Of two competing theories, the simpler explanation is to be preferred, wrote William of Ockham, an injunction that someWestern analystsand military leaders seem to have forgotten. After Russia sent troops into Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014, many in NATO convinced themselves that Moscows next target would be the Baltic states of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia. The more logical inference is that Russia has military ambitions in the Black Sea region and that Western Alliance members should turn their focus thence.

There are three main reasons the Baltics are not the area of strategic vulnerability that some believe. First, Narva is not next, and it never was. The alleged threat of separatism from Russian-speakers in the Baltics is overblown. Despite tensions in the early 1990s, which culminated with a July 1993 autonomy referendum in Estonias third-largest city, Baltic Russian-speakers have never been the fifth column that some imagine them to be. And despite the persistence of restrictive citizenship laws for Russian-speakers in Latvia and Estonia, both governments have done an admirable job of addressing the social and economic concerns of their Russian-speaking regions, and of giving even non-citizens the right to vote in local elections.

Next, NATOs presence in the Baltics and Poland is the right size: large enough to present a credible deterrent to Russia, but not large enough to present an offensive military threat. NATO was right to beef up its presence in the Baltics after 2014. After all, the three tiny Alliance members are simply incapable of defending themselves alone in the unlikely event of war with Russia. But deployingseven full brigadestotaling 40,000 to 50,000 troops, as some analysts suggest, would be destabilizing. Russia would doubtless perceive this deployment as an offensive threat and increase its forces in response. The four NATO battle groups currently deployed one each to the three Baltic republics and Poland are important for their composition as much as their size. These5,000-plus troops could do no more than delay a Russian incursion while NATO deployed reinforcements. But the fact that 24 of the 30 NATO members contribute forces to the Alliances Enhanced Forward Presence mission makes it clear to Russia that NATO is united in its determination to defend the Baltics, and that war there means war with nearly all of NATO.

Lastly, there is no indication that Moscow has any intention of invading the Baltics. Russia has always seen the Baltics as different from the rest of the former Soviet Union. In short, when the Kremlin looks at Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania it sees Europe, and it had always played by different rules in Europe than in its self-designated near abroad. Anatol Lieven remarked on this Russian tendency in his book The Baltic Revolution:A large proportion of Baltic Russians have been prepared to acknowledge that the Balts have a superior civic culture, are cleaner, more orderly and harder working. They may qualify this by saying that Russian life is friendlier, or more humane, but this is the exact reverse of the usual colonizer: colonized self-images.

Russias behavior toward the Baltic States immediately after the collapse of the Soviet Union made clear the extent to which it treats them differently. As it was intervening on behalf of separatist movements in Georgia and Moldova, it scrupulously avoided escalating the situation with the Russian-speaking minorities in Latvia and Estonia. Despite the fact that Moscow was exceptionally unhappy with the treatment of Russians speakers there, and had military forces deployed to both countries until 1994, it always expressed its grievances through official, institutional channels instead of trying to rally the Russian-speaking minorities to violence or intervening directly as it did elsewhere.Rather than fixate on the Baltics, where the threat is low and a deterrent force is in place, NATO should pay more attention to the Black Sea region. It is here that Russia has already intervened militarily, and is attempting to fracture the Alliance and erode confidence in its commitments. The Black Sea region also serves as the hub for Russias recent expansion into the Eastern Mediterranean and is critical to its efforts to support its intervention in Syria.

There are four main reasons the Black Sea region demands more attention.

First, three of the six littoral states Romania, Bulgaria, and Turkey are NATO members and two Ukraine and Georgia were promised membership in 2008. Whether the Alliance should have committed to membership for Ukraine and Georgia is no longer relevant; it made the commitment and routinely reiterates it at NATO summits. Every year that the fear of Russias reaction delays progress on bringing Kyiv and Tbilisi into NATO erodes confidence in NATOs other commitments.

Next, an examination of Russian military activities in the last decade-plus leads to the conclusion that the Black Sea and Eastern Mediterranean is the area of greatest geopolitical importance for Russia. All of its military interventions in this period Georgia, Ukraine and Syria have occurred in this region, and Moscow clearly intends to challenge the West in this part of the world. NATO provides the best vehicle to meet this challenge and protect the important national interests Western states have in this region.

Third, the increasing alignment between Russia and Turkey deserves immediate and serious attention from all NATO capitals. If Moscow is able to pull Ankara into a strategic partnership that distances it from NATO, the security of the Alliance and all its members would suffer significantly. Turkey is ranked the worlds 11th-most powerful military by theGlobal Firepower Index. It has the second-largest overall military in NATO, after the U.S. Ankara is the second-largest land power in the Alliance, has the third-largest air force, and fields the fourth-largest navy. It is far from certain that a Russia-Turkey entente will endure: the two are on the opposite sides of the Libyan civil war, and their cooperation in Syria may still collapse over the issue of Idlib and the fate of Assad. And Ankara is an unpredictable and often frustrating ally. But neither the uncertainty of the Russia-Turkey rapprochement nor Turkeys erratic behavior outweigh its clear strategic importance to NATO. In addition to the military power it possesses, it anchors the Alliances southeastern flank and hosts bases critical to the projection of NATO power in the Black Sea region and beyond.

Finally, the Black Sea is an emerging energy hub that could allow Europe to diversify its energy sources away from Russia. But Turkey is key here, as well. The Turkish port of Ceyhan is the terminus of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline, which brings Azerbaijani oil to the world market. And Turkeys development of gas pipelines, storage facilities, and liquid natural gas terminals position it as apowerful middleman and alternative to Russia in energy supplies to Europe. With energy security an increasingly important component of national security, the emergence of the Black Sea as an energy hub provides an important opportunity for NATO members to erode Russias ability to use energy as a weapon in its foreign policy.

NATO has it right in the Baltics. Its presence is sized for the threat large enough to present a credible deterrent, too small to pose an offensive military threat and activate the security dilemma, causing Russia to increase its own forces in response. And NATO has been vigilant in exercising what it would take to rapidly reinforce the Baltics, through exercises likeDefender 2020. Before it was scaled back due to the coronavirus pandemic, Defender 2020 was billed as the third-largest exercise in Europe since the end of the Cold War. Plans for Defender 2021 are already underway.

The Black Sea region needs more attention. As Ben Hodges former U.S. Army-Europe commander and his co-authors argue, NATO should use theEnhanced Forward Presencemodel it deployed in the Baltics as a model for its Black Sea presence. This would entail beefing up the forces assigned to NATOs Multi-National Division-Southeast (MND-SE) in Romania, deploying integrated air and missile defenses, and increasing the air policing of the region, as NATO has done in the Baltics. In order to compensate for the Montreux Conventions limitations on the presence of warships from non-Black Sea littoral states, NATO could bolster its airborne maritime domain awareness assets deployed to the region.

None of these steps need to detract from NATOs presence in Poland and the Baltics the Alliance has sufficient assets to resource both its current presence there and the enhanced Black Sea presence argued for here. Indeed, as Hodges and his co-authors argue, balancing the Alliances posture between the Baltic and Black seas would eliminate any gaps or seams for Moscow to exploit.

See the article here:

NATO Needs to Focus on the Black Sea - Defense One

Greece expects NATO to play its role with regard to Turkish activities in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Aegean, Prime Minister Mitsotakis has indicated, saying that the alliances hands-off approach is no longer acceptable to him.

I think within NATO it is very clear that this hands-off approach that oh we have two NATO partners so were not going to go into the details is no longer going to be accepted by me. I raised this with Secretary-General [Jens] Stoltenberg that were a NATO contributor and an ally and when we feel that a NATO ally is behaving in a way that endangers our interests, we cannot expect from NATO a similar approach of we dont want to interfere in your internal differences. This is profoundly unfair for Greece, Mitsotakis said during a conversation with former US ambassador to Greece and executive director of the Aspen Security Group, Nicholas Burns, at the online Aspen Security Forum on Wednesday.

I think the alliance will find itself faced with the reality that an important member behaves in a way that undermines the alliance and the interests of other members of the alliance. Its an issue we can no longer afford to put under the rug, he said, adding that Turkeys unreliable behavior within the alliance, also raises security concerns.

Purchasing the S-400 system is an issue of concern to all of us, including the US because it compromises the F-35, which is an integral part of NATO, he said referring to the missile defense system Turkey has acquired from Russia.

The United States should be alarmed by Ankaras activities in the Eastern Mediterranean but also its involvement in Libya, Mitsotakis said, adding that a visit to Washington last December gave him a sense that there is a bipartisan understanding that the relationship with Turkey is not the same that is was three, four years ago. Its not as predictable.

Pieces of legislation sponsored by Senator [Robert] Menendez clearly are an indication that there is a much better understanding in Washington of what is really happening in the Eastern Mediterranean, the Greek premier said in reference to the Eastern Mediterranean Security and Energy Partnership Act of 2019.

Statements from the State Department have also been overall quite supportive of Greeces positions with a few exceptions, Mitsotakis said.

When there is encouragement for both parties to refrain this is a fundamentally unjust statement as far as Greece is concerned because we are not engaging in any provocative activity, he said.

Mitsotakis added that there also appears to be a much better understanding from within the European Union that Turkeys role in our part of the world is really not very constructive.

Ive made it very clear to our European partners that should Turkey pursue this activity, there need to be consequences, there need to be sanctions, he said.

Either the relationship is going to improve or if Turkey continues to violate the sovereign rights of Greece and Cyprus, the European Union has to react, the Greek prime minister said, stressing that Greece is not seeking to isolate Turkey but to encourage a more productive relationship.

Go here to see the original:

Greece looks to NATO to play its role with regard to Turkey | Kathimerini - http://www.ekathimerini.com

IZMIR, Turkey

Lt. Gen. Roger L. Cloutier on Tuesday took over the NATO Allied Land Command at a ceremony held in southwestern Turkey.

The command with its headquarters in Izmir, Turkey is responsible for advising the alliance on its land warfare.

Cloutier was preceded by Lt. Gen. John T. Thomson.

Many Turkish and foreign soldiers attended the change of command ceremony, including Commander of U.S. European Command Tod D. Wolters and Aegean Army Commander Ali Sivri.

In his speech, Wolters thanked Turkey for its hospitality and said that it is a great honor to work with the Turkish army.

"We are working with the Turkish army side by side. We are saying goodbye to Thomson, an American army legend, and welcoming another legend.

"Thomson served the American army for 34 years. [...] Cloutier also served in NATO successfully," Wolters said.

"Peace is a very difficult concept in 2020, considering all the security threats we face. There is also COVID-19, but we know that NATO soldiers will keep the peace as they have done for the last 70 years," he added.

For his part, Cloutier said: "The power of Land Forces Command comes from experienced leaders and soldiers working together under NATO flag. We are in a significant time in NATO Land Forces. The importance of the land forces is all the more visible now in the unstable security environment of today's world."

He added that Turkey feels like home, and Turkish society and the army is very hospitable.

"Thank you for hosting me. Izmir is a spectacular city. I am honored to be here," Clouiter said.

Thomson said he is honored to have served in Izmir, and they have performed outstanding teamwork during his service.

Read the original post:

NATO change of command ceremony held in Turkey - Anadolu Agency

Enter a valid email address (please select a country) United States United Kingdom Afghanistan Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, The Democratic Republic of The Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote D'ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guinea Guinea-bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Micronesia, Federated States of Moldova, Republic of Monaco Mongolia Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory, Occupied Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and The Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia and Montenegro Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and The South Sandwich Islands Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan, Province of China Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand Timor-leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States United States Minor Outlying Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Viet Nam Virgin Islands, British Virgin Islands, U.S. Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe

Link:

Video: What will NATO's AWACS program look like in the future? - DefenseNews.com

By Larry Luxner

As NATO faces increasing criticism including from President Donald Trump that the military alliance is a drain on American taxpayers and no longer serves Washingtons defense needs, two former U.S. ambassadors have come to its defense.

On July 21,John Herbst, director of the Atlantic Councils Eurasia Center, andAlexander Vershbow, a distinguished fellow at the councils Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, made the case for NATOs continued relevance in the face of Russian belligerence led by Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Yet China, not Russia, is the real threat today, arguedJohn Mearsheimer, a political science professor at the University of Chicago, andDr. Sara Moller, an assistant professor of international security at Seton Hall University in New Jersey.

The four took part in a one-hourvirtual debate Is NATO still relevant? that was moderated byDr. Kori Schakeof the American Enterprise Institute.

Absolutely it is, said Vershbow, a former U.S. envoy to Russia and South Korea who also served four years as NATOs deputy secretary-general in Brussels.

NATO remains essential to deter Russian aggression, which is a real threat. Its also a standing coalition of like-minded democracies that the United States can still call upon to defend shared interests and project stability beyond NATOs borders, he said.

Herbst, who was U.S. ambassador to Ukraine from 2003 to 2006, noted that Europe has enjoyed 75 years of peace and unprecedented prosperity thanks to the strong transatlantic relationship.

Foreign policy is more effective, more realistic and less risky when you have allies, and NATO is the premier alliance, he said, adding that not since the 1956 Suez crisis when Washington opposed the joint British, French and Israeli invasion of Egypt following that countrys nationalization of the Suez Canal have internal disputes been that dramatic. Despite past differences, however, NATO was essential to defeat the Soviet Union, and NATO is essential today.

Herbst added: China is the big problem, but Russia remains a major threat. Putins activities are truly destabilizing. The fact is that he launched a war in Europe the first time since World War II. We need him to stop, and NATO is the way to do it.

Mearsheimer, however, argued that Putin, aggressive as he may be, is not Washingtons biggest headache at the moment.

It boils down to whether or not the United States should remain militarily committed to NATO, whether we should keep large-scale military forces in Europe, said Mearsheimer. My answer to that is no.

The professor, who has published six books on international affairs, said the Pentagons chief priority right now is containing China.

Three areas of the world matter strategically to the United States: Europe, East Asia and the Persian Gulf. For the United States, the key question is whether or not theres a potential hegemon in one of those regions, Mearsheimer said. One of the reasons we stayed in Europe during the Cold War was because the Soviet threat was concentrated in Europe. The fact is there is no regional hegemon in Europe today or on the horizon and indeed there is a regional hegemon: China. That means the U.S. should concentrate all its military might in East Asia. That is what really matters. Europe does not matter very much at all.

Mearsheimer further argued that the U.S. and its allies, and specifically NATO, created the Russian threat in the first place, and that NATO, which was formed in 1949, has pushed Russia into the arms of the Chinese.

In November 2019, French President Emmanuel Macron told TheEconomistthatNATO was effectively brain deaddue to Trumps frequent complaints that many members were not spending at least 2% of their gross domestic product (GDP) on defense.

In fact, all NATO members including Germany, Europes most populous nation began increasing their defense budgets following Putins 2014 annexation of Crimea.

Even so, Moller, whos written extensively on NATO, the Middle East and nuclear weapons, said the 30-member alliance could soon become irrelevant because it lacks strategic focus.

A club whose members cant agree on the purpose of the club [is] a club that is in trouble, she said. During the Cold War, it had a very clear and defined purpose: it was to deter and defend against the Soviet Union. Since the 1990s, NATO has been engaged in never-ending transformations. The result has been mission creep. It gets into the peacekeeping business, the counterterrorism, nation-building business, security sector reform, counter-piracy, fighting illegal immigration. The result is that members want and expect different things from NATO. They no longer see eye to eye.

For example, she said, NATO member Turkey is purchasing advanced weapons systems from Russia while the French government is exploring rapprochement with Moscow.

This lack of consensus jeopardizes its future relevancy, Moller said, adding that the strategic deficit NATO faces today predates President Trump and his administration, so its a mistake to assume that come January 2021, if theres a change in occupancy in the White House, that NATO can just go back to business as usual. I dont see that happening.

Vershbow called for a new transatlantic bargain on burden-sharing, in which by 2030, Europe would pay for 50% of the critical capabilities now provided mainly by Washington.

This would equip them to handle most crises without U.S. support, and allow us to shift more of our assets from Europe to the Asia-Pacific, he said.

Yet Mearsheimer quickly dismissed that idea.

Were not going to get any military assistance from our NATO allies in containing China. Its going to be done by our Asian allies and the United States, he said. The Europeans dont spend enough money on defense, and they have remarkably little power projection capabilities.

Mearsheimer added: I dont dislike NATO, but we live in a completely different world. For most of my life, Europe was the most important area of the world. Thats no longer the case. The distribution of power has changed. Asia is the area that really matters the most to the United States today. The question is, what can Europe do [about China]? What can NATO do? My argument is it can do hardly anything. We have to wake up and smell the coffee.

But Vershbow insisted that NATO gives the United States something that its adversaries lack: a team of ready-made partners.

Having allies and institutions like NATO gives us an extraordinary advantage over Russia, China, and other adversaries, he said. There are often disagreements between the members, he conceded, and keeping the allies together is a 24/7 job, but allies usually find a way to resolve their differences, because alliance unity is too important to put at risk.

This article originally appeared on the Atlantic Council New Atlanticist blog and has been republished with permission by the Atlantic Council.

Larry Luxner is a contributor for The Washington Diplomat and a Tel Aviv-based freelance journalist and photographer who covers the Middle East, Eurasia, Africa and Latin America.Follow him on Twitter @LLuxner.

Read more:

Will NATO Still Be Relevant in the Future? - The Washington Diplomat

ATHENS -- Able to block NATO which requires consensus among members and with the European Union afraid he'll flood the bloc with more refugees and migrants through Greece, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is getting a free pass from both.

That's the feeling, said The New York Times in a feature, from diplomats and analysts as the belligerent Erdogan, ruling Turkey like a quasi-dictatorship, keeps sending fighter jets and warships to violate Greek airspace and waters where he plans to send energy drill ships just as he's doing off Cyprus with no one moving to stop him.

Greek Prime Minister and New Democracy leader Kyriakos Mitsotakis' calls for the EU to hammer Turkey with hard sanctions were politely ignored after the bloc's leaders nearly apologizing for even thinking of getting tough issued only soft sanctions for the drilling off Cyprus, which he promptly ignored.

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg made no secret of his reluctance to do anything about Turkish aggression in the Aegean and East Mediterranean even as Greece and Turkey were at a conflict flash point after Erdogan said energy research would begin off Greek islands before German Chancellor Angela Merkel intervened.

Turkey and Greece belong to NATO, as does France, one of whose frigates was forced to withdraw from Turkish warships escorting escorting a vessel suspected of smuggling weapons into Libya, violating a United Nations arms embargo.

Turkey has made a deal with Libya that portion recognized by the UN despite violations of the arms embargo dividing the seas between them, claiming waters off Greek islands, including Crete, where the US Navy has a base on Souda Bay.

Turkish warplanes buzzed an area near the Greek island of Rhodes after Greek warships went on alert over Turkeys intent to drill for undersea natural gas there, the story noted before Turkey on Aug. 5 sent fighter jets into Greek airspace 33 times.

For all that, EU diplomats want no part of tangling with the tough guy Erdogan, the bloc and NATO said to believe Turkey is too big, powerful and strategically important at the crossroads of Europe and Asia.

Gone unsaid is that Turkey has failed for 15 years to advance talks to join the EU as Erdogan purged civil society, the judiciary, military, the education system and jailed journalists by the dozens, drawing only limp tweets of feeble protest in return.

Its getting hard to describe Turkey as an ally of the U.S., Philip H. Gordon, a foreign policy adviser and former assistant secretary of state who dealt with Turkey during the President Obama administration told the newspaper.

That puts Greece in the awkward position of hosting American troops for exercises, the Souda Bay navy base, signing a new military cooperation deal with Washington and engaged in a US-Greece Strategic Dialogue while fearing that President Donald Trump, who considers Erdogan a friend, would favor Turkey in a shooting conflict.

You cant say what U.S. policy on Turkey is, and you cant even see where Trump is, Gordon said. Its a big dilemma for U.S. policy, where we seem to disagree strategically on nearly every issue.

Analysts not identified told the paper that Stoltenberg is afraid to stand up to Erdogan and tolerates Turkish and American misbehavior the US is a member of the defense alliance that Trump has scorned.

Turkey has gone as far as purchasing S-400 missile defense systems from Russia technically an enemy and which could be used against Greece, but NATO did nothing about it, further emboldening Erdogan.

Former NATO Ambassador and one-time US Ambassador to Greece Nicholas Burns, now teaching at Harvard, said other countries in NATO have proved problematic for the alliance's timidity, but Turkey is the giant no one wants to confront, apart from Greece asking for action.

Every time we discuss Russia in NATO, everyone thinks of the S-400 and no one says anything, said one European diplomat, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter. Its a major breach in NATO air defense, and its not even discussed, the diplomat said, not willing to go on the record despite reservations.

Unchecked by anyone, Erdgoan went so far as to convert the ancient Orthodox church of Aghia Sophia in Constantinople, which the world apart from Greece calls Istanbul, into a mosque and got away with it unscathed, still provoking.

See more here:

While Turkey Provokes Greece, NATO, EU Look The Other Way - The National Herald