Poland's 6th Airborne Brigade soldiers walk with U.S. 82nd Airborne Division soldiers during the NATO allies' Anakonda 16 exercise near Torun, Poland, on June 7, 2016. Kacper PempelReuters

Getting NATO allies to spend more on defense is one of President Donald Trumps most consistent foreign policy proposals. He might be on to something.

According to NATOs own figures, just 5 of the 28 alliance members meet the requirement agreed upon in 2006 that members spend at least 2 percent of their GDP on defense. Here's a deeper look at the handful of countries actually meeting their obligations:

1. The U.S. 3.61 percent of GDP on defense

The self-imposed 2 percent threshold has never made much practical difference to the U.S., which has been spending on its military at a much higher rate since World War II. Thats what happens when youre locked in an arms-race with a nuclear-armed superpower. But even after the Soviet Union fell in 1991, U.S. military spending dipped but never went below 2 percent. And since the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, its moved sharply higher. Today, the U.S. outspends the next seven nations combined when it comes to defense. In fiscal year 2017, the U.S. plans to spend $582.7 billion on defense, more than the entire national economic output of all but 20 countries in the world.

Trump is not wrong when he says the U.S. pays more than its fair share. After all, the rest of NATOs members combined spent less than half of what the U.S. budgeted (in absolute terms) in 2016. But, in rattling NATOs cage, Trump also has to contend with the alliances popularity among Americans. Some 77 percent of Americans believe NATO membership benefits the U.S. Then theres the fact that his message for more NATO solidarity is undercut by his support for Brexit and other moves to diminish the E.U.

2. Greece 2.38 percent of GDP spent on defense

Given its current economic woes, you might be surprised to see Greece on the list. But Greece has been splashing out for decades, averaging a defense budget of 6.2 percent of GDP throughout the 1980s . Much of this has to do with its historically tense relationship with Turkey, a fellow NATO member currently helmed by a president prone to brash rhetoric and not-so-veiled threats.

Then theres the fact that the Greek military employs 2.7 percent of the Greece labor force , according to 2013 figures. With an overall unemployment rate at around 23 percent , every little bit helps. Mandatory conscription also doesnt hurt. And its worth noting that Greeces overall GDP shrunk 45 percent between 2008 and 2015 , which helps keep their NATO contribution as a percentage of GDP look bigger despite massive cuts. Back in 2009, Greece was spending roughly $10 billion on defense. By 2015, it was spending just $4.6 billion, but that still managed to push it over the NATO threshold.

3. United Kingdom 2.21 percent of GDP spent on defense

At the end of the day, 2 percent is an arbitrary figure, and one thats difficult to calculate at that. That much has been made clear by the current row gripping the UK; the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) announced last week that the UK was not in fact meeting its 2 percent commitment. Instead, the London-based think tank estimates the government is only spending 1.98 percent of its GDP on defense. Ministry of Defense officials hit back, saying that NATOs own figures show that the country is meeting its commitments, while the British opposition accused the government of changing its accounting methods to give the illusion of keeping the commitment.

Whether or not Britain is actually meeting its NATO commitments is a big deal. When U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May visited Donald Trump in January, she pledged to encourage other NATO members to fulfill their obligations in exchange for Trumps 100 percent commitment to NATO . The fact that the U.K. may not be fulfilling those same obligations may rankle Trump at a time when the Brexit-bound Britain needs all the friends it can get.

4. Estonia 2.16 percent of GDP spent on defense

Then there are the Baltics, on the frontlines with Russia. While Estonia is the only one of the three Baltic states that actually meets NATOs 2 percent threshold, it actually spends less than Lithuania in absolute terms . On the heels of Russias 2014 annexation of Crimea, both Latvia and Lithuania pledged to meet the NATO threshold by 2018. Theyre well on their way, and by 2020 the three Baltic countries are together planning to spend nearly $2 billion a year on defense, more than double when they first entered NATO in 2004.

But as I discussed with the Estonian president, Kersti Kaljulaid, over the weekend at the Munich Security Conference, the fear of Russia has fundamentally morphed. Shes no longer worried about cross-border tensions or the roughly 26 percent of ethnic Russians who make up her countrys population. Instead, shes focused on Kremlin-sponsored propaganda and fake news aimed at delegitimizing her government. And as the U.S. can attest, big military spending alone isnt enough to prevent that.

5. Poland 2 percent of GDP spent on defense

Rounding out the list is Poland, which just squeaks past the mandated 2 percent threshold. But Poland is a particularly interesting story. Even though Warsaw scrapped compulsory military service back in 2008, the last few years have seen a rise in organized paramilitary forces. These groups pay for their own uniforms and weapons, and practice military exercises over the weekend. The fact that Poland borders a piece of isolated Russian territory called Kaliningrad is not lost on these Poles. Since Russias invasion of Crimea, the absolute number of people joining the approximately 120 paramilitary organizations has tripled . Theyve also won support from the nationalist-conservative Law and Justice (PiS) government, which intends to have 53,000 of these part-time soldiers spread throughout the country by 2019 as a sort of national guard. That would be equivalent to 1/3 of all Polish military personnel . Sometimes, military preparedness goes beyond the headline number.

Read this article:

The Only 5 Countries That Meet NATO's Defense Spending Requirements - TIME

By Air Force Staff Sgt. Daniel Ter Haar, Iowa Air National Guard

NATO AIR BASE GEILENKIRCHEN, Germany, Feb. 24, 2017 This month, members of the Iowa Air National Guard's 185th Air Refueling Wing based in Sioux City, Iowa, are refueling NATO Airborne Warning and Control System aircraft while assigned here.

Approximately 40 members from the 185th are in Germany for two weeks supporting NATO missions.

The AWACS involves multifaceted radar equipped aircraft that provide surveillance and command and control for NATO areas of responsibility. Onboard aircraft crews provide communications and control for U.S. and partner nations, while also keeping a close eye on potential adversaries. These missions require long flight times and inflight refueling provided by Air Guard units like the 185th.

According to Royal Netherlands Air Force Capt. Andr Bongers, a public affairs officer stationed at Geilenkirchen, the long-standing partnership with the Air Guard is important to maintaining stability in the region.

A Very Successful Partnership

"This has always been a very successful partnership. During 40 weeks per year the Air Guard provides essential training to the NATO E-3A Component. This is vital because pilots at the E-3A Component normally stay around for only four years, Bongers said. This means theres a high demand for training to ensure new crew members are combat ready. The high level of professionalism and flexibility delivered by the Air Guard is of great importance to get the right amount of training."

NATO AWACS play a critical role in many ongoing missions in the region, Bongers said, such as counter-Islamic State of Iraq and Syria operations, Eastern Europe surveillances and Mediterranean maritime operations. He said they also fly for high visibility events such as the recent NATO summit in Warsaw and big regional exercises like Red Flag and Arctic Challenge.

According to Air Force Lt. Col. Joseph Bosch, the Air National Guards liaison in Geilenkirchen, the Air Guard has been working with NATO forces since 2015. Bosch also said that the Air Guard brings a level of unmatched experience to refueling operations, especially units like the 185th.

"It is always a pleasure having the 185th. This wing has a special dedication to this mission and shows time and again how much they love our mission here. Sioux City always brings their "A" game to make this special spot better than when they arrived," Bosch said.

Continued here:

Iowa Air Guard Refueling Wing Supports NATO Missions - Department of Defense

PODGORICA - Montenegro received guarantees that the US Senate will ratify the NATO Accession Protocol, said Minister of Foreign Affairs Sra Darmanovi in an interview for Reuters, Montenegrin CDM reports.

He said that he was expecting Montenegro to become a full fledged member by the end of May. He said that they received a 100% guarantee that the US Senate would ratify the Protocol.

He denied claims that the ratification could be victim to Trumps administration desire to improve relations with Russia.

We understand that Trump wants to improve relations in Russia, especially when it comes to war on terrorism, but we do not see signs that point to sacrificing basic US national interests, Darmanovi said.

He reminded that out 28 NATO members, four have not ratified yet, out of procedural reasons the US, Canada, Netherlands and Spain.

We expect audition at the next summit in the end of May. It is reasonable to expect that all the procedures would be finalized by then, Darmanovi said.

More here:

Darmanovi: Montenegro in NATO by the end of May - European Western Balkans (press release)

During a panel at the Brookings Institution on Thursday morning, Marine Corps Gen. Joe Dunford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, strongly assured his audience that the US remains committed to NATO.

The problem is that the Trump administration keeps suggesting otherwise and many allies arent sure what to believe.

During his remarks, Dunford said other NATO members needed to spend more on their militaries, but stressed that there was no ambiguity about Washingtons devotion to the alliance. And he reaffirmed that the US is bound by the duty enshrined in Article 5 of the NATO charter that an attack against one member is an attack against them all.

"I don't think there is any question about our commitment to NATO," Dunford said in a soothing tone.

But his words are unlikely to bring much comfort to Washingtons allies in Europe. They have questions many of them. President Donald Trump and his team have been offering conflicting signals on NATO for months, and its becoming exceedingly difficult to parse the exact meaning of the administrations rhetoric.

While the US has long chided fellow NATO members for failing to spend the required 2 percent of GDP on defense most fall below it Washington is for the first time threatening to act on its complaint by cutting US support for the alliance or possibly even withdrawing altogether.

On Monday, Vice President Mike Pence said in Brussels that the Trump administrations support for NATO is unwavering.

But alongside the carrot, Pence offered a stick: "The president expects real progress by the end of 2017, he said. The patience of the American people will not endure forever. Its unclear what an exhaustion of patience would actually mean for the USs commitment to NATO.

Last week, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis offered a vague blend of encouragement and warning to NATO allies during his debut trip to Brussels. He affirmed US backing of NATO, which he characterized as a fundamental bedrock for the US and all the transatlantic community.

But he also made it clear that the bond wouldn't necessarily last forever.

"America will meet its responsibilities, but if your nations do not want to see America moderate its commitment to this alliance, each of your capitals needs to show support for our common defense," he said.

Diplomats and analysts were left scratching their heads, wondering what Mattis actually meant. What would moderate mean? When exactly would that happen? And how can the USs commitment be so strong and so precarious at the same time?

Trump is at the heart of the uncertainty surrounding the future of NATO. On his path to the White House, he repeatedly slammed NATO as obsolete and criticized allies for not pulling their weight on defense spending. Then he reversed his position on NATO, based on the either misguided or deliberately false claim that NATO had changed their policy due to his criticism. Later on, he expressed ambivalence about it. Then right before taking office, he decided that the alliance was, in fact, obsolete. Now in office, his team is trying to thread the needle by saying the US loves NATO but its love is conditional.

There are other factors contributing to allies concerns about Trumps commitment to NATO as well. Diplomats the world over know that Trump likes to conduct diplomacy using Twitter without consulting experts or the rest of his administration; official statements from his press secretary or Cabinet members can easily be unraveled by a furious tweet in response to the latest report Trump watched on Fox News.

That impulsive unpredictability cuts both ways it might make Europe more anxious to try to appease him, and make leaders try to rally their countries to spend more on defense just in case Trump really means what he says. But it may also make it harder for leaders to convince their countries that his words are more than thoughtless stream of consciousness, forgotten shortly after theyre uttered.

Then there is Trumps sustained interest in warming ties with Russia. From effusive praise for Russian President Vladimir Putin to business ties with Russian investors to his personal lawyers recent meeting with pro-Russian advocates seeking a path to lift sanctions on Russia, Trumps fondness for Russia has NATO allies on edge.

The military alliance was originally formed after World War II to deter Soviet aggression, and today one of its functions is to discourage Russian expansionism in Europe. But Trumps bid to win over the Kremlin could lead him to be less concerned about that priority. European nations dont know how seriously Trump takes their security.

The only thing thats clear right now is that the US is losing the trust of its friends.

Original post:

Why Europe is so confused by the Trump administration on NATO - Vox

Polands conservative government has replaced almost all of its military leadership after hundreds of officers left, an exit that coincides with a call from Warsaws to its NATO allies for help boosting its defense.

With the government moving to rid institutions of officials appointed by the former ruling Civic Platform party, which it defeated in 2015 elections, 90 percent of the General Staff leadership and more than 80 percent of the armys top brass have gone, according to the Defense Ministry. They include Chief of Staff General Miroslaw Gocul, who stepped down last month and Army Commander General Miroslaw Rozanski.

The ruling Law & Justice Party has pledged to purge government of what its leader Jaroslaw Kaczynski has called the worst type of Poles -- people with ties to Civic Platform or the communists who ruled the country last century. It is also thinning out experienced soldiers who have served in wars alongside their allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which Poland joined with other former eastern bloc states in 1999.

Defense Minister Antoni Macierewicz has conducted a widespread change at top positions in operating units, each time replacing officers selected by the Civic Platform with experienced officers trained in Iraq and Afghanistan and trained by NATO, the ministry said in a statement on Thursday.

Among the departures are 26 generals and more than 250 colonels, about a quarter and a sixth of the armys total, TVN24 television reported. While media say the numbers are higher than compared with previous years, the ministry says the total size of the army increased to 106,000 in 2017 from 96,000 in 2015.

Probably part of the departures are natural, but theres also part thats forced, for example by transfer orders sending officers into reserves, retired Brigadier General Stanislaw Koziej, who was head of the National Security Bureau under the Civic Platform government from 2010 to 2015, said by phone. The worrying element is that some departures are at the highest level where the military command links with political leadership. This is a bad signal.

The most important business stories of the day.

Get Bloomberg's daily newsletter.

The government in Warsaw is also pushing to bring more U.S. troops to Poland as it warns against what it says is an increasing security threat from an expansionist Russia and the war in Ukraine.

A soldier has no other means of protest besides taking off the uniform, Koziej said.

Read the rest here:

Exit by 80% of Polish Top Brass Guts Command on NATO Front Line ... - Bloomberg

France's far-right presidential front runner Marine Le Pen sounded a full-throated rejection of global trade deals and multilateral governance, defending in soaring terms Thursday the importance ofcultural identity and national independence.

In a keynote foreign policy speech in Paris, Le Pen offered withering criticism of the European Union and NATO and decried what she essentially described as Western meddling in countries like Iraq, Syria, Libya, Russia and Turkey that she claimed have increased instability, broken bilateral promises and betrayed the wishes of the people.

"I don't want to promote a French or a Western system. I don't want to promote a universal system," Le Pen told a packed audience of reporters, diplomats and supporters in an elegant conference hall near the Champs Elysees. "To the contrary, I want to promote a respect of cultures and peoples."

Le Pen's lofty discourse offered a stark counterpoint to the Front National's more abrasive grassroots image as an anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim, populist party. She described France under her governance as a champion of "oppressed people, which speaks out for the voiceless and carries something powerful and great."

Le Pen has indicated she would seek a new deal with the EU, or "Frexit"

She also took no questions and continued calmly on after a bare-chested Femen protester sought to interrupt her remarks, before being carried, still shouting, out of the room.

Scandal over EU funds

A pair of polls out Thursday confirmed Le Pen remains the favored candidate in a presidential race that has been full of surprises, despite being mired in an ongoing scandal over the alleged misuse of European Union fundsto pay for several Front National staff. Still, almost every survey to date shows her winning the first round of presidential elections in April, but failing to prevail in a May runoff.

For 48-year-old Le Pen, Thursday's speech was the second chance in a week to burnish her foreign policy credentials. European leaders have snubbed her, but she had better luck earlier this week in Lebanon, where she met with the country's president and prime minister. She also stirred controversy by cancelling a meeting with the Lebanese grand mufti after refusing to wear a headscarf.

"Going to Lebanon showed she could look presidential," says Philippe Moreau Defarges, senior fellow at the French Institute of International Relations in Paris. Noting the country was both a former French colony and held an important Christian community - a key them for the National Front - he added, "it allowed Mrs. Le Pen to look like both a patriot and a Christian."

Old and new themes

Le Pen's address touched on some familiar themes, as she railed against the European Union, NATO and free trade. But she also waded into new territory - or at least offered new nuances - as she described forging a new relationship with Africa based on "frankness, respect and mutual cooperation."

Like UKIP's Nigel Farage, Le Pen has warm words for US President Donald Trump

Yet much of her discourse was thin on specifics. Le Pen called for environmental security without defining it, and did not address key issues like whether France would stick to the Iran nuclear agreement under her leadership or a two-state solution in the Middle East.

"If you don't pay attention to the details and just listen to the rhetoric, it sounds very French, very classical legalism," Manuel Lafont Rapnouil, Paris office head of the European Council of Foreign relations think-tank, describing Le Pens traditional discourse.

"If you pay a bit more attention, it's a clear departure from the kind of mainstream foreign policy followed by France since the cold war."

Hike in defense spending

On defense, Le Pen reiterated her distaste for NATO, instead calling for a policy based on French national interests and vowing to hike French defense spending to two percent of its GDP - increased to 3 percent by the end of her five-year term.

On the Middle East, she criticised western efforts to strike deals with Syria's moderate opposition - which ultimately "helped arm the Islamic State." She said cutting off relations with Damascus had been "more than an error" that made France, which has sustained three major terrorist attacks in two years, more vulnerable at home.

"How many attacks on French soil could relations with Syrian services have avoided?" Le Pen asked.

'Change of software'

She also renewed calls for forging better relations with Moscow, saying Russia had been 'badly treated' by both the EU and the United States. France's 2014 cancelation of a sale of Mistral warships to Moscow over the conflict in Ukraine, she said, was a case in point.

Not surprisingly, Le Pen had warm words for Donald Trump; she was among the first foreign politicians to hail his November victory, even before it was formally announced. Criticizing his predecessor Barack Obama for a failed foreign policy in the Middle East and elsewhere, Le Pen predicted the current Trump administration would represent "almost a change of software that will not only be positive for the world, but positive for the United States."

Germany's Merkel targeted

But Le Pen spent a significant chunk of her discourse railing against the European Union with German Chancellor Angela Merkel as its biggest mascot.

"The conception of a failed Europe is carried by Mrs Merkel that defies understanding," she said of the German leader.

Le Pen said French policies on Syria had put France at greater risk of terrorism

If elected, Le Pen vows to renegotiate a new deal with the EU - and failing that, hold a "Frexit" referendum on leaving the bloc. Coupled with the Brexit referendum in the UK, the EU is feeling the brunt of the nationalist surge. In nearby Netherlands, far-right politician Geert Wilders also leads the polls ahead of March elections.

"The question for Germany is do you make this a kind of casus belli or deal with the cards you have?" asked analyst Lafont Rapnouil. "Just as Brexit was not what all EU members wanted, you have to get the best out of it for both sides, and not some kind of sterile tit-for-tat."

"It will be a very difficult and cold relationship," Moreau Defarges of IFRI says of diplomatic ties between mainstream European leaders and Le Pen. "Of course, Mrs. Merkel or Teresa May will receive Mrs Le Pen as head of state. But it will be a big European crisis - an earthquake - if she's elected."

New relationship with Africa

Le Pen also said she would overhaul relations with Africa, breaking from France's "moralizing discourse" towards its former colonies and instead focus on "non-interference, which doesn't mean indifference."

She called for development assistance, particularly focusing on agriculture, and for maintaining French military presence in countries like Mali, Chad and Cameroon which are all fighting militant Islam.

Yet that stance raises contradictions, Lafont-Rapnouil points out. France's African operations were realized in cooperation with the United Nations and with EU support - the very multilateral institutions that Le Pen rejects.

"How would that work," he asks, "if you have a National Front foreign policy which is not in favor of EU integration on defense - and which is not interested in the UN?"

Original post:

Le Pen blasts EU, NATO, praises Trump - Deutsche Welle

It has become a staple of diplomatic rhetoric that, whatever problems the United States has with the current government in Turkey, diplomats must ameliorate President Recep Tayyip Erdogan because Turkey is too important to NATO and also a staging ground in any operations against the Islamic State.

A Turkish flag (R) flies among others flags of NATO members during the North Atlantic Council (NAC) at the Alliance headquarters in Brussels, Belgium, July 28, 2015. REUTERS/Francois Lenoir.

Certainly, that is the position of the new administration. Vice President Mike Pence has said he foresees a new day in U.S.-Turkey relations. Trump himself stressed the close U.S.-Turkey relationship during his first phone call with the Turkish leader. Ted Malloch, a businessman and Trump ally who is a leading candidate to become US ambassador to the European Union, argued that the United States should bite the bullet and give into Erdogans political demands in order to reset U.S.-Turkish relations.

Alas, what the Trump team appears not to realize is that Erdogans problem with the United States and the West more generally is ideological and not based on grievance. In particular, Erdogan hates NATO. That may sound counterintuitive given that Turkey contributes the second-largest troop component to NATO and participates with NATO countries in Afghanistan. But Erdogans upbringing was against the backdrop of Cold War diplomacy blessing Turkish dictatorships. So why doesnt Erdogan just pull Turkey out of NATO? Here, the sad truth is that Erdogan can do far more damage from inside NATO because the defensive alliance is governed by consensus. By remaining inside NATO, Erdogan can paralyze the organization with a de facto veto.

But, Erdogans game is deeper. His party is now demonizing NATO as a terror organization. Here is what AKP Gaziantep parliamentarian amil Tayyar had to say:

Turkey has been subjected to coups since it joined NATO. NATO has always been in charge of the dirty and bloody deeds in the country. The 1960 military coup was staged by the British, the 1971 coup was staged by the CIA, and the 1980 coup was staged by NATO. In NATOs new plan, a Turkey with [President Recep Tayyip] Erdoan should not exist NATO has become a threat and is spreading terror organizations across the region. You can designate NATO along with DEASH [Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant ISIL], the PKK [Kurdistan Workers Party] and FET [Fethullahist Terror Organization].

In a country where saying or thinking the wrong thing can lead years in prisoneven for members of parliamentaryit simply isnt possible that Tayyar was speaking absent Erdogans approval.

Turkish state media, meanwhile, has sent reporters to Ramstein Air Base in Germany to broadcast programs accusing NATO of involvement in terrorism.

So what is Erdogans game here? He believes he is engaged in a win-win strategy. If the United States and European officials refuse his demands, his incitement will transform NATO into an enemy in the eyes of most Turks. Such actions would also feed Russian propaganda and anti-American forces worldwide. It will also allow him to play the nationalist card against the NATO bogey in the run-up to the April 2017 referendum on a new constitution which would formalize Erdogans dictatorial powers.

On the other hand, if Trump caves into Erdogans demands, he will justify his purge of officers and civil servants whose only crime was having been posted to NATO offices and legitimize his broader crackdown. This, too, would play into Erdogans hands ahead of the April referendum.

So what is NATO to do? Turkey poses a problem the defensive alliance hasnt experienced in its nearly seven decade existence: What to do when the enemy is internal rather than external. Appeasing Erdogan only kicks the can down the road, but it is not a sustainable strategy. It is time for NATO to get serious about the Trojan horse which Turkey has become.

Read more here:

Can NATO survive Turkey? - American Enterprise Institute

A year ago, before the term "fake news" became ubiquitous, Germany was reeling from the "Lisa case," a fable fanned by social media in which immigrants reportedly raped a Russian-born teenager. The story was propagated by multiple sources all the way up to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and taken up by street protesters, before it was completely discounted. The falsified incident - widely believed to have been created by the Kremlin - demonstrated perfectly the toxicity of internet-driven disinformation.

Earlier this month, outside influences, again widely believed to be Russian, tried to replicate the success of the "Lisa" faux-scandal in Lithuania. They instigated the affair by planting a report via an email to the speaker of the Lithuanian Parliament claiming German soldiers, who are leading NATO's new battle group there, had raped a teenager.

This time, however, the targets weren't such easy prey and the rumor never really got off the ground. Czech General Petr Pavel, head of NATO's military committee, got out ahead of Lithuanian investigators in blaming the incident on Moscow and saying he expects there will be more. Lithuanian police are thus far just confirming the attack came from "outside the EU."

But whether or not this particular attempt is ultimately traceable to Kremlin-funded propagandists, Vilnius was expecting such provocations. With reinforcements of NATO troops moving in to guard against a ground or air assault, Lithuanian officials presumed that sooner or later, an information attack of this sort would be launched against the "Enhanced Forward Presence" (EFP). Lithuania's Defense Ministry Spokeswoman Vita Ramanauskaite explains her country's fatalistic anticipation in two words: "history lessons."

"Lithuania has a sad history of being occupied twice without a single shot," she said, "in 1795 by the Russian Empire and in 1940 by Soviet Russia." While central and Eastern Europe may be just starting to comprehend what a threat these faceless adversaries are, Ramanauskaite says such hostilities were detected in Lithuania already a dozen years ago and counter-propaganda measures were put in place. She credits this early awareness with the successful snuffing out of the rumor. The "fake rape" claim was quickly red-flagged in communication channels throughout the armed forces, police and government institutions and within NATO. In addition, she notes, the general public has been sensitized to the dangers of propaganda and information attacks, with 68 percent agreeing in a recent survey that they pose a threat to national security.

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg himself rapidly got word of the case, crediting Lithuanian media with not spreading the "fake news."

"One of the important lessons we shall learn from this kind of incident is that it is extremely important to check facts," he said following NATO's defense ministerial meeting on February 16. "That has always been the case but it's perhaps even more important now because we have seen several attempts of disinformation and the spread of stories which are not true."

Weapon of mass distraction

In an exclusive interview with DW, NATO's Assistant Secretary General for Emerging Security Challenges, Ambassador Sorin Ducaru, was still extremely concerned about the incident, despite its failure to escalate.

"This is a clear example of information manipulation with a sense of weaponization," Ducaru said, "because it really was supposed to affect the perception about the presence of German troops as the [EFP] framework nation in Lithuania. It was supposed to affect morale; it was supposed to affect everything - the operational functioning."

And despite the failure of this particular attempt, says Dr. Stefan Meister with the German Council on Foreign Relations, Russia has seen clearly that disinformation is its most successful weapon to weaken and divide the West.

"It fits much more in line with their goals and it's much cheaper than any military buildup or any modernization of the army," Meister explained. "And in the end it works. We are so insecure about our media system, our politicians and growing populism and so on."

Russia is still winning the propaganda war against NATO and EU countries, Meister believes, and that's their own fault. He says the age-old resistance to sharing data, especially regarding security threats, comes into play here. EU governments are choosing to tackle it by themselves rather than funding and equipping the bloc as a center point of counter-propaganda.

"It's a lack of strategy," Meister says, "and even the lack of will to have a strategy. I think that's a big mistake."

Echoing Lithuania's Ramanauskaite, Meister says the Baltic states, Finland and Sweden have been dealing with the reality of the threat much longer than countries to their South and would have a lot to share with, for example, France and Germany, which are late to the game.

Meister believes Germany will increasingly be a target due to both its role in NATO's deterrence measures in the East and its coming elections, but also because its society is so divided about those issues.

Meanwhile, Russia says it's setting up a new counter-disinformation unit of its own, similar to the EU's, so that it can identify Western mainstream media articles as "fake news."

Here is the original post:

Why the fake rape story against German NATO forces fell flat in ... - Deutsche Welle

Islamic preacher Fethullah Glen is pictured at his residence in Saylorsburg, Pennsylvania, in 2013. REUTERS.

Ted Malloch, President Trumps presumptive pick to be ambassador to the European Union, has reportedly said that he expects the Trump administration to extradite US-based Turkish cleric Fethullah Glen. Here, for example, is a report from Sabah, a paper which Erdogan confiscated, transferred to his son-in-law, and transformed into the Turkish equivalent of the old Soviet Pravda:

US President Donald Trumps potential pick for EU ambassadorship Ted Malloch said that he believes the new US administration will likely extradite Glenist Terror Group (FET) leader Fetullah Glen, saying the new administration will have better relations with Turkey. Speaking in a live, televised interview on Turkish broadcaster NTV on Monday, Malloch said that he believes, [Trump] will get along really well with President [Recep Tayyip] Erdoan. Malloch went on to say that Turkey is a member of NATO and our strategic partner, while emphasizing the importance of Glens extradition and acknowledging that he was behind the July 15 failed coup attempt. He continued by saying that President Trump and his Turkish counterpart have held very constructive meetings over the phone and may meet in person in the coming months.

It is possible that Malloch is just speculating, projecting his own opinion onto Trump, and/or seeking to ingratiate himself with the Turkish press. If he speaks the truth, however, Trump is on the verge of a huge mistake.

Erdogans obsession with and hatred of Glen has many reasons. The basic fact remains, however: While there is much to criticize with regard to the Glen movements past actions, the Turks have yet to offer any proof that Glen himself was involved in the coup. Some soldiers involved were his followers, but others were not, and some may even have been Erdogan supporters. Many of the deaths on the evening of the coup appear to have been caused by snipers or members of SADAT, an Islamist militia run by the man subsequently appointed Erdogans military counselor.

Sacrificing Glen, however, will not bring Turkey in from the cold. The purge in which Erdogan has engaged has been immense. While the pretext might have been rooting out Glens followers, the reality is that Erdogan has used the purge to target secularists, liberals, and those officers whose training and experience in NATO he believes make them prone to oppose his vision and goals for Turkey.

Heres the problem: To appease Erdogan by extraditing Glen might seem like an easy solution to bilateral strains but, in reality, Erdogan would use his return to affirm to the public the wisdom of his purge and justify the arrests after the fact. In effect, Trump would be handing a death sentence not only to Glen but also to hundreds of officers whose only crime was service in NATO.

Excerpt from:

Deporting Glen would undercut NATO - American Enterprise Institute

Many fear electronic voting machines can be hacked and tampered with.

The hacking campaign around the US presidential election, cyberattacks against Ukrain's power grid, and even the internet crippling Mirai botnet DDoS attack all demonstrate how cyberattacks have grown to threaten the very fabric of society itself, NATO has warned.

Citing the impact of high profile incidents like these, Jamie Shea, deputy assistant secretary general for emerging security challenges at NATO, suggests that hackers aren't just a threat to individuals and organisations, but to the fundamental nature of democracy as a whole.

No smoking gun for Russian DNC hacks

The Russian government may have hacked Hillary Clinton's campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) to support Donald Trump's campaign, but there's no hard technical proof.

"Cyber is facilitating more advanced and more effective psychological warfare, information operations, coercion and intimidation attacks. We used to worry about [hackers targeting] banks or credit cards or inconvenience to customers, now we worry about the future of democracy, the stability and health of our institutions," he said, speaking at the European Information Security Summit in London.

Russian-backed interference in the US Presidential election has already caused some other countries to rethink the use of electronic ballot boxes. The Netherlands, for instance, is reverting back to traditional vote tallying by hand due to fears that electronic votes could be manipulated or tampered with.

"It's quite remarkable that the Netherlands is going to have an election and they've decided not to bother with electronic counting. After what happened in the US, the credibility is too risky," said Shea. "We are essentially, with democracy, somewhat losing the faith in the very instruments we've created to spur our economy and spur globalisation."

The attacks against the Democratic National Committee aren't an isolated incident. Shea detailed cases in France and Germany where politicians have been warned of hacking campaigns looking to "destabilise organisations, publicly undermine their reputation, undermine public confidence in the democratic systems and meddle in elections".

German intelligence services have reported attempts to hack into the systems of the Bundestag and the German political parties, while Jean-Yves Le Drian, the French Defence Minister, called all of the French parties together ahead of the Presidential campaign in order provide information about hacks against French political parties.

"Only two sites needed to be hacked in order for Russian intelligence services to acquire compromising data, which they used at judicious points during the campaign to inflict maximum damage," said Shea.

"The threat was not to a bank or an institution or an individual, the threat was to society itself, its ability to function and the trust that we have in the credibility and integrity in our democratic model."

In an effort to combat the threats posed by cyberattacks and hackers, NATO has declared cyber a domain of operation alongside land, air, sea and space. It has also recognised the role it will play in the security of all of those areas, as military equipment and infrastructure will need to be continually updated in order to fight off cyber threats

"All of our current weapons programmes -- whether it be missile defence, joint information reconnaissance, drones, and so on -- have to now retrofit cybersecurity in a way that possibly wasn't planned in the outset," said Shea.

It might be a difficult task to carry out, but NATO must undertake it, to ensure that it has the ability to fight cyber attackers and remain on top.

"There's no doubt that cyber is going to have an impact on our military strategy and if we don't dominate it, then sooner or later an adversary is going to come up with a method to ensure it dominates us," Shea said.

See original here:

Cyberattacks threaten democracy itself, warns NATO - ZDNet

Germany is to increase its army by 5,000 soldiers, the country's defence ministry has announced, bringing the total to 198,000 in 2024, at a time when USpressure is mounting on European Nato members to raise military spending.

The German army faces demands like never before, Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen said in a statement, adding that the army had to be able to respond in an appropriate way to developments abroad and security concerns.

Germany, reluctant for decades after the SecondWorld War to get involved in military missions abroad, has in the last few years become more active in supporting international deployments such as in Afghanistan, Mali and against Islamic State militants.

In January, Germany sent a battlegroup of more than 1,000 to Lithuania as part of a Nato mission to protect its eastern border with Russia in response to its annexation of Crimea and its support for separatists in eastern Ukraine.

It will now dispatch a number of tanks and armoured vehicles to Lithuania to support its existing defence deployment in the country.

On top of the 5,000 extra soldiers, Germany will further add 1,000 civilians posts and about 500 reserves to its ranks at home.

The increase, long flagged by von der Leyen, comes at a time when USPresident Donald Trump is pushing Nato members, especially from Europe, to raise their military spending.

A map showing Nato's military buildup in Eastern Europe (Statista)

The defence alliance in 2014 agreed to end years of defence cuts and meet a target of spending 2 percent of economic output on defence by 2024. German defence spending is currently at 1.22 percent.

A defence ministry spokeswoman said provided the plan goes ahead, the increase would mean additional costs of about 955 million euros ($1.01 billion) per year from 2024.

Reuters

Follow this link:

Germany to expand army and send tanks to Lithuania as Nato-Russia buildup continues - The Independent

The recent visit by Secretary of Defense James Mattis to NATO allies does not erase the fact that, as a presidential candidate and president-elect, Donald Trump stated on many occasions that NATO is obsolete. It is a bigger problem than just burden sharing. Trumps key message is that the world has changed to the detriment of the United States, and that NATO no longer fits comfortably into this new world order. Of course, the United States will not withdraw from the organization, but NATO will get less attention from the Oval Office in the coming years. That is for sure.

For those in Europe who care about the alliance, this is a nightmare. But instead of clinging to the past, they should wake up. The world today is indeed fundamentally different from the one we happen to know, and certainly from the times into which NATO was born. It is indeed bizarre that NATO is still alive. Defense alliances are, by definition, temporary. Realists do not believe in long-term structural cooperation between states, and certainly not in the field of security. At most, states can try to cooperate in an alliance on a short-term basis to defeat a common enemy, like during the two world wars and during the Cold War. Once the enemy is gone, alliances have no meaning anymore. It was on this basis that John Mearsheimer and many others predicted the end of the alliance after the end of the Cold War. The implosion of the Warsaw Pact and the USSR itself should, indeed, have led to the demise of NATO.

It did not. The least bad explanation is organizational inertia. NATO tried to adapt to the changed circumstances by finding new enemies: proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, rogue states, failed states, ethnic conflicts (as in the Balkans) and, later on, terrorism. It is not difficult to come up with real or imagined dangers. But states do not need to be part of a militarily integrated organization to protect oneself against these kind of minor threats. Collective defense organizations, based on the premise of an attack on one is an attack on all, are established to defend oneself against an attack by a major power: Germany in 1914, Germany and Japan in the first half of the 1940s, the USSR during the Cold War, and maybe China in the future. Not for peacekeeping.

Collective defense organizations are not the best match for threats like terrorism and ethnic conflicts. For countering terrorism, coalitions of the willing will do. For managing ethnic conflicts, collective security organizations (like the UN and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe) should take the lead, both for peacemaking and peacekeeping. Collective security organizations regulate the use of force amongst its member states, and they arein contrast to collective defense organizationsnot meant to serve against an external enemy. Because NATO stepped in for these collective security tasks, organizations like the UN and the OSCE got sidetracked.

NATOs postCold War track record is dismal, which is not surprising, given the nature of the beast. Apart from the Balkans, which are more or less stable (although tensions are flaring up again these days), the NATO military interventions in Afghanistan and Libya are a complete failure. Thirteen and six years after NATO's intervention, respectively, these states have hardly stabilized. On the contrary, Afghanistan and Libya are breeding places for terrorists. Again, this should not come as a surprise, because collective defense organizations are not meant for carrying out peace-building operations.

The biggest mistake, however, was NATO expansion. It is hard to refute the thesis that the Ukraine crisis is the result of interference by NATO and the EU in Russias spheres of influence. A red line was crossed, in the eyes of Moscow, and Russia had repeatedly made that position clear in advance. NATO expansion also contradicted Western promises. On the basis of these oral guarantees, in February 1990, Mikhail Gorbachev gave the green light for German reunification talks. And what did the West do? Expand NATO. Not just once, but twice. At the NATO Summit in Bucharest in 2008, President Bush even pushed through (against the wishes of the Europeans) a third extension, namely the promise to include Georgia and Ukraine into NATO. What did he expect Russia would do? Just take notice and agree?

More fundamentally, the West made the mistake after the end of the Cold War not to include Russia into the Euro-Atlantic security architecture on an equal basis. Contrary to positive examples in 1815 and 1945, the loser of the Cold War was left alone. Instead of replacing NATO with a regional collective security organization, the West kept NATO artificially in existenceand Russia in the dark. Ironically, the Baltic states, which wanted to feel more secure by becoming NATO members, are now feeling less secure. All this was predicted in the 1990s by foreign-policy giants like George Kennan and Paul Nitze.

Currently, there is a major split among the twenty-eight NATO member states: those in the south worry about migration and ISIS, but are relaxed with respect to Russia; those in the east are relaxed about ISIS, but worry about Russia. There is no common threat assessment. In addition, tensions between member states (Turkey and Greece) and within member states (Poland and Hungary) are rising.

Read more:

Take It from a European: NATO Is Obsolete - The National Interest Online

Edmonton Sun

Canada's commitment to NATO mission in Poland continues Edmonton Sun Since the operation began in May 2014, about 1,600 Canadian troops have rotated through the region to improve "interoperability" between NATO nations and to act as an "assurance and deterrence measure" against Russian aggression in the region. Edmonton-based soldiers head to Poland for NATO missionGlobalnews.ca all 3 news articles »

Continued here:

Canada's commitment to NATO mission in Poland continues - Edmonton Sun

The USS Porter transits the Bosphorus out of the Black Sea on February 13 after conducting NATO exercises. (photo: U.S. Navy Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Ford Williams)

NATO countries have agreed to increase the alliance's activities around the Black Sea, including more air and naval patrols of the sea, further increasing pressure in an area Russia considers to be of vital strategic importance.

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg announced the decision at last week's defense ministerial in Brussels."Today, we agreed on two additional maritime measures: an increased NATO naval presence in the Black Sea for enhanced training, exercises and situational awareness, and a maritime coordination function for our Standing Naval Forces when operating with other Allied forces in the Black Sea region," he said.

Stoltenberg didn't provide any more specific information, but that seems to fall short of what was originally being proposed by Romania: some sort of permanent NATO structure dealing with the Black Sea. Asked for more details, a NATO official told The Bug Pit that the specifics were still being worked out, but thus far the plan involved a greater tempo of air and sea patrols, and expanding the already existing land forces brigade based in Romania:

The Black Sea is key to NATOs security and in response to Russias build-up there, the Alliance is increasing its presence in the region. On land, this presence will be built around a Romanian-led multinational brigade. It will focus on the training and interoperability of allied forces. This year we also plan more air patrols over the Black Sea and NATOs Standing Naval Forces will be in the Black Sea more frequently for training and port visits. This will increase our situational awareness and contribute to NATOs overall deterrence posture.

In response, Russia's ambassador to NATO Alexander Grushko said Moscow is "thoroughly analyzing" the move."The decision to increase NATOs naval presence in the Black Sea is, in any case, yet another step towards escalating tensions in the regions of vital importance for Russia," he said.

Others were less diplomatic. If the U.S. tried to challenge Russia in the Black Sea, "the American ship has just a few minutes to live in the Black Sea, I tell you honestly, since the rocket complexes that the Black Sea Fleet has, will not allow them to carry out their operational and strategic missions in the Black Sea," Vladimir Romanenko, a former commander of Russia's coastal defense forces, told RIA Novosti.

"Russia has all the necessary resources, both material and moral, to maintain supremacy on the Black Sea," added Igor Kasatonov, former commander of Russia's Black Sea Fleet, in an interview with the military network TV Zvezda. "Our fleet has enough force to oppose the NATO forces in the Black Sea; the Black Sea Fleet dominates in this region."

Of course no one forsees an open naval battle between Russian and NATO on the Black Sea, and the move is likely some combination of NATO showing force and looking like its showing force.

"The goal of NATO is to restrict our actions in the Black Sea region and to increase the political-military pressure," said Mikhael Alexandrov, of the Military-Political Research Center at Moscow's leading foreign relations school, MGIMO. "The new NATO member states in Eastern Europe are trying to attract attention and raise the issue of security guarantees against the Russian threat," added another MGIMO scholar, Ivan Timofeev. "Brussels, in response, is making symbolic steps to show that it doesn't give up its own."

See the original post here:

NATO Promises Increase in Tempo of Air, Naval Patrols on Black Sea - EurasiaNet

Article Tools

Soldiers of the "Fighting Eagles" 1st Battalion, 8th Infantry Regiment, walk by tanks that arrived Feb. 14 via train at he U.S. base in Mihail Kogalniceanu, eastern Romania. (Associated Press File)

President Donald Trump is dead wrong in his repeated assertions that the NATO alliance is obsolete.

NATO is responsible for the longest period of peace in European history. Its basic assertion that an attack on one of its 28 members is an attack on all is a powerful deterrent that is effective in practice.

As the president denigrates the alliance, its interesting to note that the only time that NATO has invoked the measure responding as one to a single attack was in the wake of the 2001 terrorist attacks against the United States.

Likewise, contrary to the presidents assertion, the alliance heavily is engaged against terrorists. NATO troops are the primary trainers of Iraqi and Kurdish ground troops who are grinding down the Islamic State terrorist organization.

Mr. Trump is on the mark, though, when he complains that some NATO members do not contribute adequately to funding the alliance. The administrations call for NATO members to spend at least 2 percent of gross domestic product on defense is fair and reasonable.

The United States spends 3.61 percent of its GDP on defense. In dollars, it spends more than all other NATO members combined. Greece, Estonia, Britain and Poland spend at least 2 percent of their GDP on defense. Canada spends less than 1 percent. Germany spends 1.19 percent and France spends 1.78 percent.

While maintaining the U.S. commitment to the alliance, the administration should continue to press other alliance members to pick up their fair share of the costs.

Go here to see the original:

Better spread NATO costs - Scranton Times-Tribune

The US is preparing to deploy 1,000 troops and vehicles to northeastern Poland by the end of March to reassure Nato'sEastern European allies in the face of rising tension with Russia.

The unit, which will be part of 4,000 US troops deployed in rotation along Nato's eastern flank, will be located at Orzysz,Deutsche Wellereports.

The town sits 85 miles from Russia's Kaliningrad exclave, which is wedged between Poland and Lithuania.

Poland's leaders hold ceremony to welcome US troops as part of Nato build-up

It comes after Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov described NATO as a "Cold War institution" whose expansion had led to unprecedented tensions in Europe over the past thirty years.

Worried since Russia's 2014 seizure of Ukraine's Crimea that Moscow could invade Poland or the Baltic states, Nato is bolstering its eastern flank with troops, war games and warehoused US equipment ready for a rapid response force of up to 40,000 personnel.

A map showing Nato's military buildup in Eastern Europe (Statista)

The first German troops have arrived in Lithuania, where Berlin is leading a battalion of some 1,000 troops.

From around April, Britain will head the deterrent force in Estonia, while Canada is deploying in Latvia and US troops are arriving in Poland and across the Baltics.

Kremlin officials claim the build-up is the largest since the Second World War andsayit threatens the stability of central Europe.

Russia has some 330,000 troops amassed in its Western military district around Moscow, Nato believes.

Read more from the original source:

US to deploy 1000 troops to Poland as Russian foreign minister accuses Nato of being a 'Cold War institution' - The Independent

February 21

The Feb. 19 editorial A time for Europe to step up noted that the United States is spending more on defense thanmostNATO members and implied that other countries need the United States more than the United States needs them.

Many of these countries came to our aid in Afghanistan after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Moreover, Russia is building a pipeline and a nuclear power plant in Turkey.If Turkey dropped out of NATO,we couldface a situation in which Russia, whichhas a reliable client state in Syria and a working relationship with Iran, signed a defense pact with all three countries and with Iraq, where Iran has influence. That would allow Russia toextend its influence over the price of oil and could make anymilitary action in the MiddleEast by the United States or Israel extremelyproblematic.

Perhaps we should be more grateful for our NATO partners.

Susan Altman, Washington

See the original post:

America should be grateful for its NATO partners - Washington Post

U.S. Army vehicles cross the Polish border in Olszyna, Poland, Thursday, Jan. 12, 2017 heading for their new base in Zagan. First U.S. troops arrive in Zagan in western Poland as part of deterrence force of some 1,000 troops to be based here and reassure Poland that is worried about Russias activity. (AP Photo/Czarek Sokolowski)

At a time when Russia is launching cyberattacks against Europe, exploiting the chaos that is President Donald Trumps first month in office and not backing down in Ukraine, NATO seems to be needed more than it has since the end of the Cold War. Though the tone from the White House suggests Europe is a deadbeat partner not paying its fair share of the rent, the reality of the situation is a lot more nuanced.

In short: Europe may be paying its fair share in ways Washington doesnt appreciate. That may need to change as we contemplate the defense needs of the region in 2017 and beyond.

Trump has lamented that NATO is obsolete and that our European allies need to pay their fair share financially. His newly appointed Defense Secretary James Mattis said last week that alliance members must pay at least two percent of their GDPs on defense or face moderated military support from Washington. So far, only five of the 28 alliance members spend two percent or more of their GDP on defense. To be fair, the two percent benchmark was agreed upon by NATO countries themselves in 2006.

First, a few facts on spending. As The Washington Post noted last year, America pays 22 percent to cover NATO directly as an organization, with Europe covering the rest of the costs. That is far less than the lions share Trump talks about. Though when he mentions indirect contributions, he has a point, as The Post reported:

The volume of the US defense expenditure effectively represents 73 per cent of the defense spending of the Alliance as a whole, NATO says in a discussion of indirect funding. This does not mean that the United States covers 73 per cent of the costs involved in the operational running of NATO as an organization, including its headquarters in Brussels and its subordinate military commands, but it does mean that there is an over-reliance by the Alliance as a whole on the United States for the provision of essential capabilities, including for instance, in regard to intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; air-to-air refueling; ballistic missile defense; and airborne electronic warfare.

Now, I agree that Europe could do a much better job in supporting NATO operations. For example, Belgium sent just six fighter jets and 155 people to Operation Inherent Resolve in Iraq. Many other NATO members have similar contributions that could be improved upon the military front.

That said, national defense doesnt always amount to the number of guns, tanks, fighter jets and troops a nation is ready to deploy. Another reality we have to consider is that America is the overwhelming contributor to NATOs coffers because its military objectives are far larger than, say, Estonia or Slovakia or even France. Context matters.

Heres a few points to consider when we ask Europe to pay its fair share, and what that can and does look like.

Hundreds of thousands of refugees have migrated to Europe over the past five years, most of them coming from Syria since the beginning of its civil war in 2011. In 2015 alone, Germany took in more than one million refugees. Other European countries have taken on the challenge of welcoming refugees that enter Europe by the thousands each day.

America, by comparison, has admitted more than 10,000. While plenty of research exists that shows refugees have not negatively affected the economies of the countries that host them, it still costs substantial sums to integrate this population. Helping refugees find employment, learn the host country language, and making them feel they are part of their adoptive nations society should all count as national security. Trump has complained that Syrian refugees pose a major national security risk to America. Why, then, can we not consider that Europe integrating them into society is one way to counter terrorist organizations propaganda toward them?

Also, what would the consequence be of having thousands of people in Berlin or Paris without a good-paying job? For example, a report in 2016 found that migrants committed or tried to commit more than 69,000 crimes in Germany during the first quarter of last year; most of the crimes were theft or forgery related. Making sure that people who enter Europe have jobs so that they do not resort to a life of crime is a form of security and could be argued as an anti-terrorism measure.

Most Americans cant imagine the challenges Europe has with the influx of refugees. Because of the oceans that insulate the U.S. from most of the world, the migrant crisis has little impact on us so far. Europe is picking up the heavy lifting of hosting refugees, and the continent must constantly fight any propaganda suggesting that ISIS or Al-Qaeda care more about them than their new hosts.

One reason why most of Europe may not pay two percent of its GDP for defense is because its global objectives arent as robust and far-reaching. America has more than 800 military bases in more than 70 countries, making it the most global military on the planet. In comparison, France, Britain and Russia have 30 foreign bases combined.

NATO is primarily financed by the U.S., but Americans almost never go into combat alone. Americas operations in Afghanistan, for example, includes some 13,000 personnel from partner countries. A middle ground could be European nations sending more of its troops to combat missions that help U.S. objectives. This may not be as much a question of military spending as it is of deployment.

We also have to consider how Europe supports its soldiers. As Peter Layton explains in The National Interest, Europe pays for defense in ways we may not have considered:

Americas defense budget also allows for spending on unrelated items. For instance, medical spending consumes nearly 10 percent of the Department of Defense budget. Other nations pay for family and ex-service personnel medical care as part of national health systemsit is not a defense impost.

Additionally, the items within various defense budgets varies considerably. Perhaps 10 percent should be added to allies defense totals to compensate for this difference? Varying accounting approaches allow many ways to game a 2 percent benchmark, and it has already started.

The bottom line is that Europe could certainly be more proactive in contributing to NATOs finances and military missions, but it is not nearly the freeloader the Trump administration suggests it is. A new way of looking at what European NATO members contribute, how it supports its military and how they can help Washingtons long term objectives may fill the economic gap Trumpand prior administrationscomplain about.

Follow this link:

The Truth About Europe Paying Its 'Fair Share' For NATO - Jalopnik

It has been a nervous year, Tom Lehrer once remarked, and people have begun to feel like aChristian Scientist with appendicitis. That was 1965, and he was speaking of the escalation in Vietnam and the Dominican Civil War. With President Donald Trump steering foreign policy, Americans surely know how he felt.

The latest news is that Defense Secretary James Mattis has told NATO allies that if they dont start carrying their weight, the U.S. is going to moderate its commitment to the region. Now, as an abstract matter of principle, Im firmly behind this. Only five NATO countries actually hit their targets, and three of them are a lot poorer than the sponging grifters that have cut their militaries back while enjoying the safety of the U.S. security umbrella.

The freeloading countries dont even send a fruit basket to Washington to say thanks. In fact, as a rightish American whos spent a bit of time abroad, I can personally attest that many of those NATO members citizens feel free to disparage our massive military budget, as if their smaller budgets were some sort of moral sacrifice rather than an unearned benefit paid for by U.S. taxpayers.

There, I got that off my chest. I hope we all feel better.

Nonetheless, even for me, Mattiss statement is a sort of gulp moment. The Europeans arent the only people who benefit from the American security umbrella. The fact that the worlds biggest rich economy is willing to spend so much of its GDP on the military doesnt just mean that other countries dont have to; it also means that other countries dont bother, because they cant possibly catch up.

There are downsides to this. Countries with a big hammer will inevitably end up using it in ways that turn out to be stupid. (See: Iraq.) It also, inevitably means that the security umbrella of the world will be used in ways that the country that owns it likes. (See complaints by every country except the U.S., many of them justified.) But for all that, you can certainly imagine a country with an America-sized military advantage doing much worse things with it. Many worse things. In fact, when you think about alternative histories, were pretty far into the happy zone of the spectrum. Not all the way to utopia, mind you. But a lot better than youd imagine, if youd never heard of the United States of America and you were plotting out your science fiction novel with a dominant, heavily armed nation.

A more evenly multi-polar world would look like -- well, perhaps youre acquainted with a little tiff known to historians as World War I. You may even have read about the exciting sequel they made when the first production turned out to be so great. That was terrifying enough when the nastiest stuff in the worlds arsenal was toxic gas. It gets even more terrifying when you have bombs that can flatten a city or worse.

Unfortunately military spending is the ur-example of what economists call a public good. These provide a benefit to everyone, and once the benefit has been created, it cannot be taken away from anyone.

Imagine a public health campaign that eliminates HIV, wiping it off the face of the planet. Thats an enormous benefit to the world. But if I pay to get rid of HIV, I have no way to charge you for the benefit I provided. Once Ive gotten rid of HIV, you benefit from my investment, whether you pay me back or not.

Public health, defense, crime control -- these are classic public goods because for some people to get the benefit, everyone has to. Unfortunately, the optimal self-interested strategy is therefore to let other people pay for the stuff, while you free ride. If everyone practices the optimal strategy, no one gets the benefit. Enter government, which has to secure these things, if were going to have them, and force everyone to pay the bill.

Thats fine for crime, because its effects are local and the cost of management relatively moderate. If the Topeka City Council figures out a way to wipe out crime, theres probably very little spillover effect in San Luis Obispo, and zero cost to San Luis Obispoans. But in the case of plagues and national defense, we can run into a problem, which is that the effects are very large, and the investment required can be huge. Imagine that we didnt treat national defense as a federal responsibility, and handed it to the states. Maine and Texas would have gigantic militaries; places like Connecticut and Oregon might have sizeable Coast Guards. But the rational military budget for a place like Nebraska would be pretty close to zero. Because border states are of limited size and financial capacity, the militaries of those places would probably be smaller than everyone would like, even as the proud people of Montana labored under gruesome taxes to protect Coloradans from the fearsome Canadian horde.

In fact, you see this problem with NATO. Of the five countries that are actually pulling their weight, only two can be said to be doing so for reasons that arent strictly rational self-interest (the U.S. and Britain). The other three -- Greece, Poland and Estonia -- border non-NATO countries and are pretty worried about future conflict with a military power that meets or exceeds their own. The problem is that neither Poland nor Estonia could ever even remotely hope to repel a Russian invasion. If the U.S. gets fed up with its NATO partners and withdraws, Germany would be depending on the Poles to fend off any Russian aggression -- or hoping that Russia got sick of all the winning after they took Poland and stopped there. (See: World War II.)

Military capacity takes time to build up; even the famous mobilizations of the 20th century were built around a core of officers who had spent their lives thinking about little things like the best tactics to repel invasions, and how to transport large numbers of troops and supporting items to the front while keeping them in condition to fight, and how to get people to overcome their self-interest to pick up a gun and run into harms way.

Only the U.S. has consistently invested so much in this buildup. Because the U.S. has decided to provide this public good of military protection to much of the world, other countries have let those skills atrophy. If the U.S. actually decided to become isolationist, other countries might quickly become willing to assume its military roles, but would not immediately be able to. Pouring money into the defense budget now will not create the majors and lieutenant colonels and generals you need; those arise only if you invested in lieutenants years back.

All of humanity now benefits from this public good: a world in which major wars are pointless. No government except the U.S. can possibly provide that. (Even if you think youd fancy a world policed by China better, its economy does not yet throw off enough surplus to play lone superpower, and neither does Russias.) Multilateral institutions can step into the breach somewhat, but multilateral institutions dont have the same taxing power that a territorial state does, and it shows. All NATO can really do is complain that members arent meeting their targets. The U.S., as the member picking up the tab, can threaten to pull out if other states don't contribute more. But following through on that threat would hurt us as well as them.

Given those two choices, Ill grit my teeth and pay the taxes and practice my frozen smile for my next trip to Europe. But if Trump makes the other choice, then I, like everyone else in the world, will have to live with the result.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

To contact the author of this story: Megan McArdle at mmcardle3@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Philip Gray at philipgray@bloomberg.net

Read the original post:

Tragedy of the Public Good: Why the US Shouldn't Quit NATO - Bloomberg

Nikki Haley, US Ambassador to the United Nations, speaks at a Security Council meeting on February 21, 2017 at the UN Headquarters in New York City (AFP Photo/KENA BETANCUR)

United Nations (United States) (AFP) - US Ambassador Nikki Haley on Tuesday said the United States is ready to improve ties with Russia but will not compromise on its support for NATO and the European Union.

Haley told a Security Council debate on conflicts in Europe that "Russia's attempts to destabilize Ukraine" were among the most serious challenges facing the continent.

"The United States thinks it's possible to have a better relationship with Russia - after all, we confront many of the same threats," Haley said.

"But greater cooperation with Russia cannot come at the expense of the security of our European friends and allies."

The remarks came as European governments are seeking reassurance after US President Donald Trump applauded Britain's decision to leave the European Union, criticized NATO members over burden-sharing and praised Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Haley said the United States was committed to "the institutions that keep Europe safe" and that it "will not waver" in its support for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

The United States wants to deepen cooperation within NATO while "keeping the door open to new allies," she said.

Enlarging NATO has been a major bone of contention with Russia, which sees any expansion of the military alliance in eastern Europe as a policy of containment directed against Moscow.

Haley described US ties with the European Union as "deep and enduring" and said differences with European governments should not be seen as a shift in US support.

"No one should misinterpret occasional policy differences and debates as a signal of anything less than total commitment to our alliances in Europe. That commitment is strong," she said.

The ambassador stressed that the US and the EU were united in the view that sanctions against Russia would remain in place until Russia returns Crimea to Ukrainian rule.

A recent flareup of fighting in east Ukraine "show the consequences of Russia's ongoing interference in Ukraine," said the US ambassador.

Haley said Russia's decision to recognize passports issued by separatists in Ukraine's Lugansk and Donetsk regions was "another direct challenge in the efforts to bring peace to eastern Ukraine."

Originally posted here:

Trump's envoy at UN warns Russia US stands firm on NATO, EU - Yahoo News