British diplomat Nicholas Kay is currently serving as NATOs senior civilian representative in Afghanistan. In an interview with Radio Free Afghanistan, he says not a single Afghan wants another national unity government. Instead, he says, Afghans would like to see a clear winner emerge from the September 28 presidential vote. The Afghan election commission now expects to announce the preliminary results of the vote on November 14.

RFE/RL: How important is it to NATO that this years presidential election in Afghanistan be transparent and credible?

Nicholas Kay: Its important and crucial for Afghans and therefore also for NATO. The credibility of the elections over the last several years has been reducing. We saw serious problems in the parliamentary elections last year and in 2014. It's vital that, now in 2019, the independent and electoral [complaint] commission does its job well and counts votes accurately. Afghans are absolutely depending on them to do their job so that they can trust the electoral process.

RFE/RL: The 2014 presidential elections was marred by allegations of massive fraud, and then U.S Secretary of State John Kerry was sent to Kabul. He cobbled together a national unity government, which critics say was never united. Is this going to happen again?

Kay: I havent met a single Afghan who wants to see that repeated. The Afghans I speak to want to see a clear result and a clear win for one candidate or the other, and no one wants someone from the outside to have to come in and help resolve what is an internal Afghan political problem. So this time I really hope the election result will be credible because it will be based on a clean, transparent and thorough process.

RFE/RL: The Taliban oppose the elections and have even threatened Afghan voters. According to the UNs latest report, scores of civilians were killed and hundreds more were wounded on September 28 alone. Whats your message to the Taliban?

Kay: The Taliban have shown themselves to be the enemies not only of democracy but of the Afghan people, who have clearly shown that they want democracy. Since 2001, they have participated in four presidential elections and parliamentary elections, as well. They have turned out under difficult circumstances, facing threats from terrorists, and they have shown that they want to vote to choose their leaders. The Taliban should respect the will of the Afghan people.

RFE/RL: In terms of counterterrorism assurances, has the Taliban really severed ties to transnational terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda?

Kay: There is no evidence yet that they have done that, but we know it was a part of the negotiations between the United States and the Taliban in Doha. They were negotiating verifiable, clear assurances of that. But that process has stopped and at the moment, as far as I am aware, the linkages to Al-Qaeda from the Taliban still exist.

RFE/RL: Another security threat in Afghanistan is the presence of IS affiliates. Can they re-establish their defeated caliphate in Afghanistan?

Kay: You are absolutely right. There is a presence of Daesh. Its a serious presence. They conduct terrorist attacks killing Afghan civilians. Just last week, they attacked a mosque and killed at least 69 Afghan civilians. So the Daesh presence is there, and it is a serious concern. However, the establishments of a caliphate or something like that is a very remote thing. No Afghan I have met has any wish to see either a caliphate or an emirate.

What I hear from most Afghans I meet is that they want a modern democracy that respects fundamental human rights civil and political rights, and that is what NATO is there helping the Afghans to achieve by creating the conditions [by] training and advising, assisting the Afghan National Security Forces, and I really see that march toward that modern democracy. That march is underway, and it is up to all of us now to remain committed to that mission and make sure the conditions are there for Afghans to enjoy durable peace.

RFE/RL: What do you want from the key regional stakeholders such as China, Iran, Pakistan, and Russia?

Kay: Support for a stable, peaceful Afghanistan. Support for the initiative to bring about intra-Afghan negotiations. The regional countries play a very important role, but neither the regional countries nor NATO nor any other country is going to solve this conflict, only Afghans will solve this at the negotiating table with the Taliban, the government, and other representatives of Afghanistan. The sooner we can get to that negotiating table, the better.

RFE/RL: Finally, lets talk about a potential future peace deal with the Taliban. How do you see the gains and achievements made during the years of NATOs presence in the country?

Kay: NATO has been there to train, advise, and assist the Afghan Security Forces, and I can see a transformation in their capacity and capabilities. I was last working in Afghanistan in 2006-07, and when I came back 10 years later in 2017, I could see with my own eyes that a transformation had taken place: You have capable Afghan security forces, special forces, commandos, and Air Force now, and so the progress is clear there. There is a lot of other progress that has been achieved over the past 18 years: democracy, womens rights, access to education, etc.

This is a new, modern Afghanistan. And of course, in that Afghanistan, there is as well freedom of speech, and the free media, and a very professional media, as well. All of these achievements over the past 18 years should be the foundation for a durable peace.

Read the original:

NATO Envoy Says Afghans Do Not Want To See A Repeat Of The National Unity Government - Gandhara

Deputy Prime Minister for European and Euro-Atlantic Integration of Ukraine Dmytro Kuleba says that Ukraine has applied to NATO with a request to grant it the status of a member of the partnership of expanded opportunities.

"During the visit, Ukraine turned to the North Atlantic Alliance with a request to move to a new level of cooperation and provide Ukraine with the status of a member of the partnership of expanded opportunities," Kuleba said at a briefing in Kyiv on Friday.

He noted that in the framework of such a partnership, Ukraine may receive priority access to certification of events that take place through NATO-Ukraine. The program also provides for: expanded cooperation in the field of intelligence; providing opportunities for representatives of partner countries to receive positions at NATO headquarters or in NATO structures.

The deputy PM emphasized that the program of expanded opportunities is not a substitute for the NATO Membership Action Plan (MAP).

"We very much hope that the alliance will make a positive decision regarding our initiative," Kuleba added.

See the rest here:

Ukraine asks NATO to grant it status of member of partnership of expanded opportunities Kuleba - Interfax Ukraine

Turkeys ongoing military action in Syria, Operation Peace Spring, has caused consternation and dismay among its allies. French President Emmanuel Macron warned that the intervention could create an unbearable humanitarian situation and demanded that the offensive should cease. In a phone call with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoan, German Chancellor Angela Merkel called for an immediate end to military operations. British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and U.S. President Donald Trump expressed their serious concern over Turkeys action and the risk of a humanitarian catastrophe in the region.

Others have gone further. Writing shortly before Operation Peace Spring commenced, U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham promised to introduce bipartisan sanctions against Turkey if they invade Syria and to call for their suspension from NATO if they attack Kurdish forces who assisted the U.S. in the destruction of the ISIS Caliphate. Echoing these sentiments, Representative Eliot L. Engel, Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, suggested that the United States should consider kicking Turkey out of NATO. On Oct 13, U.S. Defense Secretary Mark Esper revealed that he warned Turkey in advance of its incursion that if it were to proceed with the operation, this would damage U.S. relations with Turkey, their staying in NATO.

We are not in unchartered territory. Demands to suspend Turkeys membership in NATO, or to expel it from the Alliance altogether, have been made before, including in response to the political crackdown of 2016 and its decision to acquire the Russian S-400 air defence system.

No Suspension Provision in the North Atlantic Treaty

Yet matters are not quite so simple. The founding instruments of many international organizations provide for the suspension of a member States rights, and even for the termination of its membership, in certain circumstances. Instruments of this kind include the United Nations Charter (Articles 5 and 6), the Statute of the Council of Europe (Article 8) and the Treaty on European Union (Article 7). Alas, the North Atlantic Treaty is not among them. No provision in the treaty foresees the suspension of membership rights, let alone the expulsion of an ally.

Within NATO, concerns over the behaviour of individual allies are thus resolved primarily through diplomatic means, political pressure, and by taking a long-term view. As Jorge Benitez of the Atlantic Council think tank in Washington put it, NATO leaders tend to wait out the misbehaving national leaders until a government consistent with alliance values eventually returns to power.

This has not stopped speculation as to whether a nation may nevertheless be expelled from NATO and if so, how. Indeed, what are the options in the absence of a formal process for suspending or terminating membership?

It is important to bear in mind that NATO is not merely a community of interests, but also a community of values. Inspired by the wording of the Brussels Treaty of 1948, the preamble to the North Atlantic Treaty makes this point in the following terms:

The Parties to this Treaty reaffirm their faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and their desire to live in peace with all peoples and all governments.

They are determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilization of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law. They seek to promote stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area.

They are resolved to unite their efforts for collective defense and for the preservation of peace and security. They therefore agree to this North Atlantic Treaty.

That the Alliance is based on a set of shared values is further underlined by Article 2 of the treaty, which commits the parties to strengthening their free institutions and bringing about a better understanding of the principles upon which these institutions are founded, as well as by Article 10, which stipulates that prospective members need to be in a position to further the principles of this Treaty in order to accede to it.

More Than a Military Alliance

Some of NATOs founding members sought to accord these principles even greater weight. More than any other party, Canada from the very beginning wished for the North Atlantic community to be much more than a military alliance (Memorandum by Assistant Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs, June 26, 1948, in CDER vol. 14, page 521). This desire led the Canadian government to propose that the negotiating parties should accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice for all legal disputes arising between them. Canadas high regard for the principles of democracy, political liberty and the rule of law also led it to express misgivings over the potential membership of Portugal and Spain. In the end, the strategic reasons for inviting Portugal to join NATO as a founding member proved more compelling, while Spain acceded only later, in 1982, after democracy had been restored.

Guided by these ideals, Canada also actively pursued the idea of incorporating an expulsion clause into the draft treaty. The annex to the Washington Paper of September 1948, which contained the first outline of the future agreement, noted the following:

The question of including a provision for disqualification under certain circumstances of any of the signatories from enjoying the benefits of the Treaty requires further consideration.

In the eyes of the Canadian government, the circumstances that might justify the disqualification of a party had to include the coming into power of a communist-dominated government in that state (Commentary on the Washington Paper, Dec. 6, 1948). To deal with such an eventuality, Canada proposed a draft provision entitling the North Atlantic Council to suspend or expel a member state from the privileges of membership (Draft North Atlantic Treaty, Dec. 17, 1948).

These proposals met with a lukewarm reception. The general feeling among the other negotiating parties was that it would be a mistake to include any provision in the treaty that would raise questions about the voting procedure in the Council (Canadian Ambassador in the United States to Secretary of State for External Affairs, Jan. 4, 1949, in CDER vol. 15, page 483). The British Foreign Secretary, Ernest Bevin, also thought that any efforts to endow the Council with conciliatory powers should be resisted:

I really do not see any advantage in disputes which we may have in the future with the Americans or indeed with the French being discussed in the open and in the presence of the Italians, the Scandinavians and the Portuguese (Mr. Bevin to U.K. Ambassador to Washington Sir O. Franks , Jan. 12, 1949, in The Brussels and North Atlantic Treaties, 1947-1949, page 334).

The idea to incorporate some kind of suspension and expulsion mechanism into the North Atlantic Treaty was therefore dropped. But this left open the question of how NATO should deal with an ally that went red as a result of Soviet subversion.

Options Considered

In a statement to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in 1949, then-Secretary of State Dean Acheson took the view that such a nation could be booted out even in the absence of a formalized suspension and expulsion procedure. His comments on the preamble to the treaty merit quoting in full:

This draft, Mr. Chairman, starts out with a preamble, and one of the purposes of this preamble was to see if we could in some way describe a democratic non-Communist country. The purpose of that was, if, for instance, Italy becomes a member of such a treaty and then by any chance should go Communist, a question has arisen in peoples minds about what happens then. You do not want to have provisions in such a treaty saying that you can throw them out, because that indicates you are rather doubtful about them before you start; but if you can describe the sort of objectives that are shared by all of these countries, and one of them should no longer be able to be seeking those objectives, then the basis is laid for a separation.

We think that perhaps that is a little bit of a theoretical thing, because probably the first thing any country would do if it became Communist would be to get out of this. That is the way they proceed. They do not stay in. (The Vandenberg Resolution and the North Atlantic Treaty: Hearings, page 93)

The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations also addressed the matter in its report on the treaty. Once again, the relevant passage is worth quoting in full:

The treaty has been criticized in some quarters because it contains no provision for expulsion or the suspension of rights of a recalcitrant member which might fail to carry out its obligations as a result, for example, of its succumbing to communism. Given the nature of the pact and the close community of interests of the signatory states, the committee believes that such a provision would be both unnecessary and inappropriate. Obviously, however, if a member persistently violates the principles contained in the pact, the other members will no longer be obligated to assist that member. Clearly it would fail to safeguard the freedom * * * of its people, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty, and the rule of law as set forth in the preamble, and to strengthen its free institutions as provided in article 2. Presumably it would also decline to participate in mutual aid (art. 3), and might well violate its undertakings in article 8 not to enter into any international engagement in conflict with this treaty. A country suffering such a fate would be in no position either to carry out its own obligations under the treaty or to expect assistance from the other parties. (The Vandenberg Resolution and the North Atlantic Treaty: Hearings, page 379.)

Material Breach under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties

These passages confirm that maintaining and furthering the principles on which the Alliance is based democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law forms part of the object and purpose of the North Atlantic Treaty. This, in turn, suggests that a failure to comply with these principles may amount to a material breach of the treaty within the meaning of Article 60 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Pursuant to Article 60, a material breach consists of:

(a) a repudiation of the treaty not sanctioned by the present Convention; or

(b) the violation of a provision essential to the accomplishment of the object or purpose of the treaty.

To constitute a material breach pursuant to sub-paragraph (a), the violation of the principles underlying the treaty would have to be so extensive in scope, so severe and so persistent as to effectively disavow or repudiate the treaty (cf. Namibia Advisory Opinion, para. 95). Turning to sub-paragraph (b), there can be little doubt that continued compliance with the values set out in the preamble and Article 2 is essential for the accomplishment of the object and purpose of the treaty.

Official statements issued by the member states, including at the Brussels Summit in 2018 and more recently on the occasion of NATOs 70th Anniversary, repeatedly affirm these principles. A member nation that violated them in a systematic and egregious manner would thus cast doubt on the very resolve of the allies to unite their efforts for collective defence and for the preservation of peace and security (preamble, North Atlantic Treaty).

Should the conditions for the existence of a material breach be satisfied, NATOs member states would be entitled, by unanimous agreement, to suspend the operation of the treaty in whole or in part or to terminate it either in their relations with the defaulting state or among them all (Article 60(2) of the Vienna Convention). For these purposes, a unanimous decision of the North Atlantic Council, excluding the defaulting state, would suffice. No further procedural requirements apply, including those laid down in Article 65 of the Vienna Convention.

Whether or not Turkey is in material breach of its commitments under the North Atlantic Treaty is therefore a question to be determined by the other members of the Council. As Klaus Kress has observed, there is a very serious possibility that Operation Peace Spring could constitute a manifest violation of the prohibition of the use of force. Coupled with President Erdoans threat to open the gates for Syrian refugees to migrate to Europe, a threat fundamentally at odds with the unity and solidarity of the Alliance, characterizing these developments as a material breach is not entirely far-fetched.

In any event, they entitle other NATO nations to suspend or scale back their military cooperation with Turkey, even without declaring Turkey to be in material breach. Although Article 3 of the North Atlantic Treaty commits the parties to maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack, this obligation is meant to pursue the objectives of the treaty. The duty to develop military capabilities and to cooperate to this end therefore does not override the commitment to further the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law. A number of Allies, including France, Germany and Norway, as well as official NATO partner Finland, are reported to have suspended the sale of military equipment to Turkey.

Overall, the absence of a suspension and expulsion mechanism in the North Atlantic Treaty does not prevent the North Atlantic Council from suspending or terminating the membership of an ally found to be in material breach of the treaty. However, with the 70th anniversary of the treaty just past, this is a sorry position for the Council to be in by any measure. Suspending, let alone terminating, a nations membership of NATO would be an extreme measure to be contemplated only once other attempts to restore unity and respect for the Alliances founding principles have been exhausted.

(The views expressed here are the authors own and do not necessarily reflect those of any organization or institution with which he is affiliated.)

Original post:

Can Turkey be Expelled from NATO? It's Legally Possible, Whether or Not Politically Prudent - Just Security

Jim Miskel [Provided]

While Turkey has agreed to a cease-fire in the Kurdish areas of northern Syria, dont be surprised if it fails to permanently end the fighting. Turkeys invasion may soon resume, or the fighting may transition to unconventional warfare between the Kurds and militias sponsored by Turkey. Whatever the eventual outcome, Turkeys relations with the United States and the other members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization have been damaged.

From the Turkish perspective, it must seem like the Kurds are not the only ones who made a bad bet when they believed what our president said. First the Trump administration gave Turkey the green light to invade by agreeing to precipitously withdraw American troops from an area where we knew the Turks wanted to take military action. Next, the administration sent a letter asking Turkey to restrain itself. When that had no effect, the administration threatened to destroy the Turkish economy via sanctions when the Turks did what we knew they would: Invade northern Syria. Then, we sent a high-level delegation to arm-twist Turkey into agreeing to what our government calls a cease-fire, which Turkeys foreign minister says is only a pause in the fighting, not really a cease-fire. The foreign ministers statement came almost immediately after Vice President Mike Pences press conference touting the cease-fire.

Notwithstanding our governments diplomatic boilerplate about interests still shared by the United States and Turkey and President Donald Trumps boasting about his bromance with Turkeys president, this episode must have created doubts in Ankara (and likely elsewhere) about the credibility of American commitments. Turkey may also resent our sanction threats and public pressure. Still, the United States has the worlds strongest military and largest economy, so it ought to be in Turkeys interest to eventually patch things up with Washington.

Turkeys relations with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO, may be harder to repair. NATO is a mutual defense organization. It is based on the Three Musketeers principle: all for one, one for all. An attack on one NATO member is an attack on all NATO members. It is not designed to support aggressive behavior by its members.

Turkey may have good reasons for wanting to stabilize the Kurdish areas in Syria, but the path it has chosen is aggressive and may lead to friction with Russia which could, in turn, involve NATO. Turkeys invasion of northern Syria has driven the Kurds into the arms of the Syrian government and into Russias sphere of influence. Russia is one of Syrias few allies in the world. It has long had territorial designs on Turkey and its predecessor state, the Ottoman Empire. Russia even has a history of meddling in the domestic affairs of the Ottomans/Turks by supporting agitation by minorities a strategy Vladimir Putins regime has used in the Baltic States and Ukraine. If Turkey is not careful in dealing with Russias new Kurdish friends Syria, it could provoke Russian retaliation in Syria. Or, Russian meddling with Turkeys own Kurdish population.

Then there is Turkeys threat to send millions of Syrian refugees north into NATO countries in Europe. The threat did more than suggest a blatant disregard for human rights. (Imagine herding up millions of refugees and forcibly transporting them to its borders with Greece and Bulgaria.) It antagonized the Europeans because it played directly into Europes fears about immigration and Islamist terrorism.

Jim Miskel is a former professor of National Security Affairs at the U.S. Naval War College. He lives in Vero Beach.

See original here:

Turkey, the Kurds, NATO and what comes next? - Tampa Bay Times

KABUL, Afghanistan

The U.S. did not make any commitment with SDF in Syria to fight a longstanding NATO ally, the U.S. secretary of defense said on Monday.

Fighting a longstanding ally (Turkey) was not part of our commitment with the SDF, Mark Esper told a news conference in Afghanistans capital Kabul, adding the commitment with the Kurds was to destroy Daesh, but any future commitment requires broader political framework.

The YPG/PKK terrorist group in Syria uses the acronym SDF as a cover for receiving U.S. support.

Esper said keeping some U.S. troops in northeastern Syria near oilfields is one of the options to deny Daesh revenue from those fields.

He also reassured the Kabul government against an abrupt withdrawal of forces, saying reduction in troops relies on a peace agreement with the Taliban.

Flanked by his Afghan counterpart Assadullah Khalid, the U.S. secretary of defense said at a news conference that unlike Syria, the U.S. has longstanding commitments in Afghanistan, invested billions of dollars and paid sacrifices in Afghanistan that should reassure the Afghans about the future.

U.S. maintains nearly 14,000 troops on ground in Afghanistan. Besides counter-terrorism operations, the American troops are also involved in training and advising Afghanistan's security forces.

Continued here:

No commitment with SDF on fighting NATO ally: US - Anadolu Agency

Nearly two weeks after Turkish forces and its proxies launched a military operation against Kurdish fighters in northeast Syria, Vice President Mike PenceMichael (Mike) Richard PenceGOP lawmaker: Trump administration 'playing checkers' in Syria while others are 'playing chess' Clinton trolls Trump with mock letter from JFK to Khrushchev White House officials work to tamp down controversies after a tumultuous week MORE flew to Turkey and struck a deal that pauses Ankaras campaign and facilitates a peaceful Kurdish withdrawal. In the meantime, the United States and its European partners continue to deliberate on a punitiveresponse.

The Trump administrationhas sanctionedthree Turkish ministries and two senior officials (per the agreement, those sanctions will be lifted once the Turks end their operation). France, Germany, Finland and the Netherlandshave suspendedarms sales. The Pentagon is even evaluating plans forthe removalof the 50 nuclear gravity bombs stationed at the Incirlik Air Base.

However, the most significant idea discussed bymembers of Congress,commentators,and European officialswas the termination of Turkeys membership in NATO. Defense Secretary Mark EsperMark EsperTrump: 'We have secured the Oil. Bringing soldiers home!' Amash rips Trump over move to send troops from Syria to Iraq Defense chief says US troops leaving Syria will go to western Iraq MORE suggested the Turkish incursion against the Kurds in Syria couldjeopardize its relationswith other NATO states.

Unfortunately, it is unlikely NATO could kick Turkey out of the alliance even if it wanted to. Whether or not Ankara should in fact be removed is up for debate. But going beyond Turkeys unique situation, the general question of introducing a punitive clause to the NATO charter is very much a legitimate one to consider. Indeed, it is a discussion that should have taken place at the end of the Cold War.

There is no mechanism to remove a NATO member. While Canada proposed an expulsion provisionin discussionsleading up to the establishment of NATO, the British were hesitant about the idea because it could send a message to the Soviet Union of NATO infighting.

Testifyingto the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1949, Secretary of State Dean Acheson commented that including an expulsion provision in the North Atlantic Treaty would cause considerable doubt among members before they were even inducted into the alliance.

Such a decision was logical at the time, when NATO was competing with a Soviet Union that threatened to dominate the European continent. But to state the obvious: The world changed dramatically between 1949 and 2019.

The Soviet Union has been dead for nearly 30 years. Europe has been a center of peace and prosperity for two decades. NATO has ballooned from 12 founding membersto 29, stretching as far East as Montenegro. And modern-day Russia, while prolific in asymmetric and covert operations, is an economic basket case that spends aboutone-tenthas much as the U.S. on its defense.

The only potential peer competitor today is China, a nation that is playing a much more sophisticated and multidimensional game than the old Soviet apparatchiks played during the Cold War.

NATOs charter, however, has remained stagnant. Much like the alliance itself, the charter has not changed with the times. It is as if the world is still stuck in the year 1949, with the one big difference being that NATO has expanded far beyond its original intent, incorporating small, geopolitically insignificant countries that either have meager defense budgets or militaries so small that they dont contribute to NATOs combat power. The larger NATO has grown, the more unaccountable its members have become.

Presidents for years have rightly decried the wide disparity in defense spending and military capacity between the United States and the rest of the alliance. Washingtons share of NATOs total defense expenditures isnearly 70percent, with only 7 of 29 member states meeting their 2 percent of GDP defense spending obligation.

The problems bleed into capability as well. Germany, for example, would be lucky to muster a brigade on short notice. Those forces that are deployable could very well be unprepared and under-equipped. European militaries in general have atrophied, with budgets only recently getting out of the red after years of cuts. If a conventional conflict occurred in Europe, the United States would be doing most of the fighting and suffer most of the casualties.

Much of this goes to the lack of accountability within NATO as a whole. As it stands, there is no mechanism in the North Atlantic Treaty to enforce compliance with NATOs Article 3 commitment, which calls for all members to maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack. Wealthy nations have shirked their responsibilities and Washington has enabled this bad behavior by picking up their slack.

If there were ever a time when all 29 members should address what has turned out to be the most glaring omission in NATOs founding document, it is now. Letting the status quo continue, where the only way an offending member can be removed from the privileges NATO offers is by the offender removing it, is unsustainable and breeds further unaccountability.

No change will be easy. Reform is likely to cause friction internally. Member statespursuing policies that run counter to the alliances core tenants (like Turkey) will fight any formal amendments to the NATO charter in order tospare themselves the punishment.

In Turkeys case, it would be simpler for individual members to take unilateral but coordinated action against the Erdogan government by withholding security guarantees for as long as Ankara is in violation of the letter and spirit of the treaty.

Whatever the form, business as usual is not an option.

The sooner NATO ministers engage in the difficult conversations required to keep everyone honest, the sooner the free-riding and malign behavior can be punished and contained.

DanielR.DePetrisis a fellow at Defense Priorities.

More here:

NATO ministers need to have difficult conversations to keep everyone honest | TheHill - The Hill

The heads of 29 member states are expected to descend on the capital to mark Natos 70th anniversary, in what was due to be Britains first major international conference following Brexit.They are due to address the growing threat from China for the first time. But senior political sources in Brussels have cast doubts over the wisdom of holding it while European members, which make up the majority of Nato, face two deep rifts: one with Turkey and one with the US.

Attempting to pass meaningful policies in this challenging environment seems to me to be problematic, said one.

Nato needs, more than anything right now, to demonstrate harmony and solidarity. Unless things change substantially, a delay would not be unwise.

Fabrice Pothier, Natos former director of planning and policy, last night branded the Turkey crisis as the biggest to affect the alliance since the Gulf War.

Turkeys President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, beset by low opinion polls and a tanking economy, says the operation aims to counter a terror threat by securing a Kurdish-free buffer zone 300 miles along the border and extending 20 miles into Syrian territory.

But the move is viewed by Europe as a betrayal of Kurdish forces who helped to vanquish Islamic State, and has opened the prospect of thousands of detained IS fighters and their families, now being held by Kurdish forces, being released from detention camps to make their way back into Europe.

It was only made possible because of President Trumps decision to move all US troops out of eastern Syria.

Washington attempted to mitigate the fall-out by imposing sanctions on Turkey.

However a request for Nato members to follow suit, made in front of Turkish delegates during a high-level meeting in London last week, simply drove divisions deeper, sources say.

A five-day cease fire was brokered on Thursday but it is not certain it will hold.

Even if does hold the result, victory for Erdogan and a regional boost for Russia, would do little to cement divisions.

This is a crisis of the magnitude of the onset of the Iraq War, when European allies were divided, particularly France and Germany and Turkey, which refused to grant US forces access to the north, said Fabrice Pothier.

Natos problem with this troubling incursion is that it creates a double rift; one against Turkey, because it could have humanitarian consequences and security consequences which could seriously impact Europe.

The other is with the US which simultaneously opened the gates for Turkeys actions and allowed Russia to further its regional aims.

If some are saying the summit should be suspended, I can understand why.

The whole point about Nato summits is to show accord and move forward, together, with fresh policies.

This summit is hoping to tackle the serious issue of China for the first time. But the Turkey issue isn't going away, and they wont want it to dominate proceedings.

On Friday French premier Emmanuel Macron criticised Natos lacklustre response to the crisis, prompting EU firebrand Guy Verhofstadt to renew calls for a European Army, which risks undermining Nato further.

A meeting that evening between Vice President Mike Pence and Nato Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg - who, while condemning the incursion sympathised with Turkeys position - did little to appease critics.

Britains lacklustre response has also not helped

While Germany, France, Finland and Sweden immediately announced an arms embargo to Turkey follow the launch of hostilities, followed by an EU ban on arms exports on Monday, it was only on Tuesday - after defence secretary Ben Wallace told Nato delegates that Turkey needs to do what it sometimes has to do to defend itself from Kurdish PKK terrorists in Syria - that Britain also paused the issuing of new arms export licenses.

Britains response is being read in Brussels as a deliberate demonstration that it will pursue its own foreign policy after Brexit, said Pothier.

He added, however, that Nato should pinch its nose and resist calls to boot Turkey out.

There have been issues with Turkeys membership, like its recent acquisition of the Russian S-400 air defence system and dangerous regional games.

But it remains a key Nato ally - we now know it even holds US nuclear weapons.

The more we allow Turkey to push itself out, the closer it becomes to Russia.

If it aligns properly to Natos number one threat, we have a bigger problem.

Last night former head of Britains armed forces General Lord Dannatt said: Current divisions within Nato are very concerning and suggestions that the summit should be postponed understandable.

It would be very difficult to have a cordial Nato summit when two of its largest members are at loggerheads over Syria.

He added: The fracturing of Nato is one of Vladimir Putins long term strategic goals. We mustn't allow ourselves to play into that agenda.

Nato sources confirmed defence minsters would gather in Brussels next week, followed by a foreign minsters minister meeting next month.

Link:

Nato on the BRINK: December's summit could be scrapped over furious divisions on Turkey - Express.co.uk

Dmitry Medvedev made the remarks in an interview with Serbian newspaper Vecernje Novosti.Mr Medvedev was President of the Russian Federation between 2008 and 2012, swapping roles with Vladimir Putin after the latter was barred due to term limits. He explained: No one denies that Russia has own interests related to ensuring its security.

We are a large country, we are a nuclear state, and the desire to place NATO bases in our immediate vicinity obviously cannot fill us with positive emotions.

We have always responded and will continue to respond to this, both politically and in a military sense.

He warned NATO to think twice before adding certain nations into the group stating: All attempts to drag countries with internal conflicts into NATO are extremely dangerous.

You mentioned Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republika Srpska, but we can also name other countries.

What is happening to Georgia? What is happening to Ukraine? Those countries are in a difficult situation.

NATO or the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation is a military alliance containing now 29 member states.

It was set up in 1949 and features both the United States and the United Kingdom.

Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, North Macedonia and Ukraine are recognised as aspiring members.

READ MORE:Russia flexes muscles with live ballistic and cruise missile launches

He continued: "But in fact, it is precisely these US aspirations to dominate the whole world, including the Balkans and Europe, that cause the main harm.

By the way, Europe itself is tired of these aspirations, or these desires.

Britains Defence Secretary Ben Wallace recently gave a speech at NATOs parliamentary assembly in which he praised the alliance.

He asserted: Seventy years ago, a group of 12 nations came together to establish our Alliance.

They did so to protect their common values and the freedoms so recently won in the Second World War.

The then common need of the founding members; as is it is now; is not one of offence but of defence mutual self-defence.

More:

Russia threatens military response to NATO bases on its borders as tensions erupt - Express.co.uk

Key point: They would not have been able to stop the Soviets, but they were determined to go down fighting.

If the Soviets had invaded West Germany in the early days of the Cold War, they would have found more than a hodgepodge of NATO troops waiting for them.

They would also have confronted a secret army of Hitlers former soldiers, waiting to settle scores with the Communists. Considering the brutal, take-no-prisoners warfare on the Eastern Front in World War II, former German SS troopers fighting vengeful Red Army troopsagainwould have been the height of savagery.

The German magazine Der Spiegeldiscovered a fileburied for years in the archives of theBND, Germanys spy agency. The documents reveal that in 1949, some 2,000 former officers of the SS and the Wehrmachtthe regular German military under the Third Reichformed a secret paramilitary army that might have numbered as many as 40,000 fighters in the event of war.

The Allied occupation forces didnt know about it. If they did, they would have discovered the involvement of several former Nazi generals who would later become senior commanders in theBundeswehr, West Germanys army.

The underground army was apparently supported by former Third Reich generals such as HansSpeidel, who became chief of NATO ground forces in Central Europe in 1957, and AdolfHeusinger, the first inspector general of theBundeswehr.

Thus after losing millions of men to defeat Hitler, the Western Allies might have had to deal with an army of German war veterans backed by former Nazi senior officers who were rising stars in the West German military. Anti-communist or not, the existence of such an organization surely wouldnt have reassured the survivors ofCoventryandOradour-Sur-Glane.

The secret army was the brainchild of AlbertSchnez, a former Wehrmacht colonel who later became an official in theBundeswehr. Along with other German war veterans just after the war, he worried what would happen if the Soviets invaded. West Germany had no army until 1955, and America demobilized much its own military in 1945, leaving Western Europe vulnerable to Soviet conquest.

Schnez wanted ready-made battle staffs, composed of combat-experienced officers, who would form the nucleus of combat divisions. He was convinced that if the Soviets attacked, legions of German war veteransand there were no shortage of those after World War IIwould have flocked to the colors.

They planned to wage war against the Soviets as guerrillas, perhaps operating from Spain or Switzerland.

The West German parliament also didnt know about this secret army, but the German security service had its leader on its payroll. In 1951, Schnez approached the Gehlen Organization, as German intelligence was known at the time, to offer the services of his organization.

The timing was impeccable. The Korean War was raging, and U.S. and European leaders worried that the conflict was a Soviet diversion to draw off U.S. forces while the Soviets invaded Western Europe.

In a disturbing reminder of where the members of the secret army learned their trade, they spied on leftist West German politicians. Had West Germany gone to war with the Soviets, one wonders what would have happened to anybody the secret army deemed insufficiently anti-communist.

But how would this army have fared against a Soviet invasion?

Probably not well. The massive Soviet tank armies sweeping west to the Ruhror the English Channelmight just possibly have been contained by threadbare NATO forces, or more likely the threat of American nukes.

Tens of thousands of aging, poorly armed SS veterans might have been a nuisance to Soviet supply lines, but no more. Considering Soviet memories of German atrocities, one suspects that an insurgency led by ex-Nazis would have been dealt with swiftly and mercilessly.

Its also remembering that Hitler had the same idea. With Allied and Soviet armies remorselessly closing in on Germany from west and east in 1944 and 45, Hitler had an inspiration. The German people would rise up as guerrillas against the occupiers as they advanced into German territory.

TheWerewolveswere supposed to strike terror in the hearts of Germanys enemies. Indeed, the Allies feared a Nazi guerrilla war. Instead, the Werewolves merely proved that after six years of war, the German people were tired, hungry and bombed out.

They just wanted the war to end, even in defeat.

Perhaps the secret army would have discovered that the German people preferred being Red to being dead.

Image: Reuters.

This article first appeared several years ago.

View original post here:

A Covert Ex-Nazi Army Helped NATO Keep Stalin's Troops Out Of West Germany - The National Interest Online

Key point: And the F-35will soon be flying around the world.

Italy has become the first country to deploy F-35 stealth fighters for NATOs air-policing missions.

Italian F-35As belonging to the Italian air forces 13 Gruppo, 32 Stormo are on track to take over the air-policing mission in Iceland, David Cenciotti reported at The Aviationist on Sept. 25, 2019.

The Italian aircraft, that have already deployed to Keflavik International Airport, from their homebase at Amendola air base in southeastern Italy, will start flying familiarisation sorties in the next few days, Cenciotti wrote. After achieving the NATO certification they will start quick-reaction alert duties.

The F-35s, were accompanied by a KC-767A tanker, a C-130J and a P-72A maritime patrol aircraft, Cenciotti added, citing data from flight-tracking websites.

F-35s surely will become regular fixtures in NATO deployments. Several NATO countries besides Italy are acquiring F-35s, including the United States, the United Kingdom, The Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark and Norway. Spain has expressed interest in the stealth fighter. Canada seems likely to acquire the type.

Under the air-policing scheme, NATOs larger members deploy fighters in order to patrol the air space of smaller members that lack their own fighters. The main air-policing destinations are Iceland and the Baltic States. F-15s, F-16s and Typhoons have handled most of the air-policing deployments in the last decade.

The deployments are significant because they put NATO fighters in close contact with Russian warplanes flying along Russias western frontier and in North Atlantic air space. It probably wont be long before NATO F-35s intercept Russian Sukhois.

The F-35 recently has passed several important milestones despite lingering cost, technical and maintenance problems. The Royal Air Forces F-35Bs flew in combat for the first time on June 16, 2019.

Taking off from the British air base at Akrotiri in Cyprus, a pair of the vertical-landing stealth fighters patrolled over Syria alongside RAF Typhoon fighters, the U.K. Defense Ministry announced.

The F-35s didnt drop bombs or fire missiles or guns during their combat patrol. Still, the mission made the United Kingdom the third country after Israel and the United States to deploy F-35s in wartime.

The Israeli air force claimed it was the first to fly F-35s in combat. Tel Aviv in May 2018 announced it deployed the radar-evading jet on two fronts. The Israeli government circulated a photo of an Israeli F-35A flying over Beirut in Lebanon during the daytime, strongly implying the fighter struck targets in Lebanon. Israeli warplanes also frequently operate over Syria.

U.S. Marine Corps F-35Bs in September 2018 conducted an air strike in support of what the U.S. Navy described as "ground clearance operations" in Afghanistan. The U.S. Air Force flew its own F-35As in combat for the first time over Iraq in April 2019. The U.S. Navy is still working up its F-35C squadrons for their first front-line cruise aboard an aircraft carrier, currently scheduled for 2021.

The U.S. military plans to begin rotating F-35 stealth fighters into South Korea starting in a few years, a South Korean newspaper reported. The American planes would join a growing fleet of South Korean F-35s.

So far, the U.K. F-35Bs sortie rate in wartime conditions is no better than the sortie rate the remnant fleet of 1980s-vintage Tornadoes achieved in the years preceding their retirement. The eight Royal Air Force Tornadoes at Akrotiri as recently as 2015 managed two, two-ship sorties a day, each lasting six to eight hours, according to Financial Times.

Trade publication Defense News in early June 2019 revealed lingering flaws in the F-35s design.

At high angles of attack, the F-35B and the carrier-compatible F-35C have a tendency to depart from controlled flight, Defense News reported.

Specifically, the Marine short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing variant and the Navys carrier-launched version become difficult to control when the aircraft is operating above a 20-degree angle of attack, which is the angle created by the oncoming air and the leading edge of the wing, Defense News explained.

David Axe serves as Defense Editor of the National Interest. He is theauthor of the graphic novelsWar Fix,War Is BoringandMachete Squad. This article first appeared earlier this year.

Image: DVIDS.

Read more here:

Russia Is Getting Ready To Get Up Close and Personal With NATO F-35s - The National Interest Online

What about the air base though? Incirlik [the base the U.S. Air Force uses in southern Turkey] is an albatross, said one former senior administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity. But there are people in [the U.S. government] for whom Turkey is sacrosanct and all of its problemsbusting U.S. sanctions, holding Americans hostage, threatening other NATO allies like Greece, supporting jihadists, buying Russian weapons, not to mention internal oppression and ongoing purges are our fault. Truth is, we cant do much at Incirlik. We need Turkeys permission to blow our nose there.

On the Turkish side, too, the marriage has been one of serial disappointments and misunderstandings. A February article in the pro-government Daily Sabah ran through a litany of issues with the alliance: Turkey, wrote the papers politics editor, Seyma Nazli Grbz, is the second-largest military in the alliance, is a key partner in Afghanistan and elsewhere, hosts NATO initiatives around its own territory, and contributed more than $100 million in 2018. (This is short of the 2 percent of its defense budget that Trump has insisted all NATO members pony up.)

But NATO disappointed Turkey more than once over the yearswhen the U.S. refused to side with the Turkish invasion of Cyprus, when Germany accused Turkey of killing civilians in its battle with the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) in its own country in the 1990s, and through Americas ongoing refusal to hand over Fethullah Glen, the U.S.-based leader of a Turkish political movement that Erdoan blames for orchestrating the 2016 coup attempt. Over time, siding with terrorists rather than Turkey became a pattern for many NATO member countries, particularly the U.S., Grbz wrote.

Read: Trumps gift to ISIS

Two U.S. presidential administrations running have now sided with Kurdish fighters in Syria tied to the PKK over Turkeys strenuous objections. Since Sunday, however, the dynamic seems to have shifted, and Trumpwho has been sharply critical of the NATO alliance himself, and who has touted his administrations achievements against ISISopted to take a NATO partners side over the Kurdish forces who did so much to help defeat the Islamic State. The shift was so sudden, it left officials at the State Department and the Pentagon scrambling to explain it and contain the fallout. In a phone call with the Turkish defense minister yesterday, U.S. Defense Secretary Mark Esper said the incursion risks serious consequences for Turkey, according to the Pentagons readout.

Once again, as Erdoan sees it, some of his allies are siding with the terrorists. Hey, European Union, pull yourself together, he said in a speech yesterday. If you try to label this operation as an occupation we will open the gates and send 3.6 million refugees your way.

Separately, at the United Nations Security Council, the NATO allies France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Belgium, and Poland introduced a statement condemning Turkeys incursion into Syria. Turkey did have an ally on its side there. Ironically, given the alliances Cold War roots, America joined with Russia and declined to endorse it.

Yara Bayoumy contributed reporting.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.

See the original post here:

Why Is Turkey in NATO Anyway? - The Atlantic

Congressman Eric Swalwell suggested Tuesday that Turkey could be "kicked out" of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) because of its invasion of Syria, saying he didn't view the nation to be acting like an ally.

"Turkey is also a NATO ally and I don't think they want to be kicked out of NATO, which I think is also something that I think may be on the table," Swalwell, a Democrat who represents California's 15th District, said in an interview with CNN. "We should in a bipartisan way seek to ... change Turkey's behavior."

He then criticized President Donald Trump for his handling of Syria policy and relations with Turkey, arguing that leadership should "come from the top."

"If in secret phone calls with Turkeys leaders [Trump's] essentially giving them a greenlight, and then when he gets the blowback from the American press and people at home changes the policy," Swalwell said, "you know, Turkey, how do they interpret that? That's very confusing for them."

"I don't think they're an ally today, but that can change," he asserted.

Trump has received significant bipartisan backlash to his decision to withdraw U.S. troops from northeastern Syria, allowing for Turkey to move in with its forces. The president's decision came after a phone call with Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdoan last Sunday. A source with Trump's National Security Council told Newsweek last week that the president got "rolled" by Erdogan during the call.

"President Trump was definitely out-negotiated and only endorsed the troop withdraw to make it look like we are getting somethingbut we are not getting something," the official said.

As a result of Trump's decision, Turkey has moved into Syria and targeted the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), which had been a key U.S. ally in the fight against the Islamic State (or ISIS). Turkey has long been in conflict with the Kurds, and Republican and Democratic lawmakers predicted accurately that Erdogan's forces would target the group. Now the Kurds have allied themselves with the Syrian government led by President Bashar al-Assad, a foe of the U.S. Hundreds of ISIS affiliates and some ISIS fighters have also escaped from detention camps in the chaos surrounding the Turkish advance.

The president has now implemented economic sanctions against Turkish officials but continued to defend his decision to withdraw U.S. forces. Top Republican and Democratic lawmakers are pushing for harsher sanctions, and pushing for the president to reverse the withdrawal, which they argue will embolden ISIS as well as American foes Iran and Russia.

Swalwell is not the first member of Congress to suggest Turkey could be removed from NATO due to its actions. GOP Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who has been one of the harshest critics of Trump's decision despite normally aligning with the president, said last week he would call for Turkey's "suspension from NATO."

However, despite the lawmakers' remarks, NATO has no mechanism allowing the 29-nation alliance to expel a member. Although members can voluntarily withdraw under Article 13 of the treaty, there is no such avenue to force a country out. A new article would have to be written, and that would be subject to approval by all members, including Turkey. It would seem highly unlikely that Turkey would voluntarily withdraw or agree to an article that could allow it to be kicked out.

"The historical record is that NATO deals with these problems by privately sanctioning the member violating alliance values, but does not officially terminate their membership," Jorge Benitez, an expert on NATO with the Atlantic Council think tank recently told Stars and Stripes.

Go here to see the original:

Congressman Suggests Turkey Could Be 'Kicked Out' of NATO: 'I Don't Think They're An Ally Today' - Newsweek

Kick Turkey out of NATO? It wouldn't be easy

STUTTGART, Germany Turkeys invasion of Syria has generated widespread international condemnation, infuriated allies and raised questions about whether the countrys inclusion within NATO should be reconsidered.

But even if there was consensus inside NATO about kicking Turkey out, the 70-year-old military alliance faces this key obstacle: no mechanism exists in NATOs founding charter for revoking a states membership.

While Article 13 in NATOs Washington Treaty offers a way for a county to quit, the charter is silent on how to force out a member state that has fallen out of favor.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., on the eve of Turkeys Wednesday push into northern Syria, said he would call for their suspension from NATO if the U.S.s Kurdish partners in the fight against the Islamic State group came under attack.

Similar statements have been made this week by some European politicians and former American military leaders, who say Turkeys incursion into Syria should be answered with suspension or expulsion from the 29-nation NATO alliance.

Other international organizations such as the United Nations and European Union have legal mechanisms for suspending and even removing members, but NATO does not, said Jorge Benitez, a NATO expert with the Atlantic Council think tank.

The issue has been raised several times before, when the behavior of a NATO member is in conflict with the values of the alliance and the spirit of the Washington Treaty, such as (past) military coups in Greece and Turkey, Benitez said.

Should NATO ever decide to remove a member, it would have to amend its treaty. And that would mean getting unanimous support from all members, including Turkey.

During the course of NATOs history, members have fallen out of favor numerous times and debates have swirled about how to deal with a recalcitrant ally.

In 1974, allied leaders discreetly debated suspending Portugals membership in NATO following a leftist coup, Benitez said.

Instead, the Portuguese were quietly sanctioned and excluded from most NATO activities during 1974-1975.

The historical record is that NATO deals with these problems by privately sanctioning the member violating alliance values, but does not officially terminate their membership, Benitez said.

Ultimately, NATO leaders wait out the misbehaving national leaders until a government consistent with alliance values eventually returns to power, he said.

It is important to note, that in these cases NATO members act more strongly outside of the alliance, through their bilateral relationships with the offending government, Benitez said.

For example, the U.S. Congress cut off military aid to Turkey after it intervened in Cyprus in the 1970s. Turkey responded by cutting off American access to military bases in the country.

A current example would be Norway, which on Thursday announced it will block exports of military equipment to Turkey.

Inside NATO, there are other steps allies can take to punish a member, such as withholding information and excluding them from alliance meetings, Benitez said.

For its part, NATO continues to emphasize that Turkey is an ally in good standing.

Turkey is a valued ally, said a NATO official, speaking on customary condition of anonymity. We have deep relations that allies built over decades.

On the issue of how the alliance would go about expelling a member, the official said, this is a hypothetical question, which would be a matter for the parties to the treaty to determine.

vandiver.john@stripes.comTwitter: @john_vandiver

Read the rest here:

Kick Turkey out of NATO? It wouldn't be easy - Stars and Stripes

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg visited Turkey on Friday (11 October 2019) to discuss preparations for the NATO leaders meeting in London this December, marking NATOs 70th anniversary. Mr. Stoltenberg met with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoan. They discussed the Alliances continued adaptation and the security situation in the region. In his meeting with Foreign Minister Mevlt avuolu, the Secretary General thanked Turkey for its commitment and many contributions to NATO.

In his meetings in Istanbul, Mr Stoltenberg also discussed the situation in Syria. He underlined that while Turkey has legitimate security concerns, I expect Turkey to act with restraint.Mr. Stoltenberg expressed his serious concerns about the risk of further destabilising the region, escalating tensions, and even more human suffering. He emphasized that We have a common enemy Daesh. A few years ago, they controlled significant territory in Iraq and in Syria.Working together in the Global Coalition, we have liberated all this territory and millions of people. These gains must not be jeopardized.

Turkey is a great power in this great region, the Secretary General stressed, and with great power comes great responsibility. Mr. Stoltenberg urged Turkey to avoid any unilateral actions that may further destabilize the region and escalate tensions.

During his visit, the Secretary General had also discussions with Turkish Defence Minister Hulusi Akar.

See original here:

Secretary General in Istanbul: Turkey is a great power in this great region and with great power comes great responsibility - NATO HQ

WASHINGTON Defender 2020 in Europe is set to be one of the largest exercises the continent has seen in decades. And while it will test the U.S. Armys ability to project capabilities from the continental United States to nations across Europe, the opportunity will also put NATO to the test.

The U.S. and its NATO partners and allies acknowledge none of them will fight alone in a war against an aggressor in Europe, and thus operating jointly is critical but also difficult.

The U.S. Army has several years of experience performing tactical readiness drills at the brigade level in Europe through its gapless rotations of armored brigade combat teams and combat aviation brigades. But with Defender, the service will demonstrate strategic readiness, testing its ability to respond with force and project itself across Europe in coordination with its fellow NATO members and partners, Lt. Gen. J.T. Thomson, the head of NATO Allied Land Command, told Defense News in an interview ahead of the Association of the U.S. Armys annual conference.

The exercise will test all the systems that go with that kind of strategic reinforcement, he said.

Defender 2020 is set to be the third-largest military exercise in Europe since the Cold War, Lt. Gen. Chris Cavoli, the U.S. Army Europe commander, told Defense News in an exclusive interview earlier this month. The division-scaled exercise will test the Armys ability to deliver a force from fort in the United States to port in the United States, and then to ports in Europe, and from there to operational areas throughout the continent, including Germany, Poland, the Baltic states, Nordic countries, and Georgia, among others, Cavoli said.

The exercise will involve at least 15 NATO countries and two partner nations, Thomson said. And NATO specifically will participate at the corps level down to the tactical level, Thompson noted.

From a land forces standpoint, the demonstration of collective defense is our best deterrent, he said.

Were actually doing collective defense, and I stress collective, just not one or two nations, he said. This is from fort to port. This isnt just a river crossing or a specific fight, its very comprehensive in nature.

Sign up for our Early Bird Brief Get the defense industry's most comprehensive news and information straight to your inbox

Subscribe

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

Thanks for signing up!

By giving us your email, you are opting in to the Early Bird Brief.

While the U.S. puts its National Defense Strategy Multi-Domain Operations concept to the test in Europe, NATO will evaluate its own strategic approach, according to Thomson.

For NATO, its ability to receive forces and equipment from the U.S., stage them, move them forward onto the battlefield and integrate them will be the focus throughout the exercise. Though this has been simulated before, in this case, were not simulating it, we are doing it, Thomson said. Once those forces get integrated, were actually going to conduct defensive operations collectively.

Crucial to NATO will be evaluating the current state of military mobility and ensuring countries can seamlessly operate together. But those are also the biggest challenges, Thomson said.

During the Defender exercise, theater mobility will be put to the test at a massive scale something that hasnt always been easy.

Defense News flew on a Black Hawk from Bulgaria to Romania during the U.S. Army-led exercise Saber Guardian in 2017 with then-U.S. Army Europe Commander Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges when crew members were alerted they might have to land for an unanticipated customs check. The delay would have caused the general, who was leading the entire exercise, to miss a live-firing demonstration on the Black Sea.

A few emails and phone calls later, the stopover was diverted. But the experience highlighted the red tape the military runs into on a regular basis. Hodges called for the establishment of a military schengen zone that would ease border crossings, but that evolved to a focus on military mobility across Europe.

Since then, the European Union has worked to improve crossings for militaries and their equipment over the past several years to ensure rapid movement.

But there are still hiccups, Thomson said. During Defender, participants must move massive amounts of equipment and troops across countries in the northeast of the continent. The effort will test infrastructure and border policies. Forces will have to cross through EU member countries and nations that are not part of the organization, such as Norway, and each nation has its own set of rules, policies and procedures.

Ensuring nations can be interoperable has been a challenge for NATO. Im fond of saying theres no such thing as 100 percent interoperability, not even within nations, Thomson said, but we are headed in the right direction on interoperability. We test it and train on it daily across NATO through work with the enhanced forward presence units in Poland, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia and at other episodic exercises.

This one is an outstanding opportunity to do it at division, corps and joint task force level, Thomson said. We dont do that that often.

At the exercise, interoperability will be tested as U.S. Army Europe serves as a combined joint force land component command and a NATO corps operates underneath it alongside American divisions. The scale of this one will give us very good lessons and some good azimuth to work into the future, Thomson explained.

From 2020 onward, the Defender exercise will become an annual series taking place in both the Pacific and Europe, but every other year will be a light year referring to the number of participating troops the acting U.S. Army Pacific commander, Lt. Gen. John Pete Johnson, told Defense News in a recent interview. The drill in Europe will be heavy this year, and the Pacific version will be smaller. In 2021, the Pacific-based Defender will have its turn being the larger of the two.

Follow this link:

Fighting the bureaucracy: For NATO, the Defender 2020 exercise in Europe will test interoperability - DefenseNews.com

In May 2008, the U.S. Department of Defense and the German Ministry of Defence signed a memorandum of understanding concerning Cooperation on Information Assurance and Computer Network Defense. Computer network defense (CND) refers to actions taken on computer networks to monitor and protect those networks. It is not the only memorandum the U.S. Department of Defense has signed with allies on cyber defense.

In late 2016, U.S. Cyber Command operators wiped Islamic State propaganda material off a server located in Germany. The German government was notified in some fashion but not asked for advance consent, causing much frustration. While U.S. Cyber Commands reported action may have violated Germanys sovereignty, it didnt explicitly violate the memorandum. It wasnt an act of CND; it was a computer network attack (CNA), seeking to disrupt, deny, degrade or destroy.

This reveals an uneasy situation within cyber cooperation: Allies do not agree on the appropriate procedures and boundaries for offensive cyber operations. More specifically, there is no agreement on when military cyber organizations can gain access to systems and networks in allied territory to disrupt adversarial activity. As I have argued previously, this issue may end up causing significant loss in allies trust and confidence. My proposed solution: NATO allies should establish memoranda of understanding on offensive cyber effects operations in systems or networks based in allied territory.

Objectives of Out-of-Network Operations in Allied Networks

Allied states may operate in each others systems or networks in at least three ways: as an observer, gathering intelligence on adversarial activity in others networks; as a passerby, transiting through allied systems and networks to access a certain adversarial target; or as a disrupter, seeking to cause friction for an adversarys operation within an allys network or system. The German case discussed above is the only publicly known case of a state acting as a disrupter in an allied network. But we can expect that more of these cases will be publicly disclosed in the future.

It has now been widely discussed that the U.S. Cyber Command has undergone a significant shift in strategic thinking away from deterrence toward persistent engagement and defend forward. Following these recent changes in strategic thinking, U.S. Cyber Command seeks to cause friction wherever the adversary maneuvers, operating globally, continuously and seamlessly. In a similar vein, NSA director and Cyber Command head Gen. Paul Nakasone writes in an article for Joint Force Quarterly: We must maneuver seamlessly across the interconnected battlespace, globally, as close as possible to adversaries and their operations, and continuously shape the battlespace to create operational advantage for us while denying the same to our adversaries.

While one may expect adversaries to maneuver in allied networks, the U.S. is currently the only NATO state that makes causing friction in allied networks a necessary and explicit component of its strategy. Other military cyber organizations could follow in the near future.

And we already see countries moving in this direction. On Aug. 1, the Communications Security Establishment Act (CSE) came into force in Canada. According to the Canadian government, CSE could be authorized to proactively stop or impede foreign cyber threats before they damage Canadian systems or information holdings, and conduct online operations to advance national objectives. The Canadian government does not explicitly talk in its latest strategy about the need to operate globally, continuously and seamlessly or to cause friction wherever the adversary maneuvers. In that regard, it needs to do more strategic thinkingas other countries doon the exact role of cyber operations on allied networks in the military context.

But the proposed memorandum of understanding on cyber offense addresses exactly this possibility.

The Goal of the Memorandum of Understanding

The goal of the proposed memorandum is to reduce discord among the allies; enhance trust, transparency and confidence between allies; and improve the effectiveness of disrupting and deterring adversaries operations in cyberspace.

The scope of the memorandum should include (a) developing a common notification equity framework for out-of-network operations that seek to achieve cyber effects in allied systems or networks; (b) identifying procedures for communicating the consideration and conduct of offensive cyber effects operations between states against systems or networks in allied territory; and (c) identifying technical solutions and administrative documentation required for the continuous exchange of information on offensive cyber operations.

In writing the memorandum, states first and foremost should agree on the equities involved in permitting signatories to conduct cyber effect operations in each others networksand the relative weight of those equities. Equities that should be considered include (a) the ability of an actor to take action to negate known threats on or to the other parties networks and systems; (b) the likelihood that an action will negate known threats; (c) the imminence and scale of the threat; (d) the risk of collateral damage; (e) whether the computer system or network is government owned or privately owned; and (f) the certainty that the system or network will be used to achieve strategic effects by the adversary.

There are three open questions about the memorandum of understanding.

I. Should the Proposed Memorandum Be NATO-Wide or Bilateral?

There are benefits of negotiating a NATO-wide agreement, including ensuring it contributes to the defense of all NATO members networks and enhances resilience across the alliance. It could also guard against the potential that persistent engagement and defense forward might be exploited by adversaries, as I argued previously:

Adversaries dont randomly choose which intermediate nodes to direct their operations through. If Russia has the choice to go through a network that would raise some serious diplomatic friction between the U.S. and a U.S. ally, or operate through a network that would cause no diplomatic friction for the U.S., what would it prefer? It would make sense for adversaries to operate through the networks of exactly those countries with which the U.S. has a strong relationship but that do not want the U.S. to operate within their networks causing any effects.

But there are constraints on a NATO wide-memorandum, too. To start, not all states are equally willing to share intelligence information. A bilateral agreement would make it easier to tailor the notification equity framework to the specific preferences and capabilities of both governments.

II. Can It Be Used as a Public Signaling Device?

The notification equity framework part of the memorandum of understanding can remain classified. Governments might not get it right the first time. As the framework might need tweaking, immediate public disclosure is risky. But a public version, if crafted carefully, can also help to set the parameters of what Michael Fischerkeller and Richard Harknett call agreed competition. That is, it can help clarify where adversaries are allowed and not allowed to go within each others networks. If we want stability in cyberspace, this is a mechanism by which to achieve it.

III. Should the Memorandum Also Address Cyber Operations Beyond Allied Networks?

A memorandum of understanding narrow in scopethat is, addressing the allies conduct of cyber effect operations taking place only in systems or networks in allied territorywould ignore the negative impact on allied intelligence operations and capabilities beyond these systems and networks.

Military cyber organizations are operating in a global environment historically dominated by intelligence agencies, and the Five Eyes has always been the most dominant actor in cyberspace. But the anglophone intelligence alliance is not the only intelligence actor operating across the world. Recent casessuch as the Dutch s General Intelligence and Security Service infiltration into the Russia-based network of the infamous hacking group Cozy Bearhave illustrated the continued global prevalence and value of allies intelligence operations beyond the Five Eyes alliance.

If military cyber organizations increasingly take up the role of disrupter, it may negatively impact global intelligence collection of alliesparticularly those countries that favor long-term access over immediate effect. It will also more likely uncover and burn allied capabilities.

The risks of occurring are higher than one may think as intelligence agencies have a tendency and incentive to target and track the same entities. For example, in late 2014, cybersecurity company Kaspersky Lab reported on the Magnet of Threats. The cybersecurity company discovered a server belonging to a research organization in the Middle East that simultaneously hosted implants for at least five Advanced Persistent Threat (APT) actors: Regin and the Equation Group (English language), Turla and ItaDuke (Russian language), Animal Farm (French language) and Careto (Spanish language). Consider what would have happened if one of those five APT groups had sought to cause a disruptive effectrather than collect intelligenceagainst the target in the Middle East. It likely would have resulted in much earlier discovery and analysis by threat intelligence companies (or other actors) exposing the tactics, techniques and procedures (TTPs) of each actor group.

Also, even the anticipation of more cyber effect operations in nonallied networks from one allied state could lead to a change in operations by another state. Indeed, states have shown in the past that the anticipation of early discovery of an operation has led to a change in their TTPs. For example, the National Security Agency (NSA) created an exploit orchestrator called FoxAcid, an Internet-enabled system capable of attacking target computers in a variety of different ways, depending on whether it is discoveredor likely to be discoveredin a given network. FoxAcid has a modular design, with flexibility allowing the NSA to swap and replace exploits and run different exploits based on various considerations. Against technically sophisticated targets where the chance of detection is high, FoxAcid would normally choose to run low-value exploits.

Not a Silver Bullet

While I argue that the NATO memorandum of understanding on offensive cyber operations in systems or networks based in allied territory can greatly help in promoting stability and enhancing confidence among allies, it is not a silver bullet. It can only reduce allied concerns rather than mitigate them. Military cyber organizations may still conduct effect-based operations in allied territory without consent, leading allies to assert that their sovereignty has been violated. And theres another crucial player involved. As Gen. Nakasone noted in the Joint Force Quarterly article, cyberspace is owned largely by the private sector. They deserve a seat at the table as well.

See more here:

NATO Allies Need to Come to Terms With Offensive Cyber Operations - Lawfare

The alliance between the United States and the rest of NATO has begun fraying in recent yearsat the very moment when the threat posed by both Russia and China is surging. NATO was founded in 1949 on a promise of mutual self-defense. But U.S. President Donald Trump has raised new questions about Americas commitment to that promise, heightening fears across the alliance.

This week onAnd Now the Hard Part, we trace the roots of the problem and talk about how to fix it.

My concern is simply that if we ever had a catastrophic moment or a security crisis, do the rest of the members of NATO feel secure enough in the way the United States supports them that they would support us if we needed them? said the Brookings Institution scholar Victoria Nuland, a former assistant secretary of state and the guest on our show this week.

It depends on how long this seeding of doubt about our own reliability continues.

Listen to the episode on this page or subscribe and download wherever you get your podcasts.

About And Now the Hard Part: The world is a particularly confusing and daunting place these days: Russian bots, North Korean nukes, trade wars and climate emergencies. To understand it better, Foreign Policy and the Brookings Institution are teaming up for an 8-part podcast series. On each episode, host Jonathan Tepperman and a guest from Brookings discuss one of the worlds most vexing problems and trace its origins. And then, the hard part: Tepperman asks the guest to focus on plausible, actionable ways forward.Jonathan Tepperman, Foreign Policys editor in chief, hosts the podcast. The guests are some of the smartest and most experienced analysts aroundall scholars from the Brookings Institution, including former government and intelligence officials.See All Episodes

See the original post:

How to Heal the NATO Alliance - Foreign Policy

Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu shakes hands with NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg after a news conference in Istanbul, Turkey, October 11, 2019. REUTERS/Huseyin Aldemir

ISTANBUL (Reuters) - Turkey has reiterated to NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg that it expects the alliance to show strong solidarity with Ankara against threats to Turkish security, Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said on Friday.

Speaking alongside Cavusoglu at a news conference in Istanbul, Stoltenberg said he expected Turkey to act with restraint in its push into Syria, adding that the international community must find a sustainable solution for Islamic State prisoners held by Kurdish forces in Syria.

As Ankara pressed on with an offensive against Kurdish militants in northeastern Syria, Stoltenberg said Turkey must ensure that progress in pushing back Islamic State in Syria was not jeopardized.

(This story corrects second paragraph to say international community, not NATO)

Reporting by Can Sezer; Writing by Tuvan Gumrukcu; Editing by Kevin Liffey

See the rest here:

Turkey says it expects solidarity from NATO against threats - Reuters

It's been one week since President Trump ordered US forces out of northern Syria which critics say is effectively abandoning America's allies on the battlefield.

Thousands of people have been displaced and many Kurds have been killed.

The fast-deteriorating situation was set in motion last week when Trump ordered US troops in northern Syria to step aside. Turkey quickly stepped into the void and began attacking the Kurdish people who live there.

Mass atrocities are being committed against the Kurdish people at the hands of Turkish-backed militias, including some ex- al Qaeda fighters.

It's a move that's leaving a trail of displacement, destruction, and death.

The United Nations estimates at least 130,000 people have been displaced by the fighting and hundreds more have been killed.

Syria's Kurds say Syrian government forces have agreed to help them fend off Turkey's invasion, which marks a major shift in alliances.

The shift could lead to clashes between Turkey and Syria and raises the chances of an ISIS resurgence in the region.

With Turkey quickly advancing, Trump has ordered all remaining US forces out of northern Syria. Defense Secretary Mark Esper said Sunday that Trump had directed US troops in northern Syria to begin pulling out "as safely and quickly as possible." He did not say Trump ordered troops to leave Syria, but that seemed like the next step in a combat zone growing more unstable by the hour.

Esper said the US withdrawal would be done carefully to protect the troops and to ensure that no US equipment was left behind. He declined to say how long that might take.

Many on both sides of the political aisle at home and abroad call the president's actions a betrayal of an ally.

"Leaving an ally behind is abandoning people that we frankly told we are going to be with, is disheartening, depressing and frankly it is weak," Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) told CBS's "Face The Nation" on Sunday.

US Pastor Andrew Brunson prayed for President Trump to have God's wisdom during the Values Voter Summit in Washington, DC Saturday night. Trump helped free the pastor who had been falsely imprisoned in Turkey where he was a missionary for 24 years.

"Father God, I ask now for an impartation of your Holy Spirit," Brunson prayed. "May the fullness of the spirit of Jesus rest upon President Trump that he be anointed with wisdom and understanding, with your counsel and might, with knowledge and fear of the Lord. And accordingly, may President Trump not judge by what he sees with his eyes or decide by what he hears with his ears or lean on his own understanding but may he recognize your prompting and move according to your guidance."

Meanwhile, the Trump administration has threatened Turkey with economic penalties for its invasion.

"Big sanctions on Turkey coming!" Trump tweeted on Monday, and US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said that while no final decision on sanctions had been made, the president's national security team was meeting again to consider a way ahead.

The fast-moving events of the past week have revealed an extraordinary breakdown in relations between the United States and Turkey, which have been NATO allies for decades. Turkish troops have often fought alongside American troops, including in the Korean War and in Afghanistan. Some believe Turkey is becoming, even more, friendlier to Russia and should be thrown out of NATO.

The chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY) said the US and its NATO partners should consider expelling Turkey from the alliance. "How do you have a NATO ally who's in cahoots with the Russians, when the Russians are the adversaries of NATO?"

Read more:

Fast-Moving Developments in Syria Highlight US-Turkey Breakdown as NATO Allies - CBN News

LONDON

Turkey on Saturday briefed about the countrys ongoing Operation Peace Spring in northern Syria at NATO Parliamentary Assembly (NATO PA) in London.

"We told the parties that Turkey launched the operation as part of the Article 51 of the UN Convention to protect our rights at the border, to prevent the persecution of the terrorists in the region and to prevent the attacks," said Osman Askin Bak, the head of Turkish delegation of the NATO PA.

Speaking at the 65th annual session in the U.K.'s capital London, Bak stressed that Operation Peace Spring was launched to bring peace to the region as it was done before with Operation Euphrates Shield and Operation Olive Branch.

Bak also mentioned that the Turkish delegation expressed their views on the issues of terrorism and refugees at the committees of the NATO PA and Turkish side highlighted that, up to 2 million refugees can live in the safe zones that will be established by the Operation Peace Spring.

"Our European allies and friends do not support us [on refugee issue]. They follow two-faced policies. But we will decisively complete this operation," he added.

Relations with Russia, Iran's nuclear program and situation in Afghanistan will be issued on Monday at the session which NATOs General Secretary Jens Stoltenberg will also be attending.

Continue reading here:

Turkish operation to bring peace in region, NATO PA told - Anadolu Agency