Monthly Archives: June 2017

WARSAW, Poland (AP) Thousands of troops from NATO and its partner nations are training on land and sea in central and eastern Europe Thursday, in two major exercises that aim to demonstrate their cooperation and rapid response capabilities at a time when the region feels threatened by Russia.

Around 4,000 U.S. and European troops from 14 nations took part in the annual Baltic Operations navy exercise that opened Thursday in Polands Baltic Sea port of Szczecin. The 45th edition of the so-called BALTOPS exercise involves maritime, air and ground forces with about 50 ships and submarines and over 50 aircraft, and will run through June 16.

The training includes tracking down and fighting submarines and sea mines, the use of air defense and landing troops as well as defense against navy vessels, said Lt. Cmdr. Jacek Kwiatkowski, spokesman for the exercise.

The European troops come from Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, the Netherlands, Lithuania, Latvia, Germany, Norway, Britain, Sweden and host nation Poland.

BALTOPS began in 1972 as a NATO exercise. Former Eastern Bloc nations joined in 1993, as they opened efforts to become alliance members.

In Romania, meanwhile, another 2,000 soldiers, 1,000 assistance personnel and 500 vehicles from 11 NATO nations are training within the alliances so-called Noble Jump 2017 drill that opened in Greece Monday.

Poland, Romania and other countries on NATOs eastern flank are concerned for their security and defense following Russias seizure of the Crimea Peninsula from Ukraine, and because of its support for rebels in eastern Ukraine and its air force activity over the Baltic Sea. To allay these concerns, NATO and the U.S. have deployed thousands of troops to the region and hold regular joint exercises there.

About 300 troops traveling in a military convoy arrived in Romania from Bulgaria on Thursday. Other troops are expected to join in from bases in Britain, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, Poland, Norway and Albania.

Noble Jump aims to show the deployment skills of NATOs Very High Readiness Joint Task Force, established after the 2014 NATO summit in Wales, to provide rapid response to threats on NATOs eastern flank.

While this is a first time that this particular set of exercises takes place in Romania, the desired effect is to practice the ability to deliver to our politicians the capability theyve requested of us, Maj. Gen. Ian Cave, who commands the exercise, said in Giurgiu, on Romanias border with Bulgaria.

The Romanian Ground Forces Chief of Staff, Brig. Gen. Marius Harabagiu, said the exercise is extremely important because it demonstrates the capacity and the speed of reaction of this alliance to prevent the threats we face in this moment.

___

Alison Mutler in Bucharest contributed to this report.

More:
NATO and partners hold land, sea exercises in eastern Europe - The Seattle Times

NATO marked an important step in its deepening relations with Baghdad on Thursday (1 June 2017), as Mr. Paul Smith of the United Kingdom assumed office as NATO Senior Civilian in Iraq. Mr. Smith will represent the NATO Secretary General and the Alliance at large, as NATO continues to help strengthen the Iraqi security institutions in their fight against terrorism. Mr. Smith succeeds Mr. Richard Froh of Canada, who served in the same capacity over the past months.

Mr. Smith will liaise with a range of interlocutors, including high-level Iraqi officials, representatives of the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS, the diplomatic community, and members of international organizations, including the United Nations and the European Union. He will also be at the helm of the NATO Training and Capacity Building presence in Iraq (NTCB-I). This includes a Core Team of eight civilian and military personnel as well as mobile training teams provided by NATO nations who travel to Iraq, as required, to provide specific courses agreed with the Iraqi authorities.

NATOs support to Iraq is aimed at increasing Iraqs training capacity in the medium and long term. It includes courses on countering improvised explosive devices, explosive ordnance disposal and de-mining; civil-military planning in support of operations; civil emergency planning; training in military medicine; technical maintenance of Soviet-era military equipment; and reform of the Iraqi security institutions.

NATO-Iraq relations are underpinned by an Individual Partnership and Cooperation Programme signed in September 2012, which provides a framework for political dialogue and tailored cooperation in mutually agreed areas, and a Defence Capacity Building Package for Iraq, agreed in 2015.

Prior to taking office as NATO Senior Civilian Representative in Iraq, Mr. Smith served in senior roles at the NATO Communications and Information Agency; Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe; and the UK Ministry of Defence.

Visit link:
NATO Senior Civilian takes up office in Iraq - NATO HQ (press release)

So what if, in his speech last week to NATO, Donald Trump didnt explicitly reaffirm the provision that an attack on one is an attack on all?

Whats the big deal? Didnt he affirm a general commitment to NATO during his visit? Hadnt he earlier sent his vice president and secretaries of state and defense to pledge allegiance to Article 5?

And anyway, who believes that the United States would really go to war with Russia and risk nuclear annihilation over Estonia?

Ah, but thats precisely the point. It is because deterrence is so delicate, so problematic, so literally unbelievable that it is not to be trifled with. And why for an American president to gratuitously undermine what little credibility deterrence already has, by ostentatiously refusing to recommit to Article 5, is so shocking.

Deterrence is inherently a barely believable bluff. Even at the height of the Cold War, when highly resolute presidents, such as Eisenhower and Kennedy, threatened Russia with massive retaliation (i.e., all-out nuclear war), would we really have sacrificed New York for Berlin?

No one knew for sure. Not Eisenhower, not Kennedy, not the Soviets, not anyone. Yet that very uncertainty was enough to stay the hand of any aggressor and keep the peace of the world for 70 years.

Deterrence does not depend on 100 percent certainty that the other guy will go to war if you cross a red line. Given the stakes, merely a chance of that happening can be enough. For 70 years, it was enough.

Leaders therefore do everything they can to bolster it. Install tripwires, for example. During the Cold War, we stationed troops in Germany to face the massive tank armies of Soviet Russia. Today we have 28,000 troops in South Korea, 12,000 near the demilitarized zone.

Why? Not to repel invasion. They couldnt. Theyre not strong enough. To put it very coldly, theyre there to die. Theyre a deliberate message to the enemy that if you invade our ally, you will have to kill a lot of Americans first. Which will galvanize us into full-scale war against you.

Tripwires are risky, dangerous, and cynical. Yet we resort to them because parchment promises are problematic and tripwires imply automaticity. We do what we can to strengthen deterrence.

Rhetorically as well. Which is why presidents from Truman on have regularly and powerfully reaffirmed our deterrent pledge to NATO. Until Trump.

His omission was all the more damaging because of his personal history. This is a man chronically disdainful of NATO. He campaigned on its obsolescence. His inaugural address denounced American allies as cunning parasites living off American wealth and generosity. One of Trumps top outside advisers, Newt Gingrich, says that Estonia is in the suburbs of St. Petersburg, as if Russian designs on the Baltic states are not at all unreasonable.

Moreover, Trump devoted much of that very same speech, the highlight of his first presidential trip to NATO, to berating the allies for not paying their fair share. Nothing particularly wrong with that, or new half a century ago Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield was so offended by NATO free-riding that he called for major reductions of U.S. troops in Europe.

Thats an American perennial. But if youre going to berate, at least reassure as well. Especially given rising Russian threats and aggression. Especially given that Trumps speech was teed up precisely for such reassurance. An administration official had spread the word that he would use the speech to endorse Article 5. And it was delivered at a ceremony honoring the first and only invocation of Article 5 ironically enough, by the allies in support of America after 9/11.

And yet Trump deliberately, defiantly refused to simply say it: America will always honor its commitment under Article 5.

Its not that, had Trump said the magic words, everyone would have 100 percent confidence we would strike back if Russia were to infiltrate little green men into Estonia, as it did in Crimea. But Trumps refusal to utter those words does lower whatever probability Vladimir Putin might attach to America responding with any seriousness to Russian aggression against a NATO ally.

Angela Merkel said Sunday (without mentioning his name) that after Trumps visit it is clear that Europe can no longer rely on others. Its not that yesterday Europe could fully rely and today it cannot rely at all. Its simply that the American deterrent has been weakened. And deterrence weakened is an invitation to instability, miscalculation, provocation and worse.

And for what?

Charles Krauthammer is a nationally syndicated columnist. 2017 The Washington Post Writers Group

Continued here:
Trump Undermined NATO's Deterrent Effect - National Review

The NATO summit in Brussels on May 25 has received relatively little attention, thanks to the crowded schedule of President Donald Trump's visit to the Middle East and Europe.

The diplomatic whirlwind commenced with the Arab Islamic American Summit in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Leaders from 55 nations addressed the threat of terrorism. The NATO summit was followed almost immediately by a meeting of the G7, comprised of the world's principal industrial nations, in Taormina, Italy. The main agenda item was the continuing debt problems of Greece.

The brief Brussels meeting nevertheless contained heavy symbolism. Remnants of the Berlin Wall and World Trade Center destroyed in the 9/11 attacks were dedicated.

The NATO meeting probably will prove the most significant, simply by confirming the solid durability of the alliance. NATO demonstrates unity, and these summits are positive for international stability, especially long-term. The media should focus on these realities.

Warsaw, Poland, was the site for the May 2016 NATO summit, which linked the present with the past. Invasion of Poland by Nazi Germany in 1939 sparked World War II in Europe.

The Warsaw delegates agreed to commit troops to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland. Montenegro was formally invited to join NATO.

NATO also underscored commitment to Afghanistan, confirming involvement there until 2020. The senior civilian NATO representative in the country at that time was Turkey's diplomat Ismail Aramaz. This is a particularly important point, given Turkey's crucial front-line position against the Islamic State, and Ankara's vexed relationship with the rest of Europe and the U.S.

British voters' narrow but clear decision to leave the EU has generated alarm, notably among business executives as well as politicians and civil servants. They fear economic instability and even recession may result. So far, these fears have not been realized, except for the decline in value of the British pound.

One important neglected point is that Britain's long-term role as military leader in Europe and the wider Atlantic area will probably be reinforced. Starting with World War I, Britain has encouraged United States engagement with Europe, in military and also economic terms. Creation of NATO followed a series of more limited steps, preliminary building-blocks on which the final structure was created.

Article 51 of the United Nations Charter explicitly supports collective self-defense. In March 1947, representatives of Britain and France signed the Treaty of Dunkirk. The main perceived potential threat at that time was Germany. The text of the treaty stated the signatory nations would protect one another from any threat "arising from the adoption by Germany of aggression ...."

By then, severe strains were growing between the Western allies and the Soviet Union. In March 1948, the Dunkirk alliance was widened into the Brussels Pact. The resulting Western Union included Belgium, Britain, France, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, and was a positive precursor to the European Economic Community established in the following decade.

Britain steadily fostered cross-Atlantic military cooperation as the Cold War developed. Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin kept the far left of his Labour Party at bay. He was effective in dealing with European leaders in forging the European Coal and Steel Community and forming NATO. Institutional collaboration was reinforced by interpersonal dynamics, starting with Prime Minister Winston Churchill and President Franklin D. Roosevelt in World War II.

NATO continues to provide transatlantic cooperation. The current Britain-U.S. rift over publication of Manchester bombing photos by The New York Times is especially unfortunate.

Arthur I. Cyr is Clausen Distinguished Professor at Carthage College and author of "After the Cold War." (Palgrave Macmillan and NYU Press).

mailto: acyr@carthage.edu

Link:
Cyr: NATO summit underscores durable alliance - Chicago Tribune

TALLINN, EstoniaNATO will not rule out invoking Article 5 of its charter should one or more member nations find themselves under a serious cyberattack that threatens critical military and civilian infrastructure.

NATO officials told delegates at the International Conference on Cyber Conflict, or CyCon, in Estonia that the Western alliance would deliver a robust response in the event of a serious and prolonged attack on a member state in cyberspace. Article 5 provides for a united response by NATO states should a member nation come under attack.

"Although many of the cyberattacks that we see fall below a level in their seriousness that could trigger NATOs Article 5, it is plausible that a cyberspace event of great magnitude could take place that might lead to the triggering of Article 5 in special circumstances," said Catherine Lotrionte, director of CyberProject at Georgetown University.

The special circumstances that could trigger Article 5 would need to be at a substantially higher threat and risk level than propaganda of social media intrusions, Lotrionte said.

"Most attacks in cyberspace use no force. We would need to have a legal threshold for such threat situations, but the triggering of Article 5 is a real possibility. There are other issues, like time factors. A grave threat would need to be current, and not an event that happened years ago," she added.

NATO would take a very different and offensive posture if a cyberattack event on the scale of that launched against Estonia in 2007 were to happen now, said Brig. Gen. Christos Athanasiadis, assistant chief of staff cyber at NATOs Supreme Headquarters Allied Power Europe.

Estonias national intelligence services, including the military branch, suspected that the cyberattack on critical IT infrastructure was launched from Russia and potentially had state backing.

Article 5, according toAthanasiadis, exists to assure all NATO states that they can rely on support from fellow members should they become the subject of an aggressive attack that threatens to undermine their national security. Article 5 could be activated in certain situations if deliberately hostile attacks against a NATO member state happened within a cyberwar scenario, he said.

"We would have rules of engagement. There would be a strong cyber or conventional response if what happened to Estonia were to take place now. We want to develop a strong early-warning capability. We must develop capacities that also serve as a deterrent to aggressors out there,"Athanasiadis said.

See more here:
NATO might trigger Article 5 for certain cyberattacks - Defense News - DefenseNews.com

Donald Trumps recent speech at the Nato headquarters during the alliances gathering of heads of state and government received much attention and criticism.

During his speech, Trump commented that "the Nato of the future must include a great focus on terrorism and immigration".

He said this after talking about how thousands of people are "pouring into" Nato countries without being properly identified.

The statement came in the context of a hard-line domestic narrative on migration in the US, and can hardly be seen as an isolated remark.

It was not the first time Nato has been called on to conduct migration-related activities for instance, Nato ships were deployed to the Aegean Sea in February 2016 following a request by Germany, Greece and Turkey.

Nevertheless, this mission is limited in scope, with a mandate only to support Frontex (the EU border control agency) and the Greek and Turkish Coast Guards by conducting reconnaissance, monitoring, and surveillance of irregular migration routes.

Trump's statement called for much greater engagement, and perhaps even a central role for the alliance in countering irregular migration to Europe and North America.

By establishing a clear link between terrorism and migration in his speech, Trump qualified migration as a major security threat that requires joint military action in order to be mitigated.

Many European governments, which are keen to reduce migratory flows to the EU, may quietly welcome such an approach, as they themselves have not only agreed to Nato's operation in the Aegean Sea, but also deployed an EU-led counter-smuggling mission in the Central Mediterranean (EUnavfor Med Operation Sophia).

However, more Nato involvement in such maritime activities would come with caveats.

Trumps insistence on allies to pay their fair share may lead to uncomfortable deals in which the US makes its support for migration-related efforts conditional upon the receipt of some sort of compensation.

It would also give the US a strong voice in how the operations are conducted, and what objectives they seek to address.

Given Trumps blurry distinction between migrants and terrorists, the US primary concern in the Mediterranean is the use of migratory routes by terrorists pretending to be refugees. In fact, this was already an issue of concern for the Obama administration, though not a prominent one.

Trumps call for a refocused transatlantic alliance may thus result in diplomatic pressure for a Nato mission to intercept and screen asylum seekers before granting them entry.

This would represent a clear break with the current practices not only in terms of the actors concerned but also the procedure.

The involvement of non-EU military personnel in determining the admissibility of asylum seekers would raise several legal questions, not least regarding the principle of non-refoulement enshrined in the 1951 Refugee Convention. This provision forbids the forcible expulsion or return of an asylum seeker to a territory in which their life or freedom are in danger.

Of course, Nato member states would need to agree on any joint migration-related action. But given the disproportionate weight that the US holds in Nato, the Trump administrations priorities would likely dominate the agenda.

If Nato does take on a larger role in policing migratory routes, the US would have a much greater influence on EU migration policy, which would complicate an already deeply divided political map on this issue.

Member states seeking more solidarity-based solutions would be even more isolated than is already the case.

The G7 summit in Taormina, Italy, that immediately followed Trumps Nato debut, provided a stark example of how the Trump administrations priorities can affect multilateral discussions.

Italy attempted to draw attention to the high number of irregular arrivals it receives by symbolically hosting the gathering in Sicily, and tried to convince attending leaders to open more legal channels for migration such as refugee resettlement. Yet these efforts fell flat.

The G7 leaders statement focused mainly on border control and returns, without even mentioning resettlement.

Nato support for EU border security operations can be valuable, for example when it comes to the exchange of background information for the purpose of security screening asylum seekers.

Nevertheless, European policymakers should be wary of any shift in Natos focus towards collective border control.

Although migration is a challenge that can partially be addressed with the support of military assets, it is not a battle than can be won with military might.

Further securitisation of migration management will lead to more fragmentation and the criminalisation of migrant flows, and more human suffering as a result.

Only long-term approaches to the root causes of migration and smart legal channels that acknowledge the inevitability of human mobility will succeed in reducing irregular flows.

Marco Funk is a policy analyst at the European Policy Centre (EPC) in Brussels. The views expressed in this article are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of the EPC.

See the original post:
Will Nato become a transatlantic Frontex? - EUobserver - EUobserver

To the editor: As noted in your editorial, the United States North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies had hoped that the president would reaffirm Article 5 of the 68-year-old NATO treaty during his recent visit. (Trump didn't win any friends in Europe, editorial, May 26)

Article 5 was included in the treaty after World War II to deter a Soviet attack on Western Europe; however, the only time that it has been invoked was after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the U.S. Americas NATO allies backed up their rhetorical support with tangible action.

The U.S. did not have the number of airborne warning aircraft to adequately protect American cities, and NATO sent seven planes with 830 crewmen from 13 countries to patrol American skies until May 2002. This was the first time in history that the continental United States was protected by foreign military forces.

Out of both gratitude for this commitment and in keeping with the central objective of the single most important agreement to which the U.S. is a party, President Trump should clearly and forcefully reassert the American commitment to the NATO treaty.

Dan Caldwell, Malibu

The writer is a professor of political science at Pepperdine University.

..

To the editor: No, dear editor, the ugly American is you.

The president returns from an enormously productive overseas trip, and yet you fail to acknowledge his many achievements and instead focus on him brushing his way past a fellow NATO leader.

When you must stoop that low to criticize the man, its clear hes being successful.

Leonard Lamensdorf, Westlake Village

..

To the editor: Its sad and embarassing that our president appears unable to think beyond the moment. He simply does not understand that America first necessarily includes the concept that our safety is dependent on the security of our European allies.

If Europe is threatened, so too is America.

Trumps inability to think maturely places all of us and the values we hold at risk. Our countrys stature as a beacon of freedom and decent values has now been permanently undermined, just as the presidency has been permanently discredited. Like the students at Trump University, America was scammed; unlike the students, however, the U.S. electorate cannot sue for redress.

For the first time in my life, I must say: Im embarrassed to be an American.

Irving Greines, Los Angeles

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook

Continued here:
Trump's treatment of America's NATO allies was disgraceful - Los Angeles Times