of the alliance has decided to expand its membership. After their January 1994 NATO summit, the heads of state and government of the NATO countries stated that they "expect and would welcome NATO expansion that would reach to democratic states to our East." Some of the alliance's former Warsaw Pact adversaries are actively seeking membership in NATO.

The alliance has expanded four times before. The first instance was in 1952, when Greece and Turkey were admitted as members. West Germany became a member of NATO in 1955, and Spain joined the alliance in 1982. When Germany was reunited in 1990, the alliance added territory to defend but no new members.

The next expansion--if any--will be likely to involve East Central European nations. The limited public debate so far has focused on the merits of admitting Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Hungary. (The Congressional Budget Office uses the label "Visegrad nations" as a shorthand to refer to those countries. The label comes from Visegrad, Hungary, where the four nations met in 1991 to pledge regional cooperation.) In the Congress, several pieces of proposed legislation have been introduced--including the National Security Revitalization Act (designed to enact into law the national security provisions of the Contract with America)--that implicitly or explicitly give preference to those four nations for early admission.

Other possible candidates for admission have been mentioned. They include Slovenia, Romania, Ukraine, and the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania (Summary Figure 1 shows a map of the region). Some proponents of expanding NATO--albeit a minority--have even suggested that Russia be invited to join.

This document is available in its entirety in PDF.