Monthly Archives: March 2022

Nato leaders are meeting for an emergency summit in Brussels today to address the war in Ukraine. While there, they must discuss and agree on how to respond in the event of further escalation from Russia. In the best case, clarifying Natos response to further escalation will deter Vladimir Putin from taking that step. At the very least, it will prepare the allies for what may follow.

Having failed to quickly oust the elected government in Kyiv, Putin now faces a choice between negotiating an end to the war, or escalating further. While talks are ongoing, Putin himself has given no indication that hell settle for anything less than Ukraines complete subjugation. Two weeks ago, CIA director William Burns told Congress that the Russian leader is likely to double down. He will try to grind down the Ukrainian military with no regard for civilian casualties.

Putin could ramp up the war in many ways from a deliberate decision to widen the war against Nato, to an attack on allied territory from a stray missile, to using chemical or biological agents or even a nuclear weapon.

How should Nato respond to any of these scenarios? A deliberate attack on a member of Nato is unlikely because the allies have made clear they would defend every inch of Nato territory. An attack on Nato would mean war and given the state of its armed forces, it would be a war Russia would be likely to lose.

The other forms of escalation would require a more calibrated response. The possibility of a missile hitting Nato territory was underscored when Russia attacked a target just miles from the Polish border. What if the missile had landed in Poland instead? Nato could counter such escalation by taking out the launcher or aircraft that sent the missile. Though risky, such a proportionate response would leave the onus to escalate further on Putin.

The use of chemical or biological agents would be a different story. US officials have repeatedly warned that false Russian accusations about Ukrainian chemical weapons and bioweapons labs may constitute a pretext for Moscow to use these weapons and blame Ukraine.

How Nato responds should depend on the circumstances. Russia could bomb an industrial chemical or biological research facility and blame the resulting damage on Ukraine. It has already targeted an ammonia storage facility. Other such attacks could cause hundreds or even thousands of casualties, depending on the location, weather, and other conditions.

Nato could not let such an escalation go unanswered. At the very least, it should take out the forces responsible for bombing the facilities with surgical strikes. The US, Europe, and other countries would also need to tighten economic sanctions for example, banning imports of all Russian goods or denying all Russian banks access to the Swift banking system.

Moscow, no doubt, would blame any release of chemical or biological agents on Ukraine, and could use those false claims to escalate further. This could include using industrial chemical agents such as chlorine or ammonia to target civilians, as happened repeatedly in Syria, with planes and helicopters dumping barrels full of chemicals on civilians below.

Nato would have to respond to such barbarism, for example, by imposing a real no-fly zone to prevent further Russian aerial attacks. Of course, deploying Nato aircraft into a war zone would require attacking Russian aircraft and air defences threatening Nato planes. But that would be an appropriate response to Russias deliberate escalation.

Though less likely, Russia might decide to use actual chemical weapons (such as mustard gas or sarin nerve agents), biological agents, or even a nuclear weapon. After all, Russian military doctrine foresees the possibility of escalating a conflict to convince the other side to back down. And Putins determination to win makes using any of these weapons a conceivable option.

Though a Nato response would risk even further escalation, not responding would risk the future credibility of Nato and its capacity to deter. An effective response need not include responding in kind nor require a full-on war against Russia. But if Russia uses chemical or biological agents, let alone a nuclear weapon, Nato should come to the direct defence of Ukraine deploying its air, ground and naval forces to ensure Russias defeat and the full restoration of Ukraines independence and sovereignty.

No one wants to start world war three. But Putin should know that if he escalates, Natos calculation of risks and rewards will change. Letting Moscow know that Nato would come to Ukraines direct defence under these circumstances would not only be legal and legitimate, but necessary to demonstrate to Russia and others that escalation does not pay.

See the article here:
Putin may ramp up his war in Ukraine heres how Nato should respond - The Guardian

In a direct warning to Russian President Vladimir Putin, President Joe Biden said "don't even think" about moving on NATO territory during a speech from the Royal Castle in Warsaw, Poland, on Saturday.

"America's forces are not in Europe to engage in conflict with Russian forces," Biden said. "American forces are here to defend NATO allies."

"Don't even think about moving on one single inch of NATO territory," Biden added.

The president visited US troops in Poland on Friday who is along the country's border to bolster the presence on NATO's eastern flank and aid refugees escaping the war, according to the Associated Press.

During his speech, Biden emphasized his support for Ukrainians: "My message to the people of Ukraine is a message I delivered today to Ukraine's foreign minister and defense minister, who I believe are here tonight: We stand with you, period."

Biden also said that Putin cannot stay in power, a statement that the White House has walked back.Following his visit with Ukrainian refugees early Saturday, Biden labeled Putin as a butcher."

Read more:
Biden to Putin: 'Don't think' about moving on NATO territory - Insider

Royal Navy vessels have joined ships, aircraft and personnel from six Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF) nations to provide support to NATO and bolster security in the Baltic Sea.

HMS Northumberland and sister ship HMS Richmond joined Danish frigate HDMS Niels Juel and warships from Sweden, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania for maritime patrols in the strategically important region.

JEF naval vessels escorted Danish and British supply ships as they delivered military vehicles and equipment to resupply the UK-led NATO Battlegroup in Estonia, where troops from the UK and Denmark are serving side by side. The UK recently doubled the number of troops in Estonia as part of wider NATO efforts to strengthen its eastern defences following Russias illegal and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine.

As well as patrolling and delivering the vital supplies, the warships and aircraft conducted a series of joint exercises to demonstrate and hone their seamless interoperability. Danish F-16s and Swedish Gripen fighter jets rehearsed air defence tactics with the vessels, while one of the UKs new RAF Poseidon P8A submarine hunter aircraft practiced working with the ships to spot enemy vessels.

Activities such as these in the Baltic Sea are routine business for us and our JEF partners, in one of our principal areas of geographical interest.

Given the current level of aggression being displayed by Russia, there has never been a more important time to ensure that freedom of navigation is maintained in the Baltic Sea.

This region is of vital strategic importance as we seek to ensure stability and freedom of navigation in the Baltic Sea.

The JEF is a UK-led force, comprising 10 nations working together to deliver forces at high readiness, across a range of roles, complementing NATO and European security. The coalition focuses on security in the Baltic Sea region, the High North and the North Atlantic, where its members are located.

In March, the Prime Minister hosted JEF leaders in London for the first ever leader-level summit. At the leaders summit, JEF members committed to supporting Ukraine with defensive military aid and ensuring that JEF continued to play a credible role in contributing to defence and deterrence in the region. The meeting followed meetings of Defence Ministers and Chiefs of Defence in February.

The coalition is complementary to NATOs wider strategic posture which originated from the 2014 NATO summit in Wales. Led by the UK as framework nation, it is agile and responsive, acting flexibly either in smaller groupings or as ten nations communicating with one voice.

The current situation calls for increased focus on security of the Baltic Sea and stability of our region. The Danish Navy will, with our partners in the JEF alliance, do our utmost to contribute to that.

A busy schedule of activity over the coming months and years will see the JEF operating across its core areas of the North Atlantic, High North and Baltic Sea Region, with a particular focus on the upcoming Command Post Exercise Joint Protector later in 2022, followed by the Live Exercise JEF Warrior in 2023.

See the rest here:
UK delivers NATO supplies and conducts patrols with JEF partners - GOV.UK

President BidenJoe BidenRussian rocket attacks wound five in western Ukraine city of Lviv If we de-list the IRGC, what will the dictators think? Biden to propose minimum tax on billionaires in budget MOREs escalating sanctions and increased military aid for Ukraine, in response to Vladimir PutinVladimir Vladimirovich PutinRussian rocket attacks wound five in western Ukraine city of Lviv If we de-list the IRGC, what will the dictators think? Putin's war against Ukrainian civilians is not new nor will it work MOREs invasion, have crippled Russias economy, strengthened Ukraines resistance, unified NATO allies and prompted Europeans to rethink their security policies and increase defense spending.

But the horrendous price Ukrainians are paying has prompted questions about whether the U.S. and other democracies could have done more before the invasion to deter Putin, and whether Washington is doing enough even now to help Ukraine.

Has Biden fundamentally misjudged Putin? And, as Putin escalates his threats to use chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, is Biden still doing so?

The unwillingness to challenge Russias president more assertively is grounded in the view that Putin fears NATO encirclement and feels threatened by the U.S.-led alliance of 30 nations. Because the Biden administration sees Putins motivation as defensive, it has tried to assure him that in aiding Ukraine, Washington is not seeking to weaken Russia.

Even late last year, as the White House shared sensitive intelligence with NATO members, warning that Putin planned to invade, senior U.S. officials avoided actions that Putin might see as provocative. In December, for instance, as ever more Russian troops surrounded Ukraine, Biden delayed providing the Stinger missiles for which Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was pleading. Plus, Biden and top aides repeatedly assured Putin that the U.S. would not send troops into Ukraine unless a NATO member was attacked.

Even after Putin invaded and then announced he was putting his nuclear forces on high alert, the administration chose not to inflame him. Instead of responding in kind, White House press secretary Jen PsakiJen PsakiThe Memo: Biden in a bind as Ukraine crisis fails to pump up polls North Korea's latest missile tests prompts calls for new UN sanctions Issa lays groundwork for House GOP probe into Hunter Biden laptop story MORE chided Putin for unprovoked escalation and his pattern of manufactured threats.

In retrospect, the administrations response to Putins threatened and actual aggression may have been a profound miscalculation. While officials and analysts disagree about whether Putin could have been deterred, there is little indication that he feared the U.S. or NATO. Quite the contrary. Putin seemed to have contempt for what he saw as a series of weak American presidents leading a nation eager to withdraw from seemingly endless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and from a NATO alliance in disarray.

Arguing that Putin probably could not have been deterred, Amb. Frank Wisner, a former senior official in Republican and Democratic administrations, cites several reasons for Putins miscalculation. Given our shambolic performance in Afghanistan, our partisan divides and political deadlock at home, his belief that the Ukrainians would not fight and that his military could easily defeat them if they did, and his Feb. 4 deal with China which led him to conclude that he had a major power behind him, Putin probably saw this as the best moment to attack, Wisner says.

The notion that Putins invasion was aimed at stopping Ukraine from joining NATO, however, is doubtful. Although Secretary of State Antony BlinkenAntony BlinkenBiden rallies allies against Russia: Five takeaways White House attempts to walk back Biden stating Putin can't stay in power Biden meets with top Ukrainian officials in Poland MORE may have given Putin ostensible justification for his aggression by telling the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last June that Washington supported NATO membership for Ukraine and that Ukraine had all the tools that it needs to move forward in that direction, Putin surely knew that key NATO members had long opposed admitting Kyiv. He also knew that Ukraine had not undertaken the anti-corruption reforms needed for admission to the European Community, much less NATO. Nor is there much evidence that Putin felt threatened by the 30-member NATO alliance itself. Only 6 percent of Russian territory shares a border with NATO members. Looking back, as the CIA has now recently done again, what Putin sought was not a defensive separation between Russia and NATO, but the seizure and/or submission of all of Ukraine to Russian hegemony.

Having fundamentally misjudged Putins motivations, the Biden administrations statements aimed at assuaging his alleged fears in fact may have reinforced his calculation that the West would do little to respond to yet another blatant attack on a neighbor. Had Biden better understood his adversary, for example, he might not have lifted sanctions on the German company building the Nord Stream 2 pipeline designed to double the flow of Russian gas directly to Germany. Nor would he have repeatedly reassured Putin a policy that continues to this day that no American or NATO forces would fight to defend Ukraine.

If there were a do-over, says Alexander Vershbow, a former deputy secretary general of NATO, we would not have repeatedly said that U.S. troops would never set foot on Ukrainian soil. While such declarations might have been politically useful, given the widespread domestic opposition to being dragged into another bloody conflict, Vershbow said, it signaled to Putin that short of his crossing the U.S. red line attacking a NATO member he had little to fear by invading Ukraine again. President ObamaBarack Hussein ObamaThe Hill's 12:30 Report - Manchin's magic 'yes' vote Jackson faces growing GOP opposition on Supreme Court Obama, Clinton, Psaki cases show COVID-19's lingering threat MORE levied only limited sanctions against Russia when Putin invaded Crimea in 2014; Biden was vice president then, as he was during the failure to attack Syria after its Russian-assisted president used chemical weapons and he was president during the chaotic withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan.

Some analysts argue that Biden could not have taken tougher measures prior to Putins invasion, given the opposition of NATO members. But John Herbst, a former ambassador to Ukraine now at the Atlantic Council, who praised Bidens emphasis on diplomacy and repairing the badly frayed ties with NATO allies, criticizes the administrations timid stance. They havent understood, til this day, he said, that the second part of leadership is persuading the alliance of where it needs to go.

Moreover, Herbst added, while some in the administration understood the geopolitical challenge Russia posed, Team Biden continued attempting to implement what he called a stealth reset of relations with Moscow, just as his predecessors had tried and failed to do. While the administration was warning of stiff sanctions and grave economic consequences if Russia invaded Ukraine, Biden still had the goal of establishing what he called stable and predictable relations with Russia, a contradictory objective.

Before the invasion, had Washington sent more of the most modern Stinger and Javelin missiles to Kyiv, had they leaned on Slovakia to give the Ukrainians more S-300 missiles (which, unlike Stingers, can shoot down Russian warplanes flying several miles above ground), had they pressed Poland to provide MiG-29 fighter jets all of which Zelensky has pleaded for such actions might have deterred Putin, Herbst said, or made it harder for him to succeed if he still chose to invade.

Vershbow says that, although even tougher action by NATO might not have deterred Putin, the alliance should have responded more assertively, perhaps by staging a training exercise on Ukrainian territory or rotating more NATO battalions through Poland and Ukraines other neighbors. There were options, he said.

But he and other analysts assert that the administration was right not to match Putins nuclear escalation. Seeing them and raising them could have been genuinely risky, Vershbow said, especially since Putin didnt raise his nuclear alert levels. It was bluster, he said.

Others disagree, however. Speaking recently at the Society of the Four Arts in Palm Beach, Fla., former Defense Secretary Gen. James MattisJames Norman Mattis'We win, they lose': America must end the danger Putin poses Russia's attack on Ukraine is a clear warning to US to become energy independent with renewables Trump's 'Enemies List' end of year edition MORE said that the U.S. response could have been tougher. The White House could have reminded Putin that NATO is a nuclear-armed alliance and that we could respond in kind.

Wisner said that Biden shouldnt have rolled over to nuclear blackmail: Biden could have said, We have more nuclear missiles than you and they are better aimed. Reminding Putin that Gen. Mattis had deployed more of Americas nuclear force on submarines in response to Putins earlier nuclear threats, the memory of mutual assured destruction so deeply ingrained in the DNA of a former KGB officer would have helped ensure that the logic of deterrence would prevail, he said.

We should have responded publicly in some fashion, Herbst agreed. Some say that increasing our nuclear force alert level to DEFCON 3 would have been too provocative, too escalatory, he said. But the administration could have announced that NATO would conduct a nuclear exercise in Europe, which the alliance has done previously, or taken other steps to warn Putin that playing nuclear poker and risking World War III could be disastrous for Russia, and for him.

The failure to respond to his nuclear threat assured Putin that he could continue destroying Ukraine with conventional weapons because the U.S. was paralyzed by the prospect of a nuclear war. What will happen when he threatens a nuclear holocaust over Estonia? Herbst asked, referring to Russias Baltic neighbor, which is also a NATO member.

Judith Miller is a contributing editor at the Manhattan Institutes City Journal, a former reporter with the New York Times, and the author of The Story: A Reporters Journey. Follow her on Twitter @JMfreespeech.

Original post:
If Biden's timidity led Putin to invade Ukraine, what about his next threat? | TheHill - The Hill

What does it take to defend, fight and survive in an Arctic environment? What do you do if you fall through the ice while wearing 20 kilograms of military gear? Cold Response 2022 is a long-planned exercise bringing together thousands of troops from NATO Allies and partners, testing their ability to work together in cold weather conditions across Norway on land, in the air and at sea.

Every year, NATO organises dozens of military exercises. NATO members also organise national exercises that include other Allies. Cold Response 2022 is organised by the Norwegian Armed Forces. Learn more about the exercise on their website.

Over the coming weeks, Allied and partner armed forces will trek across the vast wilderness, conduct live-fire drills, leap into freezing lakes, and much more. It's all about training vital skills, making sure that our armed forces are prepared to respond to any threat or crisis and keep our countries and people safe. Cold Response 2022 is bringing together Allies from Europe and North America, demonstrating the enduring transatlantic bond at the heart of NATO.

Cold Response 2022 is a long-planned and regular exercise, which Norway hosts biannually. This year's exercise was announced over eight months ago. It is not linked to Russia's unprovoked and unjustified invasion of Ukraine, which NATO is responding to with preventive, proportionate and non-escalatory measures.

Why did Norway, a neutral country with close links to its neighbours, join an Atlantic alliance in 1949 instead of a Scandinavian union? How did Norwegians encourage greater cultural and economic cooperation among NATO Allies? And who was the "Breakfast Diplomat"? Find out on NATO Declassified!

Allied forces need to be ready to operate in any environment under any conditions. Training in Norway allows NATO Allies and partners to practise their skills operating in extreme and rugged surroundings, from frozen fjords to shivering seas to ice-encrusted mountains. There's a reason that Norway hosts the NATO Centre of Excellence for Cold Weather Operations!

But many other NATO Allies host exercises and help develop this expertise as well, from the bitterly cold Baltics to the remote volcanic beaches of Iceland to the Canadian High Arctic. Check out the videos below to see cold-weather troops in action.

Norway has hosted exercises with NATO Allies and partners since the early 1950s. From Anchor Express to Northern Express, Atlas Express to Winter Express, over the decades Norway has helped Allies and partners learn how to operate together in its rough northern terrain. Exercise Cold Response itself was first held in 2006. Click through the gallery to see archival images of soldiers during these exercises and the beautiful Norwegian countryside where they trained.

Regular exercises allow NATO and partners to train together, identifying what works and what needs improving. Exercises are defensive, proportionate and announced months in advance. NATO Allies respect the transparency obligations under the OSCE Vienna Document, which governs the rules for military exercises in the Euro-Atlantic area.

Under the Vienna Document transparency obligations, Norway has invited all OSCE member states to send observers to the exercise. The Chief of the Norwegian Joint Headquarters also informed the Commander of the Russian Northern Fleet about Cold Response 2022 in a video call in January 2022.

Learn why it's important for NATO and partner forces to train together on land, at sea, in the air and in cyberspace.

What is it like to be a soldier on a NATO exercise? This video walks you through a day in the life.

Read this article:
Exercise Cold Response 2022 NATO and partner forces face the freeze in Norway - NATO HQ