1. Press conference with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg and the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Trkiye, Mevlt avuolu  NATO HQ
2. Trkiye's support to Ukraine reduces 'some effects of brutal war,' NATO chief says  Anadolu Agency | English
3. NATO chief to visit Trkiye  Hurriyet Daily News
4. NATO chief in Trkiye to discuss grain, Nordic countries NATO bids | Daily Sabah  Daily Sabah
5. NATO chief hails Trkiye's support to Ukraine, role in fight against terror  TRT World
6. View Full Coverage on Google News

See the article here:

Press conference with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg and the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Trkiye, Mevlt avuolu - NATO HQ

1. NATO chief urges Turkey to endorse Finland, Sweden accession  ABC News
2. Time to finalise Sweden's and Finland's entry to NATO, Stoltenberg says  Reuters
3. Turkey Unlikely to Sign Off on Swedish NATO Bid Before Year-End  Bloomberg
4. Turkey continues to block NATO membership for Sweden despite Russia threat  Washington Examiner
5. Turkey is in no rush for Finland and Sweden to join NATO  DW (English)
6. View Full Coverage on Google News

See original here:

NATO chief urges Turkey to endorse Finland, Sweden accession - ABC News

Finland is expected to announce its intention to join Nato on Thursday with Sweden likely to follow soon after, diplomats and officials have said, as Russias invasion of Ukraine reshapes European security and the Atlantic military alliance.

Nato allies expect Finland and Sweden to be granted membership quickly, five diplomats and officials told Reuters, paving the way for increased troop presence in the Nordic region during the one-year ratification period.

In the lead-up to their Nato accession, British prime minister Boris Johnson on Wednesday promised to defend Sweden and Finland against potential Russian threats as he travelled to both countries to sign mutual security agreements.

In the wider Nordic region, Norway, Denmark and the three Baltic states are already Nato members, and the addition of Finland and Sweden would probably anger Moscow, which says enlargement of the organisation is a direct threat to its own security.

Russian president Vladimir Putin has cited the issue as a reason for his actions in Ukraine, which has also expressed a desire to eventually join the alliance. Moscow has also repeatedly warned Finland and Sweden against joining the alliance, threatening serious military and political consequences.

Asked on Wednesday if Finland would provoke Russia by joining Nato, President Sauli Niinisto said Putin would be to blame. My response would be that you caused this. Look at the mirror, Niinisto said.

On Thursday European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen warned Russia was the most direct threat to the international order because of its barbaric war in Ukraine.

Von der Leyen and European Council president Charles Michel are in Japan for talks that have touched on Russias invasion of Ukraine but also growing concerns about Chinas role in Asia and beyond.

Russia is today the most direct threat to the world order with the barbaric war against Ukraine, and its worrying pact with China, she said after talks with Japanese prime minister Fumio Kishida.

On the frontlines, Ukraine on Wednesday said it had pushed back Russian forces in the east and shut gas flows on a route through Russian-held territory, raising the spectre of an energy crisis in Europe.

Ukraines armed forces general staff said it had recaptured Pytomnyk, a village on the main highway north of the second-largest city of Kharkiv, about halfway to the Russian border.

In another village near Kharkiv recaptured by Ukrainian forces in early April, resident Tatyana Pochivalova returned to find her home blasted to ruins.

I have not expected anything like this, such aggression, such destruction, a weeping Pochivalova said. I came and I kissed the ground, I simply kissed it. My home, there is nothing. Where am I to live, how am I to live?

The advance appears to be the fastest that Ukraine has mounted since it drove Russian troops away from the capital Kyiv and out of northern Ukraine at the beginning of April.

If sustained, it could let Ukrainian forces threaten supply lines for Russias main attack force, and put rear logistics targets in Russia itself within range of artillery.

However, a senior US military official has warned that neither side can win in the present circumstances and that Russian and Ukrainian forces appear to be settling into a gruelling and deadly stalemate in Ukraines east.

Despite an announcement from Ukraines president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, that Ukrainian counter-offensives around the city of Kharkiv were pushing invading Russian forces back, Ukrainian successes appeared to be confined for now to the far north-eastern and south-western flanks of the 300-mile frontline.

The Russians arent winning, and the Ukrainians arent winning, and were at a bit of a stalemate here, said Lt Gen Scott Berrier, director of the Pentagons Defense Intelligence Agency, who gave evidence on Tuesday alongside Avril Haines, the US national intelligence director, to the Senate armed forces committee.

The assessment was delivered as the Russian military claimed its forces had advanced as far as the border between the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, potentially edging to securing control of the Donbas region despite losing ground around Kharkiv, Ukraines second-largest city.

The developments came as Ukraine said it was shutting down Russian gas flows through territory held by Russian-backed separatists the first time the conflict has directly disrupted shipments to Europe.

For its part Moscow has imposed sanctions on the owner of the Polish part of the Yamal pipeline that carries Russian gas to Europe, as well as Gazproms former German unit, whose subsidiaries service Europes gas consumption.

The implications for Europe, which buys more than a third of its gas from Russia, were not immediately clear. Berlin said it was looking into the announcement. An economy ministry spokesperson said the German government was taking the necessary precautions and preparing for various scenarios.

In southern Ukraine, where Russia has seized a swathe of territory, Kyiv has said Moscow plans to hold a fake referendum on independence or annexation to cement its occupation.

Russian forces have also continued to bombard the Azovstal steelworks in the southern port of Mariupol, last bastion of Ukrainian defenders in a city

If there is hell on earth, it is there, wrote Petro Andryushchenko, an aide to the Mariupol mayor, Vadym Boichenko, who has left the city.

Ukraine says it is likely that tens of thousands of people have been killed in Mariupol. Ukrainian authorities say between 150,000 and 170,000 of the citys 400,000 residents are still living there amid the Russian-occupied ruins.

With Reuters

Read more from the original source:

Finland expected to announce bid to join Nato - The Guardian

U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin on Wednesday said he believes Russian President Vladimir Putin does not want a direct conflict with NATO given the military might of the international alliance.

Austin appeared with Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair General Mark Milley before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense to testify on President Joe Biden's 2023 defense budget request. During the hearing, Austin was asked by Republican Representative Harold Rogers of Kentucky about a hypothetical scenario of Putin launching an attack on Poland, a NATO member, or another country in the region.

"If Russia decides to attack any nation that's a NATO member, then that's a game changer," Austin replied. "But if you look at Putin's calculus, my viewand I'm sure the chairman has his own viewbut my view is that Russia doesn't want to take on the NATO alliance."

Austin continued, "There are 1.9 million forces in NATO. NATO has the most advanced capabilities of any alliance in the world in terms of aircraft, ships, types of weaponry that the ground forces use. So, this is a fight that he [Putin] really doesn't want to have and that would very quickly escalate into another type of competition that no one wants to see."

The defense secretary's comments came after statements made by Putin and Kremlin officials in which they threatened NATO and the U.S. In late April, Putin said during an address to lawmakers that any countries that "create a strategic threat to Russia" in Ukraine can expect "retaliatory strikes" that would be "lightning fast."

Even before Russia began its attacks on Ukraine on February 24, Putin made similar public warnings. Last November, he said his country would respond if NATO crossed "red lines" by providing Ukraine with certain missile strike systems.

Meanwhile, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov told government news agency Tass on April 13 that Russia will consider U.S. and NATO vehicles transporting weapons on Ukrainian territory as "legitimate military targets." Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov also brought up the international alliance during an April 25 interview, saying, "NATO is essentially going to war with Russia through a proxy and arming that proxy. War means war."

However, Russia has expended a substantial amount of its weapons and armament in Ukraine and would be greatly outmatched by NATO in terms of firepower.

Sean Spoonts, editor-in-chief of the military news outlet SOFREP, told Newsweek recently that Russia has gone through thousands of critical weapons and cruise missiles in Ukraine that will cost about $1.5 million apiece. Added to that is the loss of the Moskva, the flagship of Russia's Black Sea fleet, which was sunk in April.

Putin will also likely have a hard time building his military's strength back up in the foreseeable future. During a background briefing on Tuesday, a senior official from the U.S. Department of Defense indicated that economic sanctions have made it difficult for Russia to replenish its inventory of weapons.

Should Russia challenge NATO or the U.S. with any military provocations, Milley said on Wednesday that any such threat would be recognized quickly by U.S. officials.

"We monitor this literally every day," Milley added. "It's one of the most significant things we're doing, monitoring the potential risk of escalation in any domain and by geography, by type weapon, etc."

Rogers followed up by asking if the U.S. would be "prepared to respond in some fashion" to any hypothetical military aggression from Russia.

"The short answer is yes, of course, we are militarily," Milley said. "We're very capable of responding to any form or fashion of escalation if directed by the president."

Newsweek reached out to Russia's Foreign Ministry for comment.

See the original post here:

Putin Knows a War With NATO Is One He May Lose: Pentagon - Newsweek

U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman (left) and Russian deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov (right) pose for pictures as they attend security talks on soaring tensions over Ukraine, at the U.S. permanent Mission, in Geneva on Jan. 10. Denis Balibouse /POOL/AFP via Getty Images hide caption

U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman (left) and Russian deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov (right) pose for pictures as they attend security talks on soaring tensions over Ukraine, at the U.S. permanent Mission, in Geneva on Jan. 10.

The idea that Ukraine, Russia's neighbor, might someday join NATO "is one of the areas where we have the greatest difference of views with the U.S.," Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said on Monday, after an hours-long discussion with his U.S. counterpart, Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman.

Sherman and Ryabkov posed together at the start of the session, convened as an effort to ease tensions aroused by Russia's positioning of some 100,000 troops along its border with Ukraine. But they both said the discussions achieved no breakthroughs and after the talks were over, Sherman and Ryabkov each held separate briefings with the media rather than appear together.

"We had a frank and forthright discussion over the course of nearly eight hours," Sherman told reporters who were on a conference call.

"For us, it's absolutely mandatory to make sure that Ukraine never, never, ever becomes a member of NATO," Ryabkov said at a news conference after the day-long meeting in Geneva, Switzerland.

But Sherman said NATO's open-door policy is one of the alliance's key strengths, and she said the U.S. "will not allow anyone" to slam that door shut. She also said the U.S. won't allow Russia to dictate how it cooperates with other sovereign states.

"We will not make decisions about Ukraine without Ukraine" being involved, Sherman said, adding that the same goes for the European Union. "As we say to our allies and partners: Nothing about you, without you," Sherman said.

Of the Russian side, Ryabkov said the country is "fed up" with what he called loose talk and half promises.

"We do not trust the other side," he stated. "We need ironclad, waterproof, bulletproof, legally binding guarantees not assurances, not safeguards guarantees with all the words" spelling out with certainty that Ukraine shall never become a member of NATO. He also said Russia has no plans to attack Ukraine.

"It's a matter of Russia's national security," he said.

Sherman reiterated Secretary of State Antony Blinken's statement, that Russia has a choice to make between de-escalating or facing deterrents, such as sanctions.

"It's really a very stark choice and one that I suspect only Mr. Putin, President Putin, can decide," Sherman said. "And we certainly urged Russia to de-escalate, to create an environment that was conducive to the diplomatic track. But we will see."

Russia does not see a nation's ability to join a military alliance as an absolute, Ryabkov said, adding that in his country's view, that freedom should be both limited and qualified.

"The situation now is so dangerous," the Russian diplomat said, as he urged a speedy resolution to the issue.

Sherman said the U.S. is open to meeting again soon. She also said the U.S. raised "preliminary ideas" about a range of issues from the placement of some missile systems in Europe to a plan to set reciprocal limits on the scope of military exercises, and to ensure transparency about those exercises.

See the original post here:

Russia digs in on Ukraine never joining NATO, on a day of talks with the U.S. - NPR

Washington will take no action to prevent Ukraine from entering the NATO alliance, despite Russias urging, the United States confirmed to Russia on Monday. Its the latest sign that the tense standoff between the U.S. and its allies and Russia will continue to drag on.

In December, Russia issued a list of demands to be met before it would consider removing the 100,000-plus troops on the Ukraine border who stand poised for a potential expansion of Russias nearly 8-year-old war on Ukraine. One of those demands was barring Ukraine from joining the NATO alliance.

Some Western observers have suggested that the United States give in to the request. That might stave off the looming conflict and save Ukraine, Lyle J. Goldstein, the director of Asia Engagement at Defense Priorities, wrote in Defense One in December.

But on Monday, during a conversation between U.S. and Russian diplomats, the United States reiterated that barring Ukraine from joining NATO is a non-starter for discussion.

We were unequivocalWe do not agree that any country should have a veto over any other country when it comes to being part of the NATO alliance. NATO has its own process, for inclusion, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman told reporters.

Ukraine has long said that it intends to eventually join the NATO alliance, and in 2008, during its Bucharest Summit, NATO officials said that both Ukraine and Georgia could eventually become members if they chose. They havent wavered from that stance since.

Ukraine has a number of exercises with the United States, such as Rapid Trident. The two countries have also conducted joint operations in Afghanistan.

In June 2020, NATO officially upgraded Ukraines status to an enhanced opportunities partner, which officially put Ukraine on the shortlist for NATO membership, along withAustralia, Finland, Georgia, Jordan, and Sweden.But that does not mean an invitation is inevitable.

In November 2020, Alyona Getmanchuk, director of the Ukraine-based New Europe Center, said Ukraine could go to the next step of becoming a NATO member, receiving the NATO membership action plan, or MAP, as early as 2023.

But a European security expert who asked to remain anonymous said Monday they highly doubt that would happen.

All decisions at NATO are made at consensus, so the North Atlantic Council would have to agree to grant Ukraine a MAP, which literally one country could stop from happening, the expert said.

Sherman and her Russian counterpart also discussed the placement of missiles in Europe. The demise of the IMF Treaty in 2019broadens the type of missiles either the United States or Russia could stage in Europe.The U.S. has placed an Aegis Ashore radar unit in Romania and plans to base a similar one in Poland this year.

While the subject did come up, Sherman said, This was not a negotiation that we were putting ideas on the table and a long way to go. But of course there are ongoing concerns about intermediate range missiles.

View original post here:

US 'Unequivocal' to Russia on Right of Ukraine, Others, to Join NATO - Defense One

This week, American officials are expected to hold a series of meetings with other NATO states and Russia to discuss the security crisis in Europe. With Russia deploying some 100,000 troops near Ukraines borders plenty to cause lots of mischief and conduct limited land grabs, even if not enough to seize the country the issue is acute. If things get out of hand, we quickly could find ourselves at our most dangerous moment in world politics since the Cold War ended.

Russia demands that, to defuse the crisis, the United States and the North Atlantic Treaty Organizations other 29 members must promise not to include Ukraine or other former Soviet republics such as Georgia in the alliance in the future. Russia also insists that we promise not to station weapons in existing NATO member states in Eastern Europe, such as Poland and the Baltic states, that have joined the alliance since the Cold War ended.

NATO cannot give in to Russian bullying or allow Russia a sphere of influence over its formerly subjugated neighbors. So any deal on Russian President Vladimir PutinVladimir Vladimirovich PutinUS looks to ward off Ukraine conflict in talks with Russia Overnight Defense & National Security US, Russia have face-to-face sit down House GOP members introduce legislation targeting Russia over Ukraine MOREs proposed terms would be unacceptable.

But we need to change the conversation at its fundamental level and develop new concepts for European security. Ukraine and Georgia should not be in NATO even if Moscow should not be allowed to decide that for them.

At present, we arguably have created the worst of all worlds. At its 2008 summit, NATO promised eventual membership to Ukraine and Georgia, but it did so without offering any specificity as to when or how that might happen. For now, these countries, as well as other Eastern European neutral states, get no military protection from NATO members. Knowing of our eventual interest in bringing these nations into an alliance that he sees as adversarial, Putin has every incentive to keep them weak and unstable so they will not become eligible for NATO membership. That fact, plus Russias desire to dominate its neighbors, are at the root of this crisis, and also help explain why Russia has destabilized both Georgia and Ukraine over the past 14 years.

It is time that Western nations begin to envision a new security architecture for those neutral countries in Eastern Europe today. The conversation should begin within NATO, and then include those countries themselves before we actually negotiate any arrangement with Moscow. But the conversation can begin at a more philosophical and general level with Russia, too, in the meetings this week.

The core concept for future security in Eastern Europe would be one of permanent neutrality for former Soviet republics that are not now in NATO Ukraine and Moldova and Belarus, as well as Georgia and Armenia and Azerbaijan.

The new security architecture would require that Russia, like NATO, commit to help uphold the security of Ukraine, Georgia and other states in the region. Russia would have to withdraw its troops from those countries in a verifiable manner (though the Crimea issue would have to be finessed, since Moscow almost certainly will not give that strategic peninsula on the Black Sea back to Ukraine, after giving it to Ukraine in the 1950s and then grabbing it back with its little green men in 2014).

After that has occurred, corresponding sanctions imposed on Russia because of its aggressions against neighbors would be lifted, though snapback provisions would remain in case Russia subsequently violated its promises to keep its hands off those fully sovereign and independent nations.

The neutral countries would retain their rights to participate in multilateral security operations on a scale comparable to what has been the case in the past, even those operations that might be led by NATO. They could think of themselves and describe themselves as Western states (or anything else, for that matter). They would have complete sovereignty and self-determination in every sense of the word; someday, if invited, they could join the European Union. But they would not be American allies in any formal sense; we would not promise to defend them as if they were U.S. territory, which is ultimately what it means to be a part of NATO.

Ukraine and Georgia are wonderful, but faraway, countries that are hard to defend and much less central to American security than to Russias sense of its place in the world and, yes, to its sense of its own security. The fact that a strongman such as Putin is the one making demands about them, and doing so in unreasonable terms, does not mean we should ignore Russias concerns.

These countries should not be in NATO at least, not until the entire European security order has been transformed in such a way that NATO membership would mean something entirely different than it does today. We are overdue for a serious discussion about security orders for Eastern Europe and that conversation should begin now.

Michael O'Hanlon is a senior fellow and director of research in the foreign policy studies program at the Brookings Institution, where he holds the Philip H. Knight Chair in Defense and Strategy. He is the author of the 2017 book, Beyond NATO: A New Security Architecture for Eastern Europe. Follow him on Twitter @MichaelEOHanlon.

View post:

Defusing the crisis in Europe: A better idea Ukraine than NATO membership | TheHill - The Hill

WASHINGTON Norway has designated its F-35 aircraft for a NATO quick-reaction alert mission in the High North, ending a 42-year run of the countrys F-16s for that job, the government announced Jan. 6.

The Lockheed Martin-made jets are held at Evenes Air Base in northern Norway, with at least three ready to scramble within 15 minutes and examine potential airspace violations of Norway and, by extension, NATO. The fifth-generation aircraft have previously accompanied F-16s on such missions in anticipation of the formal takeover on Thursday.

The change in aircraft types further embeds the F-35 jet into the fabric of alliance patrol missions in Europe, just as Lockheed recently recorded initial wins in its sales campaigns for Finland and Switzerland.

Norways F-16 have operated the quick-reaction mission from Bod Air Base for four decades, according to a defense ministry statement. The new location of Evenes puts the missions center of gravity about 100 miles further north.

The Norwegian military is expanding the base to also house P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft, putting key aerial and naval surveillance assets into an area that has seen an uptick in Russian military exercises.

Norway expects to have its fleet of 52 F-35s fully operational by 2025, according to the defense ministry. Aside from a handful of scramble-ready planes at Evenes, the fleets home base is rland, located in the south-central part of the country.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Defense Department continues to use F-16 aircraft in the Baltics, another hotspot for NATO air patrols along the border with Russia. American jets arrived in Poland earlier this month, joining Polish and Belgian F-16s to prepare for that mission, according to a Jan. 6 alliance statement.

Sebastian Sprenger is associate editor for Europe at Defense News, reporting on the state of the defense market in the region, and on U.S.-Europe cooperation and multi-national investments in defense and global security. Previously he served as managing editor for Defense News.

See original here:

Norway swaps in its F-35s for NATO quick-reaction mission in the High North - DefenseNews.com

NATOs highest Military Authority, the Military Committee, will meet virtually on 12-13 January 2022, in Brussels, Belgium. Admiral Rob Bauer, Chair of the Military Committee, will preside over the sessions, which will be attended by the Allied Chiefs of Defence. They will be supported by General Tod Wolters (Supreme Allied Commander Europe, SACEUR) and General Philippe Lavigne (Supreme Allied Commander Transformation, SACT).

The two-day meeting of the NATO Military Committee in Chiefs of Defence Session (MCCS) will enable the Chiefs of Defence to meet and discuss issues of strategic importance to the Alliance. The first day will be dedicated to Military Strategic thinking, with discussions on NATOs Warfighting Capstone Concept, the future work strands associated with its implementation as well as the progress on the Concept for the Deterrence and Defence of the Euro-Atlantic Area. The last session of the day will focus on military inputs to the new Strategic Concept.

The NATO Secretary General will open the second day of the bi-annual meeting by providing on overview of the current political context to the 30 Chiefs of Defence. This will be followed by a 360 degree update on the current security situation and a discussion on NATOs ongoing Deterrence and Defence Posture. The Chiefs of Defence will then meet with their Georgian and Ukrainian counterparts, respectively, to discuss the security situation in their Nations as well as the ongoing progress with defence-related reforms.

Media Opportunity

Thursday 13 Jan 2022

18:00 Virtual Press Conference with the Chair of the NATO Military Committee, Admiral Rob Bauer

NATO will facilitate remote interaction during the press conference. To declare your interest in asking a question to the Chair of the NATO Military Committee, journalists must register via Eventbrite no later than 16:00 (Brussels time) on Tuesday 11 January 2022, at the following link: registration for virtual press conference. Registered journalists will be contacted separately with technical details.

The press conference will be streamed live on the NATO website and the livefeed will be provided to Eurovision.

The video will be available for free download from the NATO Multimedia Portal after the event.

Imagery

Following each event, photos, video and audio files will be made available on the NATO IMS webpage http://www.nato.int/ims, as well as on the Military Committee in Chiefs of Defence session (MCCS) event page. Please click here to access the event page.

Social Media

We will post the latest information and photos from the MCCS on our official Twitter account: @NATO_PASCAD. The Chair of the NATO Military Committee will be using his own account @CMC_NATO.

Please use the hashtags #NATOCHoDs and #NATOMC when tweeting about the NATO Military Committee.

Media Enquiries:

Ms Eleonora Russell, Public Affairs and Strategic Communications Advisor to the NATO Military Committee and the NATO International Military Staff.

E-Mail: russell.eleonora@hq.nato.int

Lt Col Goetz Haffke, Deputy Public Affairs and Strategic Communications Advisor to the NATO Military Committee and the NATO International Military Staff.

Tel: + 32 490 58 06 47E-Mail: haffke.goetz@hq.nato.int

For more background information about the NATO Military Committee click here.

See more here:

First NATO Military Chiefs of Defence Meeting of 2022 to be held virtually (revised) - NATO HQ

For the second time in a year, Russia is mounting a major military buildup near its border with Ukraine. The last time, in March and April, did not result in an invasion, but Russian leader Vladimir Putin arguably got what he wanted: the worlds attention. In June, U.S. President Joe Biden held a summit with Putin in Geneva that was reminiscent of the Cold War days when Russia was a superpower like the United States.

Putin, who has called the collapse of the Soviet Union the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the [twentieth] century, is eager to restore the level of influence his country has enjoyed, and he has the mineral wealth and military capabilities to achieve his objective. Once again, his military buildup has riveted the world. Headlines proclaim concerns about a Russian invasion of Ukraine and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) iswarning Russiaagainst further aggression.

It seems doubtful that Russia will try to invade and occupy all of Ukraine. Kyiv has an increasingly capable military, and, even if it is defeated, Russia does not want to find itself in another costly guerrilla war like the one in Afghanistan in the 1980s. Putin could more readily expand Russias zone of control in eastern Ukraine, perhaps linking the separatist region of Donbas with Crimea, which was occupied by Russian forces in 2014.

As noted by Eugene Rumer and Andrew S. Weiss of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Ukraine isintegral to Putins hopesof reviving the old empire and creating strategic depth against invasion from the West. Putin published an ominous treatise in July describing Ukraine as an inalienable part of Russia, laying the justification for invading it if he so desires.

How should the United States and its allies respond to the latest threat of aggression against Ukraine? The most powerful deterrent in the Wests arsenal is NATO membership. The only countries that Putin has invadedGeorgia and Ukraineare not NATO members. He has been careful to keep his aggression against NATO members (e.g., disinformation campaigns, cyberattacks, and naval and air operations near members borders) below the threshold of NATOs collective defense provision, known as Article V.

Ukraines pro-West president, Volodymyr Zelensky, has been pressing Washington for a timeline forUkrainian accession to NATO, but he has so far been rebuffed. NATO has repeatedly proclaimed that no outside power (read Russia) will have a veto over NATO expansion, but a de facto Russian veto exists. Putins invasions of Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014 made those countries too hot to handle for NATO: Most members, including the United States, do not want to expand the alliance to a country that is already locked in hostilities with Russia because they could be drawn into the fight.

But there is a good deal that the United States and its allies can do to buttress Ukraine against Russian aggression even without offering it an Article V guarantee. Biden has been off to a good start in this regard by hosting Zelensky at the White House and making clear that,as he put it, The United States remains firmly committed to Ukraines sovereignty and territorial integrity in the face of Russian aggression.

That is a welcome contrast from the Donald Trump administration, when the president held up military aid to Ukraine to try to force Zelensky to make unwarranted accusations of corruption against then candidate Biden. The United States has resumed military aid to Ukraine, including Javelin anti-tank missilesfirst delivered by the Trump administrationthat would be of great utility in fighting a Russian armored invasion. Since 2014, the United States has provided Ukraine with more than$2.5 billionin military assistance. The latest commitment, $60 million, was announced prior to Zelenskys White House visit.

However, Biden needs to do more to increase the economic cost to Russia of its aggression. One of the biggest points of leverage is the nearly completed Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which will carry natural gas from Russia to Germany underneath the Baltic Sea. It will bypass existing pipelines that run through Ukraine, depriving it of aroundone billion eurosper year in transit payments. Nord Stream 2 will increase Europes dependence on Russian gas and leave Ukraine vulnerable to politically motivated Russian gas shutoffs.

Earlier this year, the Biden administration essentially threw in the towel onNord Stream 2, lifting sanctions on the company building the pipeline and describing its construction as a fait accompli. But now, a German energy regulator has refused to certify the pipeline, raising fresh questions about its future. The Biden administration should reimpose sanctions related to the pipeline, as urged by abipartisan group of lawmakers, while offering to provide Europe with more U.S. natural gas and help in its transition to renewable energy.

John McCain, the late U.S. senator, once described Russia as a gas station masquerading as a country. The most effective way to hurt Putinand protect Ukrainecould be at the pump.

This piece, first published by the Council on Foreign Relations, is used with permission.

Read more from the original source:

Energize NATO's Response to Russia's Threats Against Ukraine - Defense One

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg is visiting Lithuania and Latvia on Sunday (28 November 2021) together with the President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen, to demonstrate solidarity with NATO Allies and EU member states in the Baltic region, and to further strengthen the cooperation between NATO and the EU.

In Lithuania, the Secretary General had discussions with President Gitanas Nausda and Prime Minister Ingrida imonyt about developments on Lithuania's border and Russia's military build-up near Ukraine. The Secretary General said that, while the Lukashenko regime is exploiting vulnerable people to put pressure on neighbouring countries, "no NATO Ally stands alone." He said that all Allies have expressed solidarity with Lithuania and have provided practical help, including through a recently deployed NATO team of experts to Lithuania to share information, analysis, and experience in countering hybrid threats.

Mr Stoltenberg explained that cooperation between NATO and the European Union is essential to counter this hybrid campaign. "This crisis affects both NATO and the European Union," he said, adding that "Lithuania is a member of both organisations, so it is important for President von der Leyen and me to be here together today. " He recalled that "NATO and the EU work together on a range of security issues, including countering hybrid threats", stressing that "today, we discussed how we could step up our joint work, including though a new joint NATO-EU declaration, because we are stronger and safer when we work together."

On Russia's military build-up near Ukraine, Mr Stoltenberg called on Russia to be transparent, reduce tensions, and de-escalate: "NATO stands ready to defend all Allies, and we will continue to provide our partner Ukraine with political and practical support."

In Latvia, Secretary General Stoltenberg and President von der Leyen had talks with Prime Minister Krijnis Kari. NATO is strongly committed to Latvias security. Including through the presence of our multinational battlegroup in dai, where ten Allies serve alongside Latvian forces, to deter aggression and preserve peace, he said.

On Monday, Mr Stoltenberg will visit the NATO battlegroup in Adai, led by Canada, one of the four NATO multinational battlegroups deployed in the Baltic region and Poland.

The agenda of the joint visit of the Secretary General and the President of the European Commission also includes briefings on current hybrid challenges by the directors of the NATO strategic communications centre of excellence in Riga, the European centre of excellence for countering hybrid threats in Helsinki, and the NATO cooperative cyber defence centre of excellence in Tallinn.

NATO Foreign Ministers will meet in Riga on Tuesday and Wednesday to consult on a wide range of pressing security challenges in the region and beyond.

See original here:

Joint NATO-EU visit highlights solidarity and cooperation through visit to Baltic region - NATO HQ

Today (22 November 2021), a group of around twenty Afghan citizens who worked for NATO has arrived for resettlement in the Netherlands on a flight sponsored by the Dutch authorities. The group left from a temporary facility in Poland, where they have been hosted by the Polish authorities, since their evacuation from Kabul in August, with logistical support from the Polish armed forces and NATO personnel.

Thanks to Allies joint efforts, around 2,000 Afghans who worked with NATO, and their families, were evacuated from Kabul in August, as part of the largest evacuation mission in NATO's history. NATO worked around the clock to coordinate evacuations and the NATO Senior Civilian Representative Ambassador Stefano Pontecorvo and his staff played a key role to this effect. Over the course of two weeks, more than 120,000 people were flown out, on hundreds of Allied flights. Troops from the US, UK, Turkey, and Norway played a key role in securing the airport and operating a field hospital, while around 800 NATO staff maintained key operations such as fuelling and communications. NATO Allies and partners continue to work together to help evacuated Afghans start a new life. Over the last weeks, 80 former Afghan employees and their families resettled in Norway, more than 100 in the United Kingdom, over 100 in Canada, around 100 in Germany, 20 in Iceland, and several hundred more in other Allied countries.

Excerpt from:

More Afghans who worked with NATO are settling in Allied countries - NATO HQ

NATOs Defence Education Enhancement Programme (DEEP) eAcademy has recently launched its first-ever podcast series called DEEP Dive.

In each episode, the shows host, Dr. Sajjan Gohel, Chairman of DEEPs Counter-Terrorism Advisory Group and academic project lead for NATOs first ever Counter-Terrorism Reference Curriculum, interviews practitioners and experts in the fields of counter-terrorism, geopolitical current events, and international security and defence. Guests include individuals from a range of different spheres of experience, including journalists, activists, academics, and policymakers. The aim is to offer comprehensive perspectives and insights into the most urgent topics facing our world at present. All episodes also have full transcripts that can act as primary resource tool for Professional Military Education.

Reflecting on the goal of the podcast series, Dr. Gohel commented Using the iceberg analogy, there are some aspects of international security that are visible, above the water, but there is a larger dynamic hidden beneath the surface. Therefore, it's only when we delve deeper, by having a dialogue with people who have a wealth of ground experience and knowledge that we can actually get a full grasp of connecting events unfolding around the world.

DEEP Dive also symbolises NATOs enduring principles of cross-cutting collaboration and cooperation with a number of actors and entities dealing with counter-terrorism. According to the DEEP Coordinator Mariusz Solis, The DEEP Dive format can provide unique insight on the international security and defence environment, and in so doing enhance our collective understanding of key global challenges.

The podcast is available across major streaming platforms like Spotify, Google Podcasts, and Apple Podcasts. Episode 1 interviewed critically acclaimed journalist Tim Marshall, who is the author of numerous books including the bestselling Prisoners of Geography and The Power of Geography. Tim and Sajjan talk about what lies ahead for the Indo-Pacific region, the increasing significance of maritime security and the Quad alliance, and the future of Afghanistan under the Taliban. Episode 2s guest is Neil Basu, the Assistant Commissioner for the British Metropolitan Police, whohas served as the head of Specialist Operations for the United Kingdoms law enforcement agencies. Neil and Sajjan look at how policing has evolved in terms of operations and recruitment, as well as the prevalent terrorist threats facing the United Kingdom, the pandemics impact on counter-terrorism, and potential, future counter-terrorism outlook in and around Afghanistan.

DEEP Dive is available at: https://deepportal.hq.nato.int/eacademy/deep-dive-podcasts/

See more here:

Podcast series launched on NATO's role in the fight against terrorism - NATO HQ

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken speaks about infrastructure investment at the University of Maryland's A. James Clark School of Engineering in College Park, MD, U.S., August 9, 2021. Patrick Semansky/Pool via REUTERS/File Photo

WASHINGTON, Nov 26 (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken will travel to Latvia and Sweden next week to attend Transatlantic and European security meetings and hold bilateral talks, the State Department said on Friday.

The trip, which will take place between Nov. 29 and Dec. 2, comes at a time of rising tension between Russia and the Western military alliance following a build-up of Russian forces near the border with Ukraine.

While in Riga, Blinken will attend a meeting of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and hold bilateral talks with NATO counterparts. In the Swedish capital Stockholm, ministers from members of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) will discuss concerns about the Europe-Eurasia region's security environment, the State Department said.

U.S., NATO and Ukrainian officials have raised the alarm in recent weeks over what they say are unusual Russian troop movements closer to Ukraine, suggesting that Moscow may be poised to launch a new attack on its neighbour, accusations Russia has rejected as fear-mongering.

Russia's intentions remain unclear, and East-West tensions are running high with Ukraine, Russia and NATO all conducting military drills and Moscow accusing Washington of rehearsing a nuclear attack on Russia earlier this month.

Register

Reporting by Humeyra Pamuk and Tim Ahmann, Editing by Timothy Heritage and Philippa Fletcher

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Read more:

Blinken to visit Latvia and Sweden next week for NATO, OSCE talks - Reuters

Belarusian autocrat Alexander Lukashenko has cleared out the encampment at his border crossing into Poland, where thousands of Middle Eastern migrants had been living in squalor.

Last week, that border crossing was the site of clashes between asylum-seekers trying to push through the razor wire and Polish troops resisting with water cannons.

While the crisis between Warsaw and Minsk has not ended, it appears to have been temporarily eased.

Behind the clash was the recent election in Belarus that the European Union saw as fraudulent and Lukashenko's interception of a commercial airliner to kidnap and imprison a critical journalist.

Lukashenko brought in the migrants from the Mideast and moved them to the border, forcing the Poles to deploy security forces to block their entry. Lukashenko's actions were in retaliation for Poland's support of the sanctions the EU had imposed on Belarus.

So it was that, last week, a NATO ally, Poland, had a confrontation with a close ally of Vladimir Putin's Russia, which could have resulted in a shooting war that could have drawn in Russia and the United States.

While Belarus, perhaps at Putin's insistence, has pulled the migrants back from the border and eased this crisis, the same cannot be said of the crisis developing around Ukraine.

People are also reading

For days now, U.S. officials have been warning that the 100,000 Russian troops stationed near the borders of Ukraine may be preparing for an invasion.

As Ukraine is not a NATO ally, the U.S. is under no obligation to come to Kyiv's defense. But any Russian invasion to expand the share of Ukraine it now controls could produce a crisis more serious than Putin's annexation of Crimea or support for the separatists in the Donbas.

For Putin, the situation in the Black Sea, where U.S. warships and warplanes lead NATO vessels on regular visitations, must truly stick in the craw.

When Putin was a KGB officer in the last days of the Soviet Empire, Romania and Bulgaria on the Black Sea were Warsaw Pact allies. Ukraine, Georgia and Armenia on the Black Sea were, like Russia itself, Soviet republics of the USSR. NATO Turkey alone excepted, the Black Sea was a Soviet lake.

And today? Romania and Bulgaria are NATO allies of the United States. Ukraine and Georgia, having broken free of the USSR at the end of the Cold War, are independent nations that look to Europe, not Moscow.

The goal of both is become NATO allies under the protection of the U.S. and its nuclear umbrella.

Another consideration: Ukraine and Russia have historic ties -- religious, ethnic, cultural -- that go back 1,000 years.

What Putin sees in Russia's loss of Ukraine and Kyiv's alignment with the U.S. and the West was what Americans of Abraham Lincoln's generation saw when France exploited our preoccupation with the Civil War to turn Mexico into a subject nation of the French Empire.

Every nation involved in the migrant crisis on the Polish border and the gathering crisis around Ukraine was either a Soviet republic or a Warsaw Pact member during the Cold War, when Putin was a KGB officer.

All four nations -- Poland, Lithuania, Ukraine, Belarus -- were, not so long ago, vital interests of Moscow. And none had ever been a vital interest of the distant United States. And no U.S. Cold War president ever thought so.

Dwight Eisenhower did not intervene to save the Hungarian Revolution when it was crushed by Soviet tanks. John F. Kennedy did not tear down the Berlin Wall as it was going up. Lyndon B. Johnson did not intervene to stop Warsaw Pact armies from invading Czechoslovakia to crush the Prague Spring.

And Ronald Reagan did not put the Polish Communist regime in default on its huge unpaid debt when it crushed Solidarity.

Who rules in Minsk has never been a vital interest of the United States. Nor has the location of the Russia-Ukraine border or the political orientation of the regime that rules in Kyiv.

Avoiding a war with Russia that could go nuclear, however, has always been a vital strategic interest, especially since Moscow acquired nuclear weapons. Every American president has known that.

And avoidance of war with the United States has been a guiding principle of Russian foreign policy from Stalin to Putin.

No political dispute in the east of Europe alters these realities.

A NATO alliance built around Article V -- the declaration that a Russian attack on any one of 30 nations will be regarded as an attack on the United States and answered by military action by the United States -- is an anachronistic pledge that belongs to a dead era.

After all, the only war that NATO, "the most successful alliance in history," ever fought, Afghanistan, it lost and left after 20 years.

Let the nations of Eastern Europe solve their problems without the constant intervention of the United States.

Given the disastrous record of the neocon wars of the 21st century, the U.S., facing every new crisis, ought to ask itself before acting:

Why is this quarrel any of our business?

Get opinion pieces, letters and editorials sent directly to your inbox weekly!

Link:

PAT BUCHANAN: NATO playing with fire on Russia's borders - Sioux City Journal

Russia's relations with the West have come to a head. NATO expansion, which Putin brought up again in a recent speech, is a well-known issue for Russia. What is not often mentioned is that this is also an issue for the bloc.

When decisions were taken in the 1990s, it was not considered that expansion would require a real extension in safety guarantees for a large number of new countries. It was presumed that Russia would either integrate somehow into the general order, or simply would not pose a threat for a long time. This did not materialize, partially due to the preservation of NATO, and the fact that Russia's recovery occurred faster than expected.

As a result, decorative institutes which imitated cooperation between Russian and the alliance crumbled. Now a militarized standoff has recurred, and NATO must be held accountable for its promises.

But the willingness of allies to carry out dangerous missions is, to put it mildly, low. Defending a string of countries that joined at the end of the last century and the beginning of this century is difficult from a military standpoint. Moreover, the multiplicity of opinions within the bloc is incomparable with what existed previously.

The new Cold War between Russia and the U.S. has, in fact, had a positive impact on relations between the two nations: They are now simpler and stricter.

The situation within Europe is worse, because it is an entity loosely linked without a political will of its own, and a unified strategic position in such a diverse association is impossible in principle. This is where the biggest risks lie.

Russia is tempted to take advantage of Europe's rift to correct the military-political results of 30 years ago. Europe is forced to invent more and more exotic ways of demonstrating its viability. And the U.S. is caught between reorientation toward Asia (priority) and continuing containment in Europe (tradition and symbol).

All of this causes tension, which is not conducive to the mechanisms for maintaining stability.

According to Vladimir Putin, tension creates opportunities these are the lessons learned from the Cold War.

The question is whether this will work today. We have reached a point where the long-standing controversy over NATO enlargement must somehow be resolved.

Resolution will come from either by reaffirming the right to expand, or recognizing that the logic of "everyone has the right to enter the alliance," the idea on which post 1991 NATO expansion was based, is no longer valid. Both options carry many risks.

What is disconcerting about the president's speech is the return to strictly Western-centrism. Non-western components were listed most likely for the sake of order, as even China is linked to the West by trying to destabilize it.

It is clear that Russia cannot abandon the agenda of the past 30 years, too much is connected with it. The main thing is not to drown in it once again. After all, regardless of what happens in Europe, it will remain a strategic periphery.

And for Russia's international posture it will be not decisive, but auxiliary.

A Russian version of this article was first published by Kommersant.

View original post here:

NATO Expansion Is a Bugbear for Both Russia and the West - The Moscow Times

MiG-31: Russia has given a big boost to its combat capability by upgrading the Foxhound or MiG-31 fighter jet.This development comes shortly after Moscow unveiled a medium combat aircraft Checkmate while projecting it as a game-changer, and signed a deal with China to develop a heavy-lift helicopter.

Two Russian MiG-31 interceptors, early this year, flew over the North Pole, marking an important milestone for the countrys navy.

The MiG-31 Foxhound has made several world records. It reached an absolute maximum altitude of 37,650 meters in 1977, and set a time-to-height record of 35,000 meters in 4 minutes, 11.78 seconds, both of which were set by the famous MiG test pilot Alexander Fedotov.

Needless to say, Russia has been making consistent efforts to modernize its air power and the MiG-31 upgrade is the latest effort in that direction.

The country is now carrying out trials of the upgraded MiG-31 fighter-interceptor with a fly-by-wire control system, managers of the Sokol Aircraft Plant told Deputy Defense Minister Alexei Krivoruchko during his visit to the facility on November 25.

Krivoruchko inspected the units production capacities and checked the pace of work on repairing and upgrading MiG-31 fighters. He also held a meeting on completing the defense procurement plan, as part of his working trip to the Volga area.

There is an option of upgrading this aircraft where we switch from the mechanical to the fly-by-wire control system, which yields a host of computers mounted on the plane, said Sokol Aviation Enterprise.

The fighters onboard equipment will be totally replaced; the combat plane will also be examined for flaws in order to replace corrosion portions that could account for 15 to 50 percent of the total weight. The fighters canopy, as well as all of the wiring and rubber parts, will be entirely overhauled.

Sokols main duty now is to carry out substantial repairs on the MiG-31 fighter-interceptor, as well as a heavy upgrade to the MiG-31BM level, which has been a work in process since 2007.

The modification of MiG-31 high-altitude fighter-interceptors will improve the efficiency of their operations, particularly in protecting Russias northern borders in the backdrop of other countries growing interest in the Northern Sea Route, said Major-General Vladimir Popov, a top military pilot and defense expert.

With the tensions between Russia and NATO countries growing in the region and Moscow announcing that its radars intercepted about 40 spy planes and drones in about one week of tensions, this announcement comes at a very appropriate moment.

In March this year, two Russian MiG-31 Foxhound supersonic high altitude interceptor aircraft had flown over the North Pole marking a significant milestone for the countrys navy.

Introduced in 1981, the MiG-31 is a long-range, two-seater supersonic interceptor aircraft. Day or night, the MiG-31 can operate well in any weather situation while adhering to visual flight rules (VFR) and instrument flight regulations (IFR). The MiG-31 was the first Soviet fighter plane to be capable of genuine look-down and shoot-down.

In July 2020, Russias Defense Ministry revealed its intention to invest in a MiG-31 Foxhound interceptor modernization and life extension program. The MiG-31 features a streamlined and aerodynamic fuselage that allows it to fly at high speeds and low altitudes. The aircraft is designed to track several targets at high altitudes at the same time.

One of the most potent variants of the MiG-31 is the MiG-31BM. It is a multifunctional long-range fighter aircraft with high speed and the ability to kill both air and ground targets.

Upgraded avionics, hands-on-throttle-and-stick (HOTAS) controls, liquid-crystal color multifunction displays (MFDs), a robust on-board computer system, digital data linkages, and phased array radar are all included in the variant. It has the capability of intercepting 24 targets at once.

The MiG-31 is equipped with four long-range Vympel R-33E air-to-air missiles. The R-33 can be launched in inertial navigation mode to shoot at the target from a long distance.

For initial acquisition and mid-course updates, it can be directed in semi-active radar homing (SARH) mode. The Cold War-era warplane was designed to take out huge, fast targets like the American SR-71 Blackbird, B-1 Lancer bomber, and B-52 Stratofortress.

The aircraft is also equipped with four short-range R-60MK missiles and two Bisnovat R-40TD1 medium-range missiles. A six-barrel 30mm internal cannon (Ghs-6-23M) is installed above the starboard main landing gear bay of the aircraft. The cannon contain 800 rounds of ammunition and can fire at a rate of over 10,000 rounds a minute.

MiG-31BM can accommodate the AA-12 Adder missile and various Russian air-to-ground missiles (AGMs) such as the AS-17 Krypton anti-radiation missile (ARM).

The N007 Zaslon phased array radar aboard the MiG-31 is the worlds first electronically scanned radar. Its also known as the SBI-16 Zaslon (Flash Dance), and its controlled by a weapons system officer (WSO) from the back cockpit. Early warning radar (EWR) and aerial warning and control systems can send signals to it (AWACS).

Zaslon can scan a distance of 200 kilometers. The radar can track 10 targets and engage four of them at once in the aircrafts immediate vicinity (behind and below the aircraft).

According to one count, there are 252 MiG-31s in the inventory of the Russian Air Force. Moscow began modernizing its Foxhound fleet to the MiG-31BM and BSM variant starting in 2010 with plans to have 100 upgraded by 2020.

The 35-year-old MiG-31 is expected to serve until 2030. Moscow says that the MiG-41 or PAK-DP, a dedicated Mach 4 interceptor, will be developed to replace the Foxhound in the air defense role.

This is puzzling, given that the Kremlin has only funded the manufacture of 10 advanced PAK-FA stealth aircraft thus far, raising the question of whether it can afford to deploy a significantly more specialized platform as well.

The combat efficiency of MiG-31 fighter-interceptors will increase threefold following substantial repairs and upgrades, claims Sokol.

Meanwhile, the upgrade, in which the onboard radio-electronic equipment is fully replaced with advanced technology envisages using the latest air-launched weapons, which will boost the planes combat efficiency by about three times, the Sokol management said.

The MiG-31 is one of Russias most widely deployed combat aircraft, with several hundred more in reserve.

New variants of the Foxhound, according to Aleksandr Osokin, head designer at the Sokol Aircraft Plant, where MiG-31s are repaired, are around 2.6 times as capable as the original Cold War-era planes.

The aircraft were meant to intercept not just all types of enemy aircraft, from bombers and observation planes to fighters and airborne early warning jets, but also missiles, with the aircraft being particularly capable of intercepting low-altitude cruise missiles.

Now with the latest upgrade, the capability is expected to rise manifold. The fly-by-wire systems are computer-controlled. The hands-on design allows pilots to get a clear, tactile sense of how the aircraft handles aerodynamic forces as it flies. This will enhance the combat power by restricting the number of manual controls that the pilot otherwise has to perform.

Excerpt from:

Russias Ground-Breaking MiG-31 Fighter-Interceptor Aircraft To Be Heavily Modified Amid Tensions With NATO - EurAsian Times

North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), military alliance established by the North Atlantic Treaty (also called the Washington Treaty) of April 4, 1949, which sought to create a counterweight to Soviet armies stationed in central and eastern Europe after World War II. Its original members were Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Joining the original signatories were Greece and Turkey (1952); West Germany (1955; from 1990 as Germany); Spain (1982); the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland (1999); Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia (2004); Albania and Croatia (2009); Montenegro (2017); and North Macedonia (2020). France withdrew from the integrated military command of NATO in 1966 but remained a member of the organization; it resumed its position in NATOs military command in 2009.

Britannica Quiz

Global Governance Quiz

Intergovernmental cooperation is essential to resolve issues of global importance. That cooperation is often made possible by organizations and events dedicated to global governance. Test what you know about past and present efforts to make the world a better (or, at least, different) place.

The heart of NATO is expressed in Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, in which the signatory members agree that

an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all; and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

NATO invoked Article 5 for the first time in 2001, after the September 11 attacks organized by exiled Saudi Arabian millionaire Osama bin Laden destroyed the World Trade Center in New York City and part of the Pentagon outside Washington, D.C., killing some 3,000 people.

Article 6 defines the geographic scope of the treaty as covering an armed attack on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America. Other articles commit the allies to strengthening their democratic institutions, to building their collective military capability, to consulting each other, and to remaining open to inviting other European states to join.

After World War II in 1945, western Europe was economically exhausted and militarily weak (the western Allies had rapidly and drastically reduced their armies at the end of the war), and newly powerful communist parties had arisen in France and Italy. By contrast, the Soviet Union had emerged from the war with its armies dominating all the states of central and eastern Europe, and by 1948 communists under Moscows sponsorship had consolidated their control of the governments of those countries and suppressed all noncommunist political activity. What became known as the Iron Curtain, a term popularized by Winston Churchill, had descended over central and eastern Europe. Further, wartime cooperation between the western Allies and the Soviets had completely broken down. Each side was organizing its own sector of occupied Germany, so that two German states would emerge, a democratic one in the west and a communist one in the east.

In 1948 the United States launched the Marshall Plan, which infused massive amounts of economic aid to the countries of western and southern Europe on the condition that they cooperate with each other and engage in joint planning to hasten their mutual recovery. As for military recovery, under the Brussels Treaty of 1948, the United Kingdom, France, and the Low CountriesBelgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourgconcluded a collective-defense agreement called the Western European Union. It was soon recognized, however, that a more formidable alliance would be required to provide an adequate military counterweight to the Soviets.

By this time Britain, Canada, and the United States had already engaged in secret exploratory talks on security arrangements that would serve as an alternative to the United Nations (UN), which was becoming paralyzed by the rapidly emerging Cold War. In March 1948, following a virtual communist coup dtat in Czechoslovakia in February, the three governments began discussions on a multilateral collective-defense scheme that would enhance Western security and promote democratic values. These discussions were eventually joined by France, the Low Countries, and Norway and in April 1949 resulted in the North Atlantic Treaty.

Spurred by the North Korean invasion of South Korea in June 1950 (see Korean War), the United States took steps to demonstrate that it would resist any Soviet military expansion or pressures in Europe. General Dwight D. Eisenhower, the leader of the Allied forces in western Europe in World War II, was named Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) by the North Atlantic Council (NATOs governing body) in December 1950. He was followed as SACEUR by a succession of American generals.

The North Atlantic Council, which was established soon after the treaty came into effect, is composed of ministerial representatives of the member states, who meet at least twice a year. At other times the council, chaired by the NATO secretary-general, remains in permanent session at the ambassadorial level. Just as the position of SACEUR has always been held by an American, the secretary-generalship has always been held by a European.

NATOs military organization encompasses a complete system of commands for possible wartime use. The Military Committee, consisting of representatives of the military chiefs of staff of the member states, subsumes two strategic commands: Allied Command Operations (ACO) and Allied Command Transformation (ACT). ACO is headed by the SACEUR and located at Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) in Casteau, Belgium. ACT is headquartered in Norfolk, Virginia, U.S. During the alliances first 20 years, more than $3 billion worth of infrastructure for NATO forcesbases, airfields, pipelines, communications networks, depotswas jointly planned, financed, and built, with about one-third of the funding from the United States. NATO funding generally is not used for the procurement of military equipment, which is provided by the member statesthough the NATO Airborne Early Warning Force, a fleet of radar-bearing aircraft designed to protect against a surprise low-flying attack, was funded jointly.

See the original post here:

NATO | Founders, Members, & History | Britannica

NATO, or the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, was established in 1949 as a way to ensure the safety of its member countries. Article 5 is a cornerstone of the alliance; it is used to deter attacks on NATO member countries. The original members of NATO include the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Denmark, Iceland, and Belgium. As of 2020, there are 30 members of the organization. But what is NATO? and why was it formed? Read on below to find out more.

NATO is a multi-country military alliance founded after World War II and established in 1949. There are currently 30 countries that are a part of NATO and the membership is open to any European state to further the principles of the Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area." In order to join, countries must prepare for membership by following the advice of the Membership Action Plan. Bosnia and Herzegovina are currently participating, and the newest member to join was North Macedonia on March 27, 2020.

NATOs mission objective is to protect the freedom of its members and to stop weapons of mass destruction, cyber-attacks, and terrorism. Article 5 of the Treaty states that an attack on one member state is an attack on all states; members of the organization pledge to aid any member state that has come under attack. Despite its importance, Article 5 has only been invoked once. This was in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

NATO was formed as a defense against the threat of the Soviet Union dismantling democracy in Europe and spreading communism to the United States. President Harry Truman signed the North Atlantic Treaty on April 4, 1949. 12 countries joined NATO in 1949, including Canada and the United Kingdom. In 1954, the Soviet Union made requests to join but they were rejected and have been ever since. One of the conditions of being a part of NATO is to spend two percent of their countrys wealth on defense. In 2018, President Trump had expressed desires to withdraw the United States from NATO, this led to the passing of the NATO Support Act which prohibits the appropriation or use of funds to withdraw the United States from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Trump was criticized by officials who said the United States withdrawal would destroy relationships and undo the hard work carried out by the organization over the last 70-plus years.

Read the rest here:

What Is NATO? - WorldAtlas

Contents

In 1949, the prospect of further Communist expansion prompted the United States and 11 other Western nations to form the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). The Soviet Union and its affiliated Communist nations in Eastern Europe founded a rival alliance, the Warsaw Pact, in 1955. The alignment of nearly every European nation into one of the two opposing camps formalized the political division of the European continent that had taken place since World War II (1939-45). This alignment provided the framework for the military standoff that continued throughout the Cold War (1945-91).

Conflict between the Western nations (including the United States, Great Britain, France and other countries) and the Communist Eastern bloc (led by the Union of Soviet Socialists Republics or USSR) began almost as soon as the guns fell silent at the end of World War II (1939-45). The USSR oversaw the installation of pro-Soviet governments in many of the areas it had taken from the Nazis during the war. In response, the U.S. and its Western allies sought ways to prevent further expansion of Communist influence on the European continent. In 1947, U.S. leaders introduced the Marshall Plan, a diplomatic initiative that provided aid to friendly nations to help them rebuild their war-damaged infrastructures and economies.

Did you know? NATO continued its existence beyond the Cold War era and gained new member nations in Eastern Europe during the late 1990s. That development was not well received by leaders of the Russian Federation and became a source of post-Cold War tension between the East and the West.

Events of the following year prompted American leaders to adopt a more militaristic stance toward the Soviets. In February 1948, a coup sponsored by the Soviet Union overthrew the democratic government of Czechoslovakia and brought that nation firmly into the Communist camp. Within a few days, U.S. leaders agreed to join discussions aimed at forming a joint security agreement with their European allies. The process gained new urgency in June of that year, when the USSR cut off ground access to Berlin, forcing the U.S., Britain and France to airlift supplies to their sectors of the German city, which had been partitioned between the Western Allies and the Soviets following World War II.

The discussions between the Western nations concluded on April 4, 1949, when the foreign ministers of 12 countries in North America and Western Europe gathered in Washington, D.C., to sign the North Atlantic Treaty. It was primarily a security pact, with Article 5 stating that a military attack against any of the signatories would be considered an attack against them all. When U.S. Secretary of State Dean Acheson (1893-1971) put his signature on the document, it reflected an important change in American foreign policy. For the first time since the 1700s, the U.S. had formally tied its security to that of nations in Europethe continent that had served as the flash point for both world wars.

The original membership of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) consisted of Belgium, Britain, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal and the United States. NATO formed the backbone of the Wests military bulwark against the USSR and its allies for the next 40 years, with its membership growing larger over the course of the Cold War era. Greece and Turkey were admitted in 1952, the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany) in 1955 and Spain in 1982. Unhappy with its role in the organization, France opted to withdraw from military participation in NATO in 1966 and did not return until 1995.

The formation of the Warsaw Pact was in some ways a response to the creation of NATO, although it did not occur until six years after the Western alliance came into being. It was more directly inspired by the rearming of West Germany and its admission into NATO in 1955. In the aftermath of World War I and World War II, Soviet leaders felt very apprehensive about Germany once again becoming a military powera concern that was shared by many European nations on both sides of the Cold War divide.

In the mid-1950s, however, the U.S. and a number of other NATO members began to advocate making West Germany part of the alliance and allowing it to form an army under tight restrictions. The Soviets warned that such a provocative action would force them to make new security arrangements in their own sphere of influence, and they were true to their word. West Germany formally joined NATO on May 5, 1955, and the Warsaw Pact was signed less than two weeks later, on May 14. Joining the USSR in the alliance were Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, the German Democratic Republic (East Germany), Hungary, Poland and Romania. This lineup remained constant until the Cold War ended with the dismantling of all the Communist governments in Eastern Europe in 1989 and 1990.

Like NATO, the Warsaw Pact focused on the objective of creating a coordinated defense among its member nations in order to deter an enemy attack. There was also an internal security component to the agreement that proved useful to the USSR. The alliance provided a mechanism for the Soviets to exercise even tighter control over the other Communist states in Eastern Europe and deter pact members from seeking greater autonomy. When Soviet leaders found it necessary to use military force to put down revolts in Hungary in 1956 and in Czechoslovakia in 1968, for example, they presented the action as being carried out by the Warsaw Pact rather than by the USSR alone.

Read more here:

Formation of Nato - Purpose, Dates & Cold War - HISTORY