China and Russia are forming a new axis of power, NATOs top general has warned.

Tod Wolters, NATOs Supreme Allied Commander Europe, or SACEUR, has told reporters that growing co-operation really does suggest an emergence of a partnership of convenience.

Its a partnership that potentially spans the globe, from the Middle East to the Western Pacific and Arctic north.

We are ever so vigilant with respect to that growing co-operation, Wolters said. Such co-operation advanced mutual interests, and that advancement could be to the detriment of Europe and corresponding and surrounding nations.

NATO has accused Russia of breaching international treaties through the development of new nuclear weapons. It also blames Russian-sourced cyber attacks and disinformation campaigns for destabilising the West.

China is also coming under increased scrutiny over its repression of the Uighur and Tibetan peoples and its aggressive territorial claims and debt-trap diplomacy.

RELATED: Nuclear war threat a real possibility

Meanwhile, both authoritarian governments show intense interest in the Arctic as the retreating ice exposes potential new oil, gas and mineral reserves.

In the face of increasing aggressive activity in the high north from both Russia, which is an Arctic nation, and China, which claims to be a near-Arctic nation, we must maintain a favourable balance of power in this region for ourselves and for our allies, outgoing US Navy Secretary Kenneth Braithwaite warned last month.

EMERGING AXIS

Things havent always been so genial between the two powers.

Russia and China share a 4200km border. And large portions of Moscows mineral-rich eastern provinces are claimed by Beijing as part of its historical domain - including the city of Vladivostok.

For now, President Vladimir Putin and Chairman Xi Jinping have put that source of disagreement aside.

Russia and China began strengthening their diplomatic, economic and military ties after Western nations imposed sanctions on Moscow in 2014. Russia had just invaded the Crimean Peninsula and launched covert combat operations in eastern Ukraine.

In 2018, the two powers contributed hundreds of thousands of troops and aircraft and warships towards their largest-ever joint military exercise.

In 2019, Putin and Xi shook hands over a significant gas pipeline project linking Siberia to northeast China.

In 2020, Russian warships and combat jets joined Chinese military exercises in the western Pacific.

And theyve begun co-operating in the Arctic.

Without sustained American naval presence and partnerships in the Arctic region, peace and prosperity will be increasingly challenged by Russia and China, whose interests and values differ dramatically from ours, a recent US Navy report states.

Some 90 per cent of trade is carried by sea. The retreating Arctic ice can dramatically shorten shipping routes to and from Asia, Europe and North America.

Left uncontested, incremental gains from increased aggression and malign activities could result in a fait accompli, with long-term strategic benefits for our competitors, the Blue Arctic: A Strategic Blueprint report warns.

WORST-CASE SCENARIOS

Hudson Institute Center for Defence Concepts senior fellow Bryan Clark says the West needs to reconsider how to contend with a Russia-China alliance.

That alliance goes go far beyond warships and warplanes working together, he warns.

Unless (the Pentagon) begins to rethink its scenarios and rebalancing its forces, recent Chinese and Russian grey-zone successes in the East and South China Seas or Crimea could become the norm and the US military could find itself losing a battle of inches against patient competitors who are willing to play the long game.

Clark says the West believed worst-case scenarios included an invasion of Taiwan, a lengthy blockade of Japans southwest islands or a sustained submarine threat off the US coast.

But Clark says Moscow and Beijing are well aware of this and have adapted their plans accordingly. Both are methodically developing strategies and systems that circumvent the US militarys advantages and exploit its vulnerabilities by avoiding the types of situations for which US forces have prepared, he adds.

They have shifted their primary battlefield from the sea and the sky to the digital and propaganda domains.

The Chinese and Russian militaries seek to make information and decision-making the main battlegrounds for future conflict (to) direct forces to electronically or physically degrade an opponents information sources and communications while introducing false data that erodes the defenders orientation and understanding.

Follow-up hybrid, or grey-zone, operations using paramilitaries and mercenaries could then seize objectives without providing an immediate trigger for retaliation.

NEW WORLD ORDER

Chinese chairman Jian Zemin and Russian President Boris Yeltsin met in 1997, vowing to promote the multipolarisation of the world and the establishment of a new international order.

Their successors, Chairman Xi and President Putin, are well down the path of putting that plan into effect.

RELATED: Russia on the brink of revolution

Analysts in the West specifically doubted that Beijing and Moscow could overcome decades of mistrust and rivalry to co-operate against US efforts to maintain and shape the international order, write political scientists Professor Alexander Cooley and Associate Professor Daniel Nexon.

But the 1997 declaration now looks like a blueprint for how Beijing and Moscow have tried to reorder international politics in the last 20 years.

Both have sought to manipulate and discredit international organisations and Western institutions.

At the same time, they are building an alternative order through new institutions and venues in which they wield greater influence and can de-emphasise human rights and civil liberties, they write. The net result is the emergence of parallel structures of global governance that are dominated by authoritarian states and that compete with older, more liberal structures.

And that is as much a result of their growing alliance as the more visible joint military exercises.

Beijing and Moscow appear to be successfully managing their alliance of convenience, defying predictions that they would be unable to tolerate each others international projects, say Cooley and Nexon.

This new brand of great power competition is being fought out among international non-government organisations, charities, lending institutions and legal tribunals.

Although the United States still enjoys military supremacy, that dimension of US dominance is especially ill-suited to deal with this global crisis and its ripple effects, they warn.

Jamie Seidel is a freelance writer | @JamieSeidel

View post:

China and Russia have formed axis of power, NATOs top general warns - NEWS.com.au

Tensions over anemic European defense spending have long suffused transatlantic relationsand since 2014, they have become all-consuming, crowding out other priorities, straining the alliance, and leading to exasperation on both sides of the Atlantic. U.S. President Donald Trump has repeatedly berated NATO allies for failing to invest more in their militaries, and at big transatlantic gatherings, the issue is the elephant in the room.

President-elect Joe Biden, a committed transatlanticist, will undoubtedly take a less strident tone than his predecessor has done on this issue. But the elephant will still be there, because the European pillar of NATO really is in a sorry state that undermines the alliances credibility. The United States does need more from Europe on defensebut the United Statesalso needs to recognize thatsimplypressing individual member states to increase their spending is just not working.

The European Union has a role to play in the common defense that the United States has long ignored. In fact, the United States has thus far scorned the EUs defense ambitions and viewed the union as a competitor to NATO. Such an approach serves only to weaken both NATO and the EU, and the incoming Biden administration should reverse it.

Only the EU can integrate and transform Europes fragmented and inefficient militaries into a potent pillar of NATO. Supporting its efforts to do so would strengthen not only the U.S. military alliance with Europe but its political one as well. The EU is home to 450 million people, and its economy is the second largest in the world. When Europe is able to act as one through the EUwhether in the realms of global trade, Brexit negotiations, or global regulatory standardsit is a superpower and exactly the potent democratic ally the United States needs. But currently, in the realm of defense, European power amounts to less than the sum of its parts.

The United States needs that to change. And so Washington should drop its long-standing, almost dogmatic opposition to the EUs involvement in defense and work with its European ally to support a collective European defense that will ultimately strengthen NATO.

Defense spending in many NATO countries dipped sharply following the economic crisis in 2008. But events in the year 2014 forced the alliance to reckon with its apparent unreadiness to defend its members territory. Russia breached the Ukrainian border, raising an alarm within the alliance about the possible resurgence of threats from its east. At a summit in Wales, leaders of NATO member states agreed to work toward spending a minimum of two percent of their GDP annually on defense within the decade to follow.

Since that time,European states have increased their spending on defense, butoverall they have fallen well short of thetwo percentgoal.Despite some progress,U.S. leaders havetreated reachingtwo percentas arequirementTrump even insisted onfour percent.But the deadline is now less than four years away, and just ten out of 30 countries have cleared the two percent threshold, up from three in 2014. European member states that did not dramatically increase defense spending during the tenure of a president who threatened to withdraw the United States from NATO are even less likely to do so now, with budgets under pressure from the coronavirus pandemic and an incoming U.S. president they can trust to cover their flank.

Insisting that European states hit two percent by 2024 is setting up the alliance to fail. Not only are these states unlikely to hit the target, but even if they did, the results would likely be underwhelming. The two percent metric is, after all, arbitrary, as it is not tied to specific defense requirements, and is moreover subject to broader economic fluctuations. Greece, for instance, hit two percent only because its GDP contracted so dramatically, increasing its militarys share of the shrinking budget. Indeed, marginal increases in any single countrys defense spending wont automatically help improve the European pillar of NATO, which is plagued with inefficiencies. EU member states in total spend roughly $200 billion annually on defense, on a par with China. But Europe struggles to deploy forces; it runs out of munitions when it fights; and its forces are seldom prepared to fight.

The problem, then, is not really low spending but that European defense spending is fragmented, wasteful, and redundant. For instance, although Germany is the strongest economic power in Europe, few of Germanys attack helicopters are ready for combat. France, by contrast, has a very capable military engaged in active combat operations in the Sahel. But French forces depend on U.S. support for those operations. When European states spend on defense, most of them allocate too little of their budgets to research and development and face stark tradeoffs between acquiring expensive new technologies and simply maintaining the forces they have. As the European defense analyst Sven Biscop of the Egmont Institute assesses, The status of Europes armed forces and their dependence on the US will basically remain unaltered, even if they all spend 2 percent of their GDP.

U.S. leaders have long viewed the EU as just another complicated, multilateral bureaucracy. To the extent that it got involved in defense, Washington imagined, the EU would duplicate and undermine NATOs function. But the EU has transformed since its founding in 1993, becoming something much more like a state than a multilateral organization. Europeans in the EU are EU citizens, subject to EU law, free to live and work where they please in the union. They have their own currency, a de facto national language (English), and a federal government in Brussels.

As the union has drawn together, Europeans have come to perceive defense and foreign policy as more of a collective concern than a national one. Support across Europe for EU defense is extremely high, consistently polling above 70 percent. Within European states, however, there is considerably less support for diverting national resources away from domestic priorities, such as health and education, and toward the high-end weapons systems that are required to marginally improve NATOs collective defense capacity. The lack of national interest in defense spending is therefore not a short-term problem for NATO; it is structural.

The EU has sought to expand its role in defense even as its member states have grown more parochial. In 1999, the EU proposed establishing a 60,000-troop rapid reaction force that could deploy around the world without the United States. More recently, the EU created the Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO), an initiative designed to facilitate defense cooperation among member states, and a European Defence Fund through which to invest more than $1 billion per year in defense projects.

U.S. leaders have greeted such proposals with disdain, sending their European counterparts nasty letters and casting Washingtons diplomatic weight against EU defense efforts. Many in Washington worry that an empowered EU will not only duplicate NATO but become a French-dominated foe that will undercut the alliance and act against the United States. But that notion is absurd: the EU and NATO share 21 of the same member states. If Paris sought to turn EU defense into a Gaullist tool to untether Europe from the United States, it would need the assent not only of the other EU member states but also of Brussels, whose interests lie in sustaining strong transatlantic relations for as long as the United States remains committed to them.

For decades, the United States and other NATO countries have simply accepted duplication and inefficiency as part and parcel of a 30-member multinational alliance. But the EU offers NATO an effective vehicle for pooling resources and transforming the European defense sector. Rather than simply pushing NATOs member states to spend more, the Biden administration should encourage Europeans to integrate their defense capabilities through the EU.

At the first NATO summit of his administration, President Biden should make clear that the United States has reconsidered its orientation toward EU defense. Biden can support a European Union with strategic autonomy, as its leaders have described their objective, while making clear that doing so does not mean detaching Europes interests from those of the United States so much as reducing the unions dependence on U.S. military protection. American officials should encourage the EUs leaders to invest generously in the European Defence Fund and to upgrade infrastructure so that heavy tanks can better move across Europe.

Empowering the EU in this manner will undoubtedly require organizational adjustments within NATO. But such a necessity should not be viewed in bizarrely apocalyptic termsas an existential threat to the alliance. Rather, the issue is a bureaucratic one that can be overcome with close coordination between the two organizations. The EU should ultimately work hand in glove with the alliance, much the same way a member state would do.

U.S. support for EU defense will not be a panacea, but it will go a long way toward strengthening the European pillar of NATO. If the United States had fully backed EU defense efforts 25 years ago, European defense would likely be much more robust than it is today. Frustrating inefficiencies would doubtless remain, and deadbeat nations would still resist doing their part. But NATO would likely be a stronger alliance and the EU a better global partner to the United States. The Biden administration should encourage this integration process to begin.

Loading...Please enable JavaScript for this site to function properly.

Original post:

The EU Is the Military Ally the United States Needs - Foreign Affairs Magazine

Jens Stoltenberg, the secretary general of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), called for the results of the 2020 U.S. presidential electionto be "respected" as pro-Trumprioters stormed through the Capitol building Wednesday.

"Shocking scenes in Washington, D.C. The outcome of this democratic election must be respected," Stoltenberg tweeted.

Shocking scenes in Washington, D.C. The outcome of this democratic election must be respected.

President TrumpDonald TrumpCapitol Police officer dies following riots Donor who gave millions to Hawley urges Senate to censure him for 'irresponsible' behavior Kellyanne Conway condemns violence, supports Trump in statement on Capitol riots MORE has so far not released any statements instructing his supporters to leave. Soon after rioters broke into the Capitol, he tweeted out a statement asking them to "Stay peaceful!"

Lawmakers have been evacuated out of the Capitol building. Numerous news outlets have reported that one woman has been shot on Capitol grounds.

Vice President Pence was ushered out of the buildingshortly before themob breached the Capitol.

He later tweeted, "The violence and destruction taking place at the US Capitol Must Stop and it Must Stop Now. Anyone involved must respect Law Enforcement officers and immediately leave the building."

Peaceful protest is the right of every American but this attack on our Capitol will not be tolerated and those involved will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

"Peaceful protest is the right of every American but this attack on our Capitol will not be tolerated and those involved will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law," he said in another tweet.

Trump's NATO ambassadorKay Bailey Hutchison had previously stated that the transition to a Biden administration would be "smooth" afterthe former vice president won the presidential election.

See the original post here:

NATO Secretary General: 'The outcome of this democratic election must be respected' | TheHill - The Hill

As the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan reaches the two-decade mark this year, NATO officials have made clear that they have bigger fish to fry. In the alliances new Strategy 2030 report, Afghanistan is mentioned just six times.

Yet as NATO positions itself for the next decade, the alliance has been transformed by its experience in Afghanistan and the lessons it learned there.

The cooperation of the 50-plus nations involved was a growth experience for the alliance, says Ian Lesser, executive director of the German Marshall Fund in Brussels. The bloc learned a lot ... in terms of habits of cooperation and interoperability that were tested everyday. Member forces also made use of some high-tech systems that many nations wouldnt have been exposed to in peacetime.

The alliance's lessons in Afghanistan may be in recognizing the corrosive effects of corruption and the ways in which the U.S. and its NATO allies inadvertently encouraged it, says retired Col. John Agoglia.

The billions of dollars that flooded into Afghanistan after the invasion made graft commonplace. We need to understand how we put money into an environment who were giving it to, what are the oversight mechanisms?

Brussels

As Americas longest war reaches the two-decade mark this year, one of President-elect Joe Bidens first orders of business will be figuring out a way forward in Afghanistan and, by extension, a roadmap for NATOs mission in the country.

Neither the Taliban nor Al Qaeda is at the top of Americas national security threat list anymore, and NATO officials, too, have been clear about their belief that they have bigger fish to fry. In the alliances new Strategy 2030 report, Afghanistan is mentioned just six times in 40 densely-packed pages.

The war in Afghanistan is a mission on which the success or failure of NATO was once thought to hinge. In its early days, the war was billed as not only a post-Cold War rebirth of the alliance, but also its 21st-century evolution.

No longer. The new security agenda, according to the report, will be dominated by competing great powers, in which assertive authoritarian states with revisionist foreign policy agendas in other words, China and Russia seek to expand their power and influence.

Yet as NATO prepares for the next decade, its challenges will be tackled by an alliance transformed, for better or worse, by its experience in Afghanistan and the lessons it has learned there. The question, analysts say, will be whether it chooses to heed them.

Afghanistan became NATOs marquee mission with the U.S. invasion in 2001, the first time in history that the alliance invoked Article V, which declares that an attack on one is an attack on all. The NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) was ultimately composed of allies from 50-plus countries, including non-NATO partners.

In the early years of the war, the running joke among U.S. forces, however, was that ISAF stood for I saw Americans fight, or I sunbathed at FOBs (forward operating bases, which are heavily fortified and largely safe). The underlying critique was that some allied governments used restrictions called caveats to prevent their troops from carrying out night missions, for example, or from deploying to certain more violent parts of the country and, as a result, U.S. and other fighting forces carried a heavier load.

Still, the cooperation was a growth experience for the alliance, says Ian Lesser, executive director of the German Marshall Fund in Brussels. These caveats did in some ways hinder the ISAFs ability to operate, but it operated nonetheless, and learned a lot by that in terms of habits of cooperation and interoperability that were tested everyday.

At the same time, the experience transformed the militaries of many NATO member nations. In Germany, some 90,000 troops have deployed to Afghanistan over the years. Theres no German general today who doesnt have military or even fighting experience there, says Markus Kaim, senior fellow at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs in Berlin. The same goes, too, for a generation of soldiers in Italy, Spain, the Netherlands, and Canada.

Member forces grew accustomed to collaborating on intelligence sharing and mission planning that made use of some high-tech systems that many nations wouldnt have been exposed to in peacetime, says Anthony Cordesman, defense analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. This in turn, led to a much better appreciation for allied capabilities.

And it led to an even greater appreciation for allies themselves including non-NATO partners, many of whom, like Australia and South Korea, took part in the Afghanistan war.

If we think about any military engagement of NATO going forward, well conceptualize it not as 30 member countries of NATO, but as a loose platform that includes other organizations and non-NATO partners as well, Dr. Kaim says. NATO needs partners, he says, because NATO is aware that it cant shy away from deep political changes were seeing.

The NATO 2030 report emphasizes making the bloc a more political alliance, which means making it a place where core security concerns of all sorts are discussed, Dr. Lesser says. The Asia-Pacific region, especially China, is a case in point. Its a recognition that the definition of what bears on Euro-Atlantic security has expanded tremendously.

This focus on great power competition, coupled with the varying levels of disenchantment with missions that dont end cleanly, means that the appetite for launching military operations again anytime soon will differ across the alliance.

It starts with the question of whether NATO members consider Afghanistan a success. Was it worth all the effort, the blood? Most people would likely answer not really, Dr. Kaim says. Militarily, an alliance with impressive weapons uprooted Al Qaeda but did not defeat the Taliban, which, though an effective guerrilla force, was never a highly sophisticated threat. On the nation-building front, You spent an incredible amount of money to achieve remarkably little, Dr. Cordesman says.

Yet the definition of success itself reflects the different strategic cultures within NATO. While America is deeply uncomfortable with the notion of not winning, for many NATO allies, analysts say, it was enough to show solidarity, to be present, and to make a contribution.

More broadly, Afghanistan was seen as the price to pay, and the right thing to do for NATO in return for the reassurance those countries get from the alliance on the bigger existential threats they face, Dr. Lesser says. The fact that theyve been present in Afghanistan is simply part of the insurance policy, and you have to pay these premiums over time.

And even as most members came out of their Afghan experience more cautious about exporting democracy, the 2030 report acknowledges, it also argues that its nonetheless vital that NATO doesnt allow democratic erosion.

For this to happen, NATO must take some key lessons of Afghanistan, including the corrosive effects of corruption and the ways in which the U.S. and its NATO allies may inadvertently encourage it, says retired Col. John Agoglia, former director of both the U.S. Armys Peacekeeping and Stability Operations Institute and the Counterinsurgency Training Center-Afghanistan, both in Kabul.

The billions of free-flowing Western dollars that flooded into Afghanistan after the invasion made graft and fraud easy and commonplace. We need to understand how we put money into an environment who were giving it to, what are the oversight mechanisms? What could be the second and third order impacts?

Corruption "undermined the legitimacy of the Afghan government, reduced its effectiveness, and created a source of resentment for its own population," which in turn drove Taliban recruitment and made it "much more difficult" for NATO to achieve its key mission goals, "from security to effective governance," Karolina MacLachlan, policy officer at Transparency International in London, wrote in NATO Review.

Get the Monitor Stories you care about delivered to your inbox.

At the same time, in bolstering some former Soviet republics to help resist Russian democratic undercutting and influence, as in Afghanistan, we may have to deal with some people who have blood on their hands, some who are corrupt, some who are trying to reform, Colonel Agoglia says. Weve learned a lot about understanding the limits of power, how to shape it as best you can, and how to take what you can get and its not always going to look pretty.

I get the great power competition, but its won and lost in the trenches doing these things so that if you actually do have to go into combat, he adds, you own the day.

View post:

War in Afghanistan: What has NATO learned from 20 years of fighting? - The Christian Science Monitor

Speaking ahead of a virtual address to German Christian Social Union (CSU) parliamentarians on Wednesday (6 January 2021), Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg explained that 2021 will be a crucial year for NATO. At a press point with Alexander Dobrindt, Chairman of the CSU Parliamentary Group, Mr. Stoltenberg praised Allied armed forces for supporting civilian efforts to cope with the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Secretary General also stressed that this year will be an important opportunity to re-energise transatlantic relations and further strengthen the bond between Europe and North America: So we need to stand together, North America and Europe, and I really count on Germany in playing a key role in these efforts.

Mr. Stoltenberg also made clear that 2021 will be a year of decisions for Afghanistan. He welcomed the ongoing peace talks: There are many challenges, and many uncertainties, but of course, peace talks are the only path to peace, the only way forward to a peaceful negotiated solution. We support those efforts. Mr. Stoltenberg added that NATO Defence Ministers will assess the future of NATOs mission in Afghanistan in February.

The Secretary General also stated that 2021 will be an important year for arms control and non-proliferation. He said: We need to make sure when the new START agreement expires next month that we dont end up with a situation where there is no agreement regulating the number of nuclear warheads.

Read the original post:

NATO Secretary General: 2021 will be a pivotal year - NATO HQ

NEW DELHI: A lawmaker on Monday introduced a bill in the US House of Representatives to terminate the designation of Pakistan as a Major non-NATO Ally (MNNA) a status that allows for various benefits such as access to excess US defence supplies and participation in cooperative defence research and development projects. Here is a look at the meaning and advantages of MNNA status. What is the Nato alliance?The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Nato) is an intergovernmental military alliance of 30 North American and European states. The alliance came into existence following the 1949 North Atlantic Treaty. The aim of the alliance is to constitute a system of collective defence whereby members agree to mutual defence in response to an external attack. Who are major non-Nato allies countries?The United States has designated 30 other countries as major non-Nato allies. These non-Nato countries share a strategic working relationship with the US Armed Forces. The MNNA status is granted to countries from Korea to Argentina, depending upon US strategic interests. Brazil was the latest country to b granted this status in 2020 by Donald Trump. The MNNA status was first created in 1987. The initial MNNAs were Australia, Egypt, Israel, Japan, and South Korea. When did Pakistan become MNNA?Pakistan became a part of this group in 2004 under the presidency of George W Bush. In 2017, US representatives Ted Poe and Rick Nolan introduced bill H.R. 3000 to revoke the status of Pakistan as a major non-Nato ally. In the same year, General Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, accused Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence of having ties to terror groups. According to a report, the US administration discussed downgrading Pakistan's status as major non-Nato allies as one of the possible responses. What are the benefits availed by MNNA states?While the major non-Nato ally status or its equivalent, does not automatically enjoin a mutual defence pact with the United States (as it does with Nato allies) it still confers a variety of military and financial advantages that otherwise are not obtainable by non-NATO countries, depending on the version of the amendment that is eventually signed by the President. Here is a look at some of the benefits of MNNA status:

Link:

Explained: What is a 'Major non-Nato Ally' status? - Times of India

At a farewell ceremony at Tapa base, east of Tallinn, Friday morning, commander of the contingent, Lt Col. Thomas Fogh, thanked his Estonian and U.K. colleagues.

Lt Col. Fogh said via a NATO press release that: "Our cooperation with the British-lead Battlegroup and the Estonian Defense Forces (EDF) 1st Brigade has been exemplary."

The British Army's5th Battalion, the Rifles (5 Rifles), an armored infantry battalion, forms the core of the battlegroup at present, and Lt Col. Fogh also handed over responsibilities which had been handled by Danish personnel to 5 Rifles commanding officer, Lt Col. Jim Hadfield.

Lt Col. Fogh said: "Together, we have conducted intensive training and taken part in various military exercises, We have exchanged knowledge and experience, and having had the opportunity to train here in Estonia has been invaluable. Additionally, it has been an honor to be an integrated part of the NATOs defense of Estonia and the Baltic States, and, personally, I am glad that our soldiers have had the opportunity to get to know the people of Estonia, with whom the Danes share a long history."

Around 200 Danish soldiers and officers have been stationed in Tapa across both rotations. Several Danish staff officers are to remain in Estonia, partly to prepare for the return of Danish forces in March 2022, pending final approval by the Danish Parliament.

Long-standing relationship between Denmark and Estonia

Cooperation between Danish and Estonian militaries goes back decades. Danish troops fought alongside Estonians during the 1918-1920 War of Independence and in recent years, troops from both countries have served together in various NATO missions, including in Bosnia, Iraq and Afghanistan.

According to legend, Denmark's flag, the Dannebrog, first appeared after floating down from the sky at the 1219 Battle of Lindanise, where Danish and German crusaders fought an Estonian army. Lindanise, or Lyndanisse, was an earlier name for Tallinn - itself deriving from a word meaning a Danish fort.

"We have a long history of cooperation with the Estonian military, and that will continue," Lt. Col Fogh. Said, adding that Danish personnel will be taking part in the annual Spring Storm EDF exercise this year, as well as EDF personnel making the return trip to Denmark to take part in a major exercise there.

"We will be sending Danish infantry troops to Estonia this spring, to participate in the annual Spring Storm exercise, and Estonian soldiers will also go to Denmark to take part in Brave Lion, the largest annual field training exercise held in Denmark."

Danish personnel had been presented mission medals by Estonia's Minister of Defense, Jri Luik (Isamaa), just before Christmas.

In addition to the Danes, French and Belgian soldiers have also made up the NATO eFP Battlegroup at various times since it was formed in 2017.

The equivalent eFP battlegroups in Latvia and Lithuania are Canadian- and German-led respectively, while the U.S. heads up the battlegroup in Poland. The groups' formation followed a decision made at the 2016 Warsaw Summit, which took place following the 2014 annexation of the Crimea region by the Russian Federation, and the ongoing insurgency war in eastern Ukraine which started that year. Tapa base has seen major expansion and development since that time.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!

Original post:

Danish NATO personnel say farewell to Tapa for the time being - ERR News

On the night of July 15, 2020, the Balkan nation of North Macedonia was anxiously awaiting the preliminary results of its parliamentary election. Soon after the polls closed, in what was first believed to be a minor technical glitch, the website of the State Election Commission went down.

The polling results were nowhere to be found on the website in the next several hours, as the commission resorted to manually announcing the latest updates on a makeshift YouTube channel. And things didnt get any better in the late hours of the night.

That night, the country suffered the biggest cyberattack in its history. The website of the electoral commission stayed down for the next few days, recovering from a full-scale distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attack that paralyzed its functions, as thousands of IP addresses targeted the site. Months later, the authorities probe into the matter has yet to produce any findings about who might have beenbehindthe attack.

While authorities claimed that the cyberattack did not have any serious consequences on the election process and the results themselves, it managed to highlight how fragile the IT systems of government institutions in the country are. A few weeks later, hackers also targeted several ministries, again demonstrating the urgent need for better cybersecurity measures.

The lack of expertise among the staff, insufficient financial resources, and the overall neglect of officials when it comes to the topic of cyberdefense are among the main issues plaguing state institutions across the region. Its not only North Macedonia; many other countries in the region just arent doing enough when it comes to having strong cyberdefense systems. And in most cases, individuals prove to be the weakest link because they have not been trained and educated on how to defend against such attacks.

In March 2020, North Macedonia became NATOs newest member. Looking to boost its overall defense capabilities, the country is now also putting its hopes on NATOs assets and expertise when it comes to improving its cybersecurity.

However, during the last few years, NATO member states across the region have also been hit hard by various cyberattacks. In 2019, neighboring Bulgaria suffered the largest theft of personal data in the region, after its National Revenue Agency was hacked. More than 5 million Bulgarians have had their personal data exposed, and the hacked database was shared on various hacking forums.

Authorities charged a 20-year-old Bulgarian cybersecurity expert for the hack, although the motives behind it remained unclear. The attack illustrated just how weak cybersecurity practices at Bulgarian government institutions were.

With the countrycurrentlyin a political turmoil and facing its next parliamentary elections in March 2021, the cyberattack on the National Revenue Agency could also serve as a warning of whats about to come.

Apart from ransomware attacks, DDoS and malware attacks are some of the most common tools that hackers have been using to target state institutions. In most cases, the damage that these types of attacks can do could be very expensive.

DDoS are one of the most common hacker attacks due to the fact they are relatively simple and inexpensive to implement, compared to other types of attacks, said Ljubica Pendaroska, a Skopje-based privacy and data protection expert.

But the potential harm that they can do could be worth millionscounted in lost earnings, compromised systems, creating distrust in institutions, data theft, and the like.

According to Pendaroska, such threats should constantly keep state institutions on alert and maintain an institutional awareness of the need for highly organized and functional protection systems.

The motives for these cyberattacks can vary. For some, as is the case with ransomware attacks, the gains could be purely financial. Others, however, might have more malicious intentions.

Montenegro, a NATO member since 2017 and an EU hopeful, held elections at the end of August. Fearing a reprisal of meddling attempts like the one that the Balkan country suffered in 2016, when a Russia-backed attempted coup took place, Montenegrin authorities held a jointmissionwith cybersecurity experts from the United States toward the end of 2019.

The mission aimed to prepare both sides for any possible Russian hacking attempts that could target the election processes in the two countries. However, as a recent suspected Russian hacking attack on U.S. government agencies showed, this might not be such an easy taskno matter how developed or technologically advanced a country might be.

This was a cunning cyber-espionage campaign that was very hard to detect. It reveals that the U.S. government needs to enhance its cyberdefenses, said Bilyana Lilly, an assistant policy researcher at Rand Corp.

Even if the U.S. government itself remains vulnerable, Washington is a cyberpower that can aid smaller countries. Various U.S. agencies can assist Bulgaria, Romania, North Macedonia, and other U.S. partners in the region, and they have done so on multiple occasions, Lilly explained.

In the Balkans, a regionknown for its political and economic instability, cyberattacks on state institutions could be used to fuel tensions among the many countries that have ongoing disputes, which could in turn have political and economic consequences.

Cyberwar missions like the one that the United States and Montenegro had last year can be particularly helpful, especially at a time when these cyberattacks are also becoming more advanced and harder to predict.

The institutional mind cannot think like the criminal alone, and, unfortunately, hackers are often one step ahead of the system, Pendaroska argued.

However, the constant aspiration of the institutions should be to invest in and implement appropriate, tested software solutions that will increase the resistance against such attacks, she added.

In the spring and summer of 2019, Romania alsosaw a part of its critical infrastructure in the health sectorclinics and hospitalssuffer several ransomware attacks. In May 2020, amid the COVID-19 pandemic, Romanian authorities managed to preventsimilar attacks, with hackers preparing to send coronavirus-themed emails to various hospitals across the country.

Recently, the Romanian capital of Bucharest won the race to host the EUs new research center for cybersecurity, which aims to assist the fight against private and state-sponsored hackers. Having an institution of this caliber in the region would show a strong commitment to building efficient capacities for thwarting cyberattacks.

Determining who is behind cyberattacks isnt always the easiest task; sometimes they come from within as NATO allies attack each other. Turkey and Greece, with a history of mutual confrontations and currently entangledin a spat about oil drilling in the Eastern Mediterranean, exchanged blows in cyberspace in 2020.

Last January, Turkish hackers took down several Greek government websites using massive DDoS attacks. Greek hackers retaliated by attacking Turkish public service websites, as well as several Turkish media outlets.

In both cases, however, it was difficult to prove whether the cyberattacks were state-sponsored or simply carried out by nationalistic hackers on both sides. Either way, the attacks again showed the fragile state of cybersecurity practices in longtime NATO member states such as Greece and Turkey.

These institutions are critical for the country, and attacking them has a political meaning. But still, this does not do anything to prove that the Turkish state is backing the hackers, said Minhac Celik, an Istanbul-based strategic cybersecurity researcher. What the attacks success explains, he added, is that Greek cyberdefenses are weak.

And such weaknesses could cost both sides. In the particular case of Turkey and Greece and their spat over the Eastern Mediterranean, in which many other countries and actors are involved too, vulnerabilities like these could be exploited by outside actors looking to capitalize on the situationincluding malign actors or rogue nations, which could simply deploy various hacker groups and target one of these sides, or maybe both, if that suits their purpose. Russia, which could also have a stake in matter since it is involved in energy projects across the region, could use some of these tactics to undermine stabilitysomething that was also outlined by U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo this month.

The various types of cyberattacks that have hit the Balkansfrom meddling in the electoral process to large personal data breaches and targeting the health and other critical sectors amid a pandemicclearly show that authorities across the region need to be much more determined when it comes to strengthening and improving their cyberdefenses.

NATO, on the other hand, maintains that it has all of its cybersecurity capacities available for member states, especially when there are threats aimed at various democratic processes. Any attempts to interfere with democratic elections, including through hacking, are unacceptable, so we must remain vigilant, a NATO official said in a statement.

However, the multiple attacks on various state institutions in member countries during the last few years suggest that NATO definitely needs to do more to counter such threats. With recent cyberattacks in the United States showing that no matter how developed a country is, the consequences of such actions can be vast, other NATO allies could become sitting ducks if there arent sufficient protections in place for all member states.

Read the original:

Flawed Cybersecurity Is a Ticking Time Bomb for the Balkans - Foreign Policy

But while the skirmish on January 7, 1976 left both ships battered and bruised, the real damage was far greater. The always-fractious relations between the two neighbouring island nations had plunged to an all-time low.

Nato, the transatlantic alliance set up to keep the peace after the Second World World, was at risk of breaking up as two of its founder members were openly at loggerheads. And it was a stand-off which would permanently decimate Britain's fishing industry.

It is 45 years today since HMS Andromeda and the Icelandic gunboat Thor clashed in the North Atlantic, leaving the British warship with a 12ft dent and the Icelandic vessel with a hole to her hull. We will probably never know exactly what happened that day, but it marked a significant escalation in the third and final of the 'cod wars', which left Britain humiliated and its once mighty fishing industry in ruins. It also explains why fishing rights, which had threatened to derail Britain's trade deal with the European Union, remain such a sensitive issue today.

Britain's relations with Iceland had been troubled ever since its smaller neighbour declared independence from Denmark in 1944. As a powerful maritime nation with one of the biggest navies in the world, Britain traditionally supported the policy of 'open seas', taking the view that the world's fish were a shared resource that should be readily accessible to all nations.

Large British vessels with crews of up to 30 would spend up to two months at a time in the seas off Iceland or Newfoundland, returning with huge catches of cod for chip shops and fishmongers slabs across the land. But by the 1950s, the Icelandic authorities started making territorial claims on the surrounding waters, culminating in a 14-mile exclusion zone being imposed around its shores in 1958. The move was opposed by all other members of Nato, and the Royal Navy sent warships to protect British trawlers as they continued to fish in the disputed area.

But Iceland's strategic importance between the United States and the USSR meant it was able to play the two Cold War adversaries off against one another, leaving Britain with little choice but to agree to the limit with a few minor concessions, ending the first cod war in February 1961.

A change in Iceland's government saw a second conflict break out in September 1972 when Iceland extended its territorial claim to 57.5 miles. Again Iceland was able to play its trump card by threatening to quit Nato and ordering US and British forces to leave a military base in Iceland. Trawlermen played Rule Britannia over their radios as British warships withdrew from the region on October 3, and a two-year agreement was struck in which the parties agreed to the extension of Iceland's territorial waters providing British boats could fish up to 130,000 tons.

It was the expiry of this deal in November 1975 which led to the third and most fierce fight over fish. Britain asked for the agreement to be extended by a further 10 years, with a reduced quota of 110,000 tons. Iceland refused, and instead demanded a 230-mile exclusion zone around its shores, which the British Government rejected. At the time fishing was a major part of the economy in Scotland and north-east England, and it was estimated the extension would lead to the loss of 9,000 jobs. But the Icelandic coastguard had a new weapon in its armoury: a cable-operated device which could cut the trawlers' nets, and this was now being deployed with increasing regularity.

The threat to an important industry could not have come at a worse time for prime minister Harold Wilson, as Britain was gripped by rising unemployment and 'stagflation'.

Matters came to a head on December 11, 1975 when Iceland's flagship gunboat Thor opened fire on three British ships close to the port of Seydisfjordur. The boats ocean-going tug boat Lloydsman, and oil-rig supply ships Star Aquarius and Star Polaris, which belonged to the British Government had been sheltering from a force nine gale.

The British version of events is that the Icelandic crew tried to board one of the British tugs, and as Thor broke away, Lloydsman surged forward to protect Star Aquarius.

Aquarius captain Albert MacKenzie said Thor approached from the stern and hit the support vessel before veering off and firing a shot from 100 yards. But Niels Sigurdsson, Icelandic Ambassador in London, said Thor fired in self-defence after being rammed by British vessels. Either way, it was the Icelandic gunboat that came off worse, almost sinking as a result of the clash.

The Royal Navy dispatched a large frigate force before the prime minister Wilson and foreign secretary Anthony Crosland had even been informed. Some suggested the Navy was desperate to show its importance after suffering severe spending cuts by then-chancellor Denis Healey. And Crosland, MP for the trawler port of Grimsby was only too aware of the political clout the fishing industry held. It later emerged that John Prescott, then a backbench MP for Hull, approached the new prime minister Jim Callaghan shortly after he replaced Wilson, offering to negotiate with the Icelandic Government. His efforts were rejected, amid concerns he had "given aid and comfort to the Icelanders".

Militarily, there was no contest. With just eight ships, the Icelandic coastguard was never going to be a match for the Royal Navy, which dispatched 22 frigates and refitted HMS Jaguar and HMS Lincoln as specialist ramming craft with reinforced wooden bows. West Germany and Belgium, which also fished in the disputed waters, also opposed the exclusion zone. But the third cod war would prove expensive as British and Icelandic boats continued to ram one another. Iceland tried to up the ante by buying more gunboats from the US and frigates from the Soviet Union, but these efforts were rebuffed. On February 19, 1976, Iceland broke off diplomatic relations with the UK.

While Iceland might have been hopelessly out-muscled on the seas, its strategic importance in the Cold War prevailed once more. Again it threatened to close the Nato base at Keflavik, which would have left the Atlantic exposed to the Soviet Union. Iceland got pretty much everything it wanted, and in June the third cod war was over.

The UK also established its own 230-mile exclusion zone and eventually the UN gave every sovereign nation an exclusive economic zone. However, as a member of the Common Market, Britain had already agreed to pool its fishing rights with other members, and the fishing towns of Scotland and the north-east of England would never recover.

See the original post:

Fight over fish which threatened to break-up Nato - expressandstar.com

KARACHI:

A Republican member of Congress has introduced a bill, seeking to terminate Pakistans special designation of a major non-NATO ally of the United States.

Andy Biggs, a prominent Republican from Arizona who tabled the bill, claimed that the US president was not in a position to issue a separate designation to Pakistan as a major NATO ally unless a presidential certification is issued stating that Pakistan continues to conduct military operations that are contributing to significantly disrupting the terrorist safe haven and freedom of movement of the Haqqani network in the country.

On the first day of the 117th Congress, my staff and I have hit the ground running, working hard for the great people of #AZ05, Biggs wrote on his official Twitter handle.

Today, I reintroduced 28 bills that keep the promises Ive made to my constituents and help to reduce the size and scope of the federal government.

The new bill which has been referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs asks the president to certify that Pakistan has shown progress in order to arrest and prosecute senior leaders and mid-level operatives of the Haqqani Network.

It also urged the president to certify that the government of Pakistan is actively coordinating with the government of Afghanistan to restrict the movement of militants, such as Haqqani network, along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

According to a report published in Washington Times, there was no indication the bill will have momentum before the House Foreign Affairs Committee since Biggs is not a member of the committee.

It also pointed out that the move drew little US media notice but triggered headlines in India, which has long been critical of US-Pakistan relations.

Pakistan was given the designation as a major non-NATO ally during the Bush administration in 2004.

See more here:

US Congress moved to terminate Pakistan's status as major non-NATO ally - The Express Tribune

KABUL (Pajhwok): As peace talks resumed in Doha on Wednesday evening, the NATO chief said it was essential to make sure the Taliban cut ties with international terrorist outfits, including the al-Qaeda network.

At a joint media briefing with CSU Parliamentary Group Vhairman Alexander Dobrindt, Jens Stoltenberg called 2021 a pivotal year for NATO, which needed to decide on its presence in Afghanistan.

While welcoming the ongoing Afghan peace talks, he said: There are many challenges and many uncertainties. But of course, talks are the only path to peace and a negotiated solution,

The NATO secretary general added: We support those efforts, but at the same time we know that we will be faced with a very difficult dilemma.

Next month, he said, NATO defence ministers would meet to decide on the future of the Resolute Support Mission in Afghanistan. The alliance, however, would face a dilemma, Stoltenberg continued.

The defence ministers would have to decide on whether to stay in Afghanistan or exit the country, he said, adding there would be risks in both cases.

With regard to a conditions-based withdrawal, he said: The more important thing is that we need to make sure that Afghanistan doesnt once again become a safe haven for international terrorists.

The Norwegian politician explained NATO had gone to Afghanistan almost 20 years ago after 9/11 attack against the United States. Under the peace deal, he noted, the Taliban had promised cutting their relations with al-Qaeda

So the most important condition is to make sure the Taliban meet that requirement, that they break all ties with international terrorists.

He said the alliance would take stock of the situation on the ground and evaluate developments in the peace talks before taking a final decision.

PAN Monitor/mud

Hits: 199

Continue reading here:

Taliban must break all ties with international terrorists, including al-Qaeda : NATO chief - Pajhwok Afghan News

Outgoing U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo slammed Turkey during a virtual meeting of NATO foreign ministers on Tuesday, accusing Ankara of stoking tensions with fellow allies in the Mediterranean and of giving a gift to the Kremlin by purchasing a Russian-made anti-aircraft system.

Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlt avuolu fired back, accusing Pompeo of phoning European allies and urging them to gang up on Turkey, of siding blindly with Greece in regional conflicts, and of refusing to sell Ankara U.S.-made Patriot anti-aircraft weapons.

avuolu also accused the U.S. of backing Kurdish terrorist organizations in Syria, while Turkey fought the Islamic State, and insisted that the U.S. and France had worsened a conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh by backing Armenia in a war that Azerbaijan won with Turkish military support.

The sharp clash over videoconference, confirmed by multiple allied delegations, came as Pompeo was attending what was likely his last NATO foreign affairs ministerial on behalf of President Donald Trump a meeting that was intended to focus primarily on a new report about how NATO should adapt for the next decade. Some diplomats speculated that Pompeo was using his last meeting to inflame tensions that could make life difficult for the incoming administration of President-elect Joe Biden.

The new report, by an outside group of experts, was commissioned after French President Emmanuel Macron complained last year about conflicts among allies, including Turkey, saying the alliance was experiencing brain death.The report urges alliesto pledge themselves to a code of good conductand consider establishing a Centre of Excellence forDemocraticResilience dedicated to providing support to individual allies.

Several allies backed up Pompeo by speaking out against Turkey, including French Foreign MinisterJean-Yves Le Drian, who denounced Ankaras behavior and said cohesion within the alliance would be impossible to achieve if Turkey mimicked Russias aggressive interventionism.

By the end of the meeting, it was clear that Turkey was virtually isolated among the alliances 30 members. A renewed call by avuolu for NATO to take a role in Libyas civil war was rejected by the other allies, who have accused Turkey of exacerbating the conflict by sending weapons and mercenaries to support the Government of National Accord based in Tripoli.

After avuolu accused Pompeo and the U.S. of taking a maximalist position in favor of Greece regarding conflicts in the Eastern Mediterranean, Greek Foreign Minister Nikos Dendias hit back, saying if the Greek position is maximalist, so is international law.

Turkey has been at fierce odds with other allies for years, but has also proven the most militarily assertive NATO member, and particularly adept at achieving its objectives with hard power.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoan interceded not just in Libya, but also in Syria, where he and Russian President Vladimir Putin largely fashioned the outcome that has kept Bashar al-Assad in power. Most dramatically, Turkey helped Azerbaijan achieve victory in its three-decade conflict with Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh, with Baku reclaiming swaths of territory.

According to NATO diplomats, avuolu had a mixed message on Germany, praising Berlin for acting as an honest broker in trying to mediate the conflicts in the Mediterranean but also accusing the Germans of piracy over an incident in which German naval forces intercepted and boarded a Turkish ship suspected of trafficking weapons. The Germans were acting under an EU-led arms control mission.

At a news conference, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg sidestepped a question about the sharp exchange between Pompeo and avuolu, and instead noted that a NATO deconfliction mechanism had helped to ease the conflict between Athens and Ankara.

We have seen that the deconfliction mechanism has helped to reduce the risk of incidents and accidents, between the Greek and Turkish militaries, Stoltenberg said. But he added, it is not solving the underlying main problem.

That, he said, would depend on a German-led mediation effort, and the political will of Greece and Turkey.

Jacopo Barigazzi contributed reporting.

Read more:

US and Turkey target each other in NATO meeting - POLITICO.eu

DUBLIN--(BUSINESS WIRE)--The "NATO Military Aircraft Modernization and Retrofit Market - Growth, Trends, and Forecasts (2020 - 2025)" report has been added to ResearchAndMarkets.com's offering.

The Military Aircraft Modernization and Retrofit Market in NATO countries is projected to grow with a CAGR of more than 3% during the forecast period.

Companies Mentioned

Key Market Trends

Fixed-Wing Segment to Continue its Dominance During the Forecast Period

The NATO countries are avid users of fixed-wing aircraft. The fleet of fixed-wing aircraft is comparatively much larger than the helicopter fleet, hence the scope of modernization is much higher for the fixed-wing aircraft. The defense expenditure of the NATO countries is expected to account for USD 984 billion in 2019. The prominent NATO member countries, such as the US, France, Germany, the UK, and Italy have consistently ranked amongst the highest global defense spending nations each year, signifying substantial investments towards the R&D of advanced weaponry and procurement of sophisticated military assets.

For instance, in January 2019, the French government signed a USD 2.3 billion to upgrade the Rafale fleet with the F4 standard. The aircraft fleet is expected to be validated by 2024 and would include upgraded radar sensors and front-sector optronics and improved helmet-mounted displays (HMDs). The upgrade would also include provisions to use MBDA's Mica NG air-to-air missile and the 1,000-kilogram AASM air-to-ground modular weapon and the Scalp missiles. Similarly, in December 2019, the Greek government awarded a USD 279.7 million contract to Lockheed Martin Corporation to upgrade its fleet of 150 F-16 combat aircraft to the Viper class configuration by 2027. Such developments are envisioned to drive the growth prospects of the market in focus during the forecast period.

United States is Projected to hold the major share in the Market

In 2019, the US accounted for the largest market share due to its gigantic defense spending which is multifold compared to other NATO countries. The US defense expenditure witnessed a 5.3% YoY growth to account for USD 732 billion in 2019. For FY2021, the requested US defense budget of USD 704.6 billion is aimed at improving the military readiness and invest modernization of its armed forces.

On this note, in June 2020, Raytheon Technologies Corporation was awarded a USD 202.6 million contract for F-15 RADAR modernization. The APG-82(V)1 AESA radars are designed to incorporate with F-15E Strike Eagle dual-role fighter jets for the simultaneous detection, identification, and tracking of multiple targets. Similarly, in June 2019, L3Harris Technologies Inc. announced receiving a USD 499 million contract from the US Air Force (USAF) to upgrade the fleet of 176 C-130H aircraft under the C-130 Avionics Modernization Program Increment 2 initiative.

Key Topics Covered:

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Study Assumptions

1.2 Scope of the Study

2 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

4 MARKET DYNAMICS

4.1 Market Drivers

4.2 Market Restraints

4.3 Industry Attractiveness - Porters Five Forces Analysis

4.3.1 Threat of New Entrants

4.3.2 Bargaining Power of Buyers/Consumers

4.3.3 Bargaining Power of Suppliers

4.3.4 Threat of Substitute Products

4.3.5 Intensity of Competitive Rivalry

5 MARKET SEGMENTATION

5.1 By Aircraft Type

5.1.1 Fixed-Wing

5.1.2 Rotary Wing

5.2 By Country

5.2.1 United States

5.2.2 Canada

5.2.3 United Kingdom

5.2.4 France

5.2.5 Germany

5.2.6 Italy

5.2.7 Rest of NATO Countries

6 COMPETITIVE LANDSCAPE

6.1 Vendor Market Share

6.2 Company Profiles

6.2.1 Raytheon Technologies Corporation

6.2.2 L3Harris Technologies Inc.

6.2.3 BAE Systems plc

6.2.4 Lockheed Martin Corporation

6.2.5 Elbit Systems Ltd.

6.2.6 Honeywell International Inc.

6.2.7 Northrop Grumman Corporation

6.2.8 Safran SA

6.2.9 General Dynamics Corporation

6.2.10 Leonardo S.p.A.

6.2.11 The Boeing Company

6.2.12 Airbus SE

7 MARKET OPPORTUNITIES AND FUTURE TRENDS

For more information about this report visit https://www.researchandmarkets.com/r/dsuuxh

Continue reading here:

Insights on the NATO Military Aircraft Modernization and Retrofit Global Market to 2025 - Fixed-Wing Segment to Continue its Dominance -...

Jean-Yves Le Drian, Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs, is taking part in the Meeting of NATO Ministers of Foreign Affairs via video conference from December 1 to 2.

This meeting provides an opportunity for the ministers to review the report issued by the reflection group on the future of NATO and to discuss its recommendations. This report is an initial response to the reflection process on the future of NATO launched a year ago on the initiative of France and Germany.

In line with President Macrons calls for a strategic reflection within NATO, the minister welcomed the recommendations aimed at enhancing cohesion, solidarity and predictability among allies.

The minister underscored the importance of the proposals to strengthen coordination with the EU, as well as those aimed at reaffirming the values and principles that should guide relations between allies. This reflection process will continue at the next NATO summit in 2021. The minister also shared his analysis of the changes in the strategic context which have an impact on the alliances security interests. The minister reaffirmed the importance of a robust NATO defense and deterrence posture, to which France directly contributes, as well as the need to leave the possibility of dialogue with Russia in particular open, in accordance with the alliances agreed positions.

These discussions provided an opportunity for the ministers to address the regional crises and all external interference that undermines the alliances stability and unity. The ministers discussed the continued joint fight against terrorism, notably in Afghanistan and Iraq. The minister reaffirmed the importance of consultations and coordination within the relevant forums, within the framework of the Global Coalition against Daesh as well as within NATO, in order to protect our common security interests in these two countries.

The ministers will also discuss the opportunities and challenges related to Chinas emergence. This session will be attended by the EU high representative and the minister will reaffirm the importance of effective coordination between the EU and NATO on these challenges.

Lastly, the ministers will be joined by the Georgian and Ukrainian foreign ministers to discuss the security situation in the Black Sea region.

Read the original:

NATO - Jean-Yves Le Drian's participation in the Meeting of NATO Ministers of Foreign Affairs (1-2 Dec. 2020) - France Diplomatie

02 December 2020

by Gareth Jennings

The European Air Transport Command (EATC) has set itself a timeline of two years to develop concrete proposals to better support its seven participating nations, as well as selected European Union and NATO member states.

The European Air Transport Command is headquartered at Eindhoven Air Base in the Netherlands. Having recently marked its first 10 years of operations, the command now seeks to expand its support to its participating nations and also to selected European Union and NATO member states. (EATC)

Speaking at the virtual SMi Military Airlift and Air-to-Air Refuelling 2020 conference, Colonel Patrick Mollet of the EATC said that the command wants to build on its recently celebrated first decade of operations by identifying specific scnarios in which is can provide additional support in both the planning and mission phases of future air transport (AT), air-to-air refuelling (AAR) and aero medical evacuation (medevac) operations.

After 10 years we are convinced that we can do better, Col Mollett said on 2 December. We aim to develop in the coming years [proposals] on an increased advisory role in the planning phase, and a more active role in the execution and operational phase for our partners and selected EU and NATO nations. We have given ourselves a timeline of two years for solid solutions.

As set out by the colonel, the selected scenarios comprise non-combat evacuation operations, disaster relief and/or humanitarian operations, and military operations for NATO, EU and other international coalitions.

Headquartered at Eindhoven Air Base in the Netherlands, the EATC was established on 1 September 2010 between France, Germany, the Benelux countries of Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg. Spain and Italy also joined in 2014.

Col Molletts remarks reflect comments made toJanes

Already a Janes subscriber? Read the full article via theClient LoginInterested in subscribing, see What we do

Share

The European Air Transport Command (EATC) has set itself a timeline of two years to develop concrete...

Read the rest here:

EATC seeks to better support member nations, selected EU and NATO states - Jane's

Ukraine hopes to receive a NATO Membership Action Plan (MAP) at the NATO summit next year, according to Ukrainian Defense Minister Andrii Taran.

He stated this at a briefing entitled "Defense aspects of Ukraine's Euro-Atlantic integration: key aspects and tasks for the future," according to the Ukrainian Defense Ministry's website.

"Please inform your capitals that we count on your full political and military support for such a decision [granting Ukraine the MAP] at the next NATO summit in 2021. This will be a practical step and a demonstration of commitment to the decisions of the 2008 Bucharest Summit," Taran said, addressing the ambassadors and military attaches of NATO member states, as well as representatives of the NATO office in Ukraine.

According to him, today Ukraine's course for full membership in NATO is enshrined in the Constitution of Ukraine, and the rapid receipt of the NATO Membership Action Plan is a goal set in the recently adopted National Security Strategy of Ukraine. Taran noted that over the past seven years, Ukraine has firmly defended not only its own independence, but also the security and stability of Europe, and acts as a powerful outpost on NATO's eastern flank.

"We believe that Ukraine and Georgia's joining the Alliance would be the right decision for NATO. Our countries have a lot in common. These are post-Soviet republics, the countries that have been affected by Russian aggression. From our point of view, Ukraine's and Georgia's potential membership in NATO will have a significant impact on Euro-Atlantic security and stability, in particular in the Black Sea region," Taran said.

He emphasized the importance of partnership with the North Atlantic Alliance in confronting global threats, such as Russia's aggressive policies and actions, which is a serious challenge to international peace and stability.

The Ukrainian parliament in early December 2019 adopted a resolution "On the statement of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine regarding priority steps to ensure Ukraine's Euro-Atlantic integration and acquire Ukraine's full membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization."

The Verkhovna Rada also authorized the Verkhovna Rada chairman to sign documents, together with the president of Ukraine and the prime minister of Ukraine, necessary to confirm Ukraine's intention to obtain the NATO Membership Action Plan and to appeal to the parliaments of the NATO member states with the request to facilitate Ukraine's receiving the MAP.

On June 12, 2020, Ukraine became a member of NATO's Enhanced Opportunities Partnership program.

op

View post:

Ukraine hopes to get MAP at NATO summit next year - Taran - Ukrinform. Ukraine and world news

ANKARA

NATO has invited US President-elect Joe Biden to a summit in Brussels in early 2021, Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg told a press conference Monday.

Answering questions ahead of the NATO Foreign Ministers Meeting on Dec. 1-2, the NATO chief said a specific date for the summit has not yet been decided but it will be attended by all leaders in the 30-member alliance.

I'm looking forward to welcoming President Biden next year to a NATO summit here in Brussels, he said.

Saying that there is a strong bipartisan support for NATO in the US, Stoltenberg added that he is looking forward to working with the new administration.

NATO is the only institution or organization that brings together, North America and Europe, he said. I'm looking forward to continuing the project NATO 2030."

NATO 2030 is an initiative to make the military alliance, formed in 1949, ready today to face tomorrow's challenges.

Read more:

NATO invites Biden to summit after he takes office - Anadolu Agency

RIGA - NATO continues to support the Afghan peace process, Janis Bekeris, Press Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, informed LETA.

A video conference of the NATO Foreign Ministers' Meeting was held on December 1 and 2, which also addressed the issue of NATO's departure from Afghanistan. Latvian Foreign Minister Edgars Rinkevics (New Unity) also participated in the meeting remotely.

Bekeris emphasized that there will be no changes of the NATO training mission in Afghanistan - Resolute Support. NATO will also continue to support the Afghan security forces in the fight against terrorism. Latvia's participation in the NATO-led mission will also be maintained.

According to Bekeris, in accordance with the mandate approved by the Saeima in 2016, a Latvian military contingent of up to 30 soldiers will be participating in the mission in Afghanistan. Currently, the Ministry of Defense is forwarding to the Saeima for consideration the extension of the mandate of Latvia's participation in this mission until the end of 2021.

The representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs explained that the meeting of NATO foreign ministers discussed the impact of the US decision to reduce the presence of their forces on the objectives and capabilities of the NATO mission. It has now been concluded that the mission is able to function and carry out its tasks, but NATO will continue to assess the situation and NATO members will have to make further decisions in February 2021, when NATO defense ministers will meet.

NATO members will have to consider whether NATO should continue its engagement in the country, which could become a long-term commitment, or end its presence in Afghanistan, which in turn could lead to the consolidation of international terrorists on Afghan territory and the withdrawal of international forces. It will be a unanimous decision of NATO members, followed by joint action by the allies.

See the rest here:

NATO continues to support the peace process in Afghanistan - Baltic Times

Reuters, BRUSSELS and BERLIN

NATO must think harder about how to handle China and its military rise, although Russia would remain its main adversary during this decade, a report on reforming the Atlantic alliance published yesterday said.

NATO 2030, prepared by a group of so-called wise persons and containing 138 proposals, comes amid growing doubts about the purpose and relevance of an alliance branded last year by French President Emmanuel Macron as brain dead.

China is no longer the benign trading partner that the West had hoped for. It is the rising power of our century and NATO must adapt, said one NATO diplomat who had seen the report prior to its publication, pointing to Chinese activity in the Arctic and Africa and to its heavy investments in European infrastructure.

Part of NATOs response should be maintaining a technological advantage over China, protecting computer networks and infrastructure, the diplomat said, citing the report, although not all recommendations would be adopted.

The 30-member alliance could also forge closer ties with non-NATO countries such as Australia and focus more on deterrence in space, where China is developing assets, the report said.

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg on Monday said that Chinas rise posed important challenges to our security.

China is investing massively in new weapons. It is coming closer to us, from the Arctic to Africa. China does not share our values ... and tries to intimidate other countries, he told a news conference in Brussels, urging allies to come together on the issue.

NATO should consider including China in NATOs official master strategy document, its Strategic Concept, diplomats cited the report as saying, although it stopped short of declaring the country an adversary.

In other recommendations, the report suggested that NATO foreign ministers meet more regularly and called for a strengthening of the secretary-generals role as an international mediator.

The report was scheduled to be discussed by NATO foreign ministers yesterday before being presented to the alliances heads of state and government next year.

Tensions over NATOs ability to act remain, from anger over Turkeys decision to buy a Russian weapons system to US doubts over Europes commitment to its own defense, to US President Donald Trumps call for it to do more in the Middle East.

However, Eastern European allies, fearful of Russia since Moscows 2014 annexation of Crimea from Ukraine, are concerned about shifting too many resources away from NATOs core task of defending Europe.

CHINESE REACTION

In Beijing yesterday, Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokeswoman Hua Chunying () said China hoped NATO would adopt the correct outlook toward the country.

She told a regular briefing at the ministry that China stood ready to engage in dialogue with the alliance.

Comments will be moderated. Keep comments relevant to the article. Remarks containing abusive and obscene language, personal attacks of any kind or promotion will be removed and the user banned. Final decision will be at the discretion of the Taipei Times.

Continued here:

Report urges NATO to expand its focus to include China -

Indeed, ongoing bilateral frictions are particularly worrisome for Australia, whose export-reliant economy depends on trade with China more than any country in the world. China buys $120 billion of Australia's annual exports (30 percent), and the relationship accounts for around 1 in 13 Australian jobs.

What's the dispute actually about? Well, just ask China. Last month, the Chinese government publicly released a 14-point list that outlines its grievances with the Australian government. It included gripes as varied as Australia's decision to ban Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei from its 5G network, "spreading disinformation imported from the US around China's efforts of containing COVID-19," as well as general "antagonistic" reporting on China by the Australian press.

Beijing was particularly peeved by Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison's call earlier this year for a global investigation into China's handling of the coronavirus pandemic, and it hit back with a series of tariffs on Australian goods like wine, beef, barley, and coal that threaten about $20 billion worth of Australian exports.

A particular spat with universal resonance. The bilateral dispute that's increasingly keeping Australian economists and government officials up at night is being closely watched by governments around the world including in Japan, South Korea, and New Zealand whose economies are heavily reliant on China, yet like Australia, also pursue a values-based foreign policy.

And there is definitely reason to be cautious. China has increasingly used its growing economic clout as a weapon, punishing states that criticize its bellicose behavior or human-rights violations.

In 2010, for example, after the Norwegian-based Nobel Peace Prize committee honored Liu Xiaobo a Chinese writer, dissident, and critic of the Chinese Communist Party China, the world's largest consumer of seafood, blocked salmon imports from Norway, costing the Nordic country hundreds of millions in lost revenue. (Upon lifting the blockade several years later, China said Norway had "deeply reflected upon the reasons bilateral mutual trust was harmed.")

While the Australian government has not backed down in criticizing China on a range of political issues, including Beijing's meddling in Australia's internal government affairs, its spying activities, and its crackdown in Hong Kong, other countries may be less inclined to push Beijing's buttons in ways that could send their own economies spiraling.

Cost-benefit analysis. In recent years, as the Trump administration has prioritized an anti-China geopolitical agenda, US allies like Australia have been forced into an even trickier position as they try to keep economic lines open with Beijing while maintaining security ties with Washington.

China has been particularly perturbed by actions taken by the "Five Eyes" intelligence-sharing pact made up of the US, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Britain. After the group criticized China's recent targeting of Hong Kong's pro-democracy lawmakers, a Chinese spokesperson warned that China might "gouge and blind" the Five Eyes nations in retaliation. The Morrison government has said that it wants to "reset" the Australia-China relationship but that Beijing won't return its calls.

Don't put all your eggs in one basket. A debate is currently raging in Australia about the need to diversify trade partners so as to protect the country from economic blackmail from China that could deepen Australia's pandemic-induced recession. "There's a basic rule in finance: don't put all your eggs in one basket," one Australian academic recently said. But others argue that it's too late and China is too big.

More Show less

See the original post:

What We're Watching: India's angry farmers, NATO's search for meaning, Israel's election threat - GZERO Media