The US and its Western European allies regularly send warships to the Black Sea, with other NATO countries bordering the body of water including Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey maintaining a sizable permanent presence in the region.

NATO warships sailing near Russias borders in the Black Sea around the Crimean peninsula are virtually incapable of carrying out any useful reconnaissance thanks to the Russian militarys powerful coastal electronic warfare systems, a source in the regions security apparatus has said.

Commenting on the alliances attempt to penetrate the regions communications and digital networks, the source indicated that this was made impossible as a result of the deployment and real-world testing of the latest electronic warfare countermeasures.

As a result [of these measures] NATO warships turn around and leave, the official said.

According to the source, Russias electronic countermeasures are powerful enough not only to make snooping impossible, but to screw up warships navigation systems, resulting in false readings on their current coordinates.

The US and its NATO allies have substantially increased their reconnaissance patrols along Russias borders in recent years, deploying dozens of warships in the Black Sea and sending hundreds of drones and spy planes on intelligence-gathering missions around Crimea, the home to Russias Black Sea Fleet.

Late last month, the US deployed the USS Ross guided-missile destroyer into the body of water for drills. The Russian Navy assured observers that it had the capabilities to monitor the warships movement. Earlier this month, the Russian military reported detecting 25 foreign aircraft engaged in reconnaissance activities near the countrys borders, with fighters scrambled twice to prevent illegal entry into Russian airspace.

Moscow has repeatedly condemned the US and its NATO allies over their maritime exercises, drone and spy plane flights and bomber drills near Russias borders, warning that such behaviour only serves to stoke tensions. The alliance has so far ignored these objections.

Credit: Sputnik

Originally posted here:

NATO warships unable to collect intel on Russian Navy in the Black Sea: report - AMN Al-Masdar News

Deputy leader of the populist Alternative for Germany (AfD) party Beatrix von Storch has slammed the Turkish government for opening its borders to Europe, demanding that the country be removed from the NATO military alliance.

Ms von Storch commented on the situation along the Greek border, where thousands of migrants have gathered, in an interview with Breitbart London this week, stating that President Recep Tayyip Erdogans government had committed an act of aggression by opening the border.

First of all, what is our approach to this situation? We stand with Greece. This is, I think, the bottom line. We have to strengthen the Greek border and border police and we should do everything we can to help them keep the border clear, von Storch said.

On the actions of President Erdogan, Ms von Storch said: Its an act of aggression, what he is proposing.Its the fight of an Islamic country against a small Christian country and he did it with purpose. He uses it as a weapon.

The AfD deputy leader went on to note the multiple times that Erdogan has threatened the European Union, including as recently as last December when he stated that migrants displaced by military activity in the Syrian province of Idlib could go on to Europe.

Von Storch also referenced threats by Erdogan to transport migrants into buses and ship them to the border. The Turkish government has been accused of bussing in migrants to the Greek border earlier this month as well as transporting them to the area by train.

Many have questioned the suitability of Turkey within the NATO alliance, of which Greece is also a member, following Erdogans latest action and Ms von Storch is no exception.

This is in our basic programme, we have included a passage that says Turkey shouldnt be a member of NATO. Turkey is not alongside all of our national interests and the interests of Western societies, she said.

[Erdogan] is not acting as a member, he is acting like a threat and an opponent of the NATO alliance, she added.

While Turkey has called for aid from NATO in recent weeks to help with the migrant crisis, not everyone within Erdogans own AKP party is supportive of the country remaining a NATO member.

In 2017, MPSamil Tayyar said Turkey should leave NATO, accusing the alliance of helping stage a military coup in the country in 1980 and adding that NATO has become a threat and is spreading terror organisations across the region.

Go here to see the original:

Exclusive Von Storch: Turkey Should Be Removed from NATO Following Migrant Aggression - Breitbart

Italy is in lockdown. Schools and universities are closed, soccer games suspended, and restaurant visits banned amid a rapid spread of the novel coronavirus in the country. Just grocery stores and pharmacies are allowed to stay open, and only absolutely necessary travel is permitted. One might think that fellow European Union countries would count their blessings and send their Italian friends a few vital supplies, especially since the Italians have asked for it. They have sent nothing.

EU countries shameful lack of solidarity with the Italians points to a larger problem: What would European countries do if one of them faced an even greater crisis?

The Union Civil Protection Mechanism is the bland name under which the EUs crisis hubthe Emergency Response Coordination Centreoperates. It monitors natural and manmade disasters around the clock, and when an EU member state can no longer handle a crisis on its own it can turn to the crisis hub. The hub forwards the appeal to other member states, which can then volunteer assistance. (The assistance is later reimbursed by the recipient country.)

Two years ago, for example, with devastating forest fires spreading around the country, Sweden turned to the Emergency Response Coordination Centre, and Stockholms plea yielded a heartwarming response. Portugal sent two firefighting aircraft; Germany contributed five helicopters and 53 firefighters; Lithuania sent one helicopter and Norway eight. France dispatched 60 firefighters and two aircraft; Denmark sent 60 firefighters; Poland sent over 130 firefighters and more than 40 fire trucks. Italy, itself in a dangerous forest-fire season, sent two aircraft.

When the European helpers arrived in Sweden, locals greeted them with applause. It was a powerful illustration of a frequently forgotten reality: The European Union is about more than tedious financial transactions; its also about helping fellow European countries in need.

Last month, when COVID-19 began spreading rapidly in Italy, the country appealed for help via the Emergency Response Coordination Centre. We asked for supplies of medical equipment, and the European Commission forwarded the appeal to the member states, Italys permanent representative to the EU, Maurizio Massari, told me. But it didnt work.

So far, not a single EU member state has sent Italy the needed supplies. Thats tragic for a country with 21,157 coronavirus infections and 1,441 deaths as of March 14, and with medical staff working under severe shortages of supplies.

To be sure, all governments need to make sure they have enough supplies for their own hospitals, patients, and medical staff. But no European country is suffering remotely as badly as Italy. Spain and France have a high caseload, but as of March 14, Finland has just 225 cases, and Italys neighbor Austria only 655. Portugal has 169 cases; Ireland 90; Romania, 109; Poland, 93; Bulgaria, 37; and Hungary has 25 cases. Many of those countries have benefited greatly from European solidarity in the past; a number of them are net beneficiaries of the EU, meaning they get more money out of their membership than they pay into it. The United Kingdom, no longer a member of the European Union, has 1,140 coronavirus casesand it, too, has failed to help the Italians.

In the meantime, a partial and flawed savior has arrived. Close to midnight on March 12, a Chinese aircraft landed in Rome carrying nine medical experts and 31 tons of medical supplies including intensive care unit equipment, medical protective equipment, and antiviral drugs. Around the same time, a Chinese truck arrived in Italy bringing more than 230 boxes of medical equipment. It was less than Chinese State Councilor Wang Yi had promised Foreign Minister Luigi Di Maio of Italy in a phone call on Tuesday, but two days after the phone call the supplies were on their way.

Italy has already had a taste of Europes lack of solidarity. During the 2015 refugee crisis some 1.7 million people arrived on EU territory, mostly in Italy and Greece (with Germany and Sweden the most common destinations), but in 2017 some EU member states were still refusing to accept them under a solidarity scheme. The coronavirus crisis is similar to the refugee crisis: Countries that are not immediately affected are mostly not willing to help, Massari said. Different countries obviously have different threat perceptions. We [Italy] feel that the coronavirus is a global and European threat that needs a European response, but other countries dont see it that way.

Europes selfishness is morally lamentable, and its unwise, because misery loves company. A struggling Italy will drag its European friends down, too, starting with their economies. But the cold response to Italys plea points to a larger issue: How would European allies respond in case of crisis even more devastating than the coronavirussay, a massive cyberattack that knocks out power for a prolonged period of time? Without electrical power, other critical functions quickly cease to function, too. Brno University Hospital home to one of the Czech Republics largest COVID-19 testing labshas already been hit by a serious cyber attack.

The fact that no countrywith the possible exception of Chinacan survive without close allies is the reason that NATO was founded 71 years ago and the European Coal and Steel Community three years later. NATOs member states are supposed to do their best to defend their countries, but they all know that they need one another: Collective defense is NATOs raison dtre. Only the United States has considerable supplies of ammunition; all the other member states know that they can turn to the U.S. military if they run out, as happened during NATOs 2011 intervention in Libya.

Yet at a moment of extreme hardship for a key EU (and NATO) member, Italys allies are showing that they cant be counted on in a severe crisisand that means Italy may increasingly turn toward China. It will remain stalwart member of the EU and NATO, but why should it support its various European allies next time theyre in a pinch? And why should it pay heed to European allies calls for it to reverse its participation in Chinas Belt and Road Initiative, which it joined last year?

The Belt and Road, Chinas vast global infrastructure program, involves investments and constructions in a range of countries, primarily developing countries. Italy and China have, however, been deepening their cooperation through the Belt and Road Initiative and beyond; last year, a police cooperation program saw Chinese police officers patrol the streets of Rome and Milan.

And why should Italy keep its some 6,000 troops on foreign missions, troops who lead and make up large parts of the United Nations peacekeeping mission in Lebanon and NATOs forces in Kosovo, soldiers who help defend Latvia as part of NATOs Enhanced Forward Presence, and sailors who participate in the EUs mission combating Somali piracy and who police the western Mediterranean for the benefit not just of Italy but the rest of Europe, too?

La maledizione! cries Rigoletto, the title character in Giuseppe Verdis famous opera. La maledizionethe cursesometimes seems to be Italys destiny. EU membership has been mostly good for Italy. Its economy has been propelled upward by the single market and the euro, and its citizens have benefited enormously from free movementsome 2.7 million Italians currently live in other EU member states. And Italians appreciate the alliance: a 2018 Pew Research Center survey showed that 58 percent of Italians have a favorable view of the EU, somewhat lower than the EU median of 62 percent but far higher than Greeces 37 percent. On March 13, the European Commission stepped in to at least help Italys economy, but so far no medical assistance from member states has materialized.

Indeed, with the current lack of solidarity, the EU might lose Italys affectionand China will happily continue to take advantage of the situation. That mustnt happen.

Instead, the EUs net beneficiaries (and low-coronavirus-count nations) such as Slovakia, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania, and Poland should send Italy face masks and whatever else the country might need. Indeed, would it be too much to ask those countries to fulfill their obligations under the EUs solidarity scheme?

Otherwise, dont expect Italian soldiers to come to the aid of European allies when Russia stages a surprise on a European country of its choice, or when a hostile state or its proxies knock out Polands power grid.

More:

The EU Is Abandoning Italy During the Coronavirus Crisis - Foreign Policy

North American Aerospace Defence Command F-22s, CF-18s, supported by KC-135 Stratotanker and E-3 Sentry AWACS aircraft, intercepted two Russian Tu-142 maritime reconnaissance aircraft entering the Alaskan Air Defense Identification Zone on Monday, March 9, 2020. (NORAD)The United States and its NATO allies have been engaged in a cat-and-mouse game with Russia on the opposite sides of the Arctic over the last week as each sides military tries to parry the others moves amid increasingly overt geopolitical competition in the region.

The commander of U.S. Northern Command told lawmakers on Capitol Hill Wednesday that a pair ofRussian Tu-142 maritime reconnaissance aircraft intercepted by U.S. and Canadian jets in the international airspace off Alaskas northern coast two days earlier were sent to keep an eye on a U.S. submarine exercise known as ICEX.

The encounter with the Russian submarine hunters over the Beaufort Sea came only two days after Norway and Britain had to scramble their fighter jets to shadow another pair of Russian Tu-142s accompanied by a MiG-31 fighter jet and Il-78 tanker on a 13-hour flight over the Barents, Norwegian and Northern seas.

Video released by the Russian military shows the Russian Tu-142s being shadowed by Norwegian and British fighter jets.

Capt. Cameron Hillier, a spokesperson for the binational North American Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD), said the Russian submarine hunter aircraft entered the Alaskan Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) on March 9 andremained within it for approximately four hours.

NORAD dispatched U.S. F-22 and Canadian CF-18 fighter jets, supported by KC-135 Stratotanker and E-3 Sentry AWACS aircraft to shadow the Russian Tu-142s.

The Russian aircraft remained in international airspace over the Beaufort Sea, and came as close as 50 nautical miles (92 km) to the Alaskan coast, Hillier said. However, the Russian aircraft did not enter U.S. or Canadian sovereign airspace, he added.

A video posted by NORAD on its Twitter account shows the pair of Russian submarine hunters accompanied by U.S. and Canadian fighter jets flying over an ice camp set up by the U.S. military on the ice floe in the Beaufort Sea about 300 kilometres (190 miles) north of Prudhoe Bay, Alaska.

U.S. Air Force Gen. Terrence J. OShaughnessy, was quoted by The Military Times Wednesday telling U.S. lawmakers that theRussian aircraftwere operating in one of our ICEX exercises we had where submarines actually pop up out of the ice.

This year the three-week biennial ICEX exercise in the Arctic Ocean featured the construction of a temporary ice camp, Camp Seadragon, and two U.S. Navy submarines the Seawolf-class fast-attack submarine USS Connecticut (SSN-22) and the Los Angeles-class fast-attack submarine USS Toledo (SSN-769).

The U.S. submarines practised surfacing through the multi-year Arctic ice and operating under ice.

U.S. Naval War College associate professor Rebecca Pincus said the ICEX exercises demonstrate to the international community that U.S. Navy maintains top notch capabilities in the Arctic that even Russia would have a hard time matching.

I do think that the visibility of this exercise is a useful way for the Navy to remind the world that it is in fact operating in the Arctic Ocean, it can operate in the Arctic Ocean year around, its the most advanced and capable navy operating in the Arctic Ocean, Pincus said.

The Russian response to these exercises, which in this case is appears to be limited to sending out maritime surveillance patrols to shadow the U.S. forces, shows that the Russian submarine fleet has different priorities and probably different constraints, Pincus said.

The U.S. Navy does this publicly as a visible public signal of its war capability and if Russians were able to respond in kind, its pretty likely they would, because we know they respond to other kinds of demonstrations, Pincus said.

When there is a large NATO exercise, we often see some kind of Russian response that might be like a snap military drill or some other kind of in kind response.

Rob Huebert, a Canadian defence expert, said Russia dispatched the maritime surveillance aircraft to not only keep tabs on the American exercise but also to demonstrate its own ability to counter U.S. and NATO moves in the region.

They are probably listening, they probably have all sorts of electronic equipment set up to try to pick up on frequencies, behaviour, any indication that is going to give them a heads up if things go violent in the future, Huebert said. This is a very normal action that weve seen ever since the Russians resumed their activities [in the Arctic] in 2007.

The long history of ICEX exercises underline the fact that even at the height of the dtente between Russia and the U.S. following the collapse of the USSR, the two countries maintained their most important defensive capabilities in the Arctic.

I think what they do they provide us with a clear indication that even back in the days when we used to wish there was such a thing as Arctic exceptionalism, the reality is that both the Americans and the Russians were continuing to maintain their highest level of capability, the most important elements of their defensive forces their attack subs, their long-range bombers, Huebert said.

And weve had this dance going on since at least 2007. And the nature of these games became that much more serious in the current era.

Canada:Canada, U.S. must do more to check Russian military in the Arctic, says NORAD chief, CBC News

Finland:Finnish Defence Minister tells party leaders shrinking fighter fleet would be irresponsible, Yle News

Iceland:Iceland talks Arctic, Trumps ditching of climate accord, with U.S. Secretary of State, Eye on the Arctic

Norway:Russian jets led mock attack on Arctic Norway radar, intel director says, The Independent Barents Observer

Russia:Russia accuses Norway of northern military buildup, The Independent Barents Observer

Sweden:Arctic Sweden to welcome thousands of international troops for Northern Wind exercise, The Independent Barents Observer

United States:U.S. experts call for vigilance on Russian military buildup in Arctic, Alaska Public Media

See the original post here:

U.S., NATO and Russia engage in cat-and-mouse game during Arctic training - Eye on the Arctic

In news today, COVID-19 infections in Italy hit 10,149 more than anywhere else in the world except for China. The number of deaths from the coronavirus rose in Italy by 168 in just one day, from 463 to 631.

This is the point of view of Prof. F. Sisci, an Italian sinologist from Beijing, China:

So far, the government has chased the emergency, but in this way, Italy will be overwhelmed. We need a 3- to 6-month emergency government and NATO intervention.

Dear director, Italy must regain control of a situation that is getting out of hand and is in danger of blowing everything up as soon as possible.

Coronavirus can be overcome, but clarity is needed. The country needs a special 3 to 6-month government that will introduce martial law, to be agreed strictly with the allies, and specifically NATO, to defeat the virus and stop the collapse of the economy. It is, in fact, a situation of war.

China is an extremely conservative and prudent country. It sounded the alarm on January 23 after almost 2 months of waiting and quarantined, in fact, not only Wuhan and Hubei but the whole country. Now, perhaps in a couple of weeks, some cities will return to normal life.

So, beyond the official numbers provided, at some point, there was a real fear that if the epidemic had not been brought under control there would have been a massacre.

Lets look at some numbers. It is known that 13.8% of those infected get sick in serious conditions and are saved in most cases only if they go to intensive care. Otherwise, they die. So, the subtle point is to avoid the spread of the infected with coronavirus.

If the number of infected remains under control, mortality, due to that 14% who needs intensive care, is not dramatic in the end. The problem, on the other hand, is if the number of infected people goes out of control; in this case, hospitals are no longer able to offer intensive care to everyone.

If unchecked, the coronavirus could affect the entire Italian population, but lets say that in the end, only 30% become infected, about 20 million. If of these making a discount 10% goes into crisis, this means that without intensive care it is destined to succumb. It would be 2 million direct deaths, plus all indirect deaths resulting from a collapse of the health system and the resulting social and economic order.

During the plague, half of the deaths are due to evil, the other half to social unrest. Manzoni (Italian writer, 1785-1873) recalls that in the plague in Milan there were bloody attacks on the ovens; today riots have started in prisons. What will happen next?

As a comparison, just think that during the First World War there were 650,000 military casualties out of a population of 40 million. The disaster caused by the prospective coronavirus is worse than an armed conflict. This does not only concern Italy; this would require a NATO summit on health, safety, and economics. Is it an apocalypse scenario? Yes: it must frighten, but not panic, because it is not carved in stone.

It should be understood that if you dont prepare yourself, if you dont protect yourself, then it will be a massacre. But if, vice versa, and only if you really prepare and organize yourself, the dead can be almost those of a normal influence.

The cost to the economy is another chapter. It is like flying: if you do it by plane, it is safer than walking; if you try it by jumping from the tenth floor believing you have the wings of a bird, it is certain death. So, preparation is everything. We cannot choose the coercive method of China, which has blocked everything for 40 days. But even in that case, not everything is to be discarded.

Perhaps [we] can also learn from the more sophisticated method employed by Taiwanese democracy, which stopped the epidemic with a series of precise and capillary measures. In both cases, the active cooperation of the population, who trusted the government, was crucial.

In Italy, perhaps it is not the same thing. So, you need to change your pace, and, forgive me, maybe only you can do it, Mr. President Sergio Mattarella. The indecisions, alarmism, and optimism spread by alternating current, the leaks denied and not denied, like the last sensational one, which concerned the provision signed by the Prime Minister Conte Sunday night, reduced the government[s] credibility.

Britain, in the midst of the Battle of England, when the Nazis bombed London and threatened a landing, changed government, did not surrend[er] and won the war. Italy must change pace and must do so immediately before health care collapses and coronavirus deaths count in the thousands. From there to the millions, the step could be very short.

As transcribed by eTN Italy correspondent Mario Masciullo

Go here to read the rest:

Italy is not China but Must Change Pace with NATO Intervention - eTurboNews | Trends | Travel News

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was created in 1949 by the United States, Canada, and several Western European nations to provide collective security against the Soviet Union.

Signing of the NATO Treaty

NATO was the first peacetime military alliance the United States entered into outside of the Western Hemisphere. After the destruction of the Second World War, the nations of Europe struggled to rebuild their economies and ensure their security. The former required a massive influx of aid to help the war-torn landscapes re-establish industries and produce food, and the latter required assurances against a resurgent Germany or incursions from the Soviet Union. The United States viewed an economically strong, rearmed, and integrated Europe as vital to the prevention of communist expansion across the continent. As a result, Secretary of State George Marshall proposed a program of large-scale economic aid to Europe. The resulting European Recovery Program, or Marshall Plan, not only facilitated European economic integration but promoted the idea of shared interests and cooperation between the United States and Europe. Soviet refusal either to participate in the Marshall Plan or to allow its satellite states in Eastern Europe to accept the economic assistance helped to reinforce the growing division between east and west in Europe.

In 19471948, a series of events caused the nations of Western Europe to become concerned about their physical and political security and the United States to become more closely involved with European affairs. The ongoing civil war in Greece, along with tensions in Turkey, led President Harry S. Truman to assert that the United States would provide economic and military aid to both countries, as well as to any other nation struggling against an attempt at subjugation. A Soviet-sponsored coup in Czechoslovakia resulted in a communist government coming to power on the borders of Germany. Attention also focused on elections in Italy as the communist party had made significant gains among Italian voters. Furthermore, events in Germany also caused concern. The occupation and governance of Germany after the war had long been disputed, and in mid-1948, Soviet premier Joseph Stalin chose to test Western resolve by implementing a blockade against West Berlin, which was then under joint U.S., British, and French control but surrounded by Soviet-controlled East Germany. This Berlin Crisis brought the United States and the Soviet Union to the brink of conflict, although a massive airlift to resupply the city for the duration of the blockade helped to prevent an outright confrontation. These events caused U.S. officials to grow increasingly wary of the possibility that the countries of Western Europe might deal with their security concerns by negotiating with the Soviets. To counter this possible turn of events, the Truman Administration considered the possibility of forming a European-American alliance that would commit the United States to bolstering the security of Western Europe.

Signing of the Brussels Treaty

The Western European countries were willing to consider a collective security solution. In response to increasing tensions and security concerns, representatives of several countries of Western Europe gathered together to create a military alliance. Great Britain, France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg signed the Brussels Treaty in March, 1948. Their treaty provided collective defense; if any one of these nations was attacked, the others were bound to help defend it. At the same time, the Truman Administration instituted a peacetime draft, increased military spending, and called upon the historically isolationist Republican Congress to consider a military alliance with Europe. In May of 1948, Republican Senator Arthur H. Vandenburg proposed a resolution suggesting that the President seek a security treaty with Western Europe that would adhere to the United Nations charter but exist outside of the Security Council where the Soviet Union held veto power. The Vandenburg Resolution passed, and negotiations began for the North Atlantic Treaty.

In spite of general agreement on the concept behind the treaty, it took several months to work out the exact terms. The U.S. Congress had embraced the pursuit of the international alliance, but it remained concerned about the wording of the treaty. The nations of Western Europe wanted assurances that the United States would intervene automatically in the event of an attack, but under the U.S. Constitution the power to declare war rested with Congress. Negotiations worked toward finding language that would reassure the European states but not obligate the United States to act in a way that violated its own laws. Additionally, European contributions to collective security would require large-scale military assistance from the United States to help rebuild Western Europes defense capabilities. While the European nations argued for individual grants and aid, the United States wanted to make aid conditional on regional coordination. A third issue was the question of scope. The Brussels Treaty signatories preferred that membership in the alliance be restricted to the members of that treaty plus the United States. The U.S. negotiators felt there was more to be gained from enlarging the new treaty to include the countries of the North Atlantic, including Canada, Iceland, Denmark, Norway, Ireland, and Portugal. Together, these countries held territory that formed a bridge between the opposite shores of the Atlantic Ocean, which would facilitate military action if it became necessary.

President Truman inspecting a tank produced under the Mutual Defense Assistance Program

The result of these extensive negotiations was the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty in 1949. In this agreement, the United States, Canada, Belgium, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxemburg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, and the United Kingdom agreed to consider attack against one an attack against all, along with consultations about threats and defense matters. This collective defense arrangement only formally applied to attacks against the signatories that occurred in Europe or North America; it did not include conflicts in colonial territories. After the treaty was signed, a number of the signatories made requests to the United States for military aid. Later in 1949, President Truman proposed a military assistance program, and the Mutual Defense Assistance Program passed the U.S. Congress in October, appropriating some $1.4 billion dollars for the purpose of building Western European defenses.

Soon after the creation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the outbreak of the Korean War led the members to move quickly to integrate and coordinate their defense forces through a centralized headquarters. The North Korean attack on South Korea was widely viewed at the time to be an example of communist aggression directed by Moscow, so the United States bolstered its troop commitments to Europe to provide assurances against Soviet aggression on the European continent. In 1952, the members agreed to admit Greece and Turkey to NATO and added the Federal Republic of Germany in 1955. West German entry led the Soviet Union to retaliate with its own regional alliance, which took the form of the Warsaw Treaty Organization and included the Soviet satellite states of Eastern Europe as members.

The collective defense arrangements in NATO served to place the whole of Western Europe under the American nuclear umbrella. In the 1950s, one of the first military doctrines of NATO emerged in the form of massive retaliation, or the idea that if any member was attacked, the United States would respond with a large-scale nuclear attack. The threat of this form of response was meant to serve as a deterrent against Soviet aggression on the continent. Although formed in response to the exigencies of the developing Cold War, NATO has lasted beyond the end of that conflict, with membership even expanding to include some former Soviet states. It remains the largest peacetime military alliance in the world.

See original here:

Milestones: 19451952 - Office of the Historian

The United States has limited its reaction to the killing of at least 36 Turkish soldiers in a Russian-backed Syrian government offensive in Idlib, northwest Syria on February 27 to a statement expressing concern over the attack and pledging solidarity with Turkey.

We stand by our NATO ally Turkey and continue to call for an immediate end to this despicable offensive by the Assad regime, Russia, and Iranian-backed forces, the U.S. State Department said in a statement on Friday.

While refraining from blaming Russia - which has total superiority over Syrian air space - for the deaths, Turkey has informed NATO of its plans for a cross-border operation into Idlib and requested support from the alliance to enforce a no fly zone over the region ahead of the offensive.

NATO, without signalling any intention to take the action that Turkey seeks, issued a statement that said: The North Atlantic Council, which includes the ambassadors of 29 NATO allies, will meet on Friday 28 February following a request by Turkey to hold consultations under Article 4 of NATOs founding Washington Treaty on the situation in Syria.

Article 4 of the charter stipulates that any NATO member can request talks when they believe their territorial integrity, political independence or security is threatened. Turkey could also invoke the alliances Article 5, which states that an armed attack against one member is an attack against all and creates the possibility of collective self defence.

Yet, most NATO members are very reluctant to be drawn into conflicts. France in particular has been trying to initiate a debate on what the alliance should do if Ankara requests assistance under NATOs Article 5.

Ankara had called for consultations on Article 4 several times in the past, including after one of its jets was downed by Syrian forces in 2012, and in 2015 after a spate of terrorist attacks in Turkey. NATOs reaction in those instances was confined to verbal condemnations of the incidents and is likely to remain limited to that this time as well.

In what appeared to be an attempt to pacify Turkeys anger with the alliance, after an emergency meeting in Brussels, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg on Friday called on Russia to halt the offensive in Idlib. He said that NATO stood in solidarity with Turkey, and expressed condolences for the death of Turkish soldiers.

Stoltenberg said that NATO has provided political and practical support to Turkey and that the allies are looking to make further contributions, without going into detail. "The allies will continue to follow developments on the southeastern border of NATO very closely," he concluded.

Well aware that no action beyond verbal condemnation of of its actions would be forthcoming from NATO, Russia blamed Turkey for failing to provide them with accurate coordinates of its forces deployed in Syria. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Turkish troops were among terrorists in the area hit by Syrian fire. However, Turkey maintains the attacks occurred after Turkey had informed Russian authorities of its deployments.

NATO is unlikely to assist the Turkish military in the multilateral conflict in Syria, despite Turkeys strategic importance to the alliance due to its location straddling the Bosporus strait and bordering the Black Sea, and by hosting the ncirlik air base in southeastern Turkey from which the alliance operates aerial surveillance flights.

Ahval English

The views expressed in this column are the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Ahval.

Read more:

Will NATO come to Turkey's aid in Syria? - Ahval

Data science platform Dataiku is teaming up with military alliance NATO to create a system to help it build and "deploy" AI projects.

The deal with NATO's Allied Command Transformation (ACT) aims to use Dataiku's tech and data scientists to solve some of the most "challenging use cases in the field", NATO said, vaguely, without specifying the type of thing they were referring to.

"We were looking to expand our use of data science, machine learning, and AI in the organisation," said General Andr Lanata, NATO supreme allied commander for transformation. "We are invested in sharing ACT's progress with other member states, with the goal of expanding competencies and successful, deployed use cases of AI projects in the field."

Dataiku makes Data Science Studio - an advanced analytics and collaborative data science tool - which comes up against the likes of Teradata, Talend, and IBM. The seven-year-old startup has been valued at $1.4bn and inhaled $101m in its last funding round in December last year.

Dataiku CEO Florian Douetteau said of the military deal: "NATO ACT is in the unique position to leverage data science and machine learning to have global impact."

Earlier this week, the US Department of Defense adopted a set of "ethical principles" on the controversial topic of the deployment of AI technology for military use. Google dropped its association with computer-vision software Pentagon project, Maven, after internal and external backlash last year.

Dataiku got its introduction to NATO via an "innovation hub" competition in Paris, 2018. In an incredibly prescient imaginary scenario, participants were asked to assist in the control of a disease outbreak in a landlocked country.

The outbreak led to a public health crisis complicated by the emergence of rebel groups attacking medical supplies.

The Dataiku team won two of the three gongs up for grabs by applying object detection with deep learning on aerial imagery. Let's hope it does not need to put any of the lessons learned into practice any time soon.

Sponsored: Quit your addiction to storage

Read the original:

Data science pusher Dataiku hooks arms with NATO on battlefield AI contract - The Register

Media playback is unsupported on your device

The US and the Taliban have signed an "agreement for bringing peace" to Afghanistan after more than 18 years of conflict.

The US and Nato allies have agreed to withdraw all troops within 14 months if the militants uphold the deal.

President Trump said it had been a "long and hard journey" in Afghanistan. "It's time after all these years to bring our people back home," he said.

Talks between the Afghan government and the Taliban are due to follow.

Under the agreement, the militants also agreed not to allow al-Qaeda or any other extremist group to operate in the areas they control.

Speaking at the White House, Mr Trump said the Taliban had been trying to reach an agreement with the US for a long time.

He said US troops had been killing terrorists in Afghanistan "by the thousands" and now it was "time for someone else to do that work and it will be the Taliban and it could be surrounding countries".

"I really believe the Taliban wants to do something to show we're not all wasting time," Mr Trump added. "If bad things happen, we'll go back with a force like no-one's ever seen."

Media playback is unsupported on your device

The US invaded Afghanistan weeks after the September 2001 attacks in New York by the Afghanistan-based al-Qaeda group.

More than 2,400 US troops have been killed during the conflict. About 12,000 are still stationed in the country. President Trump has promised to put an end to the conflict.

The deal was signed by US special envoy Zalmay Khalilzad and Taliban political chief Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar with US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo as a witness.

In a speech, Mr Pompeo urged the militant group to "keep your promises to cut ties with al-Qaeda".

Mr Baradar said he hoped Afghanistan could now emerge from four decades of conflict.

"I hope that with the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Afghanistan the Afghan nation under an Islamic regime will take its relief and embark on a new prosperous life," he said.

Meanwhile US Defence Secretary Mark Esper was in the Afghan capital Kabul alongside Afghanistan's President Ashraf Ghani - whose government did not take part in the US-Taliban talks.

Mr Esper said: "This is a hopeful moment, but it is only the beginning. The road ahead will not be easy. Achieving lasting peace in Afghanistan will require patience and compromise among all parties." He said the US would continue to support the Afghan government.

Mr Ghani said the country was "looking forward to a full ceasefire". The government said it was ready to negotiate with the Taliban.

Within the first 135 days of the deal the US will reduce its forces in Afghanistan to 8,600, with allies also drawing down their forces proportionately.

The move would allow US President Donald Trump to show that he has brought troops home ahead of the US presidential election in November.

The deal also provides for a prisoner swap. Some 5,000 Taliban prisoners and 1,000 Afghan security force prisoners would be exchanged by 10 March, when talks between the Taliban and the Afghan government are due to start.

The US will also lift sanctions against the Taliban and work with the UN to lift its separate sanctions against the group.

In Kabul, activist Zahra Husseini said she feared the deal could worsen the situation for women in Afghanistan.

"I don't trust the Taliban, and remember how they suppressed women when they were ruling," the 28-year-old told AFP.

"Today is a dark day, and as I was watching the deal being signed, I had this bad feeling that it would result in their return to power rather than in peace."

This historic deal has been years in the making, as all sides kept seeking advantage on the battlefield.

The agreement is born of America's determination to bring troops home and a recognition, at least by some Taliban, that talks are the best route to return to Kabul.

It's a significant step forward, despite deep uncertainty and scepticism over where it will lead. When the only alternative is unending war, many Afghans seem ready to take this risk for peace.

Taliban leaders say they've changed since their harsh rule of the 1990s still seared in the memory of many, and most of all Afghan women.

This process will test the Taliban, but also veteran Afghan leaders of the past, and a new generation which has come of age in the last two decades and is hoping against hope for a different future.

Since 2011, Qatar has hosted Taliban leaders who have moved there to discuss peace in Afghanistan. It has been a chequered process. A Taliban office was opened in 2013, and closed the same year amid rows over flags. Other attempts at talks stalled.

In December 2018, the militants announced they would meet US officials to try to find a "roadmap to peace". But the hard-line Islamist group continued to refuse to hold official talks with the Afghan government, whom they dismissed as American "puppets".

Media playback is unsupported on your device

Following nine rounds of US-Taliban talks in Qatar, the two sides seemed close to an agreement.

Washington's top negotiator announced last September that the US would withdraw 5,400 troops from Afghanistan within 20 weeks as part of a deal agreed "in principle" with Taliban militants.

Days later, Mr Trump said the talks were "dead", after the group killed a US soldier. But within weeks the two sides resumed discussions behind the scenes.

A week ago the Taliban agreed to a "reduction of violence" - although Afghan officials say at least 22 soldiers and 14 civilians have been killed in Taliban attacks over that period.

Media playback is unsupported on your device

It began when the US launched air strikes one month following the 11 September 2001 attacks and after the Taliban had refused to hand over the man behind them, Osama bin Laden.

Media playback is unsupported on your device

The US was joined by an international coalition and the Taliban were quickly removed from power. However, they turned into an insurgent force and continued deadly attacks, destabilising subsequent Afghan governments.

The international coalition ended its combat mission in 2014, staying only to train Afghan forces. But the US continued its own, scaled-back combat operation, including air strikes.

The Taliban has however continued to gain momentum and in 2018 the BBC found they were active across 70% of Afghanistan.

Media playback is unsupported on your device

Nearly 3,500 members of the international coalition forces have died in Afghanistan since the 2001 invasion.

The figures for Afghan civilians, militants and government forces are more difficult to quantify. In a February 2019 report, the UN said that more than 32,000 civilians had died. The Watson Institute at Brown University says 58,000 security personnel and 42,000 opposition combatants have been killed.

There are many reasons for this. But they include a combination of fierce Taliban resistance, the limitations of Afghan forces and governance, and other countries' reluctance to keep their troops for longer in Afghanistan.

At times over the past 18 years, the Taliban have been on the back foot. In late 2009, US President Barack Obama announced a troop "surge" that saw the number of American soldiers in Afghanistan top 100,000.

Media playback is unsupported on your device

The surge helped drive the Taliban out of parts of southern Afghanistan, but it was never destined to last for years.

The BBC World Service's Dawood Azami says there are five main reasons the war is still going on now. They include:

There's also the role played by Afghanistan's neighbour, Pakistan.

There's no question the Taliban have their roots in Pakistan, and that they were able to regroup there during the US invasion. But Pakistan has denied helping or protecting them - even as the US demanded it do more to fight militants.

More:

Afghan conflict: US and Taliban sign deal to end 18-year war - BBC News

This is a rush transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.

Greg Wolpert: Its the Real News Network. Im Greg Wolpert in Baltimore. The US military is about to send 7,500 combat troops to Norway for exercise Cold Response 2020 where they will join thousands of allied NATO troops in the Finnmark district along the border to Russia to participate in war games that will take place in mid-March.

These maneuvers have been held every other year since 2006, but their increased size and importance are raising credible fears that NATO and the United States are preparing to use the Arctic as a battleground for a possible conflict with Russia. Why have these NATO games in such a Northern latitude been gaining in importance? US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo openly explained the rationale when he visited Finland in May of last year.

Mike Pompeo: The Arctic is at the forefront of opportunity and abundance. It houses 13% of the worlds undiscovered oil, 30% of its undiscovered gas, and an abundance of uranium, rare earth minerals, gold, diamonds, and millions of square miles of untapped resources, fisheries galore. And its centerpiece, the Arctic Ocean, is rapidly taking on new strategic significance. Offshore resources, which are helping the respective coastal states are the subject of renewed competition.

Steady reductions in sea ice are opening new passageways and new opportunities for trade. This could potentially slash the time it takes to travel between Asia and the West by as much as 20 days. Arctic sea lanes could come before the could come to the 21st century Suez and Panama canals.

Under President Trump, were fortifying Americas security and diplomatic presence in the area. On the security side, partly in response to Russias destabilizing activities, we are hosting military exercises, strengthening our force presence, rebuilding our icebreaker fleet, expanding Coast Guard funding, and creating a new senior military post for Arctic Affairs inside of our own military.

Greg Wolpert: Pompeo also explained that in addition to the threat that Russia represents, so does China.

Joining me now to discuss the significance of NATOs exercise Cold Response are Michael Klare and [Erik Vold 00:02:20]. Michael is The Nations defense correspondent and professor emeritus of Peace and World Security Studies at Hampshire College. His latest book is, All Hell Breaking Loose: The Pentagons Perspective on Climate Change. Erik, who joins us from Oslo, is a Norwegian political analyst and author and is working as a foreign policy advisor to the parliamentary group of the leftist Red Party of Norway.

Thanks, Michael and Erik for joining us today. So lets start with the Arctic, why the Arctic has become of such great interest to the United States? We saw it earlier as Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo already explained it pretty well in that clip. But January, once again, the month of January, beat all climate records as the warmest January in recorded history. Michael, talk about how climate change is driving this scramble for the Arctic.

Michael Klare: Well, at one point you couldnt go there. You couldnt go near there because it was covered with ice. The region was impenetrable. But because of climate change and the rapidly rising temperatures in the Arctic, the ice cap is receding and thats making it possible to drill for oil and natural gas and other resources in the Arctic region. This has led to a scramble to extract those resources by giant energy firms from around the world. So this has made the region much more of importance from a geopolitical perspective.

Its especially true of Russia because Russia highly depends on the sale of oil and natural gas to prop up its economy. Something like 25% of its foreign income comes from the sale of oil and gas and at present most of that oil and natural gas that it sells to Europe and Asia comes from reserves below the Arctic Circle. But those are running out. So for Russia to continue to rely on oil and gas reserves to power its economy, it has to go above the Arctic Circle.

And so from Moscows perspective, the development of Arctic resources is absolutely crucial. This is something that President Vladimir Putin has said over and over again and has invested vast resources, economic inputs into developing the new oil and gas fields developed, discovered above the Arctic Circle in Russias territory.

But as well discuss, this creates problems for Russia because its very hard to deliver those new oil and gas reserves to the rest of the world because of the distance from markets. This has put a new emphasis on trade routes that pass by Northern Norway, which is where this exercise is being held.

Greg Wolpert: All right. Talk to us also about the US interest that is in the resources because you make an interesting point in one of your articles for The Nation where you point out also that even if we arent right away running out of natural resources in the Middle East, there is an issue that climate change in the Middle East is actually driving also whats happening in the Arctic. Explain that to us.

Michael Klare: Yes, indeed. If you look at the latest scientific literature on what we could expect from climate change in the future, the Middle East region, especially the Persian Gulf, which is where most of oil drilling is occurring at present, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran and so on, those areas are going to become unbearably hot in summer months. You can expect, in decades to come, that summertime temperatures during the day are likely to average above 110 degrees Fahrenheit and very possibly above 120 degrees Fahrenheit. Its almost impossible for humans to survive for very long in those temperatures.

A lot of equipment breaks down under those circumstances. So its very possible that itll become impossible to produce oil and gas in that region. That makes production in the Arctic much more attractive as those areas become impossible to operate in the Middle East. So the oil companies, American and British oil companies are increasingly looking towards the Arctic as a future source of production to ensure that they have adequate supplies.

Greg Wolpert: Erik, I want to turn to you now. Now, what has Norway done to facilitate the scramble for Arctic resources? I mean, Norway is usually seen as a peace loving country, the home of the Nobel Peace Prize after all. To what extent and why is Norway supporting US ambitions there via NATO?

Erik Vold: Well, Norway joined the NATO in 1949 and that was a very controversial decision. And because Norway is a country that is situated on the border with Russia, at that time the Soviet Union and the Soviet Union had just liberated a big chunk of Norwegian territory from Nazi occupation, so there was very little appetite in the Norwegian population to sort of antagonize the Russians by letting the US enter Norwegian territory with heavy military equipment. So we had this self-imposed restrictions on US military presence. For example, not permitting US military bases on Norwegian soil in peace time and not permitting the presence of US nukes on Norwegian territory.

Now, this policy, this very prudent policy that served us very well for about 70 years has been rolled back by this current government, which is more and more inclined to supporting the US and to supporting US militarization off the Arctic that is deemed to be threatening by the Russians. Now I can give you a very illustrative example.

In 2018, the Norwegian government introduced a proposal asking basically asking the parliament for a grant of about 1 billion kroners, about $1 million for satellite-based broadband connection in the Northern Norway. Now this was presented as a proposal to improve internet connection for business, for fishery, for maritime security, shipping and for the Norwegian defense. This grant was voted favorably, unanimously, by the parliament.

Now a couple of days later, it turned out that this grant was going to be used on something completely different. It turned out that these satellites were going to carry communication equipment for the US military directly connected to US nuclear armed submarines that were using the Arctic territories of Norwegian maritime territory getting close to Russia.

It also turned out that the reason why the Americans wanted to use civilian Norwegian satellites instead of US military satellites was because the US military considered that any satellites carrying communication equipment for nuclear, US nuclear capabilities would become possible targets for attacks from those countries that feel threatened by the presence of US nukes close to their borders. In this case, it would be Russia and China.

So what this goes to show is the way that the US is increasingly using Norwegian territory and Norwegian civilian infrastructure to move nuclear and conventional military, offensive military, capabilities closer and closer to the Russian border. And that the way that this is being done is through, to a large extent, through secrecy and deceptions, sometimes even undermining important principles of the Norwegian democracy.

Greg Wolpert: Michael, I want to get to that point that Erik is raising about increasing US military presence in Norway. Were not just talking about the NATO maneuvers that are happening in early March. So what has the US so far deployed there and what kinds of risks do these deployments represent?

Michael Klare: So step back for a minute. The US, over the past two years, has adopted a new military strategy. For the past 20 years or so, since 2001, since 9/11, the guiding strategy of the United States has been the global War on Terror. And thats led, of course to a focus on Iraq to Afghanistan and other countries where the US has been fighting the various ISIS and Al-Qaeda and so on.

Two years ago, the Department of Defense adopted a new national security strategy, which emphasizes what they call great power competition, meaning the rivalry between the US, Russia and China. And on this space is the US increasingly views Russia and China as its main adversary. In this shift in strategy emphasizes that while the US was focusing on the wars, the what we call the Forever Wars, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and so on, that Russia and China have built up their military capabilities and put NATO and the US at a disadvantage and that therefore, its essential that the US and NATO build up their capabilities again to deflect and to contain and push back Russian and then Chinese advances.

So now looking at Norway and Scandinavia, the US sees a big Russian build up in the Kola Peninsula. Thats the area that adjoins Norway in the far North, a huge buildup of Russian forces there. This is seen as a new or an expanded threat to NATO and to US forces in general because those forces that the Russians have deployed in Kola Peninsula, especially in Murmansk the big naval base there include nuclear forces. So in response, the US has undertaken a drive to beef up its forces in that region and that has included, as [inaudible 00:13:28] said earlier, the positioning of a permanent deployment of American forces that is, in this case, Marine deployments of several hundred Marines in North Central Norway.

But more importantly, under agreement with the Norwegian government, this is not well known in the United States at all, I dont even know if go regions know about it, the US has established large, large caves, I think in the area to the East of Trondheim in North Central Norway, which hold hundreds, thousands of tanks and artillery pieces and armored personnel carriers, ammunition, all the stocks you need to fight a major war. So there is an anticipation on the US side that we may have to fight a major war with Russia in the far North in the area adjoining the Kola Peninsula.

The exercise that were about to see, Cold Response 2020, US forces will fly to Norway and then go to those caves and extract all of those tanks that have been pre-positioned in Norway, move to the Northern part of Norway and engage in a mock war with Russia. So there is this, an assumption now in the Pentagon that Northern Norway will be a major battlefield in any war with Russia and in fact could be the starting place for World War III.

Greg Wolpert: Actually, Erik, this is exactly the next issue I want to touch on with you. I mean, just as Michael says, Norway would be in the middle of such a confrontation, whether its a nuclear or conventional. Now, whats been the reaction within Norway to this militarization?

Erik Vold: Thats true. I mean, Norway used to be a kind of a buffer zone between Russia or the USSR and the US. And through those Norwegian policies of limiting US presence in Northern Norway, that position was maintained until pretty recently because the current government has done a lot to tear down those limitations and basically scrap Norways role as a buffer, as a buffer zone.

So, while reactions are slow [inaudible 00:15:55]. I mean, defense policies, the whole security issue, big power competition, that issue has basically been marginalized since the end of the Cold War. The Norwegian people is slowly realizing the risks that this implies for Norway. I mean, we have enjoyed so many decades of peace and the risk of war has basically not been on the agenda.

But what we are seeing now is that by scrapping that prudent policy of maintaining a certain distance to the US even though being allies, by scrapping that policy, the risk of war is not being, is not reduced. Its increasing. Were seeing basically a security dilemma in which the increased military presence of the US in Norway makes Russia look at Norway with different eyes. I mean, well, the Russians never feared Norway, a small country of five million inhabitants with whom theyve maintained peace for almost a thousand years.

When US nuclear capabilities are connected to Norwegian civilian infrastructure, and when Norwegian territory is used to build up US military presence, then Russian guns are slowly being to more of an extent being pointed towards Norway because what the Russians do fear is that Norwegian territory is being used for aggressive purposes by the US against Russia. And so that increases the risk of Norway being drawn into this big power rivalry between Russia and the US.

It also increases the risks for the Russians. So theyre increasing their military spending. And unfortunately, this is also something that might stimulate increase defense spending in the US because to the extent that the US engages in Norway, probably in the case and increasing the risk of a conflict. Maybe the most probable scenario is a conflict arising from a misunderstanding when so much heavy military power is concentrated on such a small area. Thats the way it can happen.

So in case of a misunderstanding in which the Russians fear a US attack, they go to, they take some kind of preliminary action to protect their military capabilities in the Kola Peninsula. Then the U S will feel much more obliged to interfere, to intervene in order to maintain their credibility as a security guarantor towards other NATO States. So it also increases the risk of the US being drawn into a conflict unnecessarily based on a misunderstanding. So, what were going to see is three nations, everyone spending more on defense and getting less security in return from it.

Greg Wolpert: Michael, I was just wondering if you could add to that? I mean this was one of your points in your Nation article as well, that this could be the main area for World War III and why is that? I mean, what is it, why is Russia building up so much? After all, theyve got access to the entire, more access to the Arctic than any other country in the world, so why is it such a hotspot?

Michael Klare: Well, this partly is a matter of geography and I hope that you can put a map of this area to highlight this fact. That is to say that although Russia has a number of ports, the port at Murmansk is the only one that offers Russian submarines open access to the Atlantic Ocean and to the other oceans of the world. They cant on the Atlantic side. They also have ports on the Pacific.

One needs a minute to understand something about nuclear strategy. Russia relies on its nuclear submarines, nuclear missile armed submarines, as its secure deterrent to a US first strike. If the US were to strike first and destroy all Russian missile silos, they count on their submarines submerged as a final deterrent to such a strike because theyre supposedly more secure from detection and attack, but they have to get out into the water. Murmansk is therefore essential to them for that reason.

Hence, the United States, as it increasingly sees it, sees the possibility of a nuclear war with Russia sees that area where the submarines would exit from Murmansk to go out into the ocean as a crucial future nuclear war zone. Hence, the US has established with Norway a radar base at the very far North of Norway and Finnmark just 45 miles from the border with Russia and to track Russian submarines. This means in the event of a clash that had a nuclear potential, Northern Norway would be an immediate nuclear target for Russia. So you could see how this area is being caught up in the nuclear planning scenarios of both sides.

Its important to understand in this discussion that as we are shifting to this great power competition that weve been discussing, the US and I think the other great powers are also moving away from the strategy of mutual assured destruction, MAD as it was called, M-A-D, which said that any nuclear war would be so catastrophic that we are not even going to think about a first strike. Were only going to retain a secure second strike and not even think about nuclear war, but thats changing.

The US and Russia and China, it appears, are thinking more and more about the possibility of fighting and winning a nuclear war. I think this is utterly insane and immoral, highly immoral, but that is the case. And so nuclear battlefields are emerging places where nuclear strikes might occur. This area of Northern Norway and Murmansk would be at the very top of the list of possible targets in the event of a nuclear war. I could say more about this, but this is a matter of geography and you have to see Murmansk adjoining Northern Norway as a prime battlefield in any outset of a nuclear war.

Greg Wolpert: Well, I think its also important to reflect on how these two kind of apocalyptic scenarios, that is of climate change and of nuclear war, are coming together in this particular issue. Its really quite something. But were going to leave it there for now. Well certainly continue to follow this as we usually do.

I was speaking to Michael Klare, The Nations defense correspondent and professor emeritus of Peace and World Security Studies at Hampshire College and Erik Vold, foreign policy advisor for the parliamentary group of the Red Party of Norway. Thanks again, Michael and Erik for having joined us today.

Michael Klare: Thank you.

Erik Vold: Thank you.

Greg Wolpert: And thank you for joining the Real News Network.

More:

NATO's Arctic War Exercise Unites Climate Change and WWIII - The Real News Network

When the Commander of NATO says he is a fan of flexible first strike at the same time that NATO is flexing its military muscle on Russias border, the risk of inadvertent nuclear war is real.

US Air Force Gen. Tod D Wolters told the Senate this week he is a fan of flexible first strike regarding NATOs nuclear weapons, thereby exposing the fatal fallacy of the alliances embrace of American nuclear deterrence policy.

It was one of the most remarkable yet underreported exchanges in recent Senate history. Earlier this week, during the testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee of General Tod Wolters, the commander of US European Command and, concurrently, as the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe (SACEUR) also the military head of all NATO armed forces, General Wolters engaged in a short yet informative exchange with Senator Deb Fischer, a Republican from the state of Nebraska.

Following some initial questions and answers focused on the alignment of NATOs military strategy with the 2018 National Defense Strategy of the US, which codified what Wolters called the malign influence on behalf of Russia toward European security, Senator Fischer asked about the growing recognition on the part of NATO of the important role of US nuclear deterrence in keeping the peace. We all understand that our deterrent, the TRIAD, is the bedrock of the security of this country, Fischer noted. Can you tell us about what you are hearingfrom our NATO partners about this deterrent?

Wolters responded by linking the deterrence provided to Europe by the US nuclear TRIAD with the peace enjoyed on the European continent over the past seven decades. Fischer asked if the US nuclear umbrella was vital in the freedom of NATO members; Wolters agreed. Remarkably, Wolters linked the role of nuclear deterrence with the NATO missions in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere outside the European continent. NATOs mission, he said, was to proliferate deterrence to the max extent practical to achieve greater peace.

Then came the piece de resistance of the hearing. What are your views, Sir, Senator Fischer asked, of adopting a so-called no-first-use policy. Do you believe that that would strengthen deterrence?

General Wolters response was straight to the point. Senator, Im a fan of flexible first use policy.

Under any circumstance, the public embrace of a flexible first strike policy regarding nuclear weapons employment by the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe should generate widespread attention. When seen in the context of the recent deployment by the US of a low-yield nuclear warhead on submarine-launched ballistic missiles carried onboard a Trident submarine, however, Wolters statement is downright explosive. Add to the mix the fact the US recently carried out a wargame where the US Secretary of Defense practiced the procedures for launching this very same low yield weapon against a Russian target during simulated combat between Russia and NATO in Europe, and the reaction should be off the charts. And yet there has been deafening silence from both the European and US press on this topic.

There is, however, one party that paid attention to what General Wolters had to sayRussia. In a statement to the press on February 25the same date as General Wolters testimony, Sergey Lavrov, the Russian Foreign Minister stated that We note with concern that Washingtons new doctrinal guidelines considerably lower the threshold of nuclear weapons use. Lavrov added that this doctrine had to be viewed in the light of the persistent deployment of US nuclear weapons on the territory of some NATO allies and the continued practice of the so-called joint nuclear missions.

Rather than embracing a policy of flexible first strike, Lavrov suggested that the US work with Russia to re-confirm the Gorbachev-Reagan formula, which says that there can be no winners in a nuclear war and it should never be unleashed. This proposal was made 18 months ago, Lavrov noted, and yet the US has failed to respond.

Complicating matters further are the Defender 2020 NATO military exercises underway in Europe, involving tens of thousands of US troops in one of the largest training operations since the end of the Cold War. The fact that these exercises are taking place at a time when the issue of US nuclear weapons and NATOs doctrine regarding their employment against Russia is being actively tracked by senior Russian authorities only highlights the danger posed.

On February 6, General Valery Gerasimov, the Russian Chief of Staff, met with General Wolters to discuss Defender 2020 and concurrent Russian military exercises to be held nearby to deconflict their respective operations and avoid any unforeseen incidents. This meeting, however, was held prior to the reports about a US/NATO nuclear wargame targeting Russian forces going public, and prior to General Wolters statement about flexible first use of NATO nuclear weapons.

In light of these events, General Gerasimov met with French General Fanois Lecointre, the Chief of the Defense Staff, to express Russias concerns over NATOs military moves near the Russian border, especially the Defender 2020 exercise which was, General Gerasimov noted, held on the basis of anti-Russian scenarios and envisage training for offensive operations.

General Gerasimovs concerns cannot be viewed in isolation, but rather must be considered in the overall historical context of NATO-Russian relations. Back in 1983, the then-Soviet Union was extremely concerned about a series of realistic NATO exercises, known as Able Archer 83, which in many ways mimicked the modern-day Defender 2020 in both scope and scale. Like Defender 2020, Able Archer 83 saw the deployment of tens of thousands of US forces into Europe, where they assumed an offensive posture, before transitioning into a command post exercise involving the employment of NATO nuclear weapons against a Soviet target.

So concerned was Moscow about these exercises, and the possibility that NATO might use them as a cover for an attack against Soviet forces in East Germany, that the Soviet nuclear forces were placed on high alert. Historians have since observed that the threat of nuclear war between the US and the USSR was at that time the highest it had been since the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962.

US and NATO officials would do well to recall the danger to European and world security posed by the Able Archer 83 exercise and the potential for Soviet miscalculations when assessing the concerns expressed by General Gerasimov today. The unprecedented concentration of offensive NATO military power on Russias border, coupled with the cavalier public embrace by General Wolters of a flexible first strike nuclear posture by NATO, has more than replicated the threat model presented by Able Archer 83. In this context, it would not be a stretch to conclude that the threat of nuclear war between the US and Russia is the highest it has been since Able Archer 83.

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

Go here to see the original:

The threat of a nuclear war between the US and Russia is now at its greatest since 1983 - RT

Job Field

AllAuditBuilding & Facility ManagementConference ManagementDefenceEngineeringExecutive ManagementGraduateInformation & Document ManagementInformation Communication TechnologyInternLinguistic ServicesManagement and Operations SupportOperationsPolitical AffairsPublic RelationsResearchSecurityAll

AllAuditBuilding & Facility ManagementConference ManagementDefenceEngineeringExecutive ManagementGraduateInformation & Document ManagementInformation Communication TechnologyInternLinguistic ServicesManagement and Operations SupportOperationsPolitical AffairsPublic RelationsResearchSecurityAll

AllAuditBuilding & Facility ManagementConference ManagementDefenceEngineeringExecutive ManagementGraduateInformation & Document ManagementInformation Communication TechnologyInternLinguistic ServicesManagement and Operations SupportOperationsPolitical AffairsPublic RelationsResearchSecurityAll

AllAfghanistanAfghanistan (RS)AustriaBelgiumBosnia and HerzegovinaDenmarkFranceGeorgiaGermanyGreeceHungaryIraqIraq (NMI)ItalyKazakhstanKosovoKuwaitLuxembourgNetherlandsNorwayPolandPortugalRussiaSpainTurkeyUkraineUnited KingdomUnited States of AmericaUzbekistanAll

AllAfghanistanAfghanistan (RS)AustriaBelgiumBosnia and HerzegovinaDenmarkFranceGeorgiaGermanyGreeceHungaryIraqIraq (NMI)ItalyKazakhstanKosovoKuwaitLuxembourgNetherlandsNorwayPolandPortugalRussiaSpainTurkeyUkraineUnited KingdomUnited States of AmericaUzbekistanAll

AllAfghanistanAfghanistan (RS)AustriaBelgiumBosnia and HerzegovinaDenmarkFranceGeorgiaGermanyGreeceHungaryIraqIraq (NMI)ItalyKazakhstanKosovoKuwaitLuxembourgNetherlandsNorwayPolandPortugalRussiaSpainTurkeyUkraineUnited KingdomUnited States of AmericaUzbekistanAll

AllAllied Command TransformationCentre for Maritime Research and Experimentation (CMRE)Collaboration Support Office (CSO)Headquarters Supreme Allied Commander TransformationHQ AIRCOMHQ MARCOMHQ NAEW & C Force GeilenkirchenHQ SarajevoInternational Military StaffJoint Analysis and Lessons Learned CentreJoint Force Command Brunssum NLDJoint Force Command NaplesJoint Force Training CentreJoint Warfare CentreLand Command HQNAGSMANATO CIS GroupNATO Communications and Information Agency (NCI Agency)NATO Defense CollegeNATO International Staff (NATO IS)NATO Mission in IraqNATO STANDARDIZATION OFFICEResolute SupportSCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ORGANIZATION (STO)Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe

AllAllied Command TransformationCentre for Maritime Research and Experimentation (CMRE)Collaboration Support Office (CSO)Headquarters Supreme Allied Commander TransformationHQ AIRCOMHQ MARCOMHQ NAEW & C Force GeilenkirchenHQ SarajevoInternational Military StaffJoint Analysis and Lessons Learned CentreJoint Force Command Brunssum NLDJoint Force Command NaplesJoint Force Training CentreJoint Warfare CentreLand Command HQNAGSMANATO CIS GroupNATO Communications and Information Agency (NCI Agency)NATO Defense CollegeNATO International Staff (NATO IS)NATO Mission in IraqNATO STANDARDIZATION OFFICEResolute SupportSCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ORGANIZATION (STO)Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe

AllAllied Command TransformationCentre for Maritime Research and Experimentation (CMRE)Collaboration Support Office (CSO)Headquarters Supreme Allied Commander TransformationHQ AIRCOMHQ MARCOMHQ NAEW & C Force GeilenkirchenHQ SarajevoInternational Military StaffJoint Analysis and Lessons Learned CentreJoint Force Command Brunssum NLDJoint Force Command NaplesJoint Force Training CentreJoint Warfare CentreLand Command HQNAGSMANATO CIS GroupNATO Communications and Information Agency (NCI Agency)NATO Defense CollegeNATO International Staff (NATO IS)NATO Mission in IraqNATO STANDARDIZATION OFFICEResolute SupportSCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ORGANIZATION (STO)Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe

Read this article:

NATO - NATO Vacancies

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg told CNBC that if the U.S. is concerned about the rise of China then it was "even more important to maintain NATO to keep your friends and allies close."

The head of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was responding to U.S. Defense Secretary Mark Esper's speech at the Munich Security Conference on Saturday, in which he called China a rising threat to the world order.

Stoltenberg acknowledged that the global balance of power was shifting with the rise of China, pointing out that it now has the second-largest defense budget in the world and that it's "investing heavily in new military capabilities."

The alliance put the issue of China on its agenda for the very first time at an event in London in December. At the time, Stoltenberg told CNBC that the rise of the Asian powerhouse provided some "obvious opportunities but also some obvious challenges."

In March 2019, China set its 2019 defense spending 7.5% higher than a year ago, raising it to 1.19 trillion yuan ($177.61 billion), according to known figures (some believe the actual figure could be higher). This still lags behind U.S. spending, however, with its Defense Department having asked Congress for $718 billion in its fiscal 2020 budget.

Stoltenberg said Saturday that the "important message" for the U.S. was that if it was concerned about China then it needed its allies. "Together with Europe and Canada we represent 50% of the world's military might and 50% of the world economy. Together we are strong," he told CNBC's Hadley Gamble.

Jens Stoltenberg, 13th Secretary General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, is talks to the media at the NATO headquarter on February 11, 2020 in Brussels, Belgium.

Thierry Monasse/ Getty Images

Meanwhile, Stoltenberg suggested he was not concerned by recent data showing weaker economic growth in Germany and the possible impact that would have on its defense spending as part of NATO. He said Germany had already started to increase its defense spending and that it planned to increase this by 80% over a decade.

The secretary general said that European allies and Canada will add $400 billion to their defense spending by 2024. "When it comes to defense spending, we're already moving in the right direction," he added.

On the Middle East, the NATO chief said the alliance would look to reduce its troops in Afghanistan, from the 16,000 currently based in the country, "if Taliban believers are ready to reduce the violence."

He said that the only way to create lasting peace in Afghanistan was to talk to the Taliban and that the purpose of truce talks currently taking place was also to "initiate inter-Afghan negotiations."

Stoltenberg said NATO's role was to support Afghans to take ownership of the peace process, "sending a message to the Taliban that they will never win on the battlefield, they have to sit at the negotiating table and (make) real compromises and reduce violence."

CNBC's Holly Ellyatt contributed to this article.

See the article here:

US needs Europe to tackle the rise of China, NATO chief says - CNBC

The approval of the US allies to strengthen the role of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) mission in Iraq, indicates Washingtons intention to disengage militarily from Baghdad. However, those allies have asked the US administration to maintain its military engagement in the region to combat Daesh.

A European diplomat stated that: The transfer of responsibilities to NATO has always been a precursor to the US military disengagement, citing two examples: the Kosovo Force(KFOR) and the ResoluteSupport Mission (RSM) in Afghanistan.

The diplomat stressed that: This will only work if the NATO mission includes a strong US component. The US troops currently account for half of the 16,000 soldiers affiliated with the RSM.

He indicated that the US request to hand some training activities designated to the Iraqi forces, over to NATO on behalf of the international coalitionto defeat Daesh, falls within this context.

US president, Donald Trump, announced his intention to reduce his countrys military presence worldwide and withdraw from many areas of operations, especially in Africa, Latin America and the Middle East, to focus his efforts on Asia, in the context of confronting China.

However, the situation changed with the escalation of tension with Iran, as the US attempted to deploy more troops and sent aircrafts to the Gulf region.

Read: NATO willing to expand Iraqi training mission to meet Trump demand

In the wake of the death of General Qasem Soleimani, commander of the Quds Force, in early January in a US raid near Baghdad, anger against the US in Iraq escalated, forcing Washington to suspend the operations of the international coalition and seek to limit its presence there.

The solution to achieve this was to strengthen the role of the small NATO mission deployed in Iraq since 2018.

During their meeting on Wednesday and Thursday in Brussels, the defence ministers of the NATO countries approved the transfer of some coalition activities to the NATO mission, with the mission being strengthened by troops from the alliances member states.

After the Iraqi government agreed on Wednesday night to transfer some training activities to NATO, the mission is expected to be strengthened rapidly.

NATO secretary-general, Jens Stoltenberg, announced on Thursday that the number of troops to be transferred from the coalition to the NATO force, and the details of training activities to be resumed by the mission, will be discussed during a meeting of the international coalition on Friday in Munich, on the sidelines of the security conference.

On Thursday, Spain confirmed to NATO the transfer of a portion of its units to the NATO mission. However, Spanish defence minister, Margarita Robles, confirmed that: It is out of the question to take over combat activities.

Read: US forces to start withdrawing from 15 bases in Iraq

Stoltenberg stated repeatedly that NATO must train the Iraqi forces to be able to fight Daesh and prevent it from reorganising its ranks, intensifying its activities in Iraq.

The US troops will remain in Iraq to fight Daesh. However, Washington is determined to continue strengthening NATOs presence in Iraq, while transferring defensive missions to it, and asking other allies to assume more responsibilities, allowing them to disengage militarily from Iraq, US defence secretary, Mark Esper, explained during the meeting in Brussels.

French defence minister, Florence Barley, warned of the US approach during a visit to Washington at the end of January, stating that Trumps NATO-Middle East policy should not turn into a NATO without the US policy. She also expressed the same concerns during the NATO meeting.

German defence minister, Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer, was more frank while discussing the situation, stressing that it was out of the question for Germany to increase participation to replace US forces in Iraq.

Read: Iraq parliament passes resolution to expel US troops

See original here:

Iraq: Washington to strengthen presence of NATO to disengage militarily from Baghdad - Middle East Monitor

BEMOWO PISKIE, Poland When American troops first deployed to northeast Poland in 2017 to lead a NATO enhanced Forward Presence battle group, the population of the village of Bemowo Piskie grew by a third overnight.

Nearly three years later, locals have grown used to the military presence and the occasional columns of tanks that pass through the village. Some say having the Americans in the village, which lies just south of the strategic Suwalki Corridor a border area between Poland and Lithuania that is sandwiched between Belarus and the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad makes them feel safer. Others just like having them in town.

American soldiers in Bemowo Piskie enjoy being here and we like having them, said Kate, a villager who didnt want to give her last name.

The U.S.-led battle group is one of four on NATOs eastern flank aimed at deterring Russian aggression in Europe. The other three are in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, all of which were annexed by the Soviet Union immediately after World War II, only regaining their freedom in 1991 when the USSR crumbled.

Russia often breaches the air space of the three Baltic states, has conducted crippling cyberattacks against them, and in 2014 was accused by the Estonians of abducting a security official at the border.

A 2018 report co-authored by former U.S. Army Europe commander retired Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges called the Suwalki Corridor, about 60 miles northeast of Bemowo Piskie, some of the most important territory within NATOs borders.

It is NATOs physical link between the Baltic littoral to the north and the European plain to the south. If this Corridor is not fully secured, NATOs credibility as a security guarantor to Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia could be seriously undermined, the report said.

Having American and other NATO troops in Bemowo Piskie is seen as a deterrent to Russian aggression because, under NATOs founding principles, an attack on the battle group would be seen as an attack on the entire alliance. But with around 15,000 Russian troops based in Kaliningrad, just 65 miles north of Bemowo Piskie, the U.S.-led battle group, which with Polish, Croatian, Romanian and British forces totals about 1,200 troops, would be sorely outnumbered in an attack.

The troops know their job would be to hold off any attackers until NATO could strike back on a much larger scale.

We have a training plan in case anything happens, said Capt. Ian Staley, Lightning Troop commander for 3rd Squadron, 2nd Cavalry Regiment. We dont feel that being this close [to Russia] is an issue. It is an opportunity for us to be in Bemowo Piskie in case anything happens.

American troops cycle through Bemowo Piskie in six-month rotations, living in barracks inside the fenced-off training area of around 42,000 acres, where they regularly participate in exercises with forces from other NATO member states.

Earlier this month, the battle group took part in kill tank, an exercise designed to teach soldiers about the functions and capabilities of weapons systems, Staley said. In July last year, Bemowo Piskie was host to the first Interoperability Games, testing how well allied troops can use each others equipment and vehicles.

Other than the language barrier and a 10 p.m. curfew, the American troops are free to take advantage of the villages amenities two small grocery stores and two restaurants.

The soldiers enjoy going out in town and out at night, even though it is a small town, Kate, said.

Some of the Americans came to Poland with apprehensions not because of how close theyd be to Russia but because theyd heard stories about the long, cold winters and how small and isolated Bemowo Piskie is.

I heard a lot of horror stories, but its not as bad as I thought it would be, said Spc. Kyle Bercsik, who arrived in January with the 2nd Cavalry Regiment, out of Vilseck, Germany.

There are soccer and basketball teams, and Bercsik attends Polish lessons with a few other soldiers, he said.

It puts the stress away for a couple of hours.

Johnson.Immanuel@stripes.comTwitter: @Manny_Stripes

A U.S. soldier from 3rd Squadron, 2nd Cavalry Regiment, prepares to fire an M3 Carl Gustaf 84mm recoilless rifle, during an anti-tank training course in Bemowo Piskie, Poland, Jan. 31, 2020. TIMOTHY HAMLIN/U.S. ARMY

The rest is here:

In a small Polish village near a Russian exclave, US-led NATO battle group is ready 'in case anything happens' - Stars and Stripes

He says NATO "could only worsen" the Ukrainian issue.

Sergei Lavrov / REUTERS

"When they [at NATO] say that they are ready for dialogue with Russia, they are not completely true they are open for dialogue that they understand as advancing claims against us, primarily regarding Ukraine," Lavrov said after the 2020 Munich Security Conference, according to an UNIAN correspondent in the Russian Federation.

Read alsoRussia names condition for holding Normandy Four summit

According to him, the Russia-NATO Council has never gathered "without an attempted ultimatum to force us to consider Ukrainian problems in this format."

"Our response is and I mentioned this [to NATO Secretary General Jens] Stoltenberg when we met in Munich that NATO has nothing to do with Ukraine. We have dialogue with those Western countries that are in charge of the Ukrainian settlement primarily participants of the Normandy format France and Germany," he said.

"And as Americans also joined these Ukrainian negotiations from time to time, at least in the last couple of years, we're still in contact with them but NATO as it is they have nothing to do with the Ukrainian issue. They could only worsen it, deepen the problems by keeping on saying that NATO is looking forward to having Ukraine joining them. That's undermining the efforts to implement the Minsk agreements," he said.

If you see a spelling error on our site, select it and press Ctrl+Enter

Read the original here:

Russia's MFA Lavrov: NATO "has nothing to do with Ukraine," shouldn't interfere in Donbas talks - UNIAN

North Macedonias parliament unanimously ratified NATOs accession protocol on Tuesday (11 February), taking Skopje a step closer to becoming the military alliances 30th member in the coming weeks.

By joining this alliance, we are not simply joining an international organisation, North Macedonias President Stevo Pendarovski told lawmakers ahead of the vote.

Membership of the worlds most powerful military-political alliance is a privilege, but also a huge responsibility, Pendarovski added and described the vote as a major step in completing Macedonian statehood and a (guarantee) for our territorial integrity and sovereignty.

All 114 lawmakers present in the 120-seat parliament voted in favour, with none against or abstaining.

In the presence of NATO representatives, diplomats, and officials from some neighbouring countries, a NATO flag was raised in front of the parliament building in Skopje.

The vote was a rare moment of unity after months of political upheaval and took place several weeks ahead of schedule as the current parliament is set to dissolve at the end of the week.

Skopjes Prime Minister Zoran Zaev agreed in October to hold early elections on 12 April, after EU leaders failed to agree on opening accession talks with North Macedonia and Albania, mostly because of opposition from France. He later stepped down to pave the way for early elections.

Zaevs government was the driving force behind the countrys progress towards the West as in recent years it poured all of its political capital into efforts to put North Macedonia on a path to NATO and EU membership.

While being supportive of NATO membership, France, the Netherlands and Denmark have been reluctant to green-light the accession negotiations with the EU.

Without the prospect of joining NATO, the North Macedonia name change deal with Greece (Prespa Agreement) would have been dead because the EU side has not been delivering on its promises, North Macedonias deputy PM and defence minister, Radmila ekerinska, told EURACTIV earlier last year.

Without the prospect of joining NATO, the North Macedonia name change deal with Greece (Prespa Agreement) would have been dead because the EU side has not been delivering on its promises, North Macedonian deputy PM and defence minister, Radmila ekerinska, has said.

In 2019, the two Balkan neighbours ended a 27-year-old name dispute, lifting Athens veto on North Macedonias way toward the EU and NATO. North Macedonia has been an EU candidate since 2005.

At the Bucharest NATO summit in April 2008, Greece vetoed its neighbours bid to join the alliance because of the name dispute.

In a symbolic move, last year Greece was the first country to ratify North Macedonias accession to the western military alliance.

Whats happening with Spain?

All NATO members have ratified North Macedonias accession except Spain, even though the document was forwarded to the Spanish Parliament for signature already in June 2019.

Asked by EURACTIV what the obstacles are and what the expected timeline for ratification is, a Spanish MFA spokesman replied:

There had been no other obstacles to the ratification except for the parliamentary agenda, which has been on constant stand-by due to repeated elections and the text has just been sent to the newly composed parliament.

It is expected to be completed as soon as possible through a special urgent procedure but at the end of the day, it depends on both Houses legislative agenda, the MFA spokesman added.

According to Spanish sources, the parliament is expected to hold a ratification vote in March.

If everything goes according to plan concerning the political process, that process should finish around 10 March. There will remain some technical details that our parliament in Skopje will have to deal with, President Pendarovski told reporters during a visit to NATO member Poland.

[Edited by Zoran Radosavljevic]

Read more:

North Macedonia ratifies NATO accession protocol, but still waiting for Spain - EURACTIV

The North Macedonian House of Representatives unanimously approved on Monday for their country to acceptthe NATO Accession Protocol, taking the former Yugoslav Republic a step closer towards accession into NATO which is expected to be completed and finalized in the spring. North Macedonias rapid accession into NATO is only possible because of the Prespa Agreement signed between Athens and Skopje in June 2018, bringing an end to the name dispute between the two countries that emerged in 1991 with the breakup of Yugoslavia.

The Prespa Agreement, named after a lake that traverses the borders of Greece, North Macedonia and Albania, defined exactly what was meant by "Macedonia" and "Macedonian." For Greece, according to the agreement, these terms denote an area and people of Greeces northern region, who continue the legacy of the Ancient Macedonian Hellenic civilization, history and culture, as well as the legacy of Alexander the Great. In reference to North Macedonia, these terms denote the modern territory of North Macedonia, the Slavic language and Slavic people with their own history and culture unrelated to the Ancient Macedonians. The agreement also stipulates the removal of North Macedonian irredentist efforts against Greek territory and to align them with UNESCO and Council of Europes standards.

With Greece no longer blocking North Macedonias attempts to join NATO and the European Union, no time has been wasted to elevate the Balkan country into the Atlanticist organization. There is no doubt that thePrespa Agreement, which caused political turmoil in Athens and Skopje,was signed only for North Macedonias rapid entry into NATO.

The acceleration of North Macedonia into NATO is not only a key priority for the organization to reduce Russian influence in the Balkans, but to continue pressurizing Serbia that was bombed by NATO in 1999 in response to the Serbian military operation against the "Kosovo Liberation Army" terrorist organization. North Macedonia, Serbia and Bosnia are the only non-NATO members remaining in the Balkans, however it is important to remember that Bosnia is effectively a U.S. protectorate, while North Macedonia has been trying to join NATO since 1995 when Yugoslavia was completely destroyed in all but name. Serbia has no such ambition to join NATO and is considered a problematic country as it is the only remaining bastion of Russian influence left in the Balkans and is preventing full Atlanticist hegemony over the region.

Syriza, the ruling Party of Greece at the time of the signing of the Prespa Agreement, knew full well that the Prespa Agreement was largely despised by the Greeks, but none-the-less pushed for it and signed it. It is very obvious that the Prespa Agreement was to accelerate North Macedonia primarily into NATO, especially as not only Syriza, but also the current ruling party of New Democracy is loyal to NATO, with North Macedonias entry into the EU being only a consolation prize for Western powers. Less than a month after signing the Prespa Agreement, North Macedonia received an invitation to join NATO on 11 July 2018 with the accession protocol made in February 2019. North Macedonias accession into the EU on the other hand has made no progress since the Prespa Agreement was made.

For the Atlanticists, a rapid accession into NATO to contain and weaken Russian influence in North Macedonia and to also further constrain and pressurize Serbia was a higher priority than formalizing the Balkan country into the European neoliberal order as an official member. Although North Macedonia will undoubtedly join the EU eventually, it is not a matter of urgency as making the country into a NATO member. The Prespa Agreement is highly unpopular in both countries as they both feel they have lost out and did not achieve their objectives of promoting their interests with the name issue. NATO was unwilling to risk the Prespa Agreement failing and the name issue re-emerging which would once again put on hold North Macedonias accession into the organization.

North Macedonia cannot contribute to NATO in any meaningful way as it is a poor country of just over two million people and not close to the Russian border like the tiny Baltic states. Its accession into NATO is only for the purpose of weakening or preventing any Russian influence in the country and to further isolate Serbia. Despite North Macedonia being an overwhelmingly Orthodox and Slavic country that had the potential to become another pro-Russia state in the Balkans alongside neighboring Serbia, since its separation from Yugoslavia in 1991, Skopje pursued a pro-Western policy and joined the NATO program Partnership for Peace as early as 1995 and became a European Union candidate a decade later. Why North Macedonia has pursued such a Western-centric policy since its separation with Yugoslavia is not clearly understood, but it is certainly understood why NATO has accelerated North Macedonias membership into its organization.

Paul Antonopoulos is a research fellow at the Center for Syncretic Studies.

Read more from the original source:

North Macedonia Is Being Used by NATO To Target Serbia and Russia - Antiwar.com

Greeces Defence Minister, Nikos Panagiotopoulos on Thursday called for a greater presence of NATO in the Aegean, during the two-day meeting of NATO Defence Ministers in Brussels that occurred on the 12-13th February.

Panagiotopoulos wanted to see the strengthening of NATOs presence in the Aegean so as to halt, as he said, the migration influx from Turkey.

During the two-day session, NATO member Defence Ministers focused on developments in the strategic environment of the greater Middle East, including North Africa, the security situation in Afghanistan, the further development of EU-NATO relations and the Alliances operational issues.

On the sidelines of the meeting, Panagiotopoulos met with his Turkish counterpart, Hulusi Akar, with whom he exchanged views on how the two countries military delegations could help reduce tension in bilateral relations at talks on the confidence-building measures scheduled to start in Athens on Monday.

The Greek Minister said he made it clear that in order for the military dialogue to succeed, provocative actions that undermine any effort to build confidence must be avoided.

Panagiotopoulos also met with counterparts from Estonia, Yuri Luik; Portugal, Joao Gomes Cravinho; and North Macedonia, Radmila Shekerinska.

View post:

Greece wants NATO to halt migration influx from Turkey - Greek City Times

Top: the IR image of the Tu-134UB-L intercepted by the BAF. Below, a shot of the Tu-134UB-L RF-12041 nicknamed "Black Pearl". (Image credit: BAF)

Four Belgian Air Force F-16AM jets are deployed to Siauliai, Lithuania, to support NATO BAP (Baltic Air Policing) mission in the Baltic region since September. As part of their mission to safeguard the airspaces over Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia and the Baltic Sea, the Belgian Vipers (just like the fighters of all the other air forces which support the BAP mission with rotational deployments to the Baltic States) are regularly scrambled to intercept Russian/non-NATO aircraft that fly in international airspace near NATO airspace.

While Il-76s, Su-27s and other interesting zombies are often escorted over the Baltic, the Russian Navy Tu-134 UB-L, RF-12041 nicknamed Black Pearl, that the BAF F-16s intercepted last week is a real first. The Belgian Air Force shared an IR image (most probably taken by the F-16s SNIPER Advanced Targeting Pod used in air-to-air mode for long range identification) of the rare bird, along with a file photo of the same aircraft taking off in 2019:

The Tu-134UB-L, NATO reporting name Crusty-B, is a variant of the civilian Tu-134B aircraft designed to train Tu-160 and Tu-22M3 strategic bombers aircrews (in particular, the Tu-134 was chosen because of the thrust to weight ratio and landing/takeoff characteristics were similar to those of the Tu-22M). The Tu-134UB-L (Uchebno-Boyevoy dla Lyotchikov, Russian for combat trainer for pilots) is indeed a Tu-134B airframe with a Tu-22 nose. According to Russias Warplanes Vol. 2 by Piotr Butowski, a total 109 Tu-134UB-L were built, with the first one making its maiden flight in March 1981.

Noteworthy, according to some sources, the Black Pearl is no longer used as a trainer, but was converted to be used for transportation tasks in 2017.

Whatever its current mission is the Tu-134UB-L RF-12041 is an extremely interesting and rare aircraft. Lets just hope the BAF will release more images of this beauty!!

H/T @ryankakiuchan for the heads-up

More here:

Unique Russian Tu-134 UBL (NATO Reporting Name Crusty-B) Nicknamed Black Pearl Intercepted Over The Baltic - The Aviationist