Category Archives: NATO

Over five days, the leaders of the G7 and Nato shifted from the pastoral backdrop of the Bavarian Alps to the more prosaic plains of Madrid, but at no point was there a shortage of photo opportunities, trumpeting of democracy, multibillion-dollar announcements or pledges of unstinting resolve to help Ukraine.

But as the leaders head home to their more mundane domestic challenges, it is legitimate to ask how far these promises change the balance of power on the battlefield, or put doubt in the mind of Vladimir Putin. For although these summits were an exercise in reassurance to domestic electorates, and to a lesser extent to Ukraine, the target audience was really one man: the Russian president.

Not surprisingly, he gave off the impression of insouciance. In central Asia, on his first trip overseas since the war began, he claimed: The work is going quietly, rhythmically, the troops are moving and are reaching the lines that have been given to them as milestones. Everything is going according to plan.

The sudden, and somewhat mysterious, withdrawal of the Russian garrison from Snake Island (measuring 600 metres by 700 metres) might suggest otherwise, but it is not the start of the removal of all Russian troops from Ukraine, including Crimea, a war objective restated as realistic by the UK foreign secretary, Liz Truss, on Thursday.

Part of the difficulty is that these summits were not quite the council of war that Volodymyr Zelenskiy needed, partly because Joe Biden did not want to play into Russian propaganda by portraying Nato as anything other than a defensive alliance, the armoured guardian of its own territory.

The Nato summit was largely about the consequences of Russias invasion, not for Ukraine but for countries already inside or about to join Nato. It was about defending every inch of Nato territory, as Biden put it.

Ukraine does not directly benefit from the admission into Nato of the two paladins of peace, as Boris Johnson described Sweden and Finland. The same applies to the sevenfold increase in Nato forces on high alert, the establishment of the first permanent US operational headquarters on the alliances eastern flank in Poland, the increase in the number of US troops in the region, or a new 10-year strategy that dispenses of any notion of partnership with Russia. That is not to minimise their significance. On paper, the intention to build such high-readiness forces is the greatest systemic and mental change in Nato planning since the end of the cold war, but it has no impact on the killing fields of Donbas. To paraphrase Zelenskiy, he does not need a new Nato strategic concept he needs ammunition.

But that does not mean no progress was made. For one thing, the French president, Emmanuel Macron, could not have been more blunt in his criticism of Putin, or clearer that avenues to a ceasefire are closed. If there is a premature peace faction, it does not reside in Paris.

For Zelenskiy himself, the summit was about finances, weapons and politics.

On finance, Ukraine is gobbling up an extraordinary $5bn a month as its economy and exports degrade, but the US is prepared to underwrite this. Biden promised another $800m in defence assistance in the next few days, including a new advanced air defence system. The UK, the second biggest supplier of military aid, agreed to spend another 1.15bn of military aid to Ukraine. Germany, going round in circles about delivering arms, has been better at subsidising Ukraines economy.

A further recovery summit, dedicated to the reconstruction of Ukraine, will be held in Lugano on 4-5 July, which Zelenskiy himself is slated to attend.

On weapons, before the summit, Mikhail Podolyak, an adviser to the Ukrainian president, gave an inventory of Ukraines needs: 1,000 155mm-calibre howitzers, 300 multiple-launch rocket systems, 500 tanks, 2,000 armoured vehicles, and 1,000 drones.

Ukrainian forces, officials say, have lost 700 armoured vehicles in the last three months, and replacements are urgently needed. Both France and Spain have responded with the offer of tanks or armoured personnel carriers.

Above all, they need ammunition or artillery. Russian artillery is firing 40,000-60,000 missiles a day, while Ukrainian artillery can respond with 5,000 to 6,000. Worse, the west does not have the ammunition for the old Soviet artillery systems that Ukraine uses. So far, the US has only delivered four Himars launchers, but more deliveries from both the US and the UK have been promised. At present they are being used almost exclusively to hit Russian ammunition depots in the Luhansk region.

There can be no counter-offensive planned for the summer or the deployment of newly trained forces on the frontlines unless there is a transformation in the speed and volume with which weapons are supplied.

Sign up to First Edition, our free daily newsletter every weekday morning at 7am BST

There is also an urgency. Putin believes time is on his side and that Russia can pound the longest. Just as the Ukrainian forces can only suffer a certain level of attrition, so too western politicians can only risk the wrath of their electorates for so long. The proposals from the US to cut the price of Russian oil, and from Italy to curb the price of Russian piped gas discussed at length at the G7 were probably the two most significant ideas to emerge from the summits. Macron admitted these ideas are currently a construction site. They urgently need a lot more work if the west is to find a way to hit the Russian economy, and protect European consumers. US state department officials were in London as soon as the summit ended to pursue ideas with the Treasury.

Gustav Gressel, a security analyst at the European Council on Foreign Relations, identifies a western policy preference to fight this war as an economic contest as opposed to a military one. But, he argues, looking at things developing on the ground, the other way round would be better: The Russian economy could be stabilised by Moscow, arguably at a lower point, but still. Economics is not Putins playground, and he will not have his geopolitical ambition tamed by economic setbacks. On the other hand, breaking Russias offensive capabilities by providing Kyiv with the tools to do so (tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, artillery, air defence) would be the cheaper solution.

The next few months, not these summits, will prove whether those tools will be provided.

Here is the original post:
What did the G7 and Nato summits really mean for Ukraine? - The Guardian

Breyers Out, Jacksons InThe Story

Justice Stephen Breyers hanging up his robes today.

Correct. Confirmed in 1994 with bipartisan support, Breyer became recognized by many as the court's consensus seeker. He was known for liberal rulings on health care and abortion access but was most well-known for his concern with the USs death penalty. In 2015, he wrote a dissent on lethal injections, questioning the legality of capital punishment. Now, amid pressure from some Democrats to retire, the 83-year-old justice will be succeeded by Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Today at noon. Thats when Jackson will be sworn in to replace Breyer. Shell be the first Black woman to serve on the Supreme Court and the first justice with experience as a federal public defender. But her confirmation doesnt change the high courts standing. Since shes replacing Breyer, itll still be a conservative majority of 6 to 3.

Yep. This morning, the court is expected to announce its two remaining opinions before breaking for the summer. First up is whether the Environmental Protection Agency has the power to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. If SCOTUS says nope, Congress would step in to regulate. It's a move that could set back the Biden admins goals on climate change...and times ticking. Second, President Bidens challenge to end the Remain in Mexico program. Thats the Trump-era policy requiring many asylum seekers to stay in Mexico for months or years while they wait for their US asylum claims to be processed.

Justice Breyers retirement is clearing the way for a new justice to help decide the country's future. But the court is still on track to have a solidly conservative lean for decades to come.

NATO. Yesterday, NATO leaders invited Sweden and Finland to become members. Now that Turkeys onboard, the two traditionally neutral countries will move forward with the ratification process, which could take up to a year. But a NATO official expects it to move as quickly as possible. The urgency comes as the 30-member alliance labeled Russia its most significant and direct threat. Allies also committed to deploying more robust in-place combat-ready forces on its eastern flank, with President Biden saying +1 to that. In addition to deploying more troops to the region, Biden also announced a permanent HQ in Poland a first for the US on NATOs eastern side. Russian President Vladimir Putin said if any military contingents and infrastructure are deployed in Sweden and Finland, he will have to respond in kind.

Oh and Ukraine secured the release of 144 soldiers the biggest prisoner swap since Russias invasion.

The FCC. Earlier this week, a Republican commissioner asked Apple and Google to remove TikTok from their app stores. The commissioner worries the video app owned by Chinese company ByteDance could be sending American users data back to Beijing. And says that the unfettered access China has to sensitive data violates Apple and Googles standards. The FCC can't regulate apps, but that doesn't stop it from putting pressure on the companies. The company has called concerns about its data privacy misleading. But the FCC commissioner maintains the apps a sophisticated surveillance tool.

Israel. Today, the countrys parliament voted to dissolve itselfagain. The collapse comes after Israels government formed a historic coalition including the first Arab faction. The main goal was ousting former PM Benjamin Netanyahu. But theyve been stuck in political limbo. Now, Israel will hold its fifth election in less than four years. PM Naftali Bennett will be packing his bags as one of Israels shortest-serving prime ministers. Foreign Minister Yair Lapid will be the temporary PM till the November elections. And there could be a pathway for Netanyahu to take the reigns.

R Kelly. Yesterday, the singer was sentenced to 30 years in prison after a NY jury found him guilty of sex trafficking and racketeering which included acts of kidnapping and bribery. Since the 1990s, nearly a dozen women and girls have accused the singer of sexual abuse, manipulation, and inappropriate relationships. Now, a US attorney says the sentence shows that no matter how powerful, rich, or famous an abuser may be, justice only hears the truth. In August, Kelly is set to stand trial in Chicago for child pornography and obstruction-of-justice charges.

Female tennis players are (Wimble)done with the dress code.

Baby neck floats arent the answer.

Skimmd by Rashaan Ayesh, Melanie De Lima, Kate Gilhool, Julie Shain, and Mariza Smajlaj

Originally posted here:
Justice Stephen Breyer, NATO, and Wimbledon | Daily Skimm - theSkimm

In the margins of the NATO Defence Ministerial meeting on 16 June, the Ministers of France, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom dedicated 26.7 million EUR to define the future of their helicopter fleets under NATOs Next Generation Rotorcraft Capability (NGRC) project. In cooperation with industry, the participants will start from a clean sheet to explore how to match their needs with the latest technology on the market, looking at options such as hybrid and electric propulsion, a systematic open system architecture, and the delivery of radically improved flight characteristics.

This is a clear example of NATO and Allies working together to harness fast-changing technology for the benefit of our military capabilities. By investing our resources and channelling our development through a multinational framework, we are making sure Allies will be equipped with the best available equipment, stressed the NATO Deputy Secretary General Mircea Geoan.

Medium multi-role helicopters have a wide range of civilian and military uses, including transportation of people and equipment, medical evacuation, search and rescue. A lot of this type of rotorcraft currently operated by Allies will reach the end of their lifecycle in the years ahead. The NGRC Concept Stage will provide the foundation for Allies to develop and field the next generation of these indispensable workhorses. The NATO Support and Procurement Agency (NSPA) will execute the Concept Stage on behalf of the participants.

The NGRC constitutes one of NATOs multinational High Visibility Projects and demonstrates NATO Allies commitment to maintain a technological edge and to pursue multinational cooperation.

Continue reading here:
Six Allies to explore innovative solutions for their future helicopters - NATO HQ

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

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