Monthly Archives: June 2022

President Joe Biden in a new interview with the Associated Press said that Russian President Vladimir Putin's goal of preventing NATO expansion by invading Ukraine backfired.

"The reason Putin said he was going to go in was because he didn't want them to join NATO," Biden said. "He wanted the sort of the Finlandization of NATO. He got the NATO-ization of Finland, instead."

Finlandization is a term that refers to the state of relations between Finland and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. During that era, Finland agreed to remain neutral and militarily non-aligned in return for the USSR, its dominating neighbor, pledging not to invade. The Finns and Soviets fought a short but brutal war during World War II known as the Winter War, which saw Finland lose a significant chunk of its territory. Finland wanted to avoid another invasion and maintain its sovereigtny, which is why it agreed to remain neutral. That said, Moscow had a significant influence over Helsinki's politics over the course of that period.

Finland became a NATO partner country after the collapse of the Soviet Union, but stopped short of pursuing full membership. But Russia's unprovoked war of Ukraine rapidly changed that, and Finland alongside Sweden, another historically neutral country has moved to join NATO. The alliance is now working to add the Nordic countries to its ranks, but objections from Turkey have stalled the process. Any decisions on NATO enlargement require unanimous agreement from all current members, who pledge that an attack on one is an attack on all.

In the lead-up to the invasion of Ukraine, the Kremlin demanded that the West agree to various security guarantees. This included permanently barring Ukraine and Georgia another former Soviet republic Russia has invaded in recent history from joining NATO. The alliance firmly rejected this demand, maintaining that its open-door policy was non-negotiable.

Finland and Sweden pursuing NATO membership is one of the more significant examples of the ways in which Russia's invasion of Ukraine has backfired on Putin.

But that does not mean the war has not also been tough on the West, which rapidly came together to impose tough sanctions on Moscow in response to the invasion. The economic fallout from the conflict has raised questions as to whether the Western alliance can maintain the political will to continue its support for Kyiv and penalties against Moscow.

The war has caused a global oil crisis, and the rising gas prices on top of high inflation have placed pressure on Biden with midterms on the horizon late this year. But in the interview with the Associated Press, the president said that the consequences of supporting Kyiv were worth it.

"Gasoline went up...$1.25 right off the bat" when "Putin's war started," Biden said, adding "I made it clear with helping Ukraine, and organizing NATO to help Ukraine, that this was going to cost. There was going to be a price to pay for it."

"This is not going to be cost-free" Biden said, but added that "the option of doing nothing was worse" and would have sowed "chaos in Europe."

"What happens if the strongest power, NATO, an organizational structure we put together, walked away from Russian aggression of over 100,000 troops marching across a border to try to, to occupy and wipe out a culture of an entire people? What, then, then what happens? What happens next? What do we do next?" Biden said, suggesting that if the West had not stepped up then it would've raised the chances of Russia targeting other countries in the region.

Biden also suggested standing by as Russia invaded would've sent dangerous signals to China about Taiwan, as well as North Korea in terms of its nuclear ambitions.

"I've done foreign policy my whole career. I'm convinced that if we let Russia roll and Putin roll, he wouldn't stop," Biden said.

Read the original here:
Biden: Putin wanted 'Finlandization of NATO' but got 'NATO-ization of Finland' - Business Insider

With rifts busting out among European allies over the war in Ukraine, the touted unity of NATO is looking tattered.

Leading the parade of disunion is Germany, despite its self-declared psychological turning point regarding getting involved in conflict after Russias February invasion of Ukraine. Chancellor Olaf Scholz is declining to provide heavy armaments and dithering over other weapons Kyiv says it needs.

Poland, whose eastern border touches Ukraine, fears that Germany, along with France and Italy, might ask Ukraine to make territorial concessions in return for peace. The leaders of the three were meeting Thursday with Ukraines President Volodymyr Zelensky in Kiev.

Polish President Andrzej Dud has raised the specter of Western appeasement, in the style of Europes notorious concession of Czechoslovakian territory to Nazi Germany in advance of World War II.

Zelensky is adamant about keeping Ukraine whole.

The three Baltic states all of which were once Soviet republics fear that economic costs to Europe due to the sanctions placed on trade with Moscow might outweigh the Wests declared determination to help Ukraine.

Our goal must be for Putin to lose the war, Krisjanis Karins, Latvias prime minister, told the Financial Times. If its going to take some time, its worth it. In the West, we pay with our wallets. The Ukrainians are paying with their lives.

Clear planning on how to deter Putin seems out of the questions. Domestic politics and fears of a wider war get in the way.

For almost two months after Russia invaded Ukraine, France kept secret its delivery of light rockets to Ukraine. President Emmanuel Macron feared upsetting anti-intervention voters in advance of presidential elections, which he won. Macron also refuses a long-standing request from Spain to construct a natural gas pipeline to eastern Europe that could ease dependence on Russian energy.

Meanwhile, Italy, which is ruled by a government that is divided among supporters of Russia and others that back Ukraine, speaks only in vague terms about the need for peace talks. Prime Minister Mario Draghi declines to specify exactly what weaponry his country is providing the Ukrainians.

Germany, France and Italy are all the object of suspicion among their neighbors to the east. Macron, Scholz, and Draghi visited Kiev Thursday for talks with Zelensky.

Poland expressed exasperation about the visit. I am bewildered given all these talks with Putin at the moment, said President Andrzej Duda. They only lead to a legitimization of a person who is responsible for the crimes that the Russian army is committing in Ukraine

Its been remarkable that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, with 32 members that possess differing concerns, has helped keep Ukraines outgunned army afloat with weaponry. The notion that three Western non-frontline states somehow speak for the continent irks Eastern Europe.

Duda rejects treating Putin as a reputable negotiating partner. Did anyone talk to Adolf Hitler like this during the Second World War? Did anyone say that Adolf Hitler must save face? That we should act in a way that is not humiliating for Adolf Hitler? Duda said to Bild, the German newspaper.

Germanys position inspires the most doubts. Is Germany unwilling to put its weight behind Ukraine because of its post-WWII pacifism? According to Der Spiegel magazine, Scholz refuses to supply tanks to Ukraine for fear they might cross into Russia and revive memories of Hitlers eastward invasion.

Or is it simply a comfortable device that leaves the heavy lifting to US and smaller NATO members, all the better to leave unsullied its commercial business with Russia to resume at a later date?

Part of the German economic sector doesnt care at all about what happens to Ukraine, complained Duda. They say: We want to do business and earn money.

Although Germany seemed to have shed its myopic view of Russia after the February 24 invasion, it took three days for Scholz to publicly react with anger and begin to provide military aid to Ukraine. Until February 27, the Germans had decided only to provide 5,000 military helmets.

Scholz was prompted to deliver arms after the Netherlands asked permission to send German-made anti-tank weapons by train across Germany. The request highlighted the German unwillingness to do the same.

Scholz ordered up a shipment of a few hundred anti-tank rocket launchers and Stinger surface-to-air missiles, to send them by land to Poland. Then he made his turning point speech.

Unsure about what to do next, he ordered an analysis from Germanys foreign intelligence office, which apparently said more weapons were useless in the face of Russias more numerous arms and troop levels. In particular, heavy weapons, including tanks, were precluded from consideration.

More weapons were eventually promised, but what Germany actually delivered is secret and what is known is sometimes fogged by confusion.

Germany continues to resist calls to supply tanks and other armored vehicles. In May, Scholz told a parliamentary committee that tanks created questions of risks and military efficiency but then stopped short of ruling them out forever.

And instead of providing heavy fighting vehicles vehicles from its arsenal directly to Ukraine, Germany agreed to replenish supplies of such weapons sent by other countries notably Estonia, Czech Republic and Poland.

Last month, when the US decided to send medium-range missiles to Ukraine, the Germans again moved to at least provide token new supplies this time four MARS II multiple rocket launchers and ultra-modern IRIS-T SLM air-to-air systems. But a week ago, Germany said the MARS was not being sent due to some technical problem it would take months to fix. Now its been reported that theres to be a partial shipment eventually but it may not arrive before November.

Frankly speaking, we are not surprised by another refusal, because despite all the promises from the beginning of a full-scale invasion, Germany has supplied Ukraine with zero samples of heavy weapons, wrote Mezha.Media, a Ukrainian information technology website.

NATO leaders are scheduled to meet at the end of this month in Madrid. Zelensky is going to speak and will have a chance to repeat his frequent appeals for heavier, long range weapons.

US President Joe Biden, Ukraines biggest weapons benefactor, is expected to attend. But is he already making excuses just in case Ukraine loses?

Earlier this month, Biden suggested that Zelensky had failed to heed wisdom from Biden himself, offered before February 24. I know a lot of people thought I was maybe exaggerating, but I knew [Putin] was going to go in, he told a group of well-heeled donors in Los Angeles. There was no doubt and Zelensky didnt want to hear it.

The statement seemed to ignore the fact that Ukraine had been training its troops with US and NATO help since 2014, when Russia conquered Crimea over a space of three days.

In any event, Zelensky wasnt willing to take the fall. Spokesman Serhiy Nykyforov responded by saying that, before the war, the Ukrainian president had asked Biden at least three times to place preventive economic sanctions on Russia before fighting broke out. Therefore, the phrase did not want to hear probably needs clarification, Nykyforov said testily.

On Tuesday, Biden announced plans to provide Ukraine with $1 billion worth of anti-ship missiles and other weapons. But the US has refused to deliver long-range missiles the Ukrainians say they desperately need to counter Russias long-range arsenal.

Just as Scholz fears Ukrainians would drive German tanks into Russia, so does the United States worry that Ukraine would bombard Russia with Washington-supplied missiles and set off a wider war.

That means Ukraine has no counter to Russias bombardments of towns and cities all over Ukraine. Russia said Thursday one such missile hit a depot of NATO arms in western Ukraine.

Read more from the original source:
Germany's the weak link in teetering NATO - Asia Times

During a recent visit to Iceland, the Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Mike Gilday emphasized the islands importance to North Atlantic and Arctic security.

Iceland is the geostrategic linchpin for NATO in the Arctic region and I am grateful for their partnership and collaboration, said Gilday in a U.S. Navy statement. The Arctic is an opportunity to work collaboratively with Allies and partners to keep this a secure and stable region, and we are committed to working together to address challenges and strengthen our collective deterrent against strategic challenges, he continued.

Located in the far north, Iceland is an important refueling location for NATO aircraft and a vital port for allied ships transiting the northern Atlantic Ocean. Its a confident feeling to be aware of a great ally with large-scale resources available to back up and assist the Icelandic Coast Guard when and if the scope of its challenges exceeds the capability of the organization and the Icelandic safety system on the ocean around Iceland, said Director General of Icelandic Coast Guard, Rear Admiral Georg Kristinn Lrusson. It is also very beneficial to receive training, education, and development assistance in fields in which the Iceland Coast Guard is not fully developed.

The island also forms an important part of the GIUK Gap, a naval choke point in the North Atlantic, midway between Greenland and the United Kingdom. NATO effectively exploited this choke point during the Cold War, building a gauntlet of acoustic listening devices to listen for and monitor Soviet submarines transitioning the Norwegian Sea for the Atlantic Ocean.

The Navys role has never been more consequential or more expansive, and we need a combat credible naval force that can protect our interests in peace and can prevail in combat, while supporting our Allies and partners, said Adm. Gilday. The Sailors here in Iceland are just that, they remain postured, and ready, with a credible force to assure, deter, and defend in an increasingly complex security environment, which is possible because of the support and partnership we have with Iceland.

With war raging in Europe, the importance of Iceland and the GIUK Gap is once again at the forefront of NATO concerns, a fact reflected in recent military exercises involving the island nation. In April, the U.S. and Icelandic navies conducted the Northern Viking 2022 exercise, an interoperability and command-and-control exercise that focused on the defense of Iceland as well as maintaining communication and sea lines in the GIUK Gap.

Caleb Larson is a multimedia journalist and defense writer with the National Interest. A graduate of UCLA, he also holds a Master of Public Policy and lives in Berlin. He covers the intersection of conflict, security, and technology, focusing on American foreign policy, European security, and German society for both print and radio. Follow him on Twitter @calebmlarson

Image: DVIDS.

Read more:
NATO Reliance On Iceland Grows Amidst War in Ukraine - The National Interest Online

The Orbn administration changed its mind on a crucial issue. According to a government decree published on March 7, NATO could deploy armed forces only in Dunntl (Transdanubia) in Hungary. However, the administration modified that this Tuesday but did not explain why.

Mfor.huspotted first that the Hungarian government modified the regulation on NATO armed force deployment in the country. The military alliance, which Hungary has been a member of since 1999, had permission to deploy troops in Hungarys Transdanubia until this Tuesday.

Based on a March 7 government decree,

NATO was allowed to cross Hungary on land or air.

Furthermore, they were permitted to deploy arms and armed forces in the Transdanubia. However, that decree was in effect for only three months. From this Tuesday on, the Hungarian government allows NATO to have armed forces everywhere in Hungary. That means the military alliance can perform movements, training, drills, and deploy troops anywhere in Hungary.

444.huwrote that the government did not give an explanation why they changed their previous regulation. However, the media outlet reminded us that the Orbn administration insisted on strengthening Eastern European NATO battlegroups during the last session of the Bucharest Nine. NATO Secretary-Generalannouncedyesterday that they would do so.

The new Hungarian rule means that NATO may deploy troops near the Ukrainian-Hungarian border.

Portfolio.hureported that American and Hungarian troops started a joint military exercise at a training base in Hajdhadhz on Wednesday.Defence minister Kristf Szalay-Bobrovniczky said there that soldiers in the region had the dual task of carrying out humanitarian activities while also protecting the borders of Hungary. Hungary, as a NATO member, can rely on its allies in fulfilling these tasks, he said.

Szalay-Bobrovniczky said that there were domestic and international exercises, joint training and preparation events and tasks each year which involved soldiers from NATO member countries arriving in Hungary. Protecting the security of Hungarians is a priority for the government, and the Hungarian and US soldiers carryingout joint patrols under the arrangements of NATO also serve this purpose, he said, noting that Hungarian and US soldiers serve together in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Featured image: US military vehicles in Hajdhadhz.

Source: 444.hu, Npszava, mfor.hu, DNH

Read the rest here:
What are they up to? NATO can deploy troops anywhere in Hungary! - dailynewshungary.com

Norways far-left Reds Party spoiled the Norwegian Parliaments otherwise overwhelming support for bids by Sweden and Finland to join NATO. The Reds were the only party to dissent when the issue came up for a vote this week, and its leader was being roundly criticized.

Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Stre of the Labour Party accused the Reds of failing to show solidarity at a time when Russia has invaded Ukraine and is escalating verbal assaults on the rest of Europe and the West. Russian President Vladimir Putins war on Ukraine has prompted both Sweden and Finland to end years of neutrality and seek to join NATO to further strengthen Europes and their own defense.

Stre has strongly supported both countries and called the Parliaments vote on Thursday historic. He told newspaper Aftenposten that it also marks an historic shift for Europe, and opens the way for much stronger defense cooperation among all five Nordic countries.

The Reds spoiled Stres hopes for unanimous support for the NATO expansion in Parliament, though. What the Reds are really saying is that NATO should block the two countries membership, he told Aftenposten. I think that runs deeply against solidarity.

When Finland and then Sweden both voted in favour of finally joining NATO in May, they were widely met with open arms and NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg seemed confident the application process would proceed quickly. Turkey has since spoiled that, though, and submitted a long list of demands. All current NATO members must approve all new members.

In Norway, only the Reds and the Socialist Left Party (SV) were skeptical, claiming it would increase tensions with Russia, not least in Northern Norway. Even SV, which has long favoured a Nordic military alliance over NATO membership, ultimately supported membership for Sweden and Finland.

That left the Reds alone in voting against it. Reds leader Bjrnar Moxnes was unyielding, reasoning that in a democracy we can think differently, and land on different responses. He still thinks that the inclusion of Sweden and Finland in NATO will especially raise tensions between the US and Russia, and the risk of nuclear war.

He found no support among his colleagues in Parliament, with the leader of the Liberal Party even claiming that the Reds refusal to support Sweden and Finland in NATO will go into the history books. Its like the Reds are slamming the door in the face of Sweden and Finland.

newsinenglish.no/Nina Berglund

Visit link:
Reds bashed over NATO dissent - Views and News from Norway

As the war in the Donbas grinds on and Ukrainian losses continue to mount, Russia seems to have gained the upper hand. By some estimates, Russia now controls 25% of Ukrainian territory territory that is responsible for some 75% of Ukraines gross domestic product.

Yet, nearly four months into the war, there seems to be little appetite in Washington to push Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to sue for peace.

To discuss the war in Ukraine and more, I spoke with Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute and one of the foremost American critics of NATO expansion.

He is the author of more than 950 articles and policy studies and 12 books, includingNATO: The Dangerous Dinosaur(2019),Gullible Superpower: U.S. Support for Bogus Foreign Democratic Movements(2019),and The Ties That Blind: How the U.S.-Saudi Alliance Damages Liberty and Security(2018).

Below is a lightly edited version of our discussion.

James Carden: Ted, I want to start out by discussing something you wrote recently: As long as Russian forces continue their advance, however difficult the slog, theres little chance that Moscow will escalate matters. However, if it appeared that Ukraine actually might win the war, all bets are off. What do you mean by all bets are off?

Ted Galen Carpenter: I believe that [President Vladimir] Putin and the rest of the Russian leadership regard Ukraine as a vital security interest for Russia; therefore, defeat is not an option in their view.

Now, would they prefer to get a diplomatic settlement? Would they prefer to have this settled solely with conventional weapons? Absolutely. I dont believe they want to escalate to the nuclear level at all.

But if it comes to a choice between defeat, national humiliation and, for Putin, personal humiliation, and rolling the dice and taking a chance by using tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine, I think he is likely to take that risk. Nothing certain, but the risk is very severe as far as Im concerned.

JC: It seems like the people advising the US president, and perhaps the president himself, are not quite alive to the danger that you just outlined. Do you have any insight as to who might be advising Joe Biden on these issues?

TGC: Well, I think the usual office holders. Jake Sullivan, I would assume, has a great deal of influence. Lloyd Austin and his people I would assume have great influence over policy. And youre getting input from outsiders like Michael McFaul, the former ambassador to Russia, who takes a very hawkish view.

And their attitude, which is reflected with some of the neocons in the press like Max Boot, is that for all the talk that Putin might make about using nuclear weapons, thats all a bluff. We really dont have to worry about that. And we shouldnt use that as an excuse not to stand up to him and to Russian aggression.

Thats their rationale. I would like to ask them, what if their assumption is wrong? They dont seem to even consider that possibility. And yet if theyre wrong, the consequences are dire indeed.

JC: Weve been reading a lot of worry about the division of the world between democracies and autocracies. That seems to me to be the new dividing line for these people. Putin is, obviously, enemy No 1 in their mind, but right behind him is Viktor Orbn in Hungary. This division of the world has gained wide acceptance within the US Democratic Party, especially among parts of what used to be the anti-war left. What do you make of that?

TGC: It is a very interesting development, Ive noticed it too. Again, it seems much more intense in terms of the opposition to right-wing autocracies like Orbn, like Putin. Its a little more awkward when, for example, youre dealing with Xi Jinping and China.

In fact, its almost schizophrenic behavior on the part of a lot of people on the left. They will denounce that regime but theyre not prepared to sign on to actual hawkish US policies to resist it.

That attitude, though, is weakening. In other words, you see more and more greater support for Taiwan, for example, on the left, even though that would require a pretty hardline military policy, a very risky policy.

But the intensity of the hatred of autocratic regimes, that from what used to be the anti-war left, seems much more directed at the likes of Putin and that right-wing nationalist regime. They seem to be the epitome of evil in the minds of, I would call them, Democratic crusaders in this country.

JC: It seems like that mindset is now even across the Atlantic and has infected the worldview of nations that had previously been proudly neutral, and right now were seeing a real push by and for Finland and Sweden to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. What should we make of Finland and Sweden joining the alliance?

TGC: I would say that Finland and Sweden wanting to join NATO constitutes an overreaction to what Russia did in Ukraine. I can understand why that would make European countries, especially, very nervous.

On the other hand, if they looked at it soberly, given all the problems Russia has encountered just trying to subdue Ukraine, I think they would view the Russian threat to the rest of Europe with more perspective. Lets not assume that this military is 10 feet tall and can sweep to the Atlantic, thats not about to happen.

I also worry that Sweden and Finland may have made the same mistake that the Republic of Texas did in joining the Union in 1845. Texas got in just in time to get caught up in all the sectional divisions and the animosity, and, of course, ended up as a participant in the US Civil War.

I suspect there were a good many Texans, when that happened, who wished the Republic had stayed independent. They got no benefit from joining the Union at that point and there were a lot of drawbacks.

But again, I think the ideological factor is important here, that you have centrist and left-of-centrist factions in Sweden and Finland who regard Russia as this existential evil, not necessarily an existential threat. Theres a difference there.

I saw something similar right after the Russian invasion in Ukraine when Switzerland signed on to sanctions. When has that ever happened before? I cant recall a single instance. And yet that was done with virtually no debate. They were on board within the first couple of days, along with the European Union countries and others.

There is more here than just security concerns. I think a cold calculation of security concerns would lead Sweden and Finland to say, Look, were likely to provoke a crisis with Russia, with us on the front lines rather than gain security by doing this. But the ideological animosity toward Moscow I suspect is overruling those considerations.

JC: You say that theres more at play there than a cold calculation of interest. The same might be said about whats taking place here in the US as well. I wonder if you see any role in foreign lobbies in all this.

The Ukrainian lobby played a very active role in the 2016 US presidential election campaign and then in the first impeachment of Donald Trump. There were very credible reports by mainstream American outlets like Politico that outlined the role of people from the Ukrainian diaspora working with the Ukrainian Embassy to leak damaging information on the Trump campaign.

And this has been a problem that weve had in this country for a long time.Foreign lobbies and the havoc that they can cause was something that the Founders were very cognizant of potentially happening. And now it does seem to be happening. Do you have any thoughts on that before we wrap up?

TGC: Very much so. I mean, the Ukraine lobby has been extremely active trying to influence US policy, and with a fair degree of success. In addition, you have the more traditional NATO-forever lobby and pro-NATO-expansion lobby. Think of the Atlantic Council and other virtually wholly owned subsidiaries of that lobby.

And, of course, you have the usual military-industrial complex wanting more and more money, and they see this arena as a terrific opportunity to sell weapons in unprecedented numbers and dollars. So thats a pretty potent alliance.

You have the usual sycophants in the news media pushing that agenda. I dont think its surprising that at least initially there was a massive propaganda campaign, a very successful one. They got otherwise sensible Americans to say, Yes, we need to stand with Ukraine, we need to defend Ukraine.

Thats beginning to fade as people are having second thoughts. Well, wait a minute, what level of risk are we incurring here? And wait, how good is this Ukrainian government? And the more you look at that you go OK, this is a corrupt semi-autocracy. So were supposed to risk the lives of all Americans to defend that regime.

There is some reconsideration going on. And youre even finding somewhat greater balance in the news media and the treatments. Thats not saying much, thats a very low bar to clear given what was going on early on. The enthusiasm for Ukraines cause seems to have waned somewhat.

JC: So lets just circle back to the war and whats actually going on, on the ground. Even Zelensky has now admitted that things arent going as well as they were earlier. The euphoria, as you suggest, seems to be wearing off in Washington.

Theyve admitted that they have tremendous disadvantages in artillery ammunition, theyre losing 700 men a day. Its not looking great. So it looks like the Russians are going to succeed in taking the Donbas. If Phase 1 of the war saw the Russians repelled from Kiev, and if Phase 2 is the Donbas campaign, how do you see Phase 3 playing out? Is it possible Zelensky sues for peace?

TGC: Im not sure he will sue for peace. The Russians likely will offer him an opportunity if they complete their conquest of the Donbas. At that point, I think they would hold out an olive branch to Zelensky.

What I worry about is the position of the United States and some NATO countries. Would we be pressing Zelensky not to give in? To keep fighting? The West might say: We can keep supplying you. You can wage a vigorous guerrilla warfare lasting months or even years. You can do what the Afghan mujahideen did, and we were happy to supply them as well.

Now, of course, it means Ukrainians will be doing the bleeding for an indefinite period of time, but Im afraid some policymakers in Washington are not necessarily averse to that.

This article was published previously by the American Committee for US-Russia Accord (ACURA) and is used with the permission of the author. Read the original here.

Link:
Ukraine, NATO and the politics of war - Asia Times

At the meeting, US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said that there was need to redouble aid to Ukraine saying that it was facing a pivotal moment in the battlefield after four months of war with Russia. He said that they could not afford to lose steam. He said that while they had supplied tanks, missiles and artillery, it was clearly not enough and there was need to redouble the effort.

During the meeting, the Ukrainians complained that they had received just 10 per cent of the military assistance they had requested from the West and that this assistance was vital for Ukraine to win the war. However, the US officials pushed back noting that the speed of delivery had been exemplary and that no one weapon system would make a difference.

After the meeting, Austin and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the US, Gen Mark Milley reported that the West would focus on providing aid for Ukraine for as long as necessary. Additionally, Germany would supply Ukraine with three sets of multiple launch rocket systems M 270. Ukraine would get ten other sets from other NATO countries, Slovakia would provide Mi-17 helicopters and rocket munition. Canada, Poland and the Netherlands discussed fresh donations of artillery to Ukraine, which could add up to 300-400 more artillery systems.

There is a possibility that the US could, in addition, provide tanks and advanced air defence systems as well.

Read the original here:
NATO's Message: The West will Extend Support, But Ukraine Must Defend Itself - The Quint

AHEAD OF the NATO summit in Madrid on June 28, visiting Spanish Foreign Minister Jos Manuel Albares on Wednesday said that NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation), which traditionally only looked towards the eastern flank, must also look to the southern flank, and reach out to all those countries that like India, might be good partners, and interested in keeping stability in the world.

In an exclusive interview to The Indian Express, Albares who met External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar when asked about possible discussions between India and the NATO, said, It is not for me to decide, it is up to the UN Secretary General to decide that. But of course, a dialogue, certainly between NATO and India, is most welcome.

He said the NATO summit is, above all, meant for NATO members. But of course, there is always space for partners and allies, he said.

Limited Time Offer | Express Premium with ad-lite for just Rs 2/ day Click here to subscribe

The Ministry of External Affairs said that Jaishankar and Albares welcomed signing of the defence contract as part of which Airbus Spain will supply 56 C295 aircraft, 40 of which would be Made in India, and agreed to further deepen defence and security cooperation.

Edited excerpts of the interview:

What were the main topics of conversation with minister Jaishankar?

There are three main topics. One, is we agreed that we have to reinforce the bilateral relationship. India is a reliable partner and a very important country, a key actor in the region. And we have agreed that more exchanges must happen between both of us. And we have to exchange more about our view of global affairs, regional affairs and also exchange ideas on how to solve world problems.

The second one is economy and investment. There are more than 200 Spanish companies here and Spanish companies have a know-how that can help India in infrastructure, railway, water and sanitation or renewable energy. And because of the European funds The Next Generation EU funds are coming to Spain 140 billion Euros in the next year, there are a lot of opportunities for Indian companies to invest in two main sectors, digital and green economy. There are already Indian companies doing investments in Spain but we can do it more.

And the third is global issues. Without India, very important challenges like climate change, the food security crisis that we are facing cannot be solved. Since both of us are attached to multilateralism and have respect for international law, we have decided to join forces.

On Russias invasion of Ukraine:

Spain, as all European countries, has condemned the Russian aggression. The main objective of Spain and all the European partners is that peace should be restored as soon as possible in Ukraine, and the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine is respected. That is our main and only objective.

On Indias position:

Im not going to tell any country since every country is sovereign. But I think we must all join forces today, to make sure that the war stops, that peace goes back to Ukraine, and that the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine are respected. And Im sure that all countries in the world must agree at least on that basis.

What is important is that India, it is a big country that plays a stabilising role in this region. And we must count on India to face the challenges. Today it is world peace, but also the spillover of the Ukrainian crisis food security. So what Spain wants, is to engage with India, both bilaterally but also to reflect and to join forces on global issues. There are things that will be much more difficult to do if we dont count on India.

On food security:

We have exchanged views about the gravity of the situation, about the Indian measures, how India engages with its neighboring countries, to prevent them from having an impact from this crisis. I have given the Spanish point of view, and we have all agreed that we must do as much as we can to prevent this crisis from becoming a very, very serious global crisis, that will affect parts of the world that are very far from Russia and Ukraine as they can be in Latin America, or the Far East, in Asia.

On Indias ban on wheat exports:

Yes, I have been told that it has not been a total ban. The [Indian] government has put in a lot of effort on reassuring the neighbouring countries, giving them assurance that they will get what they need. Spain thinks that what we must do is join forces and measures that are too protectionist, can trigger a faster and deeper food crisis the worst thing we can do concerning this food crisis is that each one of us try to solve their small national problem, because that will make global management very complicated.

On Chinas actions in the region and lessons it draws from the Russian invasion of Ukraine:

China is a very important country, a permanent member of the Security Council. And we expect China to play the role of world power and permanent member of the Security Council, to preserve its stability, and world peace. And this is a role that is even more crucial in the region, in Chinas own region.

On Chinas aggressive moves with India, as a two-year border standoff is ongoing:

What we expect from all of our friends that are neighbours is that they have the best relations. And we also think that war, as the United Nation charter says, must be avoided to solve any political conflict of dispute.

On Europes energy needs from Russia:

Europe started a fair energy transition several years ago to move towards neutral carbon sources. Not all the countries have the same energy mix in the European Union. So there is a fine balance. We have targets for carbon-neutral energy by 2030 and 2050, and we are going to keep them. Spain has been at the forefront of that effort. At the same time, we must be very careful in this very complex time in Europe and in the world, not to destabilize countries because of the energy flows.

On the NATO summit in Madrid:

The NATO summit is, above all, meant for NATO members. But of course, there is always space for partners and allies. This will be a very crucial summit. Because there is this document called the Strategic Concept there are pressing challenges and threats on the eastern flank, and also from the southern flank. And at the same time, because there are two countries, Finland and Sweden, that theyre asking for accession, all of that will make the Madrid summit in about two weeks, a very special one.

But more and more, we talk within NATO of the 360 degrees NATO. That means that NATO that traditionally only looked towards the eastern flank, must also look to the southern flank, and reach out to all those countries that like India, might be good partners, and interested in keeping stability in the world. But we must not forget that NATO is a defensive alliance, not an offensive one.

On Indias possible participation in discussions with NATO:

It is not for me to decide, it is up to the NATO Secretary General to decide that. But of course, a dialogue, certainly between NATO and India, is most welcome.

On the perception that NATOs eastward expansion led to Russian actions against Ukraine:

I rule that out completely. Ukraines accession to NATO was not on the table. Ukraine is not a threat to Russian security. NATO is a defensive alliance. So, no one can feel threatened by its expansion. And above all, each country must be sovereign, to decide to which alliances, organization or a scheme of security you belong. So no, I dont think that is a possibility.

Key takeaways from the bilateral discussions:

There is an economic partnership that we are building in different sectors, including airports, railways, water and sanitation, renewable energy. There must be concrete and structured political dialogue, in order to be able to exchange points of view on global issues and to foster common global initiative.

Trade has been increasing a lot in the last few years, but I think that we can focus on some big projects for instance, high speed trains and at the same time investments, Indian investment in Spain is most welcome. There are already a few companies doing it, but they must be more and more involved. And another thing is a larger exchange of people can be through mobility of qualified and talented people, or also through tourism. And in order to do that, we have to go back to the connectivity, direct connectivity between Delhi and Madrid, as it was before the pandemic.

The Prime Ministers, who have already met, should meet again. And there should be political consultations at the level of the Minister of Foreign Affairs at least once a year, and then sectoral ministers, ministers of transport and ministers of infrastructure should meet.

Read more from the original source:
Spanish Foreign Minister Jos Manuel Albares: 'NATO must reach out to all countries like India which might be good partners' - The Indian Express

A MYSTERY plane has crossed six NATO countries and triggered a swarm of jets before the pilot landed and vanished.

The suspicious two-seater was spotted by Hungarian and Romanian Air Forces flying through their airspace and over Poland, Slovakia and Serbia before landing in Bulgaria.

2

Every one of those countries bar Serbia is a NATO member.

The mystery plane is believed to have taken off from Lithuania and landed in an abandoned airfield in Targovishte, Bulgaria, according to media outlet Euractiv.

Fighter jets including USAF F-16s, two Romanian F-16s and two Hungarian Gripens were scrambled and tracked the 60-year-old two seater's journey after it failed to respond to radio transmissions.

The small Beechcraft plane reportedly landed in a small airport in Debrecen, Hungary, where a group of people got off to refuel before taking off again and narrowly escaping police.

Bulgarian authorities have launched an investigation into what happened after the pilot and crew vanished after landing at Targovishte Airport, leaving the plane's engine still warm, according to reports.

The airport has been left unused for years and is now reportedly used for agricultural purposes, according to reports.

Bulgarian Ministry of Defence official Dragomir Zakov said the aircraft entered his countrys airspace in the evening of June 8.

He is reported to have said: "At no time was the plane a threat to civilian or military infrastructure in Bulgaria.

"It flew at low altitudes, which made difficult the interception for fighter jets, but it was monitored all the time.

"The Ministry of Defense is taking the appropriate actions to establish the circumstances."

It comes a matter of weeks after NATO scrambled its jets to intercept two Russian aircraft near the Finnish border with Norway amid heightened tensions in the region.

TheNorwegianAir Force intercepted a Mikoyan MiG-31 'Foxhound' and a Sukhoi Su-24 'Fencer' jet near their airspace on May 27.

Tensions betweenRussiaand the Nordic countries have skyrocketed sinceFinlandandSwedenenragedVladimir Putinbyrequesting to join NATO on May 18- almost doubling Russia's border with their feared nemeses overnight.

The Russian warplanes were intercepted by twoNATOF-35 jets over the Norwegian Sea before retreating east, the air force said.

The jets were observed outside Finnmark, in Norway's far north, but were never in official Norwegian airspace.

Stine Barclay Gaasland, comms manager in the Norwegian Air Force, said two F35s are always on standby, in what's called the Quick Reaction Alert for NATO.

"In 15 minutes they must be in the air and be ready at all times. It is 24 hours a day, 365 days a year," Gaasland told Norway'sTV 2 Nyhetene.

Trespassing into Norwegian airspace could have provoked a "more aggressive action", Gaasland said.

Asked if the incursions were a threat to Norway, she said: "I do not want to say that, because we are used to it happening, and there is nothing illegal in it.

"We pay close attention to all activity in our local areas."

Some 58 similar identifications prompted 34 scrambled last year, Norway's Armed Forces said.

The Nordic countries submitted their application together and said they were spurred on by Russia's invasion of Ukraine on February 24.

2

See the rest here:
Mystery plane crossed six NATO countries and triggered fighter-jet response before pilot vanished... - The Sun