Turkey committed to EU relations and NATO ruling party spokesman – Ahval

The spokesman for Turkeys ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) downplayed concerns about the countrys drift away from its Western allies on Wednesday, reiterating Ankaras commitment to good relations with the European Union and to its commitments as a member of NATO.

Turkeys place in the NATO alliance has come under question this year, as President Recep Tayyip Erdoanreceived the first shipments of Russian-built S-400 missile defence systems in a deal agreed with Moscow in December 2017.

U.S. and NATO officials see the S-400s as a potential security hazard to NATO defence systems, with their arrival triggering speculation that Turkeys future in the alliance could be in question.

AKP spokesmanmer elik saidtalk of an exit from NATOshowed a lack of foresight and stressed Turkeys contributions to the alliance.

Turkey is the country that best fulfils its undertakings as a NATO member,elik said, referring to defence spending guidelines that U.S. President Donald Trump has criticised EU members of NATO for failing to meet.

But it (Turkey) doesnt receive the same benefits back from NATO,eliksaid.

The AKP spokesman also touched on Turkeys relations with the EU, which have been marred by concerns over Ankaras human rights and rule of law record since a failed coup in July 2016 sent the country into a protracted period of emergency rule.

Our president has said this period will be one of reform Our (planned) legal reforms contain many articles that will strengthen our relationship with the EU The judicial reform package will most likely come to parliament in October,said elik.

EU lawmakers voted to suspend accession talks with Turkey in November 2016 amid a post-coup crackdown on opposition and dissidents in the country. However, Erdoanhas said joining the union is still a priority.

Continued here:

Turkey committed to EU relations and NATO ruling party spokesman - Ahval

Saudi oil attacks: Nato chief ‘extremely concerned’ about escalation – BBC News

Media playback is unsupported on your device

The head of the Nato military alliance has said he is extremely concerned that tensions will escalate after an attack on Saudi oil facilities.

Jens Stoltenberg also said Iran was "destabilising the whole region".

Earlier on Monday, the US released satellite images showing damage from the weekend's "unprecedented" strikes, which it has pinned on Iran.

Iran denies involvement, with President Hassan Rouhani calling the attack a reciprocal act by the "Yemeni people".

Yemen's Houthi rebels - who are aligned with Iran - have claimed responsibility.

However, the US has cast doubt on their ability to carry out strikes of this magnitude and accuracy without assistance.

The Saudi-led military coalition in Yemen, which is in direct conflict with the Houthis, believes Iran provided the weapons.

"We call on all parties to prevent any such attacks occurring again because that can have negative consequences for the whole region, and we are also extremely concerned about a risk of escalation," Mr Stoltenberg told the AFP news agency in an interview.

The Houthis have launched attacks on Saudi soil before, including on oil pipelines.

But this attack was on a much bigger scale, hitting the world's biggest oil-processing plant and another oil field.

The knock-on effect was a 5% cut in global oil supplies and soaring prices.

Experts say it could take weeks before the facilities are fully functioning again.

US President Donald Trump, who over the weekend stopped short of directly accusing Iran, said on Monday that it looked like it was behind the attack.

But he added: "We want to find definitively who did this."

He also said the US was "more prepared than anyone" for conflict, but would rather avoid it.

In a series of tweets, US Defence Secretary Mark Esper accused Iran of undermining "the international rules-based order".

Iran has discounted the possibility of a meeting between President Rouhani and President Trump on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly next week.

There had previously been speculation that they could meet to defuse tensions.

UN Yemen envoy Martin Griffiths told the Security Council on Monday it was "not entirely clear" who was behind the strike but that it had increased the chances of a regional conflict.

In the UK, Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab also highlighted the uncertainty, while calling the act a "wanton violation of international law".

China and the European Union have, separately, urged restraint.

The oil price saw its biggest one-day rise since the 1991 Gulf War, soaring 20% but falling back later.

The international benchmark used by traders, Brent crude, jumped to $71.95 (57.53) a barrel at one point.

Prices eased after President Trump authorised a possible release of US reserves.

US Energy Secretary Rick Perry told business channel CNBC that it was too early to tell if this would be necessary.

There are concerns that higher prices could continue if tensions worsen further. Mr Trump has tried to downplay the impact on the market.

The attacks targeted Abqaiq, the site of the world's largest oil processing plant, run by the Saudi state oil company, Aramco, and the Khurais oilfield.

Khurais is the closest of the targets to the Yemen border, but is still a considerable 770km (480 miles) away.

US officials said there were 19 points of impact on the targets, which could have come from a mix of drones and cruise missiles.

They have told media outlets that they believe the attacks did not originate from Houthi-controlled territory in Yemen, which lies to the south-west of the Saudi oil facilities, and instead were launched from the north or north-west.

The officials said that could suggest launch sites in the northern Gulf, Iran or Iraq but no conclusive evidence has been provided.

Iraq denied at the weekend that the attacks were launched from its territory. Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi said the US assured him in a phone call on Monday that it backed Iraq's position.

Saudi Arabia and Iran are locked in a fierce struggle for regional dominance.

The decades-old feud is exacerbated by religious differences. They each follow one of the two main branches of Islam - Iran is largely Shia Muslim, while Saudi Arabia sees itself as the leading Sunni Muslim power.

The two countries are not directly fighting but they are engaged in a variety of proxy wars (conflicts where they support rival sides and militias) around the region.

Read more about Saudi-Iranian relations

The Houthis have repeatedly launched rockets, missiles and drones at populated areas in Saudi Arabia. The attacks have left at least four civilians dead.

The Yemen conflict escalated in March 2015, when the Houthis seized control of much of the west of the country and forced President Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi to flee abroad.

Saudi Arabia and allies then began an air campaign aimed at restoring Mr Hadi's government.

The UN says the conflict has claimed the lives of at least 7,290 civilians and left 80% of the population - 24 million people - in need of humanitarian assistance or protection, including 10 million who rely on food aid to survive.

Read more here:

Saudi oil attacks: Nato chief 'extremely concerned' about escalation - BBC News

Trump’s Defense Cuts in Europe Will Backfire – Foreign Policy

Twice this month, the Trump administration moved to walk back critical efforts to strengthen the U.S. military presence in Europe, choosing cheap political points over essential projects and sound policy. First, the White House announced it would cut more than $770 million worth of military construction efforts meant to restore combat capability in Europe and to deter further Russian aggression, in order to divert funds to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border. Second, the United States is hoping to cut a deal with Germany that on its face appears to increase German military spending and decrease the U.S. share of the military burden in Europe but, in reality, serves to weaken the German military while burdening the United States even further. In both cases, the loser is the United States.

The military construction projects on the chopping block include vital aspects of the U.S. scramble to rebuild its ability to fight in Europe. As the U.S. deputy assistant secretary of defense in charge of Europe and NATO when Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014, I spent almost every waking moment pushing as much U.S. force structure back into Europe as I could to deter any further aggression by Russian President Vladimir Putin. I know firsthand how essential the projects in question are, and I know for a fact that eliminating them takes away tools the U.S. military needs in case of a conflict, including ammunition storage, runways for combat aircraft, facilities for special operations forces, prepositioned equipment to set up forward air bases, and reinforced shelters for combat aircraft. The projects being cut are not military bands or barber shops but tools of war that would be needed immediately in case of conflict. Deterrence is about not just showing intent to defend your allies, but having the ability to do so. These cuts take away that ability. The U.S. drawdown in Europe at the end of the Cold War helped embolden Putin to invade Georgia and Ukraine, as well as intimidate U.S. allies in the Nordic and Baltic regions. To deter further Russian adventurism in this great power competition, the United States ability to respond alongside NATO needs to be restored, and quickly.

In addition to providing funds for the wall, the cuts are likely meant to punish U.S. allies for falling short in their NATO pledges to increase defense spending. From the beginning of his presidential campaign, U.S. President Donald Trump has maintained that Europeans should pick up more of the tab for Europes defenses. In the United States, the need for European allies need to spend more on defense is a long-established, mainstream, bipartisan position. But cutting military projects essential for U.S.not Europeancombat capability only hurts the countrys ability to fight.

On top of the cuts, the administration is pushing for a bad deal with Germany that takes the wrong approach to the need for Berlin to spend more on defense. It will result in badly needed German defense euros going into an obscure NATO administrative fund, offsetting some of the U.S. share, rather than to the German military, which is desperate for more funding to keep its ships at sea and planes in the air. The measure allows the United States to claim a burden-sharing victory over Germany, without inducing Berlin to spend money where it is really needed: on the German military.

All NATO members contribute a certain percentage of the alliances common funds ($2.6 billion total in 2019), which is used to pay the costs of running the organization, as well as to build infrastructure in allied countries that NATO forces may need. Each countrys percentage contribution is based on its GDP and is periodically renegotiated. The U.S. percentage is 22.1 and the German percentage is 14.8. Trumps deal has Germany increase its cut to 15.9 and the United States drop its contribution to the new German amount. This enables the Trump administration to say that it is squeezing the Germans on military spending and saving U.S. dollars at the same time. The Germans are able to say they are doing more on burden-sharing but at a lower cost than what they should be doing, which is to spend much more on the German militarynot on covering NATO administrative costs.

The United States has long held that Germany doesnt spend enough on defense. That issue has been in the talking points of every administration since the end of the Cold War. But the U.S. drive to get a quick victory against Germany by having that country increase its contribution to NATO common funds while reducing the U.S. contribution misses the point and makes the German situation worse. Getting Germany to spend more on NATO electricity bills and less on its own fighting force is a senseless victory.

Under Trump, the United States is willing to undercut its own goals if that means a slap to Europe. Great power competition with Russia in Europe is real, and the United States and its allies are way behind repairing the damage wrought by almost 30 years of benign neglect. The money taken from U.S. military construction in Europe takes weapons out of the hands of the U.S. military where it is needed most. And claiming a largely symbolic victory over Germany by having it move money away from its military and into a NATO administrative account only weakens the ability of the Germans to fight alongside the United States. A weaker German military only shifts more of the burden to the United Statesthe very thing Trump is trying to prevent.

Read more from the original source:

Trump's Defense Cuts in Europe Will Backfire - Foreign Policy

Russian aggression… in a galaxy far away? NATO maritime experts sought to secure mysterious Sea of Asimov – RT

A NATO maritime expert discovered a conflict hotspot, as crucial as the Persian Gulf, that no one else has heard of. Apparently, the mysterious Sea of Asimov urgently needs NATOs protection. The error was later corrected.

Recent events in the Persian Gulf and Sea of Asimov have demonstrated the need for naval power and for NATO forces to be able to find and destroy mines, declares a NATO puff piece featuring Maritime Officer Paul Beckley, who apparently has traveled to distant galaxies not accessible to non-NATO countries.

The article discussed the importance of Beckleys role without giving any further insight into the enigmatic body of water hes helping to mine-sweep for NATO. Certainly, the Sea of Asimov is not found on any human maps, from this planet anyway. What else does Beckley do there? Fight off space pirates? Subdue Cthulhu and his minions? Inquiring minds want to know.

One lone Twitter user placed the mysterious Sea in the Collapsing Universe of Isaac Asimov which would make sense, given the name.

The reference to the fictional sea remained on NATOs website for more than 12 hours, before the alliance quietly changed it to Sea of Azov, a real-life body of water encircled by Russia and eastern Ukraine.

NATOs military superiority to Russia is eroding, according to Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Joseph Dunford. Chinas capabilities are creeping up quickly as well, he told reporters on Tuesday following a meeting of the alliances military committee. But who needs military superiority when you have access to science fiction worlds?

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!

Read more from the original source:

Russian aggression... in a galaxy far away? NATO maritime experts sought to secure mysterious Sea of Asimov - RT

Russia threat: F-16s intercept Russia bombers over Baltic – as Lithuania ups NATO spending – Express.co.uk

A Belgian Air Force tweet stated: Today two @BeAirForce #F16 of #NATOs #BAP mission intercepted two Russian #TU160 Blackjack and two Russian #SU27 Flanker above the Baltic Sea.It was the first scramble for the Belgian detachment which is safeguarding the Baltic airspace since the 3rd of september. #WeareNATO

Belgium has deployed a total of four F-16AM Vipers to Lithuanias Siauliai Air Base, Lithuania, where they operate along F-16s belonging to the Royal Danish Air Force.

In addition, four Czech Grippen aircraft operate out of Amari airbase in Estonia.

A blog on the Aviationist website, which is monitoring the situation, said: While Tu-160s have been intercepted by NATO jets in the Baltic region previously, its at least worthy of note that the last close encounter with the Blackjack strategic bomber dates back to two months ago: on July 16, 2019, two Tu-160s flew in international airspace over the Baltic Sea prompting scrambles from Finland, Sweden and Denmarks QRA (Quick Reaction Alert) cells.

Dubbed the White Swan, the Tu-160 holds a number of records for speed in its weight class.

It remains the largest, fastest strategic bomber in operation, second only to the developmental US built XB-70 Valkyrie in size, weight and performance.

The post added: It is also the worlds largest variable-geometry swept wing aircraft, larger and heavier than the US B-1B Lancer supersonic variable-swept wing bomber.

JUST IN:Russia vs US nuclear war: Conflict would kill 34 million in FIVE HOURS

RAF jets were also deployed in April after Tu-160s approached UK airspace.

A RAF spokesman said: We can confirm that RAF quick reaction alert Typhoon aircraft from RAF Lossiemouth scrambled to monitor two Blackjack bombers while they were in the UK area of interest.

At no point did the Russian aircraft enter UK territorial airspace.

Lithuanian president Gitanas Nauseda, who was elected last year, met with NATO and EU officials earlier this month.

He said: NATO has always been the safeguard of Lithuanias security and defence.

We are grateful for the commitment of the allies to defend and protect Lithuania and the Baltic States, as well as for the strengthening of the armed forces and the Baltic air police mission.

Excerpt from:

Russia threat: F-16s intercept Russia bombers over Baltic - as Lithuania ups NATO spending - Express.co.uk

Turkey remains incredibly important NATO partner: US military official – Hurriyet Daily News

WASHINGTON- Anadolu Agency

U.S. Air Forces Commander for Europe and African said on Sept. 13 that Turkey is an incredibly important NATO partner and the alliance remains committed to Ankara as an ally.

"From a U.S. perspective, clearly, as the U.S. in coordination with NATO has talked about what has occurred with the [Russian] S-400 [missile defense system], that is a challenge, and its a problem that in the short term is one that we are going to have to continue to work our way through, recognizing that theres no room for an S-400 to be operating inside of Turkey," Gen. Jeffery L. Harrigian told a news conference.

He emphasized that the U.S. will continue to work with Turkey in terms of military-to-military perspective and cooperation remained very strong.

"There will always be areas that there will be tension, areas that we have to work our way through, but I will assure you that the work that were accomplishing together with our Turkish partners remains very solid," he said.

"From where I sit, my job is to ensure that we continue to have the strong relationship with Turkey that we have right now, and I will share with you that I have several Turkish officers that are on my staff at Allied Air Command and they are phenomenal officers that do fantastic work for me," Harrigian added.

Asked about the Incirlik airbase in Adana, Harrigian said camaraderie and teamwork at the Turkish base between the two countries are exemplary.

"Having said that, the location of Incirlik provides me as the commander multiple options when we talk about access to Syria, access to the west or to the east if required.

"So strategically it remains an incredibly important location and one in which we have a great relationship thats really been fostered over years and years of trust and confidence in working together," he said.

Harrigian said a safe zone recently agreed to by the U.S and Turkey needed to get to a point where the two countries had a shared understanding of where they were going to operate, how they were going to operate, and that took some time.

"To deliver this in such a short period of time is really a tribute to our relationship with the Turkish military, but also to those young folks on the ground that are actually delivering the mission," he added.

On Aug. 7, Turkish and U.S. military officials agreed to set up a safe zone in northern Syria and develop a peace corridor to facilitate the movement of displaced Syrians who want to return home. They also agreed to establish a joint operations center.

The agreement also envisaged setting up necessary security measures to address Turkey's security concerns, including clearing the zone of the terrorist YPG/PKK, a group the U.S. has sometimes been allied with, over Turkeys objections.

In its more than 30-year terror campaign against Turkey, the PKK -- listed as a terrorist organization by Turkey, the U.S. and the EU -- has been responsible for the deaths of nearly 40,000 people, including women and children.

The YPG is the group's Syrian branch.

On Thursday, two Turkish helicopters and two U.S. choppers took off from Akakale in Sanliurfa in southeastern Turkey, where the two countries armed forces have a joint operations center from where they flew to the Syrian side of the border.

The countries armed forces had previously done three joint helicopter flights and a land patrol.

Author : Dilara HamitPublisher : Corey Blackman05:07 14/09/19"

US,

View original post here:

Turkey remains incredibly important NATO partner: US military official - Hurriyet Daily News

US service member killed in action in Afghanistan: NATO – CNA

KABUL: An American service member was killed in Afghanistan, the US-led NATO mission said on Monday (Sep 16), the latest US fatality after talks between Washington and the Taliban crumbled.

"A US service member was killed in action today in Afghanistan," NATO's Resolute Support mission said in a brief statement.

The death brings the number of US military personnel killed in action in Afghanistan this year to at least 17, just as Washington is seeking a way out of its longest war.

NATO did not immediately provide any additional information regarding the circumstances of the deadly incident.

About a week ago, President Donald Trump abruptly called off talks with the Taliban, which were aimed at paving the way for an American withdrawal from Afghanistan following 18 years of armed conflict.

"They are dead. As far as I am concerned, they are dead," Trump said.

The announcement followed Trump's cancellation of a top-secret plan to fly Taliban leaders and Afghan President Ashraf Ghani to the Camp David presidential compound outside Washington for talks.

Trump in part blamed the death of a US soldier in a huge Taliban bombing in Kabul for his change of heart on negotiations.

Until the talks were called off, there had been steadily mounting expectations of a deal that would see the US draw down troop levels in Afghanistan - from roughly 13,000 to about 8,000 next year.

In return, the Taliban would offer security guarantees to keep extremist groups out.

Last week, NATO said the focus of its Resolute Support mission remained "unchanged" - to train and advise local forces.

"NATO will stay in Afghanistan for as long as necessary to ensure the country never again becomes a safe haven for international terrorists," an alliance official told AFP.

Go here to read the rest:

US service member killed in action in Afghanistan: NATO - CNA

Turkish, US army chiefs discuss planned Syrian safe zone at NATO summit – Ahval

Turkeys Chief of Staff Yaar Gler and his U.S. counterpart Joseph Dunford on Saturday discussed a planned safe zone in northeast Syria on the sidelines of a NATO conference in Slovenia, the Turkish defence ministry said.

Gler and Dunford held a bilateral meeting at NATO Military Committee Conference and the Turkish chief of staff shared Ankara's expectations on the planned safe zone, the defence ministry statement said.

The United States and Turkey last month agreed to establish a safe zone in northeast Syria to address Ankaras security concerns about the Kurdish-led Peoples Protection Units (YPG), which have been key to the U.S.-led fight against the Islamic State.

Turkey sees the YPG as an extension of the outlawed Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), an armed group that has been at war in Turkey for more than 30 years, and hasrepeatedly threatenedto invade the area if the United States is unable to agree to its terms on the safe zone.

Despite the deal, there are still disagreements between the two allies over several issues about the safe zone, notably the depth of the safe zone and the fate of YPG in the region.

Here is the original post:

Turkish, US army chiefs discuss planned Syrian safe zone at NATO summit - Ahval

Who Would Win If Russia and NATO Came to Blows? (Or Just Billions Dead?) – Yahoo News

Key point: It depends on the circumstances.

Current tensions between Russia and NATO are leading many to carefully assess this question and examine the current state of weaponry and technological sophistication of the Russian military -- with a mind to better understanding the extent of the kinds of threats they may pose.

Naturally, Russias military maneuvers and annexation of the Crimean peninsula have many Pentagon analysts likely wondering about and assessing the pace of Russia's current military modernization and the relative condition of the former Cold War military giants forces, platforms and weaponry.

Russia has clearly postured itself in response to NATO as though it can counter-balance or deter the alliance, however some examinations of Russias current military reveals questions about its current ability to pose a real challenge to NATO in a prolonged, all-out military engagement.

Nevertheless, Russia continues to make military advances and many Pentagon experts and analysts have expressed concern about NATO's force posture in Eastern Europe regarding whether it is significant enough to deter Russia from a possible invasion of Eastern Europe.

Also, Russias economic pressures have not slowed the countries commitment to rapid military modernization and the increase of defense budgets, despite the fact that the countrys military is a fraction of what it was during the height of the Cold War in the 1980s.

While the former Cold War giants territories and outer most borders are sizeably less than they were in the 1980s, Russias conventional land, air and sea forces are trying to expand quickly, transition into the higher-tech information age and steadily pursue next-generation platforms.

Russias conventional and nuclear arsenal is a small piece of what it was during the Cold War, yet the country is pursuing a new class of air-independent submarines, a T-50 stealth fighter jet, next-generation missiles and high-tech gear for individual ground soldiers.

Read the original article.

Story continues

Continued here:

Who Would Win If Russia and NATO Came to Blows? (Or Just Billions Dead?) - Yahoo News

NATO Allies Join US Navy in Cutlass Fury Photo Exercise – Hanford Sentinel

ATLANTIC OCEAN (NNS) -- Standing NATO Maritime Group One (SNMG1) ships participated in a photo exercise alongside the Royal Canadian Navy and other Allied navies Sept. 11 during exercise Cutlass Fury 2019.

SNMG1 participants included the flagship U.S. Navy guided-missile destroyer USS Gridley (DDG 101), the Royal Norwegian Navy frigate HNoMS Thor Heyerdahl (F-314), the Belgian Navy frigate Leopold I (F930), the Portuguese Navy frigate NRP D. Francisco de Almeida (F334) and the Royal Netherlands Navy frigate HNLMS Van Speijk (F 828).

Canadas exercise Cutlass Fury 2019 is an excellent opportunity to train together and demonstrate NATOs commitment to the security of the North Atlantic, the strategic link which connects our nations and gives its name to the Alliance. said U.S. Navy Rear Adm. Edward Cashman, commander of SNMG1.

It was a particular honor serving today and seeing all of the Allies with colors at half-mast in acknowledgement of the anniversary of 9/11/2001," Cashman said. "The Alliance is based on the principle of collective defense, that an attack on one is an attack on all. In its 70 years, NATO has only invoked that collective defense clause once, after the attacks on the United States on Sept. 11.

Royal Canadian Navy participants included the maritime coastal defense vessel HMCS Glace Bay (MM 701), supply ship MV Asterix, frigate HMCS Fredericton (FFH 337), frigate HMCS Ville De Quebec (FFH 332) and coastal defense vessel HMCS Shawinigan (MM 704).

Cutlass Fury provides an excellent opportunity for the Royal Canadian Navy to build interoperability between Canada's principal partner nations engaged in North Atlantic security, said Royal Canadian Navy Rear Adm. Craig Baines, commander of Maritime Forces Atlantic. It allows us the chance to foster multinational cooperation and trust, and achieve national training objectives aimed at building capable and adaptable maritime forces."

Other participating units included the U.S. Navy guided-missile destroyer USS Jason Dunham (DDG 109), U.S. Military Sealift Command underway replenishment oiler USNS Patuxent (T-AO 201), the Royal Danish Navy frigate HDMS Peter Willemoes (F 362), and the United Kingdom Royal Navy frigate HMS Northumberland (F 238).

Cutlass Fury is a biennial, medium-scale exercise off the coast of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, with the purpose of unifying Canada's Atlantic Fleet, Allied navies, and other joint elements in tactical-level warfare.

SNMG1 is one of four standing maritime task groups composed of ships from various Allied countries. These task groups form the core maritime capabilities of NATOs Very High Readiness Joint Task Force (VJTF). They provide a continuous maritime capability to execute NATO missions across the spectrum of operations, demonstrate solidarity, and strengthen diplomatic and professional links among Allied naval forces.

Receive email alerts as soon as breaking news posts.

Read more:

NATO Allies Join US Navy in Cutlass Fury Photo Exercise - Hanford Sentinel

NATO’s Crazy Plan to Kill Russia’s Submarines: Bomb Them with Magnets? – Yahoo News

Key Point:The floppy-magnets worked exactly as intended, but they were simply too messy to train with to be practical on a large scale. It seems NATO deployed them only a few times.

At the height of the Cold War, the Soviet Union had so many hundreds of deadly submarines at sea that Western war planners willing to try almost any possible countermeasure, however goofy sounding.

Some seemingly crazy ideas proved actually worthwhile, such as the underwater Sound Surveillance Systema vast chain of seafloor microphones that patiently listened for Soviet subs and remains in use today.

Other less elegant anti-submarine tools survive only as anecdotes. In his book Hunter Killers, naval writer Iain Ballantyne recalls one of the zanier ideas air-dropped floppy-magnets meant to foul up Soviet undersea boats, making them noisier and easier to detect.

From the late 1940s on, captured German technology boosted Soviet postwar submarine design. Soviet shipyards delivered subs good enough and numerous enough to pose a huge danger to Western shipping.

By the time of the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, the USSR controlled the largest submarine force in the world some 300 diesel-electric submarines and a handful of nuclear-propelled models. NATO navies couldnt keep up. We simply do not have enough forces, Vice Adm. R.M. Smeeton stated.

NATO war planners feared only nuclear escalation could check the Soviet submarine wolf packs. That is, atomic strikes on sub bases along the Russian coast.

But the nuclear solution was worse than the problem. We can take steps to make sure the enemy is fully aware of where his course of action is leading him without nuclear weapons, Smeeton said, but we cannot go to war that way.

Read the original article.

See the original post:

NATO's Crazy Plan to Kill Russia's Submarines: Bomb Them with Magnets? - Yahoo News

Poll: Close to 80 per cent of Georgians support EU, NATO – Emerging Europe

An overwhelming majority of Georgian citizens support the countrys accession to the European Union and NATO, a recent poll commissioned by the US-based National Democratic Institute has found. More than 78 per cent of Georgians would support EU membership, while 71 per cent would support a Georgian bid to join NATO.

According to the poll, jobs creation and security were ranked the top concerns of Georgian citizens, followed by rising prices and inflation, poverty, the countrys territorial integrity, pensions and wages.

NDIs analysts found that the majority of Georgians are more satisfied with the accessibility and quality of the countrys healthcare system, but that there is a growing concern regarding the price of medicine and healthcare services.

Georgians hold the government responsible for their poor economic well-being, sending an urgent signal to Georgian leaders to develop and present concrete plans for inclusive growth and employment, said NDI Senior Director Laura Thornton.

View original post here:

Poll: Close to 80 per cent of Georgians support EU, NATO - Emerging Europe

Nato Caliph builds an album release experience with his latest project – STLtoday.com

Veteran St. Louis rapper Nato Caliph has released a number of projects over the years including his Christmas Day 2016 album, God. But he feels his new album, The Build, is something special.

He says its the first album people can listen to all the way through. A lot of the albums today, especially in the streaming world, are not cohesive, and there may be two or three good songs. But as a project, youre not really interested.

This is one album I feel I can play from front to back. I only did eight songs deliberately, and they flow and connect, he says. Its a roller coaster but a good one. Its methodical and planned out.

Its Caliphs eighth album.

The concept of the album was guided by principles he practices as a member of the Nations of Gods and Earth Movement (also referred to as the Five-Percent Nation), a social-conscious culture. The Build reflects NGEs Supreme Mathematics system, in which the numeral eight represents build or destroy.

Hes working his way through the system. God, his previous album, represents the seventh principle.

Nato Caliph

Courtesy of Benjamin Gandhi-Shepard for Solvm

He stays true to the number eight: The album was released on the 26th day (2 plus 6 equals 8) of the eighth month. There are eight songs on the album and eight letters in the albums title.

Additionally, the first letter of each song title in order spells out The Build.

Of build or destroy, Caliph says, theres lots of destroying going on in the world already. You wanna add on the positive and take away the negative. Thats what The Build is all about, having that conversation and building toward positive action, positive change.

He wants listeners to be ready for self-examination upon listening to his project.

Theres a lot of play on words and double entendres throughout the project, and just in general I wanted to go into a deep dive with self-evaluations, says Caliph (born Shedrick Kelley). Thats how I go into most albums.

The albums kickoff single is Black, accompanied by a video that Caliph directed in which he climbs in and out of a car that represents the vehicle toward opportunity, he says.

We dont often have that vehicle as black people. And if we do have the vehicle, we dont have the keys. Thats what the car represents, how to get to my goal, my next destination. Its a song about being black and the things we go through.

New York hip-hop figure Lord Finesse is featured on Black. I needed people to speak on the project, Caliph says. The album represents intelligent conversation. (A mutual) friend reached out, and he said hed do it. It was perfect. Hes iconic.

Activist Jamala Rogers, author of Ferguson Is America: Roots of Rebellion, is featured on the song Evolve. Its her first appearance on one of his projects. Rogers serves as executive directer of the Organization for Black Struggle, of which Caliph is a member.

I see her often, he says. Her history with the city runs so deep. Anybody whos anybody in the social world or in dealing with the black works knows her. I consider her a mentor. She plays no games.

Radio personality Headkrack of The Rickey Smiley Morning Show is featured on Infinite, along with motivational speaker Source Radiance.

Nato Caliph

Courtesy of Benjamin Gandhi-Shepard for Solvm

And a pair of St. Louis rappers make appearances, Bo Dean and Ackurate, on Heat.

Ackurate is like a little brother, Caliph says. Anything Im doing Im trying to include him. I told him, You have a slot if you want to sharpen your sword. Bo Dean and I hadnt linked before. It was about finding the right thing to get him on.

The album was about a year in the making, delayed while waiting for some guest features to come through. Otherwise, it wouldve been finished last year.

Heat and Us are both upcoming as singles with video treatments.

STL Legend produced half of the songs on The Build. Caliph collaborated with him on his last few projects. He gets my style and is just what Ive been needing. Hes really easy to work with and super humble.

Smitty, who DJs for Post Malone and is part of production team Track Bangas, produced two tracks. Kenautis Smith produced two songs as well.

Caliph will celebrate his new music Friday at Blank Space with an Album Release Experience.

Everyone does an album release/listening party, he says. I want this to be considered an experience.

What The Build: An Album Release Experience When 8 p.m. Friday Where Blank Space, 2847 Cherokee Street How much $8 More info blankspacestl@gmail.com

See original here:

Nato Caliph builds an album release experience with his latest project - STLtoday.com

NATO leaders, possibly including Trump, to meet at The Grove in Watford – Watford Observer

NATO world leaders will be coming to Watford this December, the Observer can exclusively reveal.

US President Donald Trump is expected tobe among the leaders who will meet at The Grove hotel on December 4, according to Foreign Office sources.

The UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson will also be there alongside German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President Emmanuel Macron, and other members of NATO.

Former US president Barack Obama played a round of golf at The Grove with then UK Prime Minister David Cameron, back in 2016.

Obama had been on a three-day visit to the UK.

In 2013, The Grove hosted the Bilderberg Conference involving some of the most influential figures in Western Europe and North America, resulting in a major security operation in our area.

Security operation in place at The Grove in 2013. Credit: Holly Cant

Photographers at the Bilderberg Conference held at The Grove in 2013. Credit: Holly Cant

Originally posted here:

NATO leaders, possibly including Trump, to meet at The Grove in Watford - Watford Observer

NATO – HISTORY

Contents

In 1949, the prospect of further Communist expansion prompted the United States and 11 other Western nations to form the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). The Soviet Union and its affiliated Communist nations in Eastern Europe founded a rival alliance, the Warsaw Pact, in 1955. The alignment of nearly every European nation into one of the two opposing camps formalized the political division of the European continent that had taken place since World War II (1939-45). This alignment provided the framework for the military standoff that continued throughout the Cold War (1945-91).

Conflict between the Western nations (including the United States, Great Britain, France and other countries) and the Communist Eastern bloc (led by the Union of Soviet Socialists Republics or USSR) began almost as soon as the guns fell silent at the end of World War II (1939-45). The USSR oversaw the installation of pro-Soviet governments in many of the areas it had taken from the Nazis during the war. In response, the U.S. and its Western allies sought ways to prevent further expansion of Communist influence on the European continent. In 1947, U.S. leaders introduced the Marshall Plan, a diplomatic initiative that provided aid to friendly nations to help them rebuild their war-damaged infrastructures and economies.

Did you know? NATO continued its existence beyond the Cold War era and gained new member nations in Eastern Europe during the late 1990s. That development was not well received by leaders of the Russian Federation and became a source of post-Cold War tension between the East and the West.

Events of the following year prompted American leaders to adopt a more militaristic stance toward the Soviets. In February 1948, a coup sponsored by the Soviet Union overthrew the democratic government of Czechoslovakia and brought that nation firmly into the Communist camp. Within a few days, U.S. leaders agreed to join discussions aimed at forming a joint security agreement with their European allies. The process gained new urgency in June of that year, when the USSR cut off ground access to Berlin, forcing the U.S., Britain and France to airlift supplies to their sectors of the German city, which had been partitioned between the Western Allies and the Soviets following World War II.

The discussions between the Western nations concluded on April 4, 1949, when the foreign ministers of 12 countries in North America and Western Europe gathered in Washington, D.C., to sign the North Atlantic Treaty. It was primarily a security pact, with Article 5 stating that a military attack against any of the signatories would be considered an attack against them all. When U.S. Secretary of State Dean Acheson (1893-1971) put his signature on the document, it reflected an important change in American foreign policy. For the first time since the 1700s, the U.S. had formally tied its security to that of nations in Europethe continent that had served as the flash point for both world wars.

The original membership of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) consisted of Belgium, Britain, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal and the United States. NATO formed the backbone of the Wests military bulwark against the USSR and its allies for the next 40 years, with its membership growing larger over the course of the Cold War era. Greece and Turkey were admitted in 1952, the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany) in 1955 and Spain in 1982. Unhappy with its role in the organization, France opted to withdraw from military participation in NATO in 1966 and did not return until 1995.

The formation of the Warsaw Pact was in some ways a response to the creation of NATO, although it did not occur until six years after the Western alliance came into being. It was more directly inspired by the rearming of West Germany and its admission into NATO in 1955. In the aftermath of World War I and World War II, Soviet leaders felt very apprehensive about Germany once again becoming a military powera concern that was shared by many European nations on both sides of the Cold War divide.

In the mid-1950s, however, the U.S. and a number of other NATO members began to advocate making West Germany part of the alliance and allowing it to form an army under tight restrictions. The Soviets warned that such a provocative action would force them to make new security arrangements in their own sphere of influence, and they were true to their word. West Germany formally joined NATO on May 5, 1955, and the Warsaw Pact was signed less than two weeks later, on May 14. Joining the USSR in the alliance were Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, the German Democratic Republic (East Germany), Hungary, Poland and Romania. This lineup remained constant until the Cold War ended with the dismantling of all the Communist governments in Eastern Europe in 1989 and 1990.

Like NATO, the Warsaw Pact focused on the objective of creating a coordinated defense among its member nations in order to deter an enemy attack. There was also an internal security component to the agreement that proved useful to the USSR. The alliance provided a mechanism for the Soviets to exercise even tighter control over the other Communist states in Eastern Europe and deter pact members from seeking greater autonomy. When Soviet leaders found it necessary to use military force to put down revolts in Hungary in 1956 and in Czechoslovakia in 1968, for example, they presented the action as being carried out by the Warsaw Pact rather than by the USSR alone.

Link:

NATO - HISTORY

NATO | Founders, Members, & History | Britannica.com

North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), military alliance established by the North Atlantic Treaty (also called the Washington Treaty) of April 4, 1949, which sought to create a counterweight to Soviet armies stationed in central and eastern Europe after World War II. Its original members were Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Joining the original signatories were Greece and Turkey (1952); West Germany (1955; from 1990 as Germany); Spain (1982); the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland (1999); Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia (2004); Albania and Croatia (2009); and Montenegro (2017). France withdrew from the integrated military command of NATO in 1966 but remained a member of the organization; it resumed its position in NATOs military command in 2009.

Read More on This Topic

20th-century international relations: The role of NATO

Russian assertiveness complicated Clintons efforts to recast NATO for the post-Cold War world. American neo-isolationists thought that

The heart of NATO is expressed in Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, in which the signatory members agree that

an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all; and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

NATO invoked Article 5 for the first time in 2001, after terrorist attacks organized by exiled Saudi Arabian millionaire Osama bin Laden destroyed the World Trade Center in New York City and part of the Pentagon outside Washington, D.C., killing some 3,000 people.

Article 6 defines the geographic scope of the treaty as covering an armed attack on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America. Other articles commit the allies to strengthening their democratic institutions, to building their collective military capability, to consulting each other, and to remaining open to inviting other European states to join.

After World War II in 1945, western Europe was economically exhausted and militarily weak (the western Allies had rapidly and drastically reduced their armies at the end of the war), and newly powerful communist parties had arisen in France and Italy. By contrast, the Soviet Union had emerged from the war with its armies dominating all the states of central and eastern Europe, and by 1948 communists under Moscows sponsorship had consolidated their control of the governments of those countries and suppressed all noncommunist political activity. What became known as the Iron Curtain, a term popularized by Winston Churchill, had descended over central and eastern Europe. Further, wartime cooperation between the western Allies and the Soviets had completely broken down. Each side was organizing its own sector of occupied Germany, so that two German states would emerge, a democratic one in the west and a communist one in the east.

In 1948 the United States launched the Marshall Plan, which infused massive amounts of economic aid to the countries of western and southern Europe on the condition that they cooperate with each other and engage in joint planning to hasten their mutual recovery. As for military recovery, under the Brussels Treaty of 1948, the United Kingdom, France, and the Low CountriesBelgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourgconcluded a collective-defense agreement called the Western European Union. It was soon recognized, however, that a more formidable alliance would be required to provide an adequate military counterweight to the Soviets.

By this time Britain, Canada, and the United States had already engaged in secret exploratory talks on security arrangements that would serve as an alternative to the United Nations (UN), which was becoming paralyzed by the rapidly emerging Cold War. In March 1948, following a virtual communist coup dtat in Czechoslovakia in February, the three governments began discussions on a multilateral collective-defense scheme that would enhance Western security and promote democratic values. These discussions were eventually joined by France, the Low Countries, and Norway and in April 1949 resulted in the North Atlantic Treaty.

Spurred by the North Korean invasion of South Korea in June 1950, the United States took steps to demonstrate that it would resist any Soviet military expansion or pressures in Europe. General Dwight D. Eisenhower, the leader of the Allied forces in western Europe in World War II, was named Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) by the North Atlantic Council (NATOs governing body) in December 1950. He was followed as SACEUR by a succession of American generals.

The North Atlantic Council, which was established soon after the treaty came into effect, is composed of ministerial representatives of the member states, who meet at least twice a year. At other times the council, chaired by the NATO secretary-general, remains in permanent session at the ambassadorial level. Just as the position of SACEUR has always been held by an American, the secretary-generalship has always been held by a European.

NATOs military organization encompasses a complete system of commands for possible wartime use. The Military Committee, consisting of representatives of the military chiefs of staff of the member states, subsumes two strategic commands: Allied Command Operations (ACO) and Allied Command Transformation (ACT). ACO is headed by the SACEUR and located at Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) in Casteau, Belgium. ACT is headquartered in Norfolk, Virginia, U.S. During the alliances first 20 years, more than $3 billion worth of infrastructure for NATO forcesbases, airfields, pipelines, communications networks, depotswas jointly planned, financed, and built, with about one-third of the funding from the United States. NATO funding generally is not used for the procurement of military equipment, which is provided by the member statesthough the NATO Airborne Early Warning Force, a fleet of radar-bearing aircraft designed to protect against a surprise low-flying attack, was funded jointly.

A serious issue confronting NATO in the early and mid-1950s was the negotiation of West Germanys participation in the alliance. The prospect of a rearmed Germany was understandably greeted with widespread unease and hesitancy in western Europe, but the countrys strength had long been recognized as necessary to protect western Europe from a possible Soviet invasion. Accordingly, arrangements for West Germanys safe participation in the alliance were worked out as part of the Paris Agreements of October 1954, which ended the occupation of West German territory by the western Allies and provided for both the limitation of West German armaments and the countrys accession to the Brussels Treaty. In May 1955 West Germany joined NATO, which prompted the Soviet Union to form the Warsaw Pact alliance in central and eastern Europe the same year. The West Germans subsequently contributed many divisions and substantial air forces to the NATO alliance. By the time the Cold War ended, some 900,000 troopsnearly half of them from six countries (United States, United Kingdom, France, Belgium, Canada, and the Netherlands)were stationed in West Germany.

Frances relationship with NATO became strained after 1958, as President Charles de Gaulle increasingly criticized the organizations domination by the United States and the intrusion upon French sovereignty by NATOs many international staffs and activities. He argued that such integration subjected France to automatic war at the decision of foreigners. In July 1966 France formally withdrew from the military command structure of NATO and required NATO forces and headquarters to leave French soil; nevertheless, de Gaulle proclaimed continued French adherence to the North Atlantic Treaty in case of unprovoked aggression. After NATO moved its headquarters from Paris to Brussels, France maintained a liaison relationship with NATOs integrated military staffs, continued to sit in the council, and continued to maintain and deploy ground forces in West Germany, though it did so under new bilateral agreements with the West Germans rather than under NATO jurisdiction. In 2009 France rejoined the military command structure of NATO.

From its founding, NATOs primary purpose was to unify and strengthen the Western Allies military response to a possible invasion of western Europe by the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact allies. In the early 1950s NATO relied partly on the threat of massive nuclear retaliation from the United States to counter the Warsaw Pacts much larger ground forces. Beginning in 1957, this policy was supplemented by the deployment of American nuclear weapons in western European bases. NATO later adopted a flexible response strategy, which the United States interpreted to mean that a war in Europe did not have to escalate to an all-out nuclear exchange. Under this strategy, many Allied forces were equipped with American battlefield and theatre nuclear weapons under a dual-control (or dual-key) system, which allowed both the country hosting the weapons and the United States to veto their use. Britain retained control of its strategic nuclear arsenal but brought it within NATOs planning structures; Frances nuclear forces remained completely autonomous.

A conventional and nuclear stalemate between the two sides continued through the construction of the Berlin Wall in the early 1960s, dtente in the 1970s, and the resurgence of Cold War tensions in the 1980s after the Soviet Unions invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 and the election of U.S. President Ronald Reagan in 1980. After 1985, however, far-reaching economic and political reforms introduced by Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev fundamentally altered the status quo. In July 1989 Gorbachev announced that Moscow would no longer prop up communist governments in central and eastern Europe and thereby signaled his tacit acceptance of their replacement by freely elected (and noncommunist) administrations. Moscows abandonment of control over central and eastern Europe meant the dissipation of much of the military threat that the Warsaw Pact had formerly posed to western Europe, a fact that led some to question the need to retain NATO as a military organizationespecially after the Warsaw Pacts dissolution in 1991. The reunification of Germany in October 1990 and its retention of NATO membership created both a need and an opportunity for NATO to be transformed into a more political alliance devoted to maintaining international stability in Europe.

After the Cold War, NATO was reconceived as a cooperative-security organization whose mandate was to include two main objectives: to foster dialogue and cooperation with former adversaries in the Warsaw Pact and to manage conflicts in areas on the European periphery, such as the Balkans. In keeping with the first objective, NATO established the North Atlantic Cooperation Council (1991; later replaced by the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council) to provide a forum for the exchange of views on political and security issues, as well as the Partnership for Peace (PfP) program (1994) to enhance European security and stability through joint military training exercises with NATO and non-NATO states, including the former Soviet republics and allies. Special cooperative links were also set up with two PfP countries: Russia and Ukraine.

The second objective entailed NATOs first use of military force, when it entered the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1995 by staging air strikes against Bosnian Serb positions around the capital city of Sarajevo. The subsequent Dayton Accords, which were initialed by representatives of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of Croatia, and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, committed each state to respecting the others sovereignty and to settling disputes peacefully; it also laid the groundwork for stationing NATO peacekeeping troops in the region. A 60,000-strong Implementation Force (IFOR) was initially deployed, though a smaller contingent remained in Bosnia under a different name, the Stabilization Force (SFOR). In March 1999 NATO launched massive air strikes against Serbia in an attempt to force the Yugoslav government of Slobodan Miloevi to accede to diplomatic provisions designed to protect the predominantly Muslim Albanian population in the province of Kosovo. Under the terms of a negotiated settlement to the fighting, NATO deployed a peacekeeping force called the Kosovo Force (KFOR).

The crisis over Kosovo and the ensuing war gave renewed impetus to efforts by the European Union (EU) to construct a new crisis-intervention force, which would make the EU less dependent on NATO and U.S. military resources for conflict management. These efforts prompted significant debates about whether enhancing the EUs defensive capabilities would strengthen or weaken NATO. Simultaneously there was much discussion of the future of NATO in the post-Cold War era. Some observers argued that the alliance should be dissolved, noting that it was created to confront an enemy that no longer existed; others called for a broad expansion of NATO membership to include Russia. Most suggested alternative roles, including peacekeeping. By the start of the second decade of the 21st century, it appeared likely that the EU would not develop capabilities competitive with those of NATO or even seek to do so; as a result, earlier worries associated with the spectre of rivalry between the two Brussels-based organizations dissipated.

During the presidency of Bill Clinton (19932001), the United States led an initiative to enlarge NATO membership gradually to include some of the former Soviet allies. In the concurrent debate over enlargement, supporters of the initiative argued that NATO membership was the best way to begin the long process of integrating these states into regional political and economic institutions such as the EU. Some also feared future Russian aggression and suggested that NATO membership would guarantee freedom and security for the newly democratic regimes. Opponents pointed to the enormous cost of modernizing the military forces of new members; they also argued that enlargement, which Russia would regard as a provocation, would hinder democracy in that country and enhance the influence of hard-liners. Despite these disagreements, the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland joined NATO in 1999; Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia were admitted in 2004; and Albania and Croatia acceded to the alliance in 2009.

Meanwhile, by the beginning of the 21st century, Russia and NATO had formed a strategic relationship. No longer considered NATOs chief enemy, Russia cemented a new cooperative bond with NATO in 2001 to address such common concerns as international terrorism, nuclear nonproliferation, and arms control. This bond was subsequently subject to fraying, however, in large part because of reasons associated with Russian domestic politics.

Events following the September 11 terrorist attacks in 2001 led to the forging of a new dynamic within the alliance, one that increasingly favoured the military engagement of members outside Europe, initially with a mission against Taliban forces in Afghanistan beginning in the summer of 2003 and subsequently with air operations against the regime of Muammar al-Qaddafi in Libya in early 2011. As a result of the increased tempo of military operations undertaken by the alliance, the long-standing issue of burden sharing was revived, with some officials warning that failure to share the costs of NATO operations more equitably would lead to unraveling of the alliance. Most observers regarded that scenario as unlikely, however.

Excerpt from:

NATO | Founders, Members, & History | Britannica.com

NATO: Definition, Purpose, History, Members – The Balance

NATO is an alliance of 28 countries bordering the North Atlantic Ocean. It includesthe United States, most European Union members, Canada, and Turkey. NATO is an acronym for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

At the July 11, 2018, NATO summit, President Trump requested that NATO nations increase their defense spending to 4 percent of GDP. In 2017, the United States spent 4.5 percent. That's $886 billion in military spending divided by $20 trillion in U.S. GDP.

Trump also criticized Germany for asking the United States to protect it from Russia while importing billions in natural gas from it.

Trump has accused NATO of being obsolete. He argued that the organization focuses on defending Europe against Russia instead of combating terrorism.Member countries worry that Trump's criticism of NATO and praise of Russia's leader, Vladimir Putin, mean they can no longer rely on the United States as an ally in case of attack.

NATO's mission is to protect the freedom of its members. Its targets includeweapons of mass destruction, terrorism, and cyber attacks.

At its July 11, 2018, meeting, NATO approvednew steps to contain Russia. These include two new military commands and expanded efforts against cyberwarfare and counterterrorism. It also contains a new plan to deter Russian aggression against Poland and the Baltic States. Trump agreed to these measures.

On November 16, 2015, NATO responded to theterrorist attacks in Paris. It called for a unified approach with the European Union, France, and NATO. France did notinvoke NATO'sArticle 5. That would be a formal declaration of war uponthe Islamic state group. France preferred to launch air strikes on its own. Article 5 states, "an armed attack upon one... shall be considered an attack upon them all."

NATO's protection does not extend to members' civil wars or internal coups. On July 15, 2016, the Turkish military announced it had seized control of the government in a coup. But Turkish President Recep Erdogan announced early on July 16 that the coup had failed. As a NATO member, Turkey would receive its allies' support in the case of an attack. But in case of a coup, the country will not get allied help.

NATO's secondary purpose is to protect the stability of the region.

If the stability is threatened, NATO would defend non-members. On August 28,2014, NATO announcedit had photos proving that Russiainvaded Ukraine. Although Ukraine is not a member, it had worked with NATO over the years. Russia's invasion of Ukraine threatenednearby NATO members. They worried other former USSR satellite countries would be next.

As a result, NATO'sSeptember 2014 summitfocused on Russia' aggression. President Putin vowed to create a "NewRussia" out of Ukraine's eastern region.President Obamapledged to defend countries such as Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia.

NATO itself admits that "Peacekeeping has become at least as difficult as peacemaking." As a result, NATO is strengthening alliances throughout the world. In the age of globalization, transatlantic peace has become a worldwide effort. Itextends beyond military might alone.

NATO's 28 members are: Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary,Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, and the United States.

Each member designates an ambassador to NATO. They supply officials to serve on NATO committees. They send the appropriate official to discuss NATO business. That includes a countrys president, prime minister, foreign affairs minister or head of the department of defense.

On December 1, 2015, NATO announced its first expansion since 2009. It offered membership to Montenegro. Russia responded by calling the move a strategic threat to its national security. Its worried by the number of Balkan countries along its border that have joined NATO.

NATO participates in three alliances. They expands its influence beyond its 28 member countries. The Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council helps partners become NATO members.Itincludes 23 non-NATO countries that support NATO's purpose. It beganin 1991.

The Mediterranean Dialogue seeks to stabilize the Middle East. Its non-NATO members include Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Mauritania, Morocco, and Tunisia. It began in1994.

The Istanbul Cooperation Initiativeworks forpeace throughout the larger Middle East region.It includes four members of theGulf Cooperation Council. They are Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. It began in 2004.

NATO cooperates with eight other countries in joint security issues. There are five in Asia. They are Australia,Japan, Republic of Korea, Mongolia, and New Zealand. There are two in the Middle East: Afghanistan and Pakistan.

NATO'sprimary purpose was to defend member nations from threats by communist countries. The United States also wanted to maintain a presence in Europe. It soughtto prevent a resurgence of aggressive nationalism and foster political union. In this way, NATO made the formation of the European Union possible.U.S. military protection gave European nations the safety needed to rebuild after World War II's devastation.

During the Cold War, NATO's mission expanded to prevent nuclear war.

After West Germany joined NATO, thecommunistcountriesformed theWarsaw Pact alliance. That included the USSR, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and EastGermany. In response, NATO adopted the "Massive Retaliation" policy. It promised to usenuclear weaponsif the Pact attacked. NATO'sdeterrence policy allowed Europe to focus oneconomic development. It didn't have to build large conventional armies.

The Soviet Union continued to build its military presence. By the end of theCold War, it was spending three times what the United Stateswas with only one-third the economic power. When theBerlin Wallfell in 1989, it was due to economic as well as ideological reasons.

After the USSR dissolved in the late 1980s, NATO's relationship with Russia thawed. In 1997, they signed the NATO-Russia Founding Act to build bilateral cooperation. In 2002, they formed the NATO-Russia Council to partner on shared security issues.

The collapse of the USSR led to unrest in its former satellite states. NATO got involved when Yugoslavia's civil war becamegenocide. NATO's initial support of aUnited Nationsnaval embargo led to the enforcement of ano-fly zone. Violations then led to a few airstrikes until September 1999. That's when NATO conducted a nine-day air campaign that ended the war. By December of that year, NATO deployed a peace-keeping force of 60,000 soldiers. That ended in 2004 when NATO transferred this function to theEuropean Union.

See the original post here:

NATO: Definition, Purpose, History, Members - The Balance

NATO Turns 70 | The Nation

President Harry Truman signs the North Atlantic Treaty in 1949. (Abbie Rowe / Public domain)

On April 4, 1949, representatives of the United States, Canada, and 10 European countries, including the United Kingdom and France, gathered in Washington to sign the North Atlantic Treaty, a defense pact created at the urging of wartime allies France and Britain as a means to, in the words of NATOs first secretary general, Lord Hastings Lionel Ismay, keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.Ad Policy

President Harry S. Truman pledged that the treaty would serve as a defensive one in the face of Soviet expansion, against aggression and the fear of aggressiona bulwark which will permit us to get on with the real business ofachieving a fuller and happier life for all our citizens.

Next week, to mark the 70th anniversary of that occasion, NATO foreign ministers will descend on Washington for a ministerial meeting, various think-tank panels and commemorations, all to be topped off by an address from NATO General Secretary Jens Stoltenberg to a joint meeting of Congress.

The celebratory mood is nicely anticipated by promotional material for a town-hall event co-sponsored by the German Marshall Fund, the Atlantic Council, and the Munich Security Conference and scheduled to be held at the hip DC concert venue the Anthem, where participants will take part in a public conversation about the importance of NATO, honor and celebrate its achievements; and discuss NATOs future at this crucial time for the transatlantic community.

Sounds like quite a night. But not everyone will be celebrating.

A wide range of antiwar groups plan to hold a series of events aimed at raising public awareness on the true costs of NATO membership and challenge the conventional wisdom that the alliance serves as a pillar of peace and stability. As Dr. Joseph Gerson of the Campaign for Peace, Disarmament, and Common Security, puts it, Too few people in the United States understand how NATOs expansion to Russias borders became the primary cause for the new and very dangerous Cold War or how NATO became an aggressive global alliance. On April 2, rootsaction.org will hold a news conference at the National Press Club and a counter-summit sponsored by No to NATO is planned for the same day.

In the years following the end of the Cold War, the alliances mission has transformed beyond recognition from that of the defensive alliance envisioned by Truman.Current Issue

Subscribe today and Save up to $129.

The 1990s saw an effort to expand both NATOs mission (out of area or out of business became the mantra of the day) and NATOs membership. Despite the well-documented promises made to Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev by Secretary of State James Baker (and many others) that the West would not try to expand NATO one inch eastward, the Clinton administration embarked on a dual strategy that expanded the alliance eastward and transformed the defensive alliance into what became a staging ground for US interventions in the Balkans, Africa, and the Greater Middle East.

One of NATOs first major postCold War missions, the 78-day arial bombing of Serbia, nearly ended in disaster when NATO Supreme Allied Commander Wesley Clark ordered British General Mike Jackson, commander of NATOs troops in Kosovo, to retake the airfield in Pristina, the capital, from the Russiansby force if necessary.

Jackson refused: Im not going to start Third World War for you.

Undeterred by that apocalyptic near-miss, NATO has soldiered on, playing supporting roles in the Bush and Obama administrations wars of choice. In the meantime, despite well-founded objections, the alliance has continued to expand eastward, adding 10 member states between 2004 and 2017, with promises of more to come. Indeed, on Monday Stoltenberg, on a visit to Tbilisi told reporters that NATO is continuing to prepare for Georgias NATO membership, and that the alliance does not accept that Russia or any other power can decide what members can do.

If you like this article, please give today to help fund The Nations work.

Statements such as these might be described as myopic, at best. At a minimum, they show that transatlantic military-political elites have learned nothing from the Ukraine crisis. Stoltenbergs comments are as good example as any of what the political scientist Richard Sakwa has described as a stance of one-sided geopolitical nihilism, where the very principle of other states having geopolitical interests that do not coincide with those of the Atlantic community is considered an aberration that not only delegitimizes those who assert different interests, but easily leads to the demonization of the leaders and elites who oppose the Atlanticist hegemony.

Puzzlingly, NATO is often to be said to be a vehicle for Western values. In March, NATOs deputy secretary general, the former high-ranking State Department official Rose Gottemoeller, declared that NATO promotes the shared values of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law. Likewise, Stoltenberg, at a recent speech to the German Marshall Fund in Brussels averred that NATO has helped spread freedom and democracy and human rights. we must continue to work hard every day to uphold those values.

But what are those values exactly? Turkey, currently governed by an Islamist authoritarian who has tacitly supported and funded ISIS, has been a member since 1952. The newest NATO member states have seen a disturbing recurrence of neo-Nazi torchlight marches and other events celebrating the wartime exploits of Nazi collaborators in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Croatia, Hungary, and Slovakia.

Yet, nearly three decades since the end of the first cold war, NATOs role is viewed as so sacrosanct by US military, political, and media elites that questioning the alliances policy of eastward expansion, and whether such a policy serves or harms US national-security interests, is now treated as tantamount to treason.

We are in danger of forgetting that in the run-up to the first round of expansion, prominent establishment figures voiced reasonable, indeed, prescient, objections to the ill-fated project of NATO expansion.

In an open letter to the Clinton administration in June 1997, dozens of high-ranking former policy-makers and diplomats, including Senators Bill Bradley, Gary Hart, and Sam Nunn; Paul H. Nitze, Ambassador Jack Matlock, and Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, warned that NATO expansion is neither necessary nor desirable and that this ill-conceived policy can and should be put on hold.

The diplomat-scholar George F. Kennan also foresaw trouble. Writing just after the New Year in 1997, Kennan predicted that the Russians will not react wisely and moderately to the decision of NATO to extend its boundaries to the Russian frontiers. For Kennan, the decision was the greatest mistake of the entire postCold War period.

Time has proven the skeptics correct.

The policy of NATO expansion is largely responsible for the dangerous deterioration in relations between Russia and the West and lies at the heart of the ongoing Ukraine crisis. Still more, says Nation contributing editor Stephen F. Cohen, a result of the new Cold War and its rampant Russophobiahas been the near-end of American diplomacy toward Russia and the almost total militarization of US-Russian relations. This alone is a profound source of insecurity-including the possibility of war with Russia.

Get unlimited digital access to the best independent news and analysis.

The end of the Cold War left NATO purposeless; expansion has made it untenable.

Instead of a self-serving, self-justifying anniversary celebration, NATO should address what has gone so wrong over the past three decades by reexamining, its policies of eastward expansion and non-defensive deployment and seriously consider adopting a nuclear no first use policy.

And as for the idea that a military alliance can and should serve as an arbiter of democratic values: an alternative approach might be for the United States and our European allies to reinvigorate the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, which, because its membership is not contingent upon an acceptance of US military leadership and includes important post-Soviet states like Russia and Ukraine, is far better suited to promote a peaceful Europe stretching from Lisbon to Vladivostok, a vision shared by leaders as disparate as Gorbachev and Charles de Gaulle.

At any rate, 70 years on, its long past time we reevaluate Americas role in NATO.

Read this article:

NATO Turns 70 | The Nation

nato – Wiktionary

English[edit]Etymology[edit]

You can help Wiktionary by providing a proper etymology.

nato (countable and uncountable, plural natos)

From Proto-Finnic *nato, from Proto-Uralic *nataw.

nato

From NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization)

nato

nato

From Latin ntus.

nato

From Latin ntus, from earlier gntus, from Proto-Italic *gntos, from Proto-Indo-European *nhts (begotten, produced), derived from the root *enh- (to beget, give birth).

natom (feminine singular nata, masculine plural nati, feminine plural nate)

nato (feminine singular nata, masculine plural nati, feminine plural nate)

See the etymology of the main entry.

nato

From n (swim).

nat (present infinitive natre, perfect active natv, supine nattum); first conjugation

See natus, nascor

nt

natom (feminine singular nata, masculine plural natos, feminine plural natas, comparable)

nato

Borrowed from Latin ntus.

nato (feminine singular nata, masculine plural natos, feminine plural natas)

Read more here:

nato - Wiktionary

Visas for Employees of International Organizations and NATO

Diplomats, government officials, and employees who will work for international organizations in the United States need G visas. Officials and employees of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) who will work for NATO in the United States need NATO visas. With the exception of a Head of State or Government who qualifies for an A visa regardless of the purpose of his or her visit to the United States, the type of visa required by a diplomat or other government official depends upon their purpose of travel to the United States.

If you are an employee of an international organization or NATO personnel who is physically present in the United States on assignment:

Requesting to renew (reapply for) your visa or that of an immediate family member,selectRenewing a G or NATO Visa in the United Statesto learn more. G-5 and NATO-7 visa holders must reapply for their visas outside the United States.

Requesting to change status into or out of G or NATO status,selectChange of Statusto/from A,G, NATO to learn more.

There are several steps to apply for a visa. The order of these steps and how you complete them may vary at the U.S. Embassy or Consulate where you apply. Please consult the instructions available on theembassy or consulate websitewhere you will apply.

As part of the visa application process, an interview at the U.S. embassy or consulate is required for most visa applicants applying abroad. Embassies and consulates generally do not require an interview for those applying for G-1 - 4 and NATO-1 - 6 visas, although a consular officer can request an interview.

Personal employees, domestic workers, and attendants of the above visa holders, applying for G-5 or NATO-7 visas, are required to be interviewed. Review information in thePersonal Employeessection below.

All applicants for G and NATO visas should complete the following:

All applicants for G and NATO visas should gather and deliver the following required documents to the U.S. Embassy or Consulate in your home country:

Review the instructions for how to apply for a visa on the website of theembassy or consulatewhere you will apply. Additional documents may be requested to establish if you are qualified.

Individuals who qualify for an official visa classification (A, G, C-3, NATO) are exempt from paying visa fees.

More About Visa Fees -Individuals holding diplomatic passports may be exempt from visa fees regardless of visa classification and purpose of travel, if they meet one of the qualifying categories. Possession of a diplomatic passport or the equivalent is not by itself sufficient to qualify for a no-fee diplomatic visa. The consular officer will make the determination whether the visa applicant qualifies for an exemption of fees under U.S. immigration laws. Official passport holders are not charged for official visas, but are required to pay visa application and reciprocal issuance fees, if applicable, for all non-official visas.

For A, G, and certain NATO visas, immediate family member is defined as:

1- Thespouseof the principal alien, who is not a member of some other household and who will reside regularly in the household of the principal alien, or

2-unmarried legal sons and daughtersof the principal alien, who are not members of some other household and who will reside regularly in the household of the principal alien, provided that such unmarried sons and daughters are:

If a son or daughter does not qualify as immediate family under this section, he or she may still qualify under section 3:

3- Immediate family member may also include any other person who:

Aliens who may qualify for immediate family status on this basis include: any other relative, by blood, marriage, or adoption, of the principal alien or his/her spouse; a same-sex domestic partner; and a relative by blood, marriage, or adoption of the same-sex domestic partner. The term "domestic partner" means a same-sex domestic partner. Domestic partners may be issued A or G visas if the sending country would provide reciprocal treatment to domestic partners of U.S. citizen government and international organization officials and employees.

For NATO visas, immediate family member means the spouse or child of a member depending on him or her for support.

Personal employees, attendants, domestic workers, or servants of individuals who have a valid G-1 through G-4, or NATO-1 through NATO-6 visa may receive a G-5 or a NATO-7 visa, if they meetthe requirements in 9 FAM 402.3-9. As part of the application process, the applicant must have an interview at the embassy or consulate. A written contract must be provided to the consular officer. The employer must provide proof that the applicant will receive the minimum wage and be provided working conditions in accordance with U.S. law. In addition, the applicant needs to demonstrate that s/he will perform the contracted employment duties. The consular officer will determine eligibility for the G-5 or NATO-7 visa. Applicants for G-5 or NATO-7 visas must apply outside the United States.

If the employer is not the principal officer or deputy principal officer or does not carry the diplomatic rank of minister or higher, the employer must demonstrate that he or she will have sufficient funds to provide the minimum wage and working conditions, as reflected in the contract. Consideration is also given to the number of employees an employer would reasonably be able to pay.

To apply for an G-5 and NATO-7, the visa applicant must submit each of the items explained in theHow to Apply: G-5 and NATO-7 Visas.

Employment Contractsigned by both the employer and the employee which must include each of the following items:

Important Notice for Personal Employees/Domestic Workers

Please keep your own passport and a copy of your employment contract with you while in the United States. You should not let your employer keep your contract or passport or other personal property for any reason. You and your employer will be subject to U.S. law while in the United States, and your contract describes the work arrangement your employer is expected to respect.

Certain employment-based nonimmigrants have legal rights under U.S. Federal immigration, labor, and employment laws, and you should have information about protections and available resources. As a temporary visitor to the United States, it is important that you are aware of your rights, as well as protections and resources available, when you come to work or study here. Before your interview, review the Know Your Rights pamphlet and learn about additional information on ourwebpage.

The U.S. Government considers "involuntary servitude" of domestic workers, as defined under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA), to be a severe form of trafficking in persons (TIP) and a serious criminal offense. Victims of involuntary servitude are offered protection under the TVPA. "The term 'involuntary servitude' includes a condition of servitude induced by means of any scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause a person to believe that, if the person did not enter into or continue in such condition, that person or another person would suffer serious harm or physical restraints, or the abuse or threatened abuse of the legal process." While in the U.S., domestic workers are advised that the telephone number for police and emergency services is 911, and that the U.S. Government maintains a telephone hotline for reporting abuse of domestic employees and other TIP-related crimes, 1-888-373-7888.

How you complete the several steps required to apply for a visa vary according to the U.S. Embassy or Consulate where you apply. As part of the application process, an interview at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate outside the United States is required. The employer and/or recruitment agent does not attend the interview.

You must schedule an appointment for your visa interview at the U.S. Embassy or Consulate in your home country, in the country where you are currently residing, or in the country where you are physically present. Please consult the instructions available on theembassy or consulate website.

G-5 and NATO-7 Visa applicants must submit each of the items explained in this webpage and How to Apply sections including:

During your visa interview, a consular officer will determine whether you are qualified to receive a visa based on your purpose of travel and other requirements. You must establish that you meet the requirements under U.S. law to receive a G-5 or NATO-7 visa.

Ink-free, digital fingerprint scans will be taken as part of your application process. They are usually taken during your interview, but this varies based on location.

After your visa interview, your application may require furtheradministrative processing. The consular officer will inform you if your application needs further processing.

If the visa is approved, the Embassy or Consulate will let you know how the office will return your passport with visa to you.

Personal employees should keep their passport and a copy of their contract in their possession. They should not surrender their contract and passport to their employer under any circumstances. Personal employees should understand that their contracts provide working arrangements that the employer is expected to respect.

Recent changes to U.S. law relate to the legal rights of certain employment-based nonimmigrants under Federal immigration, labor, and employment laws and the information to be provided about protections and available resources. Employers, as well as personal employees, should review the Nonimmigrant Rights, Protections and Resources pamphlet explained above.

Personal employees and domestic workers should understand that they must follow U.S. laws while in the United States.

More:

Visas for Employees of International Organizations and NATO