RIGA - NATO continues to support the Afghan peace process, Janis Bekeris, Press Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, informed LETA.

A video conference of the NATO Foreign Ministers' Meeting was held on December 1 and 2, which also addressed the issue of NATO's departure from Afghanistan. Latvian Foreign Minister Edgars Rinkevics (New Unity) also participated in the meeting remotely.

Bekeris emphasized that there will be no changes of the NATO training mission in Afghanistan - Resolute Support. NATO will also continue to support the Afghan security forces in the fight against terrorism. Latvia's participation in the NATO-led mission will also be maintained.

According to Bekeris, in accordance with the mandate approved by the Saeima in 2016, a Latvian military contingent of up to 30 soldiers will be participating in the mission in Afghanistan. Currently, the Ministry of Defense is forwarding to the Saeima for consideration the extension of the mandate of Latvia's participation in this mission until the end of 2021.

The representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs explained that the meeting of NATO foreign ministers discussed the impact of the US decision to reduce the presence of their forces on the objectives and capabilities of the NATO mission. It has now been concluded that the mission is able to function and carry out its tasks, but NATO will continue to assess the situation and NATO members will have to make further decisions in February 2021, when NATO defense ministers will meet.

NATO members will have to consider whether NATO should continue its engagement in the country, which could become a long-term commitment, or end its presence in Afghanistan, which in turn could lead to the consolidation of international terrorists on Afghan territory and the withdrawal of international forces. It will be a unanimous decision of NATO members, followed by joint action by the allies.

See the rest here:

NATO continues to support the peace process in Afghanistan - Baltic Times

Reuters, BRUSSELS and BERLIN

NATO must think harder about how to handle China and its military rise, although Russia would remain its main adversary during this decade, a report on reforming the Atlantic alliance published yesterday said.

NATO 2030, prepared by a group of so-called wise persons and containing 138 proposals, comes amid growing doubts about the purpose and relevance of an alliance branded last year by French President Emmanuel Macron as brain dead.

China is no longer the benign trading partner that the West had hoped for. It is the rising power of our century and NATO must adapt, said one NATO diplomat who had seen the report prior to its publication, pointing to Chinese activity in the Arctic and Africa and to its heavy investments in European infrastructure.

Part of NATOs response should be maintaining a technological advantage over China, protecting computer networks and infrastructure, the diplomat said, citing the report, although not all recommendations would be adopted.

The 30-member alliance could also forge closer ties with non-NATO countries such as Australia and focus more on deterrence in space, where China is developing assets, the report said.

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg on Monday said that Chinas rise posed important challenges to our security.

China is investing massively in new weapons. It is coming closer to us, from the Arctic to Africa. China does not share our values ... and tries to intimidate other countries, he told a news conference in Brussels, urging allies to come together on the issue.

NATO should consider including China in NATOs official master strategy document, its Strategic Concept, diplomats cited the report as saying, although it stopped short of declaring the country an adversary.

In other recommendations, the report suggested that NATO foreign ministers meet more regularly and called for a strengthening of the secretary-generals role as an international mediator.

The report was scheduled to be discussed by NATO foreign ministers yesterday before being presented to the alliances heads of state and government next year.

Tensions over NATOs ability to act remain, from anger over Turkeys decision to buy a Russian weapons system to US doubts over Europes commitment to its own defense, to US President Donald Trumps call for it to do more in the Middle East.

However, Eastern European allies, fearful of Russia since Moscows 2014 annexation of Crimea from Ukraine, are concerned about shifting too many resources away from NATOs core task of defending Europe.

CHINESE REACTION

In Beijing yesterday, Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokeswoman Hua Chunying () said China hoped NATO would adopt the correct outlook toward the country.

She told a regular briefing at the ministry that China stood ready to engage in dialogue with the alliance.

Comments will be moderated. Keep comments relevant to the article. Remarks containing abusive and obscene language, personal attacks of any kind or promotion will be removed and the user banned. Final decision will be at the discretion of the Taipei Times.

Continued here:

Report urges NATO to expand its focus to include China -

Indeed, ongoing bilateral frictions are particularly worrisome for Australia, whose export-reliant economy depends on trade with China more than any country in the world. China buys $120 billion of Australia's annual exports (30 percent), and the relationship accounts for around 1 in 13 Australian jobs.

What's the dispute actually about? Well, just ask China. Last month, the Chinese government publicly released a 14-point list that outlines its grievances with the Australian government. It included gripes as varied as Australia's decision to ban Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei from its 5G network, "spreading disinformation imported from the US around China's efforts of containing COVID-19," as well as general "antagonistic" reporting on China by the Australian press.

Beijing was particularly peeved by Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison's call earlier this year for a global investigation into China's handling of the coronavirus pandemic, and it hit back with a series of tariffs on Australian goods like wine, beef, barley, and coal that threaten about $20 billion worth of Australian exports.

A particular spat with universal resonance. The bilateral dispute that's increasingly keeping Australian economists and government officials up at night is being closely watched by governments around the world including in Japan, South Korea, and New Zealand whose economies are heavily reliant on China, yet like Australia, also pursue a values-based foreign policy.

And there is definitely reason to be cautious. China has increasingly used its growing economic clout as a weapon, punishing states that criticize its bellicose behavior or human-rights violations.

In 2010, for example, after the Norwegian-based Nobel Peace Prize committee honored Liu Xiaobo a Chinese writer, dissident, and critic of the Chinese Communist Party China, the world's largest consumer of seafood, blocked salmon imports from Norway, costing the Nordic country hundreds of millions in lost revenue. (Upon lifting the blockade several years later, China said Norway had "deeply reflected upon the reasons bilateral mutual trust was harmed.")

While the Australian government has not backed down in criticizing China on a range of political issues, including Beijing's meddling in Australia's internal government affairs, its spying activities, and its crackdown in Hong Kong, other countries may be less inclined to push Beijing's buttons in ways that could send their own economies spiraling.

Cost-benefit analysis. In recent years, as the Trump administration has prioritized an anti-China geopolitical agenda, US allies like Australia have been forced into an even trickier position as they try to keep economic lines open with Beijing while maintaining security ties with Washington.

China has been particularly perturbed by actions taken by the "Five Eyes" intelligence-sharing pact made up of the US, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Britain. After the group criticized China's recent targeting of Hong Kong's pro-democracy lawmakers, a Chinese spokesperson warned that China might "gouge and blind" the Five Eyes nations in retaliation. The Morrison government has said that it wants to "reset" the Australia-China relationship but that Beijing won't return its calls.

Don't put all your eggs in one basket. A debate is currently raging in Australia about the need to diversify trade partners so as to protect the country from economic blackmail from China that could deepen Australia's pandemic-induced recession. "There's a basic rule in finance: don't put all your eggs in one basket," one Australian academic recently said. But others argue that it's too late and China is too big.

More Show less

See the original post:

What We're Watching: India's angry farmers, NATO's search for meaning, Israel's election threat - GZERO Media

The Ukrainian Armed Forces are ready to increase national contributions to NATO-led operations and to engage in the planning of the Alliance's early crisis management operations, according to Ukrainian Defense Minister Andriy Taran.

He said this at a briefing for ambassadors, military attaches of NATO member states and representatives of the NATO office in Ukraine, the Ukrainian Defense Ministry's press service reported.

"By joining NATO's Enhanced Opportunities [Partnership] program, we strive to expand the horizons of our partnership with NATO, realizing that it is a 'two-way street': we have better opportunities, but we also have the commitment to achieve common goals," Taran said.

According to him, by developing practical cooperation as part of NATO's Enhanced Opportunities Partnership program, Ukraine seeks to increase its contribution to NATO's activities and achieve the maximum level of interoperability.

Taran recalled that Ukraine is the first country among NATO partners to join the NATO Response Force (NRF), and Ukrainian Armed Forces units have been on duty in the NATO Response Force since 2010. Ukraine has already declared a special task force and an Il-76 transport aircraft in NRF 2021.

Taran said that even in the face of Russian aggression, Ukraine is and will remain a reliable partner of the Alliance, participating in NATO-led operations in Kosovo and Afghanistan.

op

View post:

Ukraine ready to increase contributions to NATO-led operations - Taran - Ukrinform. Ukraine and world news

LONDON - Americas allies in Europe are watching closely as the U.S. presidential election enters its final leg.

Transatlantic relations have at times been strained since U.S. President Donald Trump took office, and analysts say some European capitals hope for a return to more stability under a Joe Biden presidency.

Other European NATO allies have welcomed Trumps demands for Europe to pull its weight and meet military spending targets, as the continent faces several strategic challenges on its borders.

Shortly after his 2016 election victory, Trump called NATO obsolete, because he said the organization "wasnt taking care of terror. That alarmed NATO allies shaken by Russias 2014 forceful annexation of Crimea and invasion of eastern Ukraine.

Different tone

By 2017, Trump's tone had changed. Hosting NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg at the White House in April of that year, Trump reaffirmed his support for the alliance.

The secretary-general and I had a productive discussion about what more NATO can do in the fight against terrorism. I complained about that a long time ago, and they made a change. And now, they do fight terrorism. I said it was obsolete. It's no longer obsolete, Trump told reporters.

For Europe, the unpredictability has been difficult, security analyst Julie Norman of University College London said in a recent interview with VOA.

"His foreign policy has tended to be rather rash, rather unpredictable. And of course for allies, thats not really something that you want. You want an ally whos going to be reliable, especially an ally like the United States that traditionally has been such a heavyweight, Norman said.

What do NATO allies think of Biden? Since the presidential campaign has had little debate on foreign policy so far, according to Ian Bond, director of foreign policy at the Center for European Reform, they must look at Bidens record.

We know that Trump is no friend at all of NATO, and we believe that Biden, from his past record, is much more favorable to NATO. And NATO remains the bedrock of British security, as well as European security more generally, Bond told VOA.

Trumps supporters often say he should be judged on his actions rather than his words. The president oversaw the deployment of U.S. troops and hardware to Poland in 2017 as part of NATOs Enhanced Forward Presence mission, the biggest deployment since the Cold War. Trump remains a popular figure in Poland and other former Soviet states.

For some of those states, there would still probably be a preference for Trump to stay in the White House, Norman said.

Hard truths for Europe?

Trump has accused Germany of being delinquent in its payments to NATO and plans to withdraw 20,000 troops stationed in the country. While the tone is abrasive, the president tells truths that Europe does not want to hear, argued political commentator Matthew Parris, a former British Conservative member of Parliament.

He has, in an instinctive way, been right about quite a few things that perhaps there was a need to push back against China on trade issues. Perhaps America is going to end up in a very similar place to Britain on COVID. Perhaps nobody actually knows the answer, and we dont know the answer any better than Donald Trump. Hes right about NATO spending. Hes right about many European countries not pulling their weight, Parris told VOA in a recent interview.

Trump has taken an increasingly tough stance on China. That may not change, whoever wins the White House, said Norman.

Many Democrats, Biden included, share some of the concerns that Trump had around China and that many Europeans have around China, as well," she said. "Thats in regard to security issues, and to some degree, and perhaps talked about more on the European side, human rights issues, as well.

Leslie Vinjamuri, director of the U.S. and Americas program at the Chatham House policy institute in London, said the biggest transatlantic divergence has been on climate change. Many in Europe see Biden as more sympathetic to their viewpoint.

Stakes are high

Here is a value and a collective problem that Europeans can only achieve a solution to if they work with the United States, and if they work with China. So, I think it's very clear to Europe that the stakes could not be higher in this election from what is arguably the most important issue, at the international level, over the next 10 or 15 years, she said.

From Russia to conflicts in Libya and the Middle East to tensions with Turkey, Europe faces numerous strategic challenges. Despite the European Unions call for the bloc to be more self-sufficient, analysts say the U.S. will likely play a key role in each of these arenas. Allies are watching closely as the United States chooses its next commander in chief.

The rest is here:

NATO Allies Watch US Election Amid Strained Transatlantic Ties - Voice of America

Visiting Athens on Tuesday (6 October 2020), Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg met President Katerina Sakellaropoulou, Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis, Foreign Minister Nikos Dendias and Defence Minister Nikos Panagiotopoulos. In his meetings, the Secretary General addressed the security situation in the region. He praised Greeces role as a valued Ally and its contributions to NATO missions, from Afghanistan to Kosovo.

Mr. Stoltenberg stressed that NATO is an important platform for dialogue, where Allies from Europe and North America come together every day to discuss issues that affect our security.

The Secretary General commended the constructive engagement of Greece and Turkey at NATO Headquarters, which enabled the establishment of a bilateral military de-confliction mechanism to reduce the risks of incidents and accidents in the eastern Mediterranean. He stressed that the de-confliction mechanism can help to create the space for diplomatic efforts to address the underlying issues. Mr. Stoltenberg expressed his firm hope that the underlying dispute between two Allies can now be addressed purely through negotiations and in the spirit of Allied solidarity and international law.

For several years, Greece has been on the front line of the refugee and migrant crisis. Mr. Stoltenberg reassured Greece of NATOs solidarity and thanked Athens for its efforts to cut the lines of human smuggling. The Secretary General also commended Greece for investing 2% of GDP in defence and its commitment in collective security.

View original post here:

Secretary General thanks Greece for its important contributions to NATO - NATO HQ

Allied Chiefs of Defence today, 9 October 2020, elected Admiral Rob Bauer, Chief of Defence of the Netherlands Armed Forces to be the next Chairman of the NATO Military Committee, the senior military adviser to the Secretary General. Admiral Bauer will take up the position following the end of Air Chief Marshal Sir Stuart Peachs tenure in June 2021.

Air Chief Marshal Peach welcomed the election of Admiral Bauer. He said Congratulations to Admiral Bauer, Rob. He will be an excellent Chairman of the NATO Military Committee. His strong leadership of the Netherlands Armed Forces and his clear advice and guidance during our Military Committee meetings are demonstrations of his commitment and capabilities. I could not be handing over the Chair to a more suitable candidate.

Speaking following his election, Admiral Bauer said, I consider it an immense honour that I have been chosen to be the next Chairman of the Military Committee. I am excited to take on this challenge at such an important time for NATO. In this time of increasingly complex security threats and challenges, we need to preserve cohesion within the alliance. We need to ensure NATOs responsiveness, readiness and reinforcement.

He went on to stress, As Chairman of the Military Committee, I will strive to keep together north, south, east and west, large and small; while following a 360-degree approach to deter all potential threats and defend allies against any adversary.

The Chair of the NATO Military Committee is traditionally a former Chief of Defence of a NATO allied member. The position of Chairman is normally held for a period of three years. The Chiefs of Defence, in a closed meeting, elect their Chairman from the candidates put forward by Allies.

The position of Chairman of the Military Committee has been held so far by 19 officers (counting from 1963) from the following Nations: Germany (five times); the United Kingdom (four times); Canada, Italy and Norway (twice); Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark and the Netherlands (once).

Read more:

NATO Chiefs of Defence elect next Chairman of the Military Committee - Admiral Rob Bauer of the Netherlands Armed Forces - NATO HQ

The Norwegian Nobel Committee awarded this years peace prize to the World Food Programme (WFP) for its "efforts to combat hunger" and its "contribution to bettering conditions for peace in conflict-affected areas." The Committee described WFP as "a driving force in efforts to prevent the use of hunger as a weapon of war and conflict." WFP, a United Nations agency, represents the best of the international community and its collective action to create a more hopeful world. For generations, the United States was WFPs largest donor, providing funding and food from the heartland. This Nobel Prize is a distinct nod to America as well.

In contrast, President TrumpDonald John TrumpFederal judge shoots down Texas proclamation allowing one ballot drop-off location per county Nine people who attended Trump rally in Minnesota contracted coronavirus Schiff: If Trump wanted more infections 'would he be doing anything different?' MORE remains isolated at the White House with COVID-19. Under Donald Trumps leadership, 213,000 Americans have died of the virus; the economy has collapsed; and the nation is now besieged by militias, protests, riots, and a rising murder rate.

In the disastrous first presidential debate, former Vice President Joe BidenJoe BidenFederal judge shoots down Texas proclamation allowing one ballot drop-off location per county Sanders endorses more than 150 down-ballot Democrats Debate commission cancels Oct. 15 Trump-Biden debate MORE summed it up best: under this president, weve become weaker, sicker, poorer, more divided, and more violent.

A quarantined, isolated, and angry president is emblematic of Americas place in the world today. We are not America first, we are America alone.

And the situation can worsen.

America faces real cyber threats and military competition from China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. The coronavirus pandemic has shaken our nation. Yet, there will be more public health crises. Climate change is a real and growing threat to the homeland fires in the West, hurricanes in the South, and floods in the Midwest. The range of threats facing America are complex, multifaceted, and indefinite. This is not the time for our country to stand alone, isolated from our neighbors, friends, and allies.

Simply stated, President Trumps go-it-alone strategy makes us less safe.

Seventy-five years ago, President Franklin Roosevelt envisioned a United Nations committed to maintaining international peace and security, developing friendly relations among nations and promoting social progress, better living standards and human rights. For generations, the United States was the first among nations at the United Nations. Decades after its founding, the United Nations is in need of serious reform. The Security Council is broken, and the General Assembly irrelevant.

Despite WFPs Nobel Prize for peace, many of the United Nations specialized agencies are political, bloated, bureaucratic, and unable to innovate. President Trump is correct that the United Nations needs change, but he is wrong to walk away from the institution, its founding principles, and its ongoing relevance to global challenges.

Why is President Trumps vision for America wrong?

Just watch China. The Wall Street Journal recently reported that as the Trump administration stepped back from many parts of the multilateral order established after World War II, China has emerged a chief beneficiary, intensifying a methodical, decades-long campaign. At the United Nations, China is actively elevating its civil servants to the helm of various UN agencies. Beijing sees the United Nations as a platform to advance its national interests and shape policies that will govern global trade, commerce, and transport in the decades ahead.

The United States has walked away from the United Nations Human Rights Council, giving China a free pass to shield itself from international scrutiny after imprisoning Uyghur citizens in concentration camps.

The Trump Administration also quit the World Health Organization in the middle of a global pandemic. The ensuing vacuum will benefit our competitors, as the United States will no longer have influence to shape the priorities and budget of the worlds only global public health agency.

The same is true for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, an obsolete behemoth of an agency that nevertheless provides life-saving assistance and a moderating influence to the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. When America left UNRWA, it lost its historic right to nominate the agencys leadership and to drive needed reforms.

Roosevelt established the United Nations under U.S. leadership because he understood that American values, leadership and influence was good for the world and for our country.

The free world also faces rising Russian authoritarianism and Chinese military expansionism.

Despite these threats, President Trump has actively undermined our European allies, calling into question the very value and purpose of the transatlantic alliance. It is, obviously, legitimate that Donald Trump, like Barack ObamaBarack Hussein ObamaTrump calls into Rush Limbaugh's show for two hours World Food Programme's Nobel: Why the UN, NATO and alliances matter in this election Poll shows Biden leading Trump, tight House race in key Nebraska district MORE before him, demands that our European allies meet the 2 percent GDP defense spending threshold for appropriate burden sharing. But it is also important to acknowledge that NATO only ever invoked Article 5, the mutual defense provision, to aid the United States after the Sept. 11 attacks. NATO has kept the peace in Europe since 1949, through the challenges of the Cold War and the break-up of the Soviet Union. With an adversarial Russia today, NATO is an unparalleled force multiplier of American power that aligns the United States with Europe.

America not only needs a strong NATO, it also must invigorate its Indo-Pacific alliances to confront a rising China. The Xi Jinping government continues to provoke skirmishes with the Indian military along a land border high in the Himalayas. The Beijing government has suppressed freedoms in Hong Kong in an unrelenting crackdown against pro-democracy activists. An unfettered China will likely make a play for Taiwan.

In addition to our European allies, the United States shares democratic values with India, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, and Australia. A substantial deepening of alliances in Asia would strengthen America and highlight the weakness of the Chinese authoritarian state. American partners democratic, free, technologically advanced, and increasingly strong provide a necessary check against Chinas expansionist ambitions.

Finally, the world faces the known, predictable, and massive threat of climate change, which will catalyze adversaries, re-organize global power structures, and propel a new set of economic winners and losers. In the homeland, the economic cost and human toll of more frequent and catastrophic hurricanes, wildfires, floods and drought is immense and will only increase.

Climate change by definition requires collective action. Barack Obama built a global consensus to keep the rise of global temperature below the 2 degree Celsius from pre-industrial levels through the Paris Climate Agreement. The Paris Accord was not the answer to climate change, but it was a platform to assert American leadership, technology, and influence in the development of a more robust pathway to mitigate climate effects. In pulling back American global leadership, Trump has ceded market and scientific opportunity to China while the world seeks to solve an existential threat.

The risks ahead, from great power competition to pandemics and climate change, have deeply stressed the international order. Our competitors, Russia and China, do not have alliances, instead they have transactional, short-term, and valueless national relationships.

But America is historically unique.

For decades, the United States has built values-based global alliances precisely because we championed democracy, freedom, liberty, human rights, and open markets.

WFP was founded and championed by the United States for nearly six decades and reflects the values of a pre-Trump America. Todays Nobel Prize reflects generations of American leadership.

American multilateralism cemented military and diplomatic power, benefited our nation, and drove sustained peace and prosperity across the world. This international order is structurally distinct from the pre-World War II era which was marked by adversarial state competition, vast inequality, slow economic growth, and uncontrolled wars. If the United States breaks its multilateral alliances in a second Trump administration, our country will irreparably lose its unique competitive advantages, risk our security and prosperity, and harm our next generation.

R.David Hardenis managing director of theGeorgetown Strategy Groupand former assistant administrator at USAIDs Bureau for Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance, where he oversaw U.S. assistance to all global crises. Follow him on Twitter at@Dave_Harden.

Read more:

World Food Programme's Nobel: Why the UN, NATO and alliances matter in this election | TheHill - The Hill

Donald Trumps decision to end negotiations over another round of COVID-19 relief until after the election came as a surprise to many lawmakers on Capitol Hill, and is only adding to the worries among theater owners hoping for a lifeline.

This is not a matter that can get kicked down the road, John Fithian, the president and CEO of the National Association of Theatre Owners, told Deadline. This cant wait until after the election. We need help now.

Trump announced on Twitter on Tuesday that he decided to stop negotiating until after the election, blaming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for demanding that another relief package include money for state and local governments.

Fithian said that their thoughts remain with the president, his wife and their team as they recover from their COVID-19 infections, and we are happy to see him back at the White House.

Related StoryDonald Trump Gives First In-Person Speech Since Coronavirus Diagnosis; White House South Lawn Transformed Into Campaign-Like Rally

But he said that the announcement was disappointing. We strongly urge the president, Secretary [Steven] Mnuchin and Speaker Pelosi and all those involved to stick at it.

Movie theaters have seen revenue plunge with the mass closures and, even as a number reopened, studios pushed major releases well into next year. Cineworld and Regal Cinemas announced plans to close their UK and US venues, respectively.

Fithian said that as recently as this morning, it had seemed as if progress was being made in the relief talks. He said that their last conversation was with Mnuchin on Thursday morning, and they also have talked directly with Pelosi and many other members of Congress.

We went from real optimism that we were making significant progress on our piece [of the relief bill] to this now, Fithian said. I am hoping this will jar the talks back soon.

He identified four different types of relief that have been on the table: the RESTART Act, a forgivable loan program aimed at the hardest hit businesses; an expansion of the small business Paycheck Protection Program; industry specific relief for sectors like live stages, theaters and restaurants; and a plan to redirect unused money from previous relief bills to the most distressed industries.

Theater owners also have been advocating an expansion of enhanced unemployment benefits, which expired on July 31, given the number of workers who have been sidelined.

Our industry is a microcosm of many, many industries in the country right now, Fithian said.

NATO has joined with other groups, including the Motion Picture Association and the Directors Guild of America, to lobby lawmakers, with 92 directors signing a plea for help to Congress.

Fithian said that in a survey of their smaller-sized theater members showed that 26% said that they would go under by Oct. 31 if they did not get help. And 69% of smaller and medium sized members said that they would file for bankruptcy or go out of business by Dec. 31 if there wasnt some kind of relief, including help from Congress, more releases in the pipeline, and the state of New York allowing cinemas to reopen.

NATO has been pressing Governor Andrew Cuomo to approve a reopening plan, as the industry argues that a reason that studios have been pushing back their release dates is because of the lack of such an important market. New York represents not just a chunk of box office revenue, but a big part of pre-release publicity and opinion.

Fithian said that state officials have reviewed theaters safety protocols and toured venues, but Cuomo has not agreed to give his OK. Fithian argued that casinos and restaurants have been given the greenlight, yet they have not. He said that it would help even if theaters in some areas of the state were allowed to reopen and others did not because of ongoing concerns, a policy similar to that of California Gov. Gavin Newsom.

A month ago he said movie theaters are next [to reopen], and we are still waiting, he said.

Go here to see the original:

NATO CEO John Fithian On End Of COVID-19 Relief Negotiations: This Cant Wait Until After The Election; We Need Help Now - Deadline

The AW101 is one of the aircraft set to retire before 2045. (Leonardo)

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is looking to medium vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) technology to replace its fleet of aging helicopters in the future, according to a presentation given by Col. Paul Morris assistant head of air maneuvers for the British Army, during an Oct. 6 presentation as part of the Vertical Flight Society's 76th Annual Forum & Technology Display.

By 2045, the majority of NATO rotorcraft will be out of service creating a need for the new rotorcraft developments to begin now so that they can be deployed when the current rotorcraft retire. NATO's Next Generation Rotorcraft Capability (NGRC) project is establishing a path toward the adoption of new VTOL technology to replace their older helicopters.

The majority of medium-sized helicopters in NATO service have been flying between 40-60 years. Between the 1960s and 1980s the Puma, UH-60, AW101, and V-22 were put into service. The newest of the NATO medium-sized helicopters, NH90, took its first flight in 1995. There have been few design changes since these rotorcraft were put into service and because of their age, most of these aircraft will retire in the next two decades, Morris said.

The analysis suggests that's about 1,000 airframes, and that's not including those from the United States, that will be retired in and around that period, Morris said. Operational analysis, not only says that clearly there is a requirement to replace, but there is an enduring requirement for that capability in the medium space carriage, and high proficiency profiles.

The helicopters in Morriss analysis include 100 Mil 8/17s, 191 Pumas, 167 S-70/UH-60s, 143 AW 101s, and 331 NH90s.

Morris said NATO is looking at medium range aircraft because of the cost savings that will be accomplished by an optimized balance of medium and heavy compared to a single heavy-lift fleet. Medium rotorcraft are also task efficient, have a global reach, and can complete complex insertions in urban environments.

In terms of our sister services in the UK, Royal Navy, the medium rotorcraft offers significant flexibility as a multi-role platform capable of enduring operations, Morris said. Our own CH-47 fleet was not designed to go to sea. Although it can be taken on to the new Queen Elizabeth Class carriers down the lift spread and can go into the hangar spread it cannot fold, and we look enviously at the U.S. Marine Corps and the CH-53K Super Stallion and its capabilities in that respect. A whole series of future trend analysis and operational experience and trends point to the utility of a medium platform on the future battlefield.

NATOs NGRC is in the early stages of development but they are looking at key technology drivers when developing new rotorcraft like flight control and performance, avionics and mission equipment, materials and manufacturing, cost of ownership reduction, teaming, and lethality.

We're looking at advancing sectors, fly by wire technology, active control avionics and mission equipment, and the modular consistent architectures, Morris said. The trailblazing work that [Future Vertical Lift] FVL is doing, we watch with keen interest. We see this as the way forward.

NGRC is also looking at human factors like sensory cueing, augmented reality, and assisting flight crews with artificial intelligence and machine learning.

This aircraft will certainly not be armed all the time but there is a case for lethality, Morris said. We're particularly interested in directed energy weapons.

This process was started in 2015 with a workshop on future rotorcraft requirements and in 2016 advanced to the formation of the NGRC Team of Experts (TOE). The NGCR TOE then released a 2018 report on the need to update rotorcraft between 2035-2045. The report stated the need for modular designs and investment in enabling technology.

I was charged with writing the project, and in 2018, their final report was published, Morris said. It looked at the existing rotorcraft needing to be replaced, and the timelines...that the next generation rotorcraft should be designed as a modular airframe, modularity reducing through-life cost enhancing interoperability and sustainability.

Project NGRC had its inaugural meeting in 2019 where the UK agreed to lead the initiative through the pre-concept phase. By the fourth quarter of 2020, a letter of intent is set to be signed by defense ministries of interested nations, and Project NGRC industry day is expected in 2021.

Read more:

NATO Looks to the Future of Medium Rotorcraft Development - Aviation Today

NewsOpinionColumnistsDURING the pandemic the work of the Nato allies, especially across Europe, has been key in helping to deliver vital logistical and practical support to help tackle Covid-19.

Friday, 9th October 2020, 11:36 am

However, the Nato Alliance is now facing its biggest threat to its existence than at any time in its 71 year history due to a federalist approach by the EU to defence that could ultimately destroy its key principle of ally security.

Article 42 is the Permanent Security and Co-operation (Pesco) articles of the Lisbon Treaty. I believe it to be a confused, ill thought through and dangerous policy.

When Pesco was signed into effect, it wasnt the dream of the founding fathers being realised, it was President Putin finding it hard to believe that he wasnt dreaming. Although not the European Army in name it prescribes a common security an defence policy.

There has been a pitiful investment in defence across many European nations for years, with the vast majority not even getting close to the two per cent of GDP demanded by Nato membership, let alone the 20 per cent of that sum being spent on capital equipment.

With Pesco now in place, the member states will be contributing billions of pounds towards the European Defence Fund but hidden under the guise of contributions to the European Union to satisfy their home audience.

The obvious concern for longstanding Nato allies outside of Pesco, including the United Kingdom, USA, Canada, Norway, Iceland and Turkey, is that the EU allies will no longer have a transparent need to invest in national defence capabilities; rather hide them in the complexities of a new EU framework.

With an ambition for a half a trillion Euro budget, many EU nations will want to count this towards their two per cent Nato investment, despite the fact it will be difficult to see where this money goes.

Often in Nato Parliamentary Annual Assembly meetings, delegates from some European nations try to include their infrastructure spending as part of their contribution, arguing that the money they spend in heavier engineering of bridges and roads for tank movements should be counted towards their two per cent contribution.

What is even more disturbing is that Pesco will only procure its hardware from inside its own club, and the world leading defence industry in the UK will be shut out in the European Unions creation of this closed shop for defence.

The EU wants to procure as one body across the bloc in a similar way to the US, but because it could never operate constitutionally as one federalised block, it would rely on the goodwill of member states to allow their assets to be used in a Nato-led operation.

An efficiently spread, and EU-centred procurement of assets, will inevitably lead to some countries having the lions share of key capital assets.

But countries such as Germany have a constitutional restriction on taking part in aggressive military acts.

Therefore, if under the Pesco arrangements, Germany had a range of key assets that were needed for a Nato operation, it could be constitutionally obliged to say no and thus render the European allies of Nato to be of little or inconsequential support.

The consequences of these decisions lead me to believe that within a procurement generation, it could be impossible to mount a Nato operation in relation to an attack on one of the allies, known as the triggering of Article 5.

President Trump may have articulated his frustration at Nato partners in not pulling their weight, but this is no different to President Obamas criticisms and is supported by the US Congress.

The European Union is in grave danger of rendering the European allies of Nato worthless and, in those circumstances, the stability and deterrent of the most successful military alliance in history will crumble before our eyes.

I strongly believe that Pesco could bring about the collapse of the Nato alliance as we know ittoday, leaving the European continent (including ourselves) at the mercy of Russias strategic whims. The UK must ensure that our upcoming strategic defence review focuses its modelling in a world where the Nato alliance may no longer be able to count solidly on its traditional European allies.

Despite the horrific economic consequences of Covid-19 on our economy, the actions of the European Union mean that it is imperative that we do not cut our investment in our defence capabilities.

Alec Shelbrooke is Conservative MP for Elmet and Rothwell, and leader of the UK delegation to the Nato Parliamentary Assembly.

Support The Yorkshire Post and become a subscriber today.

Your subscription will help us to continue to bring quality news to the people of Yorkshire. In return, youll see fewer ads on site, get free access to our app and receive exclusive members-only offers.

So, please - if you can - pay for our work. Just 5 per month is the starting point. If you think that which we are trying to achieve is worth more, you can pay us what you think we are worth. By doing so, you will be investing in something that is becoming increasingly rare. Independent journalism that cares less about right and left and more about right and wrong. Journalism you can trust.

Read more:

Dont let EU weaken Nato and leave West at Russias mercy Alec Shelbrooke - Yorkshire Post

Of two competing theories, the simpler explanation is to be preferred, wrote William of Ockham, an injunction that someWestern analystsand military leaders seem to have forgotten. After Russia sent troops into Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014, many in NATO convinced themselves that Moscows next target would be the Baltic states of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia. The more logical inference is that Russia has military ambitions in the Black Sea region and that Western Alliance members should turn their focus thence.

There are three main reasons the Baltics are not the area of strategic vulnerability that some believe. First, Narva is not next, and it never was. The alleged threat of separatism from Russian-speakers in the Baltics is overblown. Despite tensions in the early 1990s, which culminated with a July 1993 autonomy referendum in Estonias third-largest city, Baltic Russian-speakers have never been the fifth column that some imagine them to be. And despite the persistence of restrictive citizenship laws for Russian-speakers in Latvia and Estonia, both governments have done an admirable job of addressing the social and economic concerns of their Russian-speaking regions, and of giving even non-citizens the right to vote in local elections.

Next, NATOs presence in the Baltics and Poland is the right size: large enough to present a credible deterrent to Russia, but not large enough to present an offensive military threat. NATO was right to beef up its presence in the Baltics after 2014. After all, the three tiny Alliance members are simply incapable of defending themselves alone in the unlikely event of war with Russia. But deployingseven full brigadestotaling 40,000 to 50,000 troops, as some analysts suggest, would be destabilizing. Russia would doubtless perceive this deployment as an offensive threat and increase its forces in response. The four NATO battle groups currently deployed one each to the three Baltic republics and Poland are important for their composition as much as their size. These5,000-plus troops could do no more than delay a Russian incursion while NATO deployed reinforcements. But the fact that 24 of the 30 NATO members contribute forces to the Alliances Enhanced Forward Presence mission makes it clear to Russia that NATO is united in its determination to defend the Baltics, and that war there means war with nearly all of NATO.

Lastly, there is no indication that Moscow has any intention of invading the Baltics. Russia has always seen the Baltics as different from the rest of the former Soviet Union. In short, when the Kremlin looks at Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania it sees Europe, and it had always played by different rules in Europe than in its self-designated near abroad. Anatol Lieven remarked on this Russian tendency in his book The Baltic Revolution:A large proportion of Baltic Russians have been prepared to acknowledge that the Balts have a superior civic culture, are cleaner, more orderly and harder working. They may qualify this by saying that Russian life is friendlier, or more humane, but this is the exact reverse of the usual colonizer: colonized self-images.

Russias behavior toward the Baltic States immediately after the collapse of the Soviet Union made clear the extent to which it treats them differently. As it was intervening on behalf of separatist movements in Georgia and Moldova, it scrupulously avoided escalating the situation with the Russian-speaking minorities in Latvia and Estonia. Despite the fact that Moscow was exceptionally unhappy with the treatment of Russians speakers there, and had military forces deployed to both countries until 1994, it always expressed its grievances through official, institutional channels instead of trying to rally the Russian-speaking minorities to violence or intervening directly as it did elsewhere.Rather than fixate on the Baltics, where the threat is low and a deterrent force is in place, NATO should pay more attention to the Black Sea region. It is here that Russia has already intervened militarily, and is attempting to fracture the Alliance and erode confidence in its commitments. The Black Sea region also serves as the hub for Russias recent expansion into the Eastern Mediterranean and is critical to its efforts to support its intervention in Syria.

There are four main reasons the Black Sea region demands more attention.

First, three of the six littoral states Romania, Bulgaria, and Turkey are NATO members and two Ukraine and Georgia were promised membership in 2008. Whether the Alliance should have committed to membership for Ukraine and Georgia is no longer relevant; it made the commitment and routinely reiterates it at NATO summits. Every year that the fear of Russias reaction delays progress on bringing Kyiv and Tbilisi into NATO erodes confidence in NATOs other commitments.

Next, an examination of Russian military activities in the last decade-plus leads to the conclusion that the Black Sea and Eastern Mediterranean is the area of greatest geopolitical importance for Russia. All of its military interventions in this period Georgia, Ukraine and Syria have occurred in this region, and Moscow clearly intends to challenge the West in this part of the world. NATO provides the best vehicle to meet this challenge and protect the important national interests Western states have in this region.

Third, the increasing alignment between Russia and Turkey deserves immediate and serious attention from all NATO capitals. If Moscow is able to pull Ankara into a strategic partnership that distances it from NATO, the security of the Alliance and all its members would suffer significantly. Turkey is ranked the worlds 11th-most powerful military by theGlobal Firepower Index. It has the second-largest overall military in NATO, after the U.S. Ankara is the second-largest land power in the Alliance, has the third-largest air force, and fields the fourth-largest navy. It is far from certain that a Russia-Turkey entente will endure: the two are on the opposite sides of the Libyan civil war, and their cooperation in Syria may still collapse over the issue of Idlib and the fate of Assad. And Ankara is an unpredictable and often frustrating ally. But neither the uncertainty of the Russia-Turkey rapprochement nor Turkeys erratic behavior outweigh its clear strategic importance to NATO. In addition to the military power it possesses, it anchors the Alliances southeastern flank and hosts bases critical to the projection of NATO power in the Black Sea region and beyond.

Finally, the Black Sea is an emerging energy hub that could allow Europe to diversify its energy sources away from Russia. But Turkey is key here, as well. The Turkish port of Ceyhan is the terminus of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline, which brings Azerbaijani oil to the world market. And Turkeys development of gas pipelines, storage facilities, and liquid natural gas terminals position it as apowerful middleman and alternative to Russia in energy supplies to Europe. With energy security an increasingly important component of national security, the emergence of the Black Sea as an energy hub provides an important opportunity for NATO members to erode Russias ability to use energy as a weapon in its foreign policy.

NATO has it right in the Baltics. Its presence is sized for the threat large enough to present a credible deterrent, too small to pose an offensive military threat and activate the security dilemma, causing Russia to increase its own forces in response. And NATO has been vigilant in exercising what it would take to rapidly reinforce the Baltics, through exercises likeDefender 2020. Before it was scaled back due to the coronavirus pandemic, Defender 2020 was billed as the third-largest exercise in Europe since the end of the Cold War. Plans for Defender 2021 are already underway.

The Black Sea region needs more attention. As Ben Hodges former U.S. Army-Europe commander and his co-authors argue, NATO should use theEnhanced Forward Presencemodel it deployed in the Baltics as a model for its Black Sea presence. This would entail beefing up the forces assigned to NATOs Multi-National Division-Southeast (MND-SE) in Romania, deploying integrated air and missile defenses, and increasing the air policing of the region, as NATO has done in the Baltics. In order to compensate for the Montreux Conventions limitations on the presence of warships from non-Black Sea littoral states, NATO could bolster its airborne maritime domain awareness assets deployed to the region.

None of these steps need to detract from NATOs presence in Poland and the Baltics the Alliance has sufficient assets to resource both its current presence there and the enhanced Black Sea presence argued for here. Indeed, as Hodges and his co-authors argue, balancing the Alliances posture between the Baltic and Black seas would eliminate any gaps or seams for Moscow to exploit.

See the article here:

NATO Needs to Focus on the Black Sea - Defense One

Greece expects NATO to play its role with regard to Turkish activities in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Aegean, Prime Minister Mitsotakis has indicated, saying that the alliances hands-off approach is no longer acceptable to him.

I think within NATO it is very clear that this hands-off approach that oh we have two NATO partners so were not going to go into the details is no longer going to be accepted by me. I raised this with Secretary-General [Jens] Stoltenberg that were a NATO contributor and an ally and when we feel that a NATO ally is behaving in a way that endangers our interests, we cannot expect from NATO a similar approach of we dont want to interfere in your internal differences. This is profoundly unfair for Greece, Mitsotakis said during a conversation with former US ambassador to Greece and executive director of the Aspen Security Group, Nicholas Burns, at the online Aspen Security Forum on Wednesday.

I think the alliance will find itself faced with the reality that an important member behaves in a way that undermines the alliance and the interests of other members of the alliance. Its an issue we can no longer afford to put under the rug, he said, adding that Turkeys unreliable behavior within the alliance, also raises security concerns.

Purchasing the S-400 system is an issue of concern to all of us, including the US because it compromises the F-35, which is an integral part of NATO, he said referring to the missile defense system Turkey has acquired from Russia.

The United States should be alarmed by Ankaras activities in the Eastern Mediterranean but also its involvement in Libya, Mitsotakis said, adding that a visit to Washington last December gave him a sense that there is a bipartisan understanding that the relationship with Turkey is not the same that is was three, four years ago. Its not as predictable.

Pieces of legislation sponsored by Senator [Robert] Menendez clearly are an indication that there is a much better understanding in Washington of what is really happening in the Eastern Mediterranean, the Greek premier said in reference to the Eastern Mediterranean Security and Energy Partnership Act of 2019.

Statements from the State Department have also been overall quite supportive of Greeces positions with a few exceptions, Mitsotakis said.

When there is encouragement for both parties to refrain this is a fundamentally unjust statement as far as Greece is concerned because we are not engaging in any provocative activity, he said.

Mitsotakis added that there also appears to be a much better understanding from within the European Union that Turkeys role in our part of the world is really not very constructive.

Ive made it very clear to our European partners that should Turkey pursue this activity, there need to be consequences, there need to be sanctions, he said.

Either the relationship is going to improve or if Turkey continues to violate the sovereign rights of Greece and Cyprus, the European Union has to react, the Greek prime minister said, stressing that Greece is not seeking to isolate Turkey but to encourage a more productive relationship.

Go here to see the original:

Greece looks to NATO to play its role with regard to Turkey | Kathimerini - http://www.ekathimerini.com

IZMIR, Turkey

Lt. Gen. Roger L. Cloutier on Tuesday took over the NATO Allied Land Command at a ceremony held in southwestern Turkey.

The command with its headquarters in Izmir, Turkey is responsible for advising the alliance on its land warfare.

Cloutier was preceded by Lt. Gen. John T. Thomson.

Many Turkish and foreign soldiers attended the change of command ceremony, including Commander of U.S. European Command Tod D. Wolters and Aegean Army Commander Ali Sivri.

In his speech, Wolters thanked Turkey for its hospitality and said that it is a great honor to work with the Turkish army.

"We are working with the Turkish army side by side. We are saying goodbye to Thomson, an American army legend, and welcoming another legend.

"Thomson served the American army for 34 years. [...] Cloutier also served in NATO successfully," Wolters said.

"Peace is a very difficult concept in 2020, considering all the security threats we face. There is also COVID-19, but we know that NATO soldiers will keep the peace as they have done for the last 70 years," he added.

For his part, Cloutier said: "The power of Land Forces Command comes from experienced leaders and soldiers working together under NATO flag. We are in a significant time in NATO Land Forces. The importance of the land forces is all the more visible now in the unstable security environment of today's world."

He added that Turkey feels like home, and Turkish society and the army is very hospitable.

"Thank you for hosting me. Izmir is a spectacular city. I am honored to be here," Clouiter said.

Thomson said he is honored to have served in Izmir, and they have performed outstanding teamwork during his service.

Read the original post:

NATO change of command ceremony held in Turkey - Anadolu Agency

Enter a valid email address (please select a country) United States United Kingdom Afghanistan Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, The Democratic Republic of The Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote D'ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guinea Guinea-bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Micronesia, Federated States of Moldova, Republic of Monaco Mongolia Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory, Occupied Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and The Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia and Montenegro Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and The South Sandwich Islands Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan, Province of China Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand Timor-leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States United States Minor Outlying Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Viet Nam Virgin Islands, British Virgin Islands, U.S. Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe

Link:

Video: What will NATO's AWACS program look like in the future? - DefenseNews.com

By Larry Luxner

As NATO faces increasing criticism including from President Donald Trump that the military alliance is a drain on American taxpayers and no longer serves Washingtons defense needs, two former U.S. ambassadors have come to its defense.

On July 21,John Herbst, director of the Atlantic Councils Eurasia Center, andAlexander Vershbow, a distinguished fellow at the councils Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, made the case for NATOs continued relevance in the face of Russian belligerence led by Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Yet China, not Russia, is the real threat today, arguedJohn Mearsheimer, a political science professor at the University of Chicago, andDr. Sara Moller, an assistant professor of international security at Seton Hall University in New Jersey.

The four took part in a one-hourvirtual debate Is NATO still relevant? that was moderated byDr. Kori Schakeof the American Enterprise Institute.

Absolutely it is, said Vershbow, a former U.S. envoy to Russia and South Korea who also served four years as NATOs deputy secretary-general in Brussels.

NATO remains essential to deter Russian aggression, which is a real threat. Its also a standing coalition of like-minded democracies that the United States can still call upon to defend shared interests and project stability beyond NATOs borders, he said.

Herbst, who was U.S. ambassador to Ukraine from 2003 to 2006, noted that Europe has enjoyed 75 years of peace and unprecedented prosperity thanks to the strong transatlantic relationship.

Foreign policy is more effective, more realistic and less risky when you have allies, and NATO is the premier alliance, he said, adding that not since the 1956 Suez crisis when Washington opposed the joint British, French and Israeli invasion of Egypt following that countrys nationalization of the Suez Canal have internal disputes been that dramatic. Despite past differences, however, NATO was essential to defeat the Soviet Union, and NATO is essential today.

Herbst added: China is the big problem, but Russia remains a major threat. Putins activities are truly destabilizing. The fact is that he launched a war in Europe the first time since World War II. We need him to stop, and NATO is the way to do it.

Mearsheimer, however, argued that Putin, aggressive as he may be, is not Washingtons biggest headache at the moment.

It boils down to whether or not the United States should remain militarily committed to NATO, whether we should keep large-scale military forces in Europe, said Mearsheimer. My answer to that is no.

The professor, who has published six books on international affairs, said the Pentagons chief priority right now is containing China.

Three areas of the world matter strategically to the United States: Europe, East Asia and the Persian Gulf. For the United States, the key question is whether or not theres a potential hegemon in one of those regions, Mearsheimer said. One of the reasons we stayed in Europe during the Cold War was because the Soviet threat was concentrated in Europe. The fact is there is no regional hegemon in Europe today or on the horizon and indeed there is a regional hegemon: China. That means the U.S. should concentrate all its military might in East Asia. That is what really matters. Europe does not matter very much at all.

Mearsheimer further argued that the U.S. and its allies, and specifically NATO, created the Russian threat in the first place, and that NATO, which was formed in 1949, has pushed Russia into the arms of the Chinese.

In November 2019, French President Emmanuel Macron told TheEconomistthatNATO was effectively brain deaddue to Trumps frequent complaints that many members were not spending at least 2% of their gross domestic product (GDP) on defense.

In fact, all NATO members including Germany, Europes most populous nation began increasing their defense budgets following Putins 2014 annexation of Crimea.

Even so, Moller, whos written extensively on NATO, the Middle East and nuclear weapons, said the 30-member alliance could soon become irrelevant because it lacks strategic focus.

A club whose members cant agree on the purpose of the club [is] a club that is in trouble, she said. During the Cold War, it had a very clear and defined purpose: it was to deter and defend against the Soviet Union. Since the 1990s, NATO has been engaged in never-ending transformations. The result has been mission creep. It gets into the peacekeeping business, the counterterrorism, nation-building business, security sector reform, counter-piracy, fighting illegal immigration. The result is that members want and expect different things from NATO. They no longer see eye to eye.

For example, she said, NATO member Turkey is purchasing advanced weapons systems from Russia while the French government is exploring rapprochement with Moscow.

This lack of consensus jeopardizes its future relevancy, Moller said, adding that the strategic deficit NATO faces today predates President Trump and his administration, so its a mistake to assume that come January 2021, if theres a change in occupancy in the White House, that NATO can just go back to business as usual. I dont see that happening.

Vershbow called for a new transatlantic bargain on burden-sharing, in which by 2030, Europe would pay for 50% of the critical capabilities now provided mainly by Washington.

This would equip them to handle most crises without U.S. support, and allow us to shift more of our assets from Europe to the Asia-Pacific, he said.

Yet Mearsheimer quickly dismissed that idea.

Were not going to get any military assistance from our NATO allies in containing China. Its going to be done by our Asian allies and the United States, he said. The Europeans dont spend enough money on defense, and they have remarkably little power projection capabilities.

Mearsheimer added: I dont dislike NATO, but we live in a completely different world. For most of my life, Europe was the most important area of the world. Thats no longer the case. The distribution of power has changed. Asia is the area that really matters the most to the United States today. The question is, what can Europe do [about China]? What can NATO do? My argument is it can do hardly anything. We have to wake up and smell the coffee.

But Vershbow insisted that NATO gives the United States something that its adversaries lack: a team of ready-made partners.

Having allies and institutions like NATO gives us an extraordinary advantage over Russia, China, and other adversaries, he said. There are often disagreements between the members, he conceded, and keeping the allies together is a 24/7 job, but allies usually find a way to resolve their differences, because alliance unity is too important to put at risk.

This article originally appeared on the Atlantic Council New Atlanticist blog and has been republished with permission by the Atlantic Council.

Larry Luxner is a contributor for The Washington Diplomat and a Tel Aviv-based freelance journalist and photographer who covers the Middle East, Eurasia, Africa and Latin America.Follow him on Twitter @LLuxner.

Read more:

Will NATO Still Be Relevant in the Future? - The Washington Diplomat

ATHENS -- Able to block NATO which requires consensus among members and with the European Union afraid he'll flood the bloc with more refugees and migrants through Greece, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is getting a free pass from both.

That's the feeling, said The New York Times in a feature, from diplomats and analysts as the belligerent Erdogan, ruling Turkey like a quasi-dictatorship, keeps sending fighter jets and warships to violate Greek airspace and waters where he plans to send energy drill ships just as he's doing off Cyprus with no one moving to stop him.

Greek Prime Minister and New Democracy leader Kyriakos Mitsotakis' calls for the EU to hammer Turkey with hard sanctions were politely ignored after the bloc's leaders nearly apologizing for even thinking of getting tough issued only soft sanctions for the drilling off Cyprus, which he promptly ignored.

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg made no secret of his reluctance to do anything about Turkish aggression in the Aegean and East Mediterranean even as Greece and Turkey were at a conflict flash point after Erdogan said energy research would begin off Greek islands before German Chancellor Angela Merkel intervened.

Turkey and Greece belong to NATO, as does France, one of whose frigates was forced to withdraw from Turkish warships escorting escorting a vessel suspected of smuggling weapons into Libya, violating a United Nations arms embargo.

Turkey has made a deal with Libya that portion recognized by the UN despite violations of the arms embargo dividing the seas between them, claiming waters off Greek islands, including Crete, where the US Navy has a base on Souda Bay.

Turkish warplanes buzzed an area near the Greek island of Rhodes after Greek warships went on alert over Turkeys intent to drill for undersea natural gas there, the story noted before Turkey on Aug. 5 sent fighter jets into Greek airspace 33 times.

For all that, EU diplomats want no part of tangling with the tough guy Erdogan, the bloc and NATO said to believe Turkey is too big, powerful and strategically important at the crossroads of Europe and Asia.

Gone unsaid is that Turkey has failed for 15 years to advance talks to join the EU as Erdogan purged civil society, the judiciary, military, the education system and jailed journalists by the dozens, drawing only limp tweets of feeble protest in return.

Its getting hard to describe Turkey as an ally of the U.S., Philip H. Gordon, a foreign policy adviser and former assistant secretary of state who dealt with Turkey during the President Obama administration told the newspaper.

That puts Greece in the awkward position of hosting American troops for exercises, the Souda Bay navy base, signing a new military cooperation deal with Washington and engaged in a US-Greece Strategic Dialogue while fearing that President Donald Trump, who considers Erdogan a friend, would favor Turkey in a shooting conflict.

You cant say what U.S. policy on Turkey is, and you cant even see where Trump is, Gordon said. Its a big dilemma for U.S. policy, where we seem to disagree strategically on nearly every issue.

Analysts not identified told the paper that Stoltenberg is afraid to stand up to Erdogan and tolerates Turkish and American misbehavior the US is a member of the defense alliance that Trump has scorned.

Turkey has gone as far as purchasing S-400 missile defense systems from Russia technically an enemy and which could be used against Greece, but NATO did nothing about it, further emboldening Erdogan.

Former NATO Ambassador and one-time US Ambassador to Greece Nicholas Burns, now teaching at Harvard, said other countries in NATO have proved problematic for the alliance's timidity, but Turkey is the giant no one wants to confront, apart from Greece asking for action.

Every time we discuss Russia in NATO, everyone thinks of the S-400 and no one says anything, said one European diplomat, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter. Its a major breach in NATO air defense, and its not even discussed, the diplomat said, not willing to go on the record despite reservations.

Unchecked by anyone, Erdgoan went so far as to convert the ancient Orthodox church of Aghia Sophia in Constantinople, which the world apart from Greece calls Istanbul, into a mosque and got away with it unscathed, still provoking.

See more here:

While Turkey Provokes Greece, NATO, EU Look The Other Way - The National Herald

Today, the second Multinational MRTT Fleet (MMF) aircraft was delivered to the Multinational MRTT Unit (MMU), at the Main Operating Base in Eindhoven (The Netherlands). Upon completion of the acceptance process, the ownership of the aircraft was transferred (through OCCAR) from Airbus Defence and Space to the NATO Support and Procurement Agency (NSPA), who manages the fleet on behalf of the nations. The aircraft will go straight into an airworthiness review, upon its arrival in Eindhoven.

The Multinational Multi-Role Tanker Transport (MRTT) fleet will soon enter into service to provide strategic transport, air-to-air refuelling and medical evacuation capabilities to its six participating nations (Belgium, the Czech Republic, Germany, Luxembourg, The Netherlands and Norway), demonstrating a best practice example of multi-national cooperation.

The first aircraft was delivered on 30 June 2020 and has been performing training missions for the unit for the last weeks. Now, it will undergo a routine maintenance check (A-check).

The third, fourth and fifth aircraft are currently under conversion at the Airbus DS facilities and the rest of the fleet will follow until the end of 2024. The full fleet will consist of eight Multi-role tanker transport aircraft, with an option to extend the contract up to 11 aircraft in the future. The aircraft are owned by NATO and managed by the NATO Support and Procurement Agency (NSPA) with the support of the Organization for Joint Armament Cooperation (OCCAR) on the acquisition phase.

In 2012, the European Defence Agency (EDA) started to address the long-standing European shortfall in the air-to-air refuelling capacity. Since then, this initiative has grown into a mature programme managed by the NATO Support and Procurement Agency (NSPA), on behalf of the nations.

The Netherlands and Luxembourg initially launched the programme in July 2016, with the first as the lead nation of the project. Germany and Norway joined in 2017, Belgium followed in early 2018 and the Czech Republic lastly joined the MMF programme in October 2019.

The MMF aircraft will be operated by the Multinational Multirole Tanker Transport Unit (MMU) comprising of military personnel from the participating countries. The unit is based in two permanent operating bases, the Main Operating Base in Eindhoven and the Forward Operating Base in Cologne-Wahn (Germany). Among the eight MMF aircraft, five will be based in Eindhoven, and three in Cologne.

Related

Excerpt from:

NATO Support and Procurement Agency delivers second Airbus A330MRTT to the multinational unit - Aviation24.be

Turkeys gradual distancing from Western values and aggression towards fellow NATO allies has not been addressed within the military alliance, diplomats and officials told the New York Times in an article published on Monday.

Turkey which is acting in an increasingly authoritarian, ambitious and assertive manner has become the elephant in the room for NATO that few within the alliance want to discuss, the NYT said, which cited European diplomats.

Turkey has stoked friction with the United States and the European Union on various issues. It has ignored U.S. opposition to purchasing Russian S-400 air defence systems, confronted a French frigate on a NATO mission enforcing a U.N. arms embargo on Libya in June and risked armed conflict with Greece over territorial rights and offshore resources in the Eastern Mediterranean.

Every time Russia is discussed within NATO, everyone thinks of the S-400 and no one says anything, one European diplomat said, according to the NYT.

The S-400 missiles would put Russian engineers inside a NATO air defence system should they be activated, giving them valuable insight into the alliances strengths while threatening to diminish the capability of the U.S.-produced, fifth-generation F-35 fighter jet, the NYT said.

The assumption is that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoan wants to be able to shoot down U.S. and Israeli warplanes, which are the same jets as members of his own air force used in a failed military coup attempt in 2016, the newspaper said.

Its a major breach in NATO air defence, and its not even discussed, said the diplomat, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

NATO assumes that the United States and Turkey will somehow resolve the issue of the Russian missiles, according to the NYT. However, U.S. politicians who want to impose sanctions on Turkey differ with U.S. President Donald Trump, who has amicable relations with Erdoan.

The European Union and the United Nations also have no clear cut policy on Turkey or Libya, saidAmanda Sloat, a former U.S. State Department official who dealt with Turkey during the Obama administration.

Turkey now represents an open challenge to the alliances democratic values and its collective defence, but is too big, powerful and strategically important to allow an open confrontation, NATO officials told the NYT.

While other alliance members such as Hungary and Poland also fall short in terms of democratic values, only Turkey blocks key alliance business, Nicholas Burns, an international affairs professor at Harvard and a former NATO ambassador, told the NYT.

Since NATO operates by consensus, vetoes by Turkey can stall nearly any policy, a NATO official told the newspaper.

Turkey has blocked NATO partnerships for countries it dislikes, such as Israel, Armenia, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates, and for many months vetoed the alliances defence plans for Poland and the Baltic states.

The Turkish government also wanted NATO to designate armed Kurdish groups, including those fighting jihadist militant groups such as the Islamic State (ISIS) and Al-Qaeda in Syria, as terrorist organisations, something the alliance was unwilling to do, the NYT said.

Go here to read the rest:

Turkey is the elephant in the room at NATO, officials say - Ahval

NATO operates by consensus, so Turkish objections can stall nearly any policy, and its diplomats are both diligent and knowledgeable, on top of every ball, as one NATO official said. France has also used its effective veto to pursue national interests, but never to undermine collective defense, NATO ambassadors say. But Turkey has blocked NATO partnerships for countries it dislikes, like Israel, Armenia, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates.

More seriously, for many months Turkey blocked a NATO plan for the defense of Poland and the Baltic nations, which all border Russia. And Turkey wanted NATO to list various armed Kurdish groups, which have fought for their independence, as terrorist groups something that NATO does not do.

Some of these same Kurdish groups are also Washingtons best allies in its fight against Islamic State and Al Qaeda in Syria and Iraq.

A deal was supposedly worked out at the last NATO summit meeting in December in London, but Turkey created bureaucratic complications, and it was only in late June that Turkey relented after considerable pressure from official Washington, which has lost patience with Mr. Erdogan and is infuriated by his insistence on buying the S-400.

If deployed, the S-400 would put Russian engineers inside a NATO air defense system, giving them valuable insights into the alliances strengths while threatening to diminish the capability of the expensive fifth-generation fighter, the F-35.

The assumption is that Mr. Erdogan, who has grown significantly more suspicious since a failed 2016 coup against him, wants to be able to shoot down American and Israeli planes like the ones his own air force used in the coup attempt.

Every time we discuss Russia in NATO, everyone thinks of the S-400 and no one says anything, said one European diplomat, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter. Its a major breach in NATO air defense, and its not even discussed.

More:

Turkish Aggression Is NATOs Elephant in the Room - The New York Times