Foreign Policy (blog) | NATO Allies Press Trump To Stop Steel Crackdown Foreign Policy (blog) According to a report in the Financial Times, German and Dutch military officials have been pressing Defense Secretary James Mattis to make the case that steel imports from NATO members like Germany and Belgium don't pose a threat to American national ... European Nato members lobby against Trump steel crackdown |
Original post:
NATO Allies Press Trump To Stop Steel Crackdown - Foreign Policy (blog)
Wall Street Journal (subscription) | NATO's Stronger Baltic Force Riles Russia - WSJ - Wall Street Journal Wall Street Journal (subscription) NATO declared that its deterrent force is fully in place in the Baltic area with the addition of a Canadian-led battle group in Latvia, enhancing deployments ... Latvia welcomes NATO troops - Xinhua | English.news.cn President Vejonis calls NATO Enhanced Forward Presence a ... Canadian-Led NATO Battle Group Begins Operations in Latvia - Defense Ministry |
Continue reading here:
Russian President Vladimir Putin sees an opportunity under President Donald Trump's administration to crack Americas NATO military pact with its main Western allies, says a former top U.S. diplomat.
"I suspect [Putin] sees an opportunity to do what military force alone could never do, and that is crack the NATO alliance,Doug Lute, the former U.S. ambassador to NATO in the Obama administration, said on Sunday.
If he can crack it politically, or if he can provoke internal fissures inside the alliance, Lute said during an interview on ABC News show This Weekon Sunday, then Putin sees an enormous opportunity to achieve a long-standing Russian goal.
Daily Emails and Alerts- Get the best of Newsweek delivered to your inbox
Lute said that for the first time in 70 years, what was once a rock-solid commitment to the alliance is in question underTrump, and that possibly opens potential opportunities for opponents.
Trump has been unpredictable in his commitment to the 70-year military alliance during his months as president.
Before his inauguration, then President-elect Trump called NATO obsolete, only to reverse his stance months later after meeting with NATOs leaders.
Read more: White House and Putin among biggest critics of Russia sanctions bill
Despite advice from his generals, Trump hesitated to affirm NATOs Article 5which says an attack on one member is an attack on allduring a speech at the alliances new headquarters at the end of May.
National security adviser H.R. McMaster, Defense Secretary James Mattisand Secretary of State Rex Tillerson had all worked to include a statement supporting Article 5 in Trumps speech, according to five sources that spoke with Politico. Trump reportedly took it out.
In thatsame speech,Trump chastisedcertain member countries for owing "massive amounts of money" to the United States and NATO. All NATO countries have committed to spend about 2 percent of their GDP in their individual military budgets to support the alliance. Last year, only five of all 28 nations met that goal.
Weeks later, during a press conference with Romanian President Klaus Iohannis, however, Trump said he was "committing the United States to Article 5."
All this has been very disorienting to our NATO allies, said Lute. After Trumps speech in May, one senior diplomat told Reuters the presidents remarks were not made in the right place or time" and that they were left with nothing else but trying to put a brave face on it.
Trumps statements prompted German Chancellor Angela Merkel to say, just days after the meeting, that the times in which we can fully count on others are somewhat over.
Russian President Vladimir Putin attends a signing ceremony following talks with his Slovenian counterpart Borut Pahor at the Kremlin in Moscow on February 10. Alexander Zemlianichenko/Pool/Reuters
Many Eastern European nations who are NATO members have been wary of a Russian military buildup on their frontiers. NATO forces have been deployed in response, but they fear a weakening NATO alliance.
If that was not enough, Russia is already drawing a wedge between America and its closest NATO allies in other ways. Germany and the European Union have been disturbed by new congressional sanctions against Russia for interfering in the 2016 election, according to Jonathan Fenby, managing director of European political researchat the investment research firm TS Lombard.
A bill that passed the U.S. Senate last week seeks to impose stricter sanctions on Russia in response to its campaign to influence the 2016 American election. The bill has moved forward on distrust in Congress of Trumps willingness to punish Russia. The presidents election campaign is currently the subject of an FBI investigation into whether its officials or associates colluded withRussia tointerferein the election.
Russian energy companies building the Nord Stream 2 gas export pipeline to Europe, however, are targeted in the new sanctions bill.
This is the latest of a series of developments that augur ill for trans-Atlantic relations, wrote Fenby in a research letter to investors Sunday.
Germany and Austria, whose companies are investing in the pipeline, criticized the Senate vote for adding a new and very negative quality in European-American relations. Fenby said. Trumps withdrawal from the Paris climate change agreement was also condemned by EU members who are NATO allies.
The new sanctions are just another brick in the wall of European reaction to Trumps criticism of European defence spending, Fenby wrote.
Considering the presidents rhetoric and growing divisions, Lute said, Americas allies are sort of whipsawed between key advisers and the president himself, and wonder, I think, Who actually speaks for this administration?
See the article here:
Putin Could 'Crack' NATO Under Trump, Warns Former U.S. ... - Newsweek
An international controversy over nonprofits funded by progressive Hungarian-American billionaire George Soros has created a vulnerability in the NATO alliance, the State Department warned.
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson's spokesperson urged Hungarian leaders to scrap legislation mandating that Hungarian nonprofits supported by foreign contributors identify their donors. The bill is the latest development in nationalist Prime Minister Viktor Orban's ongoing campaign against Soros, but his domestic and international critics regard it also as a step toward Russian President Vladimir Putin.
"If signed into law, this would be another step away from Hungary's commitments to uphold the principles and values that are central to the [European Union] and NATO," State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said Monday.
Hungary joined NATO in 1999, when Orban was in the midst of a four-year run as prime minister. Since returning to the post in 2010 the midst of an economic crisis that required an international bailout, Orban has had a fraught relationship with the European Union. The 2015 refugee crisis created additional strain, and human rights groups criticized his efforts to constrict the flow of asylum-seekers into Hungary.
Orban responded by attacking Soros, a campaign that hasn't ended. "There is an important element in public life in Hungary which is not transparent and not open and that is the Soros network, with its mafia-style operation and its agentlike organizations," he said in June.
The State Department contradicted that assessment and suggested that Orban is enabling corruption. "The United States is concerned by the Hungarian parliament's passage of legislation that unfairly burdens and targets Hungarian civil society, which is working to fight corruption and protect civil liberties," Nauert said.
The Hungarian leader's skepticism of the EU and "globalist" refugee policies, perhaps aided by Soros' status as a prominent progressive donor, has endeared him to some American conservatives who see a likeness to Trump.
But Orban's domestic opponents see shades of Putin. Orban criticized Western sanctions imposed on Russia in response to Putin's annexation of Crimea and destabilization of eastern Ukraine. And Putin has implemented legislation requiring international nonprofits to register as "foreign agents" and giving him the authority to shut down foreign nonprofits.
"We should not be afraid of the NGOs but rather of the members of Parliament who represent Russian interests," said an opposition lawmaker, per The New York Times.
Hungary also passed legislation designed to shutter Central European University, one of the most prominent institutions in the country, due to funding from Soros. But, though Orban has praised Trump, the new president's administration opposed that bill and continued to criticize his hostility to the nonprofits.
"By portraying groups supported with foreign funding as acting against the interests of Hungarian society, this legislation would weaken the ability of Hungarians to organize and address concerns in a legitimate and democratic manner," Nauert said.
View post:
State Department warns Hungary: Anti-Soros law 'another step away' from NATO - Washington Examiner
EU foreign ministers meeting in Luxembourg on Monday (19 June) have adopted a report on the implementation of a recently agreed NATO-EU strategic partnership, highlighting progress in joint actions countering hybrid threats.
EU and NATO have often been described as two strangers living in the same city. Brussels hosts NATO headquarters and is home to the main EU institutions but the two organisations agreed the first ever Joint Declaration during the July 2016 NATO summit in Warsaw.
The Joint Declaration outlined seven concrete areas where cooperation between the two should be enhanced. Additionally, in December 2016, 42 proposals for implementation were agreed, as well as bi-annual reporting.
Today ministers state that this new cooperation has delivered substantial results, in particular in countering hybrid threats. A European Centre for countering hybrid threats has been set up in Helsinki. Finland has a 1,300-km border with Russia, which has been accused of mounting hybrid campaigns in the Ukraine conflict combining conventional and unofficial military means with cyberwarfare, propaganda and other indirect tactics.
The first ever Joint Intelligence Assessment on a hybrid topic between EU and NATO will soon be made available, ministers state, adding that support has been provided to Eastern partners (EUs neighbours Moldova, Georgia and Ukraine), as well as to the Western Balkans. Russia makes no secret that it considers some of the Western Balkans countries its own backyard.
Vladimir Chizhov, Russias ambassador to the EU, told a group of journalists yesterday (3 May) that his country could offer an alternative to Macedonia, to the Western Balkans and to any countries, as, in his view, there is always an alternative to Euro-Atlantic integration.
Closer interaction in countering cyber-attacks is reportedly progressing. For the first time, NATO and EU staff are expected to conduct joint exercises in response to a hybrid scenario.
An EU diplomat told EURACTIV that some EU countries were pushing to go beyond the 42 agreed measures while others said lets stick to the 42. But the diplomat called this a side show; the essential being, in his words, that the cooperation between EU and NATO was widening and deepening.
The most important thing, in his view, was the increasingly routine nature of the EU-NATO staff-to-staff contacts at formal and informal level.
Read the original here:
EU ministers report progress in cooperation with NATO on countering hybrid threats - EURACTIV
The former U.S. ambassador to NATO said the unpredictability of the Trump administration may open opportunities for opponents.
"This sort of unpredictability over the first five months of this administration possibly opens potential opportunities for opponents," Douglas Lute, former U.S. representative to NATO under President Obama, said in an interview on "This Week" Sunday. "Here, I think, Russia, in particular."
Asked by "This Week" co-anchor Martha Raddatz what Russian President Vladimir Putin thinks when he hears President Trump talk about Russia, Lute said Putin sees the chance to "crack the NATO alliance."
"I suspect he sees an opportunity to do what military force alone could never do, and that is crack the NATO alliance. If he can crack it politically or if he can provoke internal fissures inside the alliance, then Putin sees enormous opportunity to achieve a longstanding Russian goal," Lute said.
Lute added that Trumps failure during a speech in Brussels last month to reaffirm NATOs Article 5, which commits that an attack on one member of the alliance is an attack on all, will lead other members of NATO to hedge their bets.
They believe they cant rely on U.S. leadership as they have for the past 70 years, Lute said. We should think about what that 70 years has featured U.S. leadership, which has been the backbone of recovery from World War II all the way, seeing us all the way through the Cold War period. And then beyond the Cold War, seeing NATO as a stabilizing force outside NATO boundaries, so in the Balkans. And today, even today, in Afghanistan.
Read the original:
Putin sees chance under Trump to 'crack the NATO alliance': Former ... - ABC News
By Andrius Sytas | SUWALKI GAP, Polish-Lithuanian border
SUWALKI GAP, Polish-Lithuanian border U.S. and British troops have carried out the first large-scale NATO defensive drill on the border between Poland and Lithuania, rehearsing for a possible scenario in which Russia might try to sever the Baltic states from the rest of the Western alliance.
The frontier runs for 104 km (65 miles) through farmland, woods and low hills, in an area known as the Suwalki Gap. If seized by Russia, it would cut off Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.
Over two days, U.S. helicopters and British aircraft took part in exercises that also involved troops from Poland, Lithuania and Croatia in a simulated defense of the potential flashpoint.
"The gap is vulnerable because of the geography. It's not inevitable that there's going to be an attack, of course, but ... if that was closed, then you have three allies that are north that are potentially isolated from the rest of the alliance", U.S. Lieutenant General Ben Hodges told Reuters.
Russia denies any plans to invade the Baltics, and says it is NATO that is threatening stability in Eastern Europe by building up its military presence there and staging such war games.
But Hodges, who commands U.S. forces in Europe, said it was crucial for the alliance to show it was ready.
"We have to practice, we have to demonstrate that we can support allies in keeping (the Gap) open, in maintaining that connection," he said.
GAME CHANGER
Russia's 2014 annexation of Ukraine's Crimea peninsula in the Black Sea has changed NATO's calculations, seeing Russia increasingly as an adversary. Before then, no forces from other alliance members were stationed in the Baltic states; now four battlegroups totaling just over 4,500 troops have been deployed in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland.
The Poles have been pushing other NATO allies to use some of these troops to secure the vulnerable Suwalki corridor and deter potential Russian aggression. But while 1,500 troops took part in this weekend's exercises, a Lithuanian commander cautioned that it would take more to defend the gap in the event of a genuine conflict.
"This is only a small-scale drill compared to what would be needed in case of a real attack, but it is important for us because it shows that allies share our worries", said Brigadier General Valdemaras Rupsys, head of Lithuania's land forces.
Simulating a covert insertion of forces, three American helicopters landed in a field in rural Lithuania on Saturday, startling grazing horses and cows, in an area several hours' drive from where a U.S. battalion is stationed at Orzysz base in Poland.
"The training helps present a credible defense force that hopefully will deter aggression, but if not, we'll be prepared to move to defend the borders of NATO," said Lt. Col. Steven Gventer, who leads the U.S. battlegroup in Orzysz.
NATO officials believe Moscow will hold its own exercise in Russia and Belarus on a much greater scale in September, possibly involving 100,000 troops, under the codename "Zapad" (West). Baltic officials believe Moscow will also rehearse an attack on the Suwalki Gap during Zapad.
"I think it's important for the soldiers to train on land that they may have to defend some day," said Major General John Gronski, deputy commander, U.S. Army Europe, observing the exercise in Lithuania.
(Reporting by Andrius Sytas; Editing by Mark Trevelyan)
AMMAN/WASHINGTON A U.S. warplane shot down a Syrian army jet on Sunday in the southern Raqqa countryside with Washington saying the jet had dropped bombs near U.S. backed forces and Damascus saying the plane was downed while flying a mission against Islamic State militants.
MOSUL, Iraq Iraqi forces began storming the Islamic State-held Old City of Mosul on Sunday, in an assault they hope will be the last in the eight-month-old campaign to seize the militants' stronghold.
View post:
NATO war game defends Baltic weak spot for first time - Reuters
2017-06-17 According to an article published on the Norwegian Ministry of Defence website, NATO will be focusing on its core mission of collective defense in the upcoming Trident Juncture exercise.
NATO needs to hold exercises on a large scale. Only this way are we able to test all the levels in the alliance: From the troops on the ground and all the way up to a strategic level, says General Denis Mercier, Supreme Allied Commander Transformation (SACT) in NATO.
General Mercier (right) together with Norways Chief of Defence, Admiral Haakon Bruun-Hanssen.
The French General thinks Norway will be ideal for an exercise on this scale.
NATO needs realistic training, where we can combine operations in the air, at sea and on land. In Norway we get everything, this is one of the best places to train in Europe, says Mercier.
The cold climate also brings extra challenges for the soldiers, that hones their skill.
For many years, NATO has been occupied with international conflicts, but recent developments have led to a renewed focus on the core of the alliance.
Collective defence and training for this will be key. This is one of NATOs core missions and we will spend more time on this in the future, says general Denis Mercier.
The General underlines the importance in focusing on the core mission: NATO as a defensive organisation.
Deterrence is key for NATO. With large-scale exercises we can demonstrate our capacity and uphold our credibility.
https://forsvaret.no/en/taking-nato-back-to-its-core-mission
Editors Note: Norway is refocusing its efforts on its Article III commitments to self defense and encouraging NATO more broadly to enhance its collective defense capabilities.
We discussed this way ahead with the new Chief of Staff of the Norwegian Air Force earlier this year.
2017-02-24 By Robbin Laird
During the Norwegian Airpower Conference held at Trondheim in early February 2017, I had a chance to discuss with the new Chief the Royal Norwegian Air Force, Major General Tonje Skinnarland, and Brigadier General Jan Ove Rygg, chief of the National Air Operations Center (NAOC) their perspectives on the way ahead.
New Head of the Norwegian Air Force in a Period of Significant Airpower Transition
The Chief of the Royal Norwegian Air Force set the tone for much of the discussion during the Conference by focusing on the Norwegian Air Force in transition and the challenge of shaping integrated defense capabilities for the defense of Norway.
Norway being a small country with a large geography and a large neighbor on its border obviously needed to shape a defense capability highly interactive with its allies to ensure deterrence in depth for Norwegian defense.
Chief the Royal Norwegian Air Force, Major General Tonje Skinnarland, speaking at the Norwegian Airpower Conference, February 2017.
The perspective of the Chief of the Royal Norwegian Air Force on the F-35 was that this was not at all a replacement aircraft, but a strategic asset when properly integrated with the national defense force and NATO forces.
The Air Force is in the throes of significant modernization with the addition of the F-35, the P-8 as well as new helicopters, and the overall challenge was to ensure integration of these platforms into a joint force able to operate inthe integrated battlespace.
And she made it very clear that it was preparation for and training to ensure effective capabilities for the high-end fight, which was the core focus of attention.
She highlighted the need to reshape concepts of operations for Norwegian defense and to work across the Norwegian defense structure for integrated C2 which was crucial.
She also highlighted that with the F-35 distributed operations were possible so in reforming C2 part of the challenge was what is called mission command, namely, authorizing pilots for missions, rather than providing for overly centralized tactical operational control.
I asked both senior Air Force officers the same question to start the conversation, namely, the Air Force is in a period of significant transition, how do they view the challenges and the opportunities?
Major General Skinnarland: We are clearly modernizing our platforms but we need to transform our force, our culture and our processes as well.
The strategic decisions made in the long-term investment will make us, even though small, one of the most modern air forces in the world in some years to come.
https://forsvaret.no/en/newsroom/news-stories/new-long-term-plan-for-the-armed-forces
At the same time, the security situation is challenging. After the annexation of Crimea and the buildup of Russian capabilities over the last years has made us understand that we have need to revitalize the concept of actually defending Norway in high intensity operations.
It is not just about adding new platforms; it is about shaping joint capabilities for the defense of Norway in a high intensity operational setting.
To achieve integrated defense and joint operations will not be easy and certainly will not happen simply by adding new platforms.
There are a lot of different tasks to be done ranging from getting all the spare parts, logistics, the training, and, of course, shaping the national defense plan.
As we get all these new systems, which will make us even more capable of handling the current situation and current threats together with other allies and partners, there is another challenge.
From Left to Right, Major Morten Dolby Hanche, the first Norwegian F-35 pilot, Major General Tonje Skinnarland and Brigadier General Heckl, COS STRIKFORNATO at the Norwegian Airpower Conference.
How best to be able to manage the process of change?
A key challenge will be on the human capital side.
How do we best train and task our people in shaping our new integrated force? For it will depend on them to actually bring such a force into being.
When it comes to opportunities in the new systems and particularly in the F-35, the conference has alluded a lot to this, the capability in the aircraft itself with weapons technology and networking will come.
But how do we make sure that we are able to utilize these technologies fully and effectively?
We must shape the correct competencies, the correct concepts of operations, and develop and execute effective plans for joint operations as well.
Brigadier General Jan Ove Rygg then answered the same question from his operational responsibilities.
If I address the same question, but from my perspective, the challenge is to get the joint processes in Norway to the point where we can do targeting efficiently.
We need to build an effective national command and control capability which seamlessly works with core allies who are crucial to defense operations in the High North.
What makes this particularly challenging is what we are taking about is national integration and C2 for national defense ground, sea and air operations, which can operate with core allies in extended defense operations
Question: Clearly, with core allies in the region operating similar platforms, notably F-35 and P-8, there are significant opportunities for interoperability built in, but obviously these potentials need to become realities.
How best to ensure that happens?
Major General Skinnarland: With the UK, the US, the Danes and the Dutch operating the same combat aircraft, there are clear opportunities to shape new common operational capabilities.
Also crucial is to shape a strong European F-35 sustainment base to ensure that we get the kind of sortie generation capabilities inherent in the aircraft, but you need the right kind of logistical support to achieve the outcomes you want.
The P-8s operating from the UK, Iceland, and Norway can shape a maritime domain awareness data capability which can inform our forces effectively as well but again, this requires work to share the data and to shape common concepts of operations.
A key will be to exercise often and effectively together.
To shape effective concepts of operations will require bringing the new equipment, and the people together to share experience and to shape a common way ahead.
In this sense, we see Trident Juncture 2018 as especially important in shaping effective national C2 and working towards more integrated operations with allies coming to Norway for the exercise.
We should plug and play in terms of our new capabilities; but that will not happen by itself, by simply adding new equipment.
It will be hard work.
https://forsvaret.no/en/exercise-and-operations/exercises/nato-exercise-2018
We have regular exercises in Norway like the Arctic Challenge Exercise, which is an exercise building on the weekly trilateral fighter training between Finland, Sweden, and Norway.
In May/June 2017 this invitex will see more than one hundred fighter aircraft from 8 nations, including the UK and US, participating in high quality training in the Nordic countries.
You also have other national exercises which are important in shaping our concepts of operations.
We need to enhance engagement with core NATO allies, such as expanding our working relationship with allied airpower operating in Norway during exercises.
We would love to see a UK F-35B squadron and a USAF F-35A deploy to Norway during an exercise and operate in the northern part of Norway under Norwegian command and control to see how we can get them to work together.
They might fly either from home bases with air-to-air tanker or stage from Norway, and work on how we effectively can integrate those squadrons during joint operations.
Brigadier General Jan Ove Rygg: The C2 issue is really a strategic one.
We are very good at the tactical level in operating in a joint context with our C2; we need to be as capable at the strategic level.
With the fifth generation force, you have capabilities to off-board weapons and to direct fire from sea or land as well as air.
When you try to do targeting and actually engage targets with different resources it is a challenge.
How do we shape a C2 structure, which can take advantage of this capability?
For an interesting overview of the way ahead, see the following:
http://cms.polsci.ku.dk/events/airpower2014/Gjert_Lage_Dyndal.pdf
Gjert_Lage_Dyndal
Shaping a Way Ahead for Norwegian Defense
More here:
Preparing for Trident Juncture 2018: NATO Focuses on Its Core Mission - Second Line of Defense
By Nicholas L. Waddy SPECIAL TO THE NEWS
On May 25, President Trump, during his visit to the headquarters of NATO in Brussels, Belgium, sharply criticized our European allies for, in effect, freeloading off the military dominance, and the military spending, of the United States. This is an accurate analysis, since only four of the 26 European countries in NATO currently spend the minimum level of GDP, 2 percent, judged by the organization itself to be sufficient to meet their obligations. (The U.S., by contrast, spends 3.5 percent of GDP on defense, and its defense budget roughly triples the spending of all other NATO countries combined.)
Moreover, the U.S. faces most of its military challenges in the Middle East, and European countries consistently lack either the will or the capability to contribute meaningfully to those missions. Ergo, Europe continues to rely on the United States to provide for its collective defense, but it fails to spend adequately to supplement and support U.S. forces, and it fails also to support U.S. operations elsewhere in the world, even when those missions are clearly relevant to European security (e.g., the struggle against ISIS). In a nutshell, the U.S. pays to defend Europe, and gets little or nothing in return.
Those who favor a continuation of this ruinous policy do so largely because they are stuck in a Cold War mentality, and, indeed, during the Cold War NATO made excellent sense to all of its member states. NATOs core mission was and is collective defense, achieved by Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, penned in 1948-49 at the start of the Cold War. Article 5 states that if a single NATO country is attacked, all NATO countries will respond as if they were themselves attacked, and consequently rush to the rescue. During the Cold War, this meant that if the Soviet Union attacked any country in Western Europe, all of Western Europe, plus the United States and Canada, would go to war with the Soviet Union.
Whether this pledge was genuine or merely a bluff, it succeeded in preventing Soviet aggression. And, in the tense atmosphere of the Cold War, although the United States bore the primary burden of defending Europe against Soviet assault, most NATO members took their defense obligations seriously and maintained militaries that could credibly have assisted U.S. forces. They also sometimes contributed substantially to anti-communist military operations around the world during the Korean War, for example. In short, during the Cold War, NATO imposed great burdens and risks on its members, but those burdens and risks were shared, and no one disputed the seriousness of the challenge posed by communist aggression.
Today, though, the Soviet Union no longer exists. For those panicked by the latest upsurge of Russophobia, this may seem like a hollow declaration, since Russia still possesses powerful military forces, and has proved willing to use them against several of its neighbors. The fact, though, is that no country, including Russia, poses a threat to Europe in any way analogous to that of the Soviet Union. European countries have the human, technological, industrial and economic resources to defend themselves, with ease, from any credible enemy. Yet, unsurprisingly, they choose not to do so, because the United States continues to provide Europe with a blank check in the form of a security guarantee.
Europes position is understandable, as is American resentment of European freeloading. But what is different about the administrations position is that Trump is pointedly insisting that European countries boost their defense spending, and Trump has not explicitly endorsed Article 5 and the concept of collective defense. In other words, he is being cagey about whether, if a European country was attacked, the U.S. would uphold its treaty obligations and use armed force to assist it. He has not disavowed the treaty, but he seems to regard its obligations as reciprocal and therefore contingent on European nations paying their fair share. They seem to be minimally receptive to this demand.
One can naturally criticize the message this policy sends to potential aggressors, since it calls into question NATOs reliability, but the only alternative is for the U.S. to fund Europes defense indefinitely and without conditions. Surely, this is unacceptable. Something has to give.
For diplomatic reasons, Trump has backed off the claim he made during the campaign that NATO is obsolete, but in many ways he was right. NATO was founded based on two presuppositions: that Europes freedom was in imminent jeopardy, and that Europeans were incapable of defending that freedom by themselves. Neither of these assumptions holds water today. Thus, we should applaud Trump for pushing NATO members to rethink their roles and obligations. His message may not have been a popular one, but it is ultimately in the best interests of Americans and Europeans to heed it.
Nicholas L. Waddy, Ph.D., is an associate professor of history at SUNY Alfred.
Continue reading here:
Viewpoints: Trump's position on NATO is absolutely correct - The ... - Buffalo News
General Petr Pavel, Chairman of the NATO Military Committee visited Wellington and Auckland, New Zealand, on 14-17 June 2017. During his stay, the Chairman met with Secretary of Defence, Ms Helene Quilter; the Minister of Defence, the Honourable Mark Mitchell; Chief of Defence of the New Zealand Armed Forces, Lieutenant General Tim Keating; Commander of Royal New Zealand Air Force (RNZAF) Base Auckland, Air Commodore Darryn Webb; the Chiefs of the Army, Navy and Air Force, Deputy Chief of the Army, Brigadier Christopher Parsons; and Special Operations Component Commander, Colonel Rob Gillard. General Pavel also attended a Defence meeting chaired by Lieutenant General Keating and delivered a speech at the New Zealand Institute for International Affairs at Victoria University.
Arriving in Wellington, General Pavel was greeted with a traditional Welcome Ceremony, a Pwhiri, and Honour Guard at the Pukeahu National War Memorial. While at the War Memorial, the Chairman paid his respects and laid a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Warrior. It is a privilege to be able to pay my respects and honour those men and women who have lost their lives serving their country, said General Pavel.
Discussions with Ms Helene Quilter and the Hon. Mark Mitchell centered on New Zealand and NATOs increased dialogue and cooperation, the NATO-led Resolute Support Mission in Afghanistan to train, advise and assist the Afghan Security Forces and institutions, as well as regional and global threats and challenges. The Chairman thanked New Zealand for its enduring engagement in Afghanistan and the need to continue to work together to counter terrorism. Geography and distance no longer protect us. By ensuring our regional security and working together on common threats and challenges we can increase global peace and security, remarked General Pavel.
Attending a Defence meeting with Lieutenant General Keating, General Pavel was briefed on the current Operations and Missions the New Zealand Armed Forces are undertaking and their view on national, regional and global security challenges. He thanked Lt Gen Keating for New Zealands continued commitment to NATO-led Operations, Missions and Activities as both Generals agreed to look for further ways to enhance military-to-military cooperation which is of benefit to both NATO and New Zealand. New Zealand may not have a large defence force but it consistently contributes what it can to defend our shared values of democracy and protect rule of law. Your contribution is always highly regarded and valued by the Alliance, stressed the Chairman.
Meeting with the Air Component Commander of the RNZAF Base, Group Captain Tim Walshe, the General was briefed on the the Air Bases' capabilities and activities and visited a P-3K2 Airbourne Surveillance Plane. Visiting the SAS base at Papakura, the Chairman met Colonel Rob Gillard, Special Operations Component Commander. He received a briefing on their training capabilities and activities, and toured the recently completed multi-purpose training camp. Commenting on these visits, the General noted, I am continually impressed with how the New Zealand Armed Forces are committed to ensuring their capabilities are of a high quality, make the best use of their resources, and maintain interoperability with all partners to provide real added value.
Speaking with academics and government representatives at the New Zealand Institute for International Affairs, the Chairman highlighted the main challenges facing the Alliance, its current adaptation and its continued unity and solidarity in the face of threats from both state and non-state actors. The representatives in turn shared with the General their perspectives on regional and world affairs.
Original post:
NATO - News: NATO and New Zealand share genuine partnership ... - NATO HQ (press release)
Andriy Parubiy received by his friends from NATO.
Ukraine, already a de facto member of Nato, now wants to enter Nato on an official basis. On 8 June, the Kiev Parliament, voted by a majority (276 against 25) in favour of a legislative amendment that makes this objective a priority. Ukraines admission into Nato would not be just a formal act. Russia is accused by Nato of illegally annexing Crimea and leading military action against Ukraine.
As a consequence, if Ukraine were to officially enter Nato, the other 29 members of the Alliance, on the basis of art 5 of the Alliance, would have to assist the party attacked by undertaking the necessary legal action, including the use of armed force. This effectively means that they should declare war against Russia.
The credit for introducing into Ukrainian legislation the objective of entering Nato goes to the President of the Parliament, Andriy Parubiy. In 1991 he co-founded the Ukrainian National Socialist Party, a party modelled on Adolf Hitlers National Socialist Party; headed the Neo-Nazi para-military formations used in 2014 in both the Maiden Square Putsch, under US/Nato leadership, and the massacre at Odessa; headed the Council of Defense and National Security that, with the Azov Battalion and other Neo Nazi units, is attacking Ukrainian civilians of Russian nationality in the Eastern part of the country and carrying out, by squads specially trained for this purpose, ferocious beatings of militants belonging to the Communist Party, ransacking their offices and making bonfires of their books in true Nazi style, while this Party is on the verge of being officially proscribed. So this is Andriy Parubiy who, as the President of the Ukrainian Parliament (a position conferred on him in April 2016 for his democratic achievements), was received on 5 June at Montecitorio by the President of the House, Laura Boldrini. Italy - emphasized President Boldrini - has always condemned the illegal action that took place to the detriment of the Ukrainian territory. Thus she has gobbled up the Nato version according to which it was Russia that had illegally annexed Crimea, a version that fails to take into account that the Russians of Crimea chose to break away from Ukraine and to re-enter Russia - a decision taken to pre-empt an attack, just like the decision taken by the Russians of Donbass, by Neo Nazi battalions and Kievs other forces.
The cordial conversation was concluded by signing a memorandum of understanding that further strengthens parliamentary cooperation between the two assemblies, both at the political and administrative level.
Thus it strengthens cooperation between the Italian Republic, born out of the Resistance against Nazi-fascism, and a regime that created in Ukraine a situation analogous to that which brought into being the fascism of the 1920s and Nazism in the 1930s. The Azov battalion, whose Nazi signature is represented by the emblem inspired by the SS Das Reich emblem, has been incorporated into the National Guard, transformed into a regular military unit and promoted to the rank of a regiment for special operations.
Then it was supplied with armoured transport and artillery. With other Neo-Nazi formations, transformed into regular units, it is trained by US instructors from the 173a Air Transport division, transferred from Vicenza to Ukraine, flanked by others from Nato.
The Ukraine of Kiev has thus become the nursery for born-again Nazism right in the heart of Europe. Neo-Nazis flow into Kiev from all over Europe, including Italy. After being trained and tested out in military action against the Russians of Ukraine in Donbass, they have been made to return to their countries. Now it is left to Nato to rejuvenate the ranks of Gladio.
Visit link:
Now that the dust has settled on President Donald Trumps first foreign trip, we can assess the damage. The conventional hysteria notwithstanding, Trumps rudeness towards NATO allies did not reveal his intention to abandon them and end U.S. global leadership. Its actually worse than that, at least from our perspective. Trump is alienating allies without reducing U.S. defense commitments to them. He isnt surrendering U.S. leadership so much as defiling it.
You probably dont need us to remind you that the presidents trip last month began as a carnival of Arabian pomp, hostility towards Iran, praise for autocracy, geographic ignorance, and memeready awkwardness. Then things took a darker turn in Brussels. Attending a meeting of the heads of NATO states, Trump welcomed Montenegro to NATO by shoving aside its prime minister to get center stage for a photograph, hectored allies to spend more, and defied expectations even his advisors by refusing to endorse Article 5 of the alliances founding treaty, which calls for collective defense. It went worse behind the scenes, we now know. Trump again tried to go around the European Union to win trade concessions from Germany and mentioned getting back-pay from NATO allies. At the subsequent G-7 meeting, the president fended off requests to keep the United States in the Paris Climate Accord and pulled out shortly after returning home.
Besides global derision and U.S. embarrassment, Trumps actions produced immediate political results. For the allied leaders, already considerable domestic rewards for opposing Trump grew. The new French president, Emmanuel Macron, reveling in his lanti-Trump nickname, quickly took to tweaking his U.S. counterpart. Canadas foreign minister argued that given U.S. doubt about the worth of its mantle of global leadership, Canadians had to set their own course and spend more on defense.
In Germany, Angela Merkels main rival for the chancellorship, Social Democrat Martin Schulz, seemed to get a polling boost for his habit of criticizing Trump and bashed him for trying to inflict humiliation in Brussels and his unacceptable treatment of Merkel. The chancellor herself offered a reflection at a campaign rally:
The times when we could completely rely on others are, to an extent, over I experienced that in the last a few days, and therefore I can only say that we Europeans must really take our fate into our own hands.
The Trump administration, meanwhile, tried damage control. The national security advisor and chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors authored an op-ed insisting that the president had essentially backed Article 5. Vice President Mike Pence and Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis assured allies that the United States was still there for them. Trump, presumably having succumbed to pressure from his aides, finally endorsed Article 5 last Friday.
These efforts failed to calm establishment foreign policy thinkers, who generally see Trumps alliance see-sawing as indicative of isolationist proclivities and his damage to global U.S. leadership as permanent. After Merkels comment, Council on Foreign Relations President Richard Haass tweeted that by provoking Europe to rely on itself for its defense, Trump had allowed what U.S. policy had labored to avoid since World War II. When Trump backed Article 5, Haass tweeted that even welcome policy reversals come at cost to U.S. credibility & reputation for reliability. Steve Pifer of Brookings wrote that Trump is undoing U.S. engagement in Europe that maintains peace and stability. The New York Times editorial board declared that the United States is no longer the reliable partner her country and the rest of Europe have long depended on. By last week it was obvious to Heather Hurlburt of New America that President Trump and his enablers are ushering us into a new, post-American stage of global relations.
Churlish as Trumps conduct in Europe was, these reactions are overwrought and unmoored from history. For better or worse, the Trump administration is not renouncing the U.S. defense commitment to Europe or leadership more generally. Should uncertainty about that nonetheless drive European states rely less on the United States, Washington will still have moved towards an old and sensible policy goal of letting an independent Europe lead its own defenses.
With all of the wailing and rending of garments among the Washington foreign policy establishment, it is easy to miss that neither the United States nor its NATO allies have made big defense policy changes since Trump took office. Merkels electorally-driven comment essentially repeated what she said in January in response to Trumps election and the Brexit. She seemed to endorse further integration of common E.U. defense policies an old objective. If theres new policy here, its more support for an E.U. defense procurement fund and something called Permanent Structured Cooperation, which vaguely promises to coordinate security cooperation among groups of E.U. states significant but hardly revolutionary developments in Europes fitful path towards a common defense.
U.S. military policy in Europe has changed even less. Trump is not removing any of the 80,000 troops on the continent or even curtailing recent rotations of U.S. forces to Eastern Europe. Even Trumps reluctance on Article 5 has a basis in the NATO treaty. At the behest of U.S. negotiators eager to preserve options, the signatories promise only such action as it deems necessary in the face of an attack on another NATO member.
Pressing European allies to spend more on defense is hardly new, even if Trumps boorish way of asking is. The Pentagon long ago published an annual report to scold allies on spending. U.S. leaders, including President Barack Obama, have regularly beseeched the allies to spend more, and the allies continually say they will. Non-U.S. NATO spending did increase mildly in real terms from 2015 to 2016, partly thanks to Russian aggression in Ukraine.
European anxiety about losing U.S. protection is also familiar. During the 1940s and 1950s, European NATO members worried that the United States would abandon them either because of the vicissitudes of American politics or the desire to avoid the costs of stopping a Soviet invasion. Later, U.S.-Soviet arms control and dtente stoked similar European worries.
These patterns reflect structural dilemmas of postwar U.S. policy in Europe. Reassuring allies tends to encourage them to spend less on defense while harming U.S.-Russian and, before that, Soviet relations. Repairing those relations alienates at least some allies, but can frighten them into heavier spending. The goal of reassuring allies competes with those of squeezing them to spend and reducing tension with Russia. Trumps Russia tilt rebalances concerns, but they reflect an old problem.
Even if it turns out Trump has set off a process leading to unprecedented European military independence, the United States will not have jettisoned a holy and continuous postwar goal. U.S. leaders did not craft a postwar order with the idea of forever serving as its center. Different leaders had different agendas, of course, but in general American strategy during and after World War II was expressly designed to allow the United States to come home from Europe. In the first two decades of the Cold War, the United States worked to rebuild Germany within Western Europe, so that allied states could stand against the Soviet Union without requiring the United States to man the front line. The Eisenhower administration supported the development of a European Army within the European Defense Community outside NATO, that is. This effort failed, but it was due more to the reluctance of the West Europeans to cooperate with each another than want of U.S. effort.
U.S. thinking on NATO shifted during and after the Cold War. Over time, a new consensus developed that U.S. domination of Europe was desirable. NATO served that purpose, and European military integration independent of the United States was no longer as desirable. Given allied sensibilities and the difficulty of selling the U.S. public on such a contestable rationale, this logic was rarely stated officially. Still this is what drives the broad consternation provoked by Merkels comment. But to the extent that Germany works within Europe to organize a defensive posture not reliant on U.S. forces, it reflects the success of Americas postwar vision for an independent European defense.
Our purpose here isnt to defend Trump, but rather policies he might sully. Were Trump diplomatically reducing U.S. defense commitments to Europe, hed deserve credit for allowing possible military cuts and even for aiding the European Unions development as a real power. Instead, hes not reducing U.S. commitments while trying to bully allies into boosting defense spending. By antagonizing allies without reducing U.S. commitments to them, hes just making U.S. leadership costlier.
There is plenty wrong with Trumps foreign policy, but abandoning European allies is not among his sins. Were his rudeness to allies to nonetheless produce heightened European military capability that might lessen the U.S. militarys burdens, well have realized a venerable, if neglected, U.S. foreign policy goal. It shouldnt be condemned by association with this president.
Benjamin H. Friedman is a Research Fellow in Defense Homeland Security Studies at the Cato Institute.
Joshua Shifrinson is an Assistant Professor at the Bush School of Government and Public Service and Texas A&M University.
Image: NATO
View original post here:
General Petr Pavel, Chairman of the NATO Military Committee visited Wellington and Auckland, New Zealand, on 14-17 June 2017. During his stay, the Chairman met with Secretary of Defence, Ms Helene Quilter; the Minister of Defence, the Honourable Mark Mitchell; Chief of Defence of the New Zealand Armed Forces, Lieutenant General Tim Keating; Commander of Royal New Zealand Air Force (RNZAF) Base Auckland, Air Commodore Darryn Webb; the Chiefs of the Army, Navy and Air Force, Deputy Chief of the Army, Brigadier Christopher Parsons; and Special Operations Component Commander, Colonel Rob Gillard. General Pavel also attended a Defence meeting chaired by Lieutenant General Keating and delivered a speech at the New Zealand Institute for International Affairs at Victoria University.
Arriving in Wellington, General Pavel was greeted with a traditional Welcome Ceremony, a Pwhiri, and Honour Guard at the Pukeahu National War Memorial. While at the War Memorial, the Chairman paid his respects and laid a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Warrior. It is a privilege to be able to pay my respects and honour those men and women who have lost their lives serving their country, said General Pavel.
Discussions with Ms Helene Quilter and the Hon. Mark Mitchell centered on New Zealand and NATOs increased dialogue and cooperation, the NATO-led Resolute Support Mission in Afghanistan to train, advise and assist the Afghan Security Forces and institutions, as well as regional and global threats and challenges. The Chairman thanked New Zealand for its enduring engagement in Afghanistan and the need to continue to work together to counter terrorism. Geography and distance no longer protect us. By ensuring our regional security and working together on common threats and challenges we can increase global peace and security, remarked General Pavel.
Attending a Defence meeting with Lieutenant General Keating, General Pavel was briefed on the current Operations and Missions the New Zealand Armed Forces are undertaking and their view on national, regional and global security challenges. He thanked Lt Gen Keating for New Zealands continued commitment to NATO-led Operations, Missions and Activities as both Generals agreed to look for further ways to enhance military-to-military cooperation which is of benefit to both NATO and New Zealand. New Zealand may not have a large defence force but it consistently contributes what it can to defend our shared values of democracy and protect rule of law. Your contribution is always highly regarded and valued by the Alliance, stressed the Chairman.
Meeting with the Air Component Commander of the RNZAF Base, Group Captain Tim Walshe, the General was briefed on the the Air Bases' capabilities and activities and visited a P-3K2 Airbourne Surveillance Plane. Visiting the SAS base at Papakura, the Chairman met Colonel Rob Gillard, Special Operations Component Commander. He received a briefing on their training capabilities and activities, and toured the recently completed multi-purpose training camp. Commenting on these visits, the General noted, I am continually impressed with how the New Zealand Armed Forces are committed to ensuring their capabilities are of a high quality, make the best use of their resources, and maintain interoperability with all partners to provide real added value.
Speaking with academics and government representatives at the New Zealand Institute for International Affairs, the Chairman highlighted the main challenges facing the Alliance, its current adaptation and its continued unity and solidarity in the face of threats from both state and non-state actors. The representatives in turn shared with the General their perspectives on regional and world affairs.
View post:
Although the loss of the R1 fleet may be a sad pill to swallow for the Royal Air Force, and the MoD as a whole, it represents a real opportunity for the US that could be aggressively explored in the near term. Sadly, the powers that be within the Pentagon and in the US defense industry will likely fight any sort of second hand acquisition of the Sentinel fleet because it will, even if to a relatively small degree, put in jeopardy the scope of lucrative E-8 JSTARS replacement contract. With careers being bet on this procurement initiative both inside the DoD and in the ranks of its biggest vendors, the retired R1s, which are needed today and can fit right into the USAF's inventory and order of battle, will likely be passed over. We can only hope this won't be the case as America's warfighters can seriously benefit from having these aircraft overhead in hotspots around the globe.
Alternatively, NATO could acquire these aircraft for the alliance's collective use under a similar scheme as their E-3 AWACS fleet, but they are already receiving GMTI and SAR capability via their five aircraft, Global Hawk-based "Alliance Ground Surveillance" initiative. But NATO will likely want more capacity and in a more flexible manner than the unmanned Global Hawks can provide. Instead of buying more Global Hawk derivatives, they could diversify their capabilities and likely save large sums of money by taking on the R1 fleet.
Such a transfer of capability would also make losing the aircraft more palatable for the UK. But where exactly the funding for operating and maintaining the Sentinels will come from is unclear. The Trump Administration could tell the alliance pitch in to adopt the fleet, as making demands of NATO partners has been part of the White House's core foreign policy agenda, but it could take time for making such an arrangement a reality. Like any weapon system, the longer the R1s sit in limbo the more expensive it will be to return them to service.
Either way, these aircraft need a home. Hopefully the US will step ineither with money or leadershipand see that they find one that is beneficial to the US and its allies.
Contact the author: Tyler@thedrive.com
Read more from the original source:
USAF Or NATO Should Snap Up The RAF's Retiring R1 Sentinel Radar Planes - The Drive
BRUSSELSWhile the American military isforging ahead with a new helicopter replacement program, Europe islagging behind in exploiting the potential of its helicopter sector, according to the European Helicopter Association,the voice of the majority of helicopter operators in Europe.
The U.S. Army is working toward its Future Vertical Lift, and this initiative is well underway, with the first prototypes already built for the future helo.
In an effort to keep pace with the U.S., NATO set up a group of experts to run a two-year program meant to identify, analyze, assess and document advanced rotorcraft technologies.
The Industrial Advisory Group, or NIAGa high-level consultative and advisory body of senior industrialists from NATO member countriesis due to deliver its conclusions next year.
But what can be expected fromthis ambitiousplan?
A NATO official told Defense News: Many allies are due to refurbish or retire their current helicopter fleets in the 2025-2030 time frame. As the cost of technology rises, nations are consolidating the number of different aircraft types. Government- and industry-funded research shows that flight performance can be increased. Compound helicopter and tiltrotor systems show an increased range and speed compared to traditional helicopters.
"As new operational requirements are introduced, allies will need to ensure that new systems are interoperable with the legacy fleet.
This work is informed through direct interaction with the NATO Industrial Advisory Group, which has also initiated a study group, commissioned by the Conference of National Armaments Directors. Their recommendations are expected in the spring of 2018," the official added.
In supporting the next-generation rotorcraft road map, the advisory group will, according to NATO,examine configuration changes that provide a step change in range, speed, endurance and payload combined.
The aim is to ensureby the mid-2020s, when partner nations decide on their future platform requirements, thatthere has been sufficient knowledge sharing and capability awareness to develop optimal configuration across all platforms and missions.
As systems become more complex, consideration at the design stage becomes increasingly important. This requires an early identification of clear requirements with options set out that enable forces to choose the optimal solution for their mission requirements,"a source at NATO offered.The future operating environment requires the development of a new vertical lift platform unencumbered by the restrictions of traditionally designed rotorcraft, meaning the new platforms will need to perform unfettered by the limited physical perspectives of existing designs.
NIAG has reportedly concluded that a single main rotor is not the future. However, the future could be coaxial; or compounded with pusher props; or fans; or propellers; or advanced tilt rotorswhichever will deliver optimal configuration for future missions.
The recent use of rotary assets during operations has identified the need for each platform to provide a multitude of capabilities for each individual mission. Original platform requirements have often been disregarded in order to achieve mission success on the modern battlefield.
Jaime Arque, chair of theEuropean Helicopter Association, says he is concerned at the lack of interest at the European Union level regarding the exploitation of helicopter operations and their integration into the intra-EU connectivity.
The sole attention to commercial airline activity shows that the rotocraft industry has not been considered. Our sector employs over 100,000 people and helicopter operations have transformed many areas of our lives," Arque said.Current U.S. modes of operations highlight the need for strong connectivity between rotorcraft and other means of transport.
Dan Bailey, a NATO program director and chair of itsfuture rotorcraft capability team, is expected to provide an update on the alliance's next rotary fleet when he addresses "Combat Helicopter 2017," an international gathering for armed forces and industry, running from Oct. 17-19 in Krakow, Poland.
The rest is here:
The belief that NATO would lose a conventional conflict did nothing to contradict the notion that NATO could play a valuable role in deterring war. For one, NATO could certainly make things more difficult for the Soviet Union; overwhelming combined British-German-American forces would prove far more costly than defeating a West Germany that stood alone. Moreover, by triggering an expansion of the war NATO could create costs for the Soviets in other parts of the world. Overwhelming NATO superiority at sea and in long-rangeairpowerwould prove devastating for Soviet interests outside of Eurasia, even if the Soviets prevailed on the Central Front.
Arecent RANDwargameon a potential Russian offensive into theBalticsbrought talk of a new Cold War into sharp focus. The game made clear that NATO would struggle to prevent Russian forces from occupying theBalticsif it relied on the conventional forces now available.
Thesewargameshave great value in demonstrating tactical and operational reality, which then informs broader strategic thinking. In this case, however,the headlines generatedby the game have obscured more about the NATO-Russian relationship than they have revealed. In short, the NATO deterrent promise has never revolved around a commitment to defeat Soviet/Russian forces on NATOs borders. Instead, NATO has backed its political commitment with the threat to broaden any conflict beyond the war that the Soviets wanted to fight. Today, as in 1949, NATO offers deterrence through the promise of escalation.
The Early Years
Lets be utterly clear on this point; from the creation of NATO until the1970s, Western military planners expected the Warsaw Pact to easily win a conventional war in Europe. Conventionalwarfightingplans by the major NATO powers often amounted, almost literally, to efforts to reach the English Channel just ahead of the tanks of the Red Army. NATO expected to liberally use tactical nuclear weapons to slow the Soviet advance, an action which would inevitably invite Soviet response (the Soviets also prepared for this dynamic).
The belief that NATO would lose a conventional conflict did nothing to contradict the notion that NATO could play a valuable role in deterring war. For one, NATO could certainly make things more difficult for the Soviet Union; overwhelming combined British-German-American forces would prove far more costly than defeating a West Germany that stood alone. Moreover, by triggering an expansion of the war NATO could create costs for the Soviets in other parts of the world. Overwhelming NATO superiority at sea and in long-rangeairpowerwould prove devastating for Soviet interests outside of Eurasia, even if the Soviets prevailed on the Central Front.
Most importantly, the threat that France, Britain and the United States would launch strategic nuclear strikes on the Soviet Union in response to a successful conventional assault was supposed to give Moscow pause. Even if an American President refused to exchange Berlin for New York, the Soviets would have to worry about the rest of NATOs nuclear deterrent.
Active Defense/AirLandBattle
Theexpectation that NATO could defeatthe Warsaw Pact in battle only emerged after the Yom Kippur War. In that conflict, precision-guided conventional munitions exacted such a toll on advancing forces (both in theGolanand in Sinai) that American military planners began to believe that they could stop a Soviet attack. Drawn up in defensive positions that would channel oncoming Red Army armor into large kill zones, NATO forces could sufficiently blunt and disrupt a Soviet advance, and prevent the collapse of positions within Germany. The defense would buy time for NATO to transit additional forces and equipment from the United States to Europe, to carry out in depth attacks against Warsaw Pact logistical and communications centers in Eastern Europe, and to attack Soviet interests in the rest of the world.
After 1982,AirLandBattle would return maneuver to the battlefield, as American commanders grew more confident of their ability to defeat the Red Army in a fluid engagement. Cooperation between the Army and the Air Force would allow attacks all along the depth of the Soviet position, turning the formidable Red Army (and its Eastern European allies) into a chaotic mess. At the same time, the U.S. Navy prepared to attack directly into the Soviet periphery withairstrikesand amphibious assaults, as well as into the cherished bastions of the Soviet boomer fleet. None of this depended on the protection of any given piece of NATO territory; planners accepted that the Soviets could make at least some gains at the beginning of any plausible war scenario.
In this context, news that Russia could win a localized conventional conflict against small NATO nations on its border becomes rather less alarming than it sounds at first blush. Apart from (perhaps) a brief window of vulnerability in the1990s, Russia has always had the capacity to threaten NATO with conventional force. Indeed, NATO did not even begin to plan for the conventional defense of theBalticsuntil well after their accession, on the belief that the faith and credit of the alliance, and in particular its ability to retaliate against Soviet interests in the rest of Europe, would prove a sufficient deterrent.
Read the original here:
Introduction
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, a cornerstone of transatlantic security during the Cold War, has significantly recast its role in the past twenty years. Founded in 1949 as a bulwark against Soviet aggression, NATO has evolved to confront threats ranging from piracy off the Horn of Africa to maritime security in the Mediterranean. But Russian actions in recent years, particularly its 2014 intervention in Ukraine, have refocused the alliance's attention on the continent. Recent developments have also exposed unresolved tensions over NATO's expansion into the former Soviet sphere.
After the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991, Western leaders intensely debated the future direction of the transatlantic alliance. President Bill Clinton's administration favored expanding NATO to both extend its security umbrella to the east and consolidate democratic gains in the former Soviet bloc. On the other hand, some U.S. officials wished to peel back the Pentagon's commitments in Europe with the fading of the Soviet threat.
European members were also split on the issue. London feared NATOs expansion would dilute the alliance, while Paris believed it would give NATO too much influence. Many in France hoped to integrate former Soviet states via European institutions. There was also concern about alienating Russia.
For the White House, the decision held larger meaning. [President Clinton] considered NATO enlargement a litmus test of whether the U.S. would remain internationally engaged and defeat the isolationist and unilateralist sentiments that were emerging, wrote Ronald D. Asmus, one of the intellectual architects of NATO expansion, inOpening NATO's Door.
In his first trip to Europe as president, in January 1994, Clinton announced that NATO enlargement was no longer a question of whether but when and how.Just days before, alliance leaders approved the launch of thePartnership for Peace, a program designed to strengthen ties with Central and Eastern European countries, including many former Soviet republics like Georgia, Russia, and Ukraine.
Many defense planners also felt that a postCold War vision for NATO needed to look beyond collective defenseArticle V of theNorth Atlantic Treatystates that an armed attack against one or more [member states] in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them alland focus on confronting acute instability outside its membership. The common denominator of all the new security problems in Europe is that they all lie beyond NATO's current borders, said Senator Richard Lugar (RIN) in a1993 speech.
The breakup of Yugoslavia in the early 1990s and the onset of ethnic conflict tested the alliance on this point almost immediately. What began as a mission to impose a UN-sanctioned no-fly zone over Bosnia and Herzegovina evolved into a bombing campaign on Bosnian Serb forces that many military analysts say was essential to ending the conflict. It was duringOperation Deny Flight[PDF] in April 1994 that NATO conducted its first combat operations in its forty-year history, shooting down four Bosnian Serb aircraft.
In 2017, NATO pursues several missions: security assistance in Afghanistan; peacekeeping in Kosovo; maritime security patrols in the Mediterranean; support for African Union forces in Somalia; and policing the skies over eastern Europe.
Headquartered in Brussels, NATO is a consensus-based alliance, where decisions must reflect the membership's collective will. However, individual states or subgroups of allies may initiate action outside NATO auspices. For instance, France, the UK, and the United States began policing a UN-sanctioned no-fly zone in Libya in early 2011 and within days transferred command of the operation to NATO (once Turkish concerns had been allayed). Member states are not required to participate in every NATO operation. For instance, Germany and Poland declined to contribute directly to the campaign in Libya.
NATO's military structure is divided between two strategic commands: the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, located near Mons, Belgium; and the Allied Command Transformation, located in Norfolk, Virginia. TheSupreme Allied Commander Europeoversees all NATO military operations and is always a U.S. flag or general officer (currently Army General Curtis M. Scaparrotti). Although the alliance has an integrated command, most forces remain under their respective national authorities until NATO operations commence.
NATO's secretary-general (currently Norway'sJens Stoltenberg) serves a four-year term as chief administrator and international envoy. TheNorth Atlantic Councilis the alliance's principal political body, composed of high-level delegates from each member state.
The primary financial contribution made by member states is the cost of deploying their respective armed forces for NATO-led operations. These expenses are not part of theformal NATO budget, which funds alliance infrastructure including civilian and military headquarters. In 2015, NATO members collectively spent more than$890 billion on defense[PDF]. The United States accounted for more than 70 percent of this, up from about half during the Cold War.
NATO members have committed to spending 2 percent of their annual GDP on defense, but by 2016 just five out of the twenty-eight members met this thresholdthe United States (3.6), Greece (2.4), the United Kingdom (2.2), Estonia (2.2), and Poland (2). U.S. officials have regularly criticized European members for cutting their defense budgets, but the Trump administration has taken a more assertive approach, suggesting the United States may reexamine its treaty obligations if the status quo persists. If your nations do not want to see America moderate its commitment to this alliance, each of your capitals needs to show support for our common defense,U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattistold counterparts in Brussels in February 2016.
NATO invoked its collective defense provision (Article V) for the first time following the September 11 attacks on the United States, perpetrated by the al-Qaeda terrorist network based in Afghanistan. Shortly after U.S.-led forces toppled the Taliban regime in Kabul, theUN Security Council authorizedan International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) to support the new Afghan government. NATO formally assumed command of ISAF in 2003, marking its first operational commitment beyond Europe. The fact the alliance was used in Afghanistan "was revolutionary," said NATO expertStanley Sloanin a CFR interview. It was proof the allies have adapted [NATO] to dramatically different tasks than what was anticipated during the Cold War.
But some critics questioned NATO's battlefield cohesion. While allies agreed on the central goals of the missionthe stabilization and reconstruction of Afghanistansome members restricted their forces from participating in counterinsurgency and other missions, a practice known as national caveats. Troops from Canada, the Netherlands, the UK, and the United States saw some of the heaviest fighting and bore the most casualties, stirring resentments among alliance states. NATO commanded more than 130,000 troops from more than fifty alliance and partner countries at the height of its commitment in Afghanistan. After thirteen years of war, ISAF completed its mission in December 2014.
In early 2015, NATO and more than a dozen partner countries began anoncombat support missionof about thirteen thousand troops (roughly half are U.S.) to provide training, funding, and other assistance to the Afghan government.
Moscow has viewed NATO's postCold War expansion into Central and Eastern Europe with great concern. Many current and former Russian leaders believe the alliance's inroads into the former Soviet sphere are a betrayal ofalleged guaranteesto not expand eastward after Germanys reunification in 1990although some U.S. officials involved in these discussions dispute this pledge.
Most Western leaders knew the risks of enlargement. If there is a long-term danger in keeping NATO as it is, there is immediate danger in changing it too rapidly. Swift expansion of NATO eastward could make aneo-imperialist Russiaa self-fulfilling prophecy, wrote Secretary of State Warren Christopher in theWashington Postin January 1994.
Over the years, NATO and Russia took significant steps toward reconciliation, particularly with their signing of the1997 Founding Act, which established an official forum forbilateral discussions. But a persistent lack of trust has plagued relations.
NATO's Bucharest Summit in the spring of 2008 deepened suspicions. While the alliance delayed Membership Action Plans for Ukraine and Georgia, it vowed to support their full membership down the road, despite repeated warnings from Moscow of political and military consequences. Russia's invasion of Georgia that summer was a clear signal of Moscow's intentions to protect what it sees as its sphere of influence, experts say.
Russia's annexation of Crimea and destabilization of eastern Ukraine in 20142017 have poisoned relations with NATO for the foreseeable future. We clearly face thegravest threat to European securitysince the end of the Cold War, said NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen after Russia's intervention in March 2014. Weeks later, NATO suspended all civilian and military cooperation with Moscow.
In an address honoring theannexation of Crimea, President Vladimir Putin expounded Russia's deep-seated grievances with the alliance. They have lied to us many times, made decisions behind our backs, placed us before an accomplished fact. This happened with NATO's expansion to the East, as well as the deployment of military infrastructure at our borders, he told Russia's parliament. In short, we have every reason to assume that the infamous [Western] policy of containment, led in the eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth centuries, continues today.
Incongressional testimony[PDF] in March 2017, General Scaparrotti said a resurgent Russia has turned from partner to antagonist, and has remained one of the top security challenges in Europe. Moscow continued to flex its military muscles in the region, he said, sending its sole aircraft carrier on its first-ever combat deployment, moving nuclear-capable missiles into Kaliningrad, and conducting significant operations in Ukraine and Syria. Meanwhile, Moscow pursued malign activities short of war, including misinformation and hacking campaigns against European member states, he said. The Kremlin has denied allegations it attempted to interfere in U.S. and European elections.
Ahead of a NATO summit in May 2017, Montenegro was expected to become the twenty-ninth member of the alliance, the first since Albania and Croatia joined in 2009. In a statement on the former Yugoslav republics accession, theWhite House notedto other NATO hopefuls that the door to membership in the Euro-Atlantic community of nations remains open and that countries in the Western Balkans are free to choose their own future and select their own partners without outside interference or intimidation. The Kremlin has warned thatNATOs eastward expansioncannot but result in retaliatory actions.
Another perennial point of contention has been NATO'sballistic missile defense shield, which is being deployed across Europe in several phases. The United States, which developed the technology, has said the system is only designed to guard against limited missile attacks, particularly from Iran. However, the Kremlin says the technology could be updated and may eventuallytip the strategic balancetoward the West.
Fears of further Russian aggression have prompted alliance leaders to reinforce defenses on its eastern flank. Since its Wales Summit in 2014, NATO has ramped up military exercises and opened new command centers in eight member states: Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, and Slovakia. The outposts, which are modestly staffed, are intended to support a newrapid reaction forceof about twenty thousand, including five thousand ground troops. In a major emergency, NATO military planners say that a multinational force of about forty thousand can be marshaled. At the Warsaw Summit in 2016, allies agreed to rotate four battalions (about four thousand troops) through Poland and the Baltic states. The United States has added an Army armored brigade to the two it has in the region, under its European Reassurance Initiative.
Meanwhile, NATO members, particularly Denmark, Germany, the UK, and the United States have increased air patrols over Poland and the Baltics. In 2015, NATO jets scrambled tointerceptRussian warplanesviolating allied airspace some four hundred times. In 2016 this number doubled, alliance officials said.
NATO members have also boosted direct security collaboration with Ukraine, an alliance partner since 1994. But as a nonmember, Ukraine remains outside of NATO's defense perimeter, and there are clear limits on how far it can be brought into institutional structures. The UK and the United States sent modest detachments of troops to train Ukrainian personnel in 2015, but the United States has refrained from providing Kiev with lethal weapons to help counter the Russia-backed insurgency out of fear this would escalate the conflict.
In the longer term, some defense analysts believe the alliance should consider advancing membership toFinland and Sweden, two Partnership for Peace countries with a history of avoiding military alignment. Both countries have welcomed greater military cooperation with NATO following Russias intervention in Ukraine. (Nordic peers Denmark, Iceland, and Norway are charter NATO members.)
Continued here:
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) | Council on ...
In 1990, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, U.S. president George H. W. Bush through his secretary of state James Baker promised Soviet premier Mikhail Gorbachev that in exchange for Soviet cooperation on German reunification, the Cold War era NATO alliance would not expand one inch eastwards towards Russia. Baker told Gorbachev: Look, if you remove your [300,000] troops [from east Germany] and allow unification of Germany in NATO, NATO will not expand one inch to the east.
In the following year, the USSR officially dissolved itself. Its own defensive military alliance (commonly known as the Warsaw Pact) had already shut down. The Cold War was over.
So why hasnt NATO also dissolved, but instead expanded relentlessly, surrounding European Russia? Why isnt this a central question for discussion and debate in this country?
NATO: A Cold War Anti-Russian Alliance
Some challenge the claim that Bushs pledge was ever given, although Baker repeated it publicly in Russia. Or they argue that it was never put in writing, hence legally inconsequential. Or they argue that any promise made to the leadership of the Soviet Union, which went out of existence in 1991, is inapplicable to subsequent U.S.-Russian relations. But its clear that the U.S. has, to the consternation of the Russian leadership, sustained a posture of confrontation with its Cold War foe principally taking the form of NATO expansion. This expansion hardly receives comment in the U.S. mass media, which treats the entry of a new nation into NATO much as it does the admission of a new state into the UNas though this was altogether natural and unproblematic.
But recall the basic history. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was formed in April 4, 1949, initially consisting of the U.S., Canada, U.K., France, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Denmark, Iceland, Norway and Portugal, as a military alliance against the Soviet Union, and principally the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic.
It was formed just four years after the Soviets stormed Berlin, defeating the Nazis. (As you know, Germany invaded Russia six months before Japan attacked Pearl Harbor; the U.S. and USSR were World War II allies versus the fascists; the key victories in the European warMoscow, Stalingrad, Kurskwere Soviet victories over the Nazis; that U.S. soldiers only crossed the Rhine on March 22 as the Red Army was closing in on Berlin, taking the city between April 16 and May 2 at a cost of some 80,000 Soviet dead. If you dont know these things, youve been denied a proper education.)
In the four-year interim between Hitlers suicide and the formation of NATO, the two great victors of the war had divided Europe into spheres of influence. The neighboring Soviet Union had contributed disproportionately to the fascist defeat: over eight million military and over 12 million civilians dead, as compared to the far-off U.S., with losses of around 186,000 dead in the European theater and 106,000 in the Pacific.
It might seem strange that the lesser hero in this instance (in this epochal conflict against fascism) gets all the goodies in the battles aftermath: the U.S. created a bloc including Britain, France, Italy, most of Germany, the Low Countries, Portugal, and most of Scandinavia, while the Soviets asserted hegemonyor tried toover their generally less affluent client states. But the Soviets were not in any case interested primarily in drawing the richest nations into their fold; were that the case, they would not have withdrawn their troops from Austria in 1955.
Rather Russia, which had historically been invaded many times from the westfrom Sweden, Lithuania, Poland, France, and Germany multiple timeswanted preeminently to secure its western border. To insure the establishment of friendly regimes, it organized elections in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and elsewhere. (These had approximately as much legitimacy as elections held under U.S. occupation in Iraq or Afghanistan in later years, or at any point in Latin America). They brought the Eastern European peoples republics into existence.
The U.S. and British grumbled about the geopolitical advances of their wartime ally. In March 1946 former British Prime Minister Churchill while visiting the U.S. alluded to an iron curtain falling across Europe. (Perhaps he was unwittingly using the expression that Josef Goebbels had used just thirteen months earlier. The German propaganda minister had told a newspaper that if the German people lay down their weapons, the Sovietswould occupy all of EuropeAn iron curtain would fall over this enormous territory) Very scary.
But the U.S. was working hard at the time to consolidate its own bloc in Europe. In May 1947 the U.S. CIA forced the Italian and French governments to purge Communist members of cabinets formed after electoral successes the previous year. (The U.S. had enormous clout, bought through the $ 13 billion Marshall Plan begun in April 1947, designed to revive European capitalism and diminish the Marxist appeal.)
The CIA station chief in Rome later boasted that without the CIA, which funded a Red Scare campaign and fomented violent, even fatal clashes at events, the Communist Party would surely have won the [Italian] elections in 1948. (Anyone who thinks Soviets rigged elections while the U.S. facilitated fair ones as a matter of principle is hopelessly nave.)
Meanwhilebefore the establishment of NATO in April 1949the U.S. and Britain had been fighting a war in Greece since 1946 on behalf of the monarchists against the communist-led forces that had been the backbone of the anti-fascist movement during the World War II. The Communists had widespread support and may well have won the civil war if the Soviets had only supported them. But observing the understanding about spheres of influence agreed to at Yalta and Potsdam, Stalin refused appeals for Soviet aid from the Greek (and Yugoslav) Communists. The Greek partisans surrendered in Oct. 1949, six months after the formation of NATO. (But NATO was in fact not deployed in this military intervention in Greece, seen as the first Cold War U.S. military operation under thebroadly anticommunistTruman Doctrine.)
Just a month after NATO was formed, the pro-U.S. leaders in west Germany unilaterally announced the establishment of the Federal Republic of Germany. (The pro-Soviet German Democratic Republic was declared only six months later. As in Korea, the Soviets promoted reunification of occupied sectors. But the U.S. was intent on establishing client states, and dividing nations if necessary to stem Soviet inroads. This was also the case with Vietnam.)
Four months after the creation of NATO the Soviets conducted their first successful nuclear test. The Cold War was underway in earnest.
NATO was thus formed to aggressively confront the USSR and exploit fears of a supposed threat of a westward Soviet strike (to impose the Soviet social system on unwilling peoples). That threat never materialized, of course.The Soviets cordoned off East Berlin from the west by the Berlin Wall in 1961 to prevent embarrassing mass flight. But they never invaded West Germany, or provoked any clash with a NATO nation throughout the Cold War. (Indeed, in light of the carnage visited on Europe since 1989, from civil wars in the Balkans and Caucasus to terrorist bombings in London, Madrid and Paris to the neo-fascist-led putsch in Ukraine last year, the Cold War appears in retrospect as a long period of relative peace and prosperity on the continent.)
Comparing U.S. and Russian/Soviet Aggression during the Cold War
NATO expanded in 1952, enlisting the now-pacified Greece and its historical rival, Turkey. In 1955 it brought the Federal Republic of Germany into the fold. Only thenin May 1956, seven years after the formation of NATOdid the Soviets establish, in response, their own defensive military alliance. The Treaty of Friendship, Co-operation, and Mutual Assistance (Warsaw Pact) included a mere eight nations (to NATOs 15): the USSR, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Albania.
Warsaw Pact forces were deployed only once during the Cold War, to crush the reform movement in Czechoslovakia in 1968. (They were not used during the suppression of the Hungarian Revolution of 1956, occurring five months after the founding of the alliance. That operation was performed by Soviet troops and loyalist Hungarian forces.) The Czechoslovakian intervention occasioned Albanias withdrawal from the pact, while Romania protested it and refused to contribute troops. Thus practically speaking, the Warsaw Pact was down to six members to NATOs 15. The western alliance expanded to 16 when Spain joined in 1982.
Between 1945 and 1991 (when the Warsaw Pact and the USSR both dissolved themselves), the U.S. had engaged in three major wars (in Korea, Vietnam, and the Persian Gulf); invaded Grenada and Panama; and intervened militarily in Guatemala, the Dominican Republic, Lebanon, Cuba, Cambodia, Laos, Nicaragua, Haiti and other countries.
During that same period, the Soviets invaded eastern European nations twice (Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968), basically to maintain the status quo. Elsewhere, there was a brief border conflict with China in 1969 that killed around 150 soldiers on both sides. And the Soviets of course invaded Afghanistan in 1979 to shore up the secular regime faced with Islamist opposition. Thats about it. Actually, if you compare it to the U.S. record, a pretty paltry record of aggression for a superpower.
That Islamist opposition in Afghanistan, as we know, morphed into the Taliban, al-Qaeda, and the group founded in Iraq by one-time bin Laden rival Abu Musab al-Zarqawi thats now called ISIL or the Islamic State. Referred toalmost affectionatelyby the U.S. press in the 1980s as the Mujahadeen (those engaged in jihad), these religious militants were lionized at the time as anti-communist holy warriors by Jimmy Carters National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski.
Brzezinski told the president six months before the Soviets sent in troops that by backing the jihadis the U.S. could induce a Soviet military intervention. The U.S., he declared, had the opportunity of giving the USSR its Vietnam War and could now bleed the Soviets as they had bled the U.S. in Vietnam.
(Linger for a moment on the morality here. The Soviets had helped the Vietnamese fight an unpopular, U.S.-backed regime and confront the horrors of the U.S. assault on their country. Nowto get back, as Brzezinski out itthe U.S. could help extreme Islamists whose minds are in the Middle Ages to induce Soviet intervention, so as to kill conscript Soviet boys and prevent the advent of modernity.)
The anti-Soviet jihadis were welcomed to the White House by President Ronald Reagan during a visit in 1985. Reagan, perhaps already showing the signs of Alzheimers disease, trumpeted them as the moral equivaent of Americas founding fathers. This is when the great bulk of U.S. (CIA) aid to the Mujahadeen was going into the coffers of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, a vicious warlord now aligned with the Taliban. One of many former U.S. assets (Saddam Hussein included) who had a falling-out with the boss, he was the target of at least one failed CIA drone strike in 2002.
Thus the Soviets one and only protracted military conflict during the Cold War, lasting from December 1979 to February 1989 and costing some 14,000 Soviet lives, was a conflict with what U.S. pundits have taken to calling Islamist terrorism.
The Soviets were surely not facing anticommunists pining for freedom as this might be conceptualized in some modern ideology. The enemy included tribal leaders and clerics who objected to any changes in the status of girls and women, in particular their dress, and submission to patriarchal authority in such matters as marriage.
The would-be Soviet-backed revolutionaries faced religious fanatics ignorant about womens medical needs, hostile to the very idea of public clinics, and opposed to womens education, (In fact the Soviets were able to raise the literacy rate for women during the 1980sa feat not matched by the new occupiers since 2001but this was mainly due to the fact that they maintained control over Kabul, where women could not only get schooling but walk around without a headscarf.)
Those days ended when the Soviet-installed regime of Mohammad Najibullah was toppled by Northern Alliance forces in April 1992. Things only became worse. Civil war between the Pastun Hekmatyar and his Tajik rivals immediately broke out and Hekmatyars forces brutally bombarded the capitalsomething that hadnt happened during the worst days of the Soviet period.
As civil war deepened, the Taliban emerged, presenting itself as a morally upright, Sharia-based leadership. Acquiring a large social base, it took Kabul in September 1996. Among its first acts was to seize Najibullah, who had taken refuge in the UN compound in the city three years earlier, castrate him, and hang him publicly, denying him a proper Muslim burial.
Just as the neocons were crowing about the triumph of capitalism over communism, and the supposed end of history, the Frankensteins monster of Islamism reared up its ugly head. There were no tears shed in western capitals for Najibullah. But the Taliban were viewed with concern and distaste and the UN seat remained with the former Northern Alliance regime controlling just 10% of the country.
How the Cold War Encouraged Radical Islam
Surely the U.S.which had packed up and left after the Soviet withdrawl, leaving the Pakistanis with a massive refugee problem and Afghanistan in a state of chaoshad bled the Soviets, and anyone daring to ally with them. And surely this experience contributed to the realization of Brzezinskis fondest wish: the collapse of the Soviet Union.
But it also produced Islamist terrorism, big time, while the U.S.having once organized the recruitment and training of legions of jihadis from throughout the Muslim world to bleed the Sovietswas and is now obliged to deal with blow-back, and in its responses invariably invites more terror.
Is it not obvious that U.S. military actions against its various terrorist targets in the Greater Middle East, including Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Libya have greatly swelled the ranks of al-Qaeda branches as well as ISIL?
And does not the course of events in Afghanistanwhere the Kabul government remains paralyzed and inept, warlords govern the provincial cities, the Supreme Court sentences people to death for religious offenses, much of the countryside has been conceded to the Talibs and the militants are making inroads in the northconvince you that the U.S. should not have thrown in its lot with the jihadis versus the Soviet-backed secular forces thirty-five years ago?
In a 1998 interview by Jeffrey St. Clair and Alexander Cockburn Brzezinski was asked if he regretted having given arms and advice to future [Islamist] terrorists.
Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?
Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated: Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.
Brzezinski: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isnt a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.
In other words, winning the contest with Russiableeding it to collapsewas more important than any risk of promoting militant Islamic fundamentalism. It is apparent that that mentality lingers, when, even in the post-9/11 world, some State Department officials would rather see Damascus fall to ISIL than be defended by Russians in support of a secular regime.
NATO to the Rescue in the Post-Cold War World
Since the fall of the USSR, and the disappearance of the Warsaw Pact, what has NATO been up to? First of all, it moved to fill a power vacuum in the Balkans. Yugoslavia was falling apart. It had been neutral throughout the Cold War, a member of neither NATO nor the Warsaw Pact. As governments fell throughout Eastern Europe, secessionist movements in the multiethnic republic produced widespread conflict. U.S. Secretary of State Baker worried that the breakup of Yugoslavias breakup would produce regional instability and opposed the independence of Slovenia.
But the German foreign minister, Hans-Dietrich Genscher, and Chancellor Helmut Kohlflushed with pride at Germanys reunification and intent on playing a more powerful role in the worldpressed for Yugoslavias dismantling. (There was a deep German historical interest in this country. Nazi Germany had occupied Slovenia from 1941 to 1945, establishing a 21,000-strong Slovene Home Guard and planting businesses. Germany is now by far Slovenias number one trading partner.) Kohls line won out.
Yugoslavia, which had been a model of interethnic harmony, became torn by ethnic strife in the 1990s. In Croatia, Croatians fought ethnic Serbs backed by the Yugoslav Peoples Army; in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bosniaks, Croats and Serbs quarreled over how to divide the land. In Serbia itself, the withdrawal of autonomy of the provinces of Kosovo and Vojvodina produced outrage among ethnic Albanians. In 1995 images of emaciated Bosniak men and boys in Serb-constructed prison camps were widely publicized in the world media as Bill Clinton resolved not to let Rwanda (read: genocide!) happen again. Not on his watch. America would save the day.
Or rather: NATO would save the day! Far from being less relevant after the Cold War, NATO, Clinton claimed, was the onlyinternational force capable of handling this kind of challenge. And thus NATO bombed, and bombedfor the first time ever, in real waruntil the Bosnian Serbs pleaded for mercy. The present configuration of Bosnia-Herzegovina, a dysfunctional federation including a Serbian mini-republic, was dictated by U.S. Secretary of State Warren Christopher and his deputy Richard Holbrooke at the meeting in Dayton, Ohio in November 1995.
Russia, the traditional ally of the Serbs, was obliged to watch passively as the U.S. and NATO remapped the former Yugoslavia. Russia was itself in the 1990s, under the drunken buffoon Boris Yeltsin, a total mess. The economy was nose-diving; despair prevailed; male longevity had plummeted. The new polity was anything but stable. During the Constitutional Crisis of September-October 1993, the president had even ordered the army to bombard the parliament building to force the legislators to heed his decree to disband. In the grip of corrupt oligarchs and Wild West capitalism, Russians were disillusioned and demoralized.
Then came further insults from the west. During Yeltsins last year, in March 1999, the U.S. welcomed three more nations into: Czechoslovakia (later the Czech Republic and Slovakia), Hungary, and Poland. These had been the most powerful Warsaw Pact countries aside from the USSR and East Germany. This was the first expansion of NATO since 1982 (when Spain had joined) and understandably upset the Kremlin. What possible reason is there to expand NATO now? the Russians asked, only to be assured that NATO was not against anybody.
The Senate had voted to extend membership to Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia in 1998. At that time, George Kennanthe famous U.S. diplomat whod developed the cold war strategy of containment of the Soviet Unionwas asked to comment.
I think it is the beginning of a new cold war, averred the 94-year-old Kennan. I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever It shows so little understanding of Russian history and Soviet history. Of course there is going to be a bad reaction from Russia, and then [the NATO expansion advocates] will say that we always told you that is how the Russians arebut this is just wrong.
NATO Versus Serbia
In that same month of March 1999, NATO (including its three new members) began bombing the Serbian capital of Belgrade, the first time since World War II that a European capital was subjected to bombardment. The official reason was that Serbian state forces had been abusing the Albanians of Kosovo province; diplomacy had failed; and NATO intervention was needed to put things right. This rationale was accompanied by grossly exaggerated reports of Serbian security forces killings of Kosovars, supposedly amounting to genocide.
This was largely nonsense. The U.S. had demanded at the conference in Rambouillet, France, that Serbia withdraw its forces from Kosovo and restore autonomy to the province. Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic had agreed. But the U.S. also demanded that Belgrade accept NATO forces throughout the entire territory of Yugoslaviasomething no leader of a sovereign state could accept. Belgrade refused, backed by Russia.
A senior State Department official (likely U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright) boasted to reporters that at Rambouillet we intentionally set the bar too high for the Serbs to comply. . . . The Serbs needed a little bombing to see reason.Henry Kissinger (no peacenik) told the press in June: The Rambouillet text, which called on Serbia to admit NATO troops throughout Yugoslavia, was a provocation, and excuse to start bombing. Rambouillet is not a document that an angelic Serb could have accepted. It was a terrible diplomatic document that should never have been presented in that form.
The U.S. had obtained UN approval for the NATO strikes on Bosnia-Herzegovina four years before. But it did not seek it this time, or try to organize a UN force to address the Kosovo problem. In effect, it insisted that NATO be recognized as the representative of the international community.
It was outrageous. Still, U.S. public opinion was largely persuaded that the Serbs had failed to negotiate peace in good faith and so deserved the bombing cheered on by the press, in particular CNNs senior international correspondent, Christiane Amanpour, a State Department insider who kept telling her viewers, Milosevic continues to thumb his nose at the international communitybecause hed refused a bullying NATO ultimatum that even Kissinger identified as a provocation!
After the mass slaughter of Kosovars became a reality (as NATO bombs began to fall on Kosovo), and after two and a half months of bombing focused on Belgrade, a Russian-brokered deal ended the fighting. Belgrade was able to avoid the NATO occupation that it had earlier refused. (In other words, NATO had achieved nothing that the Serbs hadnt already conceded in Rambouillet!)
As the ceasefire went into effect on June 21, a column of about 30 armored vehicles carrying 250 Russian troops moved from peacekeeping duties in Bosnia to establish control over Kosovos Pristina Airport. (Just a little reminder that Russia, too, had a role to play in the region.)
This took U.S. NATO commander Wesley Clark by surprise. He ordered that British and French paratroopers be flown in to seize the airport but the British General Sir Mike Jackson wisely balked. Im not going to have my soldiers start World War III, he declared.
I think it likely this dramatic last minute gesture at the airport was urged by the up-and-coming Vladimir Putin, a Yeltsin advisor soon to be appointed vice-president and then Yeltsins successor beginning in December 1999. Putin was to prove a much more strident foe of NATO expansion than his embarrassing predecessor.
Cooperation Meets with Provocation
Still, recall how two years laterafter 9/11, 2001, when the U.S. invoking the NATO charter called upon its NATO allies to engage in war in AfghanistanPutin offered to allow the alliance to transport war material to Afghanistan through Russian territory. (In 2012 Foreign Minister Lavrov offered NATO the use of a base in Ulyanovsk to transport equipment out of Afghanistan.) This Afghan invasion was only the third actual deployment of NATO forces in war, after Bosnia and Serbia, and Moscow accepted it matter-of-factly. It even muted its concerns when the U.S. established military bases in the former Soviet Central Republics of Uzbekistan and Kirghizia.
But in 2004, NATO expanded againto include Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, all of which had been part of the USSR itself and which border Russia. At the same time Bulgaria, Romania and Slovenia were admitted, along with Slovakia, which had become separate from the Czech Republic. Russians again asked, Why?
In 2007 the U.S. began negotiating with the Poles to install a NATO missile defense complex in Poland, with a radar system in the Czech Republic. Supposedly this was to shoot down any Iranian missiles directed towards Europe in the future! But Moscow was furious, accusing the U.S. of wanting to launch another arms race. Due largely to anti-militarist sentiment among the Poles and Czechs, these plans were shelved in 2009. But they could be revived at any time.
In 2008, then, the U.S. recognized its dependency Kosovo, now hosting the largest U.S. Army base (Camp Bondsteel) outside the U.S., as an independent country. Although the U.S. had insisted up to this point that it recognized Kosovo as a province of Serbia (and perhaps even understood its profound significance as the heartland of Serbian Orthodoxy), it now (through Condoleezza Rice) proclaimed Kosovo a sui generis (one of a kind) phenomenon. So forget about international law; it just doesnt apply.
In this same year of 2008, NATO announced boldly that Georgia and Ukraine will become members of NATO. ThereuponGeorgias comical President Mikheil Saakasvili bombarded Tskhinvali, capital of the self-declared Republic of South Ossetia that had resisted integration into the current Republic of Georgia since the break-up of the Soviet Union in 1991. In this instance Russia defended South Ossetia, invading Georgia. It then recognized the independence, both of South Ossetia and of the Republic of Abkhazia, from Georgia. (This may be seen as a tit-for-tat response to the U.S.s decision to recognize Kosovos independence from Serbia six months earlier.)
It was a six-day war, resulting in about 280 military fatalities (including 100 on the South Ossetian-Russian side) and about 400 civilian deaths. And there has been no Russian war since. Crimea was not invaded last year but simply seized by Russian forces in place, with general popular support. And theres little evidence that the regular Russian military is confronting Ukrainian state forces; ethnic Russians are doing so, receiving no doubt support from cousins across the historically changeable border. But the charge of a Russian invasion of Ukraine is a State Department talking pointpropaganda automatically parroted by the official press sock-puppet pundits, not a contemporary reality.
Georgias Saakasvili perhaps expected the U.S. to have his back as he provoked Moscow in August 2008. But while he received firm support from Sen. John McCain, who declared We are all Georgians now, he received little help from the George W. Bush State Department wary of provoking World War III. Georgia was not yet a NATO member able to cite the NATO charters mutual defense clause
Saakasvili left office in 2010 and is now under indictment by the Georgian courts for abuses in office. After a brief stint at the Fletcher School of International Law and Diplomacy in 2014, he acquired Ukrainian citizenshiplosing his Georgian citizenship as a resultand (as one of many examples of how crazy the current Kiev leadership including Yatsenyev and Poroshenko can be) was appointed governor of Odessa last May!
Given the debacle of 2008, countries such as Germany are unlikely to accept Georgian admission any time soon. They do not see much benefit in provoking Russia by endlessly expanding the Cold War defensive alliance. Still, Croatia and Albania were added to NATO in 2009, in the first year of the Obama administrationjust in time to participate in NATOs fourth war, against Libya.
Again there was no reason for a war. Colonel Gadhafy had been downright cordial towards western regimes since 2003, and closely cooperated with the CIA against Islamist terrorism. But when the Arab Spring swept the region in 2011, some western leaders (headed by French president Nicolas Sarkozy, but including the always hawkish Hillary Clinton) convinced themselves that Gadhafys fall was imminent, and so it would be best to assist the opposition in deposing him and thus get into the good graces of any successors.
The UN Security Council approved a resolution to establish a no-fly zone for the protection of civilians from Gadhafys supposedly genocidal troops. But what NATO unleashed was something quite different: a war on Gadhafy, which led to his brutal murder and to the horrible chaos that has reigned since in Libya, now a reliable base for al-Qaeda and ISIL. Russia and China both protested, as the war was still underway, that NATO had distorted the meaning of the UN resolution. Its unlikely that the two Security Council permanent members will be fooled again into such cooperation.
We can therefore add the failed state of Libya to the dysfunctional states of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo and Afghanistan, to our list of NATO achievements since 1991. To sum up: Since the collapse of the USSR, the U.S. and some allies (usually in their capacity as NATO allies) have waged war on Bosnian Serbs, Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, while striking targets in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and elsewhere with impunity. Russia has gone to war precisely once: for eight days in August 2008, against Georgia.
And yet every pundit on mainstream TV news tells you with a straight face that Putins the one who invades countries.
What Is the Point of NATO Expansion?
So while NATO has expanded in membership, it has showing a growing proclivity to go to war, from Central Asia to North Africa. One must wonder, what is the point?
The putative point in 1949 was the defense of Western Europe against some posited Soviet invasion. That rationale is still used; when NATO supporters today speak in favor of the inclusion of Lithuania, for example, they may state that, if Lithuania had remained outside the alliancethe Russians would surely have invaded by now on the pretext of defending ethnic Russians rights, etc.
There is in fact precious little evidence for Russian ambitions, or Putins own ambitions, to recreate the tsarist empire or Soviet Union. (Putin complained just a few days ago, We dont want the USSR back but no one believes us. Hes also opined that people who feel no nostalgia for the Soviet Unionas most citizens of the former USSR young enough to remember it say they dohave no heart, while those who want to restore it have no brains.)
As NATO expanded inexorably between 1999 and 2009, Russia responded not with threats but with calm indignation.
Putins remarks about the dissolution of the Soviet Union being a geopolitical tragedy, and his occasional words addressing the language and other rights of Russians in former SSRs, do not constitute militarist threats. As always the neocons cherry-pick a phrase here and there as they try to depict Putin as (yet) another Hitler. In fact the Russians have, relatively speaking, been voices of reason in recent years, Alarmed at the consequences of U.S. actions in the Middle East, they have sought to restrain U.S. imperialism while challenging Islamist terrorism.
In August 2013 Obama threatened to attack Syria, ostensibly to punish the regime for using chemical weapons against its people. (The original accusation has been discredited by Seymour Hersh among others.) Deft intervention by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, and the refusal of the British House of Commons to support an attack (insuring it would not, like the Iraq War, win general NATO endorsement), and domestic opposition all helped avert another U.S. war in the Middle East.
But its as though hawks in the State Department, resentful at Russias success in protecting its Syrian ally from Gadhafys fate, and miffed at its continued ability to maintain air and naval facilities on the Syrian coast, were redoubling their efforts to provoke Russia. How better to do this than by interfering in Ukraine, which had not only been part of the Soviet Union but part of the Russian state from 1654 and indeed was the core of the original Kievan Rus in the tenth century?
NATO had been courting Ukraine since 1994five years before the alliance expanded to include Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia. Kiev signed the NATO Membership Action Plan in 2008 when Viktor Yushchenko was president, but this was placed on hold when Viktor Yanukovych was elected in 2010. Enjoying the solid support of the Russian-speaking east, Yanukovich won what international observers called a free and fair election.
Yanukovich did not want Ukraine to join NATO: he wanted a neutral Ukraine maintaining the traditional close relationship between the Ukraine and Russia. This infuriated Victoria Nuland, the head of the Eurasia desk at the State Department, who has made it her lifes project to pull Ukraine into NATO. This would be NATOs ultimate prize in eastern Europe: a country of 44 million well-educated people, the size of France, strategically located on the Black Sea historically dominated by the Russian Black Sea Fleet. An ethnically divided country, with a generally pro-Russian and Russian-speaking east, and a more western-oriented Ukrainian-speaking west with an unusually vigorous and fiercely anti-Russian neofascist movementjust there waiting to be used.
Nuland, a former Cheney aide whose neocon worldview drew Hillary Clintons favorable attention, resulting in her promotion, is the wife of neocon pundit and Iraq War cheerleader Robert Kagan. (Kagan was a founding member of the notorious Project for a New American Century think tank.) The couple represents two wings of incessant neocon plotting: those who work to destroy Russia, and those who work to destroy the Middle East, consciously using lies to confuse the masses about their real goals.
At the National Press Club in December 2013, Nuland boasted that the U.S. (through such NGOs as the National Endowment for Democracy) had spent $ 5 billion in Ukraine in order to support Ukraines European aspirations. This deliberately vague formulation is supposed to refer to U.S. support for Kievs admission into the European Union. The case the U.S. built against Yanukovich was not that he rejected NATO membership; that is never mentioned at all. She built the case on Yanukovichs supposed betrayal of his peoples pro-EU aspirations in having first initialed, and then rejected, an association agreement with the trading bloc, fearing it would mean a Greek-style austerity regime imposed on the country from without.
From November 2013 crowds gathered in Kievs Maidan to protest (among other things) Yanukovichs change of heart about EU membership. The U.S. State Department embraced their cause. One might ask why, when the EU constitutes a competing trading bloc, the U.S. should be so interested in promoting any countrys membership in it. What difference does it make to you and me whether Ukraine has closer economic ties to Russia than to the EU?
The dirty little secret here is that the U.S. goal has merely been to use the cause of joining Europe to draw Ukraine into NATO, which could be depicted as the next natural step in Ukraines geopolitical realignment.
Building on popular contempt for Yanukovich for his corruption, but also working with politicians known to favor NATO admission and the expulsion of Russian naval forces from the Crimean base theyve had since the 1780s, and also including neo-fascist forces who hate Russia but also loath the EU, Nuland and her team including the ubiquitous John McCain popped up at the Maidan passing out cookies and encouraging the crowd to bring down the president.
It worked, of course. On Feb. 22, within a day of signing a European-mediated agreement for government reforms and new election, and thinking the situation defused, Yanukovich was forced to flee for his life. The neofascist forces of Svoboda and the RightSector served as storm troops toppling the regime. Nulands Machiavellian maneuverings had triumphed; a neocon Jew had cleverly deployed open anti-Semites to bring down a regime and plant a pro-NATO one in its place.
It seemed as though, after 14 years of expansion, NATO might soon be able to welcome a huge new member into its ranks, complete the encirclement of Russia and, booting out the Russian fleet, turn the Black Sea into a NATO lake.
Alas for the neocons and liberal interventioniststhe new regime of Nulands chosen Arseniy Yatsenyuk and his Svoboda Party allies immediately alienated the eastern Russian-speaking population, which remains up in arms making the country ungovernable, even as its economy collapses; and the notion of expelling the Russians from Sevastopol has become unimaginable.
But what do NATO planners want? Where is all the expansion and reckless provocation heading?
Russia: an Existential Threat?
First of all, the NATO advocates, however often they repeat that Were not against Russia, this isnt about Russia, do indeed posit an enduring Russian threat. Thus General Sir Adrian Bradshaw, the most senior British officer in NATO, stated last February that Russia poses an obvious existential threat to our whole being. Gen. Joseph Votel, head of the U.S. Special Operations Command told the Aspen Security Forum in July that Russia could pose an existential threat to the United States.
House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) warned Obama to sign a military appropriations bill because Russia poses an existential threat to the U.S. Philanthropist George Soros (who likes to finance color revolutions) wrote in the New York review of Books in October that Europe is facing a challenge from Russia to its very existence.
These are wild, stupid words coming from highly placed figures. Isnt it obvious that Russia is the one being surrounded, pressured and threatened? That its military budget is a fraction of the U.S.s, its global military presence miniscule in relation to the U.S. footprint?
But anyone watching the U.S. presidential candidates debatesand who can perceive the prevalence of paranoia about Russia, the unthinking acceptance of the Putin as Hitler theme, and the obligatory expression of determination to make America more strongcan understand why the expansion of NATO is so horribly dangerous.
People who do not think rationally or whose minds are twisted by arrogance can look at the maps of NATO expansion and think proudly, This is how it should be! Why would anyone question the need for nations to protect themselves by allying with the United States? Its alliances like NATO that preserve peace and stability in the world.
Read the original:
Scientists and experts from Norway and NATO partner countries discussed opportunities for practical cooperation to address common emerging security challenges during a Science for Peace and Security (SPS) Programme Information Day held in Oslo on 14 June 2017. Successful cooperation between Norway and NATOs SPS Programme included activities in the areas of Women, Peace and Security and unexploded ordnance (UXO) detection.
Organised in cooperation with the Norwegian Delegation to NATO and the Norwegian Research Council, the SPS Information Day provided an opportunity to exchange on possibilities for capacity-building and research cooperation with partners in defence and advanced technologies such as cyber defence, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) technology and chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) defence.
Norway has traditionally been a strong partner in the SPS programme, said Rune Resaland, Head of Department for Security Policy and the High North, Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In the period from 2000 until 2014, Norwegian researchers participated in more than 60 SPS projects. Currently, there is only one project with Norwegian involvement in the SPS. We hope that the SPS Information Day can contribute to more interest for SPS in Norway and sow the seeds for projects between Norwegian researchers and international partners in the future.
Human and social aspects of security, including civil-military relations, counter-terrorism and the Women, Peace and Security issues were a focus of discussions. Norway recently conducted an SPS research workshop aimed at sharing good practices for handling gender-related complaints in the armed forces, co-organised by the Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces (DCAF). Experts dealing with gender-related harassment and discrimination engaged in a frank and open discussion and exchanged best practices. Their work resulted in the publication entitled Gender and Complaints Mechanisms Handbook to prevent and respond to gender-related discrimination.
Norway is also working with Ukraine on an SPS multi-year project to develop a 3D mine detector. This project complements other SPS efforts in support of humanitarian demining and forms part of NATOs Comprehensive Assistance Package for Ukraine that was endorsed at the Warsaw Summit last year, says Dr Jamie Shea, NATO Deputy Assistant Secretary General for Emerging Security Challenges. Together, these countries aim to design a state-of-the-art digital ground penetrating radar system which will detect dangerous targets such as mines, improvised explosive devices and explosive remnants of war. The device will provide a visual 3D image and automatically recognise the type of the detected object in up to three meters depth. Ultimately, the technology will allow faster, cheaper and safer clearance of former conflict zones and help to avoid victims among civilians and the military.
Go here to read the rest:
NATO - News: Norway strengthens scientific cooperation with NATO ... - NATO HQ (press release)
A House Republican lawmaker said Thursday that some members of the NATO alliance are still dependent on Russia for military equipment for their air and ground forces, which is makes it harder for the U.S. to count on them as allies.
"We have not weaned them off," Rep. Paul Cook, a retired Marine Corps colonel, said of those countries during a House Foreign Affairs subcommittee hearing.
The California Republican said the use of "Soviet-style" equipment is a complicating factor for U.S. policy. It leaves the eastern European NATO allies vulnerable to Russian aggression, in addition to complicating their efforts to fulfill President Trump's demand that they increase military spending.
"They still have to go back to the new Russia for those things that they have [had] for years and until they become a total member of NATO in terms of our military equipment and everything else, I think it diminishes their capability as a true ally," Cook told Pentagon and State Department officials during the hearing.
Cook urged the Trump administration to sell eastern European allies American military equipment that can replace the Russian weapons systems. "It doesn't seem like a big priority, and yet, countries there, they've been with us and everything else, but we expect them to come to the fight when and if the Russians come across," he said.
The allies have to want to make such deals, though. "I am seeing on my travels a desire to move away from Russian equipment and into NATO standard type equipment," Vice Admiral Joseph Rixey, director of the U.S. Defense Security Cooperation Agency, told Cook. "We are prepared to execute if requested."
The prevalence of Russian military equipment among some U.S. allies also hampered efforts to impose new sanctions again Russia in response to its aggression in Syria and Ukraine, and cyberattacks against the Democratic party in 2016.
"We're looking long and hard about allies that have Russian equipment," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told the Washington Examiner about a new Russia sanctions bill that passed the Senate today. "I think they negotiated a pretty good compromise ... what we're trying to do is make sure we don't undermine our allies but also go after [Russian President Vladimir] Putin."
See the article here:
Lawmaker warns: Some NATO allies still using Russian equipment - Washington Examiner