On Tuesday, under crisp blue skies at Camp Ripley in Little Falls, Minn., two bald eagles eased above the trees. But abruptly, they flew off. It wasnt the persistent wind that scattered them, but intermittent gunfire from a line of Minnesota National Guard and Norwegian Home Guard soldiers.

The troops training on a range were part of an exchange now in its 44th year, the most enduring engagement between a U.S. state and a NATO nation.

Its an experience of a lifetime, said visiting Home Guard soldier Torsten Bjornes, one of about 100 taking part alongside an equal contingent from the Minnesota Guard. Bjornes, who has a North Dakota-born grandmother, was eager for Minnesota troops to traipse to Norway for reciprocal training. Come on over were ready for you! Bjornes said, smiling.

Norway was also ready when the U.S. called on the transatlantic alliance to fight in Afghanistan. Bjornes himself served there after the one and only time that NATOs Article 5 has been invoked. Whether that call for collective defense will ever be triggered again is unknown. But like many members of the 28-nation pact, Norway is wary about Russian revanchism under President Vladimir Putin.

The threat is evolving, according to Maj. Gen. Finn Kristian Hannestad, the Norwegian defense attache in Washington, Maj. Gen. Tor Rune Raabye, commander of the Norwegian Home Guard, and Maj. Gen. Richard C. Nash, the adjutant general of Minnesota who oversees the Minnesota National Guard, all of whom flew to Camp Ripley in a Black Hawk helicopter that like the eagles seemed unfazed by the wind.

Raabye spoke of hybrid warfare, in which all the tools of the state could be used in operations against other nations everything from political information, economic, diplomatic and military pressure.

Increasingly, the military pressure is itself asymmetrical. Raabye referred to the so-called little green men Russian forces in unmarked army uniforms menacing eastern Ukraine, and added that the Baltics, Poland and non-NATO, Western-friendly Finland and Georgia share similar concerns.

Thats due to revisionists in Russia commanded by Putin, who knows how to work the fringes and seams, said Nash, adding: I think hes taken advantage of that asymmetrical warfare; he tries to test NATOs resolve.

Thats what seems to be transpiring, although the news is being blurred by the whirlwind in Washington including allegations regarding Russias role in the U.S. presidential election and reportedly with President Trumps campaign itself.

On Feb. 14 came news of this valentine from Putin: Russia secretly deployed a new cruise missile in violation of an arms-control treaty. A day later, the U.S. Coast Guard confirmed that a Russian spy ship slipped within 30 miles of the Naval Submarine Base in Groton, Conn. While it was within international waters, it reflects Russian provocations in Europe.

The same day, Defense Secretary James Mattis addressed his NATO colleagues. While he did not reprise the presidents uncertain trumpet on the alliance itself Trump once labeled NATO obsolete he warned about U.S. impatience on uneven levels of defense spending by member nations. No longer can the American taxpayer carry a disproportionate share of the defense of western values, Mattis said.

The political uncertainty isnt the only dynamic different from the Cold War era, which however perilous presented certainties on both sides of the divide.

Were having a completely different political environment in Europe today and a different Middle East and a different environment with the media, the financial system, the stock market, everything is playing a completely different role than they did 40 years ago, said Hannestad.

Raabye agreed: For me the Cold War in a certain cynical way was stability, while the age we are in today is instability and everybody is insecure of what is going on.

Added Nash: When we had the Cold War, it was pretty simple. We lined up here, Warsaw [Pact nations] lined up there all was pretty well laid out.

Todays geopolitical complexity doesnt mean that fundamentals of military preparedness arent still essential. The Minnesota National Guard will take part in multiple joint exercises in Europe this year, including in June when a contingent of about 700 personnel and 500 pieces of equipment deploy to Baltic countries during an annual exercise called Saber Strike.

Any kind of training exercising is all part of signaling power, cohesion and that NATO is standing together and that Article 5 is real, Hannestad said.

Making Article 5 real requires civilian and military leadership, but also and especially troops training together, just like this week in Camp Ripley and in Camp Vrnes in Norway. Unlike Camp Ripleys raptors, the proverbial U.S. eagle and its transatlantic allies wont flee under fire, but coordination is essential.

You cant do it from an office with a bunch of generals sitting around, Nash said. You have to put soldiers on the ground to be able to use those skill sets, be able to practice those skill sets, and understand each others culture, language and capabilities and the common defense we all bring to NATO, because thats the power the common defense.

John Rash is a Star Tribune editorial writer and columnist. The Rash Report can be heard at 8:20 a.m. Fridays on WCCO Radio, 830-AM. On Twitter: @rashreport.

Continue reading here:

Rash Report: At Camp Ripley training, 'NATO is standing together' - Minneapolis Star Tribune

Britain's impending departure from the European Union has created additionaluncertainty surrounding the issue of European defense. The remaining 27 EU member states are asking themselves whether London will seek a stronger relationship with Washington at the expense of its geographically closer European partners. On the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference,DW's Michaela Kfner asked Britain's defense secretary, Sir Michael Fallon, what effect the Brexit could have on European security.

DW: Sir Michael, you've reiterated that the new UK defense policy will put NATO at its core. How much does talk about NATO, talk about how much it is still a stable structure, damage the alliance itself?

Sir Michael Fallon: The alliance needs to stick together now. The alliance is being tested. It is being tested by Russia;it is being tested by terrorism in the Middle East. There has never been a time when Europeand NATO really needed to stick together more - and Britain is going to be a part of that. We are leading the Very High Readiness Task Force, the response unit of NATO,all this year. We are deploying troops to Estonia. We are deploying RAF aircraft to Romania for southern air policing. We will continue to lead in NATO to help bring thatreassurance that the alliance needs.

There was a lot of talk here of strengthening alliances to avoid a fall back into spheres of influence. Now you are about to leave a very strong alliance: the European Union. How much are you becoming a sphere of influence of the United States?

We are leaving the political European Union. But we are not leaving the continent. Europe remains our continent. We are going to go on contributing to the security of our continent. We also have this transatlantic relationship. Our oldest and strongest ally was the United States. It is a very strong defense relationship. So we see that benefiting both.We see that benefiting the United States, where we will be a bridge between Europe and the United States. But it also benefits the alliance as a whole that Britain is able to link with the US in that way.

Britain has always been skeptical of EU ambitions to build up its own force. You are hinging your defense even more on NATO, even more on your US partner in the future. How is that going to work?

Defense is for NATO and not the European Union. We are not alone in trying to encourage the EU to avoid duplicating what is being done in NATO. NATO has to be our primary defense. Atour last NATO summit, we agreed that the European Union and NATO need to work more closely together, need to avoid duplication. So, with other members of the European Union, we have been resisting calls for a European headquarters or a European army. We don't need that. We have NATO. We need to make NATO work properly for everybody.

RAF planes are involved in air policing in eastern Europe

The EU will no doubt go ahead without you on that, though. Will you still be a stakeholder in that process at all?

It is not just Britain that has been pointing to the need not to set up new unnecessary structures. When we discussed this in Bratislava in September, many other European countries joined with us in saying that we already have NATO. We don't need an EU army. We don't need EU headquarters. They have different roles. Europehas the political role. It can impose sanctions, for example on Putin. It has the diplomatic clout. But it is NATO that is the military power, and it is very important that we don't have two competing organizations.

The interview was conducted by Michaela Kfner.

You can watch the interview here.

The rest is here:

UK minister: 'Defense is for NATO and not the EU' - Deutsche Welle

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau answers a question during Question Period in the House of Commons in Ottawa, Tuesday, February 7, 2017. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Fred Chartrand ORG XMIT: FXC112

In response to concerns from the U.S. that other nations in NATO are not doing enough, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau stated that German and Canada are the nations (besides the U.S.) who are doing the heavy lifting in NATO.

But is that true on Canadas part? Does the assignment of a warship or two and a small land contingent for training and other activities constitute heavy lifting. Does taking part in NATO exercises, which other nations do as well, show Canada as leading the other members of the alliance in contributions?

In defending Canada on the issue of military spending, Trudeau also said the country is in the midst of significant procurement projects. But then, of course, so are many other nations.

Here is what the Department of National Defence noted that Canada is contributing to NATO:

OPERATION REASSURANCE

Maritime Task Force

The periodic deployment of a Canadian frigate to conduct patrols and assurance measures as part of Standing NATO maritime forces; The deployment of HMCS Charlottetown and HMCS St. Johns to conduct patrols and assurance measures as part of Standing NATO maritime forces.

Land Task Force

From January 19 to February 9, 2017, about 40 members of the Operation REASSURANCE Land Task Force participated in Exercise BISON DRAWSKO. The Royal Netherlands Army led this exercise, which included participants from Canada, Estonia, Germany, the Netherlands, and Poland. This key multinational exercise took place in the Drawsko Pomorskie Training Area, Poland, and in the Jagerbruck Training Area, Germany. It trained participants in full spectrum defensive and offensive joint land operations at the brigade level. This, along with the professional and cultural exchanges between the participating nations, helped to further integrate each others military forces.

From November 20, 2016 to December 2, 2016, approximately 140 members of the Operation REASSURANCE Land Task Force participated in Exercise IRON SWORD. This important multinational exercise took place in the Rukla and Pabrade Training Areas in Lithuania under the command of the Iron Wolf Infantry Brigade. The exercise developed Canadian and Lithuanian interoperability capabilities through realistic tactical and operational scenarios. This, along with the professional and cultural exchanges between the two nations, served to further enhance the integration of each others military forces.

From October 24 to November 3, 2016, Approximately 30 members of the Land Task Force participated in Exercise SCORPION FURY 16.2 . This multinational exercise in Cincu, Romania took place under the Command of the Romanian Second Infantry Brigade. This exercise enhanced interoperability through realistic tactical and operational scenarios.

-From September 26 to October 15, 2016, approximately 190 members of the Operation REASSURANCE Land Task Force participated in the multi-national Exercise ALLIED SPIRIT V. The goal of the exercise was to enhance the ability of forces in Europe, including CAF personnel, to work together. LTF members at the brigade and battalion levels exercised tactical soldier skills and tested secure communications between nations.

-In August 2016, approximately 220 Canadian Armed Forces members deployed to Poland in support of Operation REASSURANCE. The soldiers are predominantly from 1st Battalion, Princess Patricias Canadian Light Infantry, based at Canadian Forces Base Edmonton, Alberta. Several other units from 1 Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group and from the Reserve Force are also contributing soldiers to the contingent.

Other NATO activities

o It is expected that Canada will start deploying its troops to Latvia in Spring 2017, and be in place by end of June 2017 at the Adai Military Base.

Go here to read the rest:

Is Canada really doing the heavy lifting at NATO like Trudeau claims? - Ottawa Citizen

New York Times

NATO, Donald Trump, Samsung: Your Friday Briefing New York Times At a NATO meeting in Brussels, the U.S. defense secretary, Jim Mattis, rejected closer military ties with Moscow. And NATO angered Russia by saying it would step up war games and surveillance in the Black Sea. In his first, somewhat awkward trip as ... NATO: Russia targeted German army with fake news campaignDeutsche Welle Military spending by NATO membersThe Economist (blog) This Is How NATO EndsForeign Policy (blog) Telegraph.co.uk all 54 news articles »

See the rest here:

NATO, Donald Trump, Samsung: Your Friday Briefing - New York Times

There will be no military cooperation with Russia and Vladimir Putins government must show that it is ready to abide by international law, Americas Defence Secretary has declared, as he accused the Kremlin of interfering in a series of elections in democratic states.

The combative stance taken by General James Mattis at a Nato summit in Brussels appeared to contradict that of Donald Trump, who has declared that he wanted to cooperate with Mr Putin, a man he has repeatedly praisedon counter-terrorism, especially against Isis in Syria.

The US President has only belatedly acknowledged that Moscow carried out hacking operations in the election which brought him to power, after a long period denying that was the case.

Mr Putin raised the issue of security today, stating that it was vital to have cooperation with the US and Nato. Its in everyones interest to resume dialogue between the intelligence agencies of the United States and other members of Nato. It is absolutely clear that in the area of counter-terrorism all relevant government departments and international groups should work together,said the Russian President.

Speaking soon afterwards, Mr Mattis made it clear that there was a trust deficit with Moscow. Asked whether he believed that Russia interfered in the American presidential elections, Mr Mattis answered: There is very little doubt that Russia has interfered, or attempted to interfere, in a number of elections in democracies. On joint military action with Moscow in Syria, he was adamant: We are not in a position right now to collaborate on a military level.

Political talks will take place, said the US Defence Secretary, to seek a way forward where Russia, living up to its commitments, will return to a partnership of sorts here with Nato.

But, Russia is going to have to prove itself first, he said.

The Nato summit hosted discussions on counter-terrorism, but most of the agenda was designed to counter alleged Russian aggression ranging from conventional military to cyber attacks.

Several member states in eastern Europe have said they have been targeted in hacking operations. Earlier in the week, Ciaran Martin, the head of the UKs new National Cyber Security Centre, revealed that political parties in Britain asked for help following cyber attacks during the 2015 UK general election and the hacking of Democratic Party emails in the US elections.

Nato military units are continuing to be deployed in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland and the naval presence will be increased in the Black Sea region. Russia has complained that the build-up of troops at its borders is in breach of past pledges by the alliance, and spurious threats were being manufactured in the Black Sea region to justify an enlarged Western presence there.

Natos Secretary General, Jens Stoltenberg, insisted at the summit: Our aim is to prevent conflict, not to provoke it. We will not match Russia soldier for soldier, tank for tank, plane for plane. Our deployments are defensive and measured. Our presence in the Black Sea will in no way aim at provoking any conflict or escalating tensions.

Mr Mattis has demanded that Nato raise their defence spending to alleviate the disproportionate contribution being made to the alliances budget by the US. This would, in part, help Nato to negotiate from a position of strength, he held.

This led to another spat with the Russian defence minister, Sergei Shoigu, saying that attempts to build a dialogue with Russia from a position of strength would be futile. The US Defence Secretary hit back: I have no need to respond to the Russian statement at all. Nato has always stood for military strength and protection of the democracies and the freedoms we intend to pass on to our children.

However, dialogue wastaking place with the US Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, and Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, meeting in Germany, and the military chiefs of the two countries, USmarine General Joseph Dunford and the Russian General Valery Gerasimov in Azerbaijan. Mr Lavrov repeated Russias denial of hacking during the American election. You should know we do not interfere in the domestic matters of other countries,he said.

The Kremlin continued to refuse to comment publicly on the turmoil which has enmeshed the Trump administration, with Michael Flynn, the Presidents national security advisor, being forced to resign over clandestine contact with the Russian ambassador to the US and an investigation under way into links between the Trump election team and Russia.

But Konstantin Kosachyov, the head of the international affairs committee in the Duma, protested that even a readiness for a dialogue with Russians is seen in Washington as a thought crime. Either Trump has not found an independence he was looking for, and is being gradually cornered, or Russophobia has infected the new administration top down.

Follow this link:

US officials adopt combative tone on Russia at Nato summit - The Independent

The usefulness of Americas allies was severely questioned during Donald Trumps election campaign. Allies were presented as costing America a considerable amount and giving little in return. The title of an article in Foreign Affairs summed up this perception: Ripped Off: What Donald Trump gets Right about U.S. Alliances.

This election platform is now being translated into action. Secretary of Defense James Mattis declared that the political reality in the United States ... the fair demand from my country's people in concrete terms is that American allies must increase defense spending by years end towards a 2 percent GDP target. If they dont, the United States will moderate its commitment to them. Mattis elaborated, No longer can the American taxpayer carry a disproportionate share of the defense of western values. Americans cannot care more for your childrens security than you do.

Mattiss comments were directed to NATO but also address concerns about all of Americas allies. It must be noted, however, that NATO members agreed in 2014 to work towards a 2 percent GDP objective over the next decade. Such pronouncements have been made beforeat least about NATO. What is different this time is the public perception of America being ripped off by all its allies, in addition to the election of a president determined to place America First. Americas allies are now believed to have made the country weaker and less secure. As President Trump declared at his inauguration, America has subsidized the armies of other countries while allowing for the very sad depletion of our military.

The 2 percent benchmark has the virtue of simplicity. While it is easy to judge countries against a simple quantitative measure, it also significantly misleading. American security may not necessarily be improved even if allies do as Mattis requests. The crucial issue relates to grand strategy, since America and its allies have different visions.

America desires to be a great power with substantial global influence. The country has sought global primacy for many years. America's relative economic superiority has waned over time and others have developed economically, what has been termed the rise of the rest. This does not necessarily mean America will lose its global primacy, but that retaining primacy will rely more on other instruments of national powerand America has many. A central part of this shift has been ensuring that America has the worlds most effective military force.

Allied grand strategies are much less ambitious. They principally want to ensure national defense and occasionally, limited regional influence. Fundamentally, allies want help from others in times of conflict and the wording of the various alliance treaties reflects this.

In the postCold War era, and especially since 9/11, America has sought to make its alliances global. Allies are expected to help out worldwide and not in a strictly national or local sense. In some ways, this is a logical development in combatting certain types of terrorism, particularly those that emanate from distant locations.

Even so, none of Americas allies would be deployed to the Middle East or Afghanistan unless the United States was there. For example, Denmark would not have intervened in Iraq and Syria or Afghanistan by itself. Instead, the American military ecosystem makes Danish (and other allied) deployments both possible and useful. Without this American involvement and push, most allies would address the present terrorist threat through internal national security involving police and CVE campaigns, with no offshore interventions.

America has a larger defense budget allocation than its allies because Washington has far greater ambitions. Now, however, America has upped the alliance ante. The United States now seeks global burden sharing to support the maintenance of America's global primacy, not the local burden sharing originally agreed upon. The real question is whether the proclaimed 2 percent defense budget benchmark will lead to better burden sharing. The answer depends on what the money is spent on.

See the original post:

The 2 Percent NATO Benchmark Is a Red Herring - The National Interest Online (blog)

The phrase, in different forms, is as familiar as any in politics. The first duty of government is to protect the security of the country and its people. All prime ministers of all parties say words of this kind. All of them mean it. And in most cases the words weigh on them, too, because however pompous they sometimes sound, they are true.

What are the threats to that security, now and in the future? Defence ministers, officials and experts are gathering in Munich this weekend to wrestle with the issue. Politicians cannot predict the future. But they know there is stormy weather ahead, in the shape of the threats from Russia, Islamist terror, cyber-attacks and the new uncertainties in Washington.

Theresa May is no different. But her speech to the Republican party in Philadelphia last month set out some clear markers on her defence thinking. The speech was widely reported as a break with the nation-building of the Iraq war era, and thus with the liberal interventionism of Tony Blair. Her words were juxtaposed with Blairs support for intervention in his speech in Chicago in 1999.

Yet more careful reading shows that it celebrated engagement with the world, not retreat from it. Mays view of the world is not isolationist, as Donald Trumps is. On Islamic State, Israel, Iran, the Baltics, Poland, Afghanistan, Kosovo and South Sudan she made clear her commitment to staying engaged. She even said that we cannot stand idly by when the threat is real and it is in our own interests to intervene.

That comment reflects what seems increasingly to be the key to everything about Mays worldview, from bad business practice to Brexit: her desire to act responsibly, as she sees it. Many will dismiss that as a banality. But dont do that if you want to understand her.

In international affairs, May is firmly a traditional multilateralist. She is not, as Brexit might imply, a go-it-aloner. In every other context she thinks alliances matter. Her principal goal when she met Donald Trump in January was to get him to commit to Nato, which he did, sort of.

Her Philadelphia speech stressed the need to rebuild confidence in global institutions such as the United Nations and the International Monetary Fund, which she takes seriously. May even went out of her way to say she wants the European Union to succeed, not unravel, which is not the view of Trump and some fanatical Tories.

A properly functioning Nato is central to Mays view of British security. And this is a pivotal week for stabilising the post-Obama politics of Nato, with defence ministers meeting in Brussels and G20 foreign ministers in Bonn; and both the US defence secretary, James Mattis, and the vice-president, Mike Pence, scheduled to attend the Munich security conference. Every US visitors words will be carefully monitored, not least because Trump himself is now scheduled to make his own first presidential trip to Europe in May to attend the Nato summit.

May will have watched with approval as, in comments in Brussels, Mattis rehearsed the administrations commitment. His view that European allies must spend more and commit more, that Nato was nevertheless a bedrock, and that the US will meet its responsibilities which include 70% of Natos budget is Mays view. It has been Washingtons stance for some years now, though it has been decked out more garishly in the Trump era.

It also happens to be both right and pressing. The age of the large, supposedly one-off intervention, the brief post cold war template that evolved after the tragedies of Rwanda and Bosnia in the 90s and that led directly to Iraq and Libya, is clearly over now. Public readiness across western Europe for such interventionism is low, as Syria showed.

Yet Russian assertiveness is a real and present threat to the continent, and only an alliance can diminish it. In the past three years Russia has annexed Crimea; promoted a civil war in Ukraine; threatened the Baltic states; outmanoeuvred the west in Syria; tested western defences with planes, ships and, above all, cyber; and may be meddling in national elections in Europe, just as it almost certainly did in the US last year in support of Trump.

Russias assertiveness is based more on a desire to restore its standing than to dominate the world. But the distinction makes little difference to the threat. And the threat requires a coordinated investment by the alliance. Natos 2% of GDP spending target on defence is in some ways a perverse measure on one reading this week Britain missed the target last year despite being one of Europes heavier defence spenders. But more, better coordinated and more effective defence investment is an unavoidable collective responsibility. In that sense, Mattis and May are right.

However, heres the crux. May is the leader of a government whose most important European policy is withdrawal from Europe. Yet at the same time she is also the leader of a government that wants a stronger and more unified Europe, this time in the shape of Nato, to stand up to Vladimir Putin.

Politically, this is a rotten hand to play. Whenever May meets the leaders of Europe in an EU context she is firmly telling them that Britain is walking away, scrapping EU rules, spurning their single market, refusing to pay a financial penalty, perhaps even setting the UK up as a low-tax offshore threat to the EU 27. Yet whenever she meets these selfsame leaders in a Nato context she is just as firmly telling them that they must spend more on defence, commit to compatibility of military kit and stand together against common challenges from Russia.

As a strategy for winning friends and influencing people in Europe, it could hardly be clunkier or more self-destructive. Why should Angela Merkel, facing a tight election in September, want to do May any favours right now on Russia? It is hardly surprising that Emmanuel Macron, who may be president of France in less than three months, dismisses Britain as a vassal state of Trumps America.

'There is a real danger that this largely imaginary outward-facing Britain simply looks to others like an irrelevance'

Trump makes all this more difficult. Partly that is because he is so destructive. Jeb Bushs remark about Trump in 2015, that hes a chaos candidate and hed be a chaos president, looks prophetic now, as the Washington Posts EJ Dionne pointed out this week. Partly it is also because Trump may prove to have been Putins candidate. The issue cost Trump his national security adviser and may ultimately bring down the president himself.

May talks bravely about Brexit Britain being outward facing and engaging with the world. But there is a real danger that this largely imaginary Britain simply looks to others like an irrelevance. The elites meeting in Munich this weekend arrived studying a pre-conference report titled: Post-Truth, Post-West, Post-Order?

In that kind of dystopian world Britain will seem an important country, with major security assets ranging from nuclear weapons to powerful intelligence services but failing now more than ever to play a serious role.

Read the rest here:

Brexit Britain's Nato strategy is fatally flawed - The Guardian

Jim Mattis delivered the goods at his first NATO defense ministerial as Secretary of Defense. There was a bit of whiplash during the first day as Mattis went from a reassuring public statement to a statement behind closed doors warning that the Untied States may moderate our commitment to NATO.

The public statement wasnt bad in fact, it was sober-minded, practical, plain spoken, almost lyrical in parts (as far as NATO statements go). It was also replete with references to historical touch points that are crucial to understanding the value of NATO, which Mattis clearly does. If you needed reassurance that Mattis not just knows NATO but feels it, you got that in his statement.

But what about this moderate our commitment bit? It was pretty clearly an ultimatum, though it was more nuanced if you read it in context. Mattis goes one step further than his predecessor Bob Gates did in his famous 2013 Brussels speech, which warned of a dark and dismal future for NATO if Americas allies didnt do more. Essentially, Mattis said the politically untenable situation that Gates warned about had now arrived in Washington in the form of Donald Trump. It was intended as a motivational speech: Everyone pull up your socks or else. Its just that the or else part is still vague.

Once youve drawn a red (or at least pink) line of this sort, its hard to walk it back. Some NATO allies will never reach the military spending target of 2 percent and few, if any, allies will show much progress by the end of the year. What then? Will the United States pull the trigger and moderate our commitment and what would that even mean? Were likely to face this awkward situation in the year ahead and we wont have the luxury of being able to walk away from it, at least not without gaining a reputation as a paper tiger.

We would have more flexibility if Mattis had vowed to moderate Americas participation in NATO rather then our commitment. Messing with our commitment to NATO means weakening Article 5 of the organizational treaty, which I dont think Mattis intends, whatever Donald Trump might have in mind. Moderating our participation would have opened up options such as reducing our common funding contribution or something else that doesnt weaken our commitment to Article 5.

Perhaps theres some wiggle room in defining fair share after all, sometimes its not how much you spend but what you spend it on and how willing you are to use it that counts. But either way we have crossed the Rubicon American commitment to NATO is on the table. Mattiss warning of consequences will force U.S. allies to ask themselves a lot of questions; if they feel threatened, it may even cause some blowback. Threatening consequences may work with 5 year olds; sovereign states, not so much.

Whats clear is that the Trump administration will now have to follow through when it becomes apparent most Allies wont meet the 2 percent any time soon. Whether anyone has thought through what we will when our allies dont measure up is another question.

Photo credit:EMMANUEL DUNAND/AFP/Getty Images

Twitter Facebook Google + Reddit

See original here:

Can Mattis Back Up His NATO Threat? - Foreign Policy (blog)

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and Finland are stepping up their cooperation on cyber defense in the face of increased threats in cyberspace and a resurgent Russia.

NATO and Finland on Thursday signed a political framework agreement on cyber defense cooperation that will allow them to better protect and strengthen their networks.

We look forward to enhancing our situational awareness and exchanging best practices with Finland, including through dedicated points of contact for rapid information exchange on early warning information and lessons learned, Ambassador Sorin Ducaru, NATOs assistant secretary general for emerging security challenges, said.

This arrangement is a good example of the cooperation between NATO and Finland it is practical, substantial and at the same time mutually beneficial, Juusti said in a statement. Finland sees many opportunities of enhanced cooperation for example in conducting training and exercises in the cyber domain.

The new agreement comes on the heels of the Russian governments alleged cyber meddling in the U.S. presidential election. The U.S. intelligence community has concluded that Moscow used cyberattacks and disinformation to undermine confidence American democracy and damage Democratic nominee Hillary ClintonHillary Rodham ClintonThe 16 most memorable quotes from Trump's press conference Trump airs grievances at first full press conference Trump to black reporter: Help me meet with Black Caucus MORE, which Russia has denied.

There are now suspicions that Moscow will also try to meddle in forthcoming European elections, including those in France and Germany.

NATO has focused more on cyber defense as cyber intrusions have become more pervasive and damaging, stoking concerns about the potential for attacks that might compromise critical infrastructure. At the Warsaw Summit last July, member states recognized cyberspace as a domain of operations in which NATO must defend itself.

NATO infrastructure came under threat from 500 cyberattacks each month in 2016, an increase of 60 percent over the previous year, Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg revealed last month.

Finland and NATO actively cooperate on security and other operations, and the country has shown signs of wanting to boost cooperation with the alliance. Last year, Russian President Vladimir Putin signaled that he might move troops closer to the Finnish-Russian border if Finland were to join NATO.

NATO member states have bolstered troop presence in the Baltic States and Poland to deter Russian aggression in eastern Europe, nearly three years after Moscows annexation of Ukraines Crimean Peninsula.

View original post here:

NATO, Finland deepen cooperation on cyber defense - The Hill

German soldiers stationed in Lithuania have been the target of false rape claims, German news magazine "Spiegel" first reported on Thursday. NATO diplomats told Spiegel that they viewed this as an attack aimed at undermining the presence of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in Eastern Europe, likely perpetrated by Russia.

Emails claiming that German soldiers had raped an underage Lithuanian girl were sent to the president of the Lithuanian parliament and various Lithuanian media outlets on February 14.

Lithuanian authorities investigated the charges and found no evidence that any of the claims made in the emails were true. "To our knowledge, Lithuanian police investigations came to the conclusion that there were neither a victim nor possible witnesses nor any perpetrators", a spokesperson for the German ministry of defense said.

Some smaller local news outlets reported on the charges, according to Spiegel, but Lithuanian officials quickly discounted the accusations.

Lithuanian police is investigating the incident. The address from which the emails accusing the soldiers were sent no longer exists, according to the German defense ministry, but authorities are looking to track the IP-address.

NATO is moving eastward

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg told reporters in Brussels that there had been several previous attempts to spread disinformation about NATO and that the organization was on constant alert.

The German troop presence in Lithuania is part of an "enhance forward presence"mission in NATO's Eastern territories. The military alliance made up of Canada, the United States and 26 European countries is upping its military presence in response to Russia's annexation of Crimea and the Kremlin's involvement in the conflict in Eastern Ukraine. NATO troops are stationed in Poland and in the three Baltic states - Lithuania, Estonia andLatvia. Germany is heading the recently begun mission in Lithuania and deployed its first soldiers in early February.

For many Germans, the alleged misinformation campaign in Lithuania echoesthe "Lisa case". In early 2016, Russian media outlets picked up the story of a 13-year old Russian-German girl named Lisa who claimed that she had been abducted and raped by Arab refugees in Berlin a lie the girl had made up in order to not get in trouble with her parents after spending the night at male friend's place. Hundreds of Russian-Germans took to the street in protests in response to the reports, claiming that German authorities were neglecting the "Lisa case" for political reasons.

mb/ss,kl(AFP, dpa)

Read the original post:

NATO: Russia targeted German army with fake news campaign - Deutsche Welle

Miami Herald

AP Interview: Lithuania confident of US commitment to NATO Miami Herald Lithuania's defense minister said Thursday he is confident that all NATO allies will help protect his country from Russia despite recent concern over the U.S. commitment to European security. Raimundas Karoblis told The Associated Press that he had no ... and more »

Originally posted here:

AP Interview: Lithuania confident of US commitment to NATO - Miami Herald

New York Times

Donald Trump, NATO, Boeing: Your Thursday Briefing - The New ... New York Times President Trump with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel at the White House on Wednesday. Credit Stephen Crowley/The New York Times. (Want to ... and more »

See original here:

Donald Trump, NATO, Boeing: Your Thursday Briefing - The New ... - New York Times

To say that the European members of NATO should spend 2 percent of their GDP on defense, as they agreed at the alliances 2014 summit in Wales, is to state the obvious; but increases in defense spending alone will not revitalize NATO. The alliances future hinges on the key question of strategic consensusthat is, a deeply internalized recognition of the threats confronting the allies.

The last twenty-five years have offered ample reason for pessimism that NATO can agree on a unifying purpose. However, today for the first time since the end of the Cold War, the alliance seems to have enough of a shared security optics to begin to forge an enduring common threat assessment.

At first blush, guarded optimism about NATOs future may seem counterintuitive, as for years the alliance has come up short when it comes to resources and a shared strategic vision. Debates in NATO on what to prioritize continue unabated. Still, two issues are rising fast to the top of the organizations agenda: regionally, a resurgent and geostrategically assertive Russia; and globally, the accelerating threat of Islamic terrorism.

These two topics offer a unique opportunity for NATO to align the security outlooks of key European members with that of the United States. It appears that the next NATO summit, in Brussels in May 2017, may deliver a strategic vision thatmuch as during the Cold Warwill condense a common understanding of NATOs mission into a clearly articulated set of goals that publics will embrace.

Notwithstanding the doom and gloom of op-eds and commentaries predicting NATOs twilight, the United States and its European allies have already delivered a remarkably coordinated response to Russian pressure along the alliances Eastern flank, in both political and military terms. The presence of the U.S. Armored Brigade Combat Team in Poland and the impending deployments of NATO multinational battalions in the Baltics are a breakthrough in how the United States and NATO operate in Central Europe, even if the current reinforcement of the flank remains a work in progress. The deployments demonstrate that allies recognize the geostrategic shift occurring on Europes doorstep in the wake of Russias March 2014 seizure of Crimea and the ongoing war in eastern Ukraine, and can respond in unison.

Likewise, terrorist strikes in Europe and the United States have generated a significant change in how the threat of Islamic terrorism is perceived on both sides of the Atlantic. U.S. and European leaders have identified jihadist terrorism as a direct threat, with U.S. President Donald Trump calling for an all-out effort to defeat the self-proclaimed Islamic State, French President Franois Hollande declaring his country to be at war after the November 2015 Paris terrorist attacks, British Prime Minister Theresa May warning that the UK faces the same terrorist threats as France, and Chancellor Angela Merkel calling terrorism the greatest threat to Germany. Similar sentiments have been echoed across other NATO capitals.

Since the end of the Cold War, NATO has been searching for its existential raison dtre, but various formulas such as out of area, smart defence, and comprehensive approach have come up short in large part because of allies divergent views of security.

Arguably, the biggest missed chance for NATO came in the wake of the 2001 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, when the alliance invoked Article 5 of the NATO treaty in defense of the United States. Back then, it seemed for a moment that a new collective mission was staring NATO in the face, for it should have been clear that global Islamic terrorist networks were only just beginning to grow in strength. And yet, the subsequent War on Terror and the Overseas Contingency Operations pursued by the United States never germinated into a shared strategic mission, even though the alliance took the lead role in the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan.

Today, NATO has arguably the greatest chance since the end of the Cold War to foster a strategic consensus around its two common threats: Russias renewed geostrategic assertiveness along NATOs Eastern (and, increasingly, Southern) flank, and the surge of Islamic terrorism. The key deliverable for the next NATO summit should be a strategy on Russia and terrorism, and allies should start working on it posthaste. Achieving this goal, in addition to increasing defense spending, would go a long way toward strengthening alliance cohesion.

Andrew A. Michta is the dean of the College of International and Security Studies at the George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies. Views expressed here are his own.

More:

A Common Threat Assessment for NATO? - Carnegie Europe

The Independent

NATO Chief Concerned if Russia Missile Reports Prove True New York Times BRUSSELS NATO's chief says the military alliance would be concerned if reports that Russia has violated a Cold War-era treaty by deploying a cruise missile prove true. U.S. intelligence agencies have assessed that the missile became operational late ... Nato chief expresses 'serious concern for the alliance' if Russian missile reports prove trueThe Independent NATO: Concerned If Russia Violated INF TreatyNBC 7 San Diego all 119 news articles »

More here:

NATO Chief Concerned if Russia Missile Reports Prove True - New York Times

GETTY

According to the Latvian information agency LETA, Spain is planning to send six tanks, a dozen armoured vehicles along with 350 troops to Latvia to join Natos battalion led by Canadian forces.

At least 16 armoured vehicles will reportedly accompany six new Leopard 2e tanks in Latvia as part of the Spanish Embassy's bid to reinforce Natos presence on the eastern flank.

Kaspars Galkins, the Latvian defence ministry spokesman, said: Several countries participating in the battalion have announced what kind of equipment they intend to deploy to Latvia.

Consultations continue with these countries, and no specifics regarding the type of military equipment and the precise number of units has been determined.

Getty Images

1 of 11

Every member country, no matter how large or small, has an equal say in discussions and decisions. Photo shows: Signing the North Atlantic Treaty which marked the beginning of NATO, 1949.

Nato defence ministers are set to meet in Brussels later this week as Canadian defence minister Harjit Sajjan is reportedly keen to discuss the increased equipment in Latvia.

The news comes after reports confirm Russia deployed a new cruise missile which violates the arms control treaty it shared with the US.

Whilst Trump has previously refused to call Putin a killer, the US President will now be faced with the task of responding to Putins missile launch.

Although Nato members claim Russia is becoming an increasing dangerous threat, Aleksey Meshkov a Russian deputy foreign minister took a sharp turn and also claimed they felt threatened.

GETTY

Meshkov said: This deployment is, of course, a threat for us. It is obvious that the steps by Nato gravely increase the risk of incidents.

Last week, the Latvian defence minister Raimonds Bergmanis confirmed that the Adani base in Latvia will become very large as construction to the barracks to accommodate the huge unit will continue this year".

Go here to read the rest:

WORLD WAR 3: Putin's aggression prompts Spain to bolster Nato forces with MORE resources - Express.co.uk

NATO Communications and Information (NCI) Agency to supply TITUS solutions to numerous member states and agencies

BRUSSELS, BELGIUM--(Marketwired - Feb. 15, 2017) - TITUS, the worldwide market leader in classification and protection solutions for unstructured data, and the NATO Communications and Information (NCI) Agency today announced the signing of a joint Master Service Agreement (MSA). This agreement will enable TITUS to supply their solutions to NCI Agency, NATO Member Nations and other NATO entities.

Cybersecurity is a major area of concern for NATO, and is considered the fourth domain of operations after air, land and water. NATO and its member agencies need to be prepared to defend networks and operations against the increasingly sophisticated cyber threats and attacks that it faces.

TITUS classification and policy enforcement tools ensure unstructured information in email and documents is classified, protectively marked and effectively secured. TITUS solutions enable users to apply uniform, consistent, and comprehensive markings. By ensuring information is properly marked, TITUS solution help promote cross-domain sharing and reduce spillage of classified and sensitive information.

Several NATO agencies and projects run by NCI Agency have been using TITUS solutions to help classify and secure unstructured data. With this agreement in place, they will be able to streamline and standardize on TITUS solutions across the agency, as well as NATO Member Nations.

Mitch Robinson, President and Chief Operating Officer at TITUS, said:

"We are pleased to see the continuation and growth of our relationship with NATO and specifically NCIA. While TITUS solutions have already been in use by some NATO member agencies, with this agreement in place we look forward to working more closely together to achieve consistent, effective information protection across the board."

About TITUS

TITUS products enhance data loss prevention by classifying and protecting sensitive information in emails, documents and other file types - on the desktop, on mobile devices, and in the Cloud. TITUS solutions are trusted by millions of users in over 120 countries around the world. Our customers include Dell, Provident Bank, Dow Corning, Safran Morpho, United States Air Force, NATO, Pratt and Whitney, Canadian Department of National Defence, and the Australian Department of Defence. Additional information is available at http://www.TITUS.com.

About NCI Agency

The NATO Communications and Information (NCI) Agency provides the Alliance with advanced Information and Communications Technology and C4ISR, including cyber and missile defence. NCI Agency connects forces, NATO and nations. Supporting NATO operations is NCI Agency's top priority.

Read this article:

NATO and TITUS Announce Joint Master Service Agreement - Marketwired (press release)

German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen has called for more military spending across Europe, ahead of a meeting with her NATO counterparts in Brussels on Wednesday.

Herproposal is an extremely unpopular one in Germany, even as the army suffers from the consequences of outdated equipment and lack of resources.

"We Europeans have to do more to be able to establish security for Europe, and that means investments," von der Leyen told state broadcaster ZDF.

The minister also voiced concerns shared by many NATO member states that the skepticism with which US President Donald Trump has treated the alliance could be dangerous for all involved. However, she hoped that US Secretary of Defense James Mattis would temper Trump's attitude.

Mattis: US maintains support for NATO

Mattis has described NATO as "the most successful military alliance in history," and tried to calm allies' fears after the Trump described the organization as "obsolete" in a newspaper interview. Mattis and von der Leyen are set to meetat the summit starting on Wednesday in Brussels.

"I hope his position (on NATO) will prevail," said the German defense minister in reference to Mattis' more positive stance on the alliance.

After arriving in Brussels, Mattis reiterated his earlier comments."The alliance remains a fundamental bedrock for the United States and for all the transatlantic community, bonded as we are together," said Mattis, adding that "as President Trump has stated, he has strong support for NATO."

One of the main topics of discussion during the two-day NATO summit will be how defense spending will develop in Europe in the future. President Trump has criticized some member states for not contributing the required two percent of GDP to the alliance, saying that the US was unfairly shouldering the burden of costs.

Bundeswehr recruits in Thuringia

"We also have to invest in the army, and that means an increased budget," von der Leyen said in the ZDF interview. Berlin has already tacitly agreed to increase defense spending, although it still will not reach the promised two percent for NATO.

es/jm (AFP, dpa)

Visit link:

Ursula von der Leyen calls for more defense spending ahead of NATO summit - Deutsche Welle

Trump Puts NATO Allies in the Crosshairs Over Military Spending Wall Street Journal Last month, Germany began deploying an army battle group to Lithuania, the first of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization troops to arrive to bolster the defenses on the alliance's eastern border with Russia. It isn't an overwhelming display of force ...

Read more here:

Trump Puts NATO Allies in the Crosshairs Over Military Spending - Wall Street Journal

In Washington and at NATOs headquarters in Brussels, the view is that alliance members spend far too little on defense. Despite repeated cajoling from U.S. defense secretariesand now from U.S. President Donald Trumpfor European allies to spend more, many European finance ministers are opposed to opening their purses to their defense counterparts.

Only a handful of NATO alliesBritain, Estonia, Greece, Poland, and the United Statesspend 2 percent or more of their GDP on defense. And thats out of an alliance of 28 members. No doubt therell be more cajoling at the annual Munich Security Conference when scores of leaders and hundreds of diplomats along with defense and security officials gather in the Bavarian capital on February 17.

By spending more on equipment and training and sending 5,000 troops to Poland and the Baltic states, NATO aims to reassure its more vulnerable members and show Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, that the alliance is taking collective defense seriously. But something of fundamental importance is missing from the spending plea and the deployment of troops: institutional memory, or what collective defense and deterrence used to mean in substance and in practice.

During the Cold War, NATO was in top gear. Training and coordination, doctrine and capabilities, strategy and preparedness were taken as given. Collective defense was ingrained in the theory and practice of the alliance.

The nature of the threat was never underestimated, either. Just take a look at a fascinating report written by the alliances military committee in 1966. The Overall Strategic Concept for the Defense of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Area is worth reading for one main reason: it set out the strategic goals of NATO and those of its adversary, the Soviet-led Warsaw Pact.

The year 1966 cannot be compared with 2017. The Warsaw Pact is defunct. In that sense, the conventional definition of the Cold War no longer applies today. But Russia is still intent on weakening or dividing NATO. The alliances demise remains Moscows goal. Russias determination to hold on to its immediate western neighborsBelarus, Georgia, and Ukraineand maintain a strong influence over Armenia and Moldova has already been tested by Moscows invasion of eastern Ukraine and its annexation of the Crimean Peninsula in March 2014.

Page 4 of NATOs 1966 report states clearly that Soviet policy toward NATOa policy that Putin is replicating todaywas based on economic means, political means, propaganda, subversion, and military power. With a brief interlude in the early 1990s, the Kremlin hasnt discarded these instruments.

This is NATOs Achilles heel and the reason why the debate over the 2 percent spending goal could be a red herring. During the 1990s, the alliance lost its raison dtreand understandably. Many of its members assumed Russia would embark on a different kind of cooperation or coexistence with the West. However, NATOs bombing of Serbia in 1999 and Russias staunch opposition to that mission only reinforced Moscows Cold War perception of NATO.

The alliance, meanwhile, slowly lost the tools that underpinned territorial defense: coordination and strategic thinking. In 2001, NATO went off to Afghanistan, where crisis management and counterinsurgency eroded what the alliance was established for in the first place. The strategic pendulum is swinging back from crisis management to deterrence and collective defense, a top NATO diplomat told Carnegie Europe on condition of anonymity.

The problem is that on the ground, NATOs European allies are singularly ill equipped for deterrence and collective defense. Again, there is a lack of institutional memory. We lack the generals who knew what deterrence and collective defense were about, another NATO diplomat said.

Just as crucially, NATO today lacks the necessary infrastructure. During the Cold War, NATO had strong bridges, aircraft, roads, and a railroad network to transport troops quickly and in large numbers. True, there were tens of thousands of NATO troops at the ready. But that infrastructure also included energy supplies and logistics, the availability of housing and food, and the ability to cross borders without bureaucratic delays. All these have been largely eroded. If NATO is serious about deterrence and collective and territorial defense, it has to remake this infrastructure.

As the 1966 report stated, to be fully effective against an attack with little or no strategic warning forces should be provided with adequate combat and logistic support, possess the necessary tactical mobility, and be deployed forward with appropriate echeloning in depth in suitable tactical locations.

NATO cannot revive this depleted institutional memory. A whole generation of military, diplomatic, and security personnel has been replaced. That is why the 2 percent spending issue will become a red herring unless NATO realizes what it has lost and what Russia has retained.

Go here to read the rest:

NATO's Red Herring - Carnegie Europe

Montenegro's prime minister, Dusko Markovic, has told Russia and its allies within Montenegro to stop destabilizing the country as part of their opposition to Podgorica's NATO membership bid.

Speaking on February 14, Markovic said that those warning of unrest "in Montenegro or outside of it should keep their hands off Montenegro."

His remarks came after pro-Russian parties denounced a call by Montenegro's special prosecutor for parliament to lift the immunity of two senior opposition leaders.

The pro-Kremlin opposition Democratic Front leaders, Andrija Mandic and Milan Knezevic, were allegedly involved in a pro-Russian plot in October 2016 to kill the then-prime minister and take over power to prevent Montenegro from joining NATO.

Prosecutor Milivoje Katnic wants their immunity lifted so they can be detained and put on trial for criminal conspiracy and inciting "acts against constitutional order and the security of Montenegro."

Parliament is due to vote on their immunity on February 15. Pro-Russian opposition parties have called for demonstrations outside of the national assembly in Podgorica during the February 15 vote.

Mandic and Knezevic have dismissed the plot allegations as "fiction."

Mandic has made several recent visits to Moscow, where he received support from the Kremlin for his anti-NATO position.

He has warned of civil war in Montenegro over the issue of NATO membership.

But Markovic's government remains committed to forging ties with the West.

Montenegro in October arrested about 20 people -- including two Russian citizens -- in connection with the alleged coup plot.

Most of the others arrested in October are pro-Russian Serbian nationals.

The Kremlin has denied involvement, but has actively supported local groups that oppose Montenegro becoming a NATO member.

NATO Awaits Approval, Including U.S.

Twenty-four of NATO's 28 members have approved Montenegrin membership, which was endorsed by NATO leaders at a Warsaw summit in July 2016.

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said on February 14, a day before a two-day meeting of NATO defense ministers in Brussels, that he couldn't say exactly when the remaining four NATO members will ratify the accession protocol for Montenegro, but added that "we are on a good track to have the membership of Montenegro relatively soon."

The United States is one of the four countries yet to formally approve Podgorica's NATO bid.

But Stoltenberg said on February 14 that "there has been no sign that the U.S. administration is not supporting the ratification."

"It has a strong bipartisan support in the Senate and the [Senate] Foreign Relations Committee has supported it, so I think it is also on a good track in the U.S.," Stoltenberg said.

However, U.S. President Donald Trump's description of NATO as an "obsolete" organization and his calls for improved relations with Russian President Vladimir Putin have worried many in Montenegro that Trump may try to block Podgorica's membership bid.

Excerpt from:

Montenegrin PM Warns Russia To 'Keep Hands Off' NATO Bid - RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty