A competitor launches an autonomous underwater vehicle during CMRE's European Robotics League (ERL) competition (file image courtesy CMRE)

By Edward Lundquist 02-03-2021 03:39:00

NATO knows it must help create and develop its own workforce for tomorrow. Thats why the scientists, engineers and technicians at the NATO Centre for Maritime Research and Experimentation (CMRE) in La Spezia, Italy, are looking for the next generation to take their place, and theyre starting with high school and college students.

A part of NATOs Science and Technology Organization, CMRE has a vibrant outreach effort to encourage young people to get involved with science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) subjects.

CMRE Director Dr. Catherine Warner is proud of the centers engagement with schools in the local community. This is close to my heart, because we want to encourage young people, and young women especially, to get into STEM. When we look at maintaining our technological edge, one of the things we need are qualified people, and that starts with getting people educated in STEM.

CMREs relationship with high schools in and around La Spezia, as well as colleges and universities that come to the Centre to participate in international projects, has successfully attracted people who are obtaining STEM degrees and work in relevant fields to become involved with the Centre, including joining CMRE as research interns.

Warner cites a local internship program that has been particularly rewarding. In La Spezia, students who attend the technical high school do internships in their junior and senior year. Weve provided opportunities for some of them to come here to CMRE. You wouldnt believe how technically advanced they are.

CMRE joined the Blue Template Blue Tech Educational Partnership Project with the Ligurian District of Marine Technologies (https://www.dltm.it/) in 2018 to develop training activities aimed at fostering the exchange of innovation, experience and know-how between different types of organizations, including education, training and industry. Through this project, CMRE helped to expand the boundaries of the classroom by offering experiential learning opportunities to local technical high school students in La Spezia. In May 2018, eight students arrived at the Centre to tour the labs and facilities as well as attend lectures on mechatronics and underwater robotics applications, given by Dr. Gabriele Ferri. Through this internship, students engaged in collaborative learning and critical thinking in the field of maritime defence science and were able to see first-hand how a professional laboratory operates. The programme is expected to resume for the 2021-2022 academic year.

Another recent success story is the Giona Project, an initiative that involves several institutions in the area of La Spezia aimed at promoting awareness, understanding, and the safeguarding of the marine environment among students. Weve done research here at CMRE on the impact of acoustic energy on marine mammals, which is of interest to our nations, because we want to avoid harming marine mammals, Warner explained. Through a cooperation agreement with three local high schools, tutored and assisted by CMRE scientists and engineers, students and their teachers have had the chance to embark on-board the NATO Coastal Research Vessel Leonardo to conduct a real bio-acoustic research project.

We provided acoustics data to the students, and they went out on Leonardo to acquire additional data, and then conducted an analysis as a science project. Ultimately, the students were able to present their findings at a very large and prestigious conference here in La Spezia in May 2018 with the European Cetacean Society, and also during a final workshop with schools, local authorities and media in Lerici in June 2019, said Dr. Diego Merani, CMREs Head of Scientific Communications and Information Systems and the project manager ofthe Giona Project. It was a huge success, and we hope to continue that relationship.

The 2020 trial was cancelled due to COVID 19, but Merani said the centre is working to allow the students processing data in the cloud, with CMRE scientists providing remote tutoring sessions.

Warner said the Giona Project exemplifies the longstanding close ties with the neighbouring community. The woman who led this effort for the La Spezia School System, Dr. Pamela Nascetti, is a biologist who worked at CMRE. In fact, her father worked here.

Warner hopes to have more students come to CMRE and design and conduct their own experiments.

In addition to the Giona project, another major event at CMRE is the European Robotics League (ERL) Emergency robotic competition. Now part of the SciRoc EU project and sponsored by IEEE Oceanic Engineering Society (OES) and Blue Robotics, and with the help of the Italian Naval Support and Experimentation Centre (CSSN) next door to CMRE, the ERL Emergency competitions attract student robotics teams from around the world.

The teams robots compete outdoors and underwater to carry out tasks in realistic emergency response scenarios. One task is for the robots to autonomously find a mannequin underwater that represents a casualty. Although ERL Emergency is a competition, its a friendly one that promotes collaboration and exchange of ideas between international teams of science and engineering students with a common interest in robotics. These young people will be building the robots of tomorrow, which will be doing more dull, dirty and dangerous work so that humans dont have to.

The annual robotics events include talks on robotics topics, ranging from robotics disaster-response strategies in response to a nuclear accident, to ocean robotics for surveillance applications, and are given by visiting speakers from around the world.

The competitions help develop the next generation of robotics scientists; act as a benchmarking activity to compare the suitability and reliability of robotic systems; and create vital connections and collaborations between CMRE and the worldwide robotics community. The success of these events has raised awareness of CMRE as one of the worlds leading institutions in marine robotics research.

Some of the competition participants have returned as interns and visiting scholars, further strengthening CMREs outreach efforts.

TheCMRE Visiting Researcher Programme(VRP)offers the best and brightest students,university researchers and scientists and engineers from NATO nations laboratories the opportunity to participate in research at the Centre. Visiting Researchers have access to CMRE equipment, facilities, and data, and growing their research experience through collaboration with CMRE scientists and engineers at the Centre, located on the beautiful west coast of Italy. Some stipends and expenses are covered, depending on education and experience.

The program provides opportunities for work experience in one of CMREs core competencies, which include underwater acoustics, sensors and signal processing, ocean observation and prediction, operations research of complex systems, remote sensing and adaptive sampling, communication engineering, ocean engineering, information theory, cognitive science, and autonomy and collective intelligence. Current research programmes based on these competencies include autonomous mine countermeasures, cooperative anti-submarine warfare, environmental knowledge and operational effectiveness, marine mammal risk mitigation and maritime security.

We definitely have an amazing team, with incredible ideas and a great work ethic, said Warner. We have around 50 engineers, and have always been able to attract the top-tier of scientists from the nations. Currently we have 47 NATO civilian scientists, as well as more than 20 visiting researchers who will come here for several months to work with us. We recently had a couple of students from the French Naval Academy here working on deep learning and automatic target recognition.And thats really the point of CMRE, to have people come here with their expertise, experience and knowledge, and go home with a better understanding of NATOs challenges and opportunities.

Despite the COVID 19 pandemic, the CMRE STEM education outreach programme has continued with Introduction to Robotics, an online lecture given by a CMRE scientist for a group of 20 local students who are participating in the robotics track of Giona Project. These students are building a remotely operated underwater vehicle to participate in an upcomingroboticscompetitionthis fall.

Edward Lundquist is a retired U.S. Navy captain who writes on naval, maritime and defense issues.

The opinions expressed herein are the author's and not necessarily those of The Maritime Executive.

See the rest here:

NATO Marine Research Center Reaches Out to Young Scientists - The Maritime Executive

Welcome to Foreign Policys Security Brief. Whats on tap today: Biden pauses Trumps troop withdrawal from Germany, U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin confronts extremism in the military, and tensions between China and Taiwan continue to rise.

If you would like to receive Security Brief in your inbox every Thursday, please sign up here.

Not Quite Ready to Move On

The Biden administration has frozen former President Donald Trumps plans to withdraw some 12,000 U.S. troops from Germany and is conducting a review of the decision, according to the top commander of U.S. forces in Europe, Air Force Gen. Tod Wolters.

Trump abruptly announced in July that he would withdraw one-third of U.S. troops from Germany12,000 of some 36,000 totalbecause Berlin failed to meet NATO defense spending targets. The move came as a surprise to German officials and was made against the advice of some of Trumps own aides.

What Wolters said. The new administration has comfortably stated to us that we need to conduct a thorough review, cradle to grave, in all areas, Wolters told reporters on Wednesday. And then, after theyre allowed to conduct that review, well go back to the drawing board. What I will say that exists at this very moment is that every single one of those options, that theyre all on hold, and they will all be reexamined.

Speaking at a White House briefing on Thursday, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan confirmed that Biden was freezing the withdrawal as part of a global review undertaken by Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin.

The backdrop. Then-Defense Secretary Mark Esper slapped a veneer of strategic coherence on the withdrawal decision when it was first announced in July 2020, saying the move was part of broader plans to reorient U.S. troops to better face Russian aggression. He insisted it would not undermine NATO unity, and that some troops could be repositioned to the Black Sea and rotations in the Baltics and Poland.

Then Trump undercut his defense secretary, doubling down on claims that Germany, like other allies, was taking advantage of the United States and not paying its fair share to NATO defense. We dont want to be the suckers any more, Trump said at the time. Were reducing the force because theyre not paying their bills; its very simple.

Now, theres a new sheriff in town. Team Biden seems intent on trying to repair relations with its NATO allies after four years of tensions, spats, and awkward photo ops. The pause on troop withdrawals from Germany clearly fits into that plan, though the populist narrative that allies are taking advantage of U.S. military presence worldwide wont disappear with Trump.

What the experts are saying. Jim Townsend, a former Pentagon NATO policy official under the Obama administration, told Foreign Policy that it was important for Washington to complete the review on the plans and make a decision quicklynot least for the U.S. troops and their families stationed in Germany who are caught in limbo.

Not only do our guys in the field need to know, but the Germans need to know too, Townsend added. If we really want to begin to restore the relationship with Germany, and with Europe generally, we need to address this early on and in consultation with them so we can make up for that lack of consultation.

What Were Watching

Stand down. Secretary of Defense Austin has ordered the U.S. military to schedule a stand down within the next 60 days to address the issue of extremism in the ranks after the Jan. 6 pro-Trump assault on the U.S. Capitol. The move means that every unit will have to break from normal operations for a short period of time within the next two months in order to deal with the problem. It was not immediately clear how the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Space Force would implement the new guidance.

Systematic abuse. Women in Chinas Uighur internment camps face a systematic pattern of rape, abuse, and torture, according to new accounts from survivors told to the BBC. The disturbing details of what some of an estimated 1 million interned Uighurs have endured under the Chinese government crackdown prompted immediate outcry from human rights groups. The revelations could further chill relations between Beijing and the Biden administration, which appears set to keep in place Trumps determination that Chinas abuses in Xinjiang amount to genocide.

Strait on through. Speaking of China: A U.S. Navy guided missile destroyer transited the Taiwan Strait today in a move meant to flex U.S. military muscles with an eye tto Beijing. Its the first time a U.S. ship has transited the waterway during the Biden administration. A Navy spokesman described the passage as routine, but it comes after rising tensions near the strait in recent days, with Chinese aircraft buzzing the area and prompting a rebuke from the Biden administration.

Feb. 4: French President Emmanuel Macron will speak at a virtual event at the Atlantic Council.

Feb. 9: Donald Trumps second impeachment trial begins in the Senate.

Feb. 9: The U.N. Security Council convenes to discuss the ongoing conflict in Syria.

FBI gets a deputy. FBI Director Chris Wray has tapped Paul Abbate as the agencys deputy director, according to a Monday press release. Abbate was considered for the top FBI job under Trump, but he was passed over. A long-tenured law enforcement official, Abbate had previously served as associate deputy director of the FBI, and as executive assistant director for the criminal, cyber, response, and services branch.

The Biden administration plans to keep Wray in the top post.

Duss in the wind. Sen. Bernie Sanders top foreign-policy advisor is expected to depart Capitol Hill for a role at the State Department, Politico reported on Wednesday. The hiring of Matt Duss, one of the architects of the challenges to Trumps war powers authority that allowed U.S. forces to assist the Saudi-led coalition in the Yemen war, would be a victory for progressives.

Want to know more? Check out Robbies profile of Duss from February 2020back when Sanders was vying for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Top NSC Russia job open. The top National Security Council job overseeing Russia appears to be up for grabs again. Andrea Kendall-Taylor, a veteran intelligence analyst now at the Center for a New American Security, was announced as the senior NSC director for Russia and Central Asia several weeks ago. But on Twitter she said she would be staying at CNAS after all.

New Iran envoy. Biden tapped Rob Malley to be his Iran envoy late last week, as we reported. He has his work cut out for him: Getting Iran back to the negotiating table on its nuclear program will be easier said than done.

Pence finds a new home. Trumps former Vice President Mike Pence will join the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, as a distinguished visiting fellow.

Space doesnt have a mother. You cant reach out and hug a satellite. You cant see it; you cant touch it. Its hard to have that connection.

Gen. John Raymond, head of the U.S. Space Force, on why the new military branch might have a bit of a PR problem in explaining to average Americans what it does

Foreign Policy Recommends

A real-life spy thriller. From Technology Review: Read this fascinating and largely unknown account of how a team of CIA officers, with the help of Mexican spy, borrowed a crashed Soviet spy satellite to unlock secrets of Moscows Cold War space program.

Sounds uncomfortable. A smuggler was apprehended in New Zealand with nearly 1,000 cacti and other plants strapped to her, according to the Guardian. The plants were reportedly worth over $10,000.

Thats it for today.

For more from Foreign Policy, subscribehereorsign upfor our other newsletters. You can find older editions of Security Briefhere.

Read the original post:

The Post-Trump Reset With NATO Starts in Germany - Foreign Policy

With none of the usual fanfare associated with such a momentous decision, the Pentagon announced last month a major reorganisation to bring Israel - for the first time- inside its military command in the Middle East alongside the Arab states.

Until now, Israel has belonged to the US militarys European command, or Eucom, rather than the Middle Eastern one, known as Central Command, or Centcom.The decision effectively jettisoned the traditional wisdom that Israels inclusion in Centcom would increase friction between the US and Arab states, and would make the latter more reluctant to share intelligence or cooperate with the Pentagon.

Those concerns were felt especially keenly when the US had large numbers of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Back in 2010, David Petraeus, then Centcoms commander, expressed fears that the price of too-overt military collusion with Israel could be exacted on US forces stationed in the region.

But Israels long-standing goal has been to force the Pentagon to restructure Centcom, and pressure had mounted from pro-Israel lobby groups in Washington in the final months of the Trump administration. The decision looked very much like a "parting gift"to Israel from President Donald Trump as he stepped down.

Israels formal transfer to Centcom has not yet taken place, but the move was cemented last week with the first visit to Israel by General Kenneth McKenzie, the current head of Centcom, since Joe Biden entered the White House.Alongside Israels military chief of staff, Aviv Kohavi, McKenzie planted a tree - officially to mark the Jewish holiday of Tu Bishvat but symbolically representing a new era in their strategic partnership.

The decision to bring Israel inside Centcom is best viewed - from Washingtons perspective - as the culmination of efforts to push the Arab states into public 'normalisation' with Israel

On Friday, after a meeting with the US general, Benny Gantz, Israels defence minister, issued a statement praising the Pentagons reorganisation, saying it would "afford Israel opportunity to deepen cooperation with new regional partners and broaden operative horizons".

The decision to bring Israel inside the US military command in the Middle East is best viewed - from Washingtons perspective - as the culmination of efforts to push the Arab states into public "normalisation"with Israel.

Military normalisation can now be added to the political, diplomatic and economic normalisation that formally began last September when two Gulf states, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, signed the so-called Abraham Accords with Israel.Morocco and Sudan have also announced their own peace deals with Israel, and other Arab states are likely to follow suit once the dust settles with the incoming Biden administration.

Since the signing of the Abraham Accords, the UAE has been forging strong trading ties with Israel and has helped to establish the Abraham Fund, designed to finance the infrastructure of occupation Israel has used to deprive the Palestinians of statehood.When flights to Dubai were launched in November, Israeli tourists poured into the UAE to take advantage of the new friendly relations and escape lockdown restrictions back home.

In fact, it is widely reported that such visits have become one of the main ways Israel has imported new variants of Covid-19.Last week, Israel effectively closed its borders - except to General McKenzie - to keep the virus in check.

On the face of it, Israels desire to move into Centcom - a kind of Middle East Nato covering several Arab states with which Israel still has hostile relations - appears counter-intuitive. But, in fact, Israel will make major strategic gains.

How Gulf states became business partners in Israel's occupation

It will align US security interests in the region even more closely with Israels, at the expense of its Arab neighbours. It will aid Israels continuing efforts to crush the national ambitions of the Palestinians, with many Arab states either explicit or implicit cooperation. It will accentuate political tensions within the bloc of Arab states, further weakening it. And it will help to build pressure on recalcitrant Arab states to join the broader consensus against Israels one remaining significant regional foe: Iran.

It is significant that Washingtons long-standing concern about Israels presence in Centcom damaging US relations with the Arab states has apparently evaporated.

Once, the US was careful to distance itself from Israel whenever the Pentagon got deeply mired in the region, whether it was the US Gulf war of 1990 or the invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003. Those calculations no longer seem relevant.

The move demonstrates a growing US confidence that the Arab states - at least those that matter to Washington - are unperturbed about being seen to make a military accommodation with Israel, in addition to political and economic engagement.It underscores the fact that the oil-rich Gulf states, alongside Israel, are now the key drivers of US foreign policy in the region and suggests that the most important, Saudi Arabia, is waiting for the right moment to sign its own accord with Israel.

Israel, it is expected, will continue to conduct military exercises in Europe with Nato countries, but will soon be able to build similar direct relations with Arab armies, especially those being rapidly expanded and professionalised in the Gulf using its oil wealth.

It is likely that Israeli officers will soon move out of the shadows and publicly train and advise the UAE and Saudi armies as part of their joint roles in Centcom. Israels particular expertise, drawing on decades of surveilling, controlling and oppressing Palestinians, will be highly sought after in Gulf states fearful of internal dissent or uprisings.

As the Israeli scholar Jeff Halper has noted, Israel has shown how effective it is at translating its military and security ties with armies and police forces around the world into diplomatic support in international bodies.

The Middle East is not likely to be different. Once Israel has become the linchpin of more professionalised armies in the region, those states dependent on its help can be expected to further abandon the Palestinian cause.

Another dividend for Israel will be complicating Washingtons relations with the Arab region.

Not only does Centcom operate major bases in the Gulf, especially in Bahrain and Qatar, but it leads the proclaimed "war on terror", with overt or covert operations in several Arab states, including Iraq and Syria.

With Israel inside Centcom, the US and its most favoured Arab states are also likely to be more directly implicated in Israels major military operations against the Palestinians, such as the repeated 'wars'on Gaza

It will be harder for the US to disentangle itself from Israels own openly belligerent operations, including air strikes, in both countries, that are conducted in flagrant violation of international law. Tensions between the US and Baghdad have in the past escalated over Israeli air strikes in Iraq, with threats to limit US access to Iraqi airspace.

With Israel inside Centcom, the US and its most favoured Arab states are also likely to be more directly implicated in Israels major military operations against the Palestinians, such as the repeated "wars"on Gaza.

This will pose a significant challenge to the regions cooperative institutions such as the Arab League. It is almost certain to drive an even deeper wedge between pro-Washington Arab states and those accused of being on the wrong side of the "war on terror".

The result could be a regional divide-and-rule policy cultivated by Israel that mirrors the decades-long, disabling divisions Israel has generated in the Palestinian leadership, most pronounced in the split between Fatah and Hamas.

The biggest bonus for Israel will be a more formal alliance with Arab states against Iran and shepherding more ambivalent states into Israels orbit.

That appears to have been the purpose of the recently well-publicised reconciliation between the UAE and Saudis on one side and Qatar on the other, achieved in the dying days of the Trump administration. One of the chief causes of the lengthy blockade of Qatar related to its insistence on maintaining political and economic ties with Tehran.

Israels aim is to force the Biden administrations hand in continuing Trumps belligerent anti-Iran policy, which included aggressive sanctions, assassinations and tearing up the 2015 nuclear agreement with Tehran signed by Barack Obama. That deal had given inspectors access to Iran to ensure it did not develop a nuclear bomb that might neutralise the strategic clout Israel gains from its nuclear arsenal.

Once Israel has become the linchpin of more professionalised armies in the region, those states dependent on its help can be expected to further abandon the Palestinian cause

Inside Centcom, Israel will be able to work more closely with Gulf allies to sabotage any efforts inside Washington to revive the nuclear accord with Tehran. That point was underscored last week when an online security conference, hosted by Tel Aviv University, was attended by two Gulf ministers.

At the conference, Kochavi, Israels military chief of staff, issued an unprecedented public rebuke to Biden over recent statements that he wished to revive the nuclear deal. Kochavi called the agreement "bad and wrong strategically and operatively", claimed that Iran would launch nuclear missiles at Israel once it had them, and declared that a go-it-alone attack by Israel "must be on the table".

Bahrains foreign minister, Abdullatif al-Zayani, observed that Israel and the Gulf states would have a better chance of preventing any US conciliation towards Iran if they spoke in a "unified voice". He added: "A joint regional position on these issues will exert greater influence on the United States."

That view was echoed by Anwar Gargash, the UAEs foreign affairs minister.

In a sign of how the Biden administration is already fearful of taking on a broad Middle Eastern alliance against Iran, the new presidents pick for secretary of state, Antony Blinken, said last month it was "vitally important"to consult with Israel and the Gulf states before re-entering the deal.

Is the UAE plotting with Israel against Palestinian refugees?

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, desperate to bolster his electoral fortunes and deflect attention from his looming corruption trial, has every incentive to prise open that chink.

Ensuring Iran remains the Middle Easts number one bogeyman - the focus of western hostility - is in the joint interests of an Israel that has no intention of ending its decades-old obstruction of Palestinian statehood and of Gulf states that have no intention of ending their own human rights abuses and promotion of Islamic discord.

Mike Pompeo, Trumps departing secretary of state, planted a landmine last month designed to serve Israeli and Saudi interests by highlighting the fact that a number of al-Qaeda leaders have found shelter in Iran.That echoed the Bush administrations - in this case, entirely fanciful - claim of ties between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein as a pretext, along with non-existent WMD, for the invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003.

With Israels arrival in Centcom, the lobbying for a repeat of that catastrophic blunder can only grow - and with it, the prospects for renewed conflagration in the Middle East.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.

Read this article:

Why Israel is joining the Pentagon's 'Arab Nato' - Middle East Eye

China and Russia are forming a new axis of power, NATOs top general has warned.

Tod Wolters, NATOs Supreme Allied Commander Europe, or SACEUR, has told reporters that growing co-operation really does suggest an emergence of a partnership of convenience.

Its a partnership that potentially spans the globe, from the Middle East to the Western Pacific and Arctic north.

We are ever so vigilant with respect to that growing co-operation, Wolters said. Such co-operation advanced mutual interests, and that advancement could be to the detriment of Europe and corresponding and surrounding nations.

NATO has accused Russia of breaching international treaties through the development of new nuclear weapons. It also blames Russian-sourced cyber attacks and disinformation campaigns for destabilising the West.

China is also coming under increased scrutiny over its repression of the Uighur and Tibetan peoples and its aggressive territorial claims and debt-trap diplomacy.

RELATED: Nuclear war threat a real possibility

Meanwhile, both authoritarian governments show intense interest in the Arctic as the retreating ice exposes potential new oil, gas and mineral reserves.

In the face of increasing aggressive activity in the high north from both Russia, which is an Arctic nation, and China, which claims to be a near-Arctic nation, we must maintain a favourable balance of power in this region for ourselves and for our allies, outgoing US Navy Secretary Kenneth Braithwaite warned last month.

EMERGING AXIS

Things havent always been so genial between the two powers.

Russia and China share a 4200km border. And large portions of Moscows mineral-rich eastern provinces are claimed by Beijing as part of its historical domain - including the city of Vladivostok.

For now, President Vladimir Putin and Chairman Xi Jinping have put that source of disagreement aside.

Russia and China began strengthening their diplomatic, economic and military ties after Western nations imposed sanctions on Moscow in 2014. Russia had just invaded the Crimean Peninsula and launched covert combat operations in eastern Ukraine.

In 2018, the two powers contributed hundreds of thousands of troops and aircraft and warships towards their largest-ever joint military exercise.

In 2019, Putin and Xi shook hands over a significant gas pipeline project linking Siberia to northeast China.

In 2020, Russian warships and combat jets joined Chinese military exercises in the western Pacific.

And theyve begun co-operating in the Arctic.

Without sustained American naval presence and partnerships in the Arctic region, peace and prosperity will be increasingly challenged by Russia and China, whose interests and values differ dramatically from ours, a recent US Navy report states.

Some 90 per cent of trade is carried by sea. The retreating Arctic ice can dramatically shorten shipping routes to and from Asia, Europe and North America.

Left uncontested, incremental gains from increased aggression and malign activities could result in a fait accompli, with long-term strategic benefits for our competitors, the Blue Arctic: A Strategic Blueprint report warns.

WORST-CASE SCENARIOS

Hudson Institute Center for Defence Concepts senior fellow Bryan Clark says the West needs to reconsider how to contend with a Russia-China alliance.

That alliance goes go far beyond warships and warplanes working together, he warns.

Unless (the Pentagon) begins to rethink its scenarios and rebalancing its forces, recent Chinese and Russian grey-zone successes in the East and South China Seas or Crimea could become the norm and the US military could find itself losing a battle of inches against patient competitors who are willing to play the long game.

Clark says the West believed worst-case scenarios included an invasion of Taiwan, a lengthy blockade of Japans southwest islands or a sustained submarine threat off the US coast.

But Clark says Moscow and Beijing are well aware of this and have adapted their plans accordingly. Both are methodically developing strategies and systems that circumvent the US militarys advantages and exploit its vulnerabilities by avoiding the types of situations for which US forces have prepared, he adds.

They have shifted their primary battlefield from the sea and the sky to the digital and propaganda domains.

The Chinese and Russian militaries seek to make information and decision-making the main battlegrounds for future conflict (to) direct forces to electronically or physically degrade an opponents information sources and communications while introducing false data that erodes the defenders orientation and understanding.

Follow-up hybrid, or grey-zone, operations using paramilitaries and mercenaries could then seize objectives without providing an immediate trigger for retaliation.

NEW WORLD ORDER

Chinese chairman Jian Zemin and Russian President Boris Yeltsin met in 1997, vowing to promote the multipolarisation of the world and the establishment of a new international order.

Their successors, Chairman Xi and President Putin, are well down the path of putting that plan into effect.

RELATED: Russia on the brink of revolution

Analysts in the West specifically doubted that Beijing and Moscow could overcome decades of mistrust and rivalry to co-operate against US efforts to maintain and shape the international order, write political scientists Professor Alexander Cooley and Associate Professor Daniel Nexon.

But the 1997 declaration now looks like a blueprint for how Beijing and Moscow have tried to reorder international politics in the last 20 years.

Both have sought to manipulate and discredit international organisations and Western institutions.

At the same time, they are building an alternative order through new institutions and venues in which they wield greater influence and can de-emphasise human rights and civil liberties, they write. The net result is the emergence of parallel structures of global governance that are dominated by authoritarian states and that compete with older, more liberal structures.

And that is as much a result of their growing alliance as the more visible joint military exercises.

Beijing and Moscow appear to be successfully managing their alliance of convenience, defying predictions that they would be unable to tolerate each others international projects, say Cooley and Nexon.

This new brand of great power competition is being fought out among international non-government organisations, charities, lending institutions and legal tribunals.

Although the United States still enjoys military supremacy, that dimension of US dominance is especially ill-suited to deal with this global crisis and its ripple effects, they warn.

Jamie Seidel is a freelance writer | @JamieSeidel

View post:

China and Russia have formed axis of power, NATOs top general warns - NEWS.com.au

Tensions over anemic European defense spending have long suffused transatlantic relationsand since 2014, they have become all-consuming, crowding out other priorities, straining the alliance, and leading to exasperation on both sides of the Atlantic. U.S. President Donald Trump has repeatedly berated NATO allies for failing to invest more in their militaries, and at big transatlantic gatherings, the issue is the elephant in the room.

President-elect Joe Biden, a committed transatlanticist, will undoubtedly take a less strident tone than his predecessor has done on this issue. But the elephant will still be there, because the European pillar of NATO really is in a sorry state that undermines the alliances credibility. The United States does need more from Europe on defensebut the United Statesalso needs to recognize thatsimplypressing individual member states to increase their spending is just not working.

The European Union has a role to play in the common defense that the United States has long ignored. In fact, the United States has thus far scorned the EUs defense ambitions and viewed the union as a competitor to NATO. Such an approach serves only to weaken both NATO and the EU, and the incoming Biden administration should reverse it.

Only the EU can integrate and transform Europes fragmented and inefficient militaries into a potent pillar of NATO. Supporting its efforts to do so would strengthen not only the U.S. military alliance with Europe but its political one as well. The EU is home to 450 million people, and its economy is the second largest in the world. When Europe is able to act as one through the EUwhether in the realms of global trade, Brexit negotiations, or global regulatory standardsit is a superpower and exactly the potent democratic ally the United States needs. But currently, in the realm of defense, European power amounts to less than the sum of its parts.

The United States needs that to change. And so Washington should drop its long-standing, almost dogmatic opposition to the EUs involvement in defense and work with its European ally to support a collective European defense that will ultimately strengthen NATO.

Defense spending in many NATO countries dipped sharply following the economic crisis in 2008. But events in the year 2014 forced the alliance to reckon with its apparent unreadiness to defend its members territory. Russia breached the Ukrainian border, raising an alarm within the alliance about the possible resurgence of threats from its east. At a summit in Wales, leaders of NATO member states agreed to work toward spending a minimum of two percent of their GDP annually on defense within the decade to follow.

Since that time,European states have increased their spending on defense, butoverall they have fallen well short of thetwo percentgoal.Despite some progress,U.S. leaders havetreated reachingtwo percentas arequirementTrump even insisted onfour percent.But the deadline is now less than four years away, and just ten out of 30 countries have cleared the two percent threshold, up from three in 2014. European member states that did not dramatically increase defense spending during the tenure of a president who threatened to withdraw the United States from NATO are even less likely to do so now, with budgets under pressure from the coronavirus pandemic and an incoming U.S. president they can trust to cover their flank.

Insisting that European states hit two percent by 2024 is setting up the alliance to fail. Not only are these states unlikely to hit the target, but even if they did, the results would likely be underwhelming. The two percent metric is, after all, arbitrary, as it is not tied to specific defense requirements, and is moreover subject to broader economic fluctuations. Greece, for instance, hit two percent only because its GDP contracted so dramatically, increasing its militarys share of the shrinking budget. Indeed, marginal increases in any single countrys defense spending wont automatically help improve the European pillar of NATO, which is plagued with inefficiencies. EU member states in total spend roughly $200 billion annually on defense, on a par with China. But Europe struggles to deploy forces; it runs out of munitions when it fights; and its forces are seldom prepared to fight.

The problem, then, is not really low spending but that European defense spending is fragmented, wasteful, and redundant. For instance, although Germany is the strongest economic power in Europe, few of Germanys attack helicopters are ready for combat. France, by contrast, has a very capable military engaged in active combat operations in the Sahel. But French forces depend on U.S. support for those operations. When European states spend on defense, most of them allocate too little of their budgets to research and development and face stark tradeoffs between acquiring expensive new technologies and simply maintaining the forces they have. As the European defense analyst Sven Biscop of the Egmont Institute assesses, The status of Europes armed forces and their dependence on the US will basically remain unaltered, even if they all spend 2 percent of their GDP.

U.S. leaders have long viewed the EU as just another complicated, multilateral bureaucracy. To the extent that it got involved in defense, Washington imagined, the EU would duplicate and undermine NATOs function. But the EU has transformed since its founding in 1993, becoming something much more like a state than a multilateral organization. Europeans in the EU are EU citizens, subject to EU law, free to live and work where they please in the union. They have their own currency, a de facto national language (English), and a federal government in Brussels.

As the union has drawn together, Europeans have come to perceive defense and foreign policy as more of a collective concern than a national one. Support across Europe for EU defense is extremely high, consistently polling above 70 percent. Within European states, however, there is considerably less support for diverting national resources away from domestic priorities, such as health and education, and toward the high-end weapons systems that are required to marginally improve NATOs collective defense capacity. The lack of national interest in defense spending is therefore not a short-term problem for NATO; it is structural.

The EU has sought to expand its role in defense even as its member states have grown more parochial. In 1999, the EU proposed establishing a 60,000-troop rapid reaction force that could deploy around the world without the United States. More recently, the EU created the Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO), an initiative designed to facilitate defense cooperation among member states, and a European Defence Fund through which to invest more than $1 billion per year in defense projects.

U.S. leaders have greeted such proposals with disdain, sending their European counterparts nasty letters and casting Washingtons diplomatic weight against EU defense efforts. Many in Washington worry that an empowered EU will not only duplicate NATO but become a French-dominated foe that will undercut the alliance and act against the United States. But that notion is absurd: the EU and NATO share 21 of the same member states. If Paris sought to turn EU defense into a Gaullist tool to untether Europe from the United States, it would need the assent not only of the other EU member states but also of Brussels, whose interests lie in sustaining strong transatlantic relations for as long as the United States remains committed to them.

For decades, the United States and other NATO countries have simply accepted duplication and inefficiency as part and parcel of a 30-member multinational alliance. But the EU offers NATO an effective vehicle for pooling resources and transforming the European defense sector. Rather than simply pushing NATOs member states to spend more, the Biden administration should encourage Europeans to integrate their defense capabilities through the EU.

At the first NATO summit of his administration, President Biden should make clear that the United States has reconsidered its orientation toward EU defense. Biden can support a European Union with strategic autonomy, as its leaders have described their objective, while making clear that doing so does not mean detaching Europes interests from those of the United States so much as reducing the unions dependence on U.S. military protection. American officials should encourage the EUs leaders to invest generously in the European Defence Fund and to upgrade infrastructure so that heavy tanks can better move across Europe.

Empowering the EU in this manner will undoubtedly require organizational adjustments within NATO. But such a necessity should not be viewed in bizarrely apocalyptic termsas an existential threat to the alliance. Rather, the issue is a bureaucratic one that can be overcome with close coordination between the two organizations. The EU should ultimately work hand in glove with the alliance, much the same way a member state would do.

U.S. support for EU defense will not be a panacea, but it will go a long way toward strengthening the European pillar of NATO. If the United States had fully backed EU defense efforts 25 years ago, European defense would likely be much more robust than it is today. Frustrating inefficiencies would doubtless remain, and deadbeat nations would still resist doing their part. But NATO would likely be a stronger alliance and the EU a better global partner to the United States. The Biden administration should encourage this integration process to begin.

Loading...Please enable JavaScript for this site to function properly.

Original post:

The EU Is the Military Ally the United States Needs - Foreign Affairs Magazine

Jens Stoltenberg, the secretary general of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), called for the results of the 2020 U.S. presidential electionto be "respected" as pro-Trumprioters stormed through the Capitol building Wednesday.

"Shocking scenes in Washington, D.C. The outcome of this democratic election must be respected," Stoltenberg tweeted.

Shocking scenes in Washington, D.C. The outcome of this democratic election must be respected.

President TrumpDonald TrumpCapitol Police officer dies following riots Donor who gave millions to Hawley urges Senate to censure him for 'irresponsible' behavior Kellyanne Conway condemns violence, supports Trump in statement on Capitol riots MORE has so far not released any statements instructing his supporters to leave. Soon after rioters broke into the Capitol, he tweeted out a statement asking them to "Stay peaceful!"

Lawmakers have been evacuated out of the Capitol building. Numerous news outlets have reported that one woman has been shot on Capitol grounds.

Vice President Pence was ushered out of the buildingshortly before themob breached the Capitol.

He later tweeted, "The violence and destruction taking place at the US Capitol Must Stop and it Must Stop Now. Anyone involved must respect Law Enforcement officers and immediately leave the building."

Peaceful protest is the right of every American but this attack on our Capitol will not be tolerated and those involved will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

"Peaceful protest is the right of every American but this attack on our Capitol will not be tolerated and those involved will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law," he said in another tweet.

Trump's NATO ambassadorKay Bailey Hutchison had previously stated that the transition to a Biden administration would be "smooth" afterthe former vice president won the presidential election.

See the original post here:

NATO Secretary General: 'The outcome of this democratic election must be respected' | TheHill - The Hill

As the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan reaches the two-decade mark this year, NATO officials have made clear that they have bigger fish to fry. In the alliances new Strategy 2030 report, Afghanistan is mentioned just six times.

Yet as NATO positions itself for the next decade, the alliance has been transformed by its experience in Afghanistan and the lessons it learned there.

The cooperation of the 50-plus nations involved was a growth experience for the alliance, says Ian Lesser, executive director of the German Marshall Fund in Brussels. The bloc learned a lot ... in terms of habits of cooperation and interoperability that were tested everyday. Member forces also made use of some high-tech systems that many nations wouldnt have been exposed to in peacetime.

The alliance's lessons in Afghanistan may be in recognizing the corrosive effects of corruption and the ways in which the U.S. and its NATO allies inadvertently encouraged it, says retired Col. John Agoglia.

The billions of dollars that flooded into Afghanistan after the invasion made graft commonplace. We need to understand how we put money into an environment who were giving it to, what are the oversight mechanisms?

Brussels

As Americas longest war reaches the two-decade mark this year, one of President-elect Joe Bidens first orders of business will be figuring out a way forward in Afghanistan and, by extension, a roadmap for NATOs mission in the country.

Neither the Taliban nor Al Qaeda is at the top of Americas national security threat list anymore, and NATO officials, too, have been clear about their belief that they have bigger fish to fry. In the alliances new Strategy 2030 report, Afghanistan is mentioned just six times in 40 densely-packed pages.

The war in Afghanistan is a mission on which the success or failure of NATO was once thought to hinge. In its early days, the war was billed as not only a post-Cold War rebirth of the alliance, but also its 21st-century evolution.

No longer. The new security agenda, according to the report, will be dominated by competing great powers, in which assertive authoritarian states with revisionist foreign policy agendas in other words, China and Russia seek to expand their power and influence.

Yet as NATO prepares for the next decade, its challenges will be tackled by an alliance transformed, for better or worse, by its experience in Afghanistan and the lessons it has learned there. The question, analysts say, will be whether it chooses to heed them.

Afghanistan became NATOs marquee mission with the U.S. invasion in 2001, the first time in history that the alliance invoked Article V, which declares that an attack on one is an attack on all. The NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) was ultimately composed of allies from 50-plus countries, including non-NATO partners.

In the early years of the war, the running joke among U.S. forces, however, was that ISAF stood for I saw Americans fight, or I sunbathed at FOBs (forward operating bases, which are heavily fortified and largely safe). The underlying critique was that some allied governments used restrictions called caveats to prevent their troops from carrying out night missions, for example, or from deploying to certain more violent parts of the country and, as a result, U.S. and other fighting forces carried a heavier load.

Still, the cooperation was a growth experience for the alliance, says Ian Lesser, executive director of the German Marshall Fund in Brussels. These caveats did in some ways hinder the ISAFs ability to operate, but it operated nonetheless, and learned a lot by that in terms of habits of cooperation and interoperability that were tested everyday.

At the same time, the experience transformed the militaries of many NATO member nations. In Germany, some 90,000 troops have deployed to Afghanistan over the years. Theres no German general today who doesnt have military or even fighting experience there, says Markus Kaim, senior fellow at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs in Berlin. The same goes, too, for a generation of soldiers in Italy, Spain, the Netherlands, and Canada.

Member forces grew accustomed to collaborating on intelligence sharing and mission planning that made use of some high-tech systems that many nations wouldnt have been exposed to in peacetime, says Anthony Cordesman, defense analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. This in turn, led to a much better appreciation for allied capabilities.

And it led to an even greater appreciation for allies themselves including non-NATO partners, many of whom, like Australia and South Korea, took part in the Afghanistan war.

If we think about any military engagement of NATO going forward, well conceptualize it not as 30 member countries of NATO, but as a loose platform that includes other organizations and non-NATO partners as well, Dr. Kaim says. NATO needs partners, he says, because NATO is aware that it cant shy away from deep political changes were seeing.

The NATO 2030 report emphasizes making the bloc a more political alliance, which means making it a place where core security concerns of all sorts are discussed, Dr. Lesser says. The Asia-Pacific region, especially China, is a case in point. Its a recognition that the definition of what bears on Euro-Atlantic security has expanded tremendously.

This focus on great power competition, coupled with the varying levels of disenchantment with missions that dont end cleanly, means that the appetite for launching military operations again anytime soon will differ across the alliance.

It starts with the question of whether NATO members consider Afghanistan a success. Was it worth all the effort, the blood? Most people would likely answer not really, Dr. Kaim says. Militarily, an alliance with impressive weapons uprooted Al Qaeda but did not defeat the Taliban, which, though an effective guerrilla force, was never a highly sophisticated threat. On the nation-building front, You spent an incredible amount of money to achieve remarkably little, Dr. Cordesman says.

Yet the definition of success itself reflects the different strategic cultures within NATO. While America is deeply uncomfortable with the notion of not winning, for many NATO allies, analysts say, it was enough to show solidarity, to be present, and to make a contribution.

More broadly, Afghanistan was seen as the price to pay, and the right thing to do for NATO in return for the reassurance those countries get from the alliance on the bigger existential threats they face, Dr. Lesser says. The fact that theyve been present in Afghanistan is simply part of the insurance policy, and you have to pay these premiums over time.

And even as most members came out of their Afghan experience more cautious about exporting democracy, the 2030 report acknowledges, it also argues that its nonetheless vital that NATO doesnt allow democratic erosion.

For this to happen, NATO must take some key lessons of Afghanistan, including the corrosive effects of corruption and the ways in which the U.S. and its NATO allies may inadvertently encourage it, says retired Col. John Agoglia, former director of both the U.S. Armys Peacekeeping and Stability Operations Institute and the Counterinsurgency Training Center-Afghanistan, both in Kabul.

The billions of free-flowing Western dollars that flooded into Afghanistan after the invasion made graft and fraud easy and commonplace. We need to understand how we put money into an environment who were giving it to, what are the oversight mechanisms? What could be the second and third order impacts?

Corruption "undermined the legitimacy of the Afghan government, reduced its effectiveness, and created a source of resentment for its own population," which in turn drove Taliban recruitment and made it "much more difficult" for NATO to achieve its key mission goals, "from security to effective governance," Karolina MacLachlan, policy officer at Transparency International in London, wrote in NATO Review.

Get the Monitor Stories you care about delivered to your inbox.

At the same time, in bolstering some former Soviet republics to help resist Russian democratic undercutting and influence, as in Afghanistan, we may have to deal with some people who have blood on their hands, some who are corrupt, some who are trying to reform, Colonel Agoglia says. Weve learned a lot about understanding the limits of power, how to shape it as best you can, and how to take what you can get and its not always going to look pretty.

I get the great power competition, but its won and lost in the trenches doing these things so that if you actually do have to go into combat, he adds, you own the day.

View post:

War in Afghanistan: What has NATO learned from 20 years of fighting? - The Christian Science Monitor

Speaking ahead of a virtual address to German Christian Social Union (CSU) parliamentarians on Wednesday (6 January 2021), Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg explained that 2021 will be a crucial year for NATO. At a press point with Alexander Dobrindt, Chairman of the CSU Parliamentary Group, Mr. Stoltenberg praised Allied armed forces for supporting civilian efforts to cope with the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Secretary General also stressed that this year will be an important opportunity to re-energise transatlantic relations and further strengthen the bond between Europe and North America: So we need to stand together, North America and Europe, and I really count on Germany in playing a key role in these efforts.

Mr. Stoltenberg also made clear that 2021 will be a year of decisions for Afghanistan. He welcomed the ongoing peace talks: There are many challenges, and many uncertainties, but of course, peace talks are the only path to peace, the only way forward to a peaceful negotiated solution. We support those efforts. Mr. Stoltenberg added that NATO Defence Ministers will assess the future of NATOs mission in Afghanistan in February.

The Secretary General also stated that 2021 will be an important year for arms control and non-proliferation. He said: We need to make sure when the new START agreement expires next month that we dont end up with a situation where there is no agreement regulating the number of nuclear warheads.

Read the original post:

NATO Secretary General: 2021 will be a pivotal year - NATO HQ

NEW DELHI: A lawmaker on Monday introduced a bill in the US House of Representatives to terminate the designation of Pakistan as a Major non-NATO Ally (MNNA) a status that allows for various benefits such as access to excess US defence supplies and participation in cooperative defence research and development projects. Here is a look at the meaning and advantages of MNNA status. What is the Nato alliance?The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Nato) is an intergovernmental military alliance of 30 North American and European states. The alliance came into existence following the 1949 North Atlantic Treaty. The aim of the alliance is to constitute a system of collective defence whereby members agree to mutual defence in response to an external attack. Who are major non-Nato allies countries?The United States has designated 30 other countries as major non-Nato allies. These non-Nato countries share a strategic working relationship with the US Armed Forces. The MNNA status is granted to countries from Korea to Argentina, depending upon US strategic interests. Brazil was the latest country to b granted this status in 2020 by Donald Trump. The MNNA status was first created in 1987. The initial MNNAs were Australia, Egypt, Israel, Japan, and South Korea. When did Pakistan become MNNA?Pakistan became a part of this group in 2004 under the presidency of George W Bush. In 2017, US representatives Ted Poe and Rick Nolan introduced bill H.R. 3000 to revoke the status of Pakistan as a major non-Nato ally. In the same year, General Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, accused Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence of having ties to terror groups. According to a report, the US administration discussed downgrading Pakistan's status as major non-Nato allies as one of the possible responses. What are the benefits availed by MNNA states?While the major non-Nato ally status or its equivalent, does not automatically enjoin a mutual defence pact with the United States (as it does with Nato allies) it still confers a variety of military and financial advantages that otherwise are not obtainable by non-NATO countries, depending on the version of the amendment that is eventually signed by the President. Here is a look at some of the benefits of MNNA status:

Link:

Explained: What is a 'Major non-Nato Ally' status? - Times of India

At a farewell ceremony at Tapa base, east of Tallinn, Friday morning, commander of the contingent, Lt Col. Thomas Fogh, thanked his Estonian and U.K. colleagues.

Lt Col. Fogh said via a NATO press release that: "Our cooperation with the British-lead Battlegroup and the Estonian Defense Forces (EDF) 1st Brigade has been exemplary."

The British Army's5th Battalion, the Rifles (5 Rifles), an armored infantry battalion, forms the core of the battlegroup at present, and Lt Col. Fogh also handed over responsibilities which had been handled by Danish personnel to 5 Rifles commanding officer, Lt Col. Jim Hadfield.

Lt Col. Fogh said: "Together, we have conducted intensive training and taken part in various military exercises, We have exchanged knowledge and experience, and having had the opportunity to train here in Estonia has been invaluable. Additionally, it has been an honor to be an integrated part of the NATOs defense of Estonia and the Baltic States, and, personally, I am glad that our soldiers have had the opportunity to get to know the people of Estonia, with whom the Danes share a long history."

Around 200 Danish soldiers and officers have been stationed in Tapa across both rotations. Several Danish staff officers are to remain in Estonia, partly to prepare for the return of Danish forces in March 2022, pending final approval by the Danish Parliament.

Long-standing relationship between Denmark and Estonia

Cooperation between Danish and Estonian militaries goes back decades. Danish troops fought alongside Estonians during the 1918-1920 War of Independence and in recent years, troops from both countries have served together in various NATO missions, including in Bosnia, Iraq and Afghanistan.

According to legend, Denmark's flag, the Dannebrog, first appeared after floating down from the sky at the 1219 Battle of Lindanise, where Danish and German crusaders fought an Estonian army. Lindanise, or Lyndanisse, was an earlier name for Tallinn - itself deriving from a word meaning a Danish fort.

"We have a long history of cooperation with the Estonian military, and that will continue," Lt. Col Fogh. Said, adding that Danish personnel will be taking part in the annual Spring Storm EDF exercise this year, as well as EDF personnel making the return trip to Denmark to take part in a major exercise there.

"We will be sending Danish infantry troops to Estonia this spring, to participate in the annual Spring Storm exercise, and Estonian soldiers will also go to Denmark to take part in Brave Lion, the largest annual field training exercise held in Denmark."

Danish personnel had been presented mission medals by Estonia's Minister of Defense, Jri Luik (Isamaa), just before Christmas.

In addition to the Danes, French and Belgian soldiers have also made up the NATO eFP Battlegroup at various times since it was formed in 2017.

The equivalent eFP battlegroups in Latvia and Lithuania are Canadian- and German-led respectively, while the U.S. heads up the battlegroup in Poland. The groups' formation followed a decision made at the 2016 Warsaw Summit, which took place following the 2014 annexation of the Crimea region by the Russian Federation, and the ongoing insurgency war in eastern Ukraine which started that year. Tapa base has seen major expansion and development since that time.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!

Original post:

Danish NATO personnel say farewell to Tapa for the time being - ERR News

On the night of July 15, 2020, the Balkan nation of North Macedonia was anxiously awaiting the preliminary results of its parliamentary election. Soon after the polls closed, in what was first believed to be a minor technical glitch, the website of the State Election Commission went down.

The polling results were nowhere to be found on the website in the next several hours, as the commission resorted to manually announcing the latest updates on a makeshift YouTube channel. And things didnt get any better in the late hours of the night.

That night, the country suffered the biggest cyberattack in its history. The website of the electoral commission stayed down for the next few days, recovering from a full-scale distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attack that paralyzed its functions, as thousands of IP addresses targeted the site. Months later, the authorities probe into the matter has yet to produce any findings about who might have beenbehindthe attack.

While authorities claimed that the cyberattack did not have any serious consequences on the election process and the results themselves, it managed to highlight how fragile the IT systems of government institutions in the country are. A few weeks later, hackers also targeted several ministries, again demonstrating the urgent need for better cybersecurity measures.

The lack of expertise among the staff, insufficient financial resources, and the overall neglect of officials when it comes to the topic of cyberdefense are among the main issues plaguing state institutions across the region. Its not only North Macedonia; many other countries in the region just arent doing enough when it comes to having strong cyberdefense systems. And in most cases, individuals prove to be the weakest link because they have not been trained and educated on how to defend against such attacks.

In March 2020, North Macedonia became NATOs newest member. Looking to boost its overall defense capabilities, the country is now also putting its hopes on NATOs assets and expertise when it comes to improving its cybersecurity.

However, during the last few years, NATO member states across the region have also been hit hard by various cyberattacks. In 2019, neighboring Bulgaria suffered the largest theft of personal data in the region, after its National Revenue Agency was hacked. More than 5 million Bulgarians have had their personal data exposed, and the hacked database was shared on various hacking forums.

Authorities charged a 20-year-old Bulgarian cybersecurity expert for the hack, although the motives behind it remained unclear. The attack illustrated just how weak cybersecurity practices at Bulgarian government institutions were.

With the countrycurrentlyin a political turmoil and facing its next parliamentary elections in March 2021, the cyberattack on the National Revenue Agency could also serve as a warning of whats about to come.

Apart from ransomware attacks, DDoS and malware attacks are some of the most common tools that hackers have been using to target state institutions. In most cases, the damage that these types of attacks can do could be very expensive.

DDoS are one of the most common hacker attacks due to the fact they are relatively simple and inexpensive to implement, compared to other types of attacks, said Ljubica Pendaroska, a Skopje-based privacy and data protection expert.

But the potential harm that they can do could be worth millionscounted in lost earnings, compromised systems, creating distrust in institutions, data theft, and the like.

According to Pendaroska, such threats should constantly keep state institutions on alert and maintain an institutional awareness of the need for highly organized and functional protection systems.

The motives for these cyberattacks can vary. For some, as is the case with ransomware attacks, the gains could be purely financial. Others, however, might have more malicious intentions.

Montenegro, a NATO member since 2017 and an EU hopeful, held elections at the end of August. Fearing a reprisal of meddling attempts like the one that the Balkan country suffered in 2016, when a Russia-backed attempted coup took place, Montenegrin authorities held a jointmissionwith cybersecurity experts from the United States toward the end of 2019.

The mission aimed to prepare both sides for any possible Russian hacking attempts that could target the election processes in the two countries. However, as a recent suspected Russian hacking attack on U.S. government agencies showed, this might not be such an easy taskno matter how developed or technologically advanced a country might be.

This was a cunning cyber-espionage campaign that was very hard to detect. It reveals that the U.S. government needs to enhance its cyberdefenses, said Bilyana Lilly, an assistant policy researcher at Rand Corp.

Even if the U.S. government itself remains vulnerable, Washington is a cyberpower that can aid smaller countries. Various U.S. agencies can assist Bulgaria, Romania, North Macedonia, and other U.S. partners in the region, and they have done so on multiple occasions, Lilly explained.

In the Balkans, a regionknown for its political and economic instability, cyberattacks on state institutions could be used to fuel tensions among the many countries that have ongoing disputes, which could in turn have political and economic consequences.

Cyberwar missions like the one that the United States and Montenegro had last year can be particularly helpful, especially at a time when these cyberattacks are also becoming more advanced and harder to predict.

The institutional mind cannot think like the criminal alone, and, unfortunately, hackers are often one step ahead of the system, Pendaroska argued.

However, the constant aspiration of the institutions should be to invest in and implement appropriate, tested software solutions that will increase the resistance against such attacks, she added.

In the spring and summer of 2019, Romania alsosaw a part of its critical infrastructure in the health sectorclinics and hospitalssuffer several ransomware attacks. In May 2020, amid the COVID-19 pandemic, Romanian authorities managed to preventsimilar attacks, with hackers preparing to send coronavirus-themed emails to various hospitals across the country.

Recently, the Romanian capital of Bucharest won the race to host the EUs new research center for cybersecurity, which aims to assist the fight against private and state-sponsored hackers. Having an institution of this caliber in the region would show a strong commitment to building efficient capacities for thwarting cyberattacks.

Determining who is behind cyberattacks isnt always the easiest task; sometimes they come from within as NATO allies attack each other. Turkey and Greece, with a history of mutual confrontations and currently entangledin a spat about oil drilling in the Eastern Mediterranean, exchanged blows in cyberspace in 2020.

Last January, Turkish hackers took down several Greek government websites using massive DDoS attacks. Greek hackers retaliated by attacking Turkish public service websites, as well as several Turkish media outlets.

In both cases, however, it was difficult to prove whether the cyberattacks were state-sponsored or simply carried out by nationalistic hackers on both sides. Either way, the attacks again showed the fragile state of cybersecurity practices in longtime NATO member states such as Greece and Turkey.

These institutions are critical for the country, and attacking them has a political meaning. But still, this does not do anything to prove that the Turkish state is backing the hackers, said Minhac Celik, an Istanbul-based strategic cybersecurity researcher. What the attacks success explains, he added, is that Greek cyberdefenses are weak.

And such weaknesses could cost both sides. In the particular case of Turkey and Greece and their spat over the Eastern Mediterranean, in which many other countries and actors are involved too, vulnerabilities like these could be exploited by outside actors looking to capitalize on the situationincluding malign actors or rogue nations, which could simply deploy various hacker groups and target one of these sides, or maybe both, if that suits their purpose. Russia, which could also have a stake in matter since it is involved in energy projects across the region, could use some of these tactics to undermine stabilitysomething that was also outlined by U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo this month.

The various types of cyberattacks that have hit the Balkansfrom meddling in the electoral process to large personal data breaches and targeting the health and other critical sectors amid a pandemicclearly show that authorities across the region need to be much more determined when it comes to strengthening and improving their cyberdefenses.

NATO, on the other hand, maintains that it has all of its cybersecurity capacities available for member states, especially when there are threats aimed at various democratic processes. Any attempts to interfere with democratic elections, including through hacking, are unacceptable, so we must remain vigilant, a NATO official said in a statement.

However, the multiple attacks on various state institutions in member countries during the last few years suggest that NATO definitely needs to do more to counter such threats. With recent cyberattacks in the United States showing that no matter how developed a country is, the consequences of such actions can be vast, other NATO allies could become sitting ducks if there arent sufficient protections in place for all member states.

Read the original:

Flawed Cybersecurity Is a Ticking Time Bomb for the Balkans - Foreign Policy

But while the skirmish on January 7, 1976 left both ships battered and bruised, the real damage was far greater. The always-fractious relations between the two neighbouring island nations had plunged to an all-time low.

Nato, the transatlantic alliance set up to keep the peace after the Second World World, was at risk of breaking up as two of its founder members were openly at loggerheads. And it was a stand-off which would permanently decimate Britain's fishing industry.

It is 45 years today since HMS Andromeda and the Icelandic gunboat Thor clashed in the North Atlantic, leaving the British warship with a 12ft dent and the Icelandic vessel with a hole to her hull. We will probably never know exactly what happened that day, but it marked a significant escalation in the third and final of the 'cod wars', which left Britain humiliated and its once mighty fishing industry in ruins. It also explains why fishing rights, which had threatened to derail Britain's trade deal with the European Union, remain such a sensitive issue today.

Britain's relations with Iceland had been troubled ever since its smaller neighbour declared independence from Denmark in 1944. As a powerful maritime nation with one of the biggest navies in the world, Britain traditionally supported the policy of 'open seas', taking the view that the world's fish were a shared resource that should be readily accessible to all nations.

Large British vessels with crews of up to 30 would spend up to two months at a time in the seas off Iceland or Newfoundland, returning with huge catches of cod for chip shops and fishmongers slabs across the land. But by the 1950s, the Icelandic authorities started making territorial claims on the surrounding waters, culminating in a 14-mile exclusion zone being imposed around its shores in 1958. The move was opposed by all other members of Nato, and the Royal Navy sent warships to protect British trawlers as they continued to fish in the disputed area.

But Iceland's strategic importance between the United States and the USSR meant it was able to play the two Cold War adversaries off against one another, leaving Britain with little choice but to agree to the limit with a few minor concessions, ending the first cod war in February 1961.

A change in Iceland's government saw a second conflict break out in September 1972 when Iceland extended its territorial claim to 57.5 miles. Again Iceland was able to play its trump card by threatening to quit Nato and ordering US and British forces to leave a military base in Iceland. Trawlermen played Rule Britannia over their radios as British warships withdrew from the region on October 3, and a two-year agreement was struck in which the parties agreed to the extension of Iceland's territorial waters providing British boats could fish up to 130,000 tons.

It was the expiry of this deal in November 1975 which led to the third and most fierce fight over fish. Britain asked for the agreement to be extended by a further 10 years, with a reduced quota of 110,000 tons. Iceland refused, and instead demanded a 230-mile exclusion zone around its shores, which the British Government rejected. At the time fishing was a major part of the economy in Scotland and north-east England, and it was estimated the extension would lead to the loss of 9,000 jobs. But the Icelandic coastguard had a new weapon in its armoury: a cable-operated device which could cut the trawlers' nets, and this was now being deployed with increasing regularity.

The threat to an important industry could not have come at a worse time for prime minister Harold Wilson, as Britain was gripped by rising unemployment and 'stagflation'.

Matters came to a head on December 11, 1975 when Iceland's flagship gunboat Thor opened fire on three British ships close to the port of Seydisfjordur. The boats ocean-going tug boat Lloydsman, and oil-rig supply ships Star Aquarius and Star Polaris, which belonged to the British Government had been sheltering from a force nine gale.

The British version of events is that the Icelandic crew tried to board one of the British tugs, and as Thor broke away, Lloydsman surged forward to protect Star Aquarius.

Aquarius captain Albert MacKenzie said Thor approached from the stern and hit the support vessel before veering off and firing a shot from 100 yards. But Niels Sigurdsson, Icelandic Ambassador in London, said Thor fired in self-defence after being rammed by British vessels. Either way, it was the Icelandic gunboat that came off worse, almost sinking as a result of the clash.

The Royal Navy dispatched a large frigate force before the prime minister Wilson and foreign secretary Anthony Crosland had even been informed. Some suggested the Navy was desperate to show its importance after suffering severe spending cuts by then-chancellor Denis Healey. And Crosland, MP for the trawler port of Grimsby was only too aware of the political clout the fishing industry held. It later emerged that John Prescott, then a backbench MP for Hull, approached the new prime minister Jim Callaghan shortly after he replaced Wilson, offering to negotiate with the Icelandic Government. His efforts were rejected, amid concerns he had "given aid and comfort to the Icelanders".

Militarily, there was no contest. With just eight ships, the Icelandic coastguard was never going to be a match for the Royal Navy, which dispatched 22 frigates and refitted HMS Jaguar and HMS Lincoln as specialist ramming craft with reinforced wooden bows. West Germany and Belgium, which also fished in the disputed waters, also opposed the exclusion zone. But the third cod war would prove expensive as British and Icelandic boats continued to ram one another. Iceland tried to up the ante by buying more gunboats from the US and frigates from the Soviet Union, but these efforts were rebuffed. On February 19, 1976, Iceland broke off diplomatic relations with the UK.

While Iceland might have been hopelessly out-muscled on the seas, its strategic importance in the Cold War prevailed once more. Again it threatened to close the Nato base at Keflavik, which would have left the Atlantic exposed to the Soviet Union. Iceland got pretty much everything it wanted, and in June the third cod war was over.

The UK also established its own 230-mile exclusion zone and eventually the UN gave every sovereign nation an exclusive economic zone. However, as a member of the Common Market, Britain had already agreed to pool its fishing rights with other members, and the fishing towns of Scotland and the north-east of England would never recover.

See the original post:

Fight over fish which threatened to break-up Nato - expressandstar.com

KARACHI:

A Republican member of Congress has introduced a bill, seeking to terminate Pakistans special designation of a major non-NATO ally of the United States.

Andy Biggs, a prominent Republican from Arizona who tabled the bill, claimed that the US president was not in a position to issue a separate designation to Pakistan as a major NATO ally unless a presidential certification is issued stating that Pakistan continues to conduct military operations that are contributing to significantly disrupting the terrorist safe haven and freedom of movement of the Haqqani network in the country.

On the first day of the 117th Congress, my staff and I have hit the ground running, working hard for the great people of #AZ05, Biggs wrote on his official Twitter handle.

Today, I reintroduced 28 bills that keep the promises Ive made to my constituents and help to reduce the size and scope of the federal government.

The new bill which has been referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs asks the president to certify that Pakistan has shown progress in order to arrest and prosecute senior leaders and mid-level operatives of the Haqqani Network.

It also urged the president to certify that the government of Pakistan is actively coordinating with the government of Afghanistan to restrict the movement of militants, such as Haqqani network, along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

According to a report published in Washington Times, there was no indication the bill will have momentum before the House Foreign Affairs Committee since Biggs is not a member of the committee.

It also pointed out that the move drew little US media notice but triggered headlines in India, which has long been critical of US-Pakistan relations.

Pakistan was given the designation as a major non-NATO ally during the Bush administration in 2004.

See more here:

US Congress moved to terminate Pakistan's status as major non-NATO ally - The Express Tribune

KABUL (Pajhwok): As peace talks resumed in Doha on Wednesday evening, the NATO chief said it was essential to make sure the Taliban cut ties with international terrorist outfits, including the al-Qaeda network.

At a joint media briefing with CSU Parliamentary Group Vhairman Alexander Dobrindt, Jens Stoltenberg called 2021 a pivotal year for NATO, which needed to decide on its presence in Afghanistan.

While welcoming the ongoing Afghan peace talks, he said: There are many challenges and many uncertainties. But of course, talks are the only path to peace and a negotiated solution,

The NATO secretary general added: We support those efforts, but at the same time we know that we will be faced with a very difficult dilemma.

Next month, he said, NATO defence ministers would meet to decide on the future of the Resolute Support Mission in Afghanistan. The alliance, however, would face a dilemma, Stoltenberg continued.

The defence ministers would have to decide on whether to stay in Afghanistan or exit the country, he said, adding there would be risks in both cases.

With regard to a conditions-based withdrawal, he said: The more important thing is that we need to make sure that Afghanistan doesnt once again become a safe haven for international terrorists.

The Norwegian politician explained NATO had gone to Afghanistan almost 20 years ago after 9/11 attack against the United States. Under the peace deal, he noted, the Taliban had promised cutting their relations with al-Qaeda

So the most important condition is to make sure the Taliban meet that requirement, that they break all ties with international terrorists.

He said the alliance would take stock of the situation on the ground and evaluate developments in the peace talks before taking a final decision.

PAN Monitor/mud

Hits: 199

Continue reading here:

Taliban must break all ties with international terrorists, including al-Qaeda : NATO chief - Pajhwok Afghan News

Outgoing U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo slammed Turkey during a virtual meeting of NATO foreign ministers on Tuesday, accusing Ankara of stoking tensions with fellow allies in the Mediterranean and of giving a gift to the Kremlin by purchasing a Russian-made anti-aircraft system.

Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlt avuolu fired back, accusing Pompeo of phoning European allies and urging them to gang up on Turkey, of siding blindly with Greece in regional conflicts, and of refusing to sell Ankara U.S.-made Patriot anti-aircraft weapons.

avuolu also accused the U.S. of backing Kurdish terrorist organizations in Syria, while Turkey fought the Islamic State, and insisted that the U.S. and France had worsened a conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh by backing Armenia in a war that Azerbaijan won with Turkish military support.

The sharp clash over videoconference, confirmed by multiple allied delegations, came as Pompeo was attending what was likely his last NATO foreign affairs ministerial on behalf of President Donald Trump a meeting that was intended to focus primarily on a new report about how NATO should adapt for the next decade. Some diplomats speculated that Pompeo was using his last meeting to inflame tensions that could make life difficult for the incoming administration of President-elect Joe Biden.

The new report, by an outside group of experts, was commissioned after French President Emmanuel Macron complained last year about conflicts among allies, including Turkey, saying the alliance was experiencing brain death.The report urges alliesto pledge themselves to a code of good conductand consider establishing a Centre of Excellence forDemocraticResilience dedicated to providing support to individual allies.

Several allies backed up Pompeo by speaking out against Turkey, including French Foreign MinisterJean-Yves Le Drian, who denounced Ankaras behavior and said cohesion within the alliance would be impossible to achieve if Turkey mimicked Russias aggressive interventionism.

By the end of the meeting, it was clear that Turkey was virtually isolated among the alliances 30 members. A renewed call by avuolu for NATO to take a role in Libyas civil war was rejected by the other allies, who have accused Turkey of exacerbating the conflict by sending weapons and mercenaries to support the Government of National Accord based in Tripoli.

After avuolu accused Pompeo and the U.S. of taking a maximalist position in favor of Greece regarding conflicts in the Eastern Mediterranean, Greek Foreign Minister Nikos Dendias hit back, saying if the Greek position is maximalist, so is international law.

Turkey has been at fierce odds with other allies for years, but has also proven the most militarily assertive NATO member, and particularly adept at achieving its objectives with hard power.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoan interceded not just in Libya, but also in Syria, where he and Russian President Vladimir Putin largely fashioned the outcome that has kept Bashar al-Assad in power. Most dramatically, Turkey helped Azerbaijan achieve victory in its three-decade conflict with Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh, with Baku reclaiming swaths of territory.

According to NATO diplomats, avuolu had a mixed message on Germany, praising Berlin for acting as an honest broker in trying to mediate the conflicts in the Mediterranean but also accusing the Germans of piracy over an incident in which German naval forces intercepted and boarded a Turkish ship suspected of trafficking weapons. The Germans were acting under an EU-led arms control mission.

At a news conference, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg sidestepped a question about the sharp exchange between Pompeo and avuolu, and instead noted that a NATO deconfliction mechanism had helped to ease the conflict between Athens and Ankara.

We have seen that the deconfliction mechanism has helped to reduce the risk of incidents and accidents, between the Greek and Turkish militaries, Stoltenberg said. But he added, it is not solving the underlying main problem.

That, he said, would depend on a German-led mediation effort, and the political will of Greece and Turkey.

Jacopo Barigazzi contributed reporting.

Read more:

US and Turkey target each other in NATO meeting - POLITICO.eu

DUBLIN--(BUSINESS WIRE)--The "NATO Military Aircraft Modernization and Retrofit Market - Growth, Trends, and Forecasts (2020 - 2025)" report has been added to ResearchAndMarkets.com's offering.

The Military Aircraft Modernization and Retrofit Market in NATO countries is projected to grow with a CAGR of more than 3% during the forecast period.

Companies Mentioned

Key Market Trends

Fixed-Wing Segment to Continue its Dominance During the Forecast Period

The NATO countries are avid users of fixed-wing aircraft. The fleet of fixed-wing aircraft is comparatively much larger than the helicopter fleet, hence the scope of modernization is much higher for the fixed-wing aircraft. The defense expenditure of the NATO countries is expected to account for USD 984 billion in 2019. The prominent NATO member countries, such as the US, France, Germany, the UK, and Italy have consistently ranked amongst the highest global defense spending nations each year, signifying substantial investments towards the R&D of advanced weaponry and procurement of sophisticated military assets.

For instance, in January 2019, the French government signed a USD 2.3 billion to upgrade the Rafale fleet with the F4 standard. The aircraft fleet is expected to be validated by 2024 and would include upgraded radar sensors and front-sector optronics and improved helmet-mounted displays (HMDs). The upgrade would also include provisions to use MBDA's Mica NG air-to-air missile and the 1,000-kilogram AASM air-to-ground modular weapon and the Scalp missiles. Similarly, in December 2019, the Greek government awarded a USD 279.7 million contract to Lockheed Martin Corporation to upgrade its fleet of 150 F-16 combat aircraft to the Viper class configuration by 2027. Such developments are envisioned to drive the growth prospects of the market in focus during the forecast period.

United States is Projected to hold the major share in the Market

In 2019, the US accounted for the largest market share due to its gigantic defense spending which is multifold compared to other NATO countries. The US defense expenditure witnessed a 5.3% YoY growth to account for USD 732 billion in 2019. For FY2021, the requested US defense budget of USD 704.6 billion is aimed at improving the military readiness and invest modernization of its armed forces.

On this note, in June 2020, Raytheon Technologies Corporation was awarded a USD 202.6 million contract for F-15 RADAR modernization. The APG-82(V)1 AESA radars are designed to incorporate with F-15E Strike Eagle dual-role fighter jets for the simultaneous detection, identification, and tracking of multiple targets. Similarly, in June 2019, L3Harris Technologies Inc. announced receiving a USD 499 million contract from the US Air Force (USAF) to upgrade the fleet of 176 C-130H aircraft under the C-130 Avionics Modernization Program Increment 2 initiative.

Key Topics Covered:

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Study Assumptions

1.2 Scope of the Study

2 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

4 MARKET DYNAMICS

4.1 Market Drivers

4.2 Market Restraints

4.3 Industry Attractiveness - Porters Five Forces Analysis

4.3.1 Threat of New Entrants

4.3.2 Bargaining Power of Buyers/Consumers

4.3.3 Bargaining Power of Suppliers

4.3.4 Threat of Substitute Products

4.3.5 Intensity of Competitive Rivalry

5 MARKET SEGMENTATION

5.1 By Aircraft Type

5.1.1 Fixed-Wing

5.1.2 Rotary Wing

5.2 By Country

5.2.1 United States

5.2.2 Canada

5.2.3 United Kingdom

5.2.4 France

5.2.5 Germany

5.2.6 Italy

5.2.7 Rest of NATO Countries

6 COMPETITIVE LANDSCAPE

6.1 Vendor Market Share

6.2 Company Profiles

6.2.1 Raytheon Technologies Corporation

6.2.2 L3Harris Technologies Inc.

6.2.3 BAE Systems plc

6.2.4 Lockheed Martin Corporation

6.2.5 Elbit Systems Ltd.

6.2.6 Honeywell International Inc.

6.2.7 Northrop Grumman Corporation

6.2.8 Safran SA

6.2.9 General Dynamics Corporation

6.2.10 Leonardo S.p.A.

6.2.11 The Boeing Company

6.2.12 Airbus SE

7 MARKET OPPORTUNITIES AND FUTURE TRENDS

For more information about this report visit https://www.researchandmarkets.com/r/dsuuxh

Continue reading here:

Insights on the NATO Military Aircraft Modernization and Retrofit Global Market to 2025 - Fixed-Wing Segment to Continue its Dominance -...

Jean-Yves Le Drian, Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs, is taking part in the Meeting of NATO Ministers of Foreign Affairs via video conference from December 1 to 2.

This meeting provides an opportunity for the ministers to review the report issued by the reflection group on the future of NATO and to discuss its recommendations. This report is an initial response to the reflection process on the future of NATO launched a year ago on the initiative of France and Germany.

In line with President Macrons calls for a strategic reflection within NATO, the minister welcomed the recommendations aimed at enhancing cohesion, solidarity and predictability among allies.

The minister underscored the importance of the proposals to strengthen coordination with the EU, as well as those aimed at reaffirming the values and principles that should guide relations between allies. This reflection process will continue at the next NATO summit in 2021. The minister also shared his analysis of the changes in the strategic context which have an impact on the alliances security interests. The minister reaffirmed the importance of a robust NATO defense and deterrence posture, to which France directly contributes, as well as the need to leave the possibility of dialogue with Russia in particular open, in accordance with the alliances agreed positions.

These discussions provided an opportunity for the ministers to address the regional crises and all external interference that undermines the alliances stability and unity. The ministers discussed the continued joint fight against terrorism, notably in Afghanistan and Iraq. The minister reaffirmed the importance of consultations and coordination within the relevant forums, within the framework of the Global Coalition against Daesh as well as within NATO, in order to protect our common security interests in these two countries.

The ministers will also discuss the opportunities and challenges related to Chinas emergence. This session will be attended by the EU high representative and the minister will reaffirm the importance of effective coordination between the EU and NATO on these challenges.

Lastly, the ministers will be joined by the Georgian and Ukrainian foreign ministers to discuss the security situation in the Black Sea region.

Read the original:

NATO - Jean-Yves Le Drian's participation in the Meeting of NATO Ministers of Foreign Affairs (1-2 Dec. 2020) - France Diplomatie

02 December 2020

by Gareth Jennings

The European Air Transport Command (EATC) has set itself a timeline of two years to develop concrete proposals to better support its seven participating nations, as well as selected European Union and NATO member states.

The European Air Transport Command is headquartered at Eindhoven Air Base in the Netherlands. Having recently marked its first 10 years of operations, the command now seeks to expand its support to its participating nations and also to selected European Union and NATO member states. (EATC)

Speaking at the virtual SMi Military Airlift and Air-to-Air Refuelling 2020 conference, Colonel Patrick Mollet of the EATC said that the command wants to build on its recently celebrated first decade of operations by identifying specific scnarios in which is can provide additional support in both the planning and mission phases of future air transport (AT), air-to-air refuelling (AAR) and aero medical evacuation (medevac) operations.

After 10 years we are convinced that we can do better, Col Mollett said on 2 December. We aim to develop in the coming years [proposals] on an increased advisory role in the planning phase, and a more active role in the execution and operational phase for our partners and selected EU and NATO nations. We have given ourselves a timeline of two years for solid solutions.

As set out by the colonel, the selected scenarios comprise non-combat evacuation operations, disaster relief and/or humanitarian operations, and military operations for NATO, EU and other international coalitions.

Headquartered at Eindhoven Air Base in the Netherlands, the EATC was established on 1 September 2010 between France, Germany, the Benelux countries of Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg. Spain and Italy also joined in 2014.

Col Molletts remarks reflect comments made toJanes

Already a Janes subscriber? Read the full article via theClient LoginInterested in subscribing, see What we do

Share

The European Air Transport Command (EATC) has set itself a timeline of two years to develop concrete...

Read the rest here:

EATC seeks to better support member nations, selected EU and NATO states - Jane's

Ukraine hopes to receive a NATO Membership Action Plan (MAP) at the NATO summit next year, according to Ukrainian Defense Minister Andrii Taran.

He stated this at a briefing entitled "Defense aspects of Ukraine's Euro-Atlantic integration: key aspects and tasks for the future," according to the Ukrainian Defense Ministry's website.

"Please inform your capitals that we count on your full political and military support for such a decision [granting Ukraine the MAP] at the next NATO summit in 2021. This will be a practical step and a demonstration of commitment to the decisions of the 2008 Bucharest Summit," Taran said, addressing the ambassadors and military attaches of NATO member states, as well as representatives of the NATO office in Ukraine.

According to him, today Ukraine's course for full membership in NATO is enshrined in the Constitution of Ukraine, and the rapid receipt of the NATO Membership Action Plan is a goal set in the recently adopted National Security Strategy of Ukraine. Taran noted that over the past seven years, Ukraine has firmly defended not only its own independence, but also the security and stability of Europe, and acts as a powerful outpost on NATO's eastern flank.

"We believe that Ukraine and Georgia's joining the Alliance would be the right decision for NATO. Our countries have a lot in common. These are post-Soviet republics, the countries that have been affected by Russian aggression. From our point of view, Ukraine's and Georgia's potential membership in NATO will have a significant impact on Euro-Atlantic security and stability, in particular in the Black Sea region," Taran said.

He emphasized the importance of partnership with the North Atlantic Alliance in confronting global threats, such as Russia's aggressive policies and actions, which is a serious challenge to international peace and stability.

The Ukrainian parliament in early December 2019 adopted a resolution "On the statement of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine regarding priority steps to ensure Ukraine's Euro-Atlantic integration and acquire Ukraine's full membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization."

The Verkhovna Rada also authorized the Verkhovna Rada chairman to sign documents, together with the president of Ukraine and the prime minister of Ukraine, necessary to confirm Ukraine's intention to obtain the NATO Membership Action Plan and to appeal to the parliaments of the NATO member states with the request to facilitate Ukraine's receiving the MAP.

On June 12, 2020, Ukraine became a member of NATO's Enhanced Opportunities Partnership program.

op

View post:

Ukraine hopes to get MAP at NATO summit next year - Taran - Ukrinform. Ukraine and world news

ANKARA

NATO has invited US President-elect Joe Biden to a summit in Brussels in early 2021, Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg told a press conference Monday.

Answering questions ahead of the NATO Foreign Ministers Meeting on Dec. 1-2, the NATO chief said a specific date for the summit has not yet been decided but it will be attended by all leaders in the 30-member alliance.

I'm looking forward to welcoming President Biden next year to a NATO summit here in Brussels, he said.

Saying that there is a strong bipartisan support for NATO in the US, Stoltenberg added that he is looking forward to working with the new administration.

NATO is the only institution or organization that brings together, North America and Europe, he said. I'm looking forward to continuing the project NATO 2030."

NATO 2030 is an initiative to make the military alliance, formed in 1949, ready today to face tomorrow's challenges.

Read more:

NATO invites Biden to summit after he takes office - Anadolu Agency