The coronavirus pandemic has not stopped one of the Royal Navys newest warships being made ready for deployment in record time.

HMS Trent has set sail for the Mediterranean, where she will bolster UK and Nato forces in the region.

The commanding officers young son waved as he watched his fathers ship leave Portsmouth Harbour on Monday afternoon.

Earlier the vessels proud crew stood to attention beside her as she was officially commissioned at a quiet ceremony.

Among them was 18-year-old Robson Gelder, the youngest member of the ships company, whose parents were among the many friends and family watching the proceedings live online, a necessity to ensure social distancing.

The 295ft (90m) River class patrol ship sporting a blue stag on her side is designed for counter-piracy, anti-smuggling, fishery protection, border patrol, counter-terrorism and maritime defence duties.

The ceremony, at Portsmouth Naval Base, took place in bright sunshine in front of a handful of distinguished members of the armed forces.

A band from the Royal Marines School of Music was on hand to perform songs including the national anthem.

Following prayers led by Reverend Martin Evans, the crew joined him in calling out Bless our ship! as he wished them good luck.

Addressing the crew, HMS Trents commanding officer, Lieutenant Commander James Wallington-Smith said: It is my distinct privilege and pleasure to stand here this morning as the commanding officer on such a distinguished and memorable day.

He added that it was a great sadness that friends and family could not attend the commissioning ceremony as they normally would have before the pandemic.

It is the understated support of all those around us who form the backbone on which we are able to to our job, he said.

Without their own hard work and sacrifice, we would not be able to make it to the start date on time.

Lt Cdr Wallington-Smith also praised the incredible work that went into turning HMS Trent from sheets of steel to a fully operational warship.

HMS Trent was built on the Clyde in Scotland by BAE Systems and delivered to the Royal Navy in December.

Since then she has been going through sea training and workouts to prepare her for her first deployment.

The new warship will train and patrol with Nato forces as part of Operation Sea Guardian, which seeks to deter international crime and terrorism.

Lt Cdr Wallington-Smith said: The entire ships company have worked tirelessly in difficult circumstances during the Covid-19 pandemic to prepare HMS Trent for this day.

I could not be prouder of them and everyone within Portsmouth Naval Base and beyond who has helped us reach this point.

About two-thirds of the 65 ratings and officers who make up HMS Trents ships company will crew the vessel at any one time.

Engineering Technician (Weapon Engineering) Gelder joined the Navy when he was just 16 and has already served on flagship aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth.

He told the PA news agency that going from such a huge vessel to a small ship like HMS Trent will be a change, but he feels like one of the family.

HMS Trent is believed to be the fastest generated warship, the time taken between completion of construction to deployment, in recent memory.

Go here to read the rest:

New warship HMS Trent embarks for the Mediterranean to join Nato operation - shropshirestar.com

Cooperation and dialogue with Ukraine is deepening thanks to the countrys new status as an Enhanced Opportunities Partner, obtained in June 2020.

The NATO Science for Peace and Security (SPS) Programme provides the Ukrainian scientific community with a platform to work side-by-side with NATO Allies and partner countries on security-related issues, according to a press release on the NATO website.

Ukraine is currently leading 27 ongoing activities, one of which is a key flagship project in the field of counter-terrorism called DEXTER (Detection of Explosives and Firearms to Counter Terrorism). It aims to develop an integrated system to detect explosives and firearms in public places, remotely and in real time, without disrupting the flow of passengers.

This project will contributeto NATOs enhanced role in the international fight against terrorism,said Dr Deniz Yuksel-Beten, senior SPS and partnerships cooperation advisor at NATO.

The SPS Programme also opens doors for Ukrainian experts especially young scientists and researchers.

In particular, in the field of security-related advanced technology, Ukrainian experts have collaborated with peers from the United Kingdom and the United States to increase the robustness of ground and air vehicles, as well as their performance, operational agility in severe terrain and resilience to failures.

This year, the SPS Programme has approved 13 new activities with Ukraine. These focus on the protection of soldiers and civilians from chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear contamination; using advanced technology to strengthen civilian population resilience, and national medical and emergency-response systems; and developing tools to protect military personnel from biological and explosive threats, while enhancing their energy efficiency.

Through these new activities, Ukrainian co-directors will work together with experts from Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Poland, the United Kingdom and other partner countries including Belarus, Jordan and Sweden.

As reported, on June 12, the North Atlantic Council recognized Ukraine as an Enhanced Opportunities Partner. This status is part of NATOs Partnership Interoperability Initiative, which aims to maintain and deepen cooperation between Allies and partners that have made significant contributions to NATO-led operations and missions.

ish

Follow this link:

NATO expands scientific cooperation with Ukraine - Ukrinform. Ukraine and world news

NATO is in trouble. Last week Secretary of Defense Mark Esper followed through on President Trumps threats to withdraw forces from Germany. Esper announced twelve thousand troops would depart Germany, some remaining in Europe, mostly Belgium and Italy, and others returning to the US where they will then join rotational deployments in Eastern Europe and around the world. The announcement was condemned in Washington and caused a sense of foreboding on the other side of the Atlantic. The significance of the troop level cuts has less to do with its impact on US force posture in Europe than what it signals about the U.S. commitment to NATO, especially should Trump win a second term. If Donald Trump is reelected in November, last weeks arbitrary and uncoordinated withdrawal of U.S. forces from Germany portends a bleak future for historys most successful alliance: Trump will pull the United States out of NATO.

The Adults Have Left the Building

Over the last four years, there has been a persistent narrative that, despite Trumps reckless inclinations on foreign affairs, the actual policies that have been put in place have been relatively normal. Trump may tweet one thing but the adults in his administration ignore it or limit the damage.

At the beginning of the Trump administration, Europeans concern over Trump was mitigated by the presence of trusted senior officials in government, namely Secretary of Defense Mattis, National Security Advisor H. R. MacMaster and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. Trump may express bizarre fealty to Putin but, look at the sanctions placed on Russia or the evictions of Russian personnel following the Skripal attacks (all of which occurred during Tillerson and MacMasters final month). Meanwhile, the Pentagon under Mattis, strengthened its force presence in Europe, turning the European Reassurance Initiative into the Deterrence Initiative.

But the adults have left the building. Mattis even wrote an ode to allies upon exiting, explaining how America's strength in the world is inextricably linked to the strength of our unique and comprehensive system of alliances and partnerships. Trumps hostility towards Americas allies prompted Mattis to depart.

The Trump administration is now staffed with officials, many unconfirmed by the Senate, that are there not because of their qualifications but because they are loyal to Trump and willing to do what he says. His tweets are now acted upon.

Espers announcement of the troop withdrawals revealed what policy by tweet looks like.

His announcement made clear this was about appeasing the Presidents desire to slight Germany and not US national security. In attempting to lay out a logic or a strategy for withdrawals, he simply revealed there was none. Instead, he offered a sloppy and ill-conceived strategy to justify the presidents dangerous rhetoric. One could soundly make the case for adjusting force posture amid shifting geopolitical dynamics in Europe, for example repositioning forces in Poland or Southeast Europe. It could also make sense to move headquarters to Belgium to better integrate with NATO. But such a decision would require coordination and consultation with the military services, Americas allies in the region, and members of Congress. It would require addressing logistical concerns and answering questions about deterrence against Russian aggression. But none of this was done.

Esper was in a rush to please his boss. But why does Trump care so much about troop numbers in Germany?

The Bear in the Room

Trump and Espers actions only make sense in the context of the broader approach to Europe and Russia throughout the Trump administration. Trumps affinity and praise for Russian President Vladimir Putin and his desire to mend ties and work with Russia is consistent and clear. Whatever the reason for this, and speculation is rife, it is simply a trend that cannot be ignored. Similarly, there has also been a clear and consistent pattern of hostility from Trump toward NATO and Americas closest democratic allies in Europe. From the beginning of his presidency, Trump has called into question whether the United States would actually honor its NATO security commitments and has repeatedly discussed withdrawing the United States from NATO.

Trump has treated NATO as if it were a protection racket and he was the mob boss coming to collect. He has little idea of how the Alliance works, and said, according to John Bolton, I dont give a shit about NATO. Trump questioned whether the United States would defend a treaty ally, claiming in an interview that Montenegro has very aggressive people, asking himself why the U.S. should defend it. During his first visit to NATO headquarters in May 2017, Trump had yet to reaffirm his commitment to Article 5. White House staff told the New York Times prior to that speech he would do so, and it was in his prepared remarks. But when he addressed the summit, there was no mention of Article 5. It would only come weeks later, slipped into a press conference in Washington.

In former Trump National Security Advisor John Boltons new book, he even claims that he talked Trump out of announcing he would pull the United States out of NATO at the 2018 summit. Bolton recently remarked at the Aspen Security Conference that the way to talk Trump down was to highlight the reelection ramifications. Bolton fears a second term Trump would be able to act more on his tweets. As he recently told Carol Lee at the Aspen Security Forum:

If the political guardrail of reelection is removed, and the most powerful argument any of us ever used in the foreign affairs area to get Trump to do something in the first term, that is to say the risk of volcanic negative reaction by Republicans in Congress is removed, I think the prospect is that he will do more of what he talks about rather than do more of what he did under complaint and criticism. That could well mean, whether with respect to Russia or NATO or any other issue in foreign policy, that what he actually says he would then do because there would not be the fear of losing political credit."

The best hope for NATO in a Trump second term is that the Alliance, and the prospect of an American withdrawal, simply does not cross the radar of the easily distracted president. But this is where Trumps desire to improve relations with Russia spells trouble for the Alliance.

Undermining the NATO alliance is Russias top strategic objective and has been since the Alliance was formed after World War II. Russia has long called for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Europe and Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov could barely hide his pleasure as he told CNN: "We never hid that [we think] the less American soldiers there are on the European continent the calmer it is in Europe." Russia seeks a new grand bargain with the United States to recreate set defined spheres of influence and to see NATO, which it sees as a Cold War relic designed to threaten Russia, drastically downsized or dismantled.

And now Russia has an American president who demonstrates clear hostility to the Alliance and is intent on transforming bilateral relations and appears to listen to what Putin has to say. When Putin and Trump met in Helsinki, Trump was constrained by a coming midterm election, the Mueller investigation, and the oddly timed announcement of indictments against Russians for interfering in the election. Nevertheless, the warmth in that meeting and Trumps willingness to follow Putins lead was evident. The adults still in the room were quick to assure that former Ambassador Michael McFaul would not be made available to Russian authorities and that the United States wouldnt engage in some bizarre cybersecurity cooperation.

Whats clear however is that in that meeting and others, Trump and Putin got along extremely well. What is less clear is what theyve been talking about in their many conversations. Trump has hidden the content of at least five meetings with Putin from U.S. officials. It was recently revealed that Trump and Putin have talked seven times since the coronavirus pandemic began but we know little about what they are discussing. However, we do know that when it was revealed that Russia put bounties on U.S. forces in Afghanistan Trump still didnt broach it with Putin. Instead, he downplayed it and parroted Kremlin talking points.

All this adds up to a very bleak picture for NATO should Trump remain in office. The former Commander of the U.S. Army in Europe Ben Hodges described last weeks withdrawal of forces from Germany as a gift to Putin. He was right. But the ultimate prize is not in the withdrawal but what Russia stands to get should Trump win a second term. The withdrawal of U.S. forces from Germany was a taste of whats to come with a second Trump term: the end of NATO.

Max Bergmann is a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. He served in the State Department from 20112017. James Lamond is a fellow at the Center for American Progress.

Original post:

Why Trump's Troop Withdrawal from Germany Is Only the Beginning - The National Interest

Poland and the U.S. have reached the Enhanced Cooperation Agreement. Under it, 5,500 U.S. troops will be stationed at bases in Poland; thePolish will bear the majority of the costs associated with the U.S. troops move.

Defense Secretary Mark Esper said that the Agreement with Poland will enhance deterrence against Russia, strengthen NATO, reassure our Allies, and our forward presence in Poland on NATOs eastern flank will improve our strategic and operational flexibility.

Last week, Esper had stated that relocating the Germany-based troops to Belgium, Italy, and back to the U.S. is a strategic decision that will benefit the U.S. and NATO.

However, President Trump did put the Polish in an awkward situation vis--vis their German allies as the increase in troops in Poland is at the cost of Germany.

President Trump did not mince words last week regarding Germany. He stated that Germany has not been living up to the agreed-upon 2 percent GDP spending on defense. He added that the U.S. was tired of being suckers so were reducing the force because theyre not paying their bills. Its very simple, theyre delinquent.

According to Pentagon spokesman LTC Thomas Campbell, the Polish government has agreed to fund infrastructure and logistical support to U.S. forces in Poland, including the current 4,500 rotational forces and the planned increase of 1,000 additional rotational forces.

The Polish government has released the following information regarding the U.S. troops future stations:

While the final amounts of the costs borne by Poland have not yet been agreed to, there are already rumblings that Trump and Polish President Duda are breaking the 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act. According to the Founding Act, which was signed 23 years ago, NATO troops are prohibited from being permanently based in Central and Eastern European countries.

Despite Russian propaganda claiming a breach of the Founding Act and many leaders in Europe worrying about a violation of it, the relocation of troops does not run contrary to it. The Founding Act specifically prohibits permanently based NATO troops in the current and foreseeable security environment.

Under President Putin, Russia has frequently and continuously violated the tenets of the NATO-Russia agreement and moved far away from the cooperation and goodwill that the agreement aimed at.Several of those violations were cataloged by the Heritage Foundation in a 2016 piece.

Despite the above, American newspapers are already parroting the Russian line, and many in NATO want to continue following an agreement on paper despite the Russians thumbing their nose at it.

Retired LTG Ben Hodges, who until last year was the American commander in Europe, sees both advantages and disadvantages regarding the U.S. troops relocation from Germany. In an interview, Hodges said that President Trumps decision to commit more forces to Poland helps in deterring Moscows aggressive posture and builds up U.S. credibility. On the other hand, with Germany being a major hub for U.S. operations in the Middle East, he did not like seeing any further split with Americas long-time ally. I think its a mistake to take [the troops] out of Germany to go to Poland because it will be seen as the punishment of our most important ally in Europe, he said.

With the Poles and others who were part of the defunct Warsaw Pact now under the NATO umbrella, it is important to have a defensive deterrence in place. The Poles are acutely aware and sensitive to the number of times the Russians have invaded their country. A relatively small American footprint in Poland will not increase but reduce the possibility that any conflict with the Russians starts there.

A determined Russian assault on Poland could still push the small number of troops aside, but the relocation ensures that NATO would respond in a timely fashion. The 2018 Brussells Summit called for a timely response in the case of an attack. The NATO Readiness Initiative, the so-called Four 30s plan, would designate 30 ground battalions, 30 air squadrons, and 30 major naval combatants to be ready to deploy and engage an adversary within 30 days.

The Enhanced Cooperation Agreement is just the start. The states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania are expected to promote and fund sustainment operations for increased U.S.-led SOF training and other rotational deployments in the Baltic region.

These moves will build deterrence and increase cost-sharing, something the current Washington administration views as critical. This will allow for not only the United States but all of NATO to have greater military capabilities and as the capacity for rapid reinforcement in the case of an attack.

Read more from the original source:

5,500 US troops to be stationed in Poland - SOFREP

Operation Nanook, the Canadian military's annual northern sovereignty exercise, is taking on a distinct NATO look this year with the participation of three other allies, one of which is not an Arctic nation.

Five warships, a replenishment vessel and U.S. coast guard cutter are slated to take part in the three-week drill, which senior American and Canadian commanders said Monday was designed to test not only their ability to operate together in the harsh environment but also their "basic war-fighting" skills.

Canada is sending the frigate HMCS Ville de Quebec, the coastal defence vessel HMCS Glace Bay and the supply ship MV Asterix.

Joining them will be Danish frigate HDMS Triton, the French coastal defence ship FS Fulmar, the U.S. coast guard cutter Tahoma and the brand-new American guided missile destroyer USS Thomas Hudner.

Canada, Denmark and the U.S. are all Arctic nations, but France is not.

The annual exercise, which began in 2007, has had international participation in the past, but the training that got underway Monday is broader and very tightly focused to include gunnery and ship-tracking scenarios.

From a geopolitical perspective, the Arctic is becoming an area of increasing interest to rivals such as Russia, which has invested heavily in rebuilding its cold weather military capability, and China, a nation that has no border in the region but has embarked on an icebreaker-building binge.

American Vice-Admiral Andrew Lewis, who commands both the U.S. Second Fleet and the allies' joint forces command in Norfolk, Va., said "this is absolutely not a NATO exercise. It's a Canadian exercise and a Canadian-led operation."

Having said that, NATO is interested in seeing allies gain experience operating together in the ice-choked passages and barren landscapes.

The Western military alliance has been paying increasing attention and even delivered a policy assessment on the changing shape of security in the region, all of which have drawn sharp rebukes from Russia.

The multinational exercise sends an important signal, said Vice-Admiral Steven Poulin, the U.S. coast guard'sAtlantic-area commander.

"The message is that the Arctic is strategically important. It's becoming increasingly important for our collective national security," Poulin told a media teleconference on Monday. "Presence [in the region] matters and I think the participation reflects that presence matters."

Rear Admiral Brian Santarpia, the commander of Canada's East Coast fleet, said the region is so vast and harsh that allies need each other to operate safely and effectively, and that the exercise will test how well they can do that.

The example he gave, compared to some of the planned training, was benign and involved a search-and-rescue scenario involving a stricken cruise ship, an illustration the Canadian military has frequently invoked to describe the kinds of missions that might take place.

In comparison to previous years, Operation Nanook is being scaled back and there are restrictions, such as a ban on port visits, because of the coronavirus pandemic.

Santarpia said every effort is being made to ensure that the isolation from COVID-19 that the people of the North have largely enjoyed will be maintained.

Demonstrating to potential adversaries that the virus has not hindered the ability of the U.S. and other nations to deploy forces in harsh conditions is an underlying message, Lewis suggested.

"We have a lot of missions out there," he said. "It's a COVID-environment for sure, but it's also hurricane season We continue to march through that."

The rest is here:

Allies testing naval readiness in Canada's Arctic - CBC.ca

When President Donald Trump first floated his plans to drawdown US forces in Germany, the Baltic states immediately sprang into action in an attempt to lure some of the reassigned troops within their own borders. The permanent housing of American military personnel has long been a strategic objective of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.

We are ready to invest in this and we would be extremely happy, Latvias defense minister pitched his proposal to Washington in a well-choreographed message. Given that the Baltics are currently spending 2 per cent of their GDP on defence, a metric that in Trumps mind separates good allies from delinquent ones, Baltic lawmakers had hoped that this, in turn, could lead to a more robust US footprint in the region.

The details of the planned US force structure realignment in Europe are still trickling out. Reportedly, the US military presence in Poland will be beefed up with additional 1,000 US troops. According to US Defence Secretary Mark Esper, additional service members may also eventually land in the Baltics, but only on a rotational basis, however. The bulk of re-positioned forces are in fact heading either home to the US, west towards Belgium or south to Italy; not the direction the Baltics had hoped for.

The Baltic republics have fervently courted a permanent US military presence on their soil ever since joining NATO in 2004. Their rationale behind this is simple: when it comes to believable deterrence, the Baltic states trust the United States. While they have genuinely welcomed the arrival of alliances multinational force formations on their territories, which are currently led by Canada, the UK and Germany, they equally attach an entirely different quality to the company of US armed forces.

As the Lithuanian Defense Minister bluntly put it: The US is the most powerful ally and its deterrent effect is not comparable to other allies. This sentiment, that America occupies an indispensable position atop the NATO hierarchy and is the only one capable of deterring Russia in NATOs frontier region, is widely shared among Baltic officials. In the words of Jri Luik, Defence Minister for Estonia, the American flag has a great deterrence effect against Russia. For these reasons, the Baltics desire to see the US firmly implanted in the region.

From time to time, the idea of permanent American troop basing in the Baltic has received backing of prominent US national security figures. The late Republican Senator John McCain, for instance, favoured having US soldiers assigned to Estonia full-time. Former US Secretary of Defence James Mattis, during his confirmation hearing, equally voiced support for this proposal. Still, while the US-Baltic relations have matured into a multifaceted partnership and the Pentagon has constantly cycled rotational battalions and special operations forces in and out of the region, Washington has remained unwilling to permanently place forces on Russias doorstep.

Standard arguments against such move have been that this would only irritate the Kremlin and worsen already toxic US-Russia relations. Other sceptics have taken a more legalistic approach by submitting that permanent troop stationing in this part of Europe would be in violation of the 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act. When speculation began to swirl regarding redeployment of US forces, the former head of Russias Foreign Affairs Committee, Aleksey Pushkov, was quick to remind US officials on Twitter that a troop transfer east would run afoul of this agreement.

The announced reshuffle of US forces in Europe is, without doubt, a setback for Tallinn, Riga, and Vilnius. Estonian Defense minister summarised it as not a positive move. However, if one pulls back the historical curtain here and looks at the developments of the past fifteen years, then it becomes obvious that the arc has bent towards greater US involvement in the security architecture of Eastern Europe. It is useful to remember that when the Baltic states initially joined NATO in 2004, there were not even contingency plans to defend its newest members.

For quite some time, our NATO membership was something that was more de jure than de facto, recalled a high-level representative of the Latvian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The only NATO presence on the Baltic territory, he adds, consisted of four NATO planes that scrambled when Russian military airplanes approached their airspace. In the wake of the Russo-Georgian war, official defence plans, tailored to the needs of the Baltic nations, were finally put in place in 2009.

Moreover, following Russias annexation of Crimea in early 2014, both NATO and the US have substantially augmented their presence on the alliances eastern flank via so-called Enhanced Forward Presence missions. While the United States does not lead a battle-group in the Baltic region, it was the one who got this initiative off the ground, rallied others to participate, and now anchors it with its military presence in Poland.

If for a moment we subtract President Donald Trump from the picture, then the general trend lines actually point in the opposite direction. To each external pressure, Washington has responded by bringing forward-deployed forces further east. The long view suggests that a permanent US flag will be one day flying over the Baltic states.

____________

Are you a recognised expert in your field? At Euronews, we believe all views matter. Contact us at view@euronews.com to send pitches or submissions and be part of the conversation.

View post:

The Baltics missed out this time but the long pursuit of US troops in the region will pay off View - Euronews

Georgia stated that it is fully prepared for joining NATO and will bring the accession process to the end. Prime Minister Giorgi Gakharia stated this, as Interfax reports.

Gakharia argues that strategic areas of partnership with NATO, the United States and the European Union remain for Georgia. He believes that Euro-Atlantic integration and peaceful development of Georgia are a prerequisite for the restoration of the country's territorial integrity.

In turn, the United States expressed support for Georgia and called it a NATO partner.

"Today Georgia is completely ready to join NATO. Our partners see and appreciate this. This is a process and we will definitely bring it to the end," Giorgi Gakharia said.

As you know, the Georgian parliament voted for integration into NATO back in 2006, but the NATO-Georgia commission was created only two years later.

As we reported before, the North Atlantic Alliance might place its middle-range ballistic missiles in Ukraine. Aleksandr Lukashenko, the Belarusian president said so in an interview with reporter Dmytro Gordon.

According to Lukashenko, it was Russian aggression that pushed Ukraine to seek integration with the NATO.

See the article here:

Georgia announced full readiness to join NATO - 112 International

Lindsay Gorman: 5G is where China and the West finally diverge

In the United States, suspicion of the Chinese government is a bipartisan matter, but no consensus exists about just what to do. The Trump administration has implemented a variety of hawkish policies, including restricting semiconductor sales in China and stopping a U.S. government retirement fund from investing in stocks there, and the president himself vowed Friday to ban TikTok, a popular app owned by a Chinese company. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo called in a recent speech for a new alliance of democracies to counter the emerging superpower, although few details were offered. The draft of the 2020 Democratic Party platform broadly vows to rally friends and allies across the world to push back against China or any other countrys attempts to undermine international norms.

The problem is that the United States and its allies currently lack the ability to respond to the type of geo-economic threats that China is making. Specifically, they need a means of taking collective action when Beijing attempts to use economic power as a tool of political coercion. No country should face such threats alone.

Peter Beinart: Democrats are letting Trump frame the debate about China

Many of Americas most important Cold Warera institutions, especially NATO, were designed to deter a primarily military threat from the Soviet Union. But back then, Moscowunlike Beijing nowhad limited economic leverage against the West. Global economic institutions such as the World Trade Organization were narrowly focused on trade agreements and rule-making to ensure fair economic competition, but did not consider the possibility of economic warfare or the danger of economic threats to force political concessions. Indeed, none of these alliances or institutions has been any help in addressing the Chinese economic threats against Australia, Germany, Sweden, or other nations.

Those threats also harm the United States. If China forces U.S. allies to use Huaweis technology in their information networks, American communications that go through those networks could be exposed to the Chinese Communist Partys infiltration. And Chinas rulers have sought to enforce the party line on Americans. Last year, Beijing punished the NBAs Houston Rockets when the teams general manager offered support for Hong Kongs prodemocracy protesters on Twitter, a platform blocked in China. The regime will likely grow bolder as Chinas economic might grows.

Jemele Hill: Et tu, LeBron?

New threats demand new responses. During the Cold War, the U.S. created not just NATO but also the CIA and the Air Force to respond to Soviet threats. The period brought about a wholly new form of intelligence competition between the West and the Soviet Union. This led the U.S., Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand to enter into the alliance commonly known as Five Eyes, which allowed unprecedented intelligence sharing among nations in peacetime. This approach would have been unimaginable before the Soviet geopolitical threat.

Go here to see the original:

How to Stop China From Imposing Its Values - The Atlantic

The recentnaval incident in the Mediterraneanbetween French and Turkish warships is another dramatic development in an already deteriorated situation involving a neo-Ottoman Turkey with growing geopolitical ambitions colliding with the core security interests of many European countries.

On 10 June, the merchant vesselCirkin sailing under the Tanzanian flag, escorted by Turkish warships and suspected of smuggling weapons into Libya in contravention of the UNSecurity Council Resolution 2473,imposing an arms embargo on all the protagonists in the Libyan war was challenged by the French frigateCourbet, which was taking part in NATOs Operation Sea Guardian, whose task is to work with the Mediterranean to maintain maritime situational awareness, as well as deter and counter terrorism. Earlier in the day, an unsuccessful challenge attempt on theCirkinhad been made by a Greek frigate. This frigate was part of the EUsOperationIrini,whose purpose is to implement the UN-mandated arms embargo.

In reaction to theCourbetgetting closer to theCirkin,the Turkish warships flashed their fire-control radars with crews putting on bulletproof vests and standing behind their light weapons. Even by the standards of Cold War confrontations between Western navies and the then Soviet Navys so-calledMediterranean Eskadra, the Turkish Navys behaviour was extremely aggressive.

Immediately thereafter, France requested a NATO Council meeting to discuss the incident and asked for an official inquiry by the Alliance. Interestingly, whereas 10 NATO members supported Frances demand(Belgium, Germany, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and the UK), none of the Alliances eastern flank (Slovakia excepted) or Nordic members did.

The perspective of Turkey relenting on its longstanding opposition to approving NATOs defence plans for Poland and the Baltic states may have played a role in those countries official silence, yet none of these considerations apply to the USs astounding silence. It is notable, however, that all of NATOs European Mediterranean countries (except Croatia and Albania) supported Frances request.

France also suspended its participation inSea Guardianand asked for the Alliance to collectively adopt some measures, including:

No one should underestimate the seriousness of the tactical standoff that occurred on 10 June, with its risks of escalation. But the growing strategic divide between NATO members that these events underline is even more concerning for the future of the Alliance.

The situation in 2020 can hardly be compared to the one of 1974, a year which saw Ankara invading the northern part of Cyprus and tensions with Greece spiralling dangerously. At that time, the lethal threat emanating from the Soviet Union was still providing the glue which bound the Allies together. Since then, however, circumstances have dramatically changed: a disastrous Trump presidency has hurt the credibility of the US as a guarantor of decent behaviour within the organisation, and has raised doubts about Washingtons commitment to action in the event of an attack against a NATO member. And notwithstanding NATO summit declarations and Moscows rogue international behaviour, it is a fact that the Russian threat is no longer perceived with similar intensity by all NATO members.

One NATO summit after another, the relevance of NATOs added value on its southern flank is regularly questioned. Even though a paragraph of each official communiqu always religiously includes a nod to the issue by evoking NATOs 360-degree approach to security, the reality is that the slogan still lacks significant substance when one looks at NATOs concrete added value in facing some important risks on its southern flank. Among the three core tasks of the2010 Strategic Concept collective defence, crisis management and cooperative security crisis management is the weaker link, which in turn makes the common denominator of strategic interests more tenuous.

Today, through his active military involvement in support of one of Libyas belligerents and its Islamist proxies, and through his contempt of a UNSCR, Turkeys authoritarian leader Recep Tayyip Erdoanis feeding the image of a resurgent imperialist country whose agenda directly impinges on European security interests.

Last months incident only adds to an already long list of unfriendly if not provocative Turkish actions, which include theacquisitionof the sophisticated S-400 Russian anti-air system, the recurrentthreatto terminate the 6 billion subsidy agreement with the EU and to open the Turkeys borders to millions of Middle Eastern refugees towards Europe, as well as the January 2019 military attack against our Kurdish allies in northern Syria our best and more effective partners in the fight against the Islamic State after the inexplicable green light given by Donald Trump without any previous collective consultation among the Allies.

To this egregious behaviour, one should also add: the 2018 harassment by the Turkish Navy of ENI and Total oil and gas exploration ships in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the Republic of Cyprus; the subsequent deployment of a Turkish research vessel in the same Cypriot waters in 2019; theTurkish claims on Gavdos, a Greek island free of any Turkish heritage, only for the purpose of vastly extending the Turkish EEZ in the south of Crete; and the recent and legally baselessagreementconcluded with the political authorities in the Libyan capital of Tripoli which would result in sharing almost the entire Eastern Mediterranean between the two countries.

To be clear, a resurgence of terrorist entities in northern Syria and a reinforcement of the most radical factions in Libya through the recentexportby Ankara of thousands of Syrian Islamist mercenaries would constitute worrisome scenarios for Paris and most other European capitals. Indeed, this would carry the risk of spreading more instability in the Sahel region.

All this adds acrimony to the obvious divergence on values between Turkey and the rest of Europe. Erdogansattackson Turkish democratic institutions are of another magnitude than the already worrisome trends that we can observe in a few Eastern European democracies. Journalists, judges and lawyers are prosecuted and jailed, while hundreds ofTurkish officerswho have served within NATO commands have been purged from the military and jailed in many cases.

So, what kind of message does Erdoan'sTurkey want to pass to NATO? And what is the critical breaking point when the interests of having Turkey inside NATO are superceded by the blows which it inflicts on Europes geopolitical interests? The answer to this wont be identical in every European country, but that in itself puts NATO at risk.

If NATO membership would result in effectively shielding Turkeys threatening actions in the Middle East, the Mediterranean and North Africa from any concrete consequences, this would be seen as less and less acceptable by the government in Paris. And that is the true subtext of what Frances authorities are saying in Brussels.

It would be a mistake to underestimate the magnitude of Frances frustration. Nor should it be forgotten that France ranks as the third contributor to NATOs common budget and, above all, is considered by many analysts as the second most militarily credible member of the Alliance.

The views expressed in this Commentary are the authors, and do not represent those of RUSI or any other institution.

BANNER IMAGE:Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoan.Courtesy of US State Department / flickr.

Read more here:

The Worm is in the Fruit: A Rising Strategic Foe Inside NATO - RUSI Analysis

In March 2020, eight personnel in the German-led, multinational North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) battalion in Lithuania tested positive for the novel coronavirus (The Baltic Times, March 24). From a defense-planning standpoint, the spread of COVID-19 to the Enhanced Forward Presence (eFP) units stationed along the Alliances eastern flank marked a critical challenge. Worse, several military exercises, most notably Defender Europe 2020, had to be canceled or dramatically scaled back, raising concerns about whether NATO countries would be able to maintain combat readiness at adequate levels in the midst of the global health crisis. But at the same time, the Turkish Armed Forces have remained busy pursuing a heavy agenda beyond the countrys borders, even though NATOs southeastern-most member was hit fairly hard by the coronavirus outbreak.

Despite the pandemic and growing bio-security threat, the Turkish Armed Forces actually stepped up their combat operations. The Turkish Naval Forces have been pursuing a robust buildup in the Mediterranean Sea and recently intensified their deterrent presence off the Libyan coast (Yeni afak, July 7). The Turkish Land Forces have also been quite active. In Northern Iraq, Operation Claw-Tiger (Pene Kartal Operasyonu) targets the Kurdistan Workers Partys (PKK) logistical infrastructure, arsenal and militants (Msb.gov.tr, June 30). In tandem, the Air Force continues to strike at PKK positions in northern Iraq (Sabah, June 25).

In June 2020, the Turkish navy once more assumed command of Combined Task Force 151 to tackle piracy in the Gulf of Aden and off Somalias coast. In early July, Turkeys Defense Minister Hulusi Akar paid a visit to Libya, where Ankara has forward-deployed contingents in support of the United Nationsrecognized Tripoli government (Msb.gov.tr, July 7, 18).

Three important factors regarding the Turkish Armed Forces deserve mention before going into the details of how Ankara has managed the situation. First, Turkey is one of the few NATO member states that still employ conscription. This fact looms large as the biggest hardship and risk amidst the quickly and readily spreading coronavirus pandemic. Second, the Turkish military has an expeditionary posture. It has forward-deployed units and overseas bases in many countries and regions, such as Libya, Syria, Cyprus, Iraq, Somalia and Qatar (TRT Haber, January 3). Likewise, the Naval Forces sail beyond coastal waters regularly. At present, for example, one-quarter to one-third of the frigate arsenal operates in and near Libyan waters (Yeni afak, January 25). Third, the Turkish military is not a ceremonial or parading force. It fights, and it fights hard. Over recent years, Turkish generals planned and executed fierce campaigns against the PKK, Islamic State, the Syrian Arab Army and accompanying Iranian-backed Shiite militias at Turkeys doorstep. Overall, the Turkish Armed Forces cannot risk being pinned down by bio-security threats. The wars go on.

To weather the storm, at the outset of the pandemic, Turkeys Ministry of Defense established the Center for Countering the Coronavirus (Koronavirus ile Mcadele MerkeziKOMMER) to tackle the outbreak within the militarys ranks. In a joint-force planning fashion, the KOMMER incorporated the General Staff, all military branches, Turkeys four field armies, the naval fleet as well as each of the airbase commands (Anadolu Agency, June 7). By doing so, the defense ministry centralized its health-tracking databases and necessary countermeasures.

Dronization has been another factor that helped the Armed Forces. In many frontiers, Turkeys generals were able to rely on unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) to achieve mission objectives with a limited troop footprint (TRT World, May 22; Al Jazeera, May 28; Mei.edu, March 26).

Apart from establishing the KOMMER and using UAVs extensively, the Turkish military closed its facilities, units and headquarters to outsiders. The navy, meanwhile, sailed its ships away from the homeports and kept the critical personnel away from the rest of the Armed Forces and society. The 2nd Field Army, which is responsible for the Middle Eastern frontier, did its best to isolate the forward-deployed elements in Syria and northern Iraq. Additionally, the defense ministry assigned Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) defense teams to combat formations in high-risk areas to provide additional protection (TRT Haber, June 7). As a result, Turkeys military operations were not plagued by the coronavirus.

One thing the coronavirus pandemic reminded war planners of is the bio-security aspect of military campaigns. Since ancient times, wars have centered on the soldier, for most of human history accompanied by other animals, such as horses, oxen and elephants. All living things are, of course, to one degree or another, vulnerable to microscopic pathogens and environmental conditions. With the Second World War, the mechanization of warfighting inevitably replaced the non-human part of traditional warrior packs. However, people must still man main battle tanks and fly fighter aircraft.

In terms of temporary strategies to weather, or mitigate the effects of the pandemic, the Turkish military did well, and it was able to continue fighting effectively in multiple fronts beyond Turkeys borders. However, over the longer term, Turkey and other NATO countries will need to find and adopt more sustainable solutions to ensure uninterrupted high-readiness levels. The progressive introduction of ever-larger numbers of robotic systems to battlegrounds and exercises may offer some relief. Likewise, AI-assisted multi-national exercise simulations could replace some, albeit not all, military drills. Overall, the COVID-19 pandemic has laid bare the limits of human planning and operations in the midst of a crisis. As the classic Latin adage goes, Si vis pacem, para bellumif you want peace, prepare for war. Turkey and its NATO allies will, thus, need to spend the next several years preparing to do so under more daunting bio-security conditions.

Go here to see the original:

Can the Turkish Military's Fight Against the Pandemic Set an Example for NATO? - The Jamestown Foundation

NATO navies converged in the North Sea in late June for this year's Dynamic Mongoose anti-submarine-warfare exercise, reflecting a growing focus on countering enemy submarines amid "great-power competition" with Russia and China.

During the exercise, US Navy destroyer USS Roosevelt and four other surface ships took turns hunting and being hunted by Navy fast-attack sub USS Indiana and four other subs in the waters off Iceland.

"It was fantastic because we would have such a small, confined area that it forced interaction between the submarine and the surface ships," Cmdr. Ryan Kendall, commanding officer of the Roosevelt, said in an interview.

Royal Navy frigate HMS Kent with Allied warships, including USS Roosevelt, left, at the end of Dynamic Mongoose, July 9, 2020. British Royal Navy/LPhot Dan Rosenbaum

Roosevelt and its counterparts brought helicopters with dipping sonar and torpedoes. Five maritime patrol aircraft, including a US Navy P-8 Poseidon, also took part.

"We'd all take turns controlling the aircraft and controlling the helicopters in the air. So we would have the P-8 come out, drop some sonobuoys, and help us localize" the sub, Kendall said. "Surface ships would come in to get closer to see if we could get our towed array or our whole active sonar on the submarines."

The Roosevelt's AN/SQQ 89A(V) 15 sonar "is one of the most advanced in the Navy," Kendall said. "We have an MH-60R helicopter with an active dipper, so we're able to use the tag team of Roosevelt and our active sonar and passive sonar, as well as our multifunctional towed array, to localize the submarine and then use our helicopter to pounce."

Subs like Indiana "mesh with the other parts of the team who can provide fast response and broad area coverage," said Cmdr. David Grogan, commanding officer of USS Indiana.

"We represent the persistent, in-stratum asset who can effectively use the underwater environment to maximize detection and engagement possibilities of an adversary submarine," Grogan added.

NATO ships and subs during exercise Dynamic Mongoose, July 2020. British Royal Navy/LPhot Dan Rosenbaum

Dynamic Mongoose allows ships and subs to exercise in real-world conditions for an extended period, Kendall said.

US and French aircraft operated out of Iceland while British planes flew from Scotland. Ships dealt with rough seas, and helicopters practiced staying aloft for extended periods.

"Normally when they execute a training scenario, it could be anywhere from two to three hours," Kendall said. "In this case, we were doing it for 12 or 22 hours straight, and you'd have watch-team turnovers."

Coordinating with aircraft and ships "can be complicated for a number of reasons," Grogan said. "Exposing my team to that, as well as learning to best employ each submarine, surface, and air asset ... was vital to expanding my team's ability within the greater ASW effort."

Canadian frigate HMCS Fredericton, left, British frigate HMS Kent, right and a German diesel submarine, center, during Dynamic Mongoose, July 2020. British Royal Navy/LPhot Dan Rosenbaum

Subs were also able to use "the environment and ... water temperature, salinity, depth, [and] bottom contours to evade us or to hide so that they can into an advantageous position to attack us," Kendall added.

Roosevelt analyzed the water "hour by hour, day by day," Kendall said, because changes in it mean "we'll get different ranges on our sonar" though Grogan said the "only tangible difference onboard in colder water is the presence of an extra sweater here or there."

"You can't do synthetic training pier-side with a computer-generated model for ... tracking real-world submarines," Kendall added. "You have real people making real decisions, and you have consequences for those decisions."

NATO ships during Dynamic Mongoose, July 2020. British Royal Navy/LPhot Dan Rosenbaum

Russian and Chinese submarine fleets have gotten bigger and better, and the US Navy has dedicated more time and resources to ASW.

"They finished fielding the P-8, they're putting the new AN/SQQ 89 sonar system onto all the destroyers, and they've been investing in some unmanned systems for anti-submarine warfare," said Bryan Clark, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and former special assistant to the Navy's chief of naval operations.

They're also practicing more. "Dynamic Mongoose is one example," Clark said, citing recent exercises above the Arctic Circle.

"The most important mission for those deployments was anti-submarine warfare basically looking for Russian submarines deploying out of their bases in the Kola Peninsula," where the powerful Northern Fleet is based, Clark added.

Sailors man the rails on the flight deck of USS Roosevelt at the end of Dynamic Mongoose 2020, July 9, 2020. US Navy/MCS Seaman Austin G. Collins

During the Cold War, the Greenland-Iceland-UK Gap was an important chokepoint between that Russian fleet and the Atlantic. "We still rely on these chokepoints as kind of the line in the sand," Clark said.

Russia subs passing through that gap could threaten Europe's links to North America in a war. (A Russian ship monitored Dynamic Mongoose but "didn't affect the exercise at all," Kendall said.)

"There's a big concern on the US part about even a couple Russian nuclear submarines making it past the GIUK gap, because they can then just drift around in the Atlantic until they can track down a US [ballistic missile sub] or threaten the US coast," Clark added.

Subs and aircraft assumed much of the ASW mission after the Cold War, but the Navy has invested in more surface-ship ASW because that sub fleet which will shrink in coming decades as older Los Angeles-class subs retire now has many other missions.

Surface ships are also now the primary missile-defense platform and are responsible for maritime security operations, meaning ASW "is another mission on top of all the other missions they've got to do," Clark said.

A US Navy MH-60R Seahawk helicopter prepares to land on the guided-missile destroyer USS Roosevelt in the Atlantic Ocean, August 4, 2013. US Navy/MCS2 Samantha Thorpe

Dynamic Mongoose illustrates the mismatch, Clark said. "Every time the Russians deploy a ... nuclear submarine down through the GIUK gap, we deploy a dozen airplanes or ships to go up there and track it. So the Navy just isn't set up to be able to do ASW at any scale."

Dynamic Mongoose involved five submarines, but Russia can muster more.In October, Russia's Northern Fleet reportedly sent 10 subs toward the Atlantic to test NATO's detection abilities and show it could threaten the US.

"These submarines are really hard to track unless you want to put one of our submarines on it," Clark said, "and we don't have enough submarines to do that."

Clark argues more unmanned vehicles should be acquired and used to suppress some subs while manned assets to pursue the subs that need to be eliminated.

"You have to decide which submarines are ... ones you have to sink and which ones can you accept just harassing and suppressing, because you don't have enough submarines to go try and kill every opponent submarine," Clark said.

Original post:

In the North Atlantic, NATO navies are practicing to take on a wave of Russian submarines - Business Insider - Business Insider

Romanias President Klaus Iohannis (2-R) visits the Mihail Kogalniceanu military airport, 250 east of Bucharest, June 13, 2017. Archive photo: EPA/Bogdan Cristel

Hours after Washington announced on Wednesday that 11,900 US troops in Germany would be redeployed to reinforce NATOs southeastern flank, Romanian President Klaus Iohannis expressed appreciation for the move and reaffirmed that US troops are always welcome in Romania.

Speaking on Wednesday, Iohannis deemed the US decision very important for Romania, and recalled that he and the Bucharest government had long been stressing the need of [deploying] more troops in the Black Sea zone.

If this happens, we are very satisfied, said Iohannis, who added that the details of a potential redeployment to US troops to Romania would be discussed at NATO level.

Romania is one of the staunchest allies of the US in Europe. Bucharest already hosts a military NATO airbase with an American presence by the Black Sea as well as a missile shield base.

Particularly after the Russian annexation of the Crimea in 2014, the Black Sea region has become a place of mounting tension between Russia, which has deployed more military capabilities in the area, and the US and NATO.

As a firmly pro-Western country and NATO member since 2004, Romania is a cornerstone of the US architecture of deterrence of Russia in the region. In response to Moscows growing activity and presence in the Black Sea, Bucharest has boosted its own military investment in recent years.

Romanias National Defence Strategy for 2020-2024 mentions Russias aggressive behaviour in the region as one of the major strategic threats facing the country.

The new strategy was adopted last month by the Romanian parliament. In a clear reference to the US, Russia has accused Bucharest of being subservient to third parties and their agendas at the expense of its own interest.

The US restructuring of its presence in Europe was outlined on Wednesday by Washingtons Secretary of Defence, Mark Esper.

Approximately 11,900 military personnel will be repositioned from Germany, with nearly 5,600 repositioned within other NATO countries and 6,400 returning to the United States to address readiness and prepare for rotational deployments, the US Department of Defense explained.

The plan will consolidate headquarters to strengthen operational efficiency to focus on readiness, and place rotational forces in the Black Sea region on NATOs southeastern flank, it added.

This makes Romania a prime candidate to host, on a permanent or rotational basis, part of the US troops being moved from Germany.

The reshaping of US defence architecture in Europe serves the purpose of enhancing deterrence of Russia as its first priority, Esper highlighted.

By strengthening military capabilities in the Black Sea, the US seeks to prevent further Russian aggression against NATO allies in the region.

The US plans to invest 130 million dollars in turning the old airbase of Campia Turzii, in central Romania, into a hub of the US Airforce operations in southeastern Europe from which more fighter planes rotations can be conducted.

Read more:

Romania Ready to Welcome US Troops Removed From Germany - Balkan Insight

American and Polish soldiers during an exercise at a Polish base.

WASHINGTON: The Polish government will pay the majority of costs associated with stationing 5,500 US troops at bases within its borders as part of a new security cooperation pact, the Pentagon has confirmed to Breaking Defense.

The deal comes as the Trump administration keeps prodding longtime allies like South Korea and Japan to pay more of the costs of tens of thousands of US troops within their borders, while President Trump has complained that countries like Germany dont meet defense spending goals outlined by NATO.

But Poland, which already meets the NATO-mandated goal of spending 2 percent of GDP on national defense by 2024, has agreed to take more US forces, aircraft and drones while footing what is likely to be a hefty bill to build infrastructure for those forces as they flow in and out of the country on a rotational basis.

Warsaw has agreed to fund infrastructure and logistical support to U.S. forces in Poland, including the current 4,500 rotational forces and the planned increase of 1,000 additional rotational forces, Lt. Col. Thomas Campbell, a Pentagon spokesperson said.

The final amount isnt clear. The Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement has been agreed to, but will not be signed for several weeks yet, and no infrastructure improvements that might be needed have not been started. Iin broad terms, Poland has agreed to fully fund infrastructure for:

In a Monday morning statement, Esper said the new deal will enhance deterrence against Russia, strengthen NATO, reassure our Allies, and our forward presence in Poland on NATOs eastern flank will improve our strategic and operational flexibility.

The Polish deal comes as the US is in the early stages of planning to pull 12,000 troops from Germany and remains locked in a spending dispute with South Korea over Trumps demand Seoul pay more to keep the 28,500 American forces in the country.

During a Pentagon briefing last week, Defense Secretary Mark Esper and Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs John Hyten repeatedly made the case that moving the Germany-based troops back to the US, Belgium and Italy, is a strategic decision that will benefit the US and NATO. Within minutes of that press conference however, Trump contradicted his military leaders from the White House lawn, saying he ordered the pullout so the US wont be suckersso were reducing the force because theyre not paying their bills. Its very simple, theyre delinquent.

Trump again conflated the 2 percent NATO pledge with payments to the alliance itself. Germany, despite being the wealthiest nation in Europe, continues to fall well below that mark.

Relying on Polish construction efforts has recently cost the Pentagon about $100 million in cost overruns however.

Europes second Aegis Ashore site based in Redzikowo, Poland, was supposed to be up and running in 2018, but problems with local contractors have pushed that back to 2022 and will cost the US an additional $96 million in 2021, according to budget documents. The Missile Defense Agency stopped paying the contractor in the spring due to the schedule slippages; work has since resumed.

Stepping in to foot the bill while fulfilling its NATO pledge Warsaw is ticking off all the boxes demanded by the White House to maintain and improve its relationship with Washington.

Esper has recently acknowledged he is considering adjustments to the American military presence in South Korea, but clarified that he has issued no order to withdraw troops, despite reports suggesting a drawdown is being considered by Pentagon leadership.

Under the previous agreement between the US and South Korea, which ended in December, South Korea agreed to pay $870 million for 2019. The Trump administration originally demanded $5 billion in 2020 to keep the US footprint as is. That was rejected by the South Korean government, who then agreed to pay the salaries of thousands of Koreans who had been furloughed from their jobs on American bases. Since that tweak, talks between the two sides have stalled.

Read the original:

Poland Agrees To Pay Almost All Costs of US Troop Presence - Breaking Defense

As China continues to challenge India up in the Himalayas and provoking neighbours in the South China Sea, a paper written by top defence leaders including a former secretary-general of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), says that NATO immediately needs to adjust its response to the threat posed by China.

From Afghanistan To Syria This Is How Rafale Jets Have Dominated Skies Without Ever Being Shot-Down

Experts have predicted that China could become more powerful than the USSR ever was, if the current pattern continues.This is in reference to Chinas increasing aggressiveness with several countries including India, Japan and its actions in Hong Kong and Taiwan.

It is clear that President Xi Jinping remains committed to the modernisation of the Peoples Liberation Army by 2035 and its transformation into a world-class military by 2049, stated the paper. Recent events demonstrate the determination China has to bring Hong Kong under its firm grip, raising grave concerns for its future as well as that of Taiwan, it added.

In a report accessed byExpress, the paper is published by the Policy Institute and authored by George Robertson, who was the secretary-general of NATO 1999-2004. It has been co-authored by Michael Fallon, UK secretary of state for defence, 2014-17; Catherine Ashton, the EUs first high representative for foreign affairs and security policy, 2009-14; Peter Ricketts, UK permanent representative to NATO, 2003-06, and UK national security advisor, 2010-12; Menzies Campbell, leader of the Liberal Democrats, 2006-07, and the partys former spokesperson for foreign affairs and defence; and Benedict Wilkinson, Director of Research at the Policy Institute, Kings College London.

The paper talked about the ongoing border dispute with India where Indian and Chinese troops got into a violent clash in the Galwan valley of Eastern Ladakh. The clash resulted in 20 Indian casualties and an unconfirmed number on the Chinese side.

Chinas argument with India, and ongoing disputes with Japan, demonstrate preparedness to press territorial claims from the Himalayas to the South China Seas, asserted the paper.

In 2019, NATO leaders acknowledged that the alliance needs to address Chinas growing influence that presents both opportunities and challenges. NATO needs to develop a coherent policy towards China that includes conflict-avoidance and de-escalation.

Chinas actions are pushing NATO to look at Asia, a new change thats bothering an alliance which was created to protect Europe against the Soviet Union and then Russia. With US President Donald Trump pushing European nations to ramp up its military capabilities and to persuade them to join it in confronting an increasingly assertive China, NATO has clearly been facing a dilemma. European nations still see China as an economic partner. However, in December last year, alliance members specifically mentioned China for the first time in their declaration after the NATO Summit.

NATO has been long worried about Russia and has largely been silent on China. However, that is now changing. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenbergcalled onthe alliance to stand up to Beijings bullying and coercion, emphasising how Chinas rise is radically shifting the global balance of power.

It is clear that NATO can no longer ignore the threat. If the alliance hopes to remain competitive, it will have to develop a new strategy for dealing with Beijing.

See the original post here:

China Has Become More Powerful, Wealthier & Dangerous Than USSR Ever Was! - EurAsian Times

The coronavirus pandemic has not stopped one of the Royal Navys newest warships being made ready for deployment in record time.

HMS Trent has set sail for the Mediterranean, where she will bolster UK and Nato forces in the region.

The commanding officers young son waved as he watched his fathers ship leave Portsmouth Harbour on Monday afternoon.

Earlier the vessels proud crew stood to attention beside her as she was officially commissioned at a quiet ceremony.

Among them was 18-year-old Robson Gelder, the youngest member of the ships company, whose parents were among the many friends and family watching the proceedings live online, a necessity to ensure social distancing.

The 295ft (90m) River class patrol ship sporting a blue stag on her side is designed for counter-piracy, anti-smuggling, fishery protection, border patrol, counter-terrorism and maritime defence duties.

The ceremony, at Portsmouth Naval Base, took place in bright sunshine in front of a handful of distinguished members of the armed forces.

A band from the Royal Marines School of Music was on hand to perform songs including the national anthem.

Following prayers led by Reverend Martin Evans, the crew joined him in calling out Bless our ship! as he wished them good luck.

Addressing the crew, HMS Trents commanding officer, Lieutenant Commander James Wallington-Smith said: It is my distinct privilege and pleasure to stand here this morning as the commanding officer on such a distinguished and memorable day.

He added that it was a great sadness that friends and family could not attend the commissioning ceremony as they normally would have before the pandemic.

It is the understated support of all those around us who form the backbone on which we are able to to our job, he said.

Without their own hard work and sacrifice, we would not be able to make it to the start date on time.

Lt Cdr Wallington-Smith also praised the incredible work that went into turning HMS Trent from sheets of steel to a fully operational warship.

HMS Trent was built on the Clyde in Scotland by BAE Systems and delivered to the Royal Navy in December.

Since then she has been going through sea training and workouts to prepare her for her first deployment.

The new warship will train and patrol with Nato forces as part of Operation Sea Guardian, which seeks to deter international crime and terrorism.

Lt Cdr Wallington-Smith said: The entire ships company have worked tirelessly in difficult circumstances during the Covid-19 pandemic to prepare HMS Trent for this day.

I could not be prouder of them and everyone within Portsmouth Naval Base and beyond who has helped us reach this point.

About two-thirds of the 65 ratings and officers who make up HMS Trents ships company will crew the vessel at any one time.

Engineering Technician (Weapon Engineering) Gelder joined the Navy when he was just 16 and has already served on flagship aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth.

He told the PA news agency that going from such a huge vessel to a small ship like HMS Trent will be a change, but he feels like one of the family.

HMS Trent is believed to be the fastest generated warship, the time taken between completion of construction to deployment, in recent memory.

Read more from the original source:

New warship HMS Trent embarks for the Mediterranean to join Nato operation - expressandstar.com

North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), military alliance established by the North Atlantic Treaty (also called the Washington Treaty) of April 4, 1949, which sought to create a counterweight to Soviet armies stationed in central and eastern Europe after World War II. Its original members were Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Joining the original signatories were Greece and Turkey (1952); West Germany (1955; from 1990 as Germany); Spain (1982); the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland (1999); Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia (2004); Albania and Croatia (2009); and Montenegro (2017). France withdrew from the integrated military command of NATO in 1966 but remained a member of the organization; it resumed its position in NATOs military command in 2009.

Britannica Quiz

World Organizations: Fact or Fiction?

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is limited to European countries.

The heart of NATO is expressed in Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, in which the signatory members agree that

an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all; and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

NATO invoked Article 5 for the first time in 2001, after the September 11 attacks organized by exiled Saudi Arabian millionaire Osama bin Laden destroyed the World Trade Center in New York City and part of the Pentagon outside Washington, D.C., killing some 3,000 people.

Article 6 defines the geographic scope of the treaty as covering an armed attack on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America. Other articles commit the allies to strengthening their democratic institutions, to building their collective military capability, to consulting each other, and to remaining open to inviting other European states to join.

After World War II in 1945, western Europe was economically exhausted and militarily weak (the western Allies had rapidly and drastically reduced their armies at the end of the war), and newly powerful communist parties had arisen in France and Italy. By contrast, the Soviet Union had emerged from the war with its armies dominating all the states of central and eastern Europe, and by 1948 communists under Moscows sponsorship had consolidated their control of the governments of those countries and suppressed all noncommunist political activity. What became known as the Iron Curtain, a term popularized by Winston Churchill, had descended over central and eastern Europe. Further, wartime cooperation between the western Allies and the Soviets had completely broken down. Each side was organizing its own sector of occupied Germany, so that two German states would emerge, a democratic one in the west and a communist one in the east.

In 1948 the United States launched the Marshall Plan, which infused massive amounts of economic aid to the countries of western and southern Europe on the condition that they cooperate with each other and engage in joint planning to hasten their mutual recovery. As for military recovery, under the Brussels Treaty of 1948, the United Kingdom, France, and the Low CountriesBelgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourgconcluded a collective-defense agreement called the Western European Union. It was soon recognized, however, that a more formidable alliance would be required to provide an adequate military counterweight to the Soviets.

By this time Britain, Canada, and the United States had already engaged in secret exploratory talks on security arrangements that would serve as an alternative to the United Nations (UN), which was becoming paralyzed by the rapidly emerging Cold War. In March 1948, following a virtual communist coup dtat in Czechoslovakia in February, the three governments began discussions on a multilateral collective-defense scheme that would enhance Western security and promote democratic values. These discussions were eventually joined by France, the Low Countries, and Norway and in April 1949 resulted in the North Atlantic Treaty.

Spurred by the North Korean invasion of South Korea in June 1950 (see Korean War), the United States took steps to demonstrate that it would resist any Soviet military expansion or pressures in Europe. General Dwight D. Eisenhower, the leader of the Allied forces in western Europe in World War II, was named Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) by the North Atlantic Council (NATOs governing body) in December 1950. He was followed as SACEUR by a succession of American generals.

The North Atlantic Council, which was established soon after the treaty came into effect, is composed of ministerial representatives of the member states, who meet at least twice a year. At other times the council, chaired by the NATO secretary-general, remains in permanent session at the ambassadorial level. Just as the position of SACEUR has always been held by an American, the secretary-generalship has always been held by a European.

NATOs military organization encompasses a complete system of commands for possible wartime use. The Military Committee, consisting of representatives of the military chiefs of staff of the member states, subsumes two strategic commands: Allied Command Operations (ACO) and Allied Command Transformation (ACT). ACO is headed by the SACEUR and located at Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) in Casteau, Belgium. ACT is headquartered in Norfolk, Virginia, U.S. During the alliances first 20 years, more than $3 billion worth of infrastructure for NATO forcesbases, airfields, pipelines, communications networks, depotswas jointly planned, financed, and built, with about one-third of the funding from the United States. NATO funding generally is not used for the procurement of military equipment, which is provided by the member statesthough the NATO Airborne Early Warning Force, a fleet of radar-bearing aircraft designed to protect against a surprise low-flying attack, was funded jointly.

Follow this link:

North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) | Founders ...

Lindsay Gorman: 5G is where China and the West finally diverge

In the United States, suspicion of the Chinese government is a bipartisan matter, but no consensus exists about just what to do. The Trump administration has implemented a variety of hawkish policies, including restricting semiconductor sales in China and stopping a U.S. government retirement fund from investing in stocks there, and the president himself vowed Friday to ban TikTok, a popular app owned by a Chinese company. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo called in a recent speech for a new alliance of democracies to counter the emerging superpower, although few details were offered. The draft of the 2020 Democratic Party platform broadly vows to rally friends and allies across the world to push back against China or any other countrys attempts to undermine international norms.

The problem is that the United States and its allies currently lack the ability to respond to the type of geo-economic threats that China is making. Specifically, they need a means of taking collective action when Beijing attempts to use economic power as a tool of political coercion. No country should face such threats alone.

Peter Beinart: Democrats are letting Trump frame the debate about China

Many of Americas most important Cold Warera institutions, especially NATO, were designed to deter a primarily military threat from the Soviet Union. But back then, Moscowunlike Beijing nowhad limited economic leverage against the West. Global economic institutions such as the World Trade Organization were narrowly focused on trade agreements and rule-making to ensure fair economic competition, but did not consider the possibility of economic warfare or the danger of economic threats to force political concessions. Indeed, none of these alliances or institutions has been any help in addressing the Chinese economic threats against Australia, Germany, Sweden, or other nations.

Those threats also harm the United States. If China forces U.S. allies to use Huaweis technology in their information networks, American communications that go through those networks could be exposed to the Chinese Communist Partys infiltration. And Chinas rulers have sought to enforce the party line on Americans. Last year, Beijing punished the NBAs Houston Rockets when the teams general manager offered support for Hong Kongs prodemocracy protesters on Twitter, a platform blocked in China. The regime will likely grow bolder as Chinas economic might grows.

Jemele Hill: Et tu, LeBron?

New threats demand new responses. During the Cold War, the U.S. created not just NATO but also the CIA and the Air Force to respond to Soviet threats. The period brought about a wholly new form of intelligence competition between the West and the Soviet Union. This led the U.S., Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand to enter into the alliance commonly known as Five Eyes, which allowed unprecedented intelligence sharing among nations in peacetime. This approach would have been unimaginable before the Soviet geopolitical threat.

See the original post:

Like NATO, but for Economic Warfare - The Atlantic

The rise of the Arctic as a zone of competition has prompted calls for a dedicated forum where Arctic nations can discuss security issues. Whether that forum is a new body or an existing institution remains unsettled, but the potential role for NATO should not be overlooked even if that role must be tempered by geography to accommodate divergent attitudes on the alliances scope and its relationship with Russia.

The argument for the alliance to fill the position as host for high-level security dialogue starts with the simple fact that a number of non-Russian littoral nations are already part of the alliance. The Arctics shores, divided in this way, clearly invite some NATO role in regional security dialogue. Moreover, as Arctic security and politics become ever more attached to global issues, developments outside of the Arctic are likely to have consequences for Arctic states, and the decisions of Arctic states will likewise have so for others.

It may, therefore, be prudent to manage security dialogue through an institution that has a global, not strictly Arctic, mandate something NATO already does.

Of course, managing security in the Arctic is not only a matter of providing venues for dialogue; it also relies on the legitimacy of the parties engaging in that dialogue. The 2018 Trident Juncture exercise demonstrated that NATO is operationally active in the Arctic, especially in the High North (the Norwegian and Barents seas).

During the exercise along Norways coast, the alliance communicated with Russia through observers, building transparency of intention. The alliances frameworks for operational-level information sharing are highly credible. And in light of NATOs geographic, strategic and operational relevance to security in the Arctic, it is notable that the organization also has a preexisting forum for coordination with Russia through the NATO-Russia Council.

Yet, arguments in favor of an expanded Arctic political role under NATO face several challenges. First, NATO fails to formally incorporate Sweden and Finland. Although both participate in the Partnership for Peace program and often exercise alongside NATO nations, their formal status outside of the alliance belies NATOs ability to fully represent even just the Western Arctic bloc.

NATO of course also stands in tension with Russia, and NATO is often a toxic issue for Russian leadership. Its promotion as the lead political forum for security engagement in the Arctic could reinforce Russian arguments of an expansionist NATO. Nor is it obvious that Russia would participate in a forum explicitly oriented around a NATO structure, which accounts for critiques that the NATO-Russia Council has itself failed to deliver.

Sign up for our Early Bird Brief Get the defense industry's most comprehensive news and information straight to your inbox

Subscribe

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

Thanks for signing up!

By giving us your email, you are opting in to the Early Bird Brief.

At the same time, as NATO precludes membership of some Arctic states, any NATO role coordinating Arctic security dialogue will result in participation from non-Arctic alliance members. This participation acknowledges the practical reality that any conflict spreading to the Arctic has stakes for non-Arctic NATO nations who may be pulled into the fray.

Yet, it also elevates extra-regional voices when Arctic nations aim to emphasize regional control over decision-making. Janne Kuusela, the defense policy director at the Finnish Ministry of Defence, clarifies this position succinctly: In our view, international affairs in the High North should primarily be the responsibility of the Arctic countries. Put bluntly, a larger political footprint for NATO is contrary to the strategic preferences of several Arctic states.

Given all that, it seems unlikely that NATO is the organization that will assume the dominant mantle in Arctic security diplomacy everywhere. But it can in the High North. This idea is contrary to a tendency to think of the Arctic as one contiguous space requiring one organization for security dialogue, but it reflects a reality that security may best be served when parceled out in more functional subregions.

NATO merits this leadership status in the High North because in that specific terrain it can balance much of the point/counterpoint above. The alliances prominence in a specific part of the Arctic long associated with NATO operations should not provoke serious escalation with Russia and is already a point of familiarity for Sweden and Finland. Moreover, the NATO structure enables non-Arctic voices to participate in an Arctic security context that has implications for their own safety, but in a geographically limited space that should not trigger concerns among Arctic nations that their primacy over local governance is under threat.

NATO operates in the High North, has strategic equities in the region and has a track record of maintaining operational-level communications with Moscow to increase transparency. This should be the model for NATO in the north.

Joshua Tallis is a research scientist at the Center for Naval Analyses and the author of The War for Muddy Waters: Pirates, Terrorists, Traffickers, and Maritime Insecurity. He is a 2020 fellow in the U.S. Naval War Colleges Newport Arctic Scholars Initiative and the host of CNAs Polar Politics podcast.

Original post:

NATO is the right forum for security dialogue in the High North - DefenseNews.com

RIGA - In order to substantially improve NATO's capability to deter Russia's aggression against the Baltics, major investments will have to be made into road, bridge, railroad, port and airport infrastructure, NATO Allied Joint Force Command Brunssum Commander, General Jorg Vollmer says in an interview with the Defense Ministry's portal Sargs.lv.

Such investments would make it possible to accelerate deployment of NATO forces when necessary, the general emphasizes.

During the past several years, NATO member countries have successfully built the so-called "military Schengen area", that is, they have eased a number of bureaucratic obstacles so military units could move from one member country to another much more efficiently. Now is the time to bring order to the infrastructure.

Today, it is no longer necessary to deploy contingents of hundreds of thousands of troops for long period of time for the deterrence purposes. Technically such forces can be moved from one place to another quite fast, but it requires putting in order the member countries' infrastructure, explains Vollmer.

He compares quality infrastructure to moving chess pieces over a chess board - if the board is not square, the pieces will fall off.

"Imagine a situation where, for instance, a hundred battle tanks must be shipped to the Baltic region. On the average, one such tank weighs about 80 tons. We would transport them in special tank trailers along the highways. The total weight of the trailer and the tank would be over 100 tons. Many bridges are unable to carry such weights. It means that this infrastructure needs to be improved," says Vollmer.

The general explains that infrastructure upgrades are necessary not only in the northern- and easternmost members of NATO, but also those countries where NATO troops are already stationed, for instance, Germany.

In the Soviet Union, all infrastructure was built to facilitate Russia's attack against the West. What NATO needs now is the development of the South-North Corridor so equipment and troops could be quickly shipped from Germany via Poland to the Baltic countries, says Vollmer.

Link:

Major investments in infrastructure needed to deter Russia's incursion into Baltics - NATO general - Baltic Times

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo speaks with U.S. soldiers based in Grafenwoehr, Germany November 7, 2019. (Jens Meyer/Reuters)

In a move that sparked bipartisan criticism, the Trump administration announced Wednesday that the U.S. will pull nearly 12,000 troops from Germany, a decision President Trump said is a response to Germanys reluctance to spend a greater share of its gross domestic product on defense.

About a third, 11,800 Army and Air Force units, of the 36,000 American troops stationed in Germany will be withdrawn from the long-time NATO ally, an expensive process that will take years, U.S.defense officials said. Some will be re-stationed in otherEuropean NATOcountries, while others will return to the U.S. although they may later be deployed in Europe again.

Defense Secretary Mark Esper said at the Pentagon Wednesday that the changes will achieve the core principles of enhancing U.S. and NATO deterrence of Russia, strengthening NATO, reassuring allies and improving U.S. strategic flexibility.

Our aim is to implement these moves as expeditiously as possible, Esper said, adding that the plan likely will change to some degree as it evolves over time.

We could see some moves begin within weeks. Others will take longer, the Pentagon chief said.

Trump accused Germany of taking advantage of the U.S. on Wednesday, saying the U.S. is withdrawing the troops because Germany fails to spend 2 percent of its GDP on defense, the goal set byNATO.

We spend a lot of money on Germany. They take advantage of us on trade, and they take advantage on the military, so were reducing the force, the president said.

Theyre there to protect Europe, theyre there to protect Germany, and Germany is supposed to pay for it, Trump said. We dont want to be responsible anymore.

The decision attracted criticism from both sides of the aisle in Congress, including fromRepresentative Mac Thornberry of Texas, the ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, who called the decision troubling.

In a June letter, Thornberry along with other Republicans on the committee warned Trump about potential Russian aggression in the wake of proposed troop withdrawals.

In Europe, the threats posed by Russia have not lessened, and we believe that signs of a weakened U.S. commitment to NATO will encourage further Russian aggression and opportunism, the Republican lawmakers wrote.

Send a tip to the news team at NR.

Original post:

U.S. to Pull 12,000 Troops from Germany after Failure to Meet NATO Spending Target - National Review