Daily Archives: April 17, 2017

NATOs European members, especially the newest members in eastern Europe, incessantly fret about the threat that Vladimir Putins Russia poses to their countries and the continent. Their worries were noticeable even before the eruption of the Ukraine crisis in 2013 and 2014. Moscows 2008 military intervention in Georgia to support South Ossetias secessionists alarmed those countries. So, too, did Russias gradual but significant military restoration and modernization programs.

But it was Putins reaction to the overthrow of the pro-Russian government of Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych in early 2014 that greatly intensified their worries and led to a surge of warnings to NATO partners that the alliance must become more serious about deterring a growing Russian menace. Putins annexation of Crimea and his support for secessionist forces in eastern Ukraine seemed especially ominous. Estonian president Kersti Kaljulaid noted that in 2008, they moved on Georgia . . . I am afraid now that the resolve of the Western countries may not hold in the case of Ukraine. We need to stand very firm against giving again a message to Putin that it will blow over.

German chancellor Angela Merkel cited the impact of Moscows actions in Ukraine, especially on the former Soviet satellite nations. She charged that Moscow had undermined European security in words and deeds by infringing on Ukraines borders and profoundly disturbed NATOs eastern members who therefore require the unambiguous back-up of the alliance. Edgars Rinkvis, Latvias minister of foreign affairs, was even more specific. We have to be prepared that the little green men [disguised Russian military personnel] may try to create confusion, just like they did in Crimea, he said.

Despite the upsurge in dire warnings, most of those same countries have not translated their professed alarm into meaningful efforts to strengthen their own military capacities. Granted, even the largest nations in NATOs eastern European cohort, such as Poland and Romania, could never hope to match Russias military power on their own. But considerations of national self-interest should motivate them to adopt a porcupine strategyhaving a sufficient defense capability that it would make any invasion so costly in blood and treasure that no rational Kremlin leader would consider adopting that course.

Unfortunately, the eastern European nations have done nothing of the sort, even as their warnings become increasingly shrill and their demands that the United States do more to protect them from Russia grow more insistent. The continuing mismatch between rhetoric and action raises obvious questions about how serious those countries are about their own security.

Their leaders exhibit no trace of doubt that Russia is a dangerous, menacing power. In a March 2017 interview, Dalia Grybauskait, president of Lithuania, stated bluntly: Russia is a threat not only to Lithuania but to the whole region and to all of Europe. We see how Russia is behaving in Kaliningrad, a Russian enclave on our border. There they have deployed nuclear-capable missiles that can reach European capitals. It is not just about the Baltic region anymore. Polands foreign minister, Witold Waszczykowski, was equally alarmist, insisting that Russia's behavior posed an existential threat to Poland and the rest of democratic Europe even greater than ISIS.

One would think that if the threat were that serious, NATOs European membersespecially those in the Eastwould be engaged in crash programs to strengthen their militaries. Yet there are few signs of such determination. At the 2006 NATO summit, there was a commitment that every country would spend a minimum of 2 percent of its gross domestic product on defense. At the time of the Ukraine crisis, other than the United States, only Britain and Greece (because of its worries about fellow NATO member Turkey) had met that goal. Since then, Estonia and Poland have done sobarely.

The other eastern European nations lag far behind. The other two Baltic republics, Lithuania and Latvia, spend 1.49 and 1.41 percent, respectively. Romania and Bulgaria devote 1.41 percent and 1.30 percent. Slovakia and Hungary spend a mere 1.12 percent and 1.02 percent, and the Czech Republic brings up the rear at 1.01 percent. NATOs leading countries dont do significantly better. The figures for France and Italy are 1.79 and 1.11 percent, respectively. Perhaps most telling, democratic Europes leading economic power, Germany, spends a pathetic 1.20 percent.

See the original post here:
NATO's Real Alliance Dilemma - The National Interest Online (blog)

A former candidate for UK Prime Minister suggests that the United Kingdom could use its military to counteract Spanish attempts to influence the status of a British outpost. A major British newspaper adds fuel to that fire by arguing that the Royal British Navy could defeat the Spanish Navy should it come to war. When did this happen? 1805? Perhaps the 1760s?

No, this actually took place in 2017, over accusations that the Spanish were attempting to influence Gibraltars status post-Brexit. This spat serves as a grim reminder for the United Statesit encourages European nations to spend more on defense at its own peril. The history of European military might is not a happy one, and the recent U.S. demand that European nations spend 2 percent of their GDP on defense to meet the NATO target could, in fact, harm U.S. interests.

In short, when faced with the choice of guns or butter, the United States should allow European leaders to choose butter. The United States can bring the guns.

Americans expect a baseline of unity among their Western European allies. They therefore assume that any European military buildup will help achieve U.S. strategic goalsconfronting the Soviet Union and Balkan unrest previously or terrorism and a resurgent Russia today.

Yet diplomatic unity of purpose has always been the antecedent to military unity. Today, however, that diplomatic unity has dissipated. Brexit and the election of Donald Trumpwho has expressed skepticism of NATO and the European Unionhave highlighted the fragility of the European order. As Brexit negotiations continue, tension between European powers will only grow, and it will become increasingly difficult for Europe to maintain a unified diplomatic front.

U.S. policy does not reflect this new disunited reality. Under the current U.S. outlook, the assumption is that Europeans agree on how to wield power while anti-EU and anti-NATO sentiments are secondary factors. This understanding explains the insistence of President Trump as well of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis that NATO members reach the 2 percent threshold.

The U.S. focus on burden sharing raises concerns primarily for two reasons. First, better military capability without proper coordination on its use would either be useless or could hurt European unity. For example, the United States has no stake in whether the United Kingdom can better deter Spain from interference in Gibraltar. If anything, the United States strives to minimize intra-NATO friction. U.S. leaders should only call for increased military expenditures if certain that they would serve U.S. strategic interests like deterring Russian aggression in the Baltic states or in the North Atlantic.

Second, increased burden sharing may actively hurt the cause of EU stability. Military buildup in Europe would sap the political capital and limit the nondefense spending options of establishment pro-American leaders confronting the gravest threat to the EU and U.S. power on the continent, the insurgent populist movement.

Many EU countries are in a cycle of elections that could be decisive for the future of Europe and the West. Dissatisfaction over lackluster economic prospects and opposition to immigration have powered anti-EU and anti-NATO parties like Marine Le Pens National Front and placed electoral victories within their grasp. Brexit proved that EU integration is neither inevitable nor irreversible. Now, populist parties are trying to follow the example and reshape Europe in a more nationalistic vision.

The example of Italy shows the potential dangers of prioritizing military spending. The country currently spends 1.1. percent of its GDP on military capabilities. It also boasts an 11.5 percent unemployment rate, (35.2 percent for youth), 1 percent GDP growth and a caretaker government following Matteo Renzis resignation. Spending toward the NATO target would divert resources and embolden the populist parties opposing the government. This budgetary trade-off suggests the fundamental calculation of burden sharing. Between a reliable partner or a 2 percent contribution, the United States will choose the former. The 1.1 percent of GDP military spending under Italian prime minister Paolo Gentiloni of the Democratic Party will always be preferable to 2 percent under Beppe Grillos Five Star Movement.

Caution in increasing military spending does not mean allowing partners to shirk collective responsibility indefinitely. It does mean abandoning the current approach. Secretary Tillersons ultimatum calling for spending increase plans before the May 25 NATO meeting is particularly counterproductive. If allies do not comply (which is likely given the unclear enforcement mechanisms), the disorganization will hurt U.S. and European credibility. If they do comply, the increased spending will force EU leaders to remove other pressing reforms from the priority list while handing populists additional electoral ammunition.

Originally posted here:
NATO Funding Frustration Could Cause Friction in Europe - The National Interest Online

French presidential candidate Marine Le Pen blasted President Trump Friday for changing his mind about NATO after saying during his presidential campaign that the body was obsolete.

Le Pen said in a radio interview with France Info that Trump may have been swayed by his administration to change his mind. Trump made his comments at the White House in a press conference after a meeting with NATO secretary general Jens Stoltenberg.

Undeniably he is in contradiction with the commitments he had made, Le Pen said. I am coherent, I dont change my mind in a few days. He had said he would not be the policeman of the world, that he would be the president of the United States and would not be the policeman of the world, but it seems today that he has changed his mind.

The far-right French candidate has made terrorism and immigration key parts of her campaign and wants France to quit NATO despite calling for a big coalition of countries which fight Muslim fundamentalism in which there will be of course the U.S., Russia, countries like Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and Chad.

Le Pen is believed to be on track to make it to the next round in the France presidential election.

Click for more from Bloomberg.

See original here:
Le Pen blasts Trump for reversing stance on NATO - Fox News

The U.S. Air Force has fielded several Lockheed Martin-built F-35A Lightning IIaircraft in England for the first time to carry out training exercises with NATO member countries, the Defense Department said Saturday.

The F-35A fighter jets from the 419th and 388th fighter wings at Hill Air Force Base in Utah arrived Saturday at England-based Royal Air Force Lakenheath and will stay for several weeks in Europe to train with allied countries as part of the European Reassurance Initiative.

The deployment seeks to help the Air Force demonstrate the fighter jets operational capabilities and streamline the requirements for positioning the aircraft in Europe as the continent prepares to get F-35As by early 2020s, DoD said in a separate news release published Friday.

The service branchs Air Mobility Command supported the F-35A deployment in Europe and several refueling planes from four various military bases offered at least 400,000 pounds of fuel during the tanker bridge operation between the U.S. and Europe.

The military branch used C-5 Galaxy and C-17 Globemaster IIIaircraft to fly staff and maintenance equipment to England.

Read the rest here:
Air Force Deploys F-35As to England for NATO Training Exercises - ExecutiveGov

Defence minister Claus Hjort Frederiksen revealed the Danish Government wants to conscript more Danes into the army to increase the forces readiness if a conflict should break out.

Earlier this year the cabinet minister announced funds would be allocated to strengthen Denmarks armed forces following Russian aggression.

Speaking to TV2.DK, Mr Frederiksen suggested one of the proposals is to increase the number of men and women conscripted for military service.

I would like to see little more conscription, he said. Its one of the things we are looking at and I think it is a relevant discussion.

GETTY

The defence minister also said there are large holes in Natos defence around the Baltic Sea, as he added Russia was the greatest threat facing Denmark.

Mr Frederiksen said: We need to achieve more in the army. It is a question about capacity and endurance if it should come to a conflict.

The warning about Natos defence around the Baltic Sea cameas Donald Trump on Wednesday backtracked on his previous statements about the military alliance.

Speaking during a joint press conference with Nato chief Jens Stoltenberg, he said: I said it was obsolete. Its no longer obsolete.

We need to achieve more in the army

Claus Hjort Frederiksen

The US contributes around 70 per cent of Natos total defence spending and while President Trump conceded that the alliance was still very important to him, the Republican blasted other members that do not contribute enough.

President Trump added: If other countries pay their fair share instead of relying on the United States to make up the difference, we will all be much more secure, and our partnership will be made that much stronger.

The secretary general and I had a productive discussion about what more Nato can do in the fight against terrorism.

I complained about that a long time ago and they made a change, and now they do fight terrorism.

Meanwhile, speaking to Fox News on Thursday, Mr Stoltenberg said the Republican hadthe supportof Nato in the war against terrorism, just hours before the US military blitzed ISIS with the mother of all bombs in Afghanistan.

Getty Images

1 of 11

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

The Nato chief said: Natos core task is to defend Nato allied countries, the 28 European countries, and the United States and Canada.

We are addressing the root causes of the terrorist threats we see against many Nato allied countries. We are in Afghanistan to fight international terrorism.

The main reason for Nato being there for so many years is to prevent Afghanistan from becoming a safe haven for international terrorists once again. We are in Iraq training Iraqi forces, enabling them to stabilise their own country and to fight terrorism, to fight [ISIS] in Iraq.

"Nato is supporting the US-led coalition fighting [ISIS] in Syria with our surveillance planes helping to improve the air picture.

All Nato allies are a part of the coalition, some of them are active on the ground Syria. So Nato and Nato allies participate and contribute in many different ways to the international fight against terrorism.

See the rest here:
Denmark set to BOLSTER up army in 'Nato commitment' amid ... - Express.co.uk