Monthly Archives: February 2022

Nowhere is the credibility of the United States and its allies at greater risk than in the Baltic Sea region. NATOs Article 5 pledges the alliance to defend its members. Doing that for the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuaniathree thinly populated states squeezed between Russia, Belarus, and the Baltic Seais hard. Years of cost-cutting, timidity, and wishful thinking by NATO governments make it harder.

As the Russian military buildup around Ukraine raises fears of a broader East-West security crisis, NATO allies are hastening to bolster the Baltic states defenses while non-NATO members Sweden and Finland are tightening their ties with the alliance. In late January, U.S. Air Force F-15 fighters arrived in Estonia as part of a wide-ranging reassurance effort. At bases elsewhere in Europe and the United States, 8,500 U.S. military personnel are on heightened alert, ready to deploy to the region as part of NATOs 40,000-strong Response Force.

These moves, though desirable, are belated and insufficient. Regional security in the Baltic Sea has been a problem for much longer than the current standoff with Russia. Solving this requires more than a one-off, reactive deployment. With Ben Hodges, a former U.S. Army commander in Europe and now my colleague at the Center for European Policy Analysis, I have spent the past year deep in the weeds, looking at the problems of Baltic Sea regional security and how to fix them.

Nowhere is the credibility of the United States and its allies at greater risk than in the Baltic Sea region. NATOs Article 5 pledges the alliance to defend its members. Doing that for the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuaniathree thinly populated states squeezed between Russia, Belarus, and the Baltic Seais hard. Years of cost-cutting, timidity, and wishful thinking by NATO governments make it harder.

As the Russian military buildup around Ukraine raises fears of a broader East-West security crisis, NATO allies are hastening to bolster the Baltic states defenses while non-NATO members Sweden and Finland are tightening their ties with the alliance. In late January, U.S. Air Force F-15 fighters arrived in Estonia as part of a wide-ranging reassurance effort. At bases elsewhere in Europe and the United States, 8,500 U.S. military personnel are on heightened alert, ready to deploy to the region as part of NATOs 40,000-strong Response Force.

These moves, though desirable, are belated and insufficient. Regional security in the Baltic Sea has been a problem for much longer than the current standoff with Russia. Solving this requires more than a one-off, reactive deployment. With Ben Hodges, a former U.S. Army commander in Europe and now my colleague at the Center for European Policy Analysis, I have spent the past year deep in the weeds, looking at the problems of Baltic Sea regional security and how to fix them.

On the surface, everything looks fine. NATO allies have stationed so-called enhanced forward presence tripwire forces, roughly 1,000 troops strong, in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. These units obviously cannot withstand a Russian assault; they are there to make sure the Kremlin knows an attack on the Baltic states would also be an attack on other NATO members. In nearby Poland, the United States has a more substantial presence of 5,000 service members. The Baltic states and Poland play their part too: Their defense budgets exceed the minimum 2 percent of GDP mandated by NATO. These funds are spent wisely, including on modern weaponry that could at least slow, and thus help deter, a Russian attack.

Across the Baltic Sea, Sweden and Finland have also been boosting their spending. These two non-NATO countries have close military ties with each other as well as NATO. Neighboring Norway, though not a littoral state, is closely involved in Baltic Sea security through its logistical, intelligence, and military aviation capabilities. Denmark has upended its previous defense posture, which discounted any need for territorial and regional defense. Combined, Poland plus the Nordic countries and three Baltic states have a greater GDP than Russias. Their combined defense spending is around half of Russiasbut the Kremlin has global ambitions, such as space weapons, a blue-water navy, and a strategic nuclear arsenal.

The black hole in the regions security is Germany. Its size and location would add crucial heft, but the other countries around the Baltic Sea are privately mistrustful of decision-makers in Berlin. Germany has backed the two Nord Stream natural gas pipelines along the Baltic seabed. Other countries in the region see them as a grave threat, entrenching the Kremlins dominance of the regions energy supply. (In a countermove, Poland has just built a pipeline to Norway to secure another source of gas.) In the event of a Russian provocation, would Germany back deterrence or call for dialog and compromise? Germanys shilly-shallying over Ukraine, which included banning Estonia from donating some much-needed howitzers to the beleaguered Ukrainians, have intensified doubts. Last week, Latvian Defense Minister Artis Pabriks described Germanys approach as immoral and hypocritical.

Many think that NATOs presence in the region has gone far enough already. Russian President Vladimir Putin has demanded NATO withdraw all outside forces from the region and commit to Sweden and Finland never being allowed to join.

Yet below the surface, the regions defense and security arrangements, far from threatening Russia, look troublingly flimsy. In our Center for European Policy Analysis report, we identified more than a dozen serious problems. It starts with the Wests attitude to Russia. Politicians and decision-makers in the region still have radically different threat assessments. The Baltic states have been sounding the alarm since the 1990s. Other countries are much later to the party and more cautious in what they sayand thats before you get to the huge problem of Germany.

These differing threat assessments and political approaches are obstacles to everything else. Intelligence collection and sharing are hampered by the gulf between NATO and non-NATO members. Washington jealously guards its best intelligencefor example, anything involving Russian submarines. Even within NATO, there are inner and outer circles. For example, there is the British-U.S. intelligence-sharing agreement, which also includes the other so-called Five Eyes: Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Military mobilitythe vital business of moving large numbers of troops and equipmentis patchy too. There is no common maritime strategy, though control of the Baltic Sea in a crisis will determine what happens on land. Systems to defend ground targets against air and missile attacks are costly. No country in the region has enough of these defensive systems, and some have none. NATOs small air policing deploymenttypically just four warplanes based in Estonia or Lithuaniais there to deal with peacetime problems, such as airspace intrusions, not to fight off the Russian Air Force.

The command structure is like a bowl of spaghetti. Each country guards its national decision-making jealously. Although the Baltic states are one small operational area in military terms, they have three national headquarters, each commanding pint-sized forces. NATO has two divisional and one corps headquarters, with Estonian and Latvian forces under a Danish headquarters that is based partly in Denmark and partly based in Latvia. The two other headquarters are in Poland. Further up the hierarchy, NATOs main land forces headquarters is in the Netherlandsbut splits taking charge on a six-month rotating basis with its naval counterpart in Naples, Italy. Behind all that is the regional U.S. headquarters in Poland and its main headquarters for Europe in Virginia. Somewhere else are the Brits with their Joint Expeditionary Forcea 10-nation military framework for rapid deploymentand the Germany-based Joint Support and Enabling Command, which is meant to ensure that the right forces are in the right place at the right time. Confused yet? And I havent even mentioned the five-nation Nordic Defence Cooperation framework, the French-led European Intervention Initiative, and, of course, the European Unions own nascent defense efforts: battle groups that mainly exist on paper.

The assumption is that in a crisis, this spaghetti will spontaneously straighten under the pressure of events and thanks to U.S. leadership. It would be good to test that assumption with realistic, hard exercises where decision-makers can practice surmounting the bureaucratic and physical obstacles hampering effectiveness in real time. Current exercises in the region are too small, too well scripted, and too devoid of complexity. Planners are given many months to ensure that everything goes smoothly. All too often, the highlight is a distinguished visitor day closer to a theatrical performance than a training event, where participants identify problems by experiencing them.

NATO exercises used to be different: harder, bigger, and costlier. In Cold War West Germany, for example, British and U.S. tanks would thunder across farmland, crushing hedges and ruining crops. A jeep would follow behind with an officer bearing cash and checks to compensate farmers for their losses. Road closures were common, as were bouts of deafening nighttime noise. Such inconveniences and costs are the price of securityand of freedom. Nowadays, civilian life takes precedence. That reflects a much deeper issue: Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, NATO has been an organization designed for peace, not war. That was a defensibleif optimisticassumption in the 1990s. It is dangerously outdated now.

All of these issues involving NATO and the Baltic littoral states are coming to a head in the current standoff with Russia. Putins proposed veto on enlarging NATO any further directly infringes on the sovereignty and security of Finland and Sweden, which have for years maintained that though they do not wish to join the alliance right now, they have the right to apply should they choose to. Russias growing military presence in Belarus highlights the vulnerability of the Suwalki corridor, the thin neck of land connecting the Baltic states and Poland. Putins threat to respond to NATO with military-technical measures could easily involve the deployment of medium-range missiles, perhaps even nuclear-armed weapons, in Russias Kaliningrad exclave. Russian cyberattacks and sub-threshold warfare are already evident; Sweden, for example, is worried by mysterious drone flights.

How can NATOs problems in the Baltic region be fixed? One of the easier steps would be to align the regions security objectives by compiling and publishing a common threat assessment. An unclassified version would boost public awareness. The classified version would form the basis for military planning, exercises, and budgeting. For more than 20 years, Estonias counterintelligence service has published a hard-hitting annual report about Russian subversion and other threats. Although this may give the Kremlin clues about sources, methods, and targeting, the benefits in terms of deterrence, political will, and societal resilience are much greater.

This highlights our next recommendation: fostering a public security culture that increases not only military resistance but also economic, social, and political resilience. Finland is the standout example of this, with military conscription, extensive training for civilian decision-makers, counter-disinformation training in schools, and regular exercises.

The tripwire forces in the Baltic states are currently hostagesa reminder to the Kremlin that an attack on what Russian hard-liners regard as renegade provinces would also mean tangling with Britain, France, and Germany. These deployments need to be on a war-fighting footing. It is therefore time to plug the gaping holes in air and missile defense as well as intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities. Some of these are expensive, and the countries that need them most cannot afford them. Rich countries that are farther from the front line should pay to have them where they matter most. Proper intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilitieswhich combine drone, sensor, and satellite capabilities with modern computing powercreate an unblinking eye that can look deep inside Russia, identifying what Kremlin forces are doing long before a crisis actually develops. Rewriting the rules on data-sharing with non-NATO members Sweden and Finland would maximize the usefulness of these insights.

NATO needs to change too, writing a new strategic conceptin essence, the alliances manifestoto more clearly stress defense against and deterrence of a Russian attack in the region. The European Unions fumbling efforts to codify its approach to common security and defense policy need clear language on military preparedness and its willingness to use force in response to aggression.

Decision-making needs streamlining. It is the United States that makes the NATO security guarantee fully credible. It therefore makes sense for the senior U.S. officer on the continentthe Supreme Allied Commander Europe, known as SACEURto have the political preauthorization they need to issue orders in circumstances short of war. By the time the North Atlantic Council, NATOs political body, has met, been briefed, deliberated, ironed out potentially dissenting views from countries such as Hungary, and reached a decision, it could be too late. A lightning attack by Russian forces, likely following a period of intense, artificially created confusion, could reach the Baltic Sea or cut the Suwalki corridor in a matter of hours.

Above all, NATO needs exercises. The best way to increase the internal and external credibility of defense is to practice using difficult scenarios in real time. These must include surprises, disruptions, escalations, and hard decision-making, with advanced technology at the forefront. A good result of these exercises would be if they produced numerous embarrassments. For example, a Polish exercise last year, despite making generous assumptions about their access to advanced weaponry, ended with Polish forces being slaughtered in five days and the Russians poised to take Warsaw.

That caused a furor in Polandbut the brickbats should have been bouquets. Nobody in Polandor, for that matter, anyone else involved in the regions securitywould claim privately that defenses against Russia are adequate. For everyone living around the Baltic Sea, it will be better to find their shortcomings early and fix them than to wait until the enemy is at the gates.

Read the original post:
NATO Is Dangerously Exposed in the Baltic - Foreign Policy

In the current tense climate, Russian President Vladimir Putin knows that he has true friends in the European Union. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbn is certainly one. On February 1, he turned up in Moscow for talks with the Russian leader, as the threat of an invasion by some 100,000 Russian troops and heavy weaponry hung over Ukraine.

The official reason for his visit was to negotiate additional volumes of natural gas, following the signing of a 15-year supply agreement with Gazprom back in September last year. The Hungarian prime minister has brushed off criticism of the trip by the opposition and insisted that he was pursing the countrys economic interests and the cause of peace.

Orbn may appear to be breaking ranks with NATO and the EU in the hope of capitalising on his special ties to the Kremlin and there may be others in Eastern Europe that are careful not to displease Moscow. But that does not necessarily mean there is weakness in the alliances Eastern flank. If anything, the ongoing regional developments demonstrate the value of NATO membership to Central and Eastern European states, including Hungary.

For one, there is no support for Moscows demand that NATO move out its troops and military assets from the region, including in Hungary. In fact, according to media reports, the Hungarian defence ministry is currently negotiating the deployment of NATO forces in the country, in response to the crisis in Ukraine.

In the rest of Central Europe, Orbns political games do not seem to have resonance. The Polish government of the Law and Justice Party, which often joins its Hungarian counterpart in challenging the EU, has been one of the most vociferous advocates of a robust NATO response to Russias brinkmanship in Ukraine, going as far as criticising Germanys reluctance to supply arms to Ukraine.

On February 1, as Orbn was heading to Moscow, Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki landed in Kyiv where he promised military assistance to Ukrainians.

Romania, another country where there is no love lost for Russia, has also stood firmly in support of a strong NATO response to Russian threats. President Klaus Iohannis was calling for more American boots on the ground well before the current crisis started heating up and applaudedUS President Joe Bidens recent announcement that 8,500 US troops would be put on alert for a possible deployment along the Eastern flank.

In the three Baltic states Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia Russia is also unequivocally seen as a major threat, especially after its 2014 annexation of Crimea. For this reason, since 2016, they have been eagerly hosting a multinational NATO force an initiative known in the military diplomatic lingo as forward presence.

Still, Orbn is not alone. There are other governments in the region which are loathe to pick fights with Putin. On January 25, Croatian President Zoran Milanovi threw a bombshell with his declaration that Zagreb will not participate in a NATO military operation in Ukraine (as if one was in the works), calling it one of the most corrupt countries in the world. Prime Minister Andrej Plenkovi had to dispel the ensuing confusion with a public statement and issue an apology to the Ukrainian people.

Bulgaria is another example. In recent days, Bulgarian Defence Minister Stefan Yanev has gone out of his way to make statements against NATO deployments in the Black Sea country. In a TV interview, Yanev declared that in case of an escalation in Ukraine, Bulgaria would be protected by Bulgarian forces under Bulgarian command.

Of course, such pronouncements are only halfway sincere. For one, military bases in Bulgaria, as well as in neighbouring Romania, already host US troops for training and force projection purposes, as part of a military cooperation agreement signed with the US in 2006. And as in the Baltics, NATO allies also carry out air policing in Bulgaria. In fact, on January 21, the Dutch defence ministry announced it would send F-35 fighter jets to beef up the mission. In other words, NATO is already present militarily in Bulgaria which it sees as a front-line state.

Regardless of public pronouncements and political games of some politicians from NATOs Eastern members, the ongoing standoff around Ukraine has proven to Central and Eastern Europeans the value of NATO membership. Had it not been for the security guarantees extended by the US and its allies, the countries of the former Warsaw Pact could have faced the same predicament as Kyiv. At the minimum, they would have been more vulnerable to what scholar Mark Galeotti describes as the Kremlins heavy metal diplomacy the use of military threats to coerce neighbouring governments into making concessions.

That applies as much to the hawks in Poland, Romania and the Baltic countries as it does to the doves in Budapest and Sofia. Orbn will no doubt continue to play his complex game, trying to win favours from the Russians, but he will do so from the security of being within NATO as well as the EU. The Bulgarian cabinet may take extra care not to provoke Russia but, in the end, it still depends on the extra layer of protection the Atlantic Alliance offers for its national security.

When the chips are down, all Central and Eastern European countries will go along with the Western response to Russia, whether it is tougher sanctions or additional troop deployments on NATOs borders. Some in the region might have second thoughts about it, complain in public, or keep their head down out of fear from Russian reprisals, but the direction of travel is clear.

The views expressed in this article are the authors own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeeras editorial stance.

See original here:
Is there a weakness in NATOs Eastern flank? - Al Jazeera English

LONDON British lawmakers will be asked to consider legislation this week that would let ministers impose a wider range of sanctions against Russia should it move against Ukraine, the British foreign secretary said Sunday.

The foreign secretary, Liz Truss, outlined the plan in an interview with the broadcaster Sky News, presenting it as part of a broad range of efforts to deter further aggression from President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia. Britain is already supplying defensive weapons to Ukraine and has offered to increase its troop deployments elsewhere in Eastern Europe.

Also on Sunday, Russias foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, said that Russia would seek clarity from NATO on its intentions days after the United States and its allies delivered a formal rejection to Moscows demands that NATO retreat from Eastern Europe and bar Ukraine from joining the alliance.

Mr. Lavrovs comments in an interview with Russias main government television channel suggested that while Moscow is displeased as expected with the Western response, there may still be a flicker of hope for further diplomacy.

But if diplomacy fails, Ms. Truss said, the British legislation will give the country more punitive options, so there will be nowhere to hide for oligarchs or any company of interest to the Kremlin and the regime in Russia. Britain has long been a financial hub for Russias wealthy and well connected, with one British parliamentary report describing London as a laundromat for illicit Russian money.

While the British Parliament typically takes weeks or months to pass a bill, emergency procedures allow it to legislate in as little as a day under some circumstances.

Ms. Truss said Britain would rule nothing out and would look at every option to support Ukraine, as the British government and its allies pursue diplomacy at the same time as developing economically punitive measures that might persuade Mr. Putin not to invade.

Were doing all we can through deterrence and diplomacy to urge him to desist, Ms. Truss, who plans to meet with Ukraines president and the Russian foreign minister in the next two weeks, told the BBC.

Biden administration officials reiterated on Sunday that the United States believes a Russian invasion is imminent, even if Ukraine has been trying to play down the crisis.

We have been nothing but clear and transparent about our concerns here at the Pentagon over the rapid buildup for the last few months around the border with Ukraine and in Belarus, the Pentagons press secretary, John F. Kirby, said on Fox News Sunday.

Feb. 3, 2022, 12:25 p.m. ET

On CNNs State of the Union, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Bob Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, made a joint appearance with the panels top Republican, Senator Jim Risch of Idaho. Mr. Menendez said there was an incredibly strong bipartisan resolve to have severe consequences for Russia if it invades Ukraine, and in some cases for what it has already done.

Mr. Menendez said that legislation under discussion was expected to include massive sanctions against the most significant Russian banks: crippling to their economy, meaningful in terms of consequences to the average Russian and their accounts and pensions.

Sanctions, though, were not Mr. Lavrovs focus on Sunday NATO was.

He said an official request was sent Sunday to both NATO and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, an alliance that includes Russia. Mr. Lavrov described it as an urgent demand to explain how they intend to fulfill their obligation not to strengthen their security at the expense of the security of others.

If they do not intend to, then they must explain why, Mr. Lavrov said, adding that this will be the key question in determining our further proposals, which we will report to Russias president.

The Kremlin has been highly critical of NATOs so-called open-door policy of granting membership to former Communist bloc countries without taking Russias security concerns into account. In his remarks, Mr. Lavrov reiterated a frequent Kremlin complaint that NATO, in the years since the Soviet collapse, had crept ever closer to Russias border.

Now theyve come up to Ukraine, and they want to drag that country in, Mr. Lavrov said. Though everyone understands that Ukraine is not ready and will make no contribution to strengthening NATO security.

Ominous warnings. Russia called the strike a destabilizing act that violated the cease-fire agreement, raising fears of a new intervention in Ukraine that could draw the United States and Europe into a new phase of the conflict.

The Kremlins position. President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, who has increasingly portrayed NATOs eastward expansion as an existential threat to his country, said that Moscows military buildupwas a response to Ukraines deepening partnership with the alliance.

As the temperature stayed high between most of the West and Russia, one bit of statesmanship did apparently succeed. Russia backed out of a plan to conduct naval exercises next week in international waters off Irelands coast, which had drawn protests from Irish fishing groups and the Irish government.

The drills were set to take place 150 miles off Irelands southwest coast, outside its territorial waters but within Irelands exclusive economic zone, an area where the country has sovereign rights over marine resources.

Fishing groups raised concerns that the activity could disrupt marine life and jeopardize an important region for their trade. One organization had planned to peacefully protest the exercises.

Irelands foreign minister, Simon Coveney, described the proposed drills in an interview last week with the Irish public broadcaster RTE as simply not welcome and not wanted right now.

While acknowledging that Russias plans did not breach the international law of the sea, he said in a statement that his department had raised several concerns with Russian authorities in light of the current political and security environment in Europe.

Moscow then decided to relocate the exercises outside of the Irish exclusive economic zone as a gesture of good will, the Russian ambassador to Ireland, Yuriy Filatov, said in a statement released on Saturday.

Mr. Coveney said on Twitter that he welcomed Russias response.

Emily Cochrane and Helene Cooper contributed reporting from Washington, and Michael Schwirtz from Kyiv, Ukraine.

Here is the original post:
Britain Toughens Stance on Russia, as Russia Presses NATO for Assurances - The New York Times

Make no mistake, Russias fundamental strategic objective in coercing Ukraine is to undermine NATO. In Russian President Vladimir PutinVladimir Vladimirovich PutinRussia crisis exacerbates US political divisions Americans should be paying attention to Ukraine White House says it's nixing use of 'imminent' to describe Russian invasion MOREs mind, a weaker NATO directly correlates with a stronger Russia. Long-festering policy differences within the alliance, self-inflicted vulnerabilities to external pressures and weak political leadership in key Western states are already on full display. Ponderous rhetoric about NATO solidarity, endlessly repeated by the Biden administration, only underscores rather than conceals these problems.

Putin well understands these phenomena. He is actively seeking to exacerbate existing tensions and weaknesses, and create new ones, and has already made significant progress in undercutting the alliance. Today, these divisions eviscerate the credibility of threatened post-invasion sanctions against Russia, no matter how serious the West might be. If Russia remains undeterred, the long-term damage to Americas global position, compounding the corrosive effects of the Afghan withdrawal, could be incalculable.

NATOs problems are hardly new. Not for nothing was Henry Kissingers pathbreaking mid-1960s analysis entitled The Troubled Partnership. Nonetheless, the undeniable Soviet Cold War threat; Americas sustained, vitally important perception that ensuring Europes security enhanced its own; and U.S. leaders like Ronald Reagan, determined to defeat communism not merely manage or contain it, ultimately prevailed. NATO members collective-defense commitments held, and the USSR collapsed. The story becomes vaguer from there, with upticks after 9-11 and during the ensuing war on Islamicist terrorism.

During the 1990s generally-shared Western euphoria (remember the end of history?), NATOs expansion was both inevitable and beneficial to all involved. But Washington failed to think through how far NATO should grow. There was talk of possibly including Russia at some point, although that opportunity, not nurtured seriously during the Clinton administration, died through inattention. Spains former Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar proposed making NATO a global alliance, including members such as Japan, Australia and Israel, but Europes burghers were uninterested.

Unfortunately, and critical here, NATOs eastern European flank was left unfinished, with many former Soviet republics isolated in an ambiguous, clearly dangerous grey zone between NATO and Russia. In 2008, with bipartisan support, President George W. Bush proposed fast-tracking NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia. Germany and France blocked the move, and now assert tautologically that not being NATO members means they are of no special concern to the alliance. Contemporary criticisms that Ukraine is not ready for NATO membership because of corruption and an unsteady democracy overlook Bushs prior initiative. They also conveniently ignore that eastern and central European states admitted after the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union collapsed were hardly clones of Luxembourg or Canada.

But who determines the strategic status of the grey-zone countries? Ukraine exemplifies this issue, struggling to shed its communist past and create durable representative government. While key national territory has already been annexed or subjugated by Moscow, Ukrainians nonetheless still believe they should decide their international future. Russia believes it should decide, and many Europeans and Americans seemingly agree: Russia is powerful, borders Ukraine and there are historic antecedents. Perhaps we should ask Chinas neighbors how they feel about that logic. Not long ago, we could have asked that question of Germanys neighbors.

Undeniably, Ukraine is now under brutal pressure, including the palpable risk of further Russian military invasion. In response, President BidenJoe BidenOath Keepers leader spoke to Jan. 6 panel from detention center Biden nominee faces scrutiny over fintech work, compensation Overnight Defense & National Security Pentagon deploying 3,000 troops to Europe MORE has not solidified the alliance. He has in fact increased its divisions through his soon-to-be-historical banter about minor incursions, desperate efforts to concede something to Moscow to halt the march toward military hostilities and public disagreement with Ukraine itself on the imminence of a Russian attack. Observers watch daily for more signs of Biden going wobbly.

Europes reaction is mixed. Despite domestic political turmoil, Great Britain has been firm, even ahead of the U.S. by some measures. Eastern and central European NATO members need no lectures on the Kremlins threat, and they are wholly resolute, notwithstanding reliance on Russian natural gas. More distant NATO countries are less visible, but at least not obstructionist. France is being France, with President Emmanuel MacronEmmanuel Jean-Michel MacronGermany's chancellor says he will not be at Beijing Olympics Americans should be paying attention to Ukraine Merkley slams 'shameful' decision by UN secretary-general to attend Beijing Olympics MORE, facing a difficult reelection race, pirouetting around the international stage searching for attention.

Then theres Germany. Basing its reluctance to do much of anything on its recent history, Berlin has it exactly backwards. Precisely this history should impel Germans to be the most steadfast and resolute opponent of efforts to change European borders by politico-military aggression. Of all European countries, Germany owes this to its neighbors, in concrete deeds not just words. Instead, it has been passive at best, and frequently unhelpful. This is NATOs core weakness, and Putin is pounding on it for all he is worth.

Germany led Europe in ignoring Reagans 1980s admonitions not to become dependent on Russian oil and gas. Incredibly, Russias Gazprom hired former Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder to help complete the first Nordstream pipeline, begun during his tenure. Schroeders successors effectively did nothing to mitigate Germanys vulnerability and now act as if terminating Nordstream II is unthinkable. Maybe the devil made them do it.

Germany has not come within sight of meeting NATOs 2014 Cardiff agreement that members spend 2 percent of GDP on defense. It has long refused to provide Ukraine with lethal military aid, and recently barred Estonia from sending German-origin weapons to Kyiv. Berlins offers to send 5,000 military helmets and a field hospital were greeted with well-deserved mockery and incredulity. To top it off, the commander of Germanys navy was recently fired for all but supporting Russias position.

Newly-installed Chancellor Olaf Scholz will meet Biden in Washington on Feb 7. They have a lot to talk about. Germany was delighted to shelter under Cold War Americas nuclear umbrella and NATOs European fastnesses. We will soon see if Germany is ready to do the right thing by Ukraine. Putin is watching closely.

John Boltonwas national security adviser toPresident TrumpDonald TrumpConservative leader O'Toole ousted in Canada Biden nominee faces scrutiny over fintech work, compensation Overnight Defense & National Security Pentagon deploying 3,000 troops to Europe MOREfrom 2018 to 2019, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations from 2005 to 2006 and held senior State Department posts in 2001-2005 and 1985-1989. His most recent book isThe Room Where It Happened"(2020). He is the founder ofJohn BoltonJohn BoltonPutin's effort to split NATO may depend on Germany Belarus is risking its independence for a Russia-centric foreign policy Former Trump officials plotting effort to blunt his impact on elections: report MORE Super PAC, a political action committee supporting candidates who believe in a strong U.S. foreign policy.

Read more:
Putin's effort to split NATO may depend on Germany | TheHill - The Hill

BEIJING, February 3. /TASS/. Beijing recognizes and supports Moscows position in negotiations with Washington and NATO on security issues, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said on Thursday at a meeting with his Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov.

"The Russian side reported on the latest developments in relations with the US and NATO, stressing the principled stance that security is indivisible. China expresses its understanding and support for this," said the Chinese top diplomat.

On December 17, 2021, the Russian Foreign Ministry published drafts of a treaty with the United States on security guarantees and also an agreement on measures of ensuring the security of Russia and the NATO member states. Consultations on these issues were held in Geneva on January 10. On January 12, the Russia-NATO Council met in session in Brussels and on January 13 there was a session of the OSCE Permanent Council in Vienna.

Russia is looking forward to a prompt response to Lavrov's written message on the indivisibility of security, which was submitted to the top diplomats of Canada, the US and several European countries on January 28.

More:
Beijing supports Moscow in negotiations with US, NATO on security foreign ministry - TASS

Russia military aviation flew out from the Barents Sea this morning, says Stine B. Gaasland, spokesperson with the Norwegian Air Force.

They operated north of Finnmark and were as usual met by our Norwegian F-35s on NATO QRA, Gaasland says to the Barents Observer.

Several of the Russian planes were also identified by a Norwegian P-3 Orion surveillance aircraft that was on a Barents Sea mission Thursday morning.

The Norwegian pilots took images of the Russian submarine hunter as it was refueling the tanks before flying further west and south.

Gaasland says that of the planes, two long-range Tu-142 aircraft, continued out of the Barents Sea area to the Norwegian Sea and flew south. The Tu-142 is a maritime surveillance aircraft aimed at finding enemy submarines.

According to British media, Typhoon fighter jets on Quick Reaction Alert (QRA) from Lossiemouth airbase were scrambled to meet the two Russian planes approaching UK area of interest.

This is the second day in a row that several Russian military planes flew out to international airspace northwest of the Kola Peninsula and continued over the Barents Sea with some of them flying all south to the North Sea region.

On Wednesday, February 2, four long-range aircraft, two Tu-142 sub-hunters and two Tu-95 bombers, were identified by Norwegian and British fighter jets scrambled by NATO.

A nations sovereign airspace extends 12 nautical miles beyond its coastline over the territorial waters. Although, Russia has never since the breakup of the Soviet Union violated Norwegian airspace, there are several reasons for scrambling fighter jets when a radar station sees unidentified foreign planes approaching.

Per Erik Solli is a former F-16 pilot at Bod Air Station and now senior advisor with Nord University. He explains why NATO fighter jets maintain alert readiness at all hours.

The response time is 15 minutes from a scramble order is given to the fighter aircraft are airborne, he says to the Barents Observer.

Time is essential Solliunderlines.

If the flight time to the intercept somewhere outside northern Norway is 20 minutes, a Russian aircraft flying at 450 knots has flown260 nautical miles from the scramble order is given to the Norwegian fighter aircraft appearing on their side.

Waiting until a hostile aircraft has entered sovereign airspace before sending the fighter jets up in the air could be too late. Therefore, intercepts of military aircraft in international airspace in peacetime is normal and ordinary activity.

Solli says this is a normal procedure also for the Russians.

Russian fighter aircraft regularly intercept Norwegian or Allied military surveillance aircraft in the Barents Sea in international airspace far from the Russian border, he explains.

When piloting the F-16s, Per Erik Solli many times met Russian pilots in the skies over the Barents- and Norwegian Seas.

Everyone is professional and courteous and it is quite common to greet each other with a hand wave.

Solli says there were even times withfriendly humor from cockpit to cockpit.

The Russian aircrew sometimes showed us what type of magazines they were reading. When we intercepted Russian intelligence aircraft who listen in on our military radio frequencies, they sometimes used to hold up a sign in the window with the letters and numbers in our flight callsign. The gesture was a display of friendly humor among aviators.

Per Erik Solli says todayslevel of activity is about 20% of the level we experienced in the Cold War.

Norways Air Force routinely identifies Russian aircraft approaching from the north. In 2021, F-16s from Bod were scrambled 34 times and identified 58 Russian military planesoutside Norwegian air space.

The first Norwegian F-35s to meet Russian military planes are the ones that are on Quick Reaction Alert (QRA) for NATO fromEvenes air base above the Arctic Circle. Further south, F-35s from rland air station take over. If the military planes continue south over the North Sea, like today and yesterday, the mission is handed over to British fighter jets in airspace ensuring they are continually shadowed.

British Air Traffic Control has previously saidRussias long-range military aviationis posing ahazard to civilian air trafficas they fly with transponders turned off making it difficult for other planes to know their positions.

Most commercial flights from the Middle East and northern Europe have routes in the skies above the North Sea and the Norwegian Sea when flying to and from destinations in North America.

So does air traffic between Iceland and Europe.

There is currently a group of navy warships from the Baltic Fleet and the Northern Fleet sailingsouthwest of Ireland towards anannounced exercise areain the North Atlantic.

Last week, several of the largest warships in Russias Northern Fleetexercised in the Barents- and Norwegian Seas.

Russias Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov, recentlysent a requestto all member states in the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) where he asks for written answers on whether the countries will comply with commitments not to strengthen their security at the expense of others.

Read more here:
NATO jets scrambled for second day in a row - The Independent Barents Observer

This story was first published inthe Fayetteville Observer.

FORT BRAGGA first wave of soldiers boarded C-17s at Fort Bragg on Thursday, as paratroopers with the 82nd Airborne Division and soldiers part of the XVIII Airborne Corps deployed to Europe.

Thetroops are going in support of NATO allies and partners in deterring Russian aggression, said Capt. Matthew Visser, a spokesman for the XVIII Airborne Corps.

The soldiers of XVIII Airborne Corps and the 82nd Airborne Division are always ready as Americas contingency corps (and) have the responsibility to mobilize on a moments notice to deploy supporting whatever operation it is, Visser said.

About 1,700 paratroopers who are part of an infantry brigade combat team will go to Poland, as the XVIII Airborne Corps moves a joint task force headquarters to Germany.

Pentagon spokesman John Kirby said Wednesday that the troops are deploying to bolster capabilities inside NATOs eastern flank. after Russian President Vladimir Putin has massed troops on Ukraines border for months, raising concerns of an imminent incursion or full-scale invasion.

The Pentagon estimates there are more than 100,000 Russian forces near the Ukrainian border.

President Joe Biden has been clear, that the U.S. will respond to the growing threat, Kirby said.

Kirby said Wednesday that U.S. officials dont know if Russia has made a final decision to further invade the Ukraine, but Putin continues to add more forces to the western part of his country and Belarus.

Were going to be prepared to defend our NATO allies if it comes to that, Kirby said. Hopefully, it wont come to that.

U.S. Army soldiers with the 18th Airborne Corps. sit with their gear as they wait to board a plane for deployment to Europe Thursday, Feb. 3, 2022 from Fort Bragg, N.C. (AP Photo/Chris Seward)

Visser said paratroopers in the division and soldiers in the Corps prepare for different operations, which have included deployments in recent years to Haiti or Kabul, Afghanistan for a noncombatant evacuation operation in August.

He said the deployment to Europe communicates a message thats connected to the units lineage during World War II in Normandy, Bastogne and Luxembourg.

This is why people choose to come to Fort Bragg Its the most ready, and when you come to Fort Bragg,its no surprise that this could be the scenario that youre in that you get to deploy and that you get to support what the country needs, Visser said.

Lt. Col. Brad Jordanis among those deploying soldiers, Hes been in the Army for 20 years with previous deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan.

He said that there are a lot of unknowns but that the Fort Bragg soldiers are ready to join forces with allied partners if the NATO response force requires that coordination.

I know that sounds new for a lot of people, but it doesnt really go away, so that continued working with our NATO allies has not stopped, Jordan said.

Jordan said he is confident with the training the soldiers have received.

Personally, he said, this will not be the first deployment that his 13-year-old son and 11-year-old daughter have gone through to experience him being gone.

But hes left them with something while hes gone.

Each one of my kids have half of a dog tag, Jordan said. I have the other half. It just reminds them that Im there.

Soldiers with the 82nd Airborne Division get themselves and their gear weighed as the prepare to deploy from Fort Bragg to Eastern Europe on Thursday, Feb. 3, 2022. (Andrew Craft /The Fayetteville Observer via AP)

Visser said families that remain on the home front will be supported by a variety of Army Community Services and Fort Bragg readiness groups.

Visser said it is not known how long the mission will last.

From the moment they stepped into the Green Ramp passenger shed on Thursday, troops were briefed by leaders and had the chance to participate in a benediction.

We want to make sure that every soldier that leaves this airfield, that gets onto an aircraft, understands what their mission is, know that theyre supported by the soldiers to the left and to the right, and know that their leadership is here to take care of them to make sure that they get back safe, Visser said.

Soldiers also had support from veteran and military service organizations.

Roland Rochester, a Marine veteran and national recruiter of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, said hes been shaking hands with Fort Bragg troops that have deployed and redeployed since 2002.

I tell them to be safe, Rochester said.

The USO of North Carolina was also on site to hand out food and personal care kits consisting of toothpaste, shaving cream and other toiletries.

When the paratroopers and the soldiers are prepared to deploy, the USO is right there with them, said Barry Morris, a regional communications manager for the USO. Our mission is strengthening Americas service members by keeping them connected (to) family, home, country.

Go here to see the original:
On the ground with paratroopers deploying to back NATO amid Ukraine crisis - ArmyTimes.com

With NATO pondering how to appropriately respond to Russia's mobilization along theUkrainian border, a small element of possible deterrence arrived this weekin Rukla, Lithuania.

Flatbed railcars, loaded with armoured infantry vehicles from Germany, were met by soldiers from the nearby NATO base,who promptly unloaded the noisy, tracked machines and drove them off in a convoyalong the narrow, rural roads.

The vehicles and the troops that man themare replacing othersreturning to Germany, as one rotation ends and another begins all part of a NATO strategy in the region known asEnhanced Forward Presence, which dates back to 2017.

In Lithuania, Germany is providing the core of the battle group for the alliance, explained commanding officer, German Lt.-Col.Hagen Ruppelt.

"We are here because the Lithuanian government and the Baltic states are perceiving a threat around them," hetold CBC News during a visit to see a small part of the German operation.

Similar NATO basesare in place in Estonia and Latvia, led by British and Canadian commanders respectively and all three with roughly 1,200 soldiers each.

As of late, the pressing political question for the 72-year-old NATO has been whether it urgently needs to further beef up its troops and equipmentin the Baltic states that border Russia.

Or, alternatively, show a more restrained stancein the hopes of not provoking the Kremlin.

Tensions have soared in the region amid the buildup of Russian troops near Ukraine's border, prompting fears that an invasion could be on the horizon. Western military experts estimate there are already as many as 127,000 Russian troops near theborder and tens of thousand moretaking up positions inside Belarus,within 200kilometers ofKyiv.

Russia denieshaving any such plans and insists it's just running military drills.It has also said its objective is to negotiate a security deal with the United States that would see foreign forces removed from the countries along its border, ensure Ukraine is off limits for NATO troops and providea guarantee Ukraine would never be admitted to the alliance.

The U.S., Europe, and NATO have rejected Russia's demands but are offeringa dialogue on a range of strategic issues.

But while the U.S. and manyNATO allies are stepping up their response plans in eastern Europe amid the standoff, Germanyremains an outlier.

WATCH | Germany holds off onadditional support for Ukraine:

Germany has vast commercial interests with Russia and buys huge amounts of natural gas from the country,leading to accusations that its government is putting its commercial interests first.

The Nord Stream 2 pipelinebuilt by Russia, with extensive German helphas been completed and is awaiting final regulatory approval.The project is set to double Russia's gas export capacity.

But the United States has vowed the gas will never flowif Russia attacks.

Germany, on the other hand,has been non-committal about the pipeline's fate should that happen.

The German battle group commander, however,insists the only considerations that matter for troop deployments are strategic ones not economic.

"The more forces you bring in, that can be perceived as a provocation and an increase of tensions.That is not our intent," said Ruppelt.

In an interview with CBC News in the capital of Vilnius,Lithuania's deputy defence minister emphatically rejected the logic that bolstering forces along NATO's eastern flank or directly helping Ukraine will inflame the situation and provoke Russia.

"I think deploying more troops to the eastern flank is the only rightresponse to the current escalation,"said Margiris Abukeviius.

"Some say this would continue the [Russian] escalation,but I really believe that the only thing that could stop the Russians from escalating further is credible military force on the other side."

Abukeviius insisted his remarks should not be taken as criticism of the German NATO role in his country,which he says is deeply valued. "When it comes to Germany,we have full confidence.They are really one of the key contributors to our security and deterrence."

For Lithuania,the massive military presence now gathered on Russia's border with Ukraine,as well as in neighbouring Belarus, amounts to an existential threat.

Lithuania shares a 700-kilometreborder with Belarusto the east,and a 300-kilometer border with Russia's European enclave, Kaliningrad,to the west.

Along with its soldiers, Russia has also moved in mobile hospitals,pontoon bridges and its most sophisticated anti-missile interceptors,the S-400. None of those deployments are standard for typical exercises,say military experts.

"I think this worries a lot of people,seeing how many Russian troops are gathered around;that thiscould go out of control and that it wouldn't stop in Ukraine," saidAbukeviius.

Germany's insistence on not trying to agitate Moscow by keeping its troop levels consistent in eastern Europe is increasingly incontrast to several other NATO nations.

On Thursday,four F-16s from Denmark arrived at a NATO airbase in Lithuania to bolster the alliance's air-policing capabilities in the region. Lithuania's president was scheduled to hold a welcoming ceremony Friday for the 80 or so Danish personnel accompanying the aircraft.

The U.S., the U.K.,Norway, Spain, France andthe Czech Republicare also weighing sending more troops into eastern Europe.

Germany has also decided not to provide any lethal assistance directly to Ukraine,opting instead to send 5,000 helmets,along with medical supplies.

While the Ukrainiangovernment has said it is satisfied with the level of German support,some inside the country are not. Kyiv mayor and former champion boxer Vitali Klitschko called the German offer "a joke" that left him "speechless."

Germany has also been criticized for holding up some shipments of anti-tank missiles that countriessuch as Estonia and Lithuaniaare trying to send to Ukraine, by not issuingpermits for the German-origin weapons.

In some ways,Germany's situation mirrors Canada's,which holdsacommand role at the NATO base next door, in Latvia.

The Trudeau government has also refused repeated requests from the Ukrainian government and pro-Ukraine groups at home to send armamentsand is insteadproviding non-combat military trainers and intelligence assistance.

In the Baltics,there is overwhelming public support for a stronger NATO presence,says political scientist Margarita eelgyt,who teaches at Vilnius University.

"In the last year,86 per centof Lithuanians were very much in favour of us having these [NATO] forces.And there is a quite high percentage of Lithuanians thinking that these forces would help us to withstand Russian potential aggression," she said.

"So it's a very big reassurance for the people who constantly feel unsafe due to Russia,and now, also,Belarus."

Read more from the original source:
On NATO's front lines, a difference of opinion on how to best respond to Russia - CBC News