NATO – Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), or North Atlantic Alliance, the Atlantic Alliance, the Western Alliance, is a military alliance. It was established by the North Atlantic Treaty in 1949 and it was signed in Washington, D.C., USA, on April 4, 1949. Its headquarters are in Brussels, Belgium. Its other official name means the same in French, Organisation du trait de l'Atlantique nord (OTAN).

NATO has two official languages, English and French, as defined in Article 14 of the North Atlantic Treaty.

Its members in 1949 were: The United States, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, the United Kingdom, Canada, Portugal, Italy, Norway, Denmark and Iceland. Three years later, on 18 February 1952, Greece and Turkey also joined.

When West Germany joined the organization on 9 May 1955 it was described as "a decisive turning point in the history of our continent" by Halvard Lange, Foreign Minister of Norway at the time.,[2] the result was the Warsaw Pact, signed on 14 May 1955 by the Soviet Union and its satellite states as response to NATO.

After the Cold War in 1999 three former communist countries, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Poland joined the NATO. On 29 March 2004 seven more Northern European and Eastern European countries joined NATO: Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania and also Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, and Romania.

Croatia and Albania received NATO membership invitation on 3 April 2008. Republic of Macedonia received only conditional invitation because it was vetoed by Greece due to Republic of Macedonia's name dispute with Greece.

Montenegro joined in 2017.[source?]

Original post:

NATO - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Worst NATO crises in 70 years as world’s foremost military …

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, a pact launched 70 years ago in the ashes of World War II to face Stalin's Soviet threat and bind Western Europe and the US together, is the world's foremost military alliance.

The success of its deterrent power can be seen in a simple reality: NATO's first combat mission only came after the Soviet Union's collapse.

During the Cold War, NATO effectively defended Western Europe with US nuclear weapons, as NATO's office of the historian notes.

Read more: The real purpose of Russia's 100-megaton underwater nuclear doomsday device

From the treaty signed on April 4, 1949 by 12 powers, NATO has grown to 29 countries and expanded to include former Soviet states on Russia's border, which has angered Moscow.

Its forces now confront Russia, which under President Vladimir Putin seized the Crimean peninsula from Ukraine by force in 2014. The Russian military is developing supposedly unstoppable missiles that travel more than five times the speed of sound and a doomsday torpedo that could irradiate an entire ocean.

This is a look at six times NATO faced a crisis that took it to the brink of war, or into combat.

The rest is here:

Worst NATO crises in 70 years as world's foremost military ...

U.S. Mission to NATO

12 February, 2019 | Ambassador, NATO Ministerials, Transcripts

Kay Bailey Hutchison U.S. Permanent Representative to NATO Press Briefing February 12, 2019 Ambassador Hutchison: Good morning. Im very happy that we are going

8 February, 2019 | Press Releases

United States Mission to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 8 February 2019 The United States Remains in Compliance with the INF Treaty

17 January, 2019 | Ambassador, Transcripts, U.S. & NATO

Andrea L. Thompson Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security and Kay Bailey Hutchison U.S. Permanent Representative to NATO Press Briefing January 16, 2019

28 November, 2018 | NATO Summits, News, Press Releases

Unites States Mission to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 27 November 2018 Ambassador Kay Bailey Hutchisons Statement on the Developments near

19 October, 2018 | Reports, U.S. Secretary of State

October 19, 2018 Secretary Pompeo released the State Departments new report detailing the magnitude of the Iranian regimes destructive behavior at home and abroad. The

3 October, 2018 | Ambassador, NATO Ministerials, Transcripts

Briefing with Ambassador Kay Bailey Hutchison U.S. Permanent Representative to NATO October 2, 2018 Moderator: Greetings to everyone from the U.S. Department of State.

2 October, 2018 | Ambassador, NATO Ministerials, Transcripts

Kay Bailey Hutchison U.S. Permanent Representative to NATO Press Briefing October 2, 2018 Ambassador Hutchison: Welcome. And thank you all for getting here. I

24 September, 2018 | Ambassador, Speeches, Transcripts

Ambassador Hutchisons address at Oxford Analyticas Global Horizons 2018 Conference Blenheim Palace, Oxfordshire, England Friday, September 21, 2018 I would like to start by thanking

11 September, 2018 | Ambassador, News, Press Releases, U.S. & NATO

United States Mission to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 11 September 2018 Ambassador Kay Bailey Hutchison Commemorates 9/11 Attacks at NATO Memorial

11 September, 2018 | Ambassador, U.S. & NATO

Ambassador Hutchisons Remarks to Commemorate the September 11 Attacks at the 9/11 and Article 5 Memorial NATO HQ Tuesday, September 11, 2018 Thank

10 July, 2018 | Ambassador, NATO Summits, News, Transcripts

Kay Bailey Hutchison U.S. Permanent Representative to NATO NATO Press Briefing July 10, 2018 Ambassador Hutchison: Good afternoon. Well thank you very much for

6 June, 2018 | Ambassador, NATO Ministerials, News, Secretary Mattis, Transcripts

Kay Bailey Hutchison U.S. Permanent Representative to NATO Telephonic Briefing June 6, 2018 Moderator: Greetings to everyone from the U.S.-European Media Hub in Brussels.

6 June, 2018 | Ambassador, NATO Ministerials, News, Secretary Mattis, Transcripts

Kay Bailey Hutchison U.S. Permanent Representative to NATO NATO Press Briefing June 6, 2018 Ambassador Hutchison: Hello. This is a new arena and a

25 May, 2018 | Ambassador, News, Press Releases

United States Mission to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 25 May 2018 Ambassador Kay Bailey Hutchisons Visit to Washington: NATO is

22 May, 2018 | Ambassador, News, Press Releases

United States Mission to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 22 May 2018 U.S. Permanent Representative to NATO Ambassador Kay Bailey Hutchison

16 May, 2018 | Ambassador, News, President of the United States, Press Releases

United States Mission to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 16 May 2018 U.S. Ambassador to NATO Ambassador Kay Bailey Hutchison Travels

26 April, 2018 | Ambassador, NATO Ministerials, News, Transcripts

Ambassador Kay Bailey Hutchison U.S. Permanent Representative to NATO Pre-Ministerial Press Briefing April 26, 2018 Ambassador Hutchison: Good afternoon. Im so pleased to

26 April, 2018 | Ambassador, NATO Ministerials, News, Transcripts

Kay Bailey Hutchison U.S. Permanent Representative to NATO Telephonic Briefing April 26, 2018 Moderator: Greetings to everyone from the U.S. Department of State. I

Read the rest here:

U.S. Mission to NATO

NATO: Donald Trump to travel to London summit in December

President Donald Trump at NATO headquarters in Brussels on July 11, 2018.(Photo: Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP)

LONDON NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg announcedWednesday that the military alliance will hold a leaders' summit in London in December, a gathering that following NATO protocol would be expected to includePresident Donald Trump.

The White House has not confirmed Trump's attendance.

It falls during NATOs 70th anniversary year. No exact date for the meeting was given.

Stoltenberg said the leaders will "address the security challenges we face now and in the future, and to ensure that NATO continues to adapt in order to keep its population of almost one billion people safe."

When Trump attended aNATO summit in July last year he threatened to pull theU.S. out of the organization it helped found if allies did not increasespending on defense. He also accused Germany of being "a captive of Russia" in a series of tenseinteractions with allies that helped underscore how Trump intends to transform U.S. foreign policy.

More: What is NATO and why is President Trump slamming it?

NATO was founded in 1949 to help bring stability, and ensure peace, in a Europe that was reeling from the aftermath of World War II.A centerpiece of NATO is Article 5, amutual security guarantee among its 29 members that requires each member-nation to come to the aid of their allies in the event of an attack.The provision has been invoked only once: on 9/11when the U.S. was the target of terrorist attacks.

Trump has consistently railed against NATO allies for what he alleges are their failure to live up to spending commitments which amount to 2 per cent of GDP.

The U.S. spends about 3.5 percent of GDP on defense, the highest NATO share.

"Many countries owe us a tremendous amount of money from many years back, where they're delinquent as far as I'm concerned, because the United States has had to pay for them. So if you go back 10 or 20 years, you'll just add it all up, it's massive amounts of money is owed," he said in July ahead the summit in Brussels, NATO's headquarters.

There is some justification for Trump's claim.

At aNATO summit in 2014,the alliance's memberscommittedto spending at least 2 percent of their GDP on defense by 2024. At the time, only three countries could claim they were doing that. Stoltenberg said that eightmembers met thislevel in 2018: the US.., Greece, the United Kingdom, Estonia, Romania and Poland.

Earlier this year it emerged in a report in The New York Times that Trump has repeatedly expressed his desire to withdraw from NATO to senior White House aides because he did not see the point of the alliance that has been viewed as a critical bedrock against Soviet and Russian aggression for decades.

A weakened NATO is one of Putin's major geopolitical goals and fears of its eastward expansion is one of the reasons often cited for Russia's seizure of Ukraine's Crimea. In response to the report, theWhite House said that while Trump has publicly raised complaints about NATO, he seems satisfied with the way things stand now. It also pointed to statements that he made in July in Brussels in which he said NATO was "very important."

Trump's visits to the U.K. have sparked mass protests, with hundreds of thousands of people taking to the streets of London to express disapproval over his personal behavior and divisive rhetoric on immigration, climate change and other geopolitical concerns.

When he last visited Britain, protesters unveiled a giant diaper-wearing blimp depicting an orange-colored Trump as a big baby. "Trump baby" flew outside Parliament. It has also shown up at the U.S.-Mexico border and at a G-20 summit in Argentina.

More: 'Trump having impact': NATO head credits president's tough talk for $100B boost

NATO's secretary-general said Tuesday he is confident that both the Western military alliance and Russia "will act in a respectable way" as the two sides hold drills in the same area in waters off Norway's coast. (Oct. 30) AP

Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2019/02/06/nato-trump-expected-travel-london-summit/2786978002/

Link:

NATO: Donald Trump to travel to London summit in December

NATO military exercises in 2018 – Business Insider

With some 50,000 troops and tens of thousands of vehicles, ships, and aircraft, exercise Trident Juncture 2018 was NATO's largest exercise since the end of the Cold War.

"NATO does a major exercise like this each year," Ben Hodges, who commanded the US Army in Europe before retiring in 2017, told Business Insider earlier this year. "The scale of this one obviously is bigger than some of the past, but nonetheless, the fact that this exercise is happening is a normal part of NATO's battle rhythm."

In 2017, NATO conducted 108 exercises, and its members held 162 national and multinational exercises. This year, the alliance had 106 NATO exercises planned, and its members were expected to lead about 180 national and multinational exercises.

Those exercises vary in scope, duration, and form, ranging from live exercises involving thousands of troops to computer-assisted exercises in a classroom.

Below you can see just a few of the exercises NATO conducted this year with its members and partners.

See more here:

NATO military exercises in 2018 - Business Insider

NATO hunts Russian submarines in the Arctic – CNN

"They're letting us know that they're out there," Adm. James G. Foggo III, commander of US Naval Forces in Europe, said of Russia's increased submarine presence in the North Atlantic and Arctic oceans.

"They're operating in much greater numbers and in places they have not operated before."

It will be NATO's largest exercise in decades, involving 50,000 troops, 10,000 vehicles, 250 aircraft and 65 vessels, including a US aircraft carrier operating north of the Arctic Circle for the first time in almost 30 years.

Tensions between Russia and the West are at highs not seen since the Cold War, amid the poisoning of former Russian intelligence agent Sergei Skripal in England, allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 US election and Western sanctions on Moscow following its annexation of Crimea.

But Foggo, who is overseeing Trident Juncture, said the exercise isn't a threat to Russia, noting that NATO and Russian troops will be more than 700 kilometers (435 miles) apart during the maneuvers. NATO, he added, had invited Russian and Belarusian observers to monitor the exercise.

"I want them to be there because that conveys the strength of the alliance," Foggo said.

As the exercise plays out, it will involve air, ground and maritime operations, including anti-submarine warfare.

Russia not yet NATO's equal

Foggo said he believes Russia has over 40 combat submarines, more than 20 concentrated in its Northern Fleet, capable of operating in the North Atlantic and the Arctic.

To keep track of the Russian subs, NATO planes are making a flight about every other day out of a revived US base at Keflavik International Airport.

Iceland's foreign minister, Thr Thrdarson, said in a speech in Stockholm in January that alliance aircraft are operating out of the country with increased frequency, taking off from Keflavik for a total of 153 days in 2017, a steady year-on-year increase from just 21 days in 2014.

Established in 1951, the US Naval Air Station in Iceland was deactivated in 2006, as NATO shifted its focus in Europe south to the Mediterranean. However, the threat posed by a resurgent Russia and its submarine fleet has worried US military commanders and brought the Americans back to this island nation, which sits between Greenland and the United Kingdom.

To get from bases in the Russian Arctic to the open Atlantic, Moscow's submarines need to pass Iceland.

Foggo says those subs are a big headache for NATO's leaders.

"The Russians have continued to invest in research and development and production of very capable submarines. They have been our most capable adversary," said the US admiral, who spoke with CNN in an exclusive interview.

Russia says its sub fleet is defensive and necessary to safeguard the country's security.

At this year's "Submariner Day" in March, Vice Adm. Oleg Burtsev, the former head of Russian naval forces, talked about the importance of beefing up the country's fleet of subs.

"This is because the plans of the leadership of our country and our army are to ensure that we are capable of worthily countering any probable enemy from all directions," Burtsev said, according to Russia's Tass news agency.

And another former top naval commander said Russia has some work to do to match the submarine fleet the NATO allies can muster.

"I believe that the qualitative level of our fleet is quite high now, but its quantity is not yet enough," Adm. Vladimir Komoyedov, the former head of Russia's Black Sea Fleet, told Tass.

Much of NATO's trouble with the Russian sub fleet is of its own making, said Carl Schuster, a former US Navy captain and current Hawaii Pacific University professor.

"Much of (the Russian sub fleet's) current threat is based on the expansion of its operations and operating areas at a time when NATO countries have reduced their fleets and fleet operations," Schuster said, calling it "a serious threat only because NATO ignored it until recently to focus on other security concerns."

A new generation of threat

Foggo says Russia's new generation of submarines is highly capable and dangerous. Among the newest is the Borei class: virtually silent, nuclear-powered vessels capable of launching ballistic missiles. The Borei class is a main pillar of Russia's underwater nuclear deterrent force, similar to the US Ohio class ballistic missile submarines.

"This is beyond any doubt the future of our group of naval strategic nuclear forces," the head of Russia's naval forces, Adm. Vladimir Korolev, said recently at the christening of another new Borei class submarine.

But Russia is also in the process of modernizing many of its older submarines, like the diesel-electric Kilo class boats. These can now stay under water longer and are capable of carrying four cruise missiles, which they successfully fired at ISIS targets in Syria, the Russian military says.

"They carry the Kalibr cruise missile, a very capable weapon system. And from any of the places the Russians operate from, they can target any capital in Europe," Foggo said.

"Would they do it? I don't think so, but nevertheless, we need to be cognizant of where they are at all times," he said.

Schuster said that worry gives Russia an advantage.

"Moscow 's aggressive actions and intent will determine the time and place of a crisis while Western nations must be present and ready to respond at all times," he said.

And that's why NATO is methodically ramping up operations in Iceland.

Chess in the ocean

The US is spending $34 million to upgrade facilities at Keflavik, which will enable the Navy to deploy its P-8 Poseidon surveillance and anti-submarine aircraft more frequently.

But even with the twin-engine jets running regular surveillance in the North Atlantic, finding Russian submarines is not an easy task.

"The ocean is big .... It's a chess match between the sub commander and all the assets that are trying to find him," Lt. Cmdr. Rick Dorsey, the tactical coordinator for one of the US P-8 units operating out of Iceland, told CNN. "It's a combination of a lot of work, from a lot of different units."

"We work with ships, we work with other aircraft, we work with other nations to help get the picture," Dorsey said.

It's the sort of team work among allies that Adm. Foggo wants to encourage, applauding the UK and Norway for acquiring their own P-8 aircraft and calling on NATO members to invest in research and development to keep a competitive edge over Russia. "We must continue challenging them wherever they are and knowing where they are," he said.

"We can no longer take for granted that we can sail with impunity in all of the oceans."

Read the rest here:

NATO hunts Russian submarines in the Arctic - CNN

NATO launches biggest war games since end of Cold War

NATO launched its biggest exercises since the end of the Cold War on Thursday in Norway.

The Trident Juncture war games involve around 50,000 troops, 10,000 vehicles, 250 aircraft and 65 ships from all 29 alliance members, plus Sweden and Finland. The maneuvers will take place for two weeks in Norway and the air and sea spaces around the country.

Read more:US General Ben Hodges: 'Russia only respects strength'

The goal of the exercises is to test and train NATO'sVery High Readiness Joint Task Force and follow-on forces. The rapid reaction force is designed to spearhead a defense against an attack on an alliance member within days and is a component of the NATO Response Force.

The Very High Readiness Joint Task Force was established by the alliance in 2014 as a deterrent in response toRussia's annexation of the Crimean Peninsula from Ukraine and Moscow'ssupport for separatists there.

US Navy Admiral James Foggo, head of NATO's Allied Joint Force Command, told reporters in Oslo that the US commitment to the Article 5 mutual defense clause which requires all NATO member states to come to the aid of another was "rock solid."

NATO's "Trident Juncture," the largest military exercise since the end of the Cold War, launched in Norway on October 25 and is due to run until November 7. Some 50,000 troops are taking part in the exercises, including 24,000 navy personnel and 20,000 land forces.

Germany is the second largest contributor to the NATO exercise, coming in behind the United States. Some 10,000 German troops are taking part, with German forces leading one of the land exercises. A total of 31 countries are participating in the exercises, including non-NATO members Finland and Sweden.

NATO's "Trident Juncture" exercise will also see thousands of military vehicles put to use, including some 250 aircraft, 65 ships and over 10,000 vehicles. The United States' nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman will also be taking part.

The scripted maneuvers during "Trident Juncture" are based on a hypothetical scenario where troops have to restore Norway's sovereignty following an attack by a "fictitious aggressor." Norway has grown increasingly nervous about neighboring Russia since it annexed Crimea from Ukraine in 2014. NATO's latest exercise has angered Moscow, which slammed it as an "anti-Russian" and "provocative."

To help ensure that "sensitive areas" like hospitals, schools and drinking water sites aren't affected during the exercise, Norway printed 1.6 million maps for NATO troops to use. The Norwegian Armed Forces estimate 650 tons of laundry will be done during the exercise and some 1.8 million meals.

The exercise area encompasses large areas of land, sea and air space with naval operations stretching along the Norwegian coast and down to Scotland. The focus of the exercise will be on the land exercise in central Norway. Participating troops will be divided into northern and southern forces that will maneuver against one another.

Author: Rebecca Staudenmaier

Russia angered by NATO exercise

Russia, which borders Norway, has been invited to monitor the war games but has issued a condemnation.

"NATO's military activities near our borders have reached the highest level since the Cold War times," Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said on Wednesday, adding that Trident Juncture is "simulating offensive military action."

Moscow denounced Trident Juncture as an "anti-Russian" exercise: "Such activity... comes across as provocative, even if you try to justify it as being of a purely defensive nature," the Russian embassy in Oslo said on Thursday.

Russia regularly carries out war gamesof its own.

Some German politicians objected to the exercise as well, with the co-leader of the Left party in parliament slamming the move as "ludicrous, dangerous and provocative towards Russia."

"The threat of war is greater than it has been for a long time. The US president threatens nuclear armament against Russia and China and is cancelling nuclear disarmament treaties,"Dietmar Bartsch told German newspaper Neue Osnabrcker Zeitung.

In Trident Juncture,alliance forces will test their readiness to restore sovereignty to Norway following an attack by a "fictitious aggressor."

The German military is participating in the maneuvers with around 10,000 troops and 4,000 vehicles, as well as Tornado and Eurofighter jets and three ships. That makes it the second largest participant after the United States.

At the beginning of 2019, Germany will take over command of the Very High Readiness Joint Task Force for a year.

cw/jm (AFP, AP, dpa)

Each evening at 1830 UTC, DW's editors send out a selection of the day's hard news and quality feature journalism. You can sign up to receive it directly here.

More here:

NATO launches biggest war games since end of Cold War

Trumps ambassador to NATO sets off diplomatic incident with …

Paul Sonne

National security reporter focusing on the U.S. military

BRUSSELS The U.S. ambassador to NATO set off alarm bells Tuesday when she suggested that the United States might take out Russian missiles that U.S. officials say violate a landmark arms control treaty.

Although Ambassador Kay Bailey Hutchisons comments were somewhat ambiguous, arms control experts said they could be interpreted to mean a preemptive strike. Such a move could lead to nuclear war.

Only after the comments drew a furious response from the Russian Foreign Ministrydid Hutchison clarify on Twitter that shewas not talking about preemptively striking Russia. But the diplomatic damage was already done.

The impression is that people making such claims are unaware of the degree of their responsibility and the danger of aggressive rhetoric, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova told reporters, the Interfax news agency reported. Who authorized this lady to make such allegations? The American people? Do ordinary Americans know that they are paying out of their pockets for so-called diplomats who behave so aggressively and destructively?

Russia denies violating the treaty.

Asked during a news conference at NATO headquarters what the United States might do about a new class of Russian missiles that appear to violate the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty, Hutchison said, The countermeasures would be to take out the missiles that are in development by Russia in violation of the treaty.

Before Hutchison clarified her position, more than nine hours after her initial remarks, it was unclear whether she meant that the United States would target Russias banned missile installations if Moscow doesnt come back into compliance, or whether she was warning that the United States would enhance its missile defenses so it could take out any banned missiles Russia decided to launch at U.S. or allied targets. The United States currently has limited ability to defend against cruise missile threats.

The question was what would you do if this continues to a point where we know that they are capable of delivering the banned missiles, Hutchison said. And at that point we would then be looking at a capability to take out a missile that could hit any of our countries in Europe and hit America in Alaska.

The treaty, which the United States and the Soviet Union signed in 1987, prohibits the production and deployment of nuclear and conventional missiles that fly from 500 to 5,500 kilometers. It applies to ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles.

NATO defense ministers plan to address the alleged Russian violations at a Brussels meeting on Wednesday and Thursday.

Hutchison, a former Republican senator from Texas, has been President Trumps ambassador to NATO for just over a year.

She does threaten preemption. She just didnt mean it, said Jeffrey Lewis, an arms control scholar at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey.

Welcome to NATO! You have one job: to not start nuclear war with Russia, he joked. As an expert, I am used to politicians, including politicians who have been appointed as ambassadors, badly mangling simple things. So my default assumption was that she was badly mangling pretty common talking points.

Hutchisons comments set off a flurry of anxiety on Twitter, where arms control experts speculated about what she meant. Several pointed out that taking countermeasures against undeployed missiles that are still in development by definition would be a preemptive strike.

Russia has long feared that U.S. missile shields could be used covertly to preemptively target the man who controls the Russian nuclear arsenal Russian President Vladimir Putin. Although U.S. officials have long denied that is the purpose of their missile defense efforts, Hutchisons comments fed directly into the Russian concerns.

Zakharova said that Russian military experts were preparing a more technical response to Hutchison.

During the final years of the Obama administration, the State Department regularly stated that Russia was violating the treaty but stopped short of specifying which Russian weapon was going against the pact. Last year, Air Force Gen. Paul Selva, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Russia had violated the treatys spirit and intent by deploying a ground-based cruise missile.

Russia has accused the United States of violating the treaty with its Aegis Ashore missile defense installations in Romania and a similar installation still in the works in Poland, claiming that those platforms could launch Tomahawk cruise missiles in violation of the treaty. The United States has denied those accusations, saying the system launches only SM-3 interceptor missiles not covered by the pact.

Efforts by U.S. diplomats to bring Russia back into compliance with the treaty, including meetings between American and Russian officials as part of the pacts enforcement mechanism, have so far come up short. Under direction from Congress and to ratchet up pressure, the Pentagon has begun drawing up plans for a banned missile that the United States could deploy quickly if the treaty formally falls apart.

The treaty bans only production, testing and use of intermediate-range missiles; research and development isnt prohibited.

The dispute over the INF Treaty has also prompted the U.S. military to consider stepping up defenses against cruise missile threats from Russia in Europe. The Pentagon had drawn up a draft of the Trump administrations new missile defense policy early this year, but top officials sent it back to the drawing board after demanding that itmore thoroughly address the Russian cruise missile threat in Europe.

One possible step would be to stand up a better sensor network that could track any Russian cruise missiles from the moment of their launch at a European target. The Pentagon is also looking at technologies that could be put in place to shoot down missiles heading toward specific targets an effort Hutchison might have been referencing in her remarks.

This treaty is in danger because of Russias actions, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenbergtold reporters. All allies agree that the most plausible assessment would be that Russia is in violation of the treaty. It is therefore urgent that Russia addresses these concerns in a substantial and transparent manner.

paul.sonne@washpost.com

Sonne reported from Washington.

Read more

In Russias Far East, villagers recognize a Skripal poisoning suspect

In a blow to Israel, Russia says it will send Syria powerful antiaircraft missiles

Todays coverage from Post correspondents around the world

Like Washington Post World on Facebook and stay updated on foreign news

See the article here:

Trumps ambassador to NATO sets off diplomatic incident with ...

NATO

NATO is based on the North Atlantic Treaty, which provides the organization a framework. The treaty provides that an armed attack against one or more of NATO`s member nations shall be considered an attack against them all.* NATO is headquartered in Brussels, Belgium. The organization was formed in 1949. Many nations joined NATO even Iceland, the only member without a military force.

The organization was originally formed out of the fear that the Soviet Union would ally militarily with Eastern European nations, i.e. the Warsaw Pact, and thus become a threat to Western Europe and the United States. In short, the alliance is an association of free states united in their determination to preserve their security through mutual guarantees and stable relations with other countries.

From 1945 to 1949, Europe faced the crucial need for economic reconstruction. Western European countries and their North American allies viewed with apprehension the expansionist policies and methods of the U.S.S.R. Having fulfilled their own wartime commitments, and desiring to reduce their defense establishments and demobilize forces, Western governments became increasingly alarmed as it became clear that the Soviet leadership intended to maintain its own military forces at full strength.

Furthermore, in view of the Soviet Communist Party`s avowed ideology, it was evident that appeals to the United Nations Charter, and international settlements reached at the end of the war, would not assure democratic states their autonomy. The rise of nondemocratic governments in many central and eastern European countries, and the resultant repression of opposition parties and basic human rights, raised more alarm in the West.

Between 1947 and 1949, a series of extraordinary political events brought matters to a head. They included direct threats to the sovereignty of Norway, Greece, Turkey and other countries, the June 1948 coup in Czechoslovakia, and the illegal blockade of Berlin that began in April of the same year. The signing of the Brussels Treaty in March 1948 marked the commitment of five Western European countries Belgium, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom to develop a common defense system and strengthen the ties among them in a manner that would enable them to resist ideological, political and military threats to their security. Later, Denmark, Iceland, Italy, Norway and Portugal were invited by the Brussels Treaty powers to become participants in that process.

Then followed negotiations with the United States and Canada on the creation of a single North Atlantic alliance based on security guarantees and mutual commitments between Europe and North America. The alliance would become the transatlantic link by which the security of North America was permanently tied to the security of Europe.

Negotiations culminated in the signing of the treaty in April 1949, entered into freely by each country following public debate and due parliamentary process. The treaty a legal and contractual basis for the alliance was established within the framework of Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, which reaffirms the inherent right of independent states to individual or collective defense. The treaty requires of each of them not to enter into any other international commitment that might conflict with its provisions. The preamble to the treaty states that the aim of the allies is to promote peaceful and friendly relations in the North Atlantic area."

However, at the time of the treatys signing, the immediate purpose of NATO was to defend its members against a potential threat resulting from the policies and growing military capacity of the Soviet Union. The treaty created a common security system based on a partnership among the 12 countries. Others joined later:

The means by which the alliance carries out its security policies includes the maintenance of a sufficient military capability to prevent war and to provide for effective defense; an overall capability to manage crises affecting the security of its members; and active promotion of dialogue with other nations. The alliance performs the following fundamental security tasks:

A continent evolves

NATO has worked since its inception for the establishment of a just and lasting peaceful order in Europe based on common values of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. That central alliance objective has taken on renewed significance since the end of the Cold War because, for the first time in the post- World War II history of Europe, the prospect of its achievement has become a reality as embodied by the European Union.

From time to time, the alliance met at the summit level with heads of state and governments participating. Their direct participation in the process of taking decisions by consensus, raised the public profile of such meetings and bestowed on them increased historical significance.

By 1991, the major transformation of international security at the end of the 1980s was dictating the shape of the new NATO that would emerge over the next few years. The first of a series of four summit meetings that would plot the course of the alliances adaptation to the coming decade took place in Rome in November 1991. It would be followed by another summit meeting in Brussels in January 1994, two further meetings in Madrid in July 1997, and in Washington in April 1999.

Epilogue

The world has seen many changes since the inception of NATO. NATO peacekeeping forces maintain vigilance at hot spots around the world. Kosovo, Afghanistan and Somalia all enjoy a NATO presence. NATO announced on June 9, 2005, that it would help the African Union (AU) expand its peacekeeping mission in Darfur, Sudan, by airlifting additional AU peacekeepers into the region and assisting with training.

The following is from a speech by former NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson on November 12, 2003. The occasion was hosted by the George C. Marshall Foundation, the Center for Transatlantic Relations at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced Internationa Studies and the Royal Norwegian Embassy:

Another excerpt from the same speech:

The following is an illustration of how the world has changed. General Ray Henault of the Canadian Air Force accepted the chairmanship of NATO`s Military Committee on June 16, 2005, from his predecessor, General Harald Kujat of the German Air Force. The Military Committee is the highest military decision-making authority in NATO, assisting and advising the North Atlantic Council. The Chairman of the Military Committee is selected by the Chiefs of Defense and appointed for a three-year term of office.

See the original post here:

NATO

NATO Survives Trump, but the Turmoil Is Leaving Scars

The discussion was a healthy one, the official said. It created more urgency and it also allowed the summit meeting to end with an agreed message on improving spending, far better than an outcome where Mr. Trump was vocally unhappy and the others were perceived not to care, he added.

Indeed, Mr. Trump came away mollified, broadcasting his own sense of triumph, though he had said the day before that member nations had to reach the 2 percent goal immediately, and that the target should rise to 4 percent.

In the end I think the meeting was less divisive than feared, said Alexander Vershbow, a former NATO deputy secretary general. I think its the reality show that the president loves. There wasnt enough drama, so Trump has a tantrum, knocks over the table, and allies are used as props in his reality show.

That being said, he added, NATO goes on.

The substance of the meeting, he and others said, is in the communiqu. That document, a product of nearly a year of work, commits the alliance to a stronger deterrent against Russia, more efforts on cybersecurity, a strengthening of the alliances southern strategy and a new training program for Iraq, Tunisia and Libya. It also called for nations to devote at least 20 percent of their growing military budgets to equipment and modernization.

The United States pays 22 percent of NATOs budget, which covers things like offices, salaries and some equipment used in joint operations. According to the International Institute for Strategic Studies, of the $603 billion that the United States spends on the military each year, about $31 billion goes to Europe.

In the end, some analysts criticized Mr. Trump for fabricating a ruckus that, however much it might serve his political ends, was harmful to the alliance.

NATO always had a good story to tell at this summit, with the communiqu reflecting a robust and resilient alliance that is making real progress on a range of challenges, said Amanda Sloat, a former State Department official now at the Brookings Institution. Trumps belligerent tweets and taunts unfortunately overshadowed what should have been a straightforward message of success.

Read more here:

NATO Survives Trump, but the Turmoil Is Leaving Scars

NATO – Cold War – HISTORY.com

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.

View post:

NATO - Cold War - HISTORY.com

NATO – Allied Command Transformation (ACT) – Home – Facebook

Im Daniel from the lions den this is truth I Know God I was made into a King by The King of King's I...m your King nobody is beneath me only God is above me everybody else is my equal I am a Man that hope's for world peace not what the Antichrist want's I want Heaven for us Earthling's I want everlasting life I Love Mankind I want them us to survive as a specie's you need to set aside your problem's with one and another and unify dream inspire invent build produce farm explore colonize defend protect assimulate work and grow as one and go as a species into the heaven's and turn those lifeless world's out there into Eden's bring the seed's of life from this planet to the other planet's and Solar System's of the Universe God command's Mankind to go forth and Multiply through out the Heaven's this is what your King want's for our people this is what I will ask God for a dream from the big screen a interstellar Kingdom for Mankind to Rule over for The God of Moses and Daniel This is Daniel's dream for the Mother Earth she will be the Mother of Life for our side of the Galaxy. See More

Originally posted here:

NATO - Allied Command Transformation (ACT) - Home - Facebook

Ahead of NATO and Putin summits, Trumps unorthodox …

President Trump will land in Europe next week amid fears that he will blow up a key summit focused on Europes defense and then offer concessions to NATOs main adversary, Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The allies worries and Moscows hopes are rooted in Trumps combative approach to foreign policy. In recent days, Trump has told senior aides that he wants to slash U.S. spending on Europes defense if the allies are unwilling to contribute more to NATO, a senior administration official said.

The private comments reflect a president who has shown little interest in the long history that undergirds Americas alliances or the collective foreign policy expertise of the U.S. government, according to current and former U.S. and European officials.

Instead, he relies on his instincts and his ability to forge a personal bond with world leaders. White House officials tout the presidents willingness to question long-held assumptions and challenge Americas allies who have underspent on security for decades to contribute more to their own defense.

But his approach has also heartened autocrats, such as Putin, who see in Trump someone willing to forgive past sins in pursuit of a deal, the officials said. And it has alarmed allies and some of Trumps closest aides, who are concerned he may yield on issues such as Russias annexation of Crimea and its continuing destabilization of Ukraine.

Even as his administration has imposed tough sanctions on Moscow and expelled Russian diplomats, Trump has avoided criticizing Putin. He will meet with Putin in Helsinki on July 16.

[Trump, a reluctant hawk, has battled his aides on Russia]

The president thinks he can be friends with Putin, former national security adviser H.R. McMaster complained during his time in the White House, according to U.S. officials. I dont know why, or why he would want to be.

The presidents approach also has been corrosive to relations with allies who increasingly believe that Trump on trade, NATO and diplomacy is undercutting the post-World War II order in pursuit of short-term, and likely illusory, wins.

During an April visit by French President Emmanuel Macron to the White House, a frustrated Trump was sharply critical of both British Prime Minister Theresa May and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, U.S. and European officials said. Asked about his comments, the president in a statement to The Washington Post said that immigration is destroying Europe as we know it and it is very sad to be witness to what is happening.

European Council PresidentDonald Tusk has derided Trumps capricious assertiveness and warned that European Union countries need to prepare for worst-case scenarios. Trump, for his part, frequently tells European leaders how much he dislikes the E.U. and how it isworse than China.

In the days leading up to the NATO summit, the president and his team have sent mixed messages. Kay Bailey Hutchison, the U.S. ambassador to the alliance, focused on the positive, touting the biggest increases in defense spending by the allies since the end of the Cold War. U.S. Ambassador to Russia Jon Huntsman pledged that Trump would continue to hold Russia accountable for its malign activity.

Trump by contrast has highlighted grievances. Im going to tell NATO you got to start paying your bills, he said at a rally this week in Montana. They kill us on trade. They kill us on other things. ... And on top of that they kill us with NATO. And he defended Putin, calling him fine at the event.

This report is based on interviews with U.S. and European officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe internal deliberations and Trumps interactions with world leaders. The core of Trumps freewheeling approach has been in place since his earliest days in the White House. Shortly after he took office, Trump began passing out his personal cellphone number to a handful of foreign leaders, and in April 2017, White House aides were startled when officials in Canada issued a standard summary of a conversation between Prime MinisterJustin Trudeau and Trump. In it, Trudeau complained of unfair duties and baseless claims about trade by Trump administration officials.

No one at the White House was aware the call had taken place. We had no idea what happened, a senior U.S. official said.

Typically, such calls, even with close allies, are choreographed affairs. Regional experts prepare talking points covering the wide array of issues that might be raised. The national security adviser will brief the president ahead of the call and remain by his side to offer advice. After the call, a transcript is distributed to key aides, who will issue a public readout.

In this instance, U.S. officials had to rely on Trumps memory. Atersepublic readout described a very amicable call.

After the call, White House aides urged Trump to route all conversations with foreign leaders through the Situation Room, as required under federal records law, the senior official said.

Trumps lack of preparation has added a further level of unpredictability to his interactions with foreign leaders, the officials said. The president rarely reads his nightly briefing book, which focuses on issues likely to come up in meetings, a second senior U.S. official said. To slim down Trumps workload, aides have sometimes put the most critical information in a red folder, the official said.

In November and again in March, Trump invited Putin to the White House for a summit against the advice of aides, who argued that the chances of progress on substantive issues was slim.

For Trump, the meeting was the point. In an interview with Fox News last month, Trump speculated that he and Putin could potentially hash out solutions to Syria and Ukraine over dinner.

I could say: Would you do me a favor? Would you get out of Syria, Trump said. Would you do me a favor? Would you get out of Ukraine.

Some White House officials worry that Putin, who has held several calls with Trump, plays on the presidents inexperience and lack of detailed knowledge about issues while stoking Trumps grievances.

The Russian president complains to Trump about fake news and laments that the U.S. foreign policy establishment the deep state, in Putins words is conspiring against them, the first senior U.S. official said.

Its not us, Putin has told Trump, the official summarized. Its the subordinates fighting against our friendship.

In conversations with Trudeau, May and Merkel, Trump is sometimes assertive, brash and even bullying on issues he feels strongly about, such as trade, according to senior U.S. officials. He drives the conversation and isnt shy about cutting off the allies mid-sentence to make his point, the officials said.

With Putin, Trump takes a more conciliatory approach, often treating the Russian leader as a confidant.

So what do you think I should do about North Korea? he asked Putin in their November 2017 telephone call, according to U.S. officials. Some of those officials saw the request for advice as naive a sign that Trump believes the two countries are partners in the effort to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula. Other officials described Trumps query as a savvy effort to flatter and win over the Russian leader, whose country borders North Korea and has long been involved in diplomacy over its nuclear program.

A similar dynamic has played out in Syria, where Putin has offered to cooperate with the U.S. military on counterterrorism and help Trump realize his goal of an American withdrawal.

Trumps more hawkish current and former advisers, including McMaster, disparaged Putins offer as a cynical ploy, and maintain that Russias primary goal is to prop up the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and, more broadly, undercut U.S. influence in the Middle East.

The Pentagon views Russias proposal with similar skepticism, U.S. officials said.

Ahead of the NATO summit, European officials have huddled to discuss how to avoid a repeat of the Group of Seven meeting in June, in which Trump arrived late, left early and refused to sign a customary joint statement with the other leaders.

Guiding nearly all of Trumps interactions with world leaders is his belief that his ability to win over, charm and cajole foreign leaders is more important than policy detail or the advancement of strategic goals. Often, the calls can be discursive and confounding. In conversations with the British prime minister, he has boasted about his properties in the United Kingdom, asked her about his Cabinet officials performance and sometimes castigated her for being too politically correct, U.S. and British officials said.

Trump focused part of a meeting earlier this year with the Swedes, who are important interlocutors on North Korea, on complaints about the trade deficit, startling the visiting prime minister; the United States does not have a big trade deficit with Sweden relative to other European countries.

Really? Trump said last year when Irish officials visiting the Oval Office asked for a fix for undocumented immigrants from their country in the United States. You guys? Really?

On one point, Trump has been consistent: He rarely ends a call with a head of state without extending an invite to the White House. Next time youre in Washington, stop by for lunch at the White House, he often says, according to U.S. officials.

He has made the offer when his advisers urged him not to. Such was the case with Putin and with Michel Temer, the president of Brazil, who was weighed down by corruption allegations and deeply unpopular when Trump spoke with him last fall.

Before the call, aides had urged him not to invite the Brazilian leader to the White House. Trump did it anyway. White House aides spent the next several weeks dodging calls from the Brazilian ambassador trying to set up the meeting.

Read more:

Ahead of NATO and Putin summits, Trumps unorthodox ...

NATO Announces Expulsion Of Russian Diplomats Following …

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg speaks during a news conference to announce the withdraw of accreditation for staffers of Russia's Mission to NATO, in Brussels on Tuesday. Anadolu Agency/Getty Images hide caption

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg speaks during a news conference to announce the withdraw of accreditation for staffers of Russia's Mission to NATO, in Brussels on Tuesday.

NATO has followed the lead of many of its member countries, expelling Russian diplomats in connection with the nerve agent poisoning of an ex-double agent Sergei Skripal in southern England earlier this month.

Moscow which has suffered a major international backlash over the incident called NATO's move "boorish" and insignificant, but nonetheless vowed to retaliate.

More than 20 countries on Monday announced expulsions of Russian diplomats in response to the attack on Skripal, 66, and his 33-year-old daughter, Yulia.

NATO said Tuesday that it would withdraw accreditation for seven staff members of the Russian mission and deny pending accreditation to three others.

"[We] will continue to work for meaningful dialogue" with Moscow, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said at a news conference at the alliance's headquarters in Brussels. He said the announcement was meant to "send a very clear message to Russia" that its action "has costs."

"I actually think that Russia has underestimated the unity of NATO allies," he said.

The Skripals were found slumped on a bench at a shopping center in Salisbury, in southern England, following the March 4 attack. The two have been in a coma since then and British Prime Minister Theresa May said earlier this week that they "may never fully recover."

A nerve agent that was developed in the Soviet Union in the 1980s and is only found in Russia poisoned the Skripals.

The White House earlier this week said it was expelling 60 Russian diplomats.

President Trump spoke Tuesday with the leaders of France and Germany which expelled four Russian diplomats each over the Skripal affair. Trump "expressed support" in conversations with French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the White House said.

See the article here:

NATO Announces Expulsion Of Russian Diplomats Following ...

U.S. Mission to NATO – Official Site

9 hoursago | Ambassador, News, Op-Eds, South & Central Asia

Afghans are demanding peace, and NATO must help By Kay Bailey Hutchison, Hans-Dieter Lucas, Mehmet Fatih Ceylan and Claudio Bisogniero We want peace, not revenge.

12 March, 2018 | Ambassador, News, Transcripts

Kay Bailey Hutchison: We are so glad to be here, and Ive heard so much about this forum for all of my time in office.

1 March, 2018 | Ambassador, News, Press Releases

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE STATEMENT BY AMBASSADOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON ON RECONSTITUTION OF SENATE NATO OBSERVERS GROUP I am delighted that my former colleagues in

26 February, 2018 | Ambassador, News, Transcripts

Joint Statement from the NATO Framework Nations in Afghanistan Resolute Support Headquarters, Afghanistan 24 February 2018 Thank you very much, Ambassador Zimmermann. I am

16 February, 2018 | NATO Ministerials, News, Transcripts

Press Briefing by Secretary of Defense James N. Mattis at NATO Headquarters Brussels, Belgium February 15, 2018 SECRETARY OF DEFENSE JAMES N. MATTIS: Well,

13 February, 2018 | Ambassador, NATO Ministerials, News, Transcripts

Kay Bailey Hutchison U.S. Permanent Representative to NATO Telephonic Briefing Preview of Defense Ministerial February 13, 2018 Moderator: Greetings to everyone from the

13 February, 2018 | Ambassador, NATO Ministerials, News, Transcripts

Ambassador Kay Bailey Hutchison U.S. Permanent Representative to NATO Press Briefing February 13, 2018 Ambassador Hutchison: Good afternoon. Im very pleased to be here

15 December, 2017 | Key Documents, News, Press Releases

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE From Kay Bailey Hutchison, Permanent Representative of the United States to the North Atlantic Council, on the Statement by the North Atlantic

4 December, 2017 | NATO Ministerials, News, Transcripts

Kay Bailey Hutchison U.S. Permanent Representative to NATO Press Briefing 4 December 2017 Ambassador Hutchison: Welcome. I am so pleased that we are now

30 November, 2017 | Europe & Eurasia, News, Secretary Rex Tillerson, Speeches, Transcripts

Remarks by Secretary of State Rex W.Tillerson at The Wilson Center Washington, D.C. November 28, 2017 From State .gov Well, good morning, and thank

10 November, 2017 | NATO Ministerials, News, Secretary Mattis, Transcripts, U.S. & NATO

News Briefing by Secretary Mattis at NATO Headquarters following the Defense Ministerial November 9, 2017 From DoD SECRETARY OF DEFENSE JIM SEC. MATTIS: Well,

9 November, 2017 | NATO Ministerials, News, Secretary Mattis, Transcripts, U.S. & NATO

Remarks by Secretary Mattis at D-ISIS event at the NATO Headquarters Brussels, Belgium November 9, 2017 From DoD SECRETARY GENERALJENS STOLTENBERG: Welcome. I think

7 November, 2017 | Ambassador, NATO Ministerials, News, Transcripts

Ambassador Kay Bailey Hutchison U.S. Permanent Representative to NATO Press Briefing November 7, 2017 Ambassador Hutchison: Good afternoon. Im very pleased to be here.

2 October, 2017 | News, Speeches, Transcripts

Major General George, Major General Mika, Brigadier General Czosnek fellow soldiers and guestsDrodzy Mieszkacy Zagania, (dear Leaders of Zagan), members of the greater Poland communitymy

2 October, 2017 | News, Speeches, Transcripts

Good morning, Major General Mika, Major General George, Brigadier General Czosnek, Mayor Marchewka, distinguished guests, and the gracious people of Zagan. Todays ceremony is significant

2 October, 2017 | News, Speeches, Transcripts

Good morning (dzien dobry), my grandparents were born in Poland and its an honor for me to be here with you today. Thank you for

30 September, 2017 | News, Op-Eds

Washington Remains United Behind NATO By Kay Bailey Hutchison, US Ambassador to NATO BRUSSELS Partisanship and contentiousness typically dominate Washington news. In the clamor, its

22 August, 2017 | News, Transcripts

Statement of Kay Bailey Hutchison Nominee to be U.S. Permanent Representative to NATO Senate Committee on Foreign Relations July 20, 2017 KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON:Good

Read the original post:

U.S. Mission to NATO - Official Site

Nato must improve defences against a ‘more aggressive’ Russia …

Nato must improve its defensive capabilities and willingness to act in the wake of increasingly aggressive and unpredictable actions by Russia, the head of the transatlantic alliance said in a German newspaper interview published on Sunday.

The Nato secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg, said he expected the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, and other Nato leaders to revamp their approach at the next Nato summit this summer, given a risk that Russia could gradually give more weight to nuclear weapons in its doctrine, exercises and new military capabilities.

I think Chancellor Merkel and her colleagues will face new decisions at the Nato summit in July in Brussels. We must be alert and resolute, Stoltenberg was quoted saying by Welt am Sonntag.

The Nato leader last week accused Russia of trying to destabilise the west with new nuclear weapons, cyber attacks and covert action, including the poisoning of a Russian former double agent and his daughter in the British town of Salisbury.

We can always do more and must reflect on that now. Salisbury follows, by all appearances, a pattern weve observed for some years Russia is becoming more unpredictable and more aggressive, he said.

Russia denies any involvement and says it is the US-led transatlantic alliance that is a risk to peace in Europe.

Russia must not miscalculate, Stoltenberg told the newspaper. We are always ready to respond when an ally is attacked militarily. We want credible deterrence. We dont want any war. Our goal is de-escalation.

Georgi Markov

In one of the most chilling episodes of the cold war, the Bulgarian dissident was poisoned with a specially adapted umbrella on Waterloo Bridge. As he waited for a bus, Markov felt a sharp prick in his leg. The opposition activist, who was an irritant to the communist government of Bulgaria, died three days later. A deadly pellet containing ricin was found in his skin. His unknown assassin is thought to have been from the secret services in Bulgaria.

Alexander Litvinenko

The fatal poisoning of the former FSB officer sparked an international incident. Litvinenko fell ill after drinking tea laced with radioactive polonium. He met his killers in a bar of the Millennium hotel in Mayfair. The pair were Andrei Lugovoi a former KGB officer turned businessman, who is now a deputy in Russias state Duma and Dmitry Kovtun, a childhood friend of Lugovois from a Soviet military family. Putin denied all involvement and refused to extradite either of the killers.

German Gorbuntsov

The exiled Russian banker survived an attempt on his life as he got out of a cab in east London. He was shot four times with a silenced pistol. He had been involved in a bitter dispute with two former business partners.

Alexander Perepilichnyy

The businessman collapsed while running near his home in Surrey. Traces of a chemical that can be found in the poisonous plant gelsemium were laterfound in his stomach. Before his death, Perepilichnyy was helping a specialist investment firm uncover a $230m Russian money-laundering operation, a pre-inquest hearing was told. Hermitage Capital Management claimed that Perepilichnyy could have been deliberately killed for helping it uncover the scam involving Russian officials. He may have eaten a popular Russian dish containing the herb sorrel on the day of his death, which could have been poisoned.

Boris Berezovsky

The exiled billionaire was found hanged in an apparent suicide after he had spent more than decade waging a high-profile media battle against his one-time protege Putin. A coroner recorded an open verdict after hearing conflicting expert evidence about the way he died. A pathologist who conducted a postmortem examination on the businessmans body said he could not rule out murder.

Scot Young

An associate of Berezovsky whom he helped to launder money, he was found impaled on railings after he fell from a fourth-floor flat in central London. A coroner ruled that there was insufficient evidence of suicide. But Young, who was sent to prison in January 2013 for repeatedly refusing to reveal his finances during a divorce row, told his partner he was going to jump out of the window moments before he was found.

Stoltenberg said hybrid warfare could be added to the agenda of the next Nato-Russia council, a forum that brings together Nato ambassadors and Russias top diplomat to the alliance, despite the suspension of joint exercises and peacekeeping operations.

Hybrid warfare is a possible topic for the Nato-Russia council. We are now preparing the next meeting, so I dont want to say too much, he told the newspaper, referring to increased use of hybrid tactics such as soldiers without insignia.

Its important that we sit together at the table and speak to each other, he said, urging Russia to abide by nuclear arms control treaties.

Stoltenberg listed as evidence of Russias threat its 2014 annexation of Crimea, support for separatists in Ukraine, military presence in Moldova and Georgia, meddling in western elections and involvement in the war in Syria.

Go here to read the rest:

Nato must improve defences against a 'more aggressive' Russia ...

NATO – New World Encyclopedia

North Atlantic Treaty OrganizationOrganisation du Trait de l'Atlantique Nord

NATO countries shown in green

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO); French: Organisation du Trait de l'Atlantique Nord (OTAN); (also called the North Atlantic Alliance, the Atlantic Alliance, or the Western Alliance) is a military alliance established by the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty on 4 April 1949. Headquartered in Brussels, Belgium, the organization constitutes a system of collective defense in which its member states agree to mutual defense in response to an attack by any external party.

For its first few years, NATO was not much more than a political association. However the Korean War galvanized the member states, and an integrated military structure was built up under the direction of two U.S. supreme commanders. The first NATO Secretary General Lord Ismay, famously described the organization's goal was "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down".[2] Throughout the Cold War doubts over the strength of the relationship between the European states and the United States ebbed and flowed, along with doubts over the credibility of the NATO defense against a prospective Soviet invasiondoubts that led to the development of the independent French nuclear deterrent and the withdrawal of the French from NATO's military structure from 1966.

After the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, the organization became drawn into the Balkans while building better links with former potential enemies to the east, which culminated with the former Warsaw Pact states joining the alliance. Since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, NATO has attempted to refocus itself to new challenges and has deployed troops to Afghanistan and trainers to Iraq.

The Treaty of Brussels, signed on March 17, 1948 by Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France and the United Kingdom is considered the precursor to the NATO agreement. The treaty and the Soviet Berlin Blockade led to the creation of the Western European Union's Defense Organization in September 1948.[3] However, participation of the United States was thought necessary in order to counter the military power of the USSR, and therefore talks for a new military alliance began almost immediately.

These talks resulted in the North Atlantic Treaty, which was signed in Washington, D.C. on April 4, 1949. It included the five Treaty of Brussels states, as well as the United States, Canada, Portugal, Italy, Norway, Denmark and Iceland. Support for the Treaty was not unanimous; Iceland suffered an anti-NATO riot in March 1949 which may have been Communist-inspired. Three years later, on 18 February 1952, Greece and Turkey also joined.

The Parties of NATO agreed that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all. Consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defense will assist the Party or Parties being attacked, 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.

Such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force does not necessarily mean that other member states will respond with military action against the aggressor(s). Rather they are obliged to respond, but maintain the freedom to choose how they will respond. This differs from Article IV of the Treaty of Brussels (which founded the Western European Union) which clearly states that the response must include military action. It is however often assumed that NATO members will aid the attacked member militarily. Further, the article limits the organization's scope to Europe and North America, which explains why the invasion of the British Falkland Islands did not result in NATO involvement.

The outbreak of the Korean War in 1950 was crucial for NATO as it raised the apparent threat level greatly (all Communist countries were suspected of working together) and forced the alliance to develop concrete military plans.[4] The 1952 Lisbon conference, seeking to provide the forces necessary for NATO's Long-Term Defense Plan, called for an expansion to 96 divisions. However this requirement was dropped the following year to roughly 35 divisions with heavier use to be made of nuclear weapons. At this time, NATO could call on about 15 ready divisions in Central Europe, and another ten in Italy and Scandinavia.[5] Also at Lisbon, the post of Secretary General of NATO as the organization's chief civilian was also created, and Baron Hastings Ismay eventually appointed to the post.[6] Later, in September 1952, the first major NATO maritime exercises began; Operation Mainbrace brought together 200 ships and over 50,000 personnel to practice the defense of Denmark and Norway. Meanwhile, while this overt military preparation was going on, covert stay-behind arrangements to continue resistance after a successful Soviet invasion ('Operation Gladio'), initially made by the Western European Union, were being transferred to NATO control. Ultimately unofficial bonds began to grow between NATO's armed forces, such as the NATO Tiger Association and competitions such as the Canadian Army Trophy for tank gunnery.

In 1954, the Soviet Union suggested that it should join NATO to preserve peace in Europe.[7] The NATO countries, fearing that the Soviet Union's motive was to weaken the alliance, ultimately rejected this proposal.

The incorporation of West Germany into the organization on May 9, 1955 was described as "a decisive turning point in the history of our continent" by Halvard Lange, Foreign Minister of Norway at the time.[8] A major reason for Germany's entry into the alliance was that without German manpower, it would have been impossible to field enough conventional forces to to resist a Soviet invasion.[9] Indeed, one of its immediate results was the creation of the Warsaw Pact, signed on May 14, 1955 by the Soviet Union, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, Albania, and East Germany, as a formal response to this event, thereby delineating the two opposing sides of the Cold War.

The unity of NATO was breached early on in its history, with a crisis occurring during Charles de Gaulle's presidency of France from 1958 onward. De Gaulle protested the United States' strong role in the organization and what he perceived as a special relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom. In a memorandum sent to President Dwight D. Eisenhower and Prime Minister Harold Macmillan on September 17, 1958, he argued for the creation of a tripartite directorate that would put France on an equal footing with the United States and the United Kingdom, and also for the expansion of NATO's coverage to include geographical areas of interest to France, most notably Algeria, where France was waging a counter-insurgency and sought NATO assistance.

Considering the response given to be unsatisfactory, and in order to give France, in the event of a East German incursion into West Germany, the option of coming to a separate peace with the Eastern bloc instead of being drawn into a NATO-Warsaw Pact global war, de Gaulle began to build an independent defence for his country. On 11 March 1959, France withdrew its Mediterranean fleet from NATO command; three months later, in June 1959, de Gaulle banned the stationing of foreign nuclear weapons on French soil. This caused the United States to transfer two hundred military aircraft out of France and return control of the ten major air force bases that had operated in France since 1950 to the French by 1967.

In the meantime, France had initiated an independent nuclear deterrence programme, spearheaded by the "Force de frappe" ("Striking force"). France tested its first nuclear weapon, Gerboise Bleue, on February 13, 1960, in (what was then) French Algeria.

Though France showed solidarity with the rest of NATO during the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, de Gaulle continued his pursuit of an independent defence by removing France's Atlantic and Channel fleets from NATO command. In 1966, all French armed forces were removed from NATO's integrated military command, and all non-French NATO troops were asked to leave France. This withdrawal forced the relocation of the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) from Paris to Casteau, north of Mons, Belgium, by October 16, 1967. France remained a member of the alliance, and committed to the defense of Europe from possible Communist attack with its own forces stationed in the Federal Republic of Germany throughout this period. France rejoined NATO's Military Committee in 1995, and has since intensified working relations with the military structure. France has not, however, rejoined the integrated military command and no non-French NATO troops are allowed to be based on its soil. The policies of current French President Nicolas Sarkozy appear to be aimed at eventual re-integration.

The creation of NATO brought about some standardization of allied military terminology, procedures, and technology, which in many cases meant European countries adopting U.S. practices. The roughly 1,300 Standardization Agreements (STANAGs) codifies the standardization that NATO has achieved. Hence, the 7.62_51 NATO rifle cartridge was introduced in the 1950s as a standard firearm cartridge among many NATO countries. Fabrique Nationale's FAL became the most popular 7.62 NATO rifle in Europe and served into the early 1990s. Also, aircraft marshalling signals were standardized, so that any NATO aircraft could land at any NATO base. Other standards such as the NATO phonetic alphabet have made their way beyond NATO into civilian use.

During most of the duration of the Cold War, NATO maintained a holding pattern with no actual military engagement as an organization. On July 1, 1968, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty opened for signature: NATO argued that its nuclear weapons sharing arrangements did not breach the treaty as United States forces controlled the weapons until a decision was made to go to war, at which point the treaty would no longer be controlling. Few states knew of the NATO nuclear sharing arrangements at that time, and they were not challenged.

On May 30, 1978, NATO countries officially defined two complementary aims of the Alliance, to maintain security and pursue dtente. This was supposed to mean matching defenses at the level rendered necessary by the Warsaw Pact's offensive capabilities without spurring a further arms race.

On December 12, 1979, in light of a build-up of Warsaw Pact nuclear capabilities in Europe, ministers approved the deployment of U.S. GLCM cruise missiles and Pershing II theater nuclear weapons in Europe. The new warheads were also meant to strengthen the western negotiating position in regard to nuclear disarmament. This policy was called the Dual Track policy. Similarly, in 19831984, responding to the stationing of Warsaw Pact SS-20 medium-range missiles in Europe, NATO deployed modern Pershing II missiles tasked to hit military targets such as tank formations in the event of war. This action led to peace movement protests throughout Western Europe.

With the background of the build-up of tension between the Soviet Union and the United States, NATO decided, under the impetus of the Reagan presidency, to deploy Pershing II and cruise missiles in Western Europe, primarily West Germany. These missiles were theater nuclear weapons intended to strike targets on the battlefield if the Soviets invaded West Germany. Yet, support for the deployment was wavering and many doubted whether the push for deployment could be sustained. But on Sept. 1, 1983, the Soviet Union shot down a Korean airliner, loaded with passengers, when it crossed into Soviet airspacean act which President Reagan characterized as a "massacre." The barbarity of this act, as the United States and the world understood it, galvanized support for the deploymentwhich stood in place until the later accords between Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev.

The membership of the organization in this time period likewise remained largely static. In 1974, as a consequence of the Turkish invasion of Cyprus, Greece withdrew its forces from NATO's military command structure, but, with Turkish cooperation, were readmitted in 1980. On May 30, 1982, NATO gained a new member when, following a referendum, the newly democratic Spain joined the alliance.

In November 1983, NATO manoeuvres simulating a nuclear launch caused panic in the Kremlin. The Soviet leadership, led by ailing General Secretary Yuri Andropov, became concerned that the manoeuvres, codenamed Able Archer 83, were the beginnings of a genuine first strike. In response, Soviet nuclear forces were readied and air units in East Germany and Poland were placed on alert. Though at the time written off by U.S. intelligence as a propaganda effort, many historians now believe that the Soviet fear of a NATO first strike was genuine.

The end of the Cold War and the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact in 1991 removed the de facto main adversary of NATO. This caused a strategic re-evaluation of NATO's purpose, nature and tasks. In practice this ended up entailing a gradual (and still ongoing) expansion of NATO to Eastern Europe, as well as the extension of its activities to areas that had not formerly been NATO concerns. The first post-Cold War expansion of NATO came with the reunification of Germany on October 3, 1990, when the former East Germany became part of the Federal Republic of Germany and the alliance. This had been agreed in the Two Plus Four Treaty earlier in the year. To secure Soviet approval of a united Germany remaining in NATO, it was agreed that foreign troops and nuclear weapons would not be stationed in the east.

The scholar Stephen F. Cohen argued in 2005 that a commitment was given that NATO would never expand further east,[10] but according to Robert B. Zoellick, then a State Department official involved in the Two Plus Four negotiating process, this appears to be a misperception; no formal commitment of the sort was made.[11] On May 7, 2008, The Daily Telegraph held an interview with Gorbachev in which he repeated his view that such a commitment had been made. Gorbachev said "the Americans promised that NATO wouldn't move beyond the boundaries of Germany after the Cold War but now half of central and eastern Europe are members, so what happened to their promises? It shows they cannot be trusted."[12]

As part of post-Cold War restructuring, NATO's military structure was cut back and reorganized, with new forces such as the Headquarters Allied Command Europe Rapid Reaction Corps established. The Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe agreed between NATO and the Warsaw Pact and signed in Paris in 1990, mandated specific reductions. The changes brought about by the collapse of the Soviet Union on the military balance in Europe were recognized in the Adapted Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty, signed some years later.

The first NATO military operation caused by the conflict in the former Yugoslavia was Operation Sharp Guard, which ran from June 1993October 1996. It provided maritime enforcement of the arms embargo and economic sanctions against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. On February 28, 1994, NATO took its first military action, shooting down four Bosnian Serb aircraft violating a U.N.-mandated no-fly zone over central Bosnia and Herzegovina. Operation Deny Flight, the no-fly-zone enforcement mission, had begun a year before, on April 12, 1993, and was to continue until December 20, 1995. NATO air strikes that year helped bring the war in Bosnia to an end, resulting in the Dayton Agreement, which in turn meant that NATO deployed a peacekeeping force, under Operation Joint Endeavor, first named IFOR and then SFOR, which ran from December 1996 to December 2004. Following the lead of its member nations, NATO began to award a service medal, the NATO Medal, for these operations.

Between 1994 and 1997, wider forums for regional cooperation between NATO and its neighbors were set up, like the Partnership for Peace, the Mediterranean Dialogue initiative and the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council. On 8 July 1997, three former communist countries, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Poland, were invited to join NATO, which finally happened in 1999. In 1998, the NATO-Russia Permanent Joint Council was established.

A NATO bombing campaign, Operation Deliberate Force, began in August, 1995, against the Army of Republika Srpska, after the Srebrenica massacre. On March 24, 1999, NATO saw its first broad-scale military engagement in the Kosovo War, where it waged an 11-week bombing campaign, which NATO called Operation Allied Force, against what was then the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, in an effort to stop Serbian-led ethnic cleansing. A formal declaration of war never took place (in common with all wars since World War II). The conflict ended on 11 June 1999, when Yugoslavian leader Slobodan Milosevic agreed to NATOs demands by accepting UN resolution 1244. NATO then helped establish the KFOR, a NATO-led force under a United Nations mandate that operated the military mission in Kosovo. In AugustSeptember 2001, the alliance also mounted Operation Essential Harvest, a mission disarming ethnic Albanian militias in the Republic of Macedonia.

The United States, the United Kingdom, and most other NATO countries opposed efforts to require the U.N. Security Council to approve NATO military strikes, such as the ongoing action against Yugoslavia, while France and some others claimed that the alliance needed U.N. approval. The U.S./U.K. side claimed that this would undermine the authority of the alliance, and they noted that Russia and China would have exercised their Security Council vetoes to block the strike on Yugoslavia, and could do the same in future conflicts where NATO intervention was required, thus nullifying the entire potency and purpose of the organization.

The September 11 attacks caused NATO to invoke Article 5 of the NATO Charter for the first time in its history. The Article says that an attack on any member shall be considered to be an attack on all. The invocation was confirmed on 4 October 2001 when NATO determined that the attacks were indeed eligible under the terms of the North Atlantic Treaty.[13] The eight official actions taken by NATO in response to the attacks included: Operation Eagle Assist and Operation Active Endeavour. Operation Active Endeavour is a naval operation in the Mediterranean Sea and is designed to prevent the movement of terrorists or weapons of mass destruction as well as to enhance the security of shipping in general. It began on October 4, 2001.

Despite this early show of solidarity, NATO faced a crisis little more than a year later, when on February 10, 2003, France and Belgium vetoed the procedure of silent approval concerning the timing of protective measures for Turkey in case of a possible war with Iraq. Germany did not use its right to break the procedure but said it supported the veto.

On the issue of Afghanistan on the other hand, the alliance showed greater unity: On April 16, 2003 NATO agreed to take command of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan. The decision came at the request of Germany and the Netherlands, the two nations leading ISAF at the time of the agreement, and all 19 NATO ambassadors approved it unanimously.

On August 11, 2003 NATO commenced its first mission ever outside Europe when it assumed control over International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan. This marked the first time in NATOs history that it took charge of a mission outside the north Atlantic area. Canada had originally been slated to take over ISAF by itself on that date. However, some critics feel that national caveats or other restrictions undermine the efficiency of ISAF. For instance, political scientist Joseph Nye stated in a 2006 article that "many NATO countries with troops in Afghanistan have 'national caveats' that restrict how their troops may be used. While the Riga summit relaxed some of these caveats to allow assistance to allies in dire circumstances, Britain, Canada, the Netherlands, and the United States are doing most of the fighting in southern Afghanistan, while French, German, and Italian troops are deployed in the quieter north. Due to the intensity of the fighting in the south, France has recently allowed a squadron of Mirage 2000 fighter/attack aircraft to be moved into the area, to Khandahar, in order to reinforce the alliance's efforts.[14] It is difficult to see how NATO can succeed in stabilizing Afghanistan unless it is willing to commit more troops and give commanders more flexibility."[15] If these caveats were to be eliminated, it is argued that this could help NATO to succeed.

In January 2004, NATO appointed Minister Hikmet etin, of Turkey, as the Senior Civilian Representative (SCR) in Afghanistan. Minister Cetin is primarily responsible for advancing the political-military aspects of the Alliance in Afghanistan. In August 2004, following United States pressure, NATO formed the NATO Training Mission - Iraq, a training mission to assist the Iraqi security forces in conjunction with the U.S. led MNF-I.

On July 31, 2006, a NATO-led force, made up mostly of troops from Canada, Great Britain, Turkey and the Netherlands, took over military operations in the south of Afghanistan from a United States-led anti-terrorism coalition.

During the 2011 Libyan civil war, violence between protestors and the Libyan government under Colonel Muammar Gaddafi escalated, and on 17March 2011 led to the passage of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, which called for a ceasefire, and authorized military action to protect civilians. Acoalition that included several NATO members began enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya shortly afterwards. On 20 March 2011, NATO states agreed on enforcing an arms embargo against Libya with Operation Unified Protector using ships from NATO Standing Maritime Group1 and Standing Mine Countermeasures Group1,[16] and additional ships and submarines from NATO members.[17] They would "monitor, report and, if needed, interdict vessels suspected of carrying illegal arms or mercenaries".[16]

On 24March, NATO agreed to take control of the no-fly zone from the initial coalition, while command of targeting ground units remained with the coalition's forces.[18] By the end of the mission in October 2011, after the death of Colonel Gaddafi, NATO planes had flown about 9,500 strike sorties against pro-Gaddafi targets.[19]

For some years, the United States negotiated with Poland and the Czech Republic for the deployment of interceptor missiles and a radar tracking system in the two countries. Both countries' governments indicated that they would allow the deployment. The proposed American missile defense site in Central Europe is believed to be fully operational in 2015 and would be capable of covering most of Europe except part of Romania plus Bulgaria, Greece and Turkey.[20]

In April 2007, NATO's European allies called for a NATO missile defense system which would complement the American National Missile Defense system to protect Europe from missile attacks and NATO's decision-making North Atlantic Council held consultations on missile defense in the first meeting on the topic at such a senior level.[20]

In response, Russian president Vladimir Putin claimed that such a deployment could lead to a new arms race and could enhance the likelihood of mutual destruction. He also suggested that his country should freeze its compliance with the 1990 Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE)which limits military deployments across the continentuntil all NATO countries had ratified the adapted CFE treaty.[21]

Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said the system would not affect strategic balance or threaten Russia, as the plan is to base only 10 interceptor missiles in Poland with an associated radar in the Czech Republic.[22]

On July 14, 2007, Russia notified its intention to suspend the CFE treaty, effective 150 days later.[23][24]

New NATO structures were also formed while old ones were abolished: The NATO Response Force (NRF) was launched at the 2002 Prague Summit on November 21. On June 19, 2003, a major restructuring of the NATO military commands began as the Headquarters of the Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic were abolished and a new command, Allied Command Transformation (ACT), was established in Norfolk, Virginia, USA, and the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) became the Headquarters of Allied Command Operations (ACO). ACT is responsible for driving transformation (future capabilities) in NATO, while ACO is responsible for current operations.

Did you know?

Membership went on expanding with the accession of seven more Northern European and Eastern European countries to NATO: Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania and also Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, and Romania. They were first invited to start talks of membership during the 2002 Prague Summit, and joined NATO on March 29, 2004, shortly before the 2004 Istanbul Summit. The same month, NATO's Baltic Air Policing began, which supported the sovereignty of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia by providing fighters to react to any unwanted aerial intrusions. Four fighters are based in Lithuania, provided in rotation by virtually all the NATO states. Operation Peaceful Summit temporarily enhanced this patrolling during the 2006 Riga Summit.[25]

The 2006 NATO summit was held in Riga, Latvia, which had joined the Atlantic Alliance two years earlier. It is the first NATO summit to be held in a country that was part of the Soviet Union, and the second one in a former COMECON country (after the 2002 Prague Summit). Energy Security was one of the main themes of the Riga Summit.[26]

At the April 2008 summit in Bucharest, Romania, NATO agreed to the accession of Croatia and Albania and invited them to join; they both joined in April, 2009.

Future expansion is a topic of debate in many countries. Cyprus and Macedonia are stalled from accession by, respectively, Turkey and Greece, pending the resolution of disputes between them. Other countries which have a stated goal of eventually joining include Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Georgia. The incorporation of former Warsaw Pact countries has been a cause of increased tension between NATO countries and Russia.

NATO remains the key security structure in Europe. As such it has expansion plans to extend its security reach. Potential future members include the Republic of Macedonia/former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia,[27] which was under consideration to enter NATO in 2009. FYROM is likely to enter the alliance at some point, with Jane's Defence Weekly commenting on 16 April 2008 that resolution to the naming issue that is holding up entry is "likely by the end of this year [2008] and no later than the 2009 summit."[28] At the same 2008 summit in Bucharest, the communique explicitly said that Georgia and Ukraine "will become members of NATO."

Other potential candidate countries include, in South-eastern Europe, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia. Other possible, long neutral countries that might become members are Finland and Sweden.

Russia continues to oppose further expansion, seeing it as inconsistent with understandings between Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and United States President George H. W. Bush which allowed for a peaceful unification of Germany. NATO's expansion policy is seen by Russia as a continuation of a Cold War attempt to surround and isolate Russia.[29][30][31][32]

NATO began in an attempt to thwart feared Communist expansionism, and despite the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe, the relationship between Russia and NATO still remains problematic.

There are currently 28 members within NATO.

A framework has been established to help further co-operation between the 28 NATO members and 22 "partner countries."

The 24 partner countries are the following:

Launched at the November 2002 Prague Summit, Individual Partnership Action Plans (IPAPs) are open to countries that have the political will and ability to deepen their relationship with NATO.[35]

Currently IPAPs are in implementation with the following countries:

Additionally, NATO cooperates and discusses their activities with numerous other non-NATO members.

Since 19901991, the Alliance has gradually increased its contact with countries that do not form part of any of the above cooperative groupings. Political dialogue with Japan began in 1990, and a range of non-NATO countries have contributed to peacekeeping operations in the former Yugoslavia. The Allies established a set of general guidelines on relations with other countries, beyond the above groupings in 1998.[38] The guidelines do not allow for a formal institutionalization of relations, but reflect the Allies' desire to increase cooperation. Following extensive debate, the term "Contact Countries" was agreed by the Allies in 2000. Two of these countries are also members of the AUSCANNZUKUS strategic alliance.

The internal NATO organization includes political structures, military structures, and agencies and organizations immediately subordinate to NATO headquarters. The main headquarters of NATO is located on Boulevard Lopold III, B-1110 BRUSSELS, which is in Haren, part of the City of Brussels.[39]

Like any alliance, NATO is ultimately governed by its member states. The North Atlantic Treaty[41] and other agreements outline how decisions are to be made within NATO. Each of the 28 members sends a delegation or mission to NATOs headquarters in Brussels, Belgium.[42] The senior permanent member of each delegation is known as the Permanent Representative and is generally a senior civil servant or an experienced ambassador (and holding that diplomatic rank).

Together the Permanent Members form the North Atlantic Council (NAC), a body which meets together at least once a week and has effective political authority and powers of decision in NATO. From time to time the Council also meets at higher levels involving Foreign Ministers, Defense Ministers or Heads of State or Government (HOSG); it is at these meetings that major decisions regarding NATOs policies are generally taken. However, it is worth noting that the Council has the same authority and powers of decision-making, and its decisions have the same status and validity, at whatever level it meets. NATO summits also form a further venue for decisions on complex issues, such as enlargement.

The meetings of the North Atlantic Council are chaired by the Secretary General of NATO and, when decisions have to be made, action is agreed upon on the basis of unanimity and common accord. There is no voting or decision by majority. Each nation represented at the Council table or on any of its subordinate committees retains complete sovereignty and responsibility for its own decisions.

The second pivotal member of each country's delegation is the Military Representative, a senior officer from each country's armed forces. Together the Military Representatives form the Military Committee (MC), a body responsible for recommending to NATOs political authorities those measures considered necessary for the common defense of the NATO area. Its principal role is to provide direction and advice on military policy and strategy. It provides guidance on military matters to the NATO Strategic Commanders, whose representatives attend its meetings, and is responsible for the overall conduct of the military affairs of the Alliance under the authority of the Council.

Like the council, from time to time the Military Committee also meets at a higher level, namely at the level of Chiefs of defense, the most senior military officer in each nation's armed forces. The Defense Planning Committee excludes France, due to that country's 1966 decision to remove itself from NATO's integrated military structure.[43] On a practical level, this means that issues that are acceptable to most NATO members but unacceptable to France may be directed to the Defense Planning Committee for more expedient resolution. Such was the case in the lead up to Operation Iraqi Freedom.[44]

The current Chairman of the NATO Military Committee is Ray Henault of Canada (since 2005).

The NATO Parliamentary Assembly, founded in 1955, serves as the consultative interparliamentary organization for the North Atlantic Alliance. Bringing together legislators from all the member states of the Atlantic Alliance, the NATO PA provides a link between NATO and the parliaments of its member nations. At the same time, it facilitates parliamentary awareness and understanding of key security issues and contributes to a greater transparency of NATO policies. Crucially, it helps maintain and strengthen the transatlantic relationship, which underpins the Atlantic Alliance.[45]

Subordinate to the political structure are the International Staff and International Military Staff, which administer NATO programmes and carry out high-level political, military, and also civil emergency planning.[45]

Over the years, non-governmental citizens' groups have grown up in support of NATO, broadly under the banner of the Atlantic Council/Atlantic Treaty Association movement.

NATO's military operations are directed by the Chairman of the NATO Military Committee, and split into two Strategic Commands both commanded by a senior US officer assisted by a staff drawn from across NATO. The Strategic Commanders are responsible to the Military Committee for the overall direction and conduct of all Alliance military matters within their areas of command.

Before 2003 the Strategic Commanders were the Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) and the Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic (SACLANT) but the current arrangement is to separate command responsibility between Allied Command Transformation (ACT), responsible for transformation and training of NATO forces, and Allied Command Operations, responsible for NATO operations worldwide.

The commander of Allied Command Operations retained the title "Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR)," and is based in the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) located at Casteau, north of the Belgian city of Mons. This is about 80 km (50 miles) south of NATOs political headquarters in Brussels. ACO is headed by SACEUR, a US four star general with the dual-hatted role of heading US European Command, which is headquartered in Stuttgart, Germany. SHAPE was in Paris until 1966, when French president Charles de Gaulle withdrew French forces from the Atlantic Alliance. NATO's headquarters were then forced to move to Belgium, while many military units had to move.

ACO includes Joint Force Command Brunssum in the Netherlands, Joint Force Command Naples in Italy, and Joint Command Lisbon, all multinational headquarters with many nations represented. JFC Brunssum has its land component, Allied Land Component Command Headquarters Heidelberg at Heidelberg, Germany, its air component at Ramstein in Germany, and its naval component at the Northwood Headquarters in the northwest suburbs of London. JFC Naples has its land component in Madrid, air component at Izmir, Turkey, and naval component in Naples, Italy. It also directs KFOR in Kosovo. JC Lisbon is a smaller HQ with no subordinate commands. Lajes Field, in the Portuguese Azores, is an important transatlantic staging post. Directly responsible to SACEUR is the NATO Airborne Early Warning Force at NATO Air Base Geilenkirchen in Germany where a jointly funded fleet of E-3 Sentry AWACS airborne radar aircraft is located. The C-17s of the NATO Strategic Airlift Capability, to be made operational in the next few years, will be based at Ppa airfield in Hungary, and probably come under SACEUR's control.

Allied Command Transformation (ACT) is based in the former Allied Command Atlantic headquarters in Norfolk, Virginia, USA. Allied Command Atlantic, usually known as SACLANT (Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic), after its commander, became ACT in 2003. It is headed by the Supreme Allied Commander Transformation (SACT), a US four-star general or admiral with the dual-hatted role as commander US Joint Forces Command (COMUSJFCOM). There is also an ACT command element located at SHAPE in Mons, Belgium.

Subordinate ACT organizations include the Joint Warfare Center (JWC) located in Stavanger, Norway (in the same site as the Norwegian NJHQ); the Joint Force Training Center (JFTC) in Bydgoszcz, Poland; the Joint Analysis and Lessons Learned Center (JALLC) in Monsanto, Portugal; and the NATO Undersea Research Centre (NURC),[48] La Spezia, Italy.

NATO has numerous agencies and organizations.[49] They include:

NATO has a number of Centres of Excellence (COEs), essentially multinational research, development, and evaluation bodies. The Organization says they "provide recognized subject matter expertise in support of transformation and interoperability, especially in the fields of doctrine and concept development and validation, training, education and exercises, as well as analysis and lessons learned."[53]

They are funded nationally or multi-nationally and have individual relationships with NATO formalized through memoranda of understanding.

In 2012, there were 16 fully accredited COEs, with 5 additional COEs in development.[54]

All links retrieved September 26, 2016.

Arms race Nuclear arms race Space Race

New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards. This article abides by terms of the Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0 License (CC-by-sa), which may be used and disseminated with proper attribution. Credit is due under the terms of this license that can reference both the New World Encyclopedia contributors and the selfless volunteer contributors of the Wikimedia Foundation. To cite this article click here for a list of acceptable citing formats.The history of earlier contributions by wikipedians is accessible to researchers here:

Note: Some restrictions may apply to use of individual images which are separately licensed.

Read more from the original source:

NATO - New World Encyclopedia

NATO Trends Heading Up, Annual Report Shows

WASHINGTON, March 16, 2018

NATO has stepped up recrafting deterrence and defense, and the alliances annual report for 2017 shows that the trend lines for the alliance are up, Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said in Brussels yesterday.

The alliance nations have followed through with some high-profile moves to deter Russian interference, the secretary general noted. In 2017, NATO nations deployed four multinational battle groups to the Baltic republics and to Poland. Canada, Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States each lead a battalion-sized group, and troops from many NATO nations are members.

Another action to counter Russia was increased forward presence in the Black Sea region. The alliance also increased our resilience against hybrid war, and strengthened our cyber defenses, Stoltenberg said. NATO joined as an entity in the global coalition to defeat the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, he added, and the alliance also raised the level of cooperation with the European Union and welcomed Montenegro as NATOs 29th member nation.

Sharing the Burden

Burden-sharing has increased in the alliance, the secretary general said. At the 2014 summit in Wales, member nations pledged to stop cuts to defense budgets and increase spending to 2 percent of gross domestic product within a decade. Since then, we have seen three consecutive years of increased defense spending in Europe and Canada, adding a total of $46 billion, he said.

This increase means new equipment, Stoltenberg said. Since the decision, he pointed out, alliance nations have spent $18 billion on major equipment and increased investments in operations and exercises.

For instance, in 2017 we decided to increase contributions to our Resolute Support mission in Afghanistan, and allies have contributed thousands of troops to our increased presence in the east of the alliance, he said. At the end of 2017, there were over 23,000 troops serving in NATO deployments, up from just under 18,000 in 2014 before Russias illegal annexation of Crimea and the rise of ISIS.

Focus on Russia

Russia is a focus of all this activity. Stoltenberg discussed the poisoning of former spy Sergei Skripal, his daughter and a British police officer. The weapon a military-grade nerve agent was traced to Russia. British officials say this attack is an unlawful use of force by Russia against the United Kingdom.

This is the first offensive use of a nerve agent on alliance territory since NATOs foundation, the secretary general said. All allies agree that the attack was a clear breach of international norms and agreements. This is unacceptable. It has no place in a civilized world.

NATO regards any use of chemical weapons as a threat to international peace and security, he said. The attack in Salisbury has taken place against the backdrop of a reckless pattern of Russian behavior over many years, Stoltenberg said.

He spoke about the Russian attack into Georgia in 2008, the illegal annexation of Crimea from Ukraine in 2012 and Russias continued military support to separatists in Eastern Ukraine. He also pointed to Russias attempts to subvert democratic elections and institutions, and its military buildup from the north of Europe to the Middle East.

The secretary general pointed to Russias military modernization program, especially its investment in modernizing nuclear weaponry. Russia has integrated conventional and nuclear warfare in its military doctrine and exercises, he said. This blurring of the line between nuclear and conventional lowers the threshold for Russias use of nuclear weapons, and the blurring of the line between peace, crisis and war is destabilizing and dangerous.

The alliance does not want a new Cold War or a new arms race, Stoltenberg said. But let there be no doubt: NATO will defend all allies against any threat, he added. We will maintain strong conventional forces, as well as a safe, secure and effective nuclear deterrent.

Stepping Up in Afghanistan and Against ISIS

Russia is just one challenge to peace, and NATO has also stepped up in Afghanistan. NATO forces are helping to train Afghan forces to police their own country. We have decided to increase the size of our Resolute Support training mission from 13,000 to around 16,000, the secretary general said. With our assistance, Afghan forces have increased military pressure on the Taliban, ensuring they did not achieve their strategic objective of capturing a provincial capital in 2017.

The alliance strongly supports an Afghan-led, Afghan-owned peace and reconciliation process. I commend [Afghan] President [Ashraf] Ghani for his courageous leadership. His offer to the Taliban is the clearest invitation to peace yet. So I call on the Taliban to come to the negotiating table.

NATO also joined the coalition confronting ISIS. We are working to strengthen the Iraqi armed forces to fight terrorism, training almost 500 Iraqi trainers so they can share their new skills with thousands of others, Stoltenberg said. This year, we will further boost our contribution by launching a new training mission in Iraq to build on our efforts and by providing more support to our partners in the region such as Jordan and Tunisia.

The world does not stand still, he said, and neither does NATO.

Originally posted here:

NATO Trends Heading Up, Annual Report Shows

NATO defense spending goes up for third year in a row – The …

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg spoke about defense spending at a news conference in Brussels March 15. (Reuters)

BRUSSELS NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said Thursday that alliance members increased their defense spending in 2017 for a third consecutive year, amid complaints from President Trump that only a handful of the 29 allies are meeting their pledges.

The numbers were unlikely to allay Trumps anger over his perception that Europe is taking the U.S. defense umbrella for granted. No additional countries met NATOs defense spending goals last year, and only four the United States, Britain, Estonia and Greece reached the mark, although more are expected to get there in 2018.

Lagging European defense spending has frustrated U.S. officials for years, but in the Trump era, the numbers have taken on outsize importance.

Countries registering shortfalls face threats from Washington, including the prospect that the United States might not come to their defense. Some of Trumps economic advisers have said that exemptions to new steel and aluminum tariffs might be grantedonly to countries that spend at least 2percent on defense.

[Heres how Europe is pushing back against Trumps tariffs]

All allies are stepping up, doing more in more places in more ways, Stoltenberg said as he unveiled NATOs annual report.

NATO countries not including the United States collectively spent an estimated 1.45percent of their annual economic output on defense last year, still short of the 2percent agreed to by national leaders in 2014 as a 10-year target.

That was the year Russias annexation of Ukraines Crimean Peninsula sparked fears in Europe that the continent wasbadly prepared for a traditional ground war with Russia, once NATOs reason for being.

The report comes as Britain says it believes Russia carried out a nerve-agent attack on its soil this month, a casethe alliance described as the first instance of chemical weapons being used offensively against a member nationsince its foundingafter World War II.

British diplomats on Wednesday outlined their concerns about the attack to their NATO peers, but they stopped short of triggering a formal alliance response.

The substance used is one of the most toxic ever developed, Stoltenberg said.The attack was a breach of international norms and agreements. This attack was unacceptable. It has no place in a civilized world.

He added that the higher spending will help alliance members defend against and respond to chemical attacks of the type unleashed in Salisbury, which targeted a Russian who had spied for Britain.

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg spoke March 15 about an attack in Salisbury, Britain that targeted former Russian double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter. (Reuters)

This year, eight countries are expected to meet NATOs 2percent goal: Britain, Estonia, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and the United States. In 2017, Poland narrowly missed the cut at 1.99percent of its annual economic output afterits economy grew faster than it had expected when it made its defense spending plans.

Under pressure from the United States, NATO members have pledged to create road maps of how they will meet the goals by 2024.

[NATO allies boost defense spending in the wake of Trump criticism]

Before individual members defense spending turned back upward in 2015, the overall figure had been falling every year since 2008, in part because of the global economic crisis that struck around that time.

Policymakers who were involved in the 2014 negotiations that ended with the spending commitments said that the 2percent figure was chosen in part to galvanize public discussion, not because it was a magic number that would signal NATO had reached a state of readiness.

It was a judgment about what level could be set that was politically at least somewhat credible and at least somewhat achievable and therefore had some mobilizing power about it,said Adam Thomson, who was British ambassador to NATO until 2016 and is now director of the European Leadership Network, a security-focused think tank.

Nobody could quite have expected the way it has been taken up in such an unsophisticated fashion by Trump, but that, too, has had a real impact, he said.

Leaders of countries that do not meet the goals sometimes say the raw numbers fail to fully capture defense commitments. Efficient spending and a willingness to contribute troops to NATO missions are also an important measure, some of them say. In Germany, which lags on hard military spending, leaders say their extensive development aid commitments contribute to global security.

The United States still spends the lions share on defense in the alliance 68.7percent of the total in 2017. That reflects its roleas the foremost global superpower. The United States spent 3.57percent of its overall economic output on defense last year.

Other countries have dramatically ramped up their spending, a reflection of U.S. pressure that started well before Trump was elected anda sense of vulnerability after the annexation of Crimea. Romania poured an extra 34.8percent into its spending last year. Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, Spain and Luxembourg also recorded significant jumps.

Although most countries have boosted their spending, a handful have made cuts. Belgium, a nation of 11million that hosts NATO headquarters, cut defense spending by 0.73percent last year, reducing its outlay in the area to 0.9percent of its economic output. Greece and Britain also registered declines,although both are still meeting their pledges.

Read more:

German defense minister slams Trumps military-heavy approach to security

Will Trumps crude issue linkage work?

Today's coverage from Post correspondents around the world

Like Washington Post World on Facebook and stay updated on foreign news

Read more from the original source:

NATO defense spending goes up for third year in a row - The ...

NATO representative in Kyiv: We support Ukraine every day – Deutsche Welle

DW: On Thursday Ukraine will be celebrating the 26th anniversary of its independence. For the first time, troops from NATO countries will be participating in a military parade in Kyiv. The second new developmentis that defense ministers from several NATO countries will be attending, including James Mattis from the US. Why now?

Barbora Maronkova: To be honest, I can't answer why NATO countries are taking part this year in particular. But we are very pleased, because we also celebrated another event this year, which was the 20th anniversary of the NATO-Ukraine distinctive partnership [the Charter was signed in July 1997 ed.]. And we have been working very hard to help Ukraine modernize its armed forces, meet NATO standards and achieve interoperability. In that sense, the participation of military colleagues from both NATO allies and partner countries is a symbolic example of a strong partnership between NATO and Ukraine.

Barbora Maronkova serves as director of the NATO Information and Documentation Center in Kyiv, Ukraine

The US is a key country forNATO. During the previous administration of Barack Obama, the impression was given that Washington didn't want to provoke Russia by visiting Ukraine. Obama never visitedKyiv, his defense secretary never participated in the Independence Day parade. This year there are several NATO ministers attending the parade, which might be interpreted by Russia as a provocation. Does this mean that NATO no longer cares about Russia's reaction?

For us, what is important is that NATO partner countries are independent and sovereign nations. If they want to have a military parade with colleagues from other countries, or if they participate in NATO's military training and exercises, it is their sovereign decision. Ukraine has been participating in NATO's military exercises for the last few years, and many NATO countries have participated in exercises in Ukraine. For example, every year we have a naval exercise called "Sea Breeze."

Do you think that this large NATO presence on Independence Day in Kyiv has something to do with Donald Trump's new administration trying to take a different course?

I wouldn't want to speculate on what the US administration is doing. Of course, US Defense Secretary Mattis' visit to Kyiv is important, as was the visit bythe Secretary of State in July. We are happy that various NATO allies are bilaterally supporting Ukraine, just as NATO is providing strong support.

Read more: Tillerson's sharp words for Moscow during Ukraine visit

Read more: Ukraine's Poroshenko meets Donald Trump

NATO has intensified its support for Ukraine since the Russian annexation of Crimea 2014. What are the results so far?

We have to look at the overall package of reforms that Ukraine has been undertaking since 2014. Any expert would agree that the pace and intensity of reforms in the past three years were unprecedented. NATO is focusing on defense, security, modernization and standardization. It's a wide range including logistics, defense procurement, command structures and training. We see progress in some areas more than in others. But we also have the knowledge that such reforms are very difficult and painful under normal circumstances, let alone in a country like Ukraine. Itis facing an aggressive neighbor and part of its territory has been illegally annexed. There are separatists in the east of Ukraine, it is facing hybrid warfare and cyberattacks. NATO offers assistance on a daily basis.

What are beacon projects from NATO's point of view?

One of the issues that has achieved good results, according to our advisors, has been improving command structures and communication. There has been some good cooperation in the area of cyber defense. We also launched some very impressive projects in the area of medical rehabilitation and are now working together with our Ukrainian partners on psychological rehabilitation, which is a big issue.

NATO does not want to get involved in a military conflict between Russia and Ukraine. How difficult is it against this background for NATO to help Ukraine?

I don't feel or see any difficulties. We have a team of nearly 50 people working here as advisors in variousformats. There are many other advisors who are directly embedded in various ministries and institutions on a bilateral basis. We talk regularly with Ukrainian citizens, journalists and parliamentarians. I see a positive reaction to our support here.

Read more: NATO skeptical over Russia's Zapad military exercise

Support for NATO within the Ukrainian population has grown in recent years. Polls put it at 43 to 55 percent, some even higher. What is your experience?

The increased support is obviously a result of the security situation in Ukraine. It is, however, very useful to our work. It allows us to go out more and engage with people, and openly discuss what NATO is and what it is not. There are many Cold War stereotypes that are still prevalent in Ukraine.

Barbora Maronkova is the director of the NATO Information and Documentation Centerin Kyiv, Ukraine.

The interview was conducted by Roman Goncharenko.

Continue reading here:

NATO representative in Kyiv: We support Ukraine every day - Deutsche Welle