Voice Cloning Market Competitive Landscape and Recent Industry Development Analysis 2021-2025| International Business Corporation, Google, Inc.,…

Posted on by

The report on the global Voice Cloning Market helps the emerging players by offering information about the approaching market prospects and give figures on improvement rate and market share. Further, it contains scraps of information concerning the monstrous affiliations that have a brief effect considering the occasions occurring in the global Voice Cloning Market. The literature gives upper hand to the emerging players and the investors who are planning to invest their money in the recent trends following the market. It offers high different freedoms to the gigantic business players that are pondering entering the market. Additionally, the report on global Voice Cloning Market contains evaluation of connection portfolio and products that the customers are implying for nearby the progressions in the products. There are speculations made by the business experts subject to these events and happenings and states the opportunity of movement a couple of markets across zones reliant on various topographies and segments additionally as sub segments like production range, application scene and others.

Some of the Important and Key Players of the Global Voice Cloning Market: International Business Corporation, Google, Inc., Lyrebird, Nuance Communication, Baidu, Microsoft Corporation, Amazon Web Services, AT&T Inc., Smartbox Assistive Technology, and Acapela Group.

Further, it contains evaluation of the past and current industry data to find out trends and patterns that have existed in the business space and finds ways to use that data to create future opportunities for the newly emerging industry players in the coming years. The document predicts insights about the growth rate of the Voice Cloning Market overall along with the segmental and regional growth rate of the industry space over the analysis time frame. Also, it gives major data based on statistics and numbers regarding the industry share, competitive spectrum, production patterns, losses made by the companies, and several others.

It contains a complete outlook on the industry supply chain spectrum and offers highlights about the production houses and manufacturing units of the key players that play an important role in the business space. Further, the record makes reference to experiences about the rising pandemic of Covid-19 which fiscally impacts the business space. The Voice Cloning Market report further states about the extended length and smart effect of this global emergency and embraces approaches to manage administer it and affirmation benefits soon by keeping up authenticity over the tricky occasions.

Voice Cloning Market Segmentation

Type Analysis of Voice Cloning Market: By Component (Solutions, and Components), Deployment (On-Premise, and Cloud), Industry Vertical (BFSI, Healthcare, IT & Telecommunication, Travel & Hospitality, Media & Entertainment and Others)

Applications Analysis of Voice Cloning Market: NA

Also, it gives an idea about the feasibility study of the new projects that are been taken up by the major companies or by the emerging players in this business space. Also it offers the raw data in various easily readable forms such as graphs, pie charts, bar graphs, tables and other formats which are easily readable by the reader.

Key questions answered in this report:

1. What will the market size be in 2027and what will the growth rate be?

2. What are the key market trends?

3. What is driving this market?

4. What are the challenges to market growth?

5. Who are the key vendors in this market space?

6. What are the market opportunities and threats faced by the key vendors?

7. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the key vendors?

Report Investment: Top 5 Reasons

1. The Voice Cloning Market report entails multi-faceted information pertaining to diverse timelines across historical and current scenarios to influence future ready business decisions

2. The report categorizes new business avenues and novel opportunities thus allowing players to redesign and generate novel growth models.

3. The report delivers novel growth strategies thus allowing market investors to divert investments across novel fronts

4. The report also allows market participants to identify and practice new growth strategies thus invoking ample profits across various segments and sub-segments.

5. The report is a highly reliable investment guide to identify new trends in the market and encouraging market players to align with these trends in delivering optimistic growth outcome despite neck-deep competition.

6. The Voice Cloning Market report also shares vital aspects on COVID-19 outbreak and eventual pandemic management.

About Us

Adroit Market Research is an India-based business analytics and consulting company incorporated in 2018. Our target audience is a wide range of corporations, manufacturing companies, product/technology development institutions and industry associations that require understanding of a markets size, key trends, participants and future outlook of an industry. We intend to become our clients knowledge partner and provide them with valuable market insights to help create opportunities that increase their revenues. We follow a code Explore, Learn and Transform. At our core, we are curious people who love to identify and understand industry patterns, create an insightful study around our findings and churn out money-making roadmaps.

Contact Us:

Ryan Johnson

Account Manager Global

3131 McKinney Ave Ste 600, Dallas,

TX75204, U.S.A.

Phone No.: USA: +1 210-667-2421/ +91 9665341414

https://neighborwebsj.com/

The rest is here:

Voice Cloning Market Competitive Landscape and Recent Industry Development Analysis 2021-2025| International Business Corporation, Google, Inc.,...

The real reason we still haven’t cloned humans – Business Insider

Posted on by

Following is a transcript of the video.

Narrator: We've been able to clone human embryos for about seven years. But as far as we know, no one's actually cloned a whole person. Turns out, ethics aren't the only thing holding scientists back. Cloning isn't the sci-fi marvel we think it is. It can be dangerous, often ineffective, and, most of all, we just haven't thought of a good enough reason to do it. So, here's why you'll probably never have to fight your evil clone.

This is Dolly. Just kidding, that's a regular sheep. This is Dolly, the first mammal cloned successfully from an adult cell. She was born in 1996 after scientists figured out how to remove the DNA from the egg cell of a Scottish Blackface sheep and basically replace it with the DNA of a mammary cell from a Finn Dorset sheep. They gave it a little electric shock to fuse the cell and get it replicating, placed the cells in the uterus of another sheep, and boom, clone. This method, called reproductive cloning, could theoretically be used on humans. But this is a best-case scenario. It took 277 tries for the scientists to get one Dolly. Nowadays, cloning mammals generally has a success rate of about 10% to 20%. Better than one in 277, but still a majorly inefficient process.

Jose Cibelli: Technically, it's not difficult to produce a clone embryo, but human cloning has other hurdles that need to be considered.

Narrator: To even research human cloning, scientists would need to ethically collect a large amount of donated eggs and find enough surrogates to carry them. But even if they made it through that logistical nightmare, the biggest issue is this:

Cibelli: They're gonna hurt the baby, or they're gonna hurt the person carrying the cloned fetus.

Narrator: Across the board, scientists have found that some embryos expire before they're implanted. Others result in miscarriages. And those that make it to term often die soon after birth or end up with severe abnormalities. Simply, these are risks that are easier to take when it comes to experimenting with sheep than with people. But arguably the biggest reason we haven't cloned a human being? There's not a good enough reason to.

In pop culture, cloning is used to bring people back from the dead. But that's not how it works. Cloning someone would only create a twin, not a replica, since identical twins have the same genetics, but not necessarily personalities. And a "Never Let Me Go" scenario, where organs are harvested from clones to save the rich, is not only unethical, but unnecessary. Why clone an entire person when you can just make the part you need? Something, theoretically, therapeutic cloning can solve.

Therapeutic cloning is almost identical to reproductive, except the cloned embryo is never implanted in a uterus. Instead, the embryo is cloned for the sole purpose of extracting stem cells. Stem cells have the incredible ability to turn into any other cell in the human body, which means they're great for developing new treatments for disease and have the potential to repair or regenerate tissues and organs.

But, no surprise, there are a lot of downsides with therapeutic cloning. The thing about stem cells is that they're a pretty limited resource. The most substantial source for embryonic stem cells? Three- to five-day-old embryos, cloned or otherwise. And when someone else's stem cells are transplanted into a patient, the body will sometimes fight them off like a disease. Some researchers believe that cloned stem cells, since they share the patient's DNA, would be less likely to be rejected. But this use case is still in the research stage.

And, finally, therapeutic cloning is an individualized treatment in a world where drug companies are more interested in standardized ones. And there are easier ways to create multipurpose cells nowadays, like the method for creating induced pluripotent stem cells. They're basically adult cells that have been reprogrammed to be a different type of cell.

Cibelli: The problem with therapeutic cloning, of course, is that you need a lab personnel that is qualified to do it, specific equipment to do it. Whereas the other technique, you can just buy a kit and one person can do it in a lab that has some expertise in tissue culture.

Narrator: Cloned cells still have an advantage when it comes to healthier mitochondria and the ability to grow into entire animals, whereas iPSCs often peter out. But since iPSCs safely and reliably do most everything but create entire living animals, why fund the harder, ethically ambiguous thing? So, cloning might actually have a bigger place in movies than it does in real life, because the money just isn't there. And just because we can do something doesn't mean we need to.

Ian: Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should.

Abby Tang: So, in the research for this video, I did come across one very interesting tidbit, and that is the announcement of cloned human baby Eve, who was born on December 26, 2002. And the source of this announcement is a company called Clonaid, which was formed in 1997 by the Raelian cult. And they're a cult that believes that humans were cloned from aliens and the only way for us to reach immortality is to clone ourselves. It's been 18 years, and we haven't gotten any proof that baby Eve exists or has ever existed, but the company is still alive and well. So if any proof does come through, we will update you.

EDITOR'S NOTE: This video was originally published in July 2020.

See the article here:

The real reason we still haven't cloned humans - Business Insider

Pellerin: Don’t flout COVID rules in the name of ‘freedom’ – London Free Press (Blogs)

Posted on by

Breadcrumb Trail Links

Having spent some time in libertarian circles, I'm dismayed by politicians associated with that movement openly flouting public health guidelines and rules enacted to deal with COVID-19 in the name of a narrow, selfish definition of freedom.

Author of the article:

Having spent some time in libertarian circles, Im dismayed by politicians associated with that movement openly flouting public health guidelines and rules enacted to deal with COVID-19 in the name of a narrow, selfish definition of freedom.

The whole basis of libertarianism, as I understand it, is we dont need governments to tell us what to do, that free, informed and decent citizens know how to do the right thing. I think its fair to say the last few weeks have shown this belief system to be a dangerous illusion when improperly applied.

I still believe that with our good hearts and proper information, we are more than capable of helping create a better, freer, fairer and more prosperous world. That good people will do whats necessary to protect their fellows and themselves, even if that entails sacrifices. Back in September, I wrote: We are, fundamentally, . . . a free people. We are also . . . empathetic creatures. Freedom alone, exercised without restraints, leads to anarchy and selfishness. Empathy by itself is powerless to do anything. Our superpower is activated when we combine those two features.

Except for the, er, exceptions. Ontario Premier Doug Ford is fond of calling those who defy public health restrictions yahoos. But even he wouldnt use that term to describe elected officials. People such as Ontario MPP Randy Hillier, federal party leader Maxime Bernier and what appears to be one-quarter of Alberta Premier Jason Kennedys caucus are among those who seem proud to show themselves as dangerous, irresponsible refuseniks. And Im trying to be polite.

Its easy to dismiss folks who fund Ezra Levants Rebel out of frustration with politics, and the ill-informed Twitter troll army. But when so many in positions of power and authority encourage others to show up unmasked at a Kemptville bar or an Edmonton-area church claiming the police state (sic) is attacking Christians by enforcing public-health regulations, we have a problem. When these people need ventilators at an overcrowded ICU, whose fault will it be? Is it OK for them to use hospital resources while kids with complex medical needs, whove been following public health guidelines, endure more delays in necessary treatments because hospitals are overwhelmed with COVID patients, especially if they caught COVID bey ignoring safety rules?

Whose freedom is really at risk, here? Whose rights are infringed?

I dont want lectures about freedom from people unwilling to make relatively small personal sacrifices for the common good. Not to minimize the real hardships many Canadians endure because of COVID; they are real, and they hurt. So do smaller sacrifices we all make. But if you wont tolerate a face mask or virtual religious services when everyone else is on Zoom for everything, dont tell me how your rights are being violated by a tyrannical public health autocracy.

Freedom and responsibility go hand in hand. Im not here to tell you what to do or believe, but if, like me, you are disgusted with elected officials encouraging greed, selfishness and deliberate endangerment of others in the name of freedom, vow never to vote them, and their dangerous ideology, back in.

Brigitte Pellerin is an Ottawa writer

Excerpt from:

Pellerin: Don't flout COVID rules in the name of 'freedom' - London Free Press (Blogs)

Opinion | The Empty Vessel of Matthew McConaughey – POLITICO

Posted on by

The enthusiasm for the McConaughey candidacy captured by the pollsters is less an endorsement of his mashed-up politics than it is an exercise in name recognition and evidence of the power of charisma. The Texas governor election wont be held for another 18 months; asking voters who they would vote for that far out from Election Day is like asking somebody what theyre going to have for dinner two weeks from Thursday. They might give an answer, but they wont feel bound by it.

This is not to suggest that McConaughey wouldnt make a viable candidate. But if he does, hell start having to do the kind of things that alienate peoplelike deciding whether he was a Democrat or a Republican. Hes been a little mum on the topic, although he did declare in 2017 a need for us to unite around President Donald Trump. Name recognition can carry a novice candidate a long way in a competitive contest, even if their positions and affiliations are a little fuzzy. Other famous performers, including Jesse Ventura, Al Franken, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sonny Bono and this guy named Trump you might have heard about, silenced the doubters by winning office in their first tries in part because they were known quantities, so theres hope for the McConaughey candidacy (or even Caitlyn Jenners rumored campaign for California governor) if its genuine.

But is it? Howard Stern hoaxed his way into and out of the New York governor race in 1994, and Charles Barkley is forever doing the same in Alabama. In 2017-18, Kid Rock got in trouble with the Federal Elections Commission for a U.S. Senate run that bore some of the real markers of a genuine campaigna campaign slogan, a Kid Rock for Senate website, campaign merch, and his political speeches at his concerts. (The Kid escaped FEC wrath by asserting his campaign was just a publicity stunt for his new album.) McConaughey, as mentioned, has a memoir out, so any publicity is good publicity for him right now.

We shouldnt be entirely dismissive of entertainers running for president. Actor Cynthia Nixon ran a decent, and serious, campaign for New York governor in 2018. Song-and-dance man George Murphy didnt embarrass himself in the U.S. Senate after winning a seat from California. Performers such as Bono, Bob Dornan, Fred Grandy, Ben Jones, Schwarzenegger, Helen Gahagan Douglas and John Davis Lodge, a Hollywood star of the 1930s and 1940s, pulled their weight after winning elections.

Given their combined track record, perhaps every major election should have a celebrity candidate on the ballot to provide voters with periodic relief from the professional politicians who monopolize public office. Besides, the Texas chief executive has traditionally been weak compared to other states, so McConaugheys ego trip to the governors mansion cant do that much damage. Instead, it should remind us of how forgiving and accepting the political process can be. America is a blessed place where even those with little political talent, less political knowledge and no political horse sense can win elections as long as they have a memorable name. May the best-known candidate win!

In Texas, the best-known candidate has got to be Matthew McConaughey. So is he really running? Thats anybodys guessbut so far it looks more like a middle-aged morning jog than a real run.

******

I deliberately avoided Ronald Reagan in this piece because he was a committed politician and campaigner long before he ran for California governor in 1966. That said, name recognition played a big role in his political victories. Send your campaign-finance filings to [emailprotected]. My email alerts use facial recognition to vote. My Twitter feed thinks Clinton is still president. My RSS feed still backs George Papoon for president.

Go here to read the rest:

Opinion | The Empty Vessel of Matthew McConaughey - POLITICO

More women then men are getting COVID-19 shots – The Union Leader

Posted on by

Mary Ann Steiner drove 2 hours from her home in the St. Louis suburb of University City to the tiny Ozark town of Centerville, Mo., to get vaccinated against COVID-19. After pulling into the drive-thru line in a church parking lot, she noticed that the others waiting for shots had something in common with her.

Everyone in the very short line was a woman, said Steiner, 70.

Her observation reflects a national reality: More women than men are getting COVID vaccines, even as more men are dying of the disease. KHN examined vaccination dashboards for all 50 states and the District of Columbia in early April and found that each of the 38 that listed gender breakdowns showed more women had received shots than men.

Public health experts cited many reasons for the difference, including that women make up three-quarters of the workforce in health care and education, sectors prioritized for initial vaccines.

Womens longer life spans also mean that older people in the first rounds of vaccine eligibility were more likely to be female. But as eligibility expands to all adults, the gap has continued. Experts point to womens roles as caregivers and their greater likelihood to seek out preventive health care in general as contributing factors.

In Steiners case, her daughter spent hours on the phone and computer, scoping out and setting up vaccine appointments for five relatives. In my family, the women are about a million times more proactive about getting a COVID vaccine, Steiner said. The females in families are often the ones who are more proactive about the health of the family.

As of early April, statistics showed the vaccine breakdown between women and men was generally close to 60% and 40% women made up 58% of those vaccinated in Alabama and 57% in Florida, for example.

States dont measure vaccinations by gender uniformly, though. Some break down the statistics by total vaccine doses, for example, while others report people who have gotten at least one dose.

A handful of states report gender vaccination statistics over time. That data shows the gap has narrowed but hasnt disappeared as vaccine eligibility has expanded beyond people in long-term care and health care workers.

In Kentucky, for instance, 64% of residents who had received at least one dose of vaccine by early February were women and 36% were men. As of early April, the stats had shifted to 57% women and 43% men.

In New Hampshire, one of the states furthest along in rolling out the vaccines the gap on April 13 was 18 percentage points for two doses (58.4% women and 40.4% men) and 13 percentage points for one dose, (55.8% percent women and 42.9% men).

A few states break the numbers down by age as well as gender, revealing that the male-female difference persists across age groups.

Dr. Elvin Geng, a professor at the medical school at Washington University in St. Louis, said women of all age groups, races and ethnicities generally use health services more than men which is one reason they live longer.

Arrianna Planey, an assistant professor who specializes in medical geography at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, said its often women who manage medical appointments for their households so they may be more familiar with navigating health systems.

Decades of research have documented how and why men are less likely to seek care. A 2019 study in the American Journal of Mens Health, for example, examined health care use in religious heterosexual men and concluded masculine norms such as a perception that they are supposed to be tough were the main reason many men avoided seeking care.

Attitudes about the COVID pandemic and the vaccines also affect who gets the shots.

Dr. Rebecca Wurtz, director of public health administration and policy at the University of Minnesota, said women have been more likely to lose jobs during the pandemic, and in many cases bear the brunt of teaching and caring for children at home.

Women are ready for this to be done even more than men are, Wurtz said.

Political attitudes, too, play a part in peoples views on coping with the pandemic, experts said. A Gallup poll last year found that among both Democrats and Republicans, women were more likely to say they took precautions to avoid COVID, such as always practicing physical distancing and wearing masks indoors when they couldnt stay 6 feet apart from others.

In a recent national poll by KFF, 29% of Republicans and 5% of Democrats said they definitely would not get the shot.

Paul Niehaus IV of St. Louis, who described himself as an independent libertarian with conservative leanings, said he wont get a COVID vaccine. He said the federal government, along with Big Tech and Big Pharma, are pushing an experimental medicine that is not fully approved by the Food and Drug Administration, and he doesnt trust those institutions.

This is a freedom issue. This is a civil liberties issue, said Niehaus, a 34-year-old self-employed musician. My motto is Let people choose.

Steiner said she was eager to be vaccinated. She has an immune disorder that puts her at high risk for severe illness from COVID and hasnt seen some of her grandchildren in a year and a half.

She has now received both doses of the Moderna vaccine and said she doesnt regret taking the more difficult step of traveling five hours round trip to get her first shot in February. (She was able to find a closer location for her second dose.)

Its for my safety, for my kids safety, for my neighbors safety, for the people who go to my churchs safety, she said. I really dont understand the resistance.

Follow this link:

More women then men are getting COVID-19 shots - The Union Leader

Critical Theory and Mass Immigration – Immigration Blog

Posted on by

The Democratic party has taken a radical turn on immigration. Gone are the not-so-distant days of Barbara Jordan, when concern for the rule of law and social and economic cohesion were taken seriously. Today, the party is led by firebrands like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who call for abolishing an entire enforcement agency. Democrats have staffed all four immigration-related panels in the House of Representatives with members who are hostile to national borders. The Democratic-controlled chamber has already passed two major amnesty bills. Not to be outdone, President Biden has signed several executive actions that stop construction of the border wall, eviscerate interior enforcement, and remove restrictions on travelers from regions rife with terrorism, among other things.

None of these policies had the support of Democratic leadership in the 1990s. At that time, President Clinton was enforcing the law, environmentalists were concerned about population growth, and labor unions were prioritizing American workers. Those positions, which had bipartisan support, are condemned as close-minded and bigoted by Democratic leadership today. What brought about this fundamental change, a change so extreme it threatens the very sovereignty of the United States? Like their libertarian counterparts on the right, one should never discount the powerful financial incentive that Democratic elites have for opposing borders. But powerful financial incentives existed long before the current push to effectively abolish immigration law. The mainstreaming of these radical positions is, at least in part, the result of a long Gramscian march through the institutions that began in the early 20th century.

In his book The Genesis of Political Correctness: The Basis of a False Morality, Michael William traces the development of critical theory by a group of German social scientists who grew disillusioned with the failure of traditional Marxism. Realizing no proletarian revolt was forthcoming, they converted the ideologys attacks on class into broader cultural antagonisms. The group, known as the Frankfurt School, saw the fundamental structure of Western society as irredeemably oppressive and sought its eventual overthrow through internal conflict. This conflict would be fomented primarily through the manipulation of language that would recast all relationships as power struggles between the oppressors and the oppressed. By changing the way that familial and social relationships were defined, Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, Herbert Marcuse, and their colleagues sought to change the way that people understood these relationships. Over time, they hoped that discontent and division would break down the existing order of society.

In his essay Repressive Tolerance, Marcuse, echoing Rousseau, argues that public opinion is invalid because a false consciousness has become the general consciousness, enslaving people who do not know they are enslaved. This tyranny of the majority, which masquerades as tolerance, can only be overcome by militant intolerance. Marcuse advocates banning the speech and assembly of certain groups and he calls for the withdrawal of civil rights from a majority who is oppressing the minority. He supports rigid restrictions on teachings and practices in the educational institutions and argues that support for calm and reasoned debate facilitates oppression. What is needed is the development of an enraged and subversive faction that is willing to engage in violence against the established order.

Marcuse believed that the catalyst for this uprising would be alienated minority groups. Such groups would take the place of the broader working class who, to Marcuses chagrin, seemed content in their supposed oppression. So he looked to the American black population as a possible source of agitation and supported militant activism. It is important to note that Marcuse did not want these activists to succeed in remedying injustice, but wanted minorities to remain marginalized from the larger society. As William explains, For Marcuse, the integration into society of supposedly alienated groups acts as a stabilizing force and thereby neutralizes the revolutionary elements which, according to Marxism, should be committed to societys overthrow.

The key for Marcuse, a founder of critical theory, was to sow division. It was not to redress wrongs or grievances within the existing social framework, but to perpetuate and inflame those wrongs and grievances until the social framework could be overthrown. Integrating peoples into a functioning society was not helpful to his goal of revolution. But one major development, which Marcuse may not have even anticipated, was helpful: the modern era of mass immigration. As Marcuse was winding down, that era was winding up. The Hart-Celler Act of 1965 exponentially increased the number of immigrants admitted to the United States. In just a couple of decades, there were enough newcomers to begin to overwhelm the assimilation process. And by that time, there were enough critical theorists in academia to challenge the very notion of assimilation.

One such theorist is Jurgen Habermas, a prominent German sociologist whose voluminous body of work is heavily influenced by the Frankfurt School. As William points out, Habermas believes that the classic form of the nation state is disintegrating and envisions a constitutional patriotism that is stripped of language and culture and devoted to a political authority that extends civil rights beyond borders. He claims that citizenship was never conceptually tied to national identity and that republican freedom can cut its umbilical links to the womb of the national consciousness which had originally given birth to it. Habermasnow sees the possibility of a global public sphere that was once imagined by Kant and Rousseau: The arrival of world citizenship is no longer merely a phantom, though we are still far from achieving it. State citizenship and world citizenship form a continuum that already shows itself, at least in outline form.

For the classic form of nations to disintegrate, national identity must first be dissolved. Habermas, like many of his fellow academics, sees mass immigration as a catalyst for this process. He praises the effect of multiculturalism on the United States and, in the European context, writes approvingly that Immigration from Eastern Europe and poverty-stricken regions of the Third World will intensify multicultural diversity in these societies. This will give rise to social tensions. He believes that these social tensions, which were sought by Marcuse, will hasten the move to a supranational governing structure that is devoid of shared history or tradition.

Like Marcuse, Habermas dismisses the suffering that will result from these social tensions. He denigrates concerns over the upheaval caused by mass immigration, referring to such concerns as the chauvinism of prosperity: The European states should agree upon a liberal immigration policy. They should not draw their wagons around themselves and their chauvinism of prosperity, hoping to ignore the pressures of those hoping to immigrate or seek asylum. The democratic right of self-determination includes, of course, the right to preserve ones own political culture, which includes the concrete context of citizens rights, though it does not include the self-assertion of a privileged cultural life form.

Habermas asserts that Ones own national tradition will, in each case, have to be appropriated in such a manner that it is related to and relavtiveized [sic] by the vantage points of other cultures. He sees mass immigration and the relativizing of cultures as a way of democratizing citizenship. This process is being pushed with a particular goal in mind. As he explains, Only democratic citizenship can prepare the way for a condition of world citizenship which does not close itself off within particularistic biases, and which accepts a worldwide form of political communication.

This view is now pervasive among public figures. William cites several others, like Bhikhu Parekh, a British political theorist turned politician who served on race and multicultural commissions before being appointed to a life peerage in the House of Lords. Parekh uses his influential position to call for unlimited immigration to transform the United Kingdom into a community of communities and a multicultural post-nation that sheds its cultural identity. These sentiments are nearly universal in American universities and are routinely pushed by post-American politicians and activists. While campaigning for president, Joe Biden tersely summarized this view with his assertion that people who entered the United States illegally are more American than most Americans are. In other words, America is merely a vague unrooted universal sentiment.

Underlying this position is the skepticism and intolerance of critical theory, with its contempt for the rule of law and efforts to integrate newcomers into a majority culture that is seen as oppressive. As William notes, this contempt extends to patriotic citizens, who are now being taught to embrace a hatred for their countries and their histories. Like previous revolutions, this great upheaval is being undertaken with the foolish hope of creating a secular utopia. Whether they realize it or not, Democratic leaders are now perpetuating this upheaval with their efforts to effectively abolish immigration law.

See the rest here:

Critical Theory and Mass Immigration - Immigration Blog

NATO | Founders, Members, & History | Britannica

Posted on by

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); Montenegro (2017); and North Macedonia (2020). 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

Global Governance Quiz

Intergovernmental cooperation is essential to resolve issues of global importance. That cooperation is often made possible by organizations and events dedicated to global governance. Test what you know about past and present efforts to make the world a better (or, at least, different) place.

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.

See the original post here:

NATO | Founders, Members, & History | Britannica

What Is NATO? – WorldAtlas

Posted on by

NATO, or the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, was established in 1949 as a way to ensure the safety of its member countries. Article 5 is a cornerstone of the alliance; it is used to deter attacks on NATO member countries. The original members of NATO include the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Denmark, Iceland, and Belgium. As of 2020, there are 30 members of the organization. But what is NATO? and why was it formed? Read on below to find out more.

NATO is a multi-country military alliance founded after World War II and established in 1949. There are currently 30 countries that are a part of NATO and the membership is open to any European state to further the principles of the Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area." In order to join, countries must prepare for membership by following the advice of the Membership Action Plan. Bosnia and Herzegovina are currently participating, and the newest member to join was North Macedonia on March 27, 2020.

NATOs mission objective is to protect the freedom of its members and to stop weapons of mass destruction, cyber-attacks, and terrorism. Article 5 of the Treaty states that an attack on one member state is an attack on all states; members of the organization pledge to aid any member state that has come under attack. Despite its importance, Article 5 has only been invoked once. This was in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

NATO was formed as a defense against the threat of the Soviet Union dismantling democracy in Europe and spreading communism to the United States. President Harry Truman signed the North Atlantic Treaty on April 4, 1949. 12 countries joined NATO in 1949, including Canada and the United Kingdom. In 1954, the Soviet Union made requests to join but they were rejected and have been ever since. One of the conditions of being a part of NATO is to spend two percent of their countrys wealth on defense. In 2018, President Trump had expressed desires to withdraw the United States from NATO, this led to the passing of the NATO Support Act which prohibits the appropriation or use of funds to withdraw the United States from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Trump was criticized by officials who said the United States withdrawal would destroy relationships and undo the hard work carried out by the organization over the last 70-plus years.

Read the rest here:

What Is NATO? - WorldAtlas

[AP] Russia says troop buildup near Ukraine is a response to NATO – The Associated Press

Posted on by

MOSCOW (AP) Russias defense minister said Tuesday that the countrys massive military buildup in the west was part of readiness drills amid what he described as threats from NATO.

Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said the maneuvers in western Russia that have worried neighboring Ukraine and brought warnings from NATO would last for another two weeks.

Speaking at a meeting with the top military brass, Shoigu said the ongoing exercise was a response to what he claimed were continuous efforts by the United States and its NATO allies to beef up their forces near Russias borders.

In the past three weeks, the Russian military has deployed two armies and three airborne formations to western regions as a response to the alliances military activities threatening Russia, the defense minister said.

The troops have shown their full readiness to fulfill tasks to ensure the countrys security, he said.

The U.S. and its allies have sounded alarm about the concentration of Russian troops along the border with Ukraine and increasing violations of a cease-fire in eastern Ukraine, where Russia-baked separatists and Ukrainian forces have been locked in a conflict since Moscows 2014 annexation of Ukraines Crimean Peninsula.

More than 14,000 people have died in fighting in eastern Ukraine, and efforts to negotiate a political settlement have stalled. The chief of NATO on Tuesday called the recent Russian deployment the largest concentration of troops near the Ukraine border since 2014.

The White House said U.S. President Joe Biden voiced concern over the Russian buildup and called on Russia to de-escalate tensions, during a phone call Tuesday with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

In separate meetings with Ukraines foreign minister, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg strong support for Ukraine and warned Russia against pressing ahead with its troop buildup along the former Soviet republics eastern border.

Amid the recent tensions, the United States notified Turkey that two U.S. warships would sail to the Black Sea on April 14 and April 15 and stay there until May 4 and May 5. The U.S. Navy ships have made regular visits to the Black Sea in past years, vexing Moscow.

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov denounced the latest deployment as openly provocative, adding that American ships have absolutely nothing to do near our shores.

They are testing our strength and playing on our nerves, Ryabkov said in remarks carried by Russian news agencies. Seeing itself as the Queen of the Seas, the U.S. should realize that the risks of various incidents are very high. We warn the U.S. that it should stay away from Crimea and our Black Sea coast for their own benefit.

NATO chief Stoltenberg expressed the Western military alliances unwavering support for Ukraine during a news conference on Tuesday with Ukraines foreign minister, calling the Russian movements unjustified, unexplained and deeply concerning.

The Kremlin has argued that Russia is free to deploy its troops wherever it wants on its territory and has repeatedly accused the Ukrainian military of provocative actions along the line of control in the east and of planning to retake control of the rebel regions by force.

Ryabkov reaffirmed Tuesday that if there is any escalation, we will do everything to ensure our own security and the security of our citizens whenever they are, adding that Kyiv and its Western curators will bear all the responsibility for the consequences of that hypothetical escalation.

Link:

[AP] Russia says troop buildup near Ukraine is a response to NATO - The Associated Press

Formation of Nato – Purpose, Dates & Cold War – HISTORY

Posted on by

Contents

In 1949, the prospect of further Communist expansion prompted the United States and 11 other Western nations to form the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). The Soviet Union and its affiliated Communist nations in Eastern Europe founded a rival alliance, the Warsaw Pact, in 1955. The alignment of nearly every European nation into one of the two opposing camps formalized the political division of the European continent that had taken place since World War II (1939-45). This alignment provided the framework for the military standoff that continued throughout the Cold War (1945-91).

Conflict between the Western nations (including the United States, Great Britain, France and other countries) and the Communist Eastern bloc (led by the Union of Soviet Socialists Republics or USSR) began almost as soon as the guns fell silent at the end of World War II (1939-45). The USSR oversaw the installation of pro-Soviet governments in many of the areas it had taken from the Nazis during the war. In response, the U.S. and its Western allies sought ways to prevent further expansion of Communist influence on the European continent. In 1947, U.S. leaders introduced the Marshall Plan, a diplomatic initiative that provided aid to friendly nations to help them rebuild their war-damaged infrastructures and economies.

Did you know? NATO continued its existence beyond the Cold War era and gained new member nations in Eastern Europe during the late 1990s. That development was not well received by leaders of the Russian Federation and became a source of post-Cold War tension between the East and the West.

Events of the following year prompted American leaders to adopt a more militaristic stance toward the Soviets. In February 1948, a coup sponsored by the Soviet Union overthrew the democratic government of Czechoslovakia and brought that nation firmly into the Communist camp. Within a few days, U.S. leaders agreed to join discussions aimed at forming a joint security agreement with their European allies. The process gained new urgency in June of that year, when the USSR cut off ground access to Berlin, forcing the U.S., Britain and France to airlift supplies to their sectors of the German city, which had been partitioned between the Western Allies and the Soviets following World War II.

The discussions between the Western nations concluded on April 4, 1949, when the foreign ministers of 12 countries in North America and Western Europe gathered in Washington, D.C., to sign the North Atlantic Treaty. It was primarily a security pact, with Article 5 stating that a military attack against any of the signatories would be considered an attack against them all. When U.S. Secretary of State Dean Acheson (1893-1971) put his signature on the document, it reflected an important change in American foreign policy. For the first time since the 1700s, the U.S. had formally tied its security to that of nations in Europethe continent that had served as the flash point for both world wars.

The original membership of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) consisted of Belgium, Britain, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal and the United States. NATO formed the backbone of the Wests military bulwark against the USSR and its allies for the next 40 years, with its membership growing larger over the course of the Cold War era. Greece and Turkey were admitted in 1952, the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany) in 1955 and Spain in 1982. Unhappy with its role in the organization, France opted to withdraw from military participation in NATO in 1966 and did not return until 1995.

The formation of the Warsaw Pact was in some ways a response to the creation of NATO, although it did not occur until six years after the Western alliance came into being. It was more directly inspired by the rearming of West Germany and its admission into NATO in 1955. In the aftermath of World War I and World War II, Soviet leaders felt very apprehensive about Germany once again becoming a military powera concern that was shared by many European nations on both sides of the Cold War divide.

In the mid-1950s, however, the U.S. and a number of other NATO members began to advocate making West Germany part of the alliance and allowing it to form an army under tight restrictions. The Soviets warned that such a provocative action would force them to make new security arrangements in their own sphere of influence, and they were true to their word. West Germany formally joined NATO on May 5, 1955, and the Warsaw Pact was signed less than two weeks later, on May 14. Joining the USSR in the alliance were Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, the German Democratic Republic (East Germany), Hungary, Poland and Romania. This lineup remained constant until the Cold War ended with the dismantling of all the Communist governments in Eastern Europe in 1989 and 1990.

Like NATO, the Warsaw Pact focused on the objective of creating a coordinated defense among its member nations in order to deter an enemy attack. There was also an internal security component to the agreement that proved useful to the USSR. The alliance provided a mechanism for the Soviets to exercise even tighter control over the other Communist states in Eastern Europe and deter pact members from seeking greater autonomy. When Soviet leaders found it necessary to use military force to put down revolts in Hungary in 1956 and in Czechoslovakia in 1968, for example, they presented the action as being carried out by the Warsaw Pact rather than by the USSR alone.

Read more here:

Formation of Nato - Purpose, Dates & Cold War - HISTORY

Austin Says NATO, U.S. Forces Will Leave Afghanistan, Continue Support to Afghan Forces – Department of Defense

Posted on by

Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III wholeheartedly supports President Joe Biden's decision to end America's longest war by September 11.

Austin spoke along with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg and Secretary of State Antony Blinken during a news conference at NATO headquarters in Brussels.

Austin and Blinken spent much of the day explaining the American decision to NATO and partner nations. NATO invoked Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty in 2001 after al-Qaida operating from bases in Afghanistan launched an attack that killed more than 3,000 Americans. It was the first time the North Atlantic Alliance invoked the article which says an attack on one nation is an attack on all.

Austin and Blinken thanked NATO service members for their sacrifices in this common defense. There are currently around 10,000 NATO forces in Afghanistan, with 2,500 of them being American. This is down from over 100,000 in 2011.

"Our troops have accomplished the mission they were sent to Afghanistan to accomplish," Austin said. "And they have much for which to be proud. Their service and their sacrifices, alongside those of our Resolute Support and Afghan partners, made possible the greatly diminished threat to all of our homelands from al-Qaida and other terrorist groups."

Stoltenberg said the NATO effort in Afghanistan "prevented Afghanistan from serving as a safe haven for terrorist attacks." He said pulling the troops out of the country will not mean the end of NATO nation's efforts in Afghanistan. He cited diplomatic and economic efforts that will continue, and he called on the Taliban to seriously negotiate with the Afghan government.

The sacrifices made by NATO, partner nations and Afghan forces have enabled economic, civil and political progress in Afghanistan. "Today, the Afghan people police their own streets, defend their own interests, elect their own leaders many of whom are women send their children to school and own and operate more private enterprises than ever before," Austin said. "There is still too much violence, to be sure. And we know the Taliban still seek to reverse some of this progress. That is why we support wholeheartedly the diplomatic efforts ongoing to achieve a negotiated and political settlement that the Afghan people themselves endorse.

"But the commander in chief has ordered a new mission and American military personnel will follow these orders with professionalism," Austin said.

The United States will continue to fund key Afghan capabilities like the Air Force and the Special Mission Wing. The United States and allies will continue to fund the Afghan Security Forces. "We will also work closely with them and with our allies to maintain counterterrorism capabilities in the region sufficient to ensuring Afghanistan cannot become a safe-haven for terrorists who threaten our security," Austin said.

The retrograde movement will be done deliberately and in an orderly fashion, the secretary said. "I must add that we will respond forcefully should the Taliban attack any of our forces or those of our allies during this drawdown," he said.

The end of the action in Afghanistan will allow the U.S. military and NATO allies to focus on other more dangerous threats for the future: Notably China and Russia, the secretary said.

"I want to thank all those who served in Afghanistan," Austin said. "I know all too well the sacrifice we've all made to get us to this point. And to the families and loved ones of those who did not make it home, for all those forever changed by this war, I pledge our unwavering support for the grief and the challenges you still endure. We honor you. And we honor their memory. And we always will. And I believe the Presiden's decision proves exactly that."

Read the rest here:

Austin Says NATO, U.S. Forces Will Leave Afghanistan, Continue Support to Afghan Forces - Department of Defense

General Says NATO Prepared to Respond to Aggression Should Deterrence Fail – Department of Defense

Posted on by

Generals provided testimony today regarding tensions on the Russia-Ukraine border and the ability of U.S. allies to move large numbers of forces quickly over great distances.

Air Force Gen. Tod D. Wolters, commander of the U.S. European Command, and Army Gen. Stephen R. Lyons, commander of the U.S. Transportation Command, testified at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing to review the fiscal 2022 defense authorization request and the Future Years Defense Program.

The current NATO security posture in Europe is strong, yet challenged by Russia's actions in the vicinity of Ukraine, said Wolters, adding that America's allies and partners in Europe remain a key strategic advantage.

"NATO remains the strategic center of gravity and the foundation of deterrence and assurance in Europe. Everything we do is about generating peace," said Wolters. "We compete to win. We deter, and, if deterrence fails, we're prepared to respond to aggression with the full weight of the transatlantic alliance."

Wolters noted that NATO has a robust exercise program. This summer, NATO will conduct Defender-series exercises composed of some 30,000 U.S. service members, allies and partners.

That exercise will demonstrate NATO's ability to move massive forces over large swaths of Europe at speed and at scale, he said.

Wolters also mentioned the addition of 500 soldiers to U.S. Army Garrison Wiesbaden in Germany.

These troops will be made up of field artillery; composite air and missile defense; intelligence, cyberspace, electronic warfare and space; aviation and a brigade support element. The Theater Fires Command will improve readiness and multi-national interoperability by integrating joint and multinational fires in exercises and operations, in support of U.S. Army Europe and Africa, said Army Col. Joe Scrocca, the spokesman for U.S. Army Europe and Africa, in a separate statement today.

"The Theater Fires Command and Multi-Domain Task Force in Europe will enable U.S. Army Europe and Africa to synchronize joint fires and effects, control future long-range fires across all domains, and will create more space, cyber and electronic warfare capabilities in Europe," Scrocca said.

Lyons told senators that Transcom's mission is to project forces globally on land, air and sea, including to support the upcoming NATO exercises.

Read the original here:

General Says NATO Prepared to Respond to Aggression Should Deterrence Fail - Department of Defense

NATO tests its hand defending against blended cyber-disinformation attacks – CyberScoop

Posted on by

Written by Shannon Vavra Apr 19, 2021 | CYBERSCOOP

Member nations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization have banded together in recent days to confront an apparent cyberattack carried out against a NATO members critical infrastructure, according to the alliance.

NATO is also working to battle a stream of disinformation about the attack against island state Berylia that has flooded social media, the alliance said.

While many world leaders have faced off with blended cyber and disinformation operations in recent years, the NATO members in this case are not in fact facing a real threat. NATO crafted the scenario, which was carried out by a fabricated non-NATO nation-state Crimsonia, as part of an annual simulation exercise. Known as Locked Shields, its designed to test leaders readiness to deal with live cyberthreats. Berylia, the target of the fake attack and disinformation, is also an imagined state.

The exercise which had Crimsonia target Berylias financial services sector, mobile networks and water supplies concluded Friday.

While the targets and attackers in the scenario were imagined, the blended operations depicted in the exercise are ones that world leaders have been grappling with for years.

The fabricated Crimsonia actors targeted Berylia citizens with information operations meant to sow seeds of doubt and discord. Thatsan approach that the governments of Iran and Russia used in information operations targeting U.S. citizens during the buildup to the 2020 U.S. presidential elections, according to a recent U.S. intelligence memo.

This year, the exercise featured several new dilemmas for the strategic decision-making element as well, Michael Widmann, the chief of the NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence (CCDCOE) Strategy Branch, said in a statement. The cyber domain and information warfare operate hand in hand in the modern environment. Strong strategic communication policies can mitigate the effects of an enemys information warfare campaign.

It was just five years ago that NATO members agreed that a cyberattack on one NATO member state could be interpreted as an attack on all, which would trigger a collective response.

The inspiration to simulate both cyberattacks and information operations simultaneously came in part from the pandemic, during which Russia and China have conducted both cyber-operations and information campaigns to target democracies, NATO Deputy Secretary-General Mircea Geoaa said.

Russia and China have tried to use the COVID-19 crisis to exploit vulnerabilities, including those in cyberspace, with cyber-enabled disinformation campaigns, designed to sow distrust and division in our democratic societies, Geoaasaid in a statement.

Cyberattacks against critical infrastructure, too, have been top of mind for intelligence communities around the world for years. Just last week the U.S. intelligence community noted in an annual threat analysis that China is capable of causing damage to critical infrastructure in the U.S. and that Russia is known to target critical infrastructure such as underwater cables and industrial control systems.

Participants in the NATO simulation, which was organized by the CCDCOE, included the FBI, Estonias defense ministry, Cisco, Microsoft and the European Defence Agency, among others, according to Estonian World. More than 10 NATO allies participated, according to the alliance.

Its just the latest virtual cyber exercise allied national have convened to test leaders readiness to respond to cyber attacks that hit simultaneously with physical attacks or information operations campaigns. Cyber Command and allies participated in a virtual exercise last year, during which they simulated how they would respond to an attack on a European airbase. In that attack, hackers targeted virtualized industrial control systems.

This was the first time NATO has hosted this cyber exercise virtually. Past iterations of the event were hosted in person in Paris and London in 2018 and 2019 respectively.

More here:

NATO tests its hand defending against blended cyber-disinformation attacks - CyberScoop

Ukraine Wants NATOs Action to Match Words on Russia – Voice of America

Posted on by

Brussels has been the focus this week of a full court diplomatic offensive by U.S. Secretary of State Tony Blinken who arrived earlier this week and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin who landed in Belgium Wednesday for his first in-person meeting since the coronavirus pandemic began with NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg.

The main goal of the meetings with NATO and European Union leaders has been to repair transatlantic bonds strained during Donald Trumps tenure in the White House.

There are many issues to be discussed, Stoltenberg said on welcoming Blinken to the Belgian capital, noting appreciatively that Americas top diplomat had been in Europe recently for a gathering of NATO foreign ministers.

The fact that you are back again this month together with Secretary Austin, I think that demonstrates the strong U.S. commitment to NATO, to our transatlantic bond, Stoltenberg added.

But the Biden team is encountering some of the same headwinds that contributed to the straining of Euro-U.S. ties, first during Barack Obamas tenure in the White House, and then to a much greater degree under Trump, who identified Europe as an economic adversary and was querulous about NATOs purpose.

All EU national governments have welcomed President Joe Bidens aim of revitalizing U.S.-European ties. The adversarial language has gone, but Washington is now facing an EU thats turning inward with the bloc focused on protecting its own post-pandemic market and preoccupied about how to stem the coronavirus, analysts say.

And the post-World War II transatlantic consensus is being complicated by splits within the bloc over the best ways to handle the rising power of Communist China and how to manage Russia, they add.

Even before the flurry of diplomatic visits to Brussels this week some analysts were warning of challenges ahead. The rebuilding could well prove more difficult than it first appears, noted recently Steven Pifer, an analyst at the Brookings Institution, a U.S.-based research organization, and former U.S. envoy to Ukraine.

Worries on Russian buildup

But how to handle Russia, which is now piling up troops and military hardware along the eastern Ukraine border, and in Crimea, the Black Sea peninsula Moscow annexed from Ukraine in 2014, is becoming the most pressing issue facing Western powers.

And it is one that may determine the longer run prospects for Bidens bid to revitalize the transatlantic alliance, some diplomats and analysts believe.

The largely unexplained Russian military buildup is prompting questions about whether the Kremlin is actually plotting another incursion into Ukrainian territory or whether it is taking the measure of Biden and testing the new U.S. president. Russia has told western officials the military buildup is just an exercise, but Kremlin officials have said publicly it is in response to Ukrainian aggression, a claim rejected by Ukrainian officials. The Ukrainians fear whatever Russias intentions the situation is become highly unstable and could easily tip into a full-scale war.

The U.S. and NATO have offered unwavering support to Ukraine and have denounced the buildup as provocative. Secretary of State Blinken said Wednesday, after a meeting of the North Atlantic Council, that he was pleasantly surprised at how all the NATO member states unreservedly condemned the Russian buildup.

What was striking to me was, in the North Atlantic Council meeting, listening to every single ally, all 30 of us, express those concerns and a determination to see Russia take steps to de-escalate the tensions that it is creating, Blinken said at a press conference.

Ukraine wants more

But a nervous Kyiv is looking for more than just words. That was stressed Tuesday by Ukraines foreign minister, Dmytro Kuleba, after meeting Blinken in Brussels. He told reporters condemnation needed to be supported by actions that will make it very clear for Russia that the price of its aggression against Ukraine will be too heavy for it to bear.

Kuleba added, It is better to act now to prevent Russia from further escalating the situation. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy will emphasize the same message to French President Emmanuel Macron in Paris Friday, say Ukrainian officials.

Despite the Ukrainians sense of urgency, the Biden administration and its European partners have so far not agreed on clear steps to deter Russia. Some fault a risk-averse and pandemic-preoccupied Europe for this.

While the U.S. has called on Russia to de-escalate, France and Germany have urged both Russia and Ukraine to show restraint. France and Germany are treating the perpetrator and victim of aggression alike, worries Edward Lucas, author of The New Cold War: Putin's Russia and the Threat to the West.

In a commentary for the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA), a non-partisan research group headquartered in Washington, he noted that Frances Macron and Germanys Chancellor Angela Merkel recently discussed the Ukraine crisis with Putin over the Ukrainians heads.

"That sends a demoralizing message to the rest of Europe, and an encouraging one to the Kremlin: when things get serious, Berlin and Paris pursue their own interests, not wider ones, he added.

Former Estonian president Toomas Hendrik Ilves cautions that the Franco-German overtures risk reinforcing the impression in Moscow of European weakness. He suspects Putins military buildup is an act of intimidation to see how the West responds and he will play it by ear and see how it goes, he said at an event in the U.S. capital.

According to former U.S. envoy Pifer, the big dilemma facing the Biden administration is how to revive the transatlantic security alliance while not letting things get derailed by difficult issues that could divide the allies.

See the original post:

Ukraine Wants NATOs Action to Match Words on Russia - Voice of America

Quad will never be like NATO: External Affairs Minister – The Tribune India

Posted on by

Sandeep Dikshit

Tribune News Service

New Delhi, April 19

External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar completely ruled out the four-nation Quad ever evolving into a NATO-like structure.

Military alliances have never been Indias heritage... The people who use NATO-kind of analogy either dont understand us at all and dont know what our Independence means to us. One explanation I have is complete ignorance and lack of understanding of the Indian mindset, he said at All India Management Associations (AIMA) National Leadership Conclave today.

S Jaishankar, External Affairs Minister

Military alliances not Indias heritage

Military alliances have never been Indias heritage... The people who use NATO-kind of analogy either dont understand us at all and dont know what our Independence means to us.

Or these people are using these words deliberately to discourage or dissuade or mislead us from doing what is in our own interest, he said.

Jaishankar suggested a military alliance would be tantamount to abandoning Indias independence of approach. On Quad, he said it was very reasonable in international relations to have countries with convergences and shared interests to work together.

But I wouldnt exaggerate and wrongly create the imagery of a NATO military alliance, cold war etc. That has never been Indias heritage. During the cold war also, we stayed away from NATO, he added. Jaishankars outright rejection of the Quad evolving into an Asian NATO comes at a time when border talks with China and peace talks with Pakistan are stalemated.

Giving an insight into what is discussed at Quad, Jaishankar said the four ministers discussed how to ensure students move around and travel in a Covid environment easily.

Original post:

Quad will never be like NATO: External Affairs Minister - The Tribune India

NATO Keeps Wary Eye on Russia’s Military Buildup in the Arctic – The Maritime Executive

Posted on by

Russian nuclear sub surfaces through Arctic ice (Russian Ministry of Defense)

By Ankur Kundu 04-18-2021 07:32:33

Not all countries regret global warming. Take Russia for example: the country is actively pitching its Northern Sea Route, poised to connect Europe with Asia, as a viable alternative to the Suez Canal for maritime commerce.

However, satellite imagery is also showing a Russian military buildup in Arctic areas recentlyfreed from ice due to global warming. The reason: Russia securing its northern coastline and opening up the Northern Sea Route. The country has amassed considerable military strength in the Arctic, and analysts around the world are watching how this affects the geopolitical balance in the region.

Recently, CNN received satellite imagery by Maxar that detailed Russia's long-running buildup in its Arctic coastline. Along with with underground storage facilities likely to be used for storing the Poseidonnuclear long-range torpedo and other new high-tech weapons, the airfields host bombers and MiG-31BM jets.

NATO and the US have expressed increasing concern in the wake of this buildup, especially after reports were revealed about Russia's troop movements near the Ukrainian border. Speaking to CNN, a senior State Department official said, "There's a military challenge from the Russians in the Arctic. That has implications for the United States and its allies, not least because it creates the capacity to project power up to the North Atlantic."

Norway to host the biggest exercise inside Arctic Circle since the Cold War

The Russian buildup, both in the Arctic and the Ukrainian border, has prompted Norway to plan the biggest exercise inside the Arctic circle since the cold war. Dubbed 'Cold Response 2022,'next years war games will see active participation from Norway's Navy and Air Force. Set to take place in an area where U.S., British and Dutch soldiers frequently drill in Arctic warfare, it's meant to be a show of strength to the Kremlin as much as an exercise.

EU nations and NATO-aligned countries are committing more resources and military training in the region, according to General Eirik Kristoffersen, head of the Norwegian Armed Forces. There is a significantly increased interest among our allies for the north and the Arctic, he told The Barents Observer.

See more here:

NATO Keeps Wary Eye on Russia's Military Buildup in the Arctic - The Maritime Executive

NATO to improve cyber defense in bid to boost alliance resilience – C4ISRNet

Posted on by

COLOGNE, Germany Senior NATO officials vowed to boost the alliances cyber defense capabilities at a conference on Thursday, tucking the efforts under the top-priority thrust of hardening member nations against catastrophic disruptions.

The virtual NATO Cyber Defense Pledge conference, an invitation-only event hosted by the government of Estonia in a virtual format because of pandemic restrictions, brought together senior government and private sector officials to discuss needed improvements in the alliances cyber posture.

One theme in the publicly available remarks by top leaders was a newfound urgency in protecting key infrastructure against cyberattacks, as the coronavirus pandemic has forced an even greater reliance on data connectivity across all sectors of society.

Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas said malicious cyber activities against NATO members had increased since the global COVID-19 outbreak began in early 2020. Sometimes it is by adversaries situated in our immediate neighborhood, sometimes by rivals across the globe, she said in an apparent reference to Russia and China.

We must recognize that cyberspace is at the forefront of increased global competition, and democratic nations must stand together against deviations from acceptable behavior, Kallas said in her opening speech.

The push to harden NATOs cyber defenses touches two key themes of the ongoing NATO 2030 reform process. For one, alliance leaders want to mandate certain levels of resilience in member nations, including in the cyber domain. The push entails everything from upkeep of transportation infrastructure to building fallback supply lines for vital goods, with the stated goal of making NATO as a whole able to bounce back from major shocks, including the ongoing pandemic.

The other theme aims to protect the alliances ability to harness next-generation technology for defense applications, including considerations for managing technological gaps between member states.

Enhancing resilience and leveraging technology will be key to a strong alliance in a more competitive world, NATO Deputy Secretary-General Mircea Geoan said. Those efforts are essential elements of the NATO 2030 initiative, which will be at the heart of the upcoming NATO summit later this summer, he added.

Sign up for the C4ISRNET newsletter about future battlefield technologies.

(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

Subscribe

By giving us your email, you are opting in to the C4ISRNET Daily Brief.

For Estonians, cyber threats emanating from Russia loom large in the national defense calculus.

As the Estonian Foreign Intelligence Service recently concluded in their annual report, Russia continues to be one of the primary cyber threat actors to Western democracies, Kristjan Prikk, permanent secretary of the Estonian Defence Ministry, told Defense News. In the near future we need to prepare ourselves for potentially increasing cyber-enabled influence operations carried out by Russian special services, he added.

In the United States, meanwhile, the Biden administration on April 15 placed sanctions on Russia for its role in the SolarWinds attack that affected several U.S. government agencies. The National Security Agency also issued a cybersecurity advisory calling out the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (SVF) for continuing to exploit cyber vulnerabilities created by hacking the SolarWinds Orion system and other software.

More:

NATO to improve cyber defense in bid to boost alliance resilience - C4ISRNet

Bipartisan group of senators reintroduce bill blocking presidential NATO withdrawal – JURIST

Posted on by

A bipartisan group of US senators reintroduced a bill Thursday that would prevent a president from unilaterally deciding to leave the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), or for using any public funds to do so, without the approval of Congress. The legislation reintroduces a 2018 bill that failed to progress out of committee.

This resolution has support from high-profile senators from both parties including Tim Kaine (D-VA), Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN). The language of the bill forbids any president from suspending, terminating, denouncing or withdrawing the US from NATO, except by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, provided that two thirds of the Senators present concur, or pursuant to an Act of Congress. Furthermore, a president is also forbidden from attempting to divert funds to attempt to achieve a withdrawal from NATO.

Should a president unilaterally ignore this legislation and attempt to withdraw from NATO without the support of Congress, the bill empowers both the Senate and the House to independently or collectively represent Congress and initiate judicial proceedings against the president in federal court, an action that would likely lead to a court striking down the presidents unilateral withdrawal as illegal.

The NATO founding treaty does not outline specific procedures for withdrawing from NATO, other than requiring the withdrawing member state to submit a notice of denunciation one year ahead of the desired withdrawal date. The US Constitution only requires that the president have the Advice and Consent of two-thirds of the Senate before making international treaties.

The 2018 bill was originally introduced amid concerns that then-president Donald Trump would unilaterally withdraw the US from NATO due to his skepticism over its continuing value. Kaine affirmed NATOs value when introducing this recent resolution, saying, NATO has been a critical alliance for nearly 75 years, while Rubio called it a critical military alliance for our national security interests and the security of our allies in Europe. A majority of respondents in NATO member states view the alliance favorably, with more than half of US respondents supporting continued membership.

Go here to see the original:

Bipartisan group of senators reintroduce bill blocking presidential NATO withdrawal - JURIST

Eastward expansion of NATO and the Ukraine crisis – Monroe Evening News

Posted on by

opinion

James W. Pfister| The Monroe News

Back in the stable days of the Cold War, in August1983, I was on a comparative legal study (and vodka drinking) tour of the Soviet Union. (We were told by our charming tour guide that vodka was the only way to avoid bacterial illness; we didnt question her).

Traveling in the Soviet Union was an experience of empathy for those of us interested in international politics. Being on the other side of American power, seeing the United States from their eyes, was dramatic, with American power in NATO to the West, a mere 1,200 miles away.

The United States, not being content with being limited to the Western Hemisphere, also had power to the East in the Pacific region. And there, not limiting itself to an island ladder of defense, it asserted itself on the mainland of Asia in Thailand and South Korea, after having spent years in Vietnam.

Sitting in Kiev (Kyiv), Ukraine, we felt surrounded by American power. Today, American power is even closer, inside Ukraine itself! With American pushing, NATO expanded eastward toward the Russian border after the breakup of the Soviet Union. Some of the new states of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union became NATO members. Some were promised future membership. Those not directly part of NATO could become partners.

Ukraine last year sealed deeper ties with the alliance, becoming an enhanced opportunities partner. Wall Street Journal, 4/14/21.

Indeed, America has been triumphant, exercising its power right up to the Russian border. Gen.Colin Powells pottery maxim comes to mind when he was advising President George W. Bush on Iraq II: You break it, you own it. Or, the old adage: Be careful what you wish for; you may actually get it. To wit: Russia, our Great Power adversary, has recently built up its military forces, including Iskander missiles, on the Russian border with Ukraine, the biggest buildup since 2014, when it took Crimea.

On March 24, 2021, our secretary of state, Antony Blinken, gave a speech to NATO members in which he reaffirmed the American commitment to NATO and to our partnerships. Recently, on "Meet the Press," the secretary threatened Russia: Speaking for our president, Mr. Blinken said, there will be consequences if Russia uses force against Ukraine. This is a line-drawing threat by one nuclear power to another, about as dangerous as it gets. A miscalculation could be catastrophic.

From a political science, sphere of influence perspective, Ukraine is within the Russian sphere. Lately, the United States has been intruding upon that sphere of influence, and also on the Chinese sphere, regarding Taiwan, potentially threatening world peace.

From a legal standpoint, Ukraine is a sovereign state in international law, which should not be threatened or attacked under Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, and it has under Article 51 the inherent right of individual and collective self-defense, under which NATO was organized. NATO and its members certainly have a legal and a moral right to organize with Ukraine for its defense.

Butis it prudent under the sphere of influence approach to use force to defend Ukraine? One is reminded that Khrushchev in 1962 had a legal right to put offensive weapons in Cuba with Cubas consent, a sovereign state under international law. President John Kennedy saw the situation in political science, sphere of influence termsand brought the world to the brink of nuclear war in the Cuban Missile Crisis to protect our interests regarding Cuba. (Kennedy tried to be legal; he had a legal authorization for the blockade under an Organization of American States authorization).

Butpolitical science trumps law, even morality, when it comes to security in the nuclear age, I believe. When we were sipping our prophylactic vodka cocktails in Kiev, Ukraine, that summer of 1983, we certainly could not have imagined that a nuclear-war threat could occur by an American defense of Ukraine, where we were, from a Russian attack. What dangerous irony.

My professor, Inis Claude, had a concept he called prudential pacifism peace based not on morality, or law, but on prudence between nuclear powers. Prudence should prevail over morality or law here in the case of defending Ukraine on the Russian border.

JamesW.Pfister, J.D. University of Toledo, Ph.D. University of Michigan (political science), retired after 46 years in the Political Science Department at Eastern Michigan University. He lives at Devils Lake and can be reached at jpfister@emich.edu.

Go here to see the original:

Eastward expansion of NATO and the Ukraine crisis - Monroe Evening News

NATO Relies on Thales for a Real-Time View of the Operational Situation in Joint theaters – Business Wire

Posted on by

PARIS LA DFENSE--(BUSINESS WIRE)--On 17 March 2021, NATO awarded to Thales the new increment to provide an operational situational awareness system that will give NATO commanders a shared picture of an area of interest or mission to enhance overall awareness of joint forces operations and support mission planning, coordination and command.

Joint operations today involve land, air and naval units with many different types of command systems, which generate huge amounts of georeferenced operational information. NCOP will capture, aggregate and correlate all this information to generate a single, comprehensive picture of the theatre of operations, providing a Common Operational Picture (COP) that will ensure that each entity has a shared view of the location, actions and intentions of the forces in the field.

To meet this requirement, Thales has developed a software system based on an open architecture, with specialised modules that draw on the companys experience of different aspects of the command chain and are fully compliant with commercial and military standards. This system is designed to provide the operational community with secure access to multiple COPs overlays on a geospatial reference. Tactical information from multiple systems and data sources will improve situational awareness for joint forces.

Each COP is displayed in real time and shows key elements such as operations in progress, friendly and enemy forces, their logistics and operational capabilities, weather conditions and possible action plans for future coordinated efforts.

NCOP allows for synchronised management of all deployed forces and provide effective support for collaborative planning and decision-making in an operations centre. This in turn will enable joint forces command to achieve information superiority.

With this second contract, NATO will benefit from Thaless extensive expertise in interoperability management. Thales will upgrade the technology used in the current system, which has been in service at NATO command centres since 2015 and national command centres in France, Poland and Spain. Thales will also add new functionality for time management, event correlation and future strategic analysis.

Thales is proud to strengthen its partnership with NATO and to help achieve greater decision superiority for NATO forces. We thank the Alliance for placing its trust in us once again and for this latest opportunity to support NATO's capacity to efficiently manage joint forces operations. Grard Herby, Vice President, Protection Systems, Thales.

About Thales

Thales (Euronext Paris: HO) is a global leader in advanced technologies, investing in digital and deep tech innovations connectivity, big data, artificial intelligence, cybersecurity and quantum computing to build a confident future crucial for the development of our societies. The Group provides its customers businesses, organisations and governments in the defence, aeronautics, space, transport, and digital identity and security domains with solutions, services and products that help them fulfil their critical roles, consideration for the individual being the driving force behind all decisions.

Thales has 81,000 employees in 68 countries. In 2020 the Group generated sales of 17 billion.

PLEASE VISIT

Thales Group Defence

Original post:

NATO Relies on Thales for a Real-Time View of the Operational Situation in Joint theaters - Business Wire