Turkey's Minister of Foreign Affairs Mevlt avuolu is visiting Poland today in order to participate in the next meeting of regular political military consultations among the foreign ministers of Turkey, Romania and Poland to be held in Warsaw.

The first round of the trilateral meetings was held in Warsaw on June 9, 2016 and was followed by a second meeting in Ankara on Aug. 25, 2016. The three ministers are expected to exchange views on enhancing NATO's role in the fight against terrorism, as well as on the security situation on NATO's eastern and southern flanks in the light of the decisions taken by NATO Heads of State and Government at the 2014 Wales, 2016 Warsaw and 2017 Brussels Summit meetings. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg, who is envisaged to be in Warsaw at the time of the trilateral consultations, is also expected to participate in a session of the meeting.

On the occasion of his visit to Poland, Minister avuolu is also expected to get together with Turkish citizens in Poland.During the last year's meeting in Warsaw, President Erdoan had underlined the need for NATO to be more active as global security threats change and stated his expectation of the trans-Atlantic community to put more effort in supporting Turkey against the threats in the region.

Read the original:

Foreign Minister avuolu attends NATO meeting in Warsaw - Daily Sabah

This file photo taken on September 02, 2016 shows Turkish soldiers driving back to Turkey from the Syrian-Turkish border town of Jarabulus. (Photo by AFP)

Turkeys plan for a joint operation with Iran against the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) militants is a big deal for the United States because Washington does not like members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to act independently, says an analyst.

Americas tentacles are wide and Turkey, a NATO member who is now engaged in security operations with Iran that will almost certainly be against the mutual Kurdish threat, this is a big deal to the United States because the United States does not have partners. It has dependents and it has deputies, Adam Garrie, editor of theDuran.com, told Press TVs On The News Line program.

Turkey is no longer acting like a deputy in NATO. It is acting like a free and sovereign nation and President [Recep Tayyip] Erdogan will soon find out that America does not like countries in NATO exercising their own prerogative even when it is clear it is in their own self-interest as this rapprochement, as these good relations between Ankara and Tehran certainly are, he added.

Turkeys President Erdogan said on Monday that a joint Turkish-Iranian operation against Kurdish militants was "always on the agenda."

However, Irans Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) has dismissed reports about plans for a joint operation with Turkey against the PKK militants outside the Iranian borders.

Turkey has been fighting against the outlawed PKK militants for decades.

Iran is also fighting PJAK, a PKK offshoot, in its northwestern border region with Turkey. Iranian forces killed five PJAK terrorists in an ambush there last June.

PJAK randomly carries out hit-and-run attacks on Iranian targets, after which they retreat to their lairs in Iraq and Turkey.

Read the rest here:

'Turkey no longer acting as US deputy in NATO': Analyst - Press TV

AP Photo/Efrem Lukatsky

KIEV, August 24. /TASS/. Downtown Kiev played host to a military parade on occasion of the 26th anniversary of Ukraines independence on Thursday and was attended for the first time by soldiers from NATO member-states.

Ukrainian Defense Minister Stepan Poltorak met the parades participants in an American military Hummer instead of a traditional open-top Soviet Gaz Chaika.

Some 4,500 servicemen marched down Kievs main thoroughfare, Khreshchatyk, which included more than 230 representatives of NATO and over 1,000 participants from the special operation in Donbass. The countrys top brass and delegations from nine countries - the US, the UK, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Montenegro, Estonia, Turkey and Moldova also attended the parade at Ukraines invitation.

This year military hardware was not displayed at the parade. The Ukrainian Defense Ministry instead held an exhibition of the army equipment on Khreshchatyk titled "The Power of Unbowed." Among 67 exhibits were armored self-propelled guns, tanks, armored combat vehicles and trucks. Ukrainian President Pyotr Poroshenko said some pieces of this equipment would be sent to the Donbass operation zone shortly after the exhibition.

Addressing the crowd, Poroshenko reiterated that Kiev was on track towards integrating into the EU and NATO. "Theres only one road ahead of Ukraine now - a wide Euro-Atlantic highway, which leads to EU membership and NATO membership," the president said, recalling that Ukraine already enjoys visa-free travel to EU countries. Poroshenko said that Ukraine is continuing to reform its armed forces in line with NATO standards and traditionally pinned the blame for the Donbass conflict on Russia.

The defense chief said that 28 units of the countrys armed forces already comply with NATO standards.

Some 7,000 law enforcement officers provided Kiev with security on Thursday.

In other media

See more here:

Ukraine marks Independence Day with parade attended by NATO units - TASS

Hanover Retired Adm. James Stavridis said on Thursday that he approves of President Donald Trumps recent commitment to keeping U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

But the former NATO supreme allied commander in Europe during five years of the Obama administration said he is also disappointed in Trumps rhetoric, particularly remarks made this week at a rally Phoenix.

What is deeply disturbing to me is that the same president, in the space of 72 hours, can give such dissimilar speeches, Stavridis told more than 750 people gathered at Dartmouth Colleges Spaulding Auditorium.

Stavridis, who is now the dean of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and was speaking as part of the Osher Lifelong Learning Institute series, said Trumps statements regarding Afghanistan were on script, on message, sensible and, I think, the right policy outcome.

On Monday, Trump endorsed the Pentagons plan to boost troop levels to help the Afghan government combat Taliban and al-Qaidas influence in the country. Although exact troop numbers havent been announced, congressional officials told the Washington Post they expect about 4,000 more to bolster the current force of 8,500 service members in the country.

Stavridis explained that the decision was the least damaging of three potential ways to address ongoing hostiles.

The president could elect to withdraw completely, potentially throwing the nation further into chaos, or drastically increase troop levels to a point where the Taliban could be defeated, Stavridis explained. Small troop increases keep us in the game, keep the pressure on the Taliban to come to the negotiating table, he said.

However, Stavridis said Trumps announcement on Afghanistan was the exact opposite of a speech made the next day in Phoenix, where the president railed against the dishonest media and its coverage of his response to a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville this month.

After the rally, Trump blamed many sides for the unrest, which resulted in the death of a woman who allegedly was rundown by a white supremacists who attended the event and rammed his car into counterprotesters.

It was hard to equate that speech with values that we should be sharing as Americans, Stavridis told the audience, describing Trumps Phoenix remarks as anti-immigrant and fueled by a deep, bitter hatred of the media.

Stavridis, who was vetted as a potential running mate to presidential contender Hillary Clinton, said he began following Trumps remarks with horror during 2016.

Trumps statements on the campaign trail advocating for South Korea and Japan to obtain nuclear weapons, disparagement of NATO and talk of a trade war with China were all worrying, he said.

Thus far, hes done none of those things, Stavridis said, adding the trio of White House Chief of Staff John Kelly, National Security Advisor H. R. McMaster, and Secretary of Defense James Mattis are likely responsible for keeping the president in check.

Known to some as the generals, all three are longtime military officers who can be trusted, Stavridis said.

I think as long as they continue to be there, I think we can be confident, he said. These are three tough, serious people who can put up with a lot.

Stavridis spent the majority of his time at Dartmouth advocating soft power approaches to combating the countrys security issues.

For centuries, he said, nations have tried to secure themselves by building walls. But that strategy is becoming less likely to work in the age of Internet connectivity and global risks.

For instance, Stavridis was working in the Pentagon during the 9/11 attacks. He showed a photo of his office window just a few hundred feet from the crash site.

Here I was behind every imaginable wall, Stavridis said. Was I safe behind all those walls? No.

Violent extremism, pandemics, cyber attacks and global power politics are not issues the country can build a wall around, he said.

The number one thing we could do right, we could listen, Stavridis said. We could listen better.

The countrys leaders should do more to promote goodwill efforts in developing countries, he said. Everything from sending out hospital ships to teaching Afghan soldiers how to read helps build trust and a more favorable view of the U.S., according to Stavridis.

That creates real safety in our time because it changes the perception, the view of our nation, he said, while also advocating for a stronger U.S. military presence and stronger alliances.

Were very good at launching missiles. We need to get better at launching ideas, Stavridis said.

The admiral also took time to address current events, including two recent collisions between Navy vessels and merchant ships in the Pacific, saying the incidents scream systemic problem.

The Navy on Thursday called off the search for sailors missing after the USS John S. McCain collided with an oil tanker earlier in the week as it was traveling to a port call in Singapore, according to The Associated Press.

Ten sailors initially were identified as missing after the accident, and five others were injured. At least one sailor was later confirmed killed, the AP reported.

The incident followed an accident in June when the USS Fitzgerald collided with a container ship off the coast of Japan. Seven sailors were killed in that accident, and the commander of the 7th Fleet was removed from his post this week.

Stavridis, who once captained the Navy destroyer USS Barry, said piloting boats at night can be visually disorienting. While thats usually counteracted by advanced radar and warning systems, officers can lean too heavily on their visuals and not rely on their electronics, he said.

But with so many incidents occurring in such a short period of time, Stavridis said, this is not simple disorientation on an individual bridge or two.

Instead, he said, there are several institutional factors that could have contributed to the accidents. Captains might have taken the wrong leadership approaches, or equipment and training might have failed, Stavridis said. Its also possible the crews were overworked or the Navy itself is overstretched.

I think well find the McCain and the Fitzgerald will be a combination of those factors, he said. The Navy has some real soul searching to do.

Tim Camerato can be reached at tcamerato@vnews.com or 603-727-3223.

Read more here:

NATO Commander Visits Osher - Valley News

Eight Serbian scientists are leading a research project to develop the commercial production of biofuel from algae. The pioneering project is supported by the NATO Science for Peace and Security (SPS) Programme and is carried out by Belgrades Institute for Multidisciplinary Research in cooperation with Manchester University in the United Kingdom and Baylor University in the United States.

I expect that our results will encourage the development of green technologies in the energy sector, said the projects leader Ivan Spasojevic. Successful completion of this project will, I believe, make it possible for fuel prices to drop by 1/5 in the next five years, he explained.

The research into producing biofuels from algae will last three years. The project gives us exactly what we need, equipment and supplies and scholarships for the most gifted young researchers who remain in the country thanks to that, Spasojevic said.

Serbia has benefitted from several NATO SPS activities since 2007, including projects on defence against chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear agents, counter-terrorism, and raising the profile of women in peace and security. We have great experience with our Serbian partners who are engaged on several important projects, said the Chief of the NATO Office in Belgrade, Brigadier Cesare Marinelli. NATO SPS projects have helped produce seismic charts for the Western Balkan countries, improve the protection of the Sava river water resources, and Serbian and German scientists, for example, are working on developing a decontamination and demining robot called T-Whex, Marinelli added, inviting the countrys academics to apply for research in areas such as cyber defence and energy security.

In addition to the SPS Programme, NATO countries have invested over 15 million Euros in several trust funds which are helping Serbia safely destroy obsolete weapons, landmines and ammunition, and retrain military personnel for civilian jobs.

Continued here:

NATO - News: NATO-funded Serbian researchers develop biofuel ... - NATO HQ (press release)

"Twenty-three of the 28 member nations are still not paying what they should," Trump told heads of NATO states assembled Thursday in Brussels. "Many of these nations owe massive amounts of money from past years."

It's not the first time Trump has suggested other NATO members have a debt to pay.

But NATO does not keep a running tab of what its members spend on defense. Treaty members target spending 2% of economic output on defense -- but that is merely a guideline.

NATO members spend money on their own defense. The funds they send to NATO directly account for less than 1% of overall defense spending by members of the alliance.

Here's how it works:

National budgets

NATO is based on the principle of collective defense: an attack against one or more members is considered an attack against all. So far that has only been invoked once -- in response to the September 11 attacks.

To make the idea work, it is important for all members to make sure their armed forces are in good shape. So NATO sets an official target on how much they should spend. That currently stands at 2% of GDP.

The 2% target is described as a "guideline." There is no penalty for not meeting it.

It is up to each country to decide how much to spend and how to use the money.

Related: Trump criticized NATO spending. Here's what's really going on

Related: Germany's defense minister to Trump: No, we don't owe NATO money

The North Atlantic alliance has its own military budget worth 1.29 billion ($1.4 billion), which is used to fund some operations and the NATO strategic command center, as well as training and research. But it is miniscule compared to overall spending on defense by NATO countries, which NATO estimates will total more than $921 billion in 2017.

The alliance also has a civilian budget of 234.4 million ($252 million), used mainly to fund the NATO headquarters in Belgium, and its administration.

Spending is rising

Only five of NATO's 28 members -- the U.S., Greece, Poland, Estonia and the U.K. -- meet the 2% target.

The rest lag behind. Germany is set to spend 1.2% of GDP on defense this year, France 1.79%. Belgium, Spain and Luxembourg all spend less than 1%.

NATO has long been pushing for higher spending. At a summit in 2014, all members who were falling short promised to move toward the official target within a decade.

That pledge appears to be holding: The alliance as a whole increased defense spending for the first time in two decades in 2015.

And last year, 22 of 28 NATO members increased their defense budgets. If the U.S. is removed from the equation, the group increased its spending by 3.8% in 2016. Including the U.S., overall spending rose by 2.9%.

Fear of Russian aggression is driving some of the recent splurge. Latvia, which shares a border with Russia, increased its defense budget by 42% in 2016. Its neighbor Lithuania boosted its outlays by 34%.

The 2% problem

So why don't more countries spend 2% of GDP? Many experts point out that the target is problematic.

NATO has warned against a rush to spend for the sake of spending, emphasizing that budget decisions must be based on strategic planning. For example, it wants countries to spend 20% of their defense budgets on equipment.

Related: Lockheed Martin CEO promises Trump she'll cut F-35 costs

There's also pressure for more coordination of spending among European countries.

Some member countries simply don't have armies big enough to be able to absorb a huge increase in funding quickly -- that's why the 2014 summit pledge gave laggards until 2024 to do more.

NATO member Iceland, for example, doesn't have its own army and spends just 0.1% of its GDP on defense, according to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.

And the 2% target doesn't just cover spending on defense to meet NATO commitments. The money can be used to fund other activities such as European peace missions in the Central African Republic and Mali, as well as national missions that are not part of NATO operations, for example the fight against ISIS.

CNNMoney (London) First published May 25, 2017: 11:55 AM ET

See more here:

NATO funding: How it works and who pays what

On Saturday, Kevin Scheid, a Department of Defense veteran, was placed in charge of NATOs cyber operations. The appointment wouldnt be big news if it werent for the fact that hes joining the organization at a hair-raising point in history. The vicious malware triggered the NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence (NATO CCD COE) to announce on Friday that the attack is believed to be the work of a state actor and is a potential act of war.

The 90s cyberpunk thriller Hackers is used too often to illustrate the fearful future of cyber

There was a lot of ruckus back in May when Donald Trump met with the leaders of NATO and failed to confirm that the US is committed to Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. Thats the clause of the agreement that pledges the members of NATO to mutual defense. Legally speaking, if Article 5 is triggered by an attack on one member, the other members are required to join in retaliation. NATOs Secretary General confirmed this week that a cyber operation with consequences comparable to an armed attack can trigger Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty and responses might be with military means. But Fridays press release emphasizes that we dont know enough about the origin of NotPetya or the intentions behind its release at this time.

NATO CCD COE is part of the NATO Allied Command Transformations Centers of Excellence and is classified as an International Military Organisation. It functions in an advisory capacity and helps member nations cooperate in the realm of cyber security. CCD COE researchers have concluded that the malware can most likely be attributed to a state actor, and if a nation is determined to be responsible, this could be an internationally wrongful act, which might give the targeted states several options to respond with countermeasures. What sort of countermeasures? Well, pretty much anything. Independently, the UKs defense secretary announced this week that his country was prepared to respond to cyber attacks from any domain - air, land, sea or cyber.

If our unhinged president in the US wants to start a war for the hell of it, he pretty much has the power to do that. But NATO functions on strict rules. Tom Minrik, a researcher at NATO CCD COE writes:

If the operation could be linked to an ongoing international armed conflict, then law of armed conflict would apply, at least to the extent that injury or physical damage was caused by it, and with respect to possible direct participation in hostilities by civilian hackers, but so far there are reports of neither.

Minrik is outlining what would justify full on IRL military conflict. That doesnt, necessarily, mean that NATO couldnt respond in the cyber-realm if it determined that a government was responsible for NotPetya. He continues:

As important government systems have been targeted, then in case the operation is attributed to a state this could count as a violation of sovereignty. Consequently, this could be an internationally wrongful act, which might give the targeted states several options to respond with countermeasures.

NATO doesnt know whos responsible for NotPetya, and no experts have attributed the attack to one actor with certainty.

Its one of the most fascinating pieces of malware to ever wreak havoc on a large scale. At first, people thought it was ransomware, then it was more likely to be a wiper with some ransomware code. Its become clear that it uses the EternalBlue and EternalRomance exploits that were pilfered from the NSA and released by the hacking group the Shadow Brokers in April. But intriguingly, it appears that whoever created NotPetya had access to those exploits two weeks before they were given to the public.

Another puzzling factor is the motive for releasing this malware that doesnt seem to benefit anyone. No one is getting paid. Its just a really destructive worm that locks up systems. It was first released in Ukraine, and that countrys security services are blaming Russia. But Russians were victims of the attack as well. Its such a pointless and nasty worm that the crime group behind the original Petya actually jumped in and volunteered to help victims. Lauri Lindstrm, a researcher at NATO says, it seems likely that the more sophisticated and expensive NotPetya campaign is a declaration of power - a demonstration of the acquired disruptive capability and readiness to use it.

According to Bloomberg, attacks on NATOs electronic infrastructure increased by 60 percent last year. If its true that a state actor is responsible for NotPetya, its possible that NATO taking notice and talking up Article 5 could make the perpetrator think twice. Then again, if the responsible party gets away without a trace, theyll know that theyre untouchable.

Correction: This post has been updated to clarify that NATOs CCD COE is accredited by the Alliance and serves to give advice, conduct research, and facilitate cooperation among the nations on issues of cyber security.

[CCDCOE via Security Affairs, Bloomberg]

Read the original:

NATO CCD COE Considering 'Petya' Malware a Potential Act of War

With your existing account from... {* loginWidget *} With a traditional account... {* #signInForm *} {* signInEmailAddress *} {* currentPassword *} {* /signInForm *} Welcome back, {* welcomeName *} {* loginWidget *} Welcome back! {* #signInForm *} {* signInEmailAddress *} {* currentPassword *}

Sign In

Your account has been deactivated.

You must verify your email address before signing in. Check your email for your verification email, or enter your email address in the form below to resend the email.

Please confirm the information below before signing in. Sign In

We have sent a confirmation email to {* emailAddressData *}. Please check your email and click on the link to activate your account.

We've sent an email with instructions to create a new password. Your existing password has not been changed.

{| foundExistingAccountText |} {| current_emailAddress |}.

{| existing_displayName |} {| existing_provider_emailAddress |}

Created {| existing_createdDate |} at {| existing_siteName |}

Thank you for verifiying your email address.

Check your email for a link to reset your password.

Thank you for verifiying your email address.

Password has been successfully updated.

We didn't recognize that password reset code. Enter your email address to get a new one.

We've sent an email with instructions to create a new password. Your existing password has not been changed.

{* photoManager *}

{* loginWidget *}

{* publicPrivate *} {* journalistContact *} {* aboutMe *} {* usernameTwPublic *} {* preferedContactLanguages *} {* arabicUsername *} {* persianUsername *} {* skypeId *} {* usernameTw *} {* journalistContact *} {* publicPrivate *} {* profession *}

{* newsMenu *} {* optinalert *} {* optinBestofWeek *} {* optinBestofWEnd *} {* optinBestofObs *}

{* newsMenuEn *} {* optinalertEn *} {* optinBestofWeekEn *} {* optinBestofWEndEn *} {* optinBestofObsEn *}

{* newsMenuAr *} {* optinalertAr *} {* optinBestofWeekAr *} {* optinBestofWEndAr *} {* optinBestofObsAr *}

{* newsMenuEs *} {* optinalertEs *} {* optinbestofweekEs *} {* optinbestofwendEs *}

{* optinQuotidienne *} {* optinBreaking *}

{* optinAutopromo *} {* optinPartenaires *}

{* optinActuMonde *} {* optinActuAfrique *} {* optinAlert *} {* optinRfiAfriqueFootFr *} {* optinMfi *} {* optinActuMusique *} {* optinOffreRfi *} {* optinOffrePartenaire *}

{* savedProfileMessage *}

Are you sure you want to deactivate your account? You will no longer have access to your profile.

See the original post:

NATO - France 24

Some politicians in Germany are exerting all kinds of efforts to aggravate the ongoing crisis between Turkey and Germany. Almost every day, a senior minister or politician issues libelous remarks against President Recep Tayyip Erdoan. Likewise, German media outlets publish news reports and articles against Turkey that offend Turkish citizens.

Germany, which almost gave red carpet treatment to former General and current Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi, who staged a coup in Egypt and executed dissidents and did not have any problems with other dictators who shed blood in their countries, is for some reason acting unusually in the context of Turkey, violating all kinds of diplomatic norms. Their much-praised crisis management has now become a foreign term in Germany.

Interestingly, current representatives of the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD), the party of the most successful politicians in terms of crisis management in the past, are the leading figures provoking the crisis. It must be explained to the SPD that they have already lost the election, and it is not possible to win with such an attitude.

An article recently penned by two federal ministers from the SPD and published in a German weekly says there is a need to mobilize NATO to take action for the resolution of the crisis. Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel and Justice Minister Heiko Maas used strong language in the article that should only be employed against an enemy. The two ministers claim that Erdoan aims to form a parallel community in Germany. But if they tried to understand Erdoan instead of disrespecting him on every occasion, they could see that Erdoan is also concerned about parallel formations in Germany.

There are some parallel formations in Germany. The outlawed PKK has taken root in Germany with some profound bonds. I wonder to what extent German intelligence and police observe PKK offshoots in Germany. They terrorize and racketeer mostly Kurds living in Germany, while provoking juveniles to terrorism.

Likewise, the Glenist Terror Group (FET) has such deep roots in Germany and Belgium that one has to be blind to overlook it.

If only Gabriel and Maas would also show the sensitivity they show to other issues to FET and the PKK. PKK or FET-owned TV stations have been brainwashing Turkish people for years.

Formerly, while leftists in Germany were accusing the state of condoning racists; they said the state was blind in the right eye.

And now, I guess we must say that one eye of the German state is closed so as to not see terrorist groups such as FET and the PKK.

However, the deepening crisis undermines the interests of both the EU and NATO.

Germany cannot have the luxury to undermine NATO's interests in the Mediterranean, Middle East, Balkans and the Caucasus only for the sake of messing with Erdoan on whom some German politicians personally waged war.

Those who almost declared Turkey an enemy must be reminded that Turkey is also a NATO member and as essential to it as Germany. Likewise, although Germany views the EU as a commodity made in Germany, particularly in the context of the crisis with Turkey, many EU countries are disturbed by the situation. They do not support Germany's demands for sanctions on Turkey.

As a result, it seems that Germany is not capable of resolving the crisis with Turkey constructively.

Turkey, which has the second-largest military in NATO and guards a critical region on behalf of NATO, cannot be declared an enemy just because a few German politicians wish it so.

Also, provoking Turkey against the EU will bring no benefit to the EU. NATO and the EU must intervene as mediators to avert greater losses.

Link:

NATO and EU must intervene in Turkish-German crisis - Daily Sabah

Vladimir Putin at a Russian Navy Day parade In St Petersburg in July. Photograph: Tass/Barcroft Images

Russia is preparing to mount what could be one of its biggest military exercises since the cold war, a display of power that will be watched warily by Nato against a backdrop of east-west tensions.

Western officials and analysts estimate up to 100,000 military personnel and logistical support could participate in the Zapad (West) 17 exercise, which will take place next month in Belarus, Kaliningrad and Russia itself. Moscow puts the number significantly lower.

The exercise, to be held from 14-20 September, comes against a backdrop of strained relations between Russia and the US. Congress recently imposed a fresh round of sanctions on Moscow in response to allegations of interference in the 2016 US election.

The first of the Russian troops are scheduled to arrive in Belarus in mid-August.

Moscow has portrayed Zapad 17 as a regular exercise, held every four years, planned long ago and not a reaction to the latest round of sanctions.

Nato headquarters in Brussels said it had no plans to respond to the manoeuvres by deploying more troops along the Russian border.

A Nato official said: Nato will closely monitor exercise Zapad 17 but we are not planning any large exercises during Zapad 17. Our exercises are planned long in advance and are not related to the Russian exercise.

The US vice-president, Mike Pence, discussed Zapad 17 during a visit to Estonia in July and raised the possibility of deploying the US Patriot missile defence system in the country. The US may deploy extra troops to eastern Europe during the course of the exercise and delay the planned rotation of others.

The commander of US Army Europe, Lt Gen Ben Hodges, told a press conference in Hungary in July: Everybody that lives close to the western military district is a little bit worried because they hear about the size of the exercise.

The Russian armed forces have undergone rapid modernisation over the last decade and Zapad offers them a chance to train en masse.

Moscow blames growing west-east tensions on the expansion of Nato eastwards and in recent years the deployment of more Nato forces in countries bordering Russia. Nato says the increased deployments are in response to the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2013.

Russia has not said how many troops will participate in Zapad 17 but the Russian ambassador to Nato, Aleksander Grushko, said it was not envisioned that any of the manoeuvres would involve more than 13,000 troops, the limit at which Russia under an international agreement would be obliged to allow military from other countries to observe the exercise.

Russia could, theoretically, divide the exercise into separate parts in order to keep below the 13,000 limit. Western analysts said the last Zapad exercise in 2013 involved an estimated 70,000 military and support personnel, even though Russia informed Nato in the run-up it would not exceed 13,000.

Igor Sutyagin, co-author of Russias New Ground Forces, to be officially published on 20 September, said: Unfortunately, you cant trust what the Russians say. He said: One hundred thousand is probably exaggerated but 18,000 is absolutely realistic.

He did not envisage an attack on the Baltic states, given they are members of Nato. Well, there are easier ways to commit suicide, he said. But Putin is a master at doing the unexpected, he said, and Russia could take action elsewhere, such as taking more land in Georgia.

In a joint paper published in May, Col Tomasz Kowalik, a former special assistant to the chairman of Natos military committee and a director at the Polish ministry of national defence, and Dominik Jankowski, a senior official at the Polish ministry of foreign affairs, wrote that Russia had ordered 4,000 railcars to transport its troops to Belarus and estimated that could amount to 30,000 military personnel.

Adding in troops already in place in Belarus and the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad as well as troops arriving by air, it might be the largest Russian exercise since 1991.

Nato said its biggest exercise this year, Trident Javelin 17, running from 8-17 November, would involve only 3,000 troops. Trident Javelin 17 is to prepare for next years bigger exercise, Trident Juncture 2018, which will involve an estimated 35,000 troops.

The Nato official added: We have increased our military presence in the eastern part of the alliance in response to Russias illegal annexation of Crimea and its military buildup in the region. We have four multinational Nato battle-groups in place in the Baltic states and Poland, a concrete reminder that an attack on one ally is an an attack on all. However, Natos force posture is not in reaction to Zapad 17.

During the cold war, Zapad was the biggest training exercise of the Soviet Union and involved an estimated 100,000 to 150,000 personnel. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, it was resurrected in 1999 and has been held every four years since.

See the rest here:

Russia readies for huge military exercises as tensions with west simmer - The Guardian

The Belarusian Defense Ministry has invited observers from several countries to the Zapad 2017 joint Belarusian-Russian military exercise that takes place September 14-20 in Belarus, but NATO has said such efforts "fall short."

"Observers from seven countries -- Ukraine, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Sweden, and Norway -- have been invited to this event," the Belarusian Defense Ministry said in an August 22 statement.

Russia and Belarus say that Zapad 2017 is expected to involve some 12,700 soldiers.

The Belarusian statement said on August 22 that the invitation came as part of the 2011 Vienna Document, which sets thresholds for the number of troops allowed to take part in exercises before the opposing side is allowed to demand a mandatory inspection.

Exercises involving 13,000 or more troops are subject to mandatory inspections. In the case of exercises involving 9,000 or more soldiers, the other side must be notified.

Meanwhile, a NATO official told RFE/RL on August 22 that Belarus has invited military liaison missions to attend "distinguished visitors days" -- when foreign officials such as attaches can come and visit -- during the Zapad 2017 exercise, and that NATO will send two experts to attend.

However, the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because NATO officials are not allowed to speak on the record unless instructed to do so, said that the participation of NATO experts "is not the same as observation as set out in the Vienna Document."

"We regret that neither Russia nor Belarus have applied the Vienna Document transparency measures to Zapad, in line with the rules agreed by all OSCE states," the official said.

"The Vienna Document transparency measures are important because they prevent misperceptions and miscalculations.

"A Vienna Document observation has required elements to it -- briefings on the scenario and progress, opportunities to talk to individual soldiers about the exercise, and overflights of the exercise.

"Russia and Belarus are instead choosing a selective approach that falls short. Such avoidance of mandatory transparency raises questions," the official said.

Lithuania's Defense Minister Raimundas Karoblis warned in June that Moscow might use the maneuvers as cover for an aggressive troop buildup on NATO's eastern flank. Karoblis said his government estimated that 100,000 Russian troops would be involved in the exercises, rather than the official 12,700.

Formerly Soviet-ruled Baltic states worry that, after Ukraine, they may be next to face pressure from the Kremlin, which is why they are casting a wary eye on Zapad 2017 drills in Belarus, which borders Latvia, Lithuania and Poland.

Go here to read the rest:

Belarus Invites Observers To Monitor 'Zapad 2017' Exercises, But NATO Critical - RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty

KABUL (Pajhwok): NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg on Tuesday welcomed US President Donald Trumps new conditions-based approach to Afghanistan, saying the alliance remained committed to the war-torn country.

NATO remains fully committed to Afghanistan and I am looking forward to discussing the way ahead with [US Defense] Secretary [James] Mattis and our allies and international partners, Stoltenberg said in a statement.

Trump announced Monday night the US would maintain its military presence in Afghanistan based on certain conditions being met, and did not specify a timeline for withdrawal. He also accused Pakistan of providing a safe haven to agents of chaos, violence and terror.

In a subtle nod to Trumps take on Pakistan, Stoltenberg said: We urge all countries in the region to do their utmost to shut down sanctuaries for extremist groups, support peace and reconciliation, and contribute to a stable and secure Afghanistan.

In a statement, UK Defense Secretary Michael Fallon said the USs commitment was very welcome, but did not announce any additional troop increase.

Our aim remains to ensure that Afghanistan never again becomes a safe haven for terrorists who would attack our own countries, Stoltenberg said.

He said NATO allies and partners had already committed to increasing military presence in Afghanistan and in recent weeks, more than 15 nations had pledged additional contributions to the Resolute Support Mission.

We place special emphasis on continuing the development of Afghan Special Forces, Air Forces and improving command and control.

The NATO chief said they encouraged all Afghans to work towards a negotiated political settlement and a sustainable peace.

In his prime-time address to the nation on Americas new policy toward South Asia, President Trump reached out to India for economic development of Afghanistan.

A hasty withdrawal would create a vacuum for terrorists, including ISIS and Al Qaida, would instantly fill just as happened before September 11, said the president.

Meanwhile, US Special Charg dAffaires in Kabul Ambassador Hugo Llorens said President Trump in his new strategy renewed commitment to success in Afghanistan and in the broader South Asia region.

He said the President was very clear about the United States continuing support for the national unity government and the Afghan people for their quest to achieve security, stability, prosperity, and peace.

At the core of this commitment, we will continue to support Afghan forces in defending their country while we also maintain pressure on the Taliban to join a peace process with the Afghan government to end the war in Afghanistan.

The ambassador said they would emphasize with all regional countries the importance of cooperation to reduce the threat of terrorism and nuclearized conflict.

Our strategy is based on conditions on the ground, and we will stand by Afghanistans side as long as it takes to get the job done. So just understand, the United States is not going anywhere.

We will continue to partner with the Government of National Unity and the Afghan people in our common fight against terrorists and those forces unwilling to reconcile.

The US envoy asked the Afghan government to redouble its reform efforts and deliver on vital promises such as holding parliamentary elections next year and presidential elections in 2019, rooting out corruption, and enacting the tough reforms necessary for meaningful private sector-led economic growth.

To maintain stability in the face of insurgent threats, he said, Afghanistans leaders must also increase outreach to all ethnic groups and seek greater diversity and inclusivity in the government.

Real challenges lay ahead, but I am confident Afghanistan can surmount them. As I have said previously on many occasions, we and our allies are firmly with you, and we are not going anywhere.

ma

More here:

NATO chief welcomes Trump's Afghanistan strategy - Pajhwok Afghan News (subscription) (blog)

Ursula von der Leyen said: "We increased our troop numbers by 18 percent last year when others were cutting theirs. So we don't see ourselves in the front row of people who should be asked for more soldiers."

The Ministry of Defence in London said it had already announced in June that 85 more soldiers would be sent, bringing the UK detachment to 600.

A Whitehall source said: We dont see that number changing.

French defence expert Jean-Dominique Merchet, said: "I would be astonished if France was prepared to send troops back to Afghanistan.

"We are already heavily present in the Sahel with 4,500 troops in Mali, Niger, Chad and Burkina Faso, and in Iraq, where there are around 1,000 French soldiers. That's a lot.

"France lost not far off 100 men in Afghanistan for nothing and their presence there could not be called a success."

Mr Trumps decision to remain in Afghanistan risked angering supporters who voted for his America First campaign promises to end US foreign interventions.

Breitbart, the conservative news website run by his former strategist Steve Bannon, called the new strategy a "flip-flop."

After his speech, Mr Trump flew to Arizona to rally supporters and try to recapture the Republican fervour that helped put him in office.

Here is the original post:

Nato allies shy away from Trump's demand for more Afghanistan troops - Telegraph.co.uk

How fragile the NATO ranks are is illustrated by the following incident that happened at the Noble Jump exercise (NOJP 17) held in June in Romania. Military units from 11 NATO countries: Albania, Bulgaria, Great Britain, Greece, Spain, Latvia, Holland, Norway, Poland, Romania and the USA took part in the drills. During the shooting at the training grounds, the Bulgarian soldiers flatly refused to shoot as Russian identification marks have been placed on the targets, and they wont shoot at Russians!

It turned out that the Romanians responsible for the equipment of the landfill saved by using for the targets canvasses taken from billboards located near shopping malls, with images that strongly resemble the identification signs of the Russian Armed Forces. The Romanians were too lazy to repaint the canvases, and from the distance it really looked like they had signs of Russian aircraft. The error was quickly corrected. Cloths changed, and the NATO members apologized to the Bulgarians. Agreed not to disclose publicly what happened, but the information still leaked into space.

In 2014-2015 years Bulgaria refused to accept elements of American missile defense complexes on its territory. Subsequently, the US received the consent of neighboring Romania to create an appropriate infrastructure for them.

In 2016, Bulgaria again categorically refused to participate in the formation of the anti-Russian Black Sea flotilla with the participation of Turkey, Romania and Ukraine, which had to counteract the transformation of the Black Sea into a Russian lake. As a result, the whole project was buried.

The current dispersion in NATO alludes to a deep crisis in this organization and shows an extremely low level of its fighting efficiency.

Featured image is from the author.

Read more:

NATO Drills: Bulgarian Soldiers Refused to Shoot Targets with Russian Signs - Center for Research on Globalization

The Russian IL-20 reconnaissance plane.

NATO fighter jets serving in the alliance's Baltic Air Policing mission out of mari Air Base in Estonia and iauliai Air Base in Lithuania were scrambled three times last week in order to intercept Russian military aircraft in international airspace over the Baltic Sea, the Lithuanian Ministry of Defence said on Monday.

The alliance's jets took off twice on Aug. 17, first to identify and escort two Russian IL-20 planes flying from mainland Russia to the exclave of Kaliningrad and the second time to intercept an IL-20 headed for mainland Russia. The Russian aircraft had flight plans and kept in radio contact with the regional air traffic control center, but their onboard transponders were switched off.

A day later, on Aug. 18, an IL-20 reconnaissance aircraft was intercepted en route from Kaliningrad to mainland Russia. This aircraft also had a flight plan and kept in radio contact with air traffic control, however its onboard transponder was likewise switched off.

View post:

NATO jets in Baltics scrambled three times to escort Russian aircraft - ERR News

The attitude towards Armenia's obvious drift towards NATO in the Armenian society and among the Armenian elite is different.

Pro-Western Armenians do not hide their enthusiasm with this fact and are waiting for the moment when Armenia finally "throws away" Russia and runs under the wing of a new "ally" - the US, in order to start a new stage of aggression against its neighbors. However, such prodigies are not shared by the pro-Armenian forces that settled in Moscow.

Obviously, if Armenia betrays Russia and finally surrenders to the US and NATO, the fate of the powerful Armenian lobby in Russia will be unenviable and their positions will shaken. Including the positions of "near-Armenian" figures, such as the editor-in-chief of Regnum news agency Modest Kolerov.

After all, Kolerov and others like him managed to create the image of "the great patriots of Russia" among the Russian public, and the illusion that Armenia is the 'surest ally of Russia'. But if Armenia betrays Russia, Kolerov won't be able to play the same game anymore.

It will also become clear that for many years Modest Kolerov, as well as all kinds of Baghdasaryans, Margaritas Simonyans and others like them, fooled the Russian society, made them support the regime, which eventually ended up betraying Russia and becomingthe enemy of their country. In this case the representatives of Moscow Armenian lobby will also be suspected of betrayal, and, as a result, "the money flows" of Russian Armenians will be excommunicated. And their lives become more complicated - since no matter how naive the Russians are, they will hardly finance Armenian structures after Armenia joins the ranks of Russia's enemies.

Therefore, it was not accidental that the material of Sargis Artsruni entitled "Moscow incites Azerbaijan to a new war" recently published on the website of Armenia's pro-Western First Information expresses an extremely negative reaction on the attitude of the same Modest Kolerov to the rapprochement between Armenia and NATO which goes contrary to the aspirations of the pro-Western "First Information" .

Sargis Artsruni writes: "In Moscow they can not accept the fact that Armenia took part in NATO military exercises held in Georgia. Even if this participation of Yerevan was agreed with Moscow, the situation changed drastically after the new US sanctions against Russia and against the backdrop of US Vice President Mike Pence's visit to Georgia. Several Russian publications openly question the loyalty of the Armenian authorities.

In an interview with the First Information, the editor-in-chief of the Regnum news agency, political analyst Modest Kolerov, who is known for his connections with the Kremlin, spoke rather harshly. "Armenia itself said that it has solidarity with NATO. And this solidarity takes place with the joint participation with Turkey and Azerbaijan. That's all. And if Armenia participates in such projects jointly with Turkey and Azerbaijan, it does not mean that it does not need a united military group with Russia. So, let Armenia call on NATO to reconcile it with Turkey and Azerbaijan, " Kolerov said.

In this case, Sargis Artsruni accuses Modest Kolerov of lies and fraudulent facts. In particular, he writes:

"Russian officials and experts have tactics to bring their message or even threat to the appropriate audience at all means - even resorting to obvious falsifications. For example, Kolerov obviously deceives readers, giving the impression that Azerbaijan participated in military exercises in Georgia. Or the political scientist creates a completely false picture that Moscow is allegedly occupied with the Armenian-Azerbaijani or Armenian-Turkish reconciliation processes, and this is when Moscow arms the parties to the Karabakh conflict, and the Russian military base deployed in Armenia is one of the obstacles to the probable Armenian-Turkish rapprochement. However, all these manipulations are trifles in comparison with tthe threat clearly voiced by Kolerov. "So, let Armenia call on NATO to reconcile it with Turkey and Azerbaijan," Kolerov said, diplomatically making it clear that Armenia will pay a high price for participation in NATO exercises.

The conclusion of the First Information is purely speculative. Sargis Artsruni believes that Moscow has found a "legitimate" basis for issuing carte blanche to Azerbaijan for a new war - it is supposedly the Armenian authorities' review of their foreign policy. In his opinion, Moscow makes it clear that if Armenia continues to cooperate with NATO, or even signs a new agreement with NATO, they will provoke Azerbaijan to a new war against Armenia - laying the blame on our "pro-Western" authorities.

But the fact is that the sale of arms to Azerbaijan and Russian-Azerbaijani defense cooperation which is absolutely legitimate and mutually beneficial and consistent with Russia's interests is just being presented by the supporters of betrayal of Russia by Armenia as a "proof" of the fact that 'Russia is not Armenia's friend'. And these theses are repeated again and again.

Thus, a split has emerged in the formerly monolithic international Armenian lobby. Russian Armenians began to realize that the betrayal of Russia by Armeniacould touch them personally. And they frantically try to "slow down" the process in the present stage, when Armenia seems to continue to remain Russia's ally, while flirting with the West.

But such an"intermediate" state can not be preserved forever. Either here or there. And, judging by the latest trends, it is rather "there". Armenia's insidiousness as an ally and treacherous essence of the Yerevan regime will soon become apparent even to the most naive Russian patriots.

News.Az

See the original post:

Armenia's drift towards NATO and panic among Moscow Armenians - News.Az

PR dla Zagranicy

Victoria Bieniek 21.08.2017 15:06

Warsaw and NATO are "closely watching" preparations for Zapad17, Russian and Belarusian war games which will take place near the Polish border in September, Polands deputy defence minister has said.

Deputy Defence Minister Micha Dworczyk said there are concerns about whether all of Russias military equipment will be withdrawn from Belarus after the seven-day exercises end on 20 September.

According to official data, some 12,700 troops, including 3,000 from Russia, are to take part in the drills, but Dworczyk said there might be more.

There is a lot of doubt and concern because of the Russian Federations hitherto activities, and it may turn out that not all forces and means will be withdrawn after the exercises, he said.

He added that there may be more equipment and troops at the war games than what Moscow and Minsk have indicated.

But he said Poles should feel perfectly safe.

Polish President Andrzej Duda and NATO Secretary-General Jans Stoltenberg are set to discuss Zapad17 war games in Warsaw on Thursday. (vb)

Source: IAR

Read more:

Poland, NATO watch as Moscow, Minsk prep for war games - thenews.pl

Politics

15:20 21.08.2017(updated 19:27 21.08.2017) Get short URL

Republika Srpska (RS), one of the constituting parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina, wants a referendum on the country joining NATO, RS President Milorad Dodik said in an exclusive interview with Sputnik.

Dodik pointed outthat a referendum would give the people an opportunity tovoice their opinions onthe possible integration ofBosnia and Herzegovina intothe alliance when the issue is onthe agenda.

"Several years ago we were not againstsome aspects ofmilitary cooperation withthe alliance. But now the situation is different. NATO wants Bosnia and Herzegovina tojoin the military bloc withoutthe consent ofRepublika Srpska. This is why the peoples voice is what really matters," Dodik told Sputnik Serbian.

Serbian-majority Republika Srpska is one oftwo largely autonomous entities constituting Bosnia and Herzegovina. The other one is the Federation ofBosnia and Herzegovina dominated byBosniaks and Croats aswell asthe Brcko district. The union state is governed bya three-member presidency.

AP Photo/ Sava Radovanovic

"There is some sort ofa consensus withinRepublika Srpska that we should not advance towardsa membership inNATO. The most adequate response is toorganize a legitimate referendum assoon aspossible. If RS says no toBosnia and Herzegovinas admission toNATO this would mean no more procedures related tojoining the alliance," Dodik said.

He explained that the decision has been prompted bya recent ruling ofthe Constitutional Court ofBosnia and Herzegovina that the Veliki Zep military facility inRepublika Srpska is owned bythe state.

Re-registration ofthe so-called "prospective military property" is the final step inBosnia and Herzegovinas bid tojoin NATO, the so-called Membership Action Plan.

"This decision is aimed atstripping Republika Srpska ofthe right topossess its own property. This decision was imposed byNATO and supported bySarajevo. The alliance shows its defiance oflaw and sovereignty. Republika Srpska will not obey this ruling. This precedent is very dangerous," Dodik said.

Sputnik/ Mikhail Palinchak

"Well try tounite all ofthe RS political parties and reach a consensus ona referendum. The proposed question should be: 'Do you support Republika Srpska becoming a NATO member?'" Dodik said.

He also commented onthe possible consequences ofa referendum and the possible reaction fromthe international community.

"I guess they will say that the referendum is illegal. But it is legal forRepublika Srpska. We want toreach a domestic political consensus and abandon the integration withNATO. We want tosend a clear message that Bosnia and Herzegovina should not join NATO ina polarized world, inwhich joining one side would mean losing Russia and other friends. We dont want tolose this friendship. Republika Srpska wants tobe likeSerbia that maintains neutrality. At the same time, we should not forget aboutNATOs attempts tomeddle inour domestic affairs," Dodik said.

AP Photo/ Risto Bozovic

Bosnia and Herzegovina was expected tojoin NATO by2011, butthe plan hit a skid overthe need tohand overmore than60 military facilities tothe federal government.

See the rest here:

Republika Srpska Doesn't Want to 'Lose Russia, Other Friends' to ... - Sputnik International

Expand All

Important Notice: Same-sex Marriage

Effective immediately, U.S. Embassies and Consulates will adjudicate visa applications that are based on a same-sex marriage in the same way that we adjudicate applications for opposite gender spouses.Please reference the specific guidance on the visa category for which you are applying for more details on documentation required for derivative spouses. For further information, please see ourFAQs.

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

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

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

Requesting to change status into or out of G or NATO status, select Change of Status to/from A,G, NATO to learn more.

Expand All

International Organization Employees

To receive a G-1, G-2, G-3, or G-4 visa, you must be traveling to attend meetings at, visit, or work at a designated international organization. If you are entitled to a G visa, under U.S. visa law, you must receive a G visa. The exceptions to this rule are extremely limited. International organization officials and employees requiring visas include:

Designated Organizations List - Review the authorized list of designated International Organizations in the Foreign Affairs Manual (9 FAM 402.3-7(N)).

NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization)

To receive a NATO-1, NATO-2, NATO-3, NATO-4, NATO-5, or NATO-6 visa, you must be traveling to the United States under the applicable provision of the Agreement on the Status of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization or the Protocol on the Status of International Military Headquarters Set Up Pursuant to the North Atlantic Treaty. This includes national representatives, international staff, and immediate family members. Personal employees or domestic workers of a NATO-1 6 visa holder may be issued NATO-7 visas. SelectPersonal Employeesto learn more.

Passport and Visa Exemptions for NATO Forces -Many armed forces personnel are exempt from passport and visa requirements if they are:

When traveling in visa exempt status, such personnel generally enter the United States by military aircraft or naval vessel. You must present your official military identification card and NATO travel orders.Note:Immediate family members are not included in the passport and visa exemption. Therefore, when family members are traveling with you or who will join you at a later date, each person must have a passport and NATO-2 visa to enter the United States.

G and NATO Visas Required for Official Travel

International organization and NATO officials and employees traveling to the United States to engage in official duties or activities must enter the United States with a G-1 - 4 or NATO-1 - 6 visa. International organization and NATO officials and employees traveling for official purposes are not permitted to enter the United States on any other visa category or under the Visa Waiver Program. Please note that U.S. law requires international organization and NATO officials and employees and their qualified immediate family members to receive G-1 - 6 or NATO-1 - 7 visas, if entitled. Exceptions are extremely limited.

Travel Purposes Not Permitted on G or NATO Visas - Examples:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Personal employees, attendants, domestic workers, or servants of individuals who hold a valid G-1 through G-4, or NATO-1 through NATO-6 visa, may be issued a G-5 or a NATO-7 visa, if they meet the requirements.

The employment contract must be in English and, if the employee does not understand English, also in a language the employee understands.

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

The contract must state that wages will be paid to the domestic employee either weekly or biweekly. As of March 2011, the Department determined that no deductions are allowed for lodging, medical care, medical insurance, or travel. As of April 2012, deductions taken for meals are also no longer allowed.

Important Notices:Employers and Personal Employees/Domestic Workersare advised to keep their passport and a copy of their contract in their possession. They should not surrender their contract and/or passport to their employer. Personal employees and domestic workers are advised that they will be subject to U.S. law while in the United States, and that their contracts provide working arrangements that theemployeris expected to respect.

There are several steps to apply for a visa. The order of these steps and how you complete them may vary at the U.S. embassy or consulate where you apply. As part of the application process, an interview at a U.S. embassy or consulate outside the United States is required. The employer and/or recruitment agent does not attend the interview.

You must schedule an appointment for your visa interview at the U.S. embassy or consulate in your home country. Please consult the instructions available on the embassy or consulate website.

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

Learn about your rights in the United States and protection available to you by reading theLegal Rights and Protectionspamphlet, before applying for your visa.

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

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

After your visa interview, your application may require further administrative processing. You will be informed by the consular officer if further processing is necessary for your application.

If the visa is approved, you will be informed how your passport with visa will be returned to you.

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

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

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

Expand All

Change of Status Into, Within, Between, or Out of G or NATO Status in the U.S.

Select Change of Status to learn about:

Visa Denial and Ineligibility

Review Visa Denials for detailed information about visa ineligibilities, denials, and waivers.

Misrepresentation or Fraud

Attempting to obtain a visa by the willful misrepresentation of a material fact, or fraud, may result in the permanent refusal of a visa or denial of entry into the United States.

Review Ineligibilities and Waivers: Laws.

Read more:

Employee of International Organization & NATO Visa

Europe

10:58 20.08.2017(updated 11:57 20.08.2017) Get short URL

The Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina has ruled that the Veliki Zep military facility in the countrys Serb-dominated Republika Srpska is owned by the state. In an interview with Sputnik, Serbian political analyst Andjelko Kozomara said the decision could help Bosnia move toward NATO membership

NATO wants togain access tokey strategic facilities. The Yugoslav Army always deployed its bases atstrategic locations and byregistering them as prospective military property, the Bosnian authorities are making them available toNATO, which plans tostation its forces there, he said.

He added that the Constitutional Courts ruling violates the terms ofthe 1995 Dayton Accordspeace accord underwhich 49 percent ofthe countrys territory belongs toRepublika Srpska.

Re-registration ofthe so-called prospective military property is the final step inBosnia and Herzegovinas bid tojoin NATO, the so-called Membership Action Plan.

Just likeSerbia, the majority ofBosnian Serbs do not want tojoin NATO. If Serbia does not want tojoin NATO, then Republika Srpska will not let Bosnia and Herzegovina join this military alliance. We fear, however, that things may develop just asthey did in1992 when Croats and Bosnians voted ina referendum tobreak away fromYugoslavia. The Bosnian Serbs did not vote, butthe international community still recognized the results ofthat plebiscite, Andjelko Kozomara continued.

Meanwhile, the vice speaker ofRepublika Srpskas parliament, Nenad Stevandic said that the re-registration ofmilitary property will byno means facilitate Bosnia and Herzegovinas integration intoNATO because the Bosnian Serb Republic will not abide bythe Courts ruling, which violates the terms ofthe Dayton Accords and creates a new crisis inBosnia and Herzegovina.

He added that ina situation likethis Bosnia and Herzegovina will not be able tojoin any alliances.

They are pressuring us toset offa new crisis and blame it all onthe Serbs. They have been using this practice since1992 bymaking decisions we cant subscribe tobecause they deprive us ofour legitimate rights, and then blaming us for destabilizing the situation, Nenad Stevandic told Sputnik.

Commenting onthe situation inan interview withRepublika Srpskas news agency, the Russian ambassador toSarajevo Pyotr Ivantsov said that matters directly pertaining toone ofthe countrys entities cannot be decided withoutits consent.

Sarajevo and Brussels have been discussing Bosnias NATO membership sincethe mid-2000s.

Bosnia and Herzegovina joined NATOs Partnership forPeace program in2006. It was expected tojoin NATO by2011, butthe plan hit a snag overthe need tohand overmore than60 military facilities tothe federal government.

Visit link:

NATO's Balkan Dream: 'Gaining Access to Key Strategic Facilities' - Sputnik International