Monthly Archives: March 2021

New technologies such as Artificial Intelligence, autonomous and quantum technologies are changing the world, and the way NATO operates. Recognizing the risks and opportunities that new technologies bring to the Alliance, Defence Ministers endorsed NATOs Coherent Implementation Strategy on Emerging and Disruptive Technologies in February 2021.

The Strategy sets out ways in which the Alliance will foster and protect the development of new technologies to maintain the Alliances technological edge, underpinned by robust principles of responsible use. NATO will work with partners, academia and the private sector including start-ups to develop and adopt new technologies more quickly, and strengthen the Allied industrial base. As part of the NATO 2030 agenda, Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has also proposed a NATO defence innovation initiative to promote better transatlantic cooperation on critical technologies.

To support these strategic efforts the Secretary General announced in July 2020 the creation of an Advisory Group on Emerging and Disruptive Technologies to solicit outside views from specialists and practitioners. The group, composed of 12 experts from academia and industry, advises NATO on its efforts to drive the adoption of new technologies. In their first annual report, the experts offered concrete short-and long term recommendations on how NATOs approach to Emerging and Disruptive Technologies should look like. The group provided advice on how NATO might best finance its innovation efforts, build an operational network of Innovation Centres, promote successful innovation business and operating models, and increase the level of technical literacy across NATO. The experts agreed that NATO is exceptionally well-placed to be a global driver for a values-based innovation agenda. Commenting on the report, Assistant Secretary General for Emerging Security Challenges, David Van Weel, said To maintain our technological edge, the Alliance needs to win the technological adoption race. We are ready to take ambitious steps to adapt our business and operating models to cooperate closely with the outstanding Allied academia, start-ups and the wider private sector.

The Advisory Groups Annual Report can be found here.

Read the rest here:
New focus on emerging and disruptive technologies helps prepare NATO for the future - NATO HQ

The UKs withdrawal from the EU last year calls into question the security implications that the split will have. The UK has continued to support NATO as the primary security provider on the continent and has acted at the forefront to reform the organization to better address the changing security environment in Europe. On the other hand, the EU forges on with its efforts to form an autonomous strategic partnership to ensure European security through collective efforts. Without resistance from London, this policy is likely to go ahead creating uncertainty for the future of NATO in Europe and UKs place in the security of the continent.

The UKs withdrawal from the EU and its collective security agreements could expose a large rift in opinion of how security should be ensured in Europe. The EUs push for greater strategic autonomy through its own security policy, stands in contrast to the UKs continued advocacy for NATO as the primary security provider of the continent.

On the one hand, the UK is likely to push for continued NATO dominance of European security affairs. By spending more on its military budget it is attempting to wrestle more influence from its European partners and cast itself as the go-to partner for Washington in times of crisis. By increasing its influence within the alliance it has been able to push for changes to ensure NATOs continued viability for the security of Europe.

The UK was at the forefront of changes to the alliance, to ensure that NATO would be able to address the diversifying security environment of Europe. This was namely an increased emphasis on cyberattacks, hybrid warfare, disruptive technologies, space and climate change. In doing so, it has been able to argue the case that the EUs own Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) was largely redundant. Similarly, it cemented the UKs conviction that the CSDP was another way to achieve greater integration than as a response to any specific security need. The Berlin Agreement in 1998 was consequently a way to obstruct the EU from building its own operational headquarters by instead encouraging it to work with NATO through its already established network of military planners at SHAPE.

On the other hand, countries in the eastern bloc, who have been traditionally wary for the constraints a European security and defence policy would pose, will find it harder to resist pressures from Berlin and Paris. The creation of the Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) in 2017, which legally binds participant members to the collective defence of other participants and the European Defence Fund are likely to incentivise change within the bloc. The UKs withdrawal therefore comes as a double-edged sword. The removal of London from the equation has meant that the EU can continue to move forward with its autonomous security structure but has also removed a key military player from the unions arsenal.

Nevertheless, it is not within the EUs interest to turn its back on NATO altogether. Indeed the halting of the withdrawal of 12,000 US troops from Germany at the end of the Trump administration was a welcome development. It is clear, however, that both Paris and Berlin are likely to oppose the continued hegemony of the US within the alliance. Instead, the two will aim to convince the new Biden administration to support the goal of European strategic autonomy as a means to both ensure more effective burden sharing and to free up US attention as it increasingly concentrates on issues in Asia-Pacific and China.

Despite the UKs continued ambivalence towards the collaborative nature of security on the continent, it will find itself dependent on these initiatives both as a part of NATO and a separate entity.

The first issue is that as NATO begins to diversify its range of security tasks, it will have to rely on EU expertise and resources more. This has been particularly true during the COVID-19 pandemic and cyberattacks such as WannaCry, in which real-time information sharing was vital for NATO military operations and exercises. As cooperation continues to deepen between the two organisations, key players are likely to shift to those with influence in both parties. As a result, the UK will lose influence within collaborative decisions. This is particularly evident, given the EUs stringent approach to Turkey, who as a part of NATO but not the EU has been confined to consultation on military operations in the Western Balkans.

The second issue is that the EU is likely to become an increasingly important part of the UKs own security. Despite the initiative of global Britain, the UKs security issues remain tied to Europe, whether it be in the form of Russian chemical attacks in Salisbury, attacks by Libyan terrorists in Manchester or the continued illegal immigration that takes place in Calais. As more of these security and defence issues are drawn into the institutional framework of the EU, its decisions are going to be felt more strongly in London. In turn, London will find itself increasingly far removed from the decision process.

The UK will find itself alienated from both decision-making in Washington and Brussels, which will likely play a role in ensuring its own security. With less influence, it will not be able to as effectively put its own concerns on the collective security agenda. This is likely to render the UK less secure in the long run as it increasingly will have to rely on itself to ensure its security.

The UK thus finds itself in the position where it can either prevent increased collaboration between NATO and EU or hold back as the two organizations become increasingly intertwined.

The first option will likely ensure that the UK continues to hold a prominent position within decision making both in its ability to act as the mediator between the two groups and as a highly influential member within NATO. It, however, would entail a decrease of security since NATO will be less effective in fulfilling its role without the resources and information it receives from the EU.

The second option is likely to improve security through increased cooperation between the EU and NATO, thus streamlining the sharing of information and resources and improving the efficiency of security operations. In doing so, it will hand greater influence to the countries that are members of both the EU and NATO to mediate their closer collaboration. Already NATO and the EU collaborate on 74 separate areas suggesting that this is the most likely scenario. Without the acceptance of an observer position within EU decision making circles, the UK will find itself further removed from decision-making and less able to influence the collective security agenda.

Nevertheless, the UK shows no sign of going back on its refusal to be part of the security integration projects on the continent. It is therefore likely that it will grow to be a less significant mediator of global security in the future.

See the original post:
NATO and the EU: What Does Brexit Mean for The UKs Position in European Security? - Global Risk Insights

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg underlined the importance of strengthening transatlantic relations at an Inter-Parliamentary Conference, hosted by the Portuguese Parliament, on Wednesday (3 March 2021).

Strong transatlantic relations are the only way for our countries to address the great challenges of today and tomorrow, he said. Addressing parliamentarians, the Secretary General outlined the priorities of the NATO 2030 initiative to strengthen the Alliance, highlighted the strong cooperation between NATO and the EU, and thanked Portugal for championing strong NATO-EU relations. He also welcomed the recent US decision to join the project on military mobility, which can enable US and other NATO troops and equipment to move faster across Europe. He stressed that parliamentarians can help reinforce the ties between Europe and North America and push for more ambitious and practical joint efforts between NATO and the European Union. Strengthening transatlantic relations and working hand-in-hand is the right thing to do, he said.

Read the Secretary General's speech here

Originally posted here:
NATO Secretary General: I believe in Europe and North America together - NATO HQ

High-speed, artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled computing can help multi-national coordinated air attacks reach new levels of proficiency and precision. This improvement in waging war is informing the North Atlantic Treaty Organizations (NATO) deployment of a new Alliance Ground Surveillance (AGS) technology connecting Air Force Global Hawks to allied air and ground nodes.

NATO AGS relies upon a connection with the U.S. Air Force RQ-4D Phoenix Global Hawk to gather, organize, analyze, process and transmit crucial intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) data among partner nations, using common technical standards for interoperability.

We have a strategy called the ISR 2030 Game Plan that looks at capabilities we have today and what we will have in the future, Gen. Jeffrey Harrigian, Commander, U.S. Air Forces Europe, Africa, told reporters during the 2021 Air Force Association symposium.

AI-empowered systems can instantly identify targets and objects of relevance and compare potential response scenarios against what has worked previously to optimize combat operation effectiveness and present possibilities to humans performing command and control. The concept, as articulated in a Northrop essay, is to enable continuous 24/7, uninterrupted in-theater operations among NATO allies.

Part of the increased allied collaboration, made more possible with emerging systems such as NATO AGS, rests upon a successful ability to safely and effectively manage airspace.

Many nations are much more supportive of our ability to operate over their territories and in their airspace, in part because we ensure that they are comfortable with the deconfliction. We help them understand how we are going to operate and what we are going to do, Harrigian added.

Allied interoperability, particularly as it pertains to rapid warfare decision-making, is something heavily emphasized by Air Force Chief of Staff General Charles Brown as well, who reminded people of the famous OODA loop in an interesting presentation at the 2021 Air Force Association Symposium.

We need to take a different approach, we need to make decisions at the speed of relevance. Those decisions need to be informed by analysis, and they need to be made in a timely manner to outpace our competitors decision cycle. Remember John Boyd and the OODA loop? We need to do that at the strategic level, Brown told an AFA audience, according to a transcript of his remarks.

Certainly, as referenced by Brown, Boyds well-known Observation, Orientation, Decision, Action Loop (OODA Loop) process not only applies to air-to-air combat as conceived of by Boyd, but also introduces wider-spanning strategic dynamics as well, given that NATO AGS and other surveillance technologies will enable faster, more precise and combat-relevant information sharing between NATO-allied countries.

Its really about how we move data. And thats the key aspect. And we already do that outside, you know, outside of the Air Force, outside of the Department of Defense, Brown said.

Certainly moving analyses and organized information in near instantaneous fashion could bear heavily upon the OODA Loop process, given that its successful competition to achieve victory in air-war engagement relies upon the speed of decision-making.

Kris Osborn is the defense editor for the National Interest. Osborn previously served at the Pentagon as a Highly Qualified Expert with the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the ArmyAcquisition, Logistics & Technology. Osborn has also worked as an anchor and on-air military specialist at national TV networks. He has appeared as a guest military expert on Fox News, MSNBC, The Military Channel, and The History Channel. He also has a Masters Degree in Comparative Literature from Columbia University.

Image: Reuters.

Here is the original post:
Upgrade You: NATO's Global Hawk Drones Are About to Get Even Better - The National Interest

THE Taliban could wreak carnage across Afghanistan in a new "spring offensive" when troops pull out, the US Secretary of State has warned.

In a letter to Afghan President Ashraf Ghani, Anthony Blinken proposed a 90-day Reduction-in-Violence that could prevent retaliation from the Islamic fundamentalist group.

6

6

6

In the letter, obtained by the BBC on Sunday, the US Secretary of State called for a new international peace effort to be overseen by the UN in a bid to help reach a "permanent and comprehensive ceasefire".

The intervention will be urgently needed, Mr Blinken said, to prevent the security situation from deteriorating.

Turkey will also be asked to host a senior-level meeting with both sides to "finalise the peace agreement".

Under a deal between the Taliban and the Trump administration, all remaining US forces are due to leave Afghanistan by the end of April.

US troops invaded Afghanistan in 2001 to remove the Taliban from power in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

At the height of the deployment in 2011, the US had around 110,000 troops and it was costing $100bn a year.

In January, the Biden administration said it would review the peace agreement made with the Taliban under Donald Trump.

In that deal, the remaining 9,600 US-led Nato troops would pull out by May 1 in exchange for Taliban security guarantees.

Critics say pulling out would hand the Taliban a victory after the terror group went back on promises to stop attacks and cut ties with al-Qaeda.

Meanwhile, European diplomats have claimed that Nato's two-decade war against the Taliban is "unwinnable".

6

6

One European diplomat said ahead of Nato talks in February: "This war is not winnable, but Nato cannot allow itself to lose it pitifully."

And Germany's defence ministerAnnegret Kramp-Karrenbauer said: "We can already say that we are not yet in a position to talk about the withdrawal of international forces from Afghanistan."

She added: "This also means a changed security situation, an increased threat for the international forces, also for our own forces. We have to prepare for this, and we will certainly discuss this."

Nato countries are desperate not to see Afghanistan slide back into chaos after the enormous cost in lives and money since operations began in the wake of the September 11 attacks.

They fear Afghanistan could once again provide sanctuary for groups like Al-Qaeda, and already ISIS has a growing presence in the country which it could use as a launchpad for attacks on the West.

"While no ally wants to stay in Afghanistan longer than necessary, we will not leave before the time is right," Nato Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said on Monday.

Last February the US agreed to begin pulling all its troops out of Afghanistan in adeal signed with the Talibanin Doha, Qatar.

In return the Taliban agreed to stop violence and engage in talks with the Afghan government to reach a long-term peace agreement.

But violence has raged across the country after those talks broke down.

In recent months Taliban fighters launched a string of offensives against two provincial capitals, and were blamed for a wave of assassinations targeting journalists, politicians and activists.

Meanwhile, al-Qaeda is regaining power in Afghanistan under the protection of the Taliban along the border with Pakistan.

According to theMirror, the group's leader Ayman Zawahiri may have forged a close relationship with the Taliban - an Islamic fundamentalist group that is still waging war against western forces.

The US Treasury believes Taliban groups have discussed joining forces with militants funded by al-Qaeda.

The terror cult are set to become as dangerous as they were during the 9/11 attacks twenty years ago, an expert has claimed.

MONSTER PARENTSMan and teen lover beat her daughter, 3, to death because she wet the bed

HELL HATH NO FURYRussian Army tells women to get draft-dodging exes CONSCRIPTED in revenge

DEADLY DECEITGirl, 13, admits she MADE UP story that led to her teacher being beheaded

Exclusive

NATURE'S FURY'Animal X' hiding virus that may cause pandemic capable of killing 75million

Exclusive

REICH MOVEInside eerie Spanish villa with where 'runaway Hitler had plastic surgery'

BANG ON THE WALLSex-mad couple keep angry neighbour awake as she pens them brutal note

A senior British terrorism expert told theDaily Mirror: Compared to Zawahiri he is likely to be a much more effective leader, at least so or more so even than bin Laden.

It comes following rumours that Zawahiri has died, prompting intelligence agencies to ready themselves for an al-Qaeda rebrand.

Zawahiri took the reins from Osama bin Laden following his death in 2011 but has not been seen for years.

6

Here is the original post:
Taliban to wreak carnage across Afghanistan in new spring offensive when Nato and US troops pull out - The Irish Sun

What if India, Australia, Japan, and the United States formed an Asian NATO collective security alliance to improve prospects for stability and more effectively deter or counter Chinese operations in the Pacific theater?

It could happen and is already being explored by Pentagon leaders, diplomats, and politicians familiar with the threat conditions in Asia. Certainly, the countries are already closely aligned; B-1s are in India, Australia and Japan fly F-35s and both Australia and Japan are acquiring High Altitude Long Endurance drones from the U.S. such as the Global Hawk and Triton, to cite a few among many instances of collaboration. Other longstanding efforts include regular training opportunities, war preparations, joint weapons testing, and interoperability exercises.

When asked about the prospect of an Asian NATO, U.S. Air Force Global Strike Command Commander Gen. Timothy Ray did not say that was in his lane to decide, but he did make a point to articulate the importance of U.S.-allied collaborative security efforts in Asia, with a particular mind to deterring China.

Should these U.S.-aligned countries, perhaps with even the addition of Taiwan, draft up an agreement somewhat analogous to NATOs well-known Article 5, an attack against any of the countries would amount to an attack upon all of them, thus the premise of alliance-generated collective security. An alliance of this kind could introduce some interesting strategic dynamics and potentially further fortify Chinese deterrence in Asia.

For instance, would the existence of an Asian NATO diminish the likelihood of provocative Chinese maneuvers in the region? Would there be less intrusive or aggressive fighter-jet operations close to Japanese shores? Fewer amphibious warfare preparation operations in the vicinity of Taiwan? Perhaps of even greater impact, would a more solidified or formalized Japan-Australia-India-U.S. alliance in any way decrease aggressive Chinese maneuvers in the South China Sea? While an Asian NATO might not necessarily mitigate continued Chinese expansionist ambitions, it could inspire a decrease in aggressive maneuvers and therefore potentially decrease the possibility of an unintended clash or exchange of fire.

Most of all, China is listed by GlobalFirepower.com as having more than 2 million active-duty military personnel, so a combined U.S., Japanese, Australian, and Indian military force might certainly help deter China in terms of sheer numbers, not to mention coordinated air and sea operations including weapons platforms, sensor targeting networking and collaborative training exercises.

For example, the U.S. and Australia have been testing hypersonic weapons together, and drone surveillance data sharing could greatly help blanket the vast ocean areas of the Pacific, Japan collaborates with the U.S. on several crucial weapons programs to include the SM-3 interceptor, and both Japan and Australia are part of the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense Weapons System group of allies. Radar, surveillance, missile defenses, and weapons synergies with all four countries are already underway, a circumstance that has already created a military foundation upon which to build an alliance.

Kris Osborn is the defense editor for the National Interest. Osborn previously served at the Pentagon as a Highly Qualified Expert with the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the ArmyAcquisition, Logistics & Technology. Osborn has also worked as an anchor and on-air military specialist at national TV networks. He has appeared as a guest military expert on Fox News, MSNBC, The Military Channel, and The History Channel. He also has a Master's Degree in Comparative Literature from Columbia University.

Image: Reuters.

Go here to see the original:
Is a Pacific NATO the Only Way to Counter China? - The National Interest

The United States cannot independently approve a decision on Ukraine's integration into NATO, but nothing prevents it from granting the country the status of a major non-NATO ally, former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine William Taylor has said.

He stated this during the webinar "U.S.-Ukraine Security Dialogue XII" on Wednesday, March 3, according to an Ukrinform correspondent.

Taylor said that last week he spoke with a U.S. government team dealing with the Ukraine issue and several people mentioned a Membership Action Plan (MAP), which would ensure Ukraine's accession to NATO.

He noted that there were difficulties in this matter as there are NATO members who still need to be convinced that Ukrainians are ready for the MAP. However, the diplomat said that this moment would come sooner or later and Ukraine would join NATO, as was promised at the 2008 Bucharest Summit.

At the same time, Taylor said, the United States can show its strong support and strong relations with Ukraine, granting it the status of a major non-NATO ally.

According to him, this does not require approval from any other NATO member. This is entirely within the competence of the U.S. government, Taylor said.

Major non-NATO ally (MNNA) is a designation given by the United States government to close allies that have strategic working relationships with the U.S. Armed Forces but are not members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The status, currently held by 18 states (including Australia, Brazil, Israel, South Korea, Japan), does not automatically include a mutual defense pact with the United States, but it still confers a variety of military and financial advantages that otherwise are not obtainable by non-NATO countries.

op

Read more from the original source:
Nothing prevents U.S. from designating Ukraine as major non-NATO ally - Taylor - Ukrinform. Ukraine and world news