Monthly Archives: March 2021

Breadcrumb Trail Links

Lt.-Gen. Chris Coates was to have become deputy commander of Joint Force Command in Naples, Italy, but Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan put a halt to that assignment.

Author of the article:

Publishing date:

The Canadian Forces has yet to find an officer to fill a top NATO job after the general selected for the assignment was dropped at the last minute because of an affair he had with a co-worker.

Lt.-Gen. Chris Coates was to have become deputy commander of Joint Force Command in Naples, Italy, but Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan put a halt to that assignment. Sajjan told this newspaper he made his decision after being recently told that Coates had an affair with a U.S. civilian co-worker while he was deputy commander of the North American Aerospace Defence Command in Colorado.

Coates is the latest of the Canadian Forces leadership to come under scrutiny.

Chief of the Defence Staff Adm. Art McDonald voluntary stepped down Feb. 24 from that job after being put under military police investigation. Allegations of sexual misconduct have been made against McDonald, according to sources, but police will not comment. The admiral had only been in the job since Jan. 14.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

McDonalds predecessor, Gen. Jon Vance, is also under police investigations because of allegations of sexual misconduct. Gen. Wayne Eyre, the head of the Canadian Army, has been brought as acting defence chief. The police investigation into Vance started shortly after he retired as defence chief in mid-January.

Sajjan was kept in the dark for almost a year about the Coates affair and said he was only recently told about it by McDonald. The minister did not explain why Vance didnt brief him about Coates affair with a civilian U.S. co-worker at NORAD. Sources say the affair caused concern among U.S. military officials who have strict rules against adultery and fraternization.

Jody Thomas, the deputy minister at National Defence and Coates sister-in-law, did not brief Sajjan about the issue because that is not her job, according to the DND. Management and discipline of officers of the CAF is the responsibility of the CDS, in this case, General Vance, explained National Defence spokesman Dan Le Bouthillier. This includes the reporting of such matters to the MND.

Sajjan did not respond to the question about whether he is concerned he may have been kept in the dark by Vance on other issues. This newspaper requested comment from Vance who did not respond.

Department of National Defence officials confirmed the affair, but said that since Coates broke no Canadian rules he continued with his posting at NORAD headquarters in Colorado until the assignment was complete. These types of personal relationships are dealt with inside the respective national chain of command and subject to the nation of origins regulations on fraternization, Le Bouthillier said.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Coates, who was married at the time, reported the situation to senior Canadian leadership.

Coates was later transferred from NORAD and assumed command of the Canadian Joint Operations Command or CJOC in Ottawa in July 2020.

Coates was supposed to leave his job as head of CJOC last week in preparation for taking on the NATO position. He continues to serve as commander of CJOC.

Coates was to have replaced Canadian Lt.-Gen. Omer Lavoie, who was in the NATO position. DND could not provide an update on whether Lavoie was still in Italy or had returned to Canada. But NATO has removed Lavoies photo from the position, indicating he is no longer in the job.

The Canadian military leadership has faced major upheaval because of misconduct allegations over the last two years. In the last three months, the Canadian Forces has had three defence chiefs. Since 2017 it has had six vice chiefs, making the second-highest military position a revolving door after allegations of misconduct were leveled at Vice Adm. Mark Norman. Norman was accused of leaking sensitive information on shipbuilding and was relieved from his duties by Vance. The criminal case against Norman collapsed in May 2019.

Sajjans spokesperson, Tod Lane, said the minister acted swiftly when informed about the Coates affair. When made aware, he directed Admiral McDonald not to post Lieutenant-General Coates to an overseas posting, Lane said. At this time, we will not be commenting further on this matter.

Coates did not comment. McDonald has not commented about the allegations made against him.

Sign up to receive daily headline news from Ottawa Citizen, a division of Postmedia Network Inc.

A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it please check your junk folder.

The next issue of Ottawa Citizen Headline News will soon be in your inbox.

We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try again

Read the original post:
NATO role goes unfilled after general pulled because of affair with co-worker - Ottawa Citizen

Norwegian air force F-35s break away from a U.S. Air Force KC-135 tanker while en route to Iceland ... [+] for air patrols in late February.

The High North was a pretend war zone last week as Russian and NATO forces staged dueling exercises.

Canadian, German and Norwegian warships, a Norwegian air force F-35 stealth fighter and U.S. Air Force B-1 bombers gathered off Norways west coast to practice jamming and shooting down enemy anti-ship missiles.

Meanwhile, a powerful Russian missile cruiser simulated attacks on NATO submarines while lurking around a fjord near Norways northeast coast.

NATOs Dynamic Guard exercise drew a powerful air and sea force, including the Canadian frigate Halifax and the Norwegian corvettes Steil and Storm. The German tanker Spessart supported the warships.

The frigate and tanker sail together under the auspices of Standing NATO Maritime Group One, or SNMG 1.

Two B-1s and at least one Norwegian F-35 flew in from Orland air base in central Norway. Three B-1s arrived at Orland on Feb. 22 for a so-called Bomber Task Force deployment lasting several months.

The exercise confirmed what observers predicted when the U.S. Air Force announced the B-1 deployment last monththe swing-wing bombers have come to Norway in part to prepare for a possible future sea battle with the Russian fleet.

The Dynamic Guard war game was defensive in nature. The exercise provides opportunities for SNMG1 to enhance or otherwise validate our training, knowledge and expertise in electronic warfare and anti-ship missile defense in a unique and challenging operational environment, said Commodore Bradley Peats, the Canadian commander of SNMG1.

But anti-ship-missile defense is a corollary to offensive anti-surface warfare. In a ship-on-ship missile battle, opposing naval groups would volley anti-ship missiles at each other while trying to shoot down incoming missiles. The group that both defends itselfand overwhelms the enemys defenseswins.

Its pretty clear how Peats disposed his forces. The frigate Halifax, displacing 4,800 tons loaded, was the biggest of the three combatants in the NATO flotillaand the most lavishly equipped. Halifax packs a Sea Giraffe radar and two eight-cell launchers for 27-mile-range Evolved Sea Sparrow anti-air missiles as well as an SLQ-505 radar-jammer.

By contrast, the Norwegian corvetteseach displacing just 275 tonslack long-range radars and any surface-to-air missiles. They sport CS-3701 jammers but obviously cannot pump as much power through the jammers as the larger frigate can do with its own electronic-warfare system.

The Norwegian corvette 'Storm' sails during NATO's Dynamic Guard exercise in late February.

In wartime, frigates such as Halifax would sail alongside corvettes such as Steil and Storm, protecting the smaller ships from Russian anti-ship missiles and helping the smaller vessels get close enough to the Russiansa hundred miles or soto fire their Naval Strike Missiles. Its worth noting that Halifax herself carries eight 100-mile-range Harpoon anti-ship missiles.

Its unclear what role the B-1s and F-35 played in Dynamic Guard. But in wartime, B-1s with their new 300-mile Long-Range Anti-Ship Missiles would be among the most power ship-killers in the theater. F-35s could protect the bombers while the big planes press their attacks.

Dynamic Guard demonstrated how NATO could go after the Russian navywith a mixed sea and air force combining offensive and defensive missiles.

Submarines obviously would play important roles, as welllocating and attacking Russian ships and protecting NATO vessels from Russias own subs. So it should come as no surprise that while NATOs ships and planes were playing war on Norways west coast, the Russian fleet staged an anti-submarine exercise on the countrys east coast.

The Russian cruiser Marshal Ustinov in early February sailed from Severomorsk in northern Russian into the Barents Sea. For several days, the ship's crew will practice combat and daily organization at sea, conduct a number of general ship exercises on damage-control, [nuclear-biological-chemical] protection, as well as anti-aircraft and anti-submarine defense, the Kremlin announced.

As part of the anti-submarine missions, to which the main attention will be paid, the cruiser will practice interaction with the submarine and anti-submarine aircraft, carry out training search and tracking of the submarine and also perform firing with naval anti-submarine weapons.

Training complete, the cruiser sailed back toward Severomorskand made an interesting detour. On Feb. 22, the 12,500-ton cruiserwhich with her 104 anti-air missiles and 16 300-mile P-500 anti-ship missiles is one of the most powerful surface combatants in the worldlooped south into the Varanger Fjord, which lies west of Russias Fisher Peninsula. The Russian-Norwegian maritime border cuts through the fjord.

Such sailing west of the Fisher Peninsula is something we havent seen in recent times, Maj. Brynjar Stordal, a spokesperson for Norways joint headquarters, told The Barents Observer.

Its worth noting that Marshal Ustinovs southward jaunt took place at the same time the B-1s were arriving in Norway.

The American bombers should be at Orland for several monthstraining, patrolling and possibly laying intelligence traps for Russian forces. Expect more war games, more provocative maneuvers and more previews of NATO and Russian war plans.

Read more:
Two Halves Of A Possible Naval Battle Played Out Along The Norwegian Coast As NATO And Russia Practiced For War - Forbes

The February meeting of NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) defense ministers, the first since President Biden took office, revealed an antiquated, 75-year-old alliance that, despite its military failures in Afghanistan and Libya, is now turning its military madness toward two more formidable, nuclear-armed enemies: Russia and China.

This theme was emphasized by U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin in a Washington Post op-ed in advance of the NATO meeting, insisting that "aggressive and coercive behaviors from emboldened strategic competitors such as China and Russia reinforce our belief in collective security."

Using Russia and China to justify more Western military buildup is a key element in the alliance's new "Strategic Concept," called "NATO 2030: United For a New Era," which is intended to define its role in the world for the next 10years.

NATO was founded in 1949 by the United States and 11 other Western nations to confront the Soviet Union and the rise of communism in Europe. Since the end of the Cold War, it has grown to 30 countries, expanding to incorporate most of Eastern Europe, and it now has a long and persistent history of illegal war-making, bombing civilians and other war crimes.

In 1999, NATO launched a war without UN approval to separate Kosovo from Serbia. Its illegal airstrikes during the Kosovo war killed hundreds of civilians, and its close ally, Kosovo President Hashim Thaci, is now on trial forwar crimes committed under cover of the NATO bombing campaign.

Far from the North Atlantic, NATO has fought alongside the United States in Afghanistan since 2001, and attacked Libya in 2011, leaving behind a failed state and triggering a massive refugee crisis.

The first phase of NATO's new Strategic Concept review is called the NATO 2030 Reflection Group report. That sounds encouraging, since NATO obviously and urgently needs to reflect on its bloody history. Why does an organization nominally dedicated to deterring war and preserving peace keep starting wars, killing thousands of people and leaving countries around the world mired in violence, chaos and poverty?

Unfortunately, this kind of introspection is not what NATO means by "reflection." The Reflection Group instead applauds NATO as "history's most successful military alliance," and seems to have taken a leaf from the Obama playbook by only "looking forward," as it charges into a new decade of military confrontation with its blinders firmly in place.

NATO's role in the "new" Cold War is really a reversion to its old role in the original Cold War. This is instructive, as it unearths the ugly reasons why the United States decided to create NATO in the first place, and exposes them for a new generation of Americans and Europeans to examine in the context of today's world.

Any U.S. war with the Soviet Union or Russia was always going to put Europeans directly on the front lines as both combatants and mass-casualty victims. The primary function of NATO is to ensure that the people of Europe continue to play these assigned roles in America's war plans.

As Michael Klare explains in a NATO Watch report on NATO 2030, every step the U.S. is taking with NATO is "intended to integrate it into U.S. plans to fight and defeat China and Russia in all-out warfare."

The U.S. Army's plan for an invasion of Russia, which is euphemistically called "The U.S. Army in Multi-Domain Operations," begins with missile and artillery bombardments of Russian command centers and defensive forces, followed by an invasion by armored forces to occupy key areas and sites until Russia surrenders.

Unsurprisingly, Russia's defense strategy in the face of such an existential threat would not be to surrender, but to retaliate against the United States and its allies with nuclear weapons.

U.S. war plans for an assault on China are similar, involving missiles fired from ships and bases in the Pacific. China has not been as public about its defense plans, but if its existence and independence were threatened, it too would probably use nuclear weapons, as indeed the United States would if the positions were reversed. But they're not since no other country has the offensive war machine it would need to invade the United States.

Michael Klare concludes that NATO 2030 "commits all alliance members to a costly, all-consuming military competition with Russia and China that will expose them to an ever-increasing risk of nuclear war."

So how do the European people feel about their role in America's war plans? The European Council on Foreign Relations recently conducted an in-depth poll of 15,000 people in 10NATO countries and Sweden, and published the results in a report titled "The Crisis of American Power: How Europeans See Biden's America."

The report reveals that a large majority of Europeans want no part in a U.S. war with Russia or China and want to remain neutral. Only 22% would support taking the U.S. side in a war with China, 23% in a war with Russia. So European public opinion is squarely at odds with NATO's role in America's war plans.

On trans-Atlantic relations in general, majorities in most European countries see the U.S. political system as broken and their own countries' politics as in healthier shape. Fifty-nine percent of Europeans believe that China will be more powerful than the United States within a decade, and most see Germany as a more important partner and international leader than the U.S.

Only 17% of Europeans want closer economic ties with the U.S., while even fewer, 10% of French and Germans, think their countries need America's help with their national defense.

Biden's election has not changed Europeans' views very much from a previous survey in 2019, because they see Trumpism as a symptom of deeply rooted and long-standing problems in American society. As the writers conclude, "A majority of Europeans doubt that Biden can put Humpty Dumpty back together again."

There is also pushback among Europeans to NATO's demand that members should spend 2 percent of their gross domestic products on defense, an arbitrary goal that only 10 of the 30 members have met. Ironically, some states will reach the NATO target without raising their military spending because COVID has shrunk their GDPs, but NATO members struggling economically are unlikely to prioritize military spending.

The schism between NATO's hostility and Europe's economic interests runs deeper than just military spending. While the United States and NATO see Russia and China primarily as threats, European businesses view them as key partners. In 2020, China supplanted the U.S. as the EU's No. 1 trading partner and at the close of 2020the EU concluded a comprehensive investment agreement with China, despite U.S. concerns.

European countries also have their own economic relations with Russia. Germany remains committed to the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, a 746-mile natural gas artery that runs from northern Russia to Germany, even as the Biden administration calls it a "bad deal" and claimsit will makeEurope vulnerable to Russian "treachery."

NATO seems oblivious to the changing dynamics of today's world, as if it wereliving on a different planet. Its one-sided Reflection Group report cites Russia's violation of international law in Crimea as a principal cause of deteriorating relations with the West, and insists that Russia must "return to full compliance with international law." But it ignores the U.S. and NATO's far more numerous violations of international law and leading role in the tensions fueling the renewed Cold War:

NATO's failure to seriously examine its own role in what it euphemistically calls "uncertain times" should be more alarming to Americans and Europeans than its one-sided criticisms of Russia and China, whose contributions to the uncertainty of our times pale by comparison.

The short-sighted preservation and expansion of NATO for a whole generation after the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War has tragically set the stage for the renewal of those hostilities or has perhaps made their revival inevitable.

NATO's Reflection Group justifies and promotes the U.S.and NATO's renewed cold war by filling its report with dangerously one-sided threat analysis. A more honest and balanced review of the dangers facing the world and NATO's role in them would lead to a much simpler plan for NATO's future: Itshould be dissolved and dismantled as quickly as possible.

View original post here:
What planet is NATO living on? Because it's no longer useful on this one - Salon

After a recent meeting of defense ministers in Brussels, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg announced that the Alliance would expand the size of its security training mission in Iraq, increasing troop levels from 500 to 4,000. The move comes less than a month after the inauguration of President Joseph Biden and signals the continued effort to repair the relationship between the United States and the Alliance after four years of degradation during the Trump administration. While NATO has provided continuous contributions to operations in Iraq since 2004, it suspended training activities in January 2020 after the unilateral decision by the United States to assassinate Irans Quds Force Commander Qasem Soleimani outside the Baghdad Airport.

NATOs commitment to resume and to increase training of Iraqi security forces represents an important step in the return to normalcy for the United States and the Alliance, in addition to advancing mutual security objectives for its members. Increased contributions from NATO in Iraq will further those objectives by preventing a resurgence of the Islamic State, countering Iranian influence, and freeing up valuable resources for deterrence efforts against Russia in Eastern Europe.

In 2014, the Iraqi Army all but collapsed in the face of ISIS offensives across northern Iraq. By the end of that year, a Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS had been established, with NATO contributing forces into Iraq. While unified under Combined Joint Task Force Inherent Resolve (combined referring to the multi-national element of the task force), each contributing nation had different rules and restrictions for its forces. While some were allowed to participate in kinetic operations, others began work on the long-term effort of training Iraqi security forces. This training mission was a key line of effort in Inherent Resolves campaign plan, enabling a sustainable military partner capacity by training, advising, assisting, and equipping.

By the end of 2017, Iraq had reclaimed 95% of lost territory and Prime Minister Haider al Abadi declared victory over ISIS. A year later, President Donald Trump declared ISIS defeated in Syria and announced his intention to withdraw all U.S. troops from the country. Despite these assertions, ISIS has managed to remain a threat within the region, in addition to maintaining influence globally. General Joseph Votel, then-Commander of U.S. Central Command, warned Congress in 2019 that ISIS was not surrendering, but instead making a calculated decision to retreat and preserve what little capability it still maintained.

As NATO prepares to resume and increase its training mission in Iraq, small pockets of ISIS fighters continue to launch attacks in Iraq itself and claim credit for deadly attacks by its sympathizers in Europe. While it has been several years since an ISIS-inspired attack in the United States, the group remains a shared threat for the U.S. and its NATO partners. By recommitting to the training mission and increasing the number of trainers, non-U.S. NATO members are helping to ensure their own security at home. Meanwhile, the United States receives assistance in meeting its own national security objective of combating violent extremist organizations that pose a threat to its citizens at home and abroad.

Shortly after entering office, the Trump administration began a maximum pressure campaign against Iran. The campaign did little to alleviate concerns over Iran developing a nuclear weapon, or to stop its sponsorship of violent proxy groups across the Middle East. Instead, maximum pressure and the U.S. decision to withdraw from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) spurred Iran into increasing its uranium enrichment program while alienating U.S. allies in Europe who wished to keep the JCPOA in place. The assassination of Soleimani provided the United States with a brief sense of accomplishment, but it also violated the tenuous truce between coalition forces in Iraq and the Iran-sponsored Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF). Iran responded by launching a missile attack on a U.S. base, and violence has continued into the Biden administration with a recent attack on a U.S. base in Erbil that killed one contractor and injured nine others.

The Biden administration has already started the delicate diplomatic dance of attempting to re-join the JCPOA. However, even if it succeeds in getting Iran to abandon further development of a nuclear weapon, the influence of Iranian proxy groups across the Middle East will remain problematic, especially in Iraq. The PMF, formed in 2014 in response to ISIS, continues to operate throughout Iraq and has grown more problematic since the territorial defeat of ISIS.

The NATO training effort can help to counter the influence of the PMF over the Iraqi population, primarily by continuing to build a competent security apparatus that the public has faith in. This would allow the Iraqi government to act from a position of strength in confronting the militias, eventually overseeing their disbandment. Removing the PMF from Iraq would be a major blow to Iran and a major win for the United States. By utilizing a multinational effort under the NATO flag, it also starts to remove the perception that Iraq is simply a pawn stuck between the United States and Iran and, instead, shows the Iraqi people that the international community remains invested in their future.

The 2018 National Defense Strategy declared that inter-state strategic competition, not terrorism, is now the primary concern in U.S. national security. With the Russian Federation and Peoples Republic of China mentioned specifically, the document outlined a shift away from combating violent extremist organizations to confronting those two countries and their global influence. Despite naming Russia as a primary concern, the Trump administration spent most of its four years berating NATO, conflating defense spending with collective contributions, and announcing that a large portion of U.S. forces in Germany would be withdrawn or relocated.

Upon taking office, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austins first phone call was to NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg, signalling that the new administration was eager to re-establish this important relationship and forge a new way ahead. President Biden confirmed this intent when he reiterated commitment to the Alliance and declared that America is back when addressing the Munich Security Conference. While the NATO commitment to providing forces to Iraq is clearly a boost to American national security objectives in the Middle East, it also helps the United States as it seeks to deter Russian aggression.

Military resources, especially troops, are finite. Even with the United States sizeable military, theres only so much to go around. This has created a delicate balancing act, as policymakers prioritize where troops are needed. By committing 4,000 troops to the training mission in Iraq, NATO is freeing up nearly an entire brigade of combat power for the United States to use elsewhere. The U.S. has been rotating brigades into Eastern Europe on a consistent basis since the Russian invasion of Crimea and has been committing advisors to Ukraine since 2016 to assist in the fight against Russian-sponsored separatists. By helping to ease U.S. commitments in the Middle East, NATO members are allowing those forces to contribute in Europe, which enhances to their own security against Russia. Its just one more example of members of the Alliance helping themselves by helping each other.

Alliances are often complicated and difficult things. The NATO Alliance itself has endured over 70 years of turmoil, but has always emerged stronger from its challenges along the way. With NATOs decision to expand its training program in Iraq, the Alliance is signalling that it is still committed to supporting mutual security objectives and to keeping its members safe and secure. The United States would do well to capitalize on this opportunity and continue to re-energize its relationship with NATO. By doing so, it will ensure that whenever conflict does happen, there will be no shortage of friends ready to join the fight.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect the position of the Foreign Policy Research Institute, a non-partisan organization that seeks to publish well-argued, policy-oriented articles on American foreign policy and national security priorities.

Link:
Thank You for Being a Friend: NATO, Iraq, and the Benefits of the Alliance - Foreign Policy Research Institute

Although NATO could not be on the front line in the fight against COVID-19, because the crisis caused by the spread of the coronavirus is primarily a civilian health crisis, this organization provided support to the health institutions of NATO allies and partners.

This support was made possible primarily through the long-term development of the capacity of this organization, through the strengthening of the domain of civil protection, primarily through the Euro-Atlantic Disaster Response Coordination Centre (EADRCC). This center, which is the main mechanism for responding to civil protection emergencies, has the task of coordinating the requests of members and partners in dealing with major crises, such as the crisis caused by the spread of COVID-19.

The question that arises is how NATO and its members helped Serbia and other Western Balkan countries during the crisis.

The way the EADRCC mechanism works consists of three steps. The first is that after a catastrophe or crisis occurs, a member state or partner country can send a request to this center, which contains, among other things, an assessment of the situation and a list of things needed (such as equipment, supplies, human resources, services, etc.).

Upon receipt of the request, the EADRCC then, in communication with the requesting country, forwards the request to other NATO member states, partner countries and international organizations. Finally, a NATO member, partner country or international organization can contact the requesting country and agree with it on a bilateral basis what kind of assistance it will send.

For example, countries in the region have received dozens of respirators and medical supplies with a total value of more than 1.5 million euros. Montenegro received 20 sets of equipment for respirators, and the Netherlands helped transport protective equipment and medical supplies from China to Montenegro.

Also, in February 2021, Slovakia donated four ventilators to Northern Macedonia through EADRCC, and in October 2020, Slovakia provided assistance in the form of masks, hygiene products, blankets, tents and generators.

In Bosnia and Herzegovina, the NATO HQ command in Sarajevo donated various medical equipment to the hospital in Biha on January 27, 2021, and in Albania, for example, in December 2020, received donation of about 60 ventilators.

KFOR also helped in Kosovo during this period, as in the first months of the crisis it donated personal protective equipment worth over 70,000 euros to hospitals in Graanica and Pristina.

Nikola Luni, Executive Director of the Council of Strategic Policy (CfSP), explains for EWB that Serbia, as a partner country, had the right to use NATO assistance during the pandemic.

Some other countries, such as Moldova and Ukraine, have used their partnership status and the right to help. It was not about significant material help, but the donation came in the form of delivering ventilators, protective masks, clothes and other things needed to deal with the pandemic, says Luni.

He adds that NATO cooperates very closely with the United Nations in this area, so that Serbias membership in that part of the NATO mechanism is strategically very important in cases of emergency situations.

However, Serbia has been cooperating with NATO members on a bilateral basis. Thus, it is less known to the Serbian public that Turkey delivered masks, overalls and tests to Serbia and the countries of the region. Another NATO member, the Czech Republic, has worked closely with Serbia to develop mask filters under the Defense Education Enhancement Programme (DEEP).

As is the case with many things in the Western Balkans, politics has intervened again. That is how a dispute broke out in Northern Macedonia over who was the first to help during the pandemic, says Aleksandar Kralovski from the Macedonian Center for International Cooperation (MCIC) for EWB.

I remember that there was even an argument between the leading parties who provided the first shipments, then mostly masks, gloves and protective overalls for health workers, and since when they arrived from Slovenia and Hungary after phone calls from the president of the opposition party VMRO DPMNE with Jana and Orbn, while the Government (SDSM) presented it as help from NATO , says Krzalovski.

However, he notes that the aid to NATO was either used late or not used in full capacity.

Nikola Luni also points out that this topic is being politicized, and that the best example of that is certainly the fact that Serbia did not ask for help from NATO.

The fact that we did not use this opportunity only shows how politicized this topic is. It interferes with foreign policy and shows that donations from China and Russia are welcome to us, especially in the context of political capitalization at the domestic level, says Luni.

Unfortunately, NATO donations are not attractive to politicians, Luni said, adding that welcoming NATO aid at airports did not bring politicians rating, all in line with NATOs tabloidization in Serbia.

Although the procurement and management of the vaccination process can be praised, Luni believes that he is manipulating his geopolitical orientation, which is the reason why Serbia does not use all the mechanisms of available assistance.

The fact that Serbia has cooperated a lot with the EADRCC in recent years also supports Lunis statement. Thus, in 2018, in Serbia, EADRCC in cooperation with the Serbian Ministry of Internal Affairs, conducted the largest exercise in the field of managing the consequences of emergency situations.

Lunic also thinks that it would be useful for Serbia to delegate a Serbian citizen who would work and learn from NATO on crisis management and emergency situations.

The experience and knowledge gained can often be invaluable, as well as the diplomatic influence that we can project in that way. If it is in our national interest to participate in some NATO mechanisms through the Partnership for Peace program, then it is in our strategic interest to pay for such positions in order to gain the necessary knowledge and experience. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs should legally define that, Luni concludes.

The capacity of this civil protection organization is not negligible, so the interest of the citizens of the Western Balkans would be to achieve full cooperation in this area because what the past year has shown is that solidarity and cooperation are necessary to overcome this international crisis while intervening of politics can have a disastrous impact.

More here:
What assistance did NATO provide to the Western Balkans during the COVID-19 pandemic? - European Western Balkans

The February 17-18 meeting of NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) Defense Ministers, the first since U.S. President Joe Biden took power, revealed an antiquated, seventy-five-year-old alliance that, despite its military failures in Afghanistan and Libya, is now turning its military madness toward two more formidable, nuclear-armed enemies: Russia and China.

Bidens election has not changed Europeans views much from a previous survey in 2019, because they see Trumpism as a symptom of more deeply rooted and long-standing problems in American society.

This theme was emphasized by U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin in a Washington Post op-ed in advance of the NATO meeting, in which he insisted that aggressive and coercive behaviors from emboldened strategic competitors such as China and Russia reinforce our belief in collective security.

Using Russia and China to justify more Western military build-up is a key element in the alliances new Strategic Concept, called NATO 2030: United For a New Era, which is intended to define NATOs role in the world for the next ten years.

NATO was founded in 1949 by the United States and eleven other Western nations to confront the Soviet Union and the rise of communism in Europe. Since the end of the Cold War, it has grown to thirty countries, expanding to include most of Eastern Europe; it now has a long and persistent history of illegal war-making, civilian bombings, and other war crimes.

In 1999, NATO launched a war without United Nations approval to separate Kosovo from Serbia. Its illegal airstrikes during the Kosovo War killed hundreds of civilians, and its close ally, Kosovo President Hashim Thaci, is now on trial for shocking war crimes committed under cover of the NATO bombing campaign.

Far from the North Atlantic, NATO has fought alongside the United States in Afghanistan since 2001, and attacked Libya in 2011, leaving behind a failed state and triggering a massive refugee crisis.

The first phase of NATOs new Strategic Concept review is called the NATO 2030 Reflection Group report. That sounds encouraging, since NATO obviously and urgently needs to reflect on its bloody history. Why does an organization nominally dedicated to deterring war and preserving peace keep starting wars, killing thousands of people, and leaving countries around the world mired in violence, chaos, and poverty?

But unfortunately, this kind of introspection is not what NATO means by reflection. The Reflection Group instead applauds NATO as historys most successful military alliance, and seems to have taken a leaf from the Obama playbook by only looking forward, as it charges into a new decade of military confrontation with its blinders firmly in place.

NATOs role in the new Cold War is really a reversion to its old role in the original Cold War. This is instructive, as it unearths the ugly reasons why the United States decided to create NATO in the first place, and exposes them for a new generation of Americans and Europeans to examine in the context of todays world.

Any U.S. war with the Soviet Union or Russia was always going to put Europeans directly on the front lines as both combatants and mass-casualty victims. The primary function of NATO is to ensure that the people of Europe continue to play these assigned roles in Americas war plans.

As Michael Klare explains in a NATO Watch report on NATO 2030, every step the United States is taking with NATO is intended to integrate it into U.S. plans to fight and defeat China and Russia in all-out warfare.

The U.S. Armys plan for an invasion of Russia, euphemistically called The U.S. Army in Multi-Domain Operations, begins with missile and artillery bombardments of Russian command centers and defensive forces, followed by an invasion by armored forces to occupy key areas and sites until Russia surrenders.

Unsurprisingly, Russias defense strategy in the face of such an existential threat would not be to surrender, but to retaliate against the United States and its allies with nuclear weapons.

U.S. war plans for an assault on China are similar, involving missiles fired from ships and bases in the Pacific. China has not been as public about its defense plans, but if its existence and independence were threatened, it too would probably use nuclear weapons, as indeed the United States would if the positions were reversed. But theyre notsince no other country has the offensive war machine it would need to invade the United States.

Michael Klare concludes that NATO 2030 commits all alliance members to a costly, all-consuming military competition with Russia and China that will expose them to an ever-increasing risk of nuclear war.

So how do the European people feel about their role in Americas war plans? The European Council on Foreign Relations recently conducted an in-depth poll of 15,000 people in ten NATO countries and Sweden, and published the results in a report titled The Crisis of American Power: How Europeans See Bidens America.

The report reveals that a large majority of Europeans want no part in a U.S. war with Russia or China and want to remain neutral. Only 22 percent would support taking the U.S. side in a war with China, 23 percent in a war with Russia. So European public opinion is squarely at odds with NATOs role in Americas war plans.

On transatlantic relations in general, majorities in most European countries see the U.S. political system as broken and their own countries politics as in healthier shape. Fifty-nine percent of Europeans believe that China will be more powerful than the United States within a decade, and most see Germany as a more important partner and international leader than the United States.

Only 17 percent of Europeans want closer economic ties with the United States, while even fewer, 10 percent of French and Germans, think their countries need the United States help with their national defense.

The report also found that Bidens election has not changed Europeans views much from a previous survey in 2019, because they see Trumpism as a symptom of more deeply rooted and long-standing problems in American society. As the writers conclude, A majority of Europeans doubt that Biden can put Humpty Dumpty back together again.

Among Europeans, there is strong pushback against NATOs demand that members should spend 2 percent of their gross domestic products on defense, an arbitrary goal that only ten of the thirty members have met. Ironically, some states will reach the NATO target without raising their military spending because COVID-19 has shrunk their GDPs, but NATO members struggling economically are unlikely to prioritize military spending.

The schism between NATOs hostility and Europes economic interests runs deeper than just military spending. While the United States and NATO see Russia and China primarily as threats, European businesses view them as key partners. In 2020, China supplanted the United States as the European Unions number one trading partner and at the close of 2020, the EU concluded a comprehensive investment agreement with China, despite U.S. concerns.

European countries also have their own economic relations with Russia. Germany remains committed to the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, a 746-mile natural gas artery that runs from northern Russia to Germanyeven as the Biden Administration calls it a bad deal and claims that it makes Europe vulnerable to Russian treachery.

NATO seems oblivious to the changing dynamics of todays world, as if its living on a different planet. Its one-sided Reflection Group report cites Russias violation of international law in Crimea as a principal cause of deteriorating relations with the West, and insists that Russia must return to full compliance with international law. But it ignores the United States and NATOs far more numerous violations of international law and leading roles in the tensions fueling the renewed Cold War, which include:

NATOs failure to seriously examine its own role in what it euphemistically calls uncertain times should therefore be more alarming to Americans and Europeans than its one-sided criticisms of Russia and China, whose contributions to the uncertainty of our times pale by comparison.

The short-sighted preservation and expansion of NATO for a whole generation after the dissolution of the U.S.S.R and the end of the Cold War has tragically set the stage for the renewal of those hostilities or maybe even made their revival inevitable.

NATOs Reflection Group justifies and promotes the United States and NATOs renewed Cold War by filling its report with dangerously one-sided threat analysis. A more honest and balanced review of the dangers facing the world and NATOs role in them would lead to a much simpler plan for NATOs future: that it should be dissolved and dismantled as quickly as possible.

More here:
Why NATO Needs to Go - Progressive.org - Progressive.org

Faster than some would have suspected, drones are changing the way wars are fought and history is written. Ever since the U.S. launched the first armed drone strike in 2001, these machines have been a constant presence on the battlefields across the world, and things will probably get even more intense.

AGS is made up of five aircraft, plus the supporting ground facilities and sensors. It will operate from the Sigonella Air Base in Italy, and it will be tasked with deploying drones in support of ground troops and civilian populations, border control, crisis management and humanitarian assistance.

NATO AGS will help the Alliance with persistent regional defense and deterrence, said in a statement Jane Bishop, vice president and general manager, autonomous systems, Northrop Grumman.

The commitment of the entire AGS team partnership both government and industry has shown incredible dedication, working across cultures, time zones and languages, all aiming toward one goal providing the Alliance with this critical capability.

The RQ-4D Phoenix Global Hawk first flew in 1998. It is powered by a Rolls-Royce turbofan engine that can take it to speed of 357 mph (575 kph). The thing can go for extreme distances in a single outing, as its range is rated at 10,112 miles (16,113 km), being capable of staying in the air 32 hours at a time.

Because it is a surveillance aircraft, it lacks strike capabilities, but can aid other military hardware by helping with targeting.

See the article here:
RQ-4D Phoenix Global Hawk Drones Now Part of the NATO AGS Force - autoevolution

Ukraine plans to strengthen cooperation with the NATO Trust Fund for the medical rehabilitation of military personnel, the Ministry of Social Policy press service said.

"On March 1, 2021, under the chairmanship of Deputy Minister of Social Policy Vitaliy Muzychenko, a regular meeting of the Coordinating Council of the NATO Trust Fund on physical rehabilitation (prosthetics) of servicemen wounded in the anti-terrorist operation was held," the ministry said in the statement.

The ministry's press service said that the task of the project is to rehabilitate seriously wounded active military personnel, participants in hostilities in the ATO/JFO area in order to ensure that they can continue their military service.

It is noted that the members of the NATO Trust Fund supported this initiative and decided to prepare preliminary lists of servicemen in need of rehabilitation for assessment by Dutch specialists.

It is also said that the meeting discussed the prospects for the implementation of new initiatives of this project for the period 2021-2022.

In particular, ten new initiatives were supported from the Ministry of Social Policy, the Ministry for Veterans Affairs, the Ministry of Defense, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the National Guard, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Education and Science, as well as the Plenipotentiary of the President of Ukraine for the rehabilitation of combatants. These initiatives include: extension of the project implementation period, professional training and education of specialists in prosthetics and orthotics in Ukraine, as a result of which specialists will be trained on the basis of the Ukrainian Research Institute of Prosthetics, Prosthetics and Rehabilitation of Kharkiv National University of Radio Electronics in cooperation with the German educational school P&O Human Study in accordance with the internationally recognized ISPO Category AI standards, which will be able to produce prosthetic products using the latest technologies; procurement of medical equipment for institutions for the treatment (rehabilitation) of veterans subordinate to the Ministry of Defense, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Ministry of Veteran Affairs, the Ministry of Health; professional training (advanced training) and exchange of experience of medical personnel.

Originally posted here:
Ukraine to strengthen cooperation with NATO's medical rehabilitation Trust Fund - Interfax Ukraine