Category Archives: NATO

Turkey appears to be leveraging its position as a deciding factor in the U.S.-led NATO military alliance's attempts to counter Russia's war in Ukraine by planning a new operation in northern Syria, where factions backed by Washington and Moscow both oppose Ankara's aims.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has declared his opposition to the bids of Finland and Sweden to join NATO, arguing that the two countries offer safe havens for supporters of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), a separatist group that has waged an insurgency for Kurdish autonomy for more than three decades. The Turkish leader's approval would be necessary for the Western bloc to greenlight its latest expansion.

As Erdogan held steadfast in his view, Turkish officials have begun talking openly of plans to launch a new incursion across the Syrian border against forces they associate with the PKK. Among these factions are the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces, a Pentagon-backed group that serves as a vanguard in the U.S.-led coalition's ongoing fight against the Islamic State militant group (ISIS).

Former Turkish diplomat and current Carnegie Europe visiting scholar Sinan lgen told Newsweek that with the U.S. depending on Turkey to hold the NATO line against Russia in Ukraine, its opposition to the planned incursion is likely to be muted.

"The calculus perhaps on the side of Ankara is that the West needs Turkey on board with NATO enlargement," lgen said, "and, therefore, at a critical time like this, there will be less criticism of Turkey's cross-border operation."

Still, he argued that the situation "has put Turkey and the U.S. on a collision course."

Further tying the timing of Turkey's planned incursion into northern Syria to the war in Ukraine, lgen pointed to the presence of Russian troops also operating within a "cordon sanitaire," which was established as a security zone along the Syrian-Turkish border in 2019 after Ankara struck back-to-back deals with Washington and Moscow to dismantle positions of the Syrian Democratic Forces within a "safe zone."

Russia, however, supports the Syrian government, which views Turkey, like the U.S., as an illegitimate occupying force. But as Turkey continues a years-long balancing act in its relations with the U.S. and Russia, lgen argued that Erdogan also saw an opportunity to bypass Moscow's protests over Ankara's objectives in Syria.

"There is a calculation in Ankara that Russia will not anymore oppose such an intervention," lgen said, "and will not want to oppose such an intervention because Russia now is also more in need of retaining Turkey as a diplomatic partner on Ukraine."

As Erdogan makes the case for what would be Turkey's fourth major intervention in Syria, following Operation Euphrates Shield in 2016, Operation Olive Branch in 2018 and Operation Peace Spring in 2019, he and his government have held high-level consultations with both Washington and Moscow.

In a call with Turkish presidential spokesperson Ibrahim Kalin, White House national security council advisor Jake Sullivan "reiterated the importance of refraining from escalation in Syria to preserve existing ceasefire lines and avoid any further destabilization," and "urged continued dialogue and diplomacy to resolve any disagreements in the eastern Mediterranean region," according to a White House readout.

Sullivan also "expressed support for Turkey's continued direct talks with Sweden and Finland to resolve concerns over their applications for NATO membership, which the U.S. strongly supports."

Kalin, however, "pointed out that the countries that seek to become a member of NATO should adopt the Alliance's values and principles on security and combatting terrorism," and "stressed in this sense that Sweden and Finland have to take concrete steps regarding the terrorist organizations that threaten Trkiye's national security," according to the Turkish presidency's readout.

"It was stressed that the PKK/PYD/YPG terrorist organization continued to pose a threat to Trkiye's national security and Syria's territorial integrity," the readout added. "It was underscored that Trkiye would determinedly maintain its fight against all the terrorist organizations."

The U.S. also considers the PKK a terrorist organization, and officially opposes its presence, even if members of the Syrian Democratic Forces and its affiliated People's Protection Units (YPG) and the leading Syrian Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD) at times openly flaunt PKK imagery, including pictures of its leader, Abdullah calan, who has been imprisoned in Turkey since 1999.

Reached for comment by Newsweek, the State Department referred to spokesperson Ned Price's remarks Tuesday, in which he said President Joe Biden's administration would continue "to support the maintenance of current ceasefire lines" and "condemn any escalation that has the potential to jeopardize that."

"We believe it is crucial for all sides to maintain and respect ceasefire zones, principally to enhance stability in Syria and to work towards a political solution to the conflict," Price added. "We believe that any effort to do otherwise could be counterproductive to our goals to bring about an end to the broader conflict in Syria, but also the tremendous progress that we've made together, including with our Kurdish partners, in the effort against ISIS that has achieved such important steps in recent years."

And while Price asserted that U.S. officials "recognize Turkey's legitimate security concerns on its border," he emphasized that the administration was "concerned that any new offensive would further undermine regional stability and would put at risk those hard-won gains in the campaign against ISIS."

A day before Sullivan and Kalin's call, Erdogan spoke directly via telephone with Russian President Vladimir Putin. The Kremlin's readout made no mention of Syria, only that "the presidents also reviewed a number of regional issues," and instead focused on the situation in Europe.

"Discussing the developments in Ukraine, they emphasized the need to ensure safe navigation in the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov and to remove the threat of mines in these waters," the Russian account stated. "Vladimir Putin noted Russia's willingness to facilitate unimpeded cargo shipping in coordination with its Turkish partners including grain shipments from Ukrainian ports."

On Ukraine, Erdogan presented himself as a mediator, stating "Trkiye's readiness, if agreed upon in principle by both parties, to meet with Russia, Ukraine and the United Nations in Istanbul, and to assume a role in a possible observation mechanism," according to the Turkish account.

Turkey has joined NATO and a number of partnered countries in condemning Russia's attack on Ukraine, and has provided Kyiv with advanced Bayraktar TB2 drones that have inflicted significant casualties among Russian troops. These unmanned aerial systems have been deployed in past operations with similar lethality against Russian allies in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan, as well as in Libya and Syria.

In addition to blocking Finland and Sweden's NATO aspirations, Turkey has also shown it can cause frustrations for the bloc in other ways. It holds the keys to the straits that lie between the Mediterranean and Black Seas as part of the 1936 Montreux Convention, and Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu told the Anadolu Agency that Ankara has, "in accordance with the convention, cancelled or postponed planned NATO drills."

Speaking to Putin on Monday, Erdogan also made clear his intentions in Syria.

"Drawing attention to the PKK/YPG terrorist organization's continued attacks in Syria against Trkiye and Syrian civilians," the readout said, "President Erdoan said that the terror-free zone with a depth of 30 kilometers from the Trkiye border, as had been stated in the memorandum of understanding of October 2019, was not established, and that it was imperative to make these areas secure."

Newsweek has reached out to the Turkish embassy in Washington for comment.

The Syrian Democratic Forces and their political wing, the Syrian Democratic Council, have raised protests toward the planned Turkish attack.

A statement published last week by the group alleged "a Turkish plot to establish a black belt of terrorist organizations" involving front-line deployments of the powerful Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, a former Al-Qaeda affiliate, and Hurras al-Din, currently aligned with Al-Qaeda, in the leadup to Ankara's operation.

These groups, along with Turkey-backed opposition factions active in the rebel-held province of Idlib and across the border security corridor, have been accused of human rights abuses, especially against Kurds and other ethnic and religious minorities.

Syrian Democratic Council representative to the U.S. Sinam Mohamad told Newsweek that, "Turkish threats against our semi-autonomous region are nothing new."

"They are serious and we take them that way," Mohamad said. "However, it is not easy for Turkey to obtain the approval of countries directly engaged in Syria to carry out unprovoked military operations against us. I believe the United States has made it clear to Turkey that a new Turkish military campaign in northeast Syria will have repercussions. Attacks against the SDF will only serve ISIS' interest and run counter to the interests of the anti-ISIS coalition including the U.S."

And when it comes to the U.S. role, she said the Syrian Democratic Council is "in dialogue" with the Biden administration regarding the prospect of yet another Turkish assault. She said she believed that "we are in full agreement with it that a new Turkish campaign will only de-stabilize the region," serving not only ISIS' interests but also those of other "Islamic radical groups operating in Syria," while creating "a new humanitarian crisis including by displacing hundreds of thousands of Syrians as previous Turkish military operations did."

However, when asked if she was concerned that the U.S. focus was elsewhere, given the events in Europe, she said she still held hope that Washington would not abandon its partners in Syria.

"The war in Ukraine has impacted us all in some way," Mohamad said, "but I don't believe that the administration has taken its eye off of Syria, and it remains fully committed to ensuring our region's security and stability."

Also warning against a new Turkish incursion was Syria's central government, led by President Bashar al-Assad, who with help from Russia and Iran remains firmly in power more than 11 years after crackdowns on protests devolved into an uprising backed by the U.S. and its partners, including Turkey.

In a letter dated Monday to the U.N. Security Council and shared with Newsweek, Syria's permanent mission to the U.N. stated that Damascus "rejects the military hostilities launched by the occupying Turkish forces for several days" across towns and villages in northeastern and northwestern Syria, which have "led to the death and injury of many civilians, caused massive damage to public and private properties and infrastructure in those areas, and displaced dozens of Syrian families from their homes and villages there."

"The Turkish regime attempts to establish the so-called 'safe zone' on Syrian territory is a shameful act of aggression and part of the policy of ethnic and demographic cleansing practiced by the government of Erdogan in the occupied Syrian territories," the letter said, "and they are war crimes and crimes against humanity that are rejected by the United Nations Charter, international law and international humanitarian law."

Though Damascus and the Syrian Democratic Forces' semi-autonomous administration in northern and eastern Syria are at odds about the country's future, they are both opposed to Turkey and the insurgent militias aligned with it. The two sides have even cooperated at times to this end, even if repeated attempts at a broader reconciliation remain stalled.

But while the Syrian Democratic Forces view the U.S. as a potential barrier to Turkey's designs in northern Syria, the Syrian government sees it as an enabler.

"Syria affirms that its sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity will not be the subject of blackmail or bargaining by the Turkish extremist regime in collusion with its ally in Washington and with some Western countries," the letter said, "that seek cheap political gain at the expense of the Syrian people and their territorial integrity and in contradiction to the international unanimity on the need to preserve and respect the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic."

It remains unclear whether the Biden administration would increase its opposition to Erdogan's plans in Syria from words to action.

Myles B. Caggins III, a Council on Foreign Relations military fellow who previously served as senior spokesperson for the U.S.-led anti-ISIS coalition during Turkey's last incursion into Syria, told Newsweek that any U.S. military resistance to another such incursion is unlikely.

"It's beyond my imagination that the United States would physically defend our partners on the ground against aggression from a NATO ally," Caggins said. "I think that's why we've seen high level talks with the U.S. national security adviser and his counterpart, and I think it's also why President Biden has strongly supported the applications of Finland and Sweden into NATO, despite opposition from Turkey."

And while he said any U.S. use of force against a NATO ally would be virtually "unprecedented," he also pointed out that "Turkey has used physical aggression against Greece," a longstanding rival yet fellow NATO member with whom tensions remain high.

"So if anybody doesn't play by NATO rules, it seems to be them," Caggins said of Turkish leadership.

But Ankara has repeatedly voiced its displeasure with what it perceives as NATO indifference to its security concerns in northern Syria, as well as to the vast migration crisis created by the conflict there that has seen Turkey take in some 3.6 million Syrian refugees, more than all other nations combined. Frustrated by NATO inaction over that crisis, Erdogan five years ago openly discussed invoking the alliance's Article 5, NATO's collective defense clause, which has only been used once in history, in response to the 9/11 attacks against the U.S. two decades ago.

Frustrated over U.S. support of Kurdish forces in Syria, Ankara's relations with Washington soured even further in the final weeks of the Trump administration, which imposed sanctions on Turkey for acquiring Russia's S-400 surface-to-air missile system. Biden has not yet made any movement to lift these restrictions or move forward with an indefinitely suspended F-35 fighter jet deal, despite Erdogan's repeated requests.

The Biden administration has, however, reportedly called on Congress to back a proposal to provide Turkey with upgraded F-16s, older versions of which Turkish forces have flown in operations in Syria and Iraq, where Kurdish forces have also been under bombardment. These aircraft may offer Turkey an enhanced capability to target the Syrian Democratic Forces as they continue to clash with ISIS and hold up to 10,000 detainees of the jihadi group.

"The world said we need to stop ISIS, and the people who stopped ISIS in Kobani in 2015 were the Syrian Democratic Forces," Caggins said. "These are the same forces who were the champions against ISIS, and who our NATO ally is ready to attack."

But he noted that the situation was complicated by Ankara's ongoing coordination with Moscow, which he said, beyond seeking to retain its presence in a unified Syria, "has a longstanding goal of fracturing NATO and causing multiple dilemmas for the United States."

Caggins stated that the overarching goal of the U.S. remains clear.

"The priority of the United States is going to be to keep NATO intact," he said.

Read more here:
Turkey Is Playing Off NATO Against Russia with Eyes on Northern Syria - Newsweek

As a result of the war in Ukraine, policymakers in Europe and North America have scrambled to strengthen defense cooperation in Europe. The headlines inevitably focus on NATO and the European Union. Yet this ignores the reality of how European defense cooperation is actually established, fostered, and solidified. Indeed, the essence of defense cooperation in Europe is a web of hundreds of bilateral and minilateralcollaborations. Often, NATO and the European Union work merely as a framework into which European countries upload their existing bi- and minilateral efforts.

To better enhance European defense, policymakers should appreciate the dynamics of these many collaborations. Taking advantage of the current circumstances to build more mini and bilateral ties, particularly where leadership and financial circumstances are most conducive, will strengthen Europe and make its multilateral institutions that much more formidable.

A History of Bilateralism and Minilateralism

In a few months, NATO countries have deployed thousands of troops and significant capabilities to enhance the defense of members on its eastern flank. In a stunning transition, two traditionally militarily non-aligned E.U. states, Sweden and Finland, re-evaluated their geostrategic position and submitted applications to join NATO. The debate about boosting the European Unions strategic autonomy has become even more intense, and once again, member states are discussing coordinating their defense spending via joint procurements.

These vital initiatives could not work without existing, critical lower-level collaborations. For example, Russian military actions over the last several years in Ukraine prompted NATOs eastern-flank allies to work swiftly together with their bi- and minilateral partners. The United Kingdom took on a leading role in Estonia, building on the close relations the two countries developed carrying out dangerous operations over a decade in Afghanistans Helmand province. Lithuania is a relevant defense market for Germany, and not surprisingly, the Bundeswehr leads NATO efforts there. Thanks to cultural similarity and extensive previous military cooperation, the Czech Republic has sent the most troops to Slovakia and oversees the international forces located there. For similar reasons, France deployed 500 troops to Romania. Such comparatively low-key actions were crucial in developing the necessary bottom-up relations, norms, and experiences upon which more recent grandiose announcements build.

Although Finland and Sweden intend to join NATO, they also found it essential to sign bilateral mutual security deals with the United Kingdom. This could happen quickly, mainly because Helsinki and Stockholm have built trust with London working together in the British-led Joint Expeditionary Force. The dynamics in the European Union are the same as in NATO. For example, in 2017, the European Union established the Permanent Structured Cooperation to strengthen defense cooperation among its member states after the Russian occupation in Crimea. However, most of its projects were based on existing bi- and minilateral defense initiatives, and the participating states often just rebranded them according to the new E.U. vocabulary.

The fact that existing bi- and minilateral relationships are the foundation of defense cooperation in Europe is not a new phenomenon. A survey of 70 examples of European defense collaboration highlighted that most have five or fewer participating states, and many are purely bilateral. These collaborations range from creating multinational units to cooperating on armaments, training, logistics, surveillance, operations, and/or command and control. More often than not, these collaborations are not part of NATO or the European Union, but they can be rebranded as E.U. and NATO projects quickly if it is necessary.

States can also use these collaborations to shape NATO and E.U. policies. For instance, the NATO operation in Libya in 2011 was basically an Anglo-French war, as France and Britain pushed for the intervention and took the brunt of the fight. They used NATOs command structure to coordinate their war effort and the limited military support they gained from some NATO members helped fill their capability gaps. The background of this was a historical and overarching British-French bilateral defense agreement, the Lancaster House Treaties, which the leaders of the two European military powers signed a year earlier. The launch of the European Unions European Security and Defence Policy in 1999 also stemmed from a British-French bilateral agreement in St. Malo in 1998 as well.

Strengthening the Network

Improving NATO and E.U. defense cooperation requires looking under the hood to appreciate the role of these efforts. Scholars have already pointed out that Europeans must recognize the minilateral foundations of Europes security architecture. This corresponds with my experience as a former defense official. European ministries of defense do not always think in terms of institutions like the European Union and NATO. They have their own considerations, and they are using the framework that fits their goals the best, which can be NATO, the European Union, or smaller formats. Starting an initiative at this level is often more effective and can provide results more quickly.

As I argue in my newly published book, while these forms of cooperation are not new, their recent proliferation is unprecedented in Europes history. Furthermore, they provide the substance of practical military cooperation in Europe, which NATO and the European Union can build on. Thus, comprehending the dynamics behind them is crucial to foster effective defense cooperation moving forward. The research in my book indicates that when European nations start new defense collaborations, five structural and situational factors are important to achieve success.

First, NATO and the European Union continue to provide the crucial structural context in which bi- and minilateral cooperation can happen. The countries that are members of these two institutions are part of the European security community. Members of these alliances understand the concept of security similarly, their core interests are generally aligned, and most importantly, they no longer envision solving their misunderstandings with each other through military force. This deeply rooted trust among E.U. and NATO members is a crucial precondition which enables the proliferation of multinational defense collaboration. This means that if Sweden and Finland join NATO, it will undoubtedly influence cooperation, especially in Northern Europe and the Baltic region.

Second, cooperation is driven by the fact that European armed forces believe they do not have the financial resources to meet their goals by themselves. Thus, they turn to each other in the hope of mitigating their shortfalls. (Not that this always works. If budgets are cut, the cooperation can still fail.) The third structural factor is existing defense collaborations. New cooperative initiatives are usually based on previous ones. If countries pursue ongoing military projects together, there is a higher chance that they will launch new ones with each other rather than with a totally new partner. This is why those NATO members who had a relevant bilateral relationship with certain allies on the eastern flank led the international efforts there.

Structural factors create the conditions for cooperation, but situational factors trigger collaboration. The first situational factor is personal relationships. Cooperation usually starts when at least two leaders politicians, civil servants, or military officers invest extra effort to make things work. Such leaders tend to have good chemistry, a necessary ingredient when creating something new that needs a huge amount of extra commitment. For instance, David Cameron, the former British prime minister, and Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president at that time, had good chemistry and could agree on the Lancaster House Treaties in 2010. Even though all other factors may be aligned, something similar is unimaginable with Boris Johnson and Emmanuel Macron because of their different characters and strained relationship.

Finally, situationally speaking, a supportive political environment is also needed. This can come either from the public or domestic actors or from international developments. Without it, the leaders who are the engines of the collaboration would work in a vacuum and would not be able to realize their ambitions. At the moment, the Russian invasion of Ukraine has clearly created a political climate in Europe that is quite conducive to defense collaborations.

Conclusion

If policymakers want to strengthen European defense through more bi- and minilateral collaborations, they should build off these five factors. This starts with appreciating how the potential NATO memberships of Finland and Sweden would create new opportunities for small scale collaboration. Policymakers should also look to their current minilateral efforts with an awareness that these provide the best source of potential partners for new efforts, while also choosing new partners with an eye toward the potential for future cooperation they bring. Furthermore, they should assess the economic viability of new commitments and defense collaborations not only from their vantage point but also from their partners side.

Policymakers should also be aware of the situational factors in launching new collaborative efforts. For instance, if the personalities in crucial positions do not match, collaboration should not be forced, and policymakers should wait for more favorable circumstances. However, if there is strong chemistry between leaders, they should exploit this opportunity quickly. Finally, the war in Ukraine has created an extremely supportive political environment. This situation is extraordinarily rare and can serve as the starting point for minilateral and bilateral initiatives that will pay dividends over decades.

Dr. Bence Nemeth is a lecturer (assistant professor) at the Defence Studies Department of Kings College London, where he primarily teaches military officers at the Defence Academy of the United Kingdom. Prior to moving to Kings, he worked in various defense policy and planning positions at the Hungarian Ministry of Defence for eight years. His book, How to Achieve Defence Cooperation in Europe? The Subregional Approach, was published by Bristol University Press in 2022.

Image: Estonian Defense Ministry

Read more here:
Bilateralism and Minilateralism Are Europe's Secret Strengths - War on the Rocks

Russian state TV's Olga Skabeyeva claimed that the Russian invasion of Ukraine would have been accomplished a long time ago had it not been for NATO. Ms Skabeyeva said that unless Russia responds to NATO more aggressively and stops Western forces sending long-range weapons to Ukraine, our task will be more difficult. It comes as the US pledged to send more offensive military aid to Ukraine yesterday.

The Russian state media host said: Were not exaggerating the usefulness of that Western, American, British or whatever weaponry.

Simply, we were previously demilitarising Ukraine and that mission would have been accomplished a long time ago.

Now, well have to demilitarise all of NATO. Ive already said this several times and then people gasp in shock.

But in any case this is already called World War 3. New weaponry is arriving.

Yesterday [Anthony] Blinken said that as the situation on the front changes we will somehow adjust our military aid. Well deliver long-range weaponry.

That will in any case make our task more difficult and prolong the Americans pleasure.

The US announced yesterday that they would be sending long-range missiles to Ukraine after weeks of shying away from the move.

US President Joe Biden had expressed concern that Ukraine could use longer range weapons to bomb Russian territory beyond the scope of the conflict.

READ MORE:Russian senator warns missile aid to spark war with US[REVEAL]

And so for high-value targets that allow them to keep some of the pressure off of Ukrainian forces on the front, we think these systems will be very useful.

A host of Russian voices have spoken out against the new military aid, including Russian TV commentators and official aides.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said the US was "intentionally adding fuel to the fire" by sending the missiles.

He added: Such supplies do not contribute to the Ukrainian leadership's willingness to resume peace negotiations.

And Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov suggested Mr Biden's announcement increased the risk of a third country being dragged into the conflict.

Read this article:
This is already WW3' Putin's mouthpiece makes eerie call for 'demilitarisation of NATO' - Express

Last week, Russia reversed, at least temporarily, a months-long series of military failures in Vladimir Putins brutal invasion of Ukraine. The fall of Mariupol, after a monumentally heroic holdout defense by Ukrainian forces, represents a much-needed victory for Putin on several levels. When the history of what transpired there is written, it also may be seen as an additional failure of the United States and NATO to do all that they could have done to hasten Russias defeat before the war metastasizes into a wider European conflict.

Putin has gained more than control of a partially-demolished old steel factory where several thousand Ukrainian civilians and a thousand fighters had held out for two months against the Russia onslaught. He also has partially erased the image of inevitable Russian losses in the face of Ukrainian valor and competence that refuted the earlier consensus on Russias inevitable conquest of Ukraine.

Tactically, the end of the Mariupol siege also frees up the thousands of Russian forces concentrated there, enabling them to engage in the equally critical campaign in the Donbas region, where Ukraine is trying to push the Russians out of eastern Ukraine and Putin is trying to expand his control.

In addition, the forced surrender of Ukrainian soldiers makes them useful trading material for the release of captured Russians. More ominously, Putin could retaliate for Ukraines first war crimes trial of a Russian soldier by prosecuting captive Ukrainians in staged show trials. To bring Ukraines international standing down from its moral high ground, Moscow probably will recycle rigged Soviet-style proceedings and coerced confessions to expose the latent Ukrainian Nazism Putin has ranted about.

Finally, on a strategic level, elimination of the Mariupol resistance removes the final obstacle to Putins objective of establishing a land bridge from Russian-occupied Crimea along the Black Sea coast to Odessa. That opens the door for Putin to declare the entire sliver of Ukrainian territory as a separate, Russian-oriented independent republic, just as he is threatening to do with the eastern Ukraine territory Russia has occupied since 2014.

The Biden administration and NATO, playing geostrategic catch-up, have dramatically increased the flow of U.S. arms to Ukraine and it clearly has benefited the defenders. But Biden is still withholding weapons that President Volodymyr Zelensky has urgently requested from the outset, including fighter aircraft, large-caliber artillery, and longer-range missile systems. The hesitancy adds to the list of what-ifs that history will use to judge the Wests response to Putins aggression during four U.S. presidencies.

The Biden administration fears providing such arms might be provocative to Putin, who, entirely unprovoked militarily, already has launched the largest European conflict since World War II. As Putin continues to escalate his aggression and threats, the West worries that he will deem its own defensive measures as escalatory. It has even hesitatedabout providingthe necessary security forces at the newly reopened U.S. embassy in Kyiv, a definitionally defensive deployment, for fear of angering Putin. Refreshingly, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin struck the right note when he declared the purpose of U.S. support for Ukraine: We want to see Russia weakened to the degree that it cant do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine.

Russia is systematically bombing railroad stations, where it kills Ukrainian civilians trying to escape, as well as rail lines, to cut off Ukraines access to markets for its grains. It is attacking grain production facilities and crops in the field, complementing Russias naval blockade of Mariupol and Odessa, the Black Sea ports from which most of Ukraines wheat, barley and other grains are exported to countries in Africa and the Middle East.

It is clear that the multi-pronged attacks on Ukraines food supply are not merely incidental to the conduct of military operations collateral agricultural damage but are part of a comprehensive strategy. Denying Ukraine economic connections to the global market drives up prices beyond the reach of tens of millions of hungry people in poor countries, creating an international food crisis and pressing Ukraine and the West to settle the conflict on Putins terms.

As such, the matter no longer is simply a Russia-Ukraine or Russia-NATO conflict but one more manifestation of Russias challenge to the rules-based international order. In the most basic and tangible way, Putin effectively has declared war on the people of the world, and the West has an international humanitarian obligation to stop him. That means sending Ukraine not only the nature and quantity of weapons, and intelligence assistance, it needs to defeat Russia decisively in the airspace and on the ground of Ukraine, but also in the Black Sea domain.

Ukraine struck a major blow to Russias maritime might when it sank its flagship, the Moskva, using its own homemade Neptune missiles, perhaps assisted by U.S. targeting intelligence. Other Russian vessels have been destroyed. If the West supplies Ukraine with more such weapons and technical support, Russias entire Black Sea fleet, with the possible exception of submarines, could be neutralized and the food blockade broken.

If the West does not give Ukraine the weapons it needs to open the Black Sea to normal commerce, the U.S. Navy and NATO allies must do it, perhaps by providing security escorts to grain convoys. The international waterway cannot become what Turkeys President Recep Tayyip Erdoan has called a Russian lake particularly when international food experts say mass starvation is a real consequence. Turkey, NATOs unreliable ally under Erdoan, controls access to the Black Sea and must be pressed to allow U.S. ships ready access to free up the worlds food supply.

Washingtons unwillingness to intervene directly in collective self-defense of a fellow democracy that has not requested it is understandable. But U.S. skittishness about providing Ukraine all it needs to defend itself is not. And Russia cannot be allowed to impede freedom of navigation and trample on yet another international norm.

Meanwhile, Chinas leader, Xi Jinping, watches with great interest since he already treats the Taiwan Strait as a Chinese inland sea that its aircraft carriers periodically transit, while only smaller U.S. Navy ships have entered it since 2007. Putin cannot be allowed to scare off frequent Western use of the Black Sea, especially when a humanitarian disaster looms.

Joseph Bosco served as China country director for the secretary of Defense from 2005 to 2006 and as Asia-Pacific director of humanitarian assistance and disaster relief from 2009 to 2010. He served in the Pentagon when Vladimir Putin invaded Georgia and was involved in Department of Defense discussions about the U.S. response. Follow him on Twitter @BoscoJosephA.

The rest is here:
Biden and NATO must help Ukraine get its wheat to the world - The Hill

Ernie Regehr is a senior fellow in defence and Arctic security at The Simons Foundation Canada.

Russias recent threats to add nuclear attacks to its brutal assault on the people and infrastructure of Ukraine is a cruel reminder of the harsh, inescapable reality of nuclear deterrence the very existence of nuclear weapons carries the ever-present danger that they will be used.

Every state with nuclear weapons threatens to use them. In the case of Russia, President Vladimir Putin recently promised his adversaries consequences you have never experienced if he decides to unleash these weapons. The more measured language of the 2021 Summit Communiqu of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, meanwhile, said that the organization would only use nuclear weapons in extreme circumstances to impose costs on an adversary that would be unacceptable and far outweigh the benefits that any adversary could hope to achieve. Russias threat of nuclear warfare is more immediate and therefore much more dangerous in this moment, but the point is that both statements clearly threaten the use of nuclear weapons as a possibility. These weapons, both warn, are always at hand and could, in desperate circumstances, be unleashed.

By the simple fact of their Damoclean presence, in both wartime and peacetime, nuclear weapons impose on humanity the relentless task of keeping them from being launched. It is an imperative dangerously dramatized by the Ukraine war, with United States Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin coming to the only credible conclusion nuclear war is where all sides lose. That truth applies regardless of which side makes the first move.

The preamble to the international Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons states that any use of a nuclear weapon would be abhorrent to the principles of humanity and the dictates of public conscience. Unfortunately, that doesnt change the tragic fact that neither Ukraine nor its NATO neighbours have the means to prevent a Russian nuclear attack. We can continue to discourage the use of nuclear weapons in our appeals to Russias leadership, but in the end we are left waiting to see what the dangerous vagaries of the Kremlin will bring next.

Humanity remains hostage to a global security system based on threats and counter-threats of nuclear attack. Russias stance is clear, while NATOs official nuclear doctrine (outlined in its strategic concept, which was last revised in 2010) insists that nuclear weapons are the supreme guarantee of security for NATO allies. At the same time, NATO also promises to work toward the conditions for a world without nuclear weapons.

This inherent contradiction has never been in greater need of resolution and the opportunity to advance that effort will present itself at the NATO Summit scheduled for Madrid at the end of June. As a member of NATOs Nuclear Planning Group, Canada has a key seat at the table.

The transition from claiming that nuclear weapons are the supreme guarantors of security to creating a world without them will hardly be managed in a single meeting, but the upcoming summit does offer a timely opportunity to challenge nuclear orthodoxy and Canada, along with like-minded partners, has the opportunity and obligation to help drive change.

A modest but worthwhile effort would be to press for a shift in NATOs nuclear rhetoric to acknowledge nuclear weapons not as fundamental to security but as a problem to be overcome.

A more concrete and widely encouraged measure would be for NATO to pledge that it will never be the first to use nuclear weapons, and to adjust its war planning measures accordingly. A no-first-use commitment should really be a straightforward matter of heeding American security realist Henry Kissinger, who told the Munich Security Conference in 2009 that any use of nuclear weapons is certain to involve a level of casualties and devastation out of proportion to foreseeable foreign policy objectives.

NATO currently hosts U.S. tactical nuclear gravity bombs in five European countries, each with fighter aircraft tasked to deliver those B61 bombs to NATO-defined targets. It is an arrangement meant to signal NATOs technical and political capacity to launch nuclear attacks in the event of a war in other words, the capacity to start a war that all sides would lose.

Combined with a no-first-use pledge, returning those tactical nuclear weapons to the U.S. would be a prominent turn toward nuclear de-escalation. And removing these barbarous weapons that are, in the end, unusable by any state at all attuned to the dictates of public conscience can only enhance security.

Mr. Putins brazen threat to launch nuclear attacks presents us with the reality of the use of nuclear weapons the mass killing of civilians and soldiers alike, as well as vast physical and environmental destruction. In Madrid, Canada will have the opportunity to challenge its NATO partners to take some modest but deliberate steps away from the abyss that nuclear weapons promise.

Keep your Opinions sharp and informed. Get the Opinion newsletter. Sign up today.

Read the original here:
Opinion: NATO has a chance to step back from the edge of a nuclear abyss - The Globe and Mail

Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko attends a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin at the Kremlin in Moscow, Russia March 11, 2022. Sputnik/Mikhail Klimentyev/Kremlin via REUTERS

Register

May 23 (Reuters) - Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko said on Monday he was concerned about what he called moves by the West to "dismember" Ukraine, and accused Poland of seeking to seize the Western part of the country.

He offered no evidence for his assertions.

"What worries us is that they are ready, the Poles and NATO, to come out, to help take western Ukraine like it was before 1939," Lukashenko said during a televised meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Register

Lukashenko, a close ally of Putin, said Kyiv would eventually have to ask for help in preventing the seizure of western Ukraine.

Moscow has in the past suggested that Poland seeks to establish control over historical Polish lands in Ukraine, a claim that Warsaw denies as disinformation. read more

Poland is one of Ukraine's strongest supporters, sending weapons across the border and taking in more than 3 million Ukrainian refugees.

Belarus said in March its armed forces were not taking part in what Moscow calls its "special operation" in Ukraine, but it did serve as a launchpad for Russia to send thousands of troops across the border on Feb. 24.

Under a non-aggression pact signed in 1939 just before the outbreak of World War Two, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union carved Poland up between them. Most of the territory seized by Moscow is now in either Belarus or Ukraine. Kaliningrad, formerly German East Prussia, became an exclave of Russia.

Register

Reporting by Reuters; Editing by Kevin Liffey and Angus MacSwan

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Read the original here:
Lukashenko accuses Poland and NATO of plotting to partition Ukraine - Reuters

Quad Meet: Quad Members stress it is not an "Asian NATO".

Leaders of the "Quad" -- the United States, India, Australia and Japan -- met in Tokyo on Tuesday, cementing an alliance designed to counter China's push across the Asia-Pacific region.

The grouping has risen and fallen in prominence over the years, but gained new traction following deadly border clashes between India and China in 2020, and a recent surge in Australian diplomatic and commercial confrontations with Beijing.

Members stress it is not an "Asian NATO", and portray it as a group that can offer others in the region an alternative to China in areas including Covid-19 resources, disaster relief and cybersecurity.

Roots in 2004 tsunami relief

The four countries first came together for relief operations after the Indonesia earthquake of January 26, 2004 sent devastating tsunami waves along India's eastern coastline, killing about 230,000 people.

Three years later, the countries formed the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue. Japan's prime minister at the time, Shinzo Abe, was said to be a driving force in the effort.

The Quad's first main act was to conduct joint naval exercises under the existing US-India bilateral Malabar exercise format.

But a year later, then-Australian prime minister Kevin Rudd backed away from the nascent alliance, not wanting to be part of a group seen as openly challenging China, which had become a powerful economic partner of Australia.

Australia returns to fold

A decade later, China's increasingly aggressive push to build regional networks and project its military power -- especially in the South China Sea -- as well as its violent border clashes with India, prodded the four back together, with Canberra now a more committed partner.

They all participated in the 2020 Malabar exercises, making the group appear increasingly like a military alliance.

Beijing lashed out in response, branding it a Cold War-type organisation dedicated to containing China. Foreign Minister Wang Yi has compared the grouping to "ocean foam", something that will make waves but quickly dissipate.

Biden's stamp

While the Trump administration put some effort into sustaining the Quad, President Joe Biden went further, virtually convening the first summit of Quad leaders in March 2021 just weeks after taking office.

In September 2021, the four met in person in Washington, elevating the grouping further -- but still without creating a formal institution.

It was an example of Washington's new approach of building coalitions of countries and institutions around specific mutual needs, regionally and globally, rather than traditional security alliances.

That means, Washington says, the Quad can work with other groupings, such as ASEAN, when interests overlap.

Wooing India

For the United States, Australia and Japan, the Quad is very much a long-term courtship of India. New Delhi is traditionally insistent on its non-aligned status when it comes to contests between superpowers.

Deadly fighting that broke out in 2019 between Chinese and Indian troops in a disputed Himalayan border region appeared to have moved India off that stance.

But India, citing "neutrality", has continued to offer material support for Russia amid the invasion of Ukraine, creating a new source of friction.

India is "the critical, crucial member in the Quad", Kurt Campbell, the White House's national security coordinator for the Asia-Pacific region, said in November.

In its strategic planning for the region, the US has stopped saying "Asia-Pacific" and now studiously refers to it as the "Indo-Pacific".

Vaccines and climate change

But officials from all four countries say the Quad has to offer more than defence. None are pushing for a formal alliance -- India, analysts say, remains deeply wary of that -- and there are doubts it could effectively challenge Beijing's military might anyway.

Instead, the four democratic countries are looking to other "soft power" activities that offer the rest of the region a contrast to authoritarian China.

The Covid-19 pandemic has been central to giving the grouping greater meaning. The four countries used the Quad framework to commit to distributing 1.3 billion vaccine doses, with more than 485 million already delivered.

Other issues they are working on within the Quad format: "clean" shipping, fighting global warming and building more secure IT and internet infrastructure.

(This story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

Waiting for response to load...

Go here to read the rest:
Checking China: What Is The Quad Alliance - NDTV

An RA-89075 Ir Aero Russia Superjet 95-LR-100 and an RA-89085 Sukhoi OKB Russia Superjet 100-95B were seen flying in opposite directions around Turkey at around 12.20am. The two Russian registered jets were travelling at between 452.6 and 392.5 nautical miles per hour respectively.

@CivMilAirshared screenshots showing the two Kremlin-backed jets flying over Turkey.

They said: "Meanwhile, not avoiding Turkish airspace... 2 x Russian registered jets.

"Turkey - the ONLY@NATOmember country that still allows Russian registered aircraft to come & go freely."

In comparison, the UK clamped down on Russian aircraft shortly after Vladimir Putin launched the Kremlin's invasion of Ukraine.

JUST IN:Ukraine's bid to join EU could take up to 20 years as calls for alternative alliance made

Writing on Twitter on February 25, Transport Secretary Grant Shapps said: "Putins actions are unlawful and anyone benefiting from Russias aggression in Ukraine is not welcome here."

The Welwyn Hatfield MP added: "Ive strengthened our ban in the UK so that no Russian private jet can fly in UK airspace, or touchdown effective immediately."

Another separate post highlighted how a US Air Force aircraft flew over Bulgaria to avoid Turkey's airspace.

The RQ-4 Global Hawk could be seen moving away from Turkey while flying over neighbouring Greece as it moved towards the Balkan EU member state.

However, Turkey has described the invasion as a "war" and blocked Russian warships from the Black Sea.

Ankara has also frustrated Kyiv by refusing to sanction the invaders.

According to the Washington Post, Turkey hopes to encourage sanctioned Russian oligarchs to plough their wealth into Turkeys tanking economy and continue importing Russian oil.

However, Ankara announced that Turkish air space had been closed to military and civilian planes carrying troops from Russia to Syria in April.

Read the original:
Russian jets fly into Turkey's NATO airspace hours after US Air Force flies around area - Express

The war in Ukraine has caused an unholy convergence of the left and right in Italy. While there is nothing formal so far about this alliance of enemies, it nevertheless threatens to destroy the unity of Nato.

The most high-profile participant is -Matteo Salvini, leader of the Lega the party with the second-highest number of MPs in Italys parliament which is invariably defined as far right. Salvini, who has been one of Vladimir Putins strongest supporters outside Russia, condemned the invasion of Ukraine and has now come out as a pacifist. He opposes Finland and Sweden joining Nato, or sending more arms to Ukraine, on the grounds that both would make peace less likely. Giuseppe Conte, leader of the alt-left Five Star Movement, which has the most MPs, is also on board as is a chunk of the old left, especially if former communists.

This coalition is hugely popular, not just with Italian extremists, but with Italians in general. Its most ardent supporters, who include most Italian journalists it sometimes seems, demand above all that Joe Biden and Boris Johnson those warmongering Anglo--Saxons agree that Nato countries should stop sending arms to Ukraine. This would force Volodymyr Zelensky, they insist, to start peace talks with Russia even if it means he loses a large chunk of his country.

Indeed, this was precisely the message Italys unelected Prime Minister, Mario Draghi, sensing the power of the sentiment in his country, took to Washington when he met President Biden on 10 May. As a right-wing Italian daily headline put it: Draghi warns Biden: Europe wants peace.

The Russian media bombardment of Italy has been intense this past month but it would be wrong to blame this for Italys left-right anti-war alliance. The talk shows have been full of fanatical Russian journalists spewing out the standard script via Zoom about Nazi Ukraine and Nasty Nato while smirking and rolling their eyes at anyone in the studio who disagrees with them.

Putins foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, even appeared on an Italian TV talk show for his only interview outside Russia. He delivered a 45-minute monologue which came to life briefly when the journalist finally asked him a question: how come Zelensky is a Nazi if he is a Jew? Lavrov retorted that Hitler had Jewish roots and the Jews are the worst anti-Semites of the lot. This was a lie too far even for Putin, who then gave a rare apology to the Israeli government.

Italys parliament has unveiled an inquiry into the extent of Russian (and Chinese) disinformation in Italys mainstream and social media. This has caused a similar uproar to the one that greeted Bidens Disinformation Board. In both cases, the aim is to monitor disinformation it is claimed but the danger is this will turn into censorship as well.

Obviously the Russians are trying to influence public opinion in Europe and in particular in Italy. It was neutral to start with in both world wars and it was a key ideological battleground in the Cold War, as it had the largest Communist party outside the Soviet bloc, bankrolled by the KGB. Italy wobbled then. It is wobbling again.

But these Russian journalists on Italian TV are in many ways preaching to the converted. Much of what they say is a more extreme version of what many Italians already believe. That does not mean Italians generally refuse to accept the basic truths: that Russian troops have invaded a sovereign state, massacred its civilians and destroyed its cities. But Italians do believe Nato and thus America and its sidekick Britain is at least partly to blame for the war. In the weasel words of Pope Francis, the West provoked Russia by barking at its door. Never mind that Nato is a defensive, not an offensive, alliance, which former communist countries have been desperate to join because they are terrified of invasion by Russia.

Italian disdain for bully-boy Anglo-Saxon behaviour runs deep, even though it was the Anglo-Saxons who liberated them from fascism in 1945. Many Italians believe that America and Britain are hellbent not on defending Ukraine but on using it to defeat Russia and so cause a third world war. Proof of this according to the prevailing TV talk show view is the belief that America and Britain have shared intelligence which helped Ukraine kill Russian generals and sink the Moskva, the flagship of the Russian Black Sea fleet, and are thus already at war with Russia. America and Britain have, after all, confirmed that they are providing Ukraine with intelligence.

Italian opinion polls make grim reading for anyone who believes as do Biden, Johnson and perhaps Zelensky that the only way to get Putin to the peace table is by force i.e. more sanctions and more weapons. A majority of Italians (56 per cent) think Bidens America is taking too much of a bullish and blinkered approach on Ukraine, and that Italy and the EU should develop a separate policy. Only 26 per cent think America is defending democracy and Europe, and that arming Ukraine is the right way to confront Putin. Nearly two-thirds of Italians (62 per cent) think the West must at all costs find a way to open peace talks, while only a quarter (26 per cent) think we must first defeat Russia militarily.

Half think sending more arms to Ukraine is wrong and only a quarter (24 per cent) think it is right. Less than half (44 per cent) think Finland and Sweden should join Nato as soon as possible. While the majority are in favour of sanctions (though not on gas, nearly half of which comes from Russia) only 14 per cent think sanctions are useful.

But Russian journalists are not to blame. The reason why so many Italians think this way is their catastrophic experiment with fascism, which has made them paranoid about war. The Italian medias default position is instinctive anti-Americanism and hostility to Nato, which, despite Italy being a member, is understood to be run by trigger-happy America and Britain.

On 6 May, Zelensky gave a speech over Zoom to the foreign affairs thinktank Chatham House, in which he revealed his latest preconditions for peace talks. These included the restoration by Russia of Ukraines borders to how they were prior to the invasion on 24 February. He did not mention Crimea. The next day, Die Welt published an interview with Nato secretary-general Jens Stoltenberg in which he said that Nato has not recognised and never will recognise Crimea as Russian. This was manna from heaven to the Italian media who translated recognise as accept. Italian journalists claimed that the Nato chief had deliberately slapped down Zelenskys tentative attempt to get peace talks started to prolong and escalate the war.

It was wall-to-wall headline news in Italy and nowhere else for days. How dare the Americans drag Italy and Europe to the edge of the abyss? Even when it was pointed out that Zelensky had simply not mentioned Crimea because he treats Crimea as an issue to be parked on one side for the moment it made no difference. Nor did the fact that not even China recognises Crimea as Russian, or that Stoltenberg had spelled out in his interview that it was up to Ukraine and no one else to decide what peace terms it was prepared to accept.

Nonetheless, many of Italys TV journalists and their guests are still talking about this fake news as proof of Natos desire for war with Russia at all costs. As one of the most ubiquitous left-wing anti-war pundits put it on a talk show hosted by the ex-communist daughter of Italys best known Cold War communist leader, Enrico Berlinguer, Nato is toying with the lives of hundreds of millions of Europeans. The question western politicians must consider is whether hundreds of millions of Europeans believe that to be true.

See original here:
Italy's hostility to Nato is building - The Spectator

A quarter of a year has now passed since Vladimir Putin sent his tanks into Ukraine. And the first drafts of history have already been written. Their rough conclusions seem to go along the following lines.

First, to add to Talleyrands famous phrase, Putin has committed both a crime and a blunder. The Russian military has shown itself to be corrupt and inefficient. The Ukrainians have shown themselves to be quite astonishingly stalwart defenders of their homeland. And the West has shown itself to be unpredictably united.

Of course, the problem with first drafts of history is that, while they may be finished with history, history is not finished with them. The conflict in Ukraine could still go in any number of directions. And while a Russian victory now looks unlikely, it is not obvious that Ukraine will emerge with its territory intact. Putin himself may yet act as dictators can when cornered. And while much of the world moves on, it is perfectly possible that the invasion of Ukraine becomes a conflict of attrition which goes on for a long time to come.

Yet it is on the question of the West that I am particularly uncertain about the first drafts currently circulating.

In some ways it is true that the Western alliances especially Nato have never looked stronger or more united. For 30 years, we had discussions of whither Nato. I took part in many of them myself. Well, the answer is the one that was staring us in the face all along. Any and all questions about the point of Nato fell apart the moment the Russian tanks rolled into Ukraine. The applications for membership from Sweden and other countries are a fine reminder of that fact. The swiftness with which the Western banking system and political sanction systems snapped into place was likewise a rather impressive moment of unity.

And yet, for all the talk of the West acting in concert, when it comes to responding to Putins aggression, the picture is far more fractious and becoming more so. As far as I can see, there are three or four factions within what we might still call the Western alliance, and their various positions appear to be diverging as the war drags on.

First are those countries, including the UK, which foresaw Russias aggression and acted swiftly to support and arm our Ukrainian allies. It is this part of the Western alliance which is presenting the world with a vision of a united front. It is also this part that is most clear in its view that Putin must be seen to fail because, as President Zelensky put it yesterday, brute force must not be allowed to rule the world.

But other camps remain. They have not fallen into line behind the likes of the UK, as some had expected. There are those who are indebted, not to say compromised, by their recent arrangements with Russia. Despite its promises of change, the most important country in Europe Germany is still severely compromised, from the top of its politics down, by decades-long cosying up to Putin. For energy reasons, and much more, there is still a strong strain of thought in Berlin which disdains what the British are doing in Ukraine.

They would like to go back to the status quo ante, to be able to import Russian energy cheaply and pass those gains on to German taxpayers, the better to grandstand about green energy and much more. Their promises of rearmament have so far come to little. The prolongation of the conflict has not encouraged them to shift faster away from their prior approach, but to drag their heels and hope that the old world can be restored. Olaf Scholz, the German Chancellor, has hesitated while others have acted.

Then there is the camp of the Elyse and the president there who believes that, if he keeps a line open with Putin, he might in some way solve the conflict. It is understandable that President Zelensky and others have lost patience with President Macron. For the French leader has done more than act as a middleman and he has done more than play both sides. He has dared to give advice to the Ukrainians such as (in a speech earlier this month) warning them not to give in to temptation of humiliation or of the spirit of revenge.

It is easy to sit in Paris and tell Ukrainians not to feel vengeful towards Russia. The Russians tanks did not roll into the French capital. Russian troops have not been committing war crimes in French towns and cities. Nevertheless, Macron seems to be limbering up to play the negotiating middleman the person willing to offer up a portion of another nations territory, in a deal which he would never accept were the territory his own.

What makes all this much more difficult now is that there is a definite sense most especially in Washington that an opportunity has arisen to tie down Russia. This is the final camp. These are people who seem to see Putins slip-up as the perfect moment to not just encourage a Russian defeat but to enable a Kremlin catastrophe, perhaps by miring its forces in a conflict that they can never win.

A weakened Putin would undeniably have certain advantages. It would be good if he is no threat for some decades to come. But this theory forgets. firstly. that a prolonged conflict is easy to wish on people from thousands of miles away, less agreeable for the citizens of the Donbas and other regions. It also ignores the other consequences of this war continuing, including the impact of Russias blockade of Ukrainian food exports.

And if the point of this strategy is to somehow push Putin from office, that is simply not in the Wests power, even if it was agreed to be a desirable objective. Russian history suggests that palace coups do not always end bloodlessly. The US has a plan for how to get the nukes out of Pakistan if the Islamists ever take over that country. Does anyone have a plan for how to secure Russias nuclear sites if there is a putsch and internecine war at the top of Russian politics? The people urging regime change in Moscow ought to hope there is such a plan.

So the Western alliance is not as cohesive as we might like to think. Yes, we have been shocked by Putin this year. Yes we have been appalled by his actions. But about the question of what to do? That remains deeply unclear. The West is united in horror. But we are divided over what to do in its face.

Douglas Murrays latest book is The War on the West: How to Prevail in the Age of Unreason

Original post:
Nato's united front is crumbling now that Putin has been humiliated in Ukraine - The Telegraph