Category Archives: NATO

As the military conflict in Ukraine bogs down on a slice of the embattled nations eastern and southern periphery, the geopolitical shift sparked by Russias Feb. 24 invasion keeps gaining new ground. This week, it emerged that the leaders of Japan and South Korea will attend a NATO summit, as observers, for the first time. Its another sign of Western-style democracies teaming up to meet the bellicose challenge of Moscow and the growing global assertiveness of Beijing.

Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida announced on Wednesday that he would attend the June 28-30 gathering of the 30-strong military alliance in Madrid. The attendance of South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol was confirmed earlier by his presidential office. Both leaders have legitimate reasons to consider their nations threatened by Russian aggression. Japan has a sea border and is locked in territorial disputes with Russia. The Kremlins historic backing of North Korea is meanwhile a perennial security concern for Seoul.

Commenting on his historic visit, Kishida told reporters that he intended to highlight common security concerns in Europe and Asia. As the only Asian country in the G7, Japans diplomatic capabilities are being tested, he said.

Read More: Bidens Moves on NATO Come Amid Fears Russia Will Expand Its War Past Ukraine

The news is a geopolitical blow to Russian President Vladmir Putin. Already, formerly neutral European nations Finland and Sweden have applied to join the bloc, while Denmark recently voted to align with the E.U. on defense matters. The presence of Kishida and Yoon in Madrid is also an unwelcome development for Beijing, which has refused to condemn Moscow for the war, arguing, as many Western thinkers have, that Russia was provoked by NATOs eastward expansion.

Mieko Nakabayashi, a professor at Tokyos Waseda University and a former Japanese lawmaker, says that Kishidas attendance at the meeting is a turning point for Japan, which still officially has a pacifist constitution. Japanese people realize the world is changing and Japan is pretty vulnerable, she says. The Ukraine war was so incomprehensible for many Japanese people that it served as a wake-up call. The decline of American hegemony has convinced Japanese people that just being with the U.S. is not safe enough.

As a result, Asias delicate security architecture may now be in the process of change. At the Shangri-la Dialogue security summit in Singapore on June 11, U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III insisted we do not seek a new Cold War, an Asian NATO, or a region split into hostile blocs.

Critics say thats exactly what NATO risks by expanding its remit beyond a European security mission.

Japanese airborne troops take part in a military review in suburban Tokyo on Oct. 14, 2018.

YOSHIKAZU TSUNO/Gamma-Rapho via Getty Images

Over the last few weeks, Kishida has hosted a summit of the Quad security dialoguealongside the U.S., Australia and Indiaand given the keynote speech at the Shangri-La Dialogue, warning I myself have a strong sense of urgency that Ukraine today may be East Asia tomorrow.

Had this outreach been made by Japans hawkish former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, Nakabayashi says there probably would have been more domestic pushback. However, Kishida is perceived as being more dovish than Abe and his rhetoric on defense has more credibility. Already, Japan has promised to boost defense spending to 2% of GDP in line with NATO targets, with Abe saying the nation would be a laughing stock if it didnt.

To be clear, South Korea has had extremely robust relations with Moscow, driven chiefly by economics and the confluence of South Koreas New Northern Policy and Russias Turn to the East. Seoul didnt impose its own sanctions against Moscow in response to the 2014 annexation of Crimea. But a tilt towards NATO risks upsetting that mutually beneficial detente. South Koreas spy agency has already joined NATOs cyber defense unit.

If South Korea is going to burn those bridges with Moscow, Im concerned that the situation could escalate in the Korean peninsula with Russia playing a more robust role to support Pyongyang, says Lyle Goldstein, director for Asia engagement at the Washington D.C.-based Defense Priorities think tank and a visiting professor at Brown University. No doubt, Pyongyang is one of the big winners in the whole Ukraine war.

The perception in Beijing is that Tokyo and Seouls participation in Madrid is directed at China. NATO is headed by the United States, says Zhou Bo, a retired PLA senior colonel and senior fellow at the Center for International Security and Strategy at Tsinghua University. Therefore, if the United States concludes that China is a more serious threat than Russia, then of course it will just make use of NATO.

Read More: Bidens Vow to Defend Taiwan If China Invaded Is Risky

China has previously enjoyed friendly relations with NATO, frequently partnering with the bloc on joint exercises like anti-piracy missions in the Gulf of Aden. In addition, NATO delegations have attended the influential Xiangshan Forum in Beijing and engaged in many official exchanges.

Yet NATOs attitude to China is turning more hostile. Zhou, who during his PLA career was for a period in charge of relations with NATO, says that the bloc used to describe China as an opportunity, but under U.S. direction has tellingly shifted to using the term challenge.

The irony is the U.S. actually poses a problem for NATO member states, because most of them are European countries still friendly with China, says Zhou. These are just countries wearing too many hats in different capacities.

While Goldstein says there are positives to Japan and South Korea taking their own defense more seriously, he cautions that coalescing a bloc of Asian allies with China on the outside risks recreating the same alienating circumstances for China that Russia felt preceding the Ukraine war.

One of the problems with European security is that it increasingly became purely about trying to deter Russia, which became convinced that it was on the outside and had nothing to lose in using force, says Goldstein.

The nightmare scenario in East Asia is that China decides they have nothing to gain from actively participating in this [security] architecture so they basically have to destroy the architecture.

More Must-Read Stories From TIME

Write to Charlie Campbell at charlie.campbell@time.com.

See the original post here:
Here's Why Japan and South Korea Are Attending a NATO Summit - TIME

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

Good morning.In two weeks time, we will meet in Madrid, all the NATO leaders, at a pivotal moment for our security.Russias war against Ukraine is posing the biggest threat to Euro-Atlantic security in decades.Russia is now engaged in a brutal war of attrition against the Ukrainian people.Causing death and devastation on a large-scale.

And with far-reaching consequences and global implications.As demonstrated by the food and energy crises, deliberately orchestrated by Russia.

In this more dangerous world, we need to make NATO stronger, and further support our partners.And that is what we will do at this weeks meeting of Defence Ministers.

Tonight we will meet with Ukraine, Georgia, Sweden, Finland, and the European Union.This will be an opportunity for Defence Minister Reznikov to update us on what Ukraine urgently needs.And for NATO Allies to make new announcements of support to Ukraine.Allies are committed to continue providing the military equipment that Ukraine needs to prevail, including heavy weapons and long range systems.

We will also discuss how to step up practical support for other partners at risk, including Bosnia Herzegovina, and Georgia.

Allies and partners have already provided Ukraine with billions of dollars worth of military equipment, as well as economic and humanitarian aid.

I expect that at the Summit, NATO Allies will agree a comprehensive assistance package for Ukraine.Helping Ukraine for the longer-term,to transition from Soviet-era equipment to modern NATO equipment,and to improve interoperability with NATO.

Allies are unwavering in their support for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of our close partners in Europe.And for the right of each nation to choose its own path, free from outside interference.

The decisions by Finland and Sweden to apply for NATO membership are historic.We are now working actively on the next steps in the accession process.And as we do, we take into account the security concerns of all Allies.

Tomorrow, NATO Defence Ministers will address the need to significantly strengthen our deterrence and defence to respond to a new security reality.

We have already done a lot.With speed and unity.In response to Russias invasion of Ukraine,we have doubled the number of NATO battlegroups to eight,and extended them from the Baltic to the Black Sea.Placed over 40,000 troops under direct NATO command,mainly on the eastern flank.Backed by major air and naval power.And increased our readiness and exercises.

We will now take decisions on the scale and design of our posture for the longer term.To ensure that we can defend every inch of Allied territory.

From the first moment,at all times,and against any threat.

This will mean more presence, more capabilities, and higher readiness.

With more NATO forward deployed combat formations to strengthen our battlegroups in the East.More air, sea and cyber defences, pre-positioned equipment and weapon stockpiles.And a new force model, with more forces at higher readiness, and specific forces pre-assigned to the defence of specific Allies.

I welcome Germanys intention to strengthen its engagement in Lithuania, where it leads our NATO battlegroup.And develop it towards a more robust combat brigade.Other Allies are also considering what more they can do.

Our decisions will make NATO stronger.And ensure that we can deter any attack across all domains.

Stronger defences in a more dangerous world require more investment.And more investment together.

Since Russias illegal annexation of Crimea, in 2014, we have seen seven consecutive years of rising defence investments across European Allies and Canada.Allies are also investing more in modern capabilities, and contributing to NATO deployments and exercises.

This is the right trend.And it needs to continue for the longer term.To rise to the challenges of today and tomorrow.

Let me add in closing that the US-led Ukraine Support Contact Group is also meeting today at NATO to discussUkraines urgent needs for military equipment.And I thank the United States for its leadership and coordination.

With that, I am ready to take your questions.

Jonathan Beale (BBC): Thank you very much, Jonathan Beale from BBC. Thank you. Secretary General, just a quick question on the weapons. I mean, Ukraine's deputy Defence Minister has said they've only got 10 being given 10% of the weapons and ammo they've asked for. Do you think NATO countries are doing enough to supply Ukraine with lethal aid? And the second question is about Sweden and Finland. We've heard from Turkey that they want to postpone or delay that membership. Do you think Do you accept that Sweden and Finland's membership of NATO is going to take longer than you had hoped? Thank you.

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg: We will meet the Ukrainian Defence Minister today to discuss exactly how we can improve the way we are delivering support. The starting point is that NATO Allies and partners have delivered unprecedented levels of support to Ukraine over the last months. Actually NATO Allies and NATO has, have supported Ukraine for many years. We started back in 2014 to train and equip the Ukrainian Armed Forces. So the Ukrainian Armed Forces were much better equipped, much better trained, much larger and stronger now than they were back in 2014. And that's one of the reasons theyve been able to stand up against invasion from Russia.

But of course after the invasion there was an urgent need to step up, and that's exactly what Allies and partners have done, with more equipment, more advanced equipment, heavy weapons systems, and also with more training outside Ukraine. It's always important to be as closely coordinated and consult as closely as possible with Ukraine on what types of weapons, how to get the weapons in and what kind of training and maintenance they need to ensure that these weapons are really making a difference on the battlefield. And that's exactly the reason why it's important that we meet the Ukrainian Defence Minister Reznikov today, and why we also have the meeting, not only the NATO Defence Ministers meeting with the Ukrainian Defence Minister, but also that we have the US-led contact group for Ukraine meeting also today here at NATO to coordinate the efforts of NATO Allies and partners in providing support. So we are extremely focused on stepping up, providing more support, more advanced weapons, and also to do that in the best possible way for Ukrainians because we support them in their just fight against the brutal Russian invasion.

Then on Finland and Sweden. We are now in very close contact both with Finland and Sweden. I met with Prime Minister Magdalena Andersson and President Sauli Niinist over the weekend and I welcome the fact that Finland and Sweden are ready to address some of the concerns that Trkiye has put forward on terrorism. And we are also of course working very closely with our NATO Ally, Trkiye on those concerns they have raised. So we are looking for ways to find a solution to these issues as soon as possible, so Sweden and Finland can become members as soon as possible. I cannot tell you exactly when, but I can only tell you that what we do in NATO is the same thing we do always when there are differences and that is consult, discuss, and then find a way to address concerns and the united way forward.

Iryna Somer (Interfax Ukraine): Thank you, Secretary General. Iryna Somer, news agency Interfax Ukraine. I would like to ask you if Mr. Zelensky, Ukrainian president, will be invited for the Madrid Summit and if yes, in which format? Can they expect something like NATO-Ukraine Commission or it will be something different? And second question is on Friday, this Friday, we expect that European Commission will issue conclusions regarding our status, candidate status, for Ukraine in the EU. And expectations are that this conclusion will be positive, that yes, European Commission will recommend to grant to Ukraine status of candidacy into the European Union. Don't you think that if Ukraine is ready to be a candidate for EU, it's also ready to be a candidate for NATO? Thank you.

NATO Secretary General: President Zelensky will be invited to the NATO Summit in Madrid. He will be invited to address all the leaders, so when we meet together there at the end of the month. He is of course welcome to come in person, if that's not possible for him he will address also by videoconference, by VTC. We will We very much look forward to President Zelensky addressing all Allied leaders. These leaders are extremely committed to support Ukraine and also to express their solidarity and also demonstrate that solidarity not only in words, but also in deeds. And as President Zelensky also addressed the last Summit we had here in Brussels in March, he will also then address and take part in the Summit in Madrid in two weeks time.

Then, Ukraine is an aspirant for NATO membership. Our focus now is to help them in the fight against the brutal Russian invasion, to help them with practical support, with lethal and non-lethal aid from NATO Allies and NATO, and then also to help Ukraine to modernise, continue to modernise, its armed forces, something NATO Allies have worked on for many years, but stepped up now, including the transition from Soviet era equipment to modern NATO equipment. This is our focus and I think the most urgent need in our relationship with Ukraine as we speak.

Tamara Nutsubidze (RUSTAVI 2 TV): I have the same question as my Ukrainian colleague. As we know, Georgia is also invited in Madrid. So is it clear which kind of format will be there for our country and what can we expect there in Madrid for Georgia? Thank you.

NATO Secretary General: Georgia is invited to participate in the meeting with the leaders. I think that's an important expression of the solidarity and the close partnership we have between Georgia and NATO. I think that not least in light of the brutal invasion of Ukraine, it's even more important that the NATO Allies step up their support to other partners that are vulnerable for Russian aggression. Of course, Georgia is one of these countries. Russia has already invaded parts of Georgia, controls parts of Georgian territory, and therefore I also expect that Allies will agree on concrete steps to further strengthen the practical partnership, the way we work together on training, on capacity building, on reforms, to increase Georgia's ability to stand up against Russian intervention and efforts to undermine the stability and territorial integrity of Georgia.

Dan Michaels (Wall Street Journal): Dan Michaels with the Wall Street Journal. It's clear as you say that NATO Allies have delivered unprecedented amounts of weapons over recent months to Ukraine. But it was about two months ago that Foreign Minister Kuleba was here and said that the three items on his agenda were weapons, weapons and more weapons. Given the situation, do you think that NATO members have felt sufficient urgency in responding to Ukraine's request with the quantity and quality of weapons that the leadership in Kyiv says they need, especially given what the impact on NATO and its members would be if Russia were to prevail in Ukraine? Thank you.

NATO Secretary General: NATO leaders realise the urgency and that's also the reason why we have stepped up significantly over the last months since the invasion. And actually we started before the invasion because if anything, this invasion was very well predicted by our intelligence services. So not only have we provided the support to Ukraine since 2014, but Allies also started to step up in the last weeks and months in the run up to the invasion and then after even more. Then of course, sometimes these efforts take time and that's exactly why it is important to have a meeting like we have today, both at the NATO ministerial level but also in the US-led contact group to meet with the Ukrainian representatives, to identify the challenges and the issues they would like to raise with us when it comes to how to speed up delivery of weapons. And of course, you also have to recognise that we now are delivering more long-range, more advanced air defence systems, more advanced artillery, more heavy weapons, more modern NATO standard weapons. Then sometimes it also will take some time to train, to ensure the necessary maintenance and the necessary support for these systems. So it is also a fact that we now are actually starting the transition from Soviet era weapons to more modern NATO weapons. They will be also some time needed to just make the Ukrainians ready to use and operate these systems.

But that just highlights the importance of doing this in the best possible way, in the closest possible coordination with the Ukrainians. And also not only deliver of course weapons, but also a lot of non-lethal aid which is of critical importance: fuel, medical supplies, different types of protective gear, and many other types of supply, including, of course, training and support in NATO Allied countries. Yesterday I was together with seven NATO leaders in Den Haag and they all went through different activities where they provide support to Ukraine and for instance, the Dutch Prime Minister told us about how they are now in the process of delivering howitzers to Ukraine, including with training of Ukrainians who are going to operate these more advanced weapons systems. So we see We are working closely with Ukraine to overcome all hurdles in our efforts to provide as much support as possible, as quickly as possible. Because there is an urgent need for support, Ukraine is really in a very critical situation and therefore theres an urgent need to step up.

Lili Bayer (POLITICO): Thank you very much, Lili Bayer from Politico. I have two brief questions. The first is: could you update us on where you think the landing zone will be in the debate over the new force posture along the eastern flank? And the second thing is, is there anything NATO is considering or looking at doing to indirectly or directly help get Ukrainian grain to world markets? Thank you.

NATO Secretary General: First on the grain, an export of food and grain from Ukraine, that's extremely critical. We see the spike in the food and grain prices and this just demonstrates the global ramifications, consequences of this war. And this is not caused by NATO or sanctions or Western sanctions against Russia. This is a direct consequence of Russia's war against Ukraine. I say this because I also see that Russia tries in a way to create the narrative that the spike in the grain prices is caused by our sanctions. That's not correct. It's caused by the war. And the best way to reduce food prices, to get grain out of Ukraine, is to stop the war, for Russia to stop the illegal war against Ukraine. As long as the war continues, then of course we need to address how to get grain out by other means. There are some efforts, there will be some limitations in the scale but there are some efforts to get some grain out also on land and NATO Allies, the European countries, are involved in that. And last time I spoke to President Erdogan, one of the main issues he updated me on is also the efforts by Trkiye to try to facilitate some kind of agreement that could enable export of grain on boat over the Black Sea. I really hope that these efforts can lead to something but it's too early to say to what extent that will be successful those efforts. But Trkiyeas a NATO Ally is heavily involved in those efforts, as other Allies also try to support and find ways to get the grain out.

Then on the force model. Well, what is clear is that will significantly strengthen our deterrence and defence. This is, of course, very much about the east but it's about the whole of NATO in all domains and across the whole Alliance, because we need to be prepared for threats and attacks from all directions. But of course, with the current situation in Ukraine, of course, it's also very much about the East. We have already increased significantly our presence there, doubling the number of battlegroups from four to eight, high-readiness forces. What we will do now is to scale up, do more both when it comes to presence in the East, scale of the battle groups and for instance, Germany, and we also expect other Allies to be ready to step up their presence. And we have to remember that since the invasion, Germany has doubled its presence in Lithuania, the UK has practically doubled its presence in Estonia. The US, the United States, they have increased their presence in Europe with roughly 30% from around 70,000 troops to more than 100,000 troops. So this significant increase is already taking place.

Then built on that we will have a combination of different things. We will have more presence, especially in these East, forward presence, scalable presence, but more presence of combat formations. We will have more pre-positioned equipment. I think the war in Ukraine has demonstrated the need for supplies, for ammunition and of course you can much faster reinforce if you already have the heavy material pre-positioned in the East. And for the first time since the Cold War we will have pre-assigned forces to specific countries in the East, linked to our defence plans. And that's exactly what we're working on with Germany, but we expect other Allies to make similar offers, to have pre assigned forces that are training and are responsible for the defence of specific territories. And then of course, naval, air, cyber, command and control, many elements that will be part of the package we will agree at the NATO Summit in two weeks time.

Gul Sonomut (NTV): Gul Sonomut from NTV. Two short questions. Secretary General, initially the Summit was about Strategic Concept and NATO 2030. So bearing in mind the new threat posed by Russia, is there kind of or can you say that there is an agreement on the updated Strategic Concept? And with regard to NATO 2030 does is there a consensus to give more power to you as a Secretary General in order to have a more efficient institution? And with regard to Sweden and Finland, could we expect at Madrid that they at least have the status of invitee countries so that that may pave the way to a full membership by the end of the year? Thank you.

NATO Secretary General: NATO doesn't have the luxury of choosing only one challenge or only one task, we need to do many things at the same time. So this Summit will reflect exactly that. We will agree a new Strategic Concept that will reflect the new security reality. We have to remember that the current Strategic Concept agreed in 2010 at the Lisbon Summit, in that Strategic Concept we referred to Russia as a strategic partner. And I was at that Summit as Prime Minister, and I remember Prime Minister Medvedev from Russia was attending that Summit ten years ago. Of course, now we are not going to refer to Russia as a strategic partner. We said that Europe is that the Euro-Atlantic area is at peace, now we have war in Europe. And we didn't mention China with a single word. And I'm certain that in the next Strategic Concept we will agree in Madrid we will also address the security consequences of China. We will not refer to China as an adversary but we will take into account that this matters also for our security. And it will address many other challenges and threats, be the blueprint for NATO into a more dangerous future. So we will agree a Strategic Concept.

We will also make important decisions on further significantly strengthening NATO's deterrence and defence. Forward presence, higher readiness, pre-assigned forces, more pre-positioned equipment and more efforts across all domains. We will invest funding, both the need to continue to invest more in the national defence budgets but also invest more together in NATO. Partnerships will be an important part of the Summit. For the first time in our history we will invite our Asia Pacific partners, the Prime Ministers of New Zealand, Australia, Japan and also the President of South Korea will participate in the NATO Summit, which is a strong demonstration of our close partnership with these like-minded countries in the Asia Pacific.

And then we will agree a comprehensive assistance package for Ukraine. President Zelensky will be at the Summit and we will also of course address Swedish and Finnish applications for NATO membership. It's too early to say how far we will be able to get by the Summit. The Summit has never been a deadline. But I work hard to try to solve, and many other capitals and people in my staff work hard to solve, the concerns, or address the concerns, that Trkiye has raised and hopefully we can have some progress by the Summit but it's too early to say.

(Lithuanian National Radio and Television): Good morning thank you for the floor, [Inaudible] from Lithuanian National Radio and Television. Yesterday, the Financial Times reported that Germany is backing up on plans to base extra troops in Lithuania and we are hearing that those forces will stay in Germany but they will be pre-assigned to Lithuania in case of emergency or something. Does that mean that Lithuania and other Baltic States cannot hope for any extra troops, which would be based actually in those countries and not 100 kilometres away? And also what this new pre-assigned forces model means for the security of Baltic States versus forces being actually on the ground. Thank you very much.

NATO Secretary General: It remains to be decided or the exact details of the new force structure and the implications for specific countries as for instance, Lithuania, but what I can say is the following is that it entails different elements and one element is more forward presence. We have to remember that Germany has all today practically doubled its presence in Romania, adding to the existing battlegroup with almost an additional battalion. Also, other Allies have increased their presence in the NATO multinational battlegroup, in Lithuania, that has already taken place over the last weeks. Second, there will be headquarter elements, which is extremely critical for operating commanding and controlling any reinforcement big or small. Thirdly, there will be pre-positioned equipment. And of course if you have the heavy equipment, the heavy material already pre-positioned, it actually goes quickly to the people. So, the preposition equipment weapons is essential for any rapid reinforcement.

Then we will have pre assigned forces and you are correct that they and not all of them will be deployed permanently in Lithuania or in any other countries in eastern part of the Alliance. But the new thing is that they will be earmarked pre-assigned for that specific territory, meaning that they will train, they will rotate in and out, they will know the country the territory they have worked together on interoperability working with the home defence forces and they have pre-designed tasks. So it is this and then of course more naval and more air. We have also for instance now Spain stepping up with more air defences in the Baltic region and other Allies are stepping up with more air and naval presence.

So to sum up that that it will be a combination of more forward presence of troops, more forward command and control headquarters, more forward deployed stocks, fuels, weapon systems, especially heavy weapons, and then pre-assigned troops that will train regularly in the different countries in the eastern part of the Alliance. And again, the starting point is that over the last weeks we have more, almost doubled the battle group in Lithuania, doubled the battle group in in Estonia, doubled the number of battlegroups from four to eight. And we also have for instance, France and Belgium and other Allies being part of the NATO increased presence in in Romania, and the US has significantly increased their presence. And these are troops that may be based in Germany or Poland but they are rotating around not least in the eastern part of the Alliance. So altogether this is significantly strengthening our deterrence and defence across the whole Alliance. But especially in eastern part of the Alliance.

Ansgar Haase (DPA): Ansgar Haase, the German Press Agency DPA, Secretary General, can you tell us a little bit more about this new comprehensive assistance package for Ukraine? Does it include only financial assistance or is it also about a military training mission or things like this? Thank you.

NATO Secretary General: We have to understand that NATO and NATO Allies support Ukraine in many different ways. We have a lot of bilateral support, and we strongly welcome that. I expect new announcements at the meeting today. Both the ministerial meeting and also the ministerial meeting of the Ukraine contact group, Support group for Ukraine led by the United States also taking place today. But then we have the comprehensive package, which is another element of support from NATO allies and NATO. And that is party, First of all, it builds on what they have done for many years. And second, it is very much about enabling the Ukrainians to transition from Soviet era from old equipment to more modern NATO standard equipment. That transition requires a lot of, how shall I say, sharing of knowledge, of expertise, enabling them to do this quite challenging move from a more Armed Forces based on more old systems to more modern systems. And it's also very much about interoperability, ensuring that they have the standards, that they have the routines, that they have the command and control that enable them to have interoperability also with other NATO Allied countries. It's a combination of practical support, capacity building and also scale up the funding for this comprehensive package. And that comes also on top of on what the NATO allies and what NATO is delivering, when it comes to different types of protective equipment, UAVs, and other systems, non-lethal systems which are critical for Ukraine. So, the comprehensive package is about scaling up, doing more, and not least helping them more with the long term adaptation of Ukrainian armed forces.

Sabine Siebold (Reuters): Sabine Siebold, Reuters. Secretary General, you were talking about the transition to Western weapons. Does that also mean that Allies will start to supply Ukraine with weapons they want to have but they are not getting from the West yet, like Western made battle tanks?

NATO Secretary General: So first of all, Allies have already started to significantly provide Western weapons, NATO standard weapons, including very advanced air defence systems, multiple rocket systems, and also other types of not least, advanced Western artillery. We are also providing different types of armoured vehicles and a wide range of these different systems. I cannot tell you exactly what kind of announcements that will be made today. But there are now really a wide range of different systems including heavy systems, armoured systems and weapons which are provided by NATO Allies to Ukraine. And we see an unprecedented level of support from NATO Allies. Then I fully understand that being in Ukraine, seeing all the death, all the destruction, seeing the brutal war taking place not least in Donbas, there is an urgent need for even more, and that's exactly what we're going to address today. With the Ukrainians, how can we provide more support and how can we ensure that that support reaches them as soon as possible?

Question: [Inaudible]. So, I have a specific question about Ankaras trip, about delays, possible delayed at least one year. So what kind of measures from NATO you are taking? Just a specified to me Thank you.

NATO Secretary General: The application of Finland and Sweden to join NATO are historic decisions by Finland and Sweden. I welcome them. I think it will strengthen Finland and Sweden. It will strengthen Europe, it will strengthen NATO and it will help to ensure stability across the whole Euro-Atlantic area. It also demonstrates that NATOs door is open and that Finland and Sweden they make their own sovereign decisions. It's not President Putin that decides what Finland and Sweden can and cannot do. At the same time Trkiye, an important Ally, has expressed some concerns about some specific issues especially related to the fight against terrorism. And when an Ally, In this case, Trkiyeraises some concerns. And these are legitimate concerns related to their fight against the PKK, a group, and other terrorist organisations, the PKK is a group which is prescribed, recognised as a terrorist organisation by NATO Allies by the European Union, and also by Finland and Sweden. Then of course we need to sit down, address those concerns and that is exactly what we are doing and I welcome the signal and the messages from Finland and Sweden, that they are ready to actually take actions and to work closely, more closely, with Trkiyeto address their concerns, their security concerns not least related to terrorism. My aim is to solve this issue as soon as possible. But, since we are several nations involved in this process, there is no way to tell you exactly when we will solve it but I'm confident that Finland and Sweden will become Members of NATO also because Trkiyehas made declared that they are in favour of NATO's open door policy. They see the value of enlargement but they have some specific concerns that we have to address together.

Beatriz Navarro (La Vanguardia): Thank you for the floor Oana, Beatriz Navarro from La Vanguardia. I have a question again on the reinforcement of the NATO presence in the eastern flank. I understand the basis for the decision not to have a permanent presence but a persistent presence on a rotatory basis, with the Founding Act signed by NATO and Russia in 1997. I'm wondering whether this legal basis is still a stand for you for NATO, or they died February 24th When Russia invaded Ukraine. Thank you.

NATO Secretary General: So Russia has walked away from the NATO Russia Founding Act, the main principles there, not least the respect for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of all countries in Europe and by invading Ukraine of course that's a blatant violation of NATO Russia Founding Act. This Act doesn't limit our ability to increase our presence in the eastern part of the Alliance. And it doesn't limit our ability to strengthen our posture in general across the whole Alliance.

Let me add that that Putin's goals goes beyond Ukraine. That was clearly stated in the so-called security treaties he proposed for the United States and NATO in December last year. We actually had a meeting here at NATO in January where we sat down with Russia and tried to find diplomatic solution, and also where we provided our responses to those proposals from Russia. In those proposals, they, of course, threatened Ukraine, but also threatened NATO by saying that there should be no further NATO enlargement and they also wanted NATO to agree to remove all troops and all NATO infrastructure from NATO Allies that had joined after 1997. If we had accepted that, we would first of all have violated the fundamental principle of all countries to choose their own path including Finland and Sweden joining NATO. And, the Finnish president had said that it was actually when Russia wanted to close the door to NATO, that they realised that they had to move into NATO. And also the idea that we should remove all forces and infrastructure from the eastern part of the Alliance would actually mean that we were going to into some kind of first and second class NATO membership. So we of course, didn't accept those proposals. But it demonstrates that President Putin's goals goes beyond Ukraine, and that's the reason why we need to both provide support to Ukraine as we do, but also strengthen our deterrence and defence not least in the eastern part of the Alliance.

Natalia Drozdiak (Bloomberg): Natalia Drozdiak from Bloomberg. I just had two points that I want to clarify. Just first on the posture you said we can expect more troops on the eastern flank at least preassigned, what volume are we talking about? Germany spoke about brigade level is that what we'll see in other eastern flank countries as well. And just on the Turkey, Finland, and Sweden issue I wanted to clarify because a few weeks ago you said you know you expected that they would be invitees by Madrid. And today in the last few days, you've said the Madrid summit was never a deadline. So does that suggest your expectations have changed about what will be possible before Madrid? Thank you.

NATO Secretary General: I was more optimistic then, that's correct because at that stage, we didn't have any information indicating that this will be a problem. Then, since then, we saw the concerns expressed by Trkiye, and therefore this will take some more time than we originally expected. So, that's a new aspect of the whole process, because until Trkiyeexpressed their concerns we had no reasons to believe that this will be a problem for NATO Allies. Then some problems have been put to the table and then it will take some more time. And we need to of course address those concerns those issues. And that's exactly what we are doing. And we have positive signals from Finland and Sweden, and we are working closely with our Ally Trkiyeto solve them. So yes, there is a difference now compared to where we were, already thought we were, earlier in this process. The other, on it, I don't envisage that we will have exactly the same formations in all countries on the eastern flank. Germany has already announced their willingness to provide to scale up to a brigade with a combination of forward presence, forward pre-positioned equipment, forward command and control with pre-assigned forces in Germany that trains and exercises in Lithuania. So, it will be a combination of more forward presence and more pre-assigned forces.

The United Kingdom has indicated and they are now discussing what kind of increased presence they can have in Estonia but I also expect that to be significant and maybe also this combination of presence and pre-assigned forces. And then other Allies have mentioned, Spain, for instance, and other Allies also, Denmark, other Allies have also announced readiness to increase their presence as part of a bigger NATO build up, especially in the East. We have France part of the NATO presence in Romania, in Romania and in Poland, we also have significant US presence. Some of this US presence is outside the NATO framework, but it still is of course still contributing to the overall efforts all NATO and NATO Allies. So especially the US increased from also from 70,000, roughly to more than 100,000 roughly in Europe. That's a huge difference. It makes a huge difference that they are there. Most of these troops are not permanently based, but they are rotating and making a significant difference for our deterrence and defence. So, the answer is not the same formation in every country, but in several countries. I expect this to be brigade-sized formations based on partly forward precedence and partly forward deployed equipment and partly pre-assigned forces. Thank you.

Go here to read the rest:
Pre-ministerial press conference by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg ahead of the meetings of NATO Defence Ministers - NATO HQ