Daily Archives: February 27, 2020

Picture it. Youre at an awesome party, making the rounds, and someone starts asking you what you know about NATO.

FRIEND: Hey, what do you know about NATO?

And maybe you know a lot. But maybe you dont. Maybe youve seen it in the news a bit. Maybe youve heard an argument over who pays for it. Maybe you have it confused with NAFTA.

Okay, lets be honest, this doesnt usually come up at parties... but lets pretend that it did.

In this episode, my friend and I are gonna have a drink, listen to some experts and try to figure out what NATO is.

Im Gabrielle Sierra and this is Why It Matters. Today, what do you know about NATO?

KUPCHAN: If you drive today from Washington, where we are, up to Toronto or Quebec, youll have to stop at the Canadian border. Youll show a passport. But you wont see any tanks. The U.S.-Canadian border is largely undefended.

My name is Charles Kupchan, Im a Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and a Professor at Georgetown University.

If you drive today from France to Germany you may see a few sheep, but you wont see a border guard, you wont change money, and you will see no tanks and soldiers. That border is undefended. That border is the site of untold bloodshed. Its today undefended because NATO and the European Union and processes of integration have made those borders geopolitically inconsequential.

FRIEND: Huh, you know what? Ive never actually thought about it that way.

SIERRA: You know how last summer I was on that train from Paris to Berlin? I didnt even know when I left France and entered Germany, no soldiers in sight.

FRIEND: Yeah okay wait, can we just start with what NATO stands for?

KUPCHAN: NATO stands for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

CLIP MONTAGE OF OFFICIALS SAYING NATO.

KUPCHAN: And it is a body formed in 1949 to commit the members of the alliance to collective defensei.e., an attack on one is an attack on all, we are in this together. It is an institution that keeps us safe. We dont lie awake at night worrying that somebody is going to invade, that we got to look out the window and see tanks and troops coming. And thats in part because starting in 1949 the United States reached out to Canada, reached across the Atlantic to its democratic partners in Europe and said were going to hang together, were going to unite against threats to the peace. That alliance has been around ever since 1949 and it has succeeded in keeping this community of Atlantic democracies safe.

NATO: 0:00: On April 4th, 1949, The North Atlantic Treaty was signed by Norway, Denmark, The Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, France, Italy, Portugal, the United Kingdom, Iceland, Canada and the United States. This union of 12 nations became known as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or more simply NATO.

SIERRA: So lets go back to the beginning a bit. How did this all start? How did NATO form?

KUPCHAN: Well, you have to go back to the 1930s, when the United States basically became a passive bystander and was staunchly isolationist as fascism began to spread all over the world, mainly in Europe and Asia but also began to spread its tentacles further. And the United States tried to stay out of it. That strategy didnt work. Pearl Harbor, we all know the story. The U.S. enters World War II.

FOOTAGEARCHIVE: 0:14: December 7th, 1941, a date that will live in infamy, the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.

KUPCHAN: At the end of World War II, we go into this big debate about, well, what do we do now? Do we go back to being a hemispheric power? Do we bring back all the troops and pull out of Asia and Europe, or do we stay put? And that question was answered by the Cold War; by the fact that the Soviet Union, which was our ally in World War II, became our chief adversary by the late 1940s.

PERISCOPE FILM: 2:58: When peace returned and the Western allies demobilized, the Soviet Union maintained an overwhelming military superiority on the European continent. Both during and immediately after the war the Soviet Union forcibly brought under its control a whole series of countries in Eastern Europe.

KUPCHAN: And it was because of fear that if the United States did withdraw from Europe that the Soviets would overrun Germany, France, Britain, and the industrialized powers of the West that we basically said were staying put and we are going to form an alliance with our key partners in Europe to prevent the Soviet Union and communism from spreading.

POLYAKOVA: So I think we have to remember one really key aspect to the founding of NATO, mainly where the world was and specifically where Europe was at the end of the second world war.

Im Alina Polyakova, and Im President and CEO of the Center of European Policy Analysis, a think tank in Washington.

We had just had the most devastating global conflict in the history of humanity,[it] killed millions of people in Europe. And it was really on the ashes of that horrible, terrifying set of years and really a century of fighting between European countries that we have the founding of NATO.

SIERRA: So what do you think the world would have looked like without it?

POLYAKOVA: Just a decade basically after World War I, we start having the beginnings of another global conflict. And really Europe for a very long time was just rife with fighting between all the different countries. And there was never really hugely long periods of prosperity and growth and peace, because as soon as you had a moment of peace, that would be usually followed by war.

SIERRA: Hey, are you listening? Why are you on your phone right now?

FRIEND: I was just checking and basically, European countries have been fighting each other for the last thousand years.

SIERRA: Right, and they havent fought a war with each other since NATO came into being. Which if you take a second to think about it is actually...pretty huge!

FRIEND: Huh.

SIERRA: Alright, phone down, lets keep going.

POLYAKOVA: If we had not had NATO, and then we could not have the European Union after NATO, we would have had a world that would have continued to be rife with conflict. And I think certainly in the United States, would have found itself embroiled in far more conflicts in Europe, which is now unimaginable to us.

SIERRA: Can you tell me a little bit about NATOs role in the Cold War?

KUPCHAN: Well, surprisingly, NATO never fired a shot. NATO never went to war. And in some ways, it is the best testament to its success because NATO was as much about deterrence as it was defense, saying to the Soviet Union do not come across this line because if you do you will be met with the collective force of the Western democracies.

POLYAKOVA: So during the Cold War, NATO became the core of the military alliance to serve as a deterrent and a container of Soviet expansionism. European countries were very nervous that there would be a Soviet invasion at any moment at any day. And NATO was really the only thing that protected them from that kind of invasion, because from the Soviet perspective, of course, if you started to make military incursions into a NATO country, well then you would face not just that single country, but the might of all the countries that are part of NATO, most notably the United States.

KUPCHAN: And we did things to make the Soviets realize that we meant business. Why were American troops in West Berlin? They were there because they served as what we call a tripwire, which was that if the Red Armythe Soviet armycame across and they invaded and they went into West Berlin, they would have to kill Americans. And if they killed Americans, they knew that Uncle Sam would jump into the fray. And it was because of that deterrent effect, because of nuclear weapons, because the inter-German boundary line was NATOs frontier, that we never saw a war. And then over time, we know the story of internal rot of the Soviet Union, of Gorbachev, of his effort to reform the Soviet Union from inside fell apart and the Soviet Union imploded. Cold War over; NATO successfully stood the test of time.

PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN: 1:58: Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.

PETER JENNINGS: 0:21: Thousands and thousands of West Germans come to make the point that the wall has suddenly become irrelevant. Something as you can see almost a party on, how do you measure such an astonishing moment in history?

SIERRA: So whats NATOs story since the end of the Cold War?

KUPCHAN: Well, the end of the Cold War raised questions about NATOs future, and thats because most alliances die when the threat that brought them to life disappears. NATO didnt die. In fact, it thrived. It went on to become the go-to vehicle for organizing security at the end of the Cold War. It began to expand eastward and take in Europes new democracies. And it became a vehicle for locking in democracy and capitalism in countries that had long been part of the Soviet Bloc.

FRIEND: Okay, so, its not a closed club.

SIERRA: Yeah new countries have been joining all along. Were up to 29.

FRIEND: Whos on their phone now?

SIERRA: Alright alright, one more second, I promise. But, did you know Montenegro joined in 2017?

FRIEND: Gabrielle! Focus! Were almost caught up here.

KUPCHAN: NATO began to look outside the territory of its members to defend common interests more broadly. So NATO got involved in the Balkans to prevent the bloodshed associated with the unraveling of Yugoslavia. And then for the first time in its history, when the United States was attacked on September 11, NATO invoked Article 5...

NATO SEC GEN LORD ROBERTSON: 0:15: In response to the appalling attacks perpetrated yesterday against the United States of America, the Council agreed if it is determined that this attack was directed from abroad against the United States, it shall be regarded as an action covered by Article 5

KUPCHAN: ...which is the provision that says...

NATO SEC GEN LORD ROBERTSON: 0:37: ...that an armed attack against one or more of the allies in Europe or in North America shall be considered an attack against them all.

KUPCHAN: An attack on one is an attack on all, the provision of collective defense, and eventually undertook a substantial mission in Afghanistan to backstop the U.S. effort to take down al-Qaida and the Taliban. That mission has been a long and arduous one, partly because Afghanistan is a mess.

SIERRA: How realistic is that clause across the board with NATO?

KUPCHAN: If the Russians invaded Estonia, would all NATO members rush to Estonias defense?

SIERRA: Right.

KUPCHAN: You know, its the 6 million dollar question. If they didnt do so, NATO would come apart because it rests at its core on the sense that were in this together. My best guess is that if Estonia were attacked, yes, NATO would come running. The United States would lead the effort. And thats because if we dont do it for Estonia, were not going to do it for anyone else, and the emperor has no clothes. This issue of Article 5 and collective defense has come back to life, partly because of the threat of terrorism but in a more traditional sense because the Russians in 2014 annexed Crimea and moved into eastern Ukraine.

ABC NEWS: 0:23: Good morning, Dan, the pressure from Russia is growing, large groups of pro-Russia troops surrounding Ukranian bases ordering their forces off of them so they can occupy them. The international warning to Russia to end its invasion is being ignored.

KUPCHAN: And this raised the prospect of Russia again becoming an expansionist power that would grab territory from its neighbors. And that led to an effort by the United States and its allies to begin to bolster defense on the eastern flank. It led to increases in defense expenditure that started during the Obama administration and increased into the Trump administration. More than $100 billion dollars increased in allied defense expenditure since 2016. And so this issue, which for a long time was kind of off-centerpeople really werent worried about an attack on NATO territoryis now front and center.

POLYAKOVA: The world today is just much more complex than it was during the Cold War so what is NATO's mission now- when you don't have the Soviet Union anymore, when you don't have the Warsaw Pact anymore, but now you have these far more complex problems that are threatening democracies and democratic institutions in various ways. And I think that kind of reckoning is happening right now.

FRIEND: Alright so I get NATOs history. But how does it work?

SIERRA: Right, like, if NATO troops get sent somewhere, whose troops are they?

FRIEND: Yup. And if its a mix of troops from Germany and the US and Italy and Turkey, whos telling them what to do?

SIERRA: So theres an actual NATO army?

KUPCHAN: There isnt a NATO army. There is a NATO command where individuals from all of the different members sit together and plan together. And then if NATO were called upon to act, the different countries would then contribute forces to that command. Those forces would be operating under the command of the supreme allied commander, who is always an American. And then they would be put into action.

SIERRA: And who pays for it?

KUPCHAN: There is a fairly small common budget that essentially covers things like the main office in Brussels, the command structure that I was talking about, and some joint infrastructure. That pales in comparison to the money that individual countries spend to have the forces ready to go into action if they were called upon.

SIERRA: We still hear a lot of criticism of NATO here in the U.S and you know, namely that it's been like a free ride for allies at our expense.

POLYAKOVA: The U.S does contribute the most to NATO, but that was by design. Because that allowed Europeans to take the funds and the money they would have normally invested in rebuilding their militaries, which had been the pattern up to that point. And they were able to invest all of that into their economies, and into rebuilding their countries, after they were, destroyed, during the second world war.

And so the reason why we've had prosperity in Europe throughout most of the 20th century is because the United States was there to provide that military umbrella and as a result, the U.S was safer because we completely took out any threats that could have emanated from Europe. If you want to use business-speak, you know, our return on investment was very high.

SIERRA: So it sounds like it's a little more of an intangible type of answer for people who are like, well, what does this mean to me today? It's a little more looking to history and also realizing that freedoms aren't necessarily free and we have them because of this.

POLYAKOVA: You know, I grew up, for the first 10 years of my life in Ukraine, which was part of the Soviet Union at the time. And my family was a family of political refugees. And what that meant was that we wanted to get out, like many people did. It felt like if we stayed in the Soviet Union, that felt like death, it could have been, you know, intellectual, emotional death because that was the reality. You know, in my family, during the Stalinist years, people disappeared, right? And we didn't know where they went. So to me, these experiences of deep, profound loss and tragedy and conflict were very personal. And I think it's hard to explain how to young people who grow up in the United States or other democracies, what it's like to live in an authoritarian state. It felt like we had to get into the United States, Europe, anywhere where we could finally just be free. And so to my mind, it is those alliances that make those kinds of institutions and values and principles live in reality. You know, we can talk about our belief in democracy. We can all agree that we want to live in a society that gives us freedom of speech and expression and, you know, the pursuit of happiness. But we have to also work to make them real. These are principles worth dying for, many people did. And I think we have to continue to remember that.

It can be easy to forget about something that was created long ago and far away. NATO is even harder to understand because its all about things that haven't happened. Wars, conflicts and divisions that the alliance has prevented. We dont talk about it at parties. But maybe we should, because with every new generation, we lose more of our direct connection to the past. Plus, who doesnt love to learn something new?

FRIEND: You know, I love learning something new.

SIERRA: Me too. I had no idea we would spend this entire party talking about NATO, but I actually enjoyed it.

FRIEND: Uh yeah.. and...in the spirit of old friends who stick together, should we keep this party going and grab a nightcap?

SIERRA: Lets do it.

MERRILL: Awesome! Okay, so how much do you know about the World Health Organization? And, like, what about the International Monetary Fund? And...

Theres a lot more to learn about NATO. So you can head on over to CFR.org/Whyitmatters and take a look at the show notes for this episode. And while youre there, check out the Councils other podcasts, The World Next Week, and The Presidents Inbox. Theyre pretty great!

Interested in saying hi to the team? Send us an email at whyitmatters@cfr.org. Be sure to subscribe to the show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or wherever you get your audio. And if you like the show, leave us a review! Why It Matters is a production of the Council on Foreign Relations. The show is created and produced by Jeremy Sherlick, Asher Ross, and me, Gabrielle Sierra. Our sound designer is Markus Zakaria. Robert McMahon is our Managing Editor, and Doug Halsey is our Chief Digital Officer. Original music is composed by Ceiri Torjussen. Special thanks go to Richard Haass and Jeff Reinke. And to our awesome guest for this episode, Cayla Merrill. Big thank you!

Hey and by the way, this episode was our tenth, and the last for the first season. Stay tuned in the coming weeks for a preview of our second season! Theres a lot of good stuff coming up. For Why It Matters, this is Gabrielle Sierra, signing off. See you soon!

Read more:
The One Where We Talk About NATO at a Party - Council on Foreign Relations

On Feb. 18, Turkey marked the 68th anniversary of its NATO membership with enthusiastic messages of commitment to the alliance and a series of laudatory events, which could have drawn little attention were they not in sharp contrast to the dismissive atmosphere of last years anniversary.

Neither Ankara nor the media seemed to care about the 67th anniversary of the countrys NATO membership last year. The occasion was passed over with a mundane statement by the Foreign Ministry, while the year 2019 in general was abuzz with debates, mostly in the pro-government media, on whether Turkey should leave the alliance.

Indeed, a long list of issues marred Turkey-NATO relations in 2019, including:

A persisting crisis mode in Ankaras ties with Washington and frequent disputes with European countries;

Turkeys Operation Peace Spring in northeastern Syria against the Peoples Protection Units (YPG), which Turkey sees as an extension of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), the armed group that has fought Ankara since 1984 and is considered a terrorist organization by most of the international community;

Ankaras refusal to back a NATO defense plan for the Baltics and Poland in a bid to extract political support for its military campaign against the PKK-affiliated YPG forces in Syria;

Ankaras gunboat diplomacy in the eastern Mediterranean amid growing tensions over gas exploration;

Ankaras acquisition of the Russian S-400 air defense systems, followed by preparatory tests and, most recently, the arrival of the systems missiles in December;

Ankaras signing of a maritime demarcation deal with Libyas Tripoli-based government in November and the ensuing criticism of Western governments;

Ankaras threats to review the NATO-mission status of key military facilities in Turkey such as the Incirlik air base and the Kurecik radar station;

Turkish accusations that NATO has protected Turkish officers with alleged links to the Gulenist network, which Ankara blames for the 2016 coup attempt, and that fugitive Turkish officers have been granted political asylum in some NATO member states through exclusive and expedited procedures;

The exclusion of Turkish officials from some critical NATO meetings.

In light of all those tensions, Turkeys pro-government media came to depict NATO as a top security threat. NATO became a hate object, accused of myriad misdeeds, from having a hand in orchestrating the coup attempt to plotting to divide Turkey.

On this years anniversary, however, things looked diametrically different. Ankara and the pro-government media seemed to have rediscovered NATO. The anniversary was celebrated with high-pitched gatherings, conferences and a government-backed social media campaign under the motto Turkey is NATO, we are NATO, which became a top trending topic on Twitter. In short, last years prevailing discourse that portrayed NATO as a shackle that keeps Turkey from acting independently to advance its national interests gave way to a narrative about NATO being an anchor bonding Turkey to the Western security bloc.

And what aroused this NATO fervor in a country where arguing in favor of NATO required much courage around this time last year? What happened in a couple of months to make Ankara remember NATOs importance as a security partner?

NATO itself did nothing special to win Ankaras affection. Yet, Turkeys relationship with Russia nosedived into a fresh chapter of chill as tensions shot up in Syrias rebel-held province of Idlib and Russias position in Libya shifted from impartial mediation to favoring Gen. Khalifa Hifter, the adversary of the Turkey-backed Tripoli government. As a result, Turkey and Russia have come to the brink of a military faceoff akin to the crisis of November 2015, when Turkey shot down a Russian jet at the border with Syria.

A quick survey of the pro-government medias coverage of Idlib and Libya would reveal a fast U-turn in sentiment since the Russian-brokered meeting between the Turkish and Syrian intelligence chiefs in Moscow on Jan. 13, when the Turkish-Russian partnership apparently began to crack.

Yet, judging by both Ankaras rhetoric on the importance of the Western security bloc and the publications of media outlets and think tanks close to the government, Ankaras outreach to NATO is a result of Turkeys predicament in Idlib and its need to counterbalance Russia rather than a sign of a structural, long-term reorientation.

For instance, in an article titled NATOs support of Turkey, a member of SETA, a staunchly pro-government think tank, asks the following questions: Can Turkey rely on NATO against Russia, [Syrian President Bashar al-] Assad and Iran in the problem it is experiencing in Idlib? Is NATO supposed to give Turkey practical support against those actors in Idlib? What does the Idlib crisis mean for NATO and its members? The author then proceeds to a cautiously optimistic conclusion on NATO backing.

And does Ankaras abrupt U-turn stem from conjunctural necessity or a new realization of its structural dependency on NATO?

The outlook suggests the change of heart is driven entirely by the dead ends that Turkey has hit in Idlib and Libya. To extricate itself from those dead ends, Turkey is attempting to counterbalance Russia and shift its bilateral relationship with Russia, which has spiraled out of balance and become a one-sided dependency, to a multilateral ground.

Ankara is obviously trying to draw NATO, the United States and European heavyweights into greater involvement in Idlib to readjust the balance, whileAssad's forces are expected to forge ahead until they assert control over the strategic M4 highway.

And is NATO capable of deterring Russia in Idlib at all?

Recalling the case of Ukraine might be enough to answer the question. Looking like a giant that cannot bite in the Ukraine crisis, NATO appears unlikely to take the risk of armed confrontation with Russia over Idlib, which it sees as an out-of-area conflict and outside the scope of the NATO treatys Article 5 on collective defense. The most tangible sign of NATOs reluctance on Syria is its foot-dragging on taking some operational responsibilities in the fight against the Islamic State in the 2014-2019 period.

NATO is likely to swiftly return to its hate-object status in Turkey if NATO fails to meet Ankaras request for urgent assistance. Ankara is in constant need for enemies real or imaginary to be able to sell to the Turkish public its rapid U-turns in its foreign policy and the consequences of its political and strategic miscalculations. NATO tops the nominee list of outside foes because it remains a common enemy on which pro-government quarters and the still influential anti-Western and Euroasianist lobbies in Ankara can agree and cooperate.

More here:
Turkey Can Ankara's sudden change of heart on NATO save the day in Idlib? -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sponsored: Quit your addiction to storage

See more here:
Data science pusher Dataiku hooks arms with NATO on battlefield AI contract - The Register

]]> Allied defence ministers recently agreed to enhance Nato training mission in Iraq. Credit: NATO.

The survey found that of 5,208 respondents 62% think that while NATO is still relevant to the defence of its member states, the organisation needs an overhaul to be more effective. 20% of readers said that the organisation was relevant in its current form, whereas 18% disagreed.

NATO has been the subject of a number of statements from world leaders questioning its effectiveness, with French President Emmanuel Macron claiming the organisation was brain-dead and US President Donald Trump criticising European contributions to the organisations.

Relations within the organisation have also been strained by Turkeys growing closeness to Russia and its decision to buy the Russian S-400 Air Defence system, resulting in the countrys expulsion from the F-35 programme.

Our poll asked Is NATO still relevant for the defence of member states?; 1,067 responded Yes in the current format, 3,214 responded Yes, but it is in need of an overhaul to be more effective and, 927 responded No.

At last Decembers NATO Engages event, leaders from across the alliance accepted that the organisation needs to adapt to new threats and develop a response to emerging threats of hypersonic missiles and cyberwarfare.

Speaking at the event, UK Defence Secretary Ben Wallace said: Today we face new challenges, and in keeping with our best traditions we must continue to adapt. Traditional warfare has changed. The threats are no longer only conventional, no longer only overt. Our adversaries are striking from the shadows.

They are pursuing new tactics to divide and destabilise, exploiting new technologies to exacerbate the uncertainties of an uncertain world, and undermine our way of life.

Despite the event taking place shortly after Macrons criticism, Wallace said that the organisation was the still most effective tool for the defence of its members adding that a collective response to modern challenges would assert NATOs power.

Wallace said: We must stand together, no side deals, no separate voices. Our adversaries strive for that division; they fund that division and target that division. We will not let them succeed.

In recent years, European NATO allies have sought to step up their contributions to the organisations in the face of US pressure to share more of the burden. According to the International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS) report The Military Balance 2020, around two-thirds of allies are aiming to reach the recommended 2% of GDP by 2024.

NATO is also funnelling money into research and development to maintain its edge and adapt to new threats, with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg in the past saying that the organisation was pushing for 20% of budgets to be spent on research and development.

While NATO has responded to new challenges internal debates continue to be discussed on what the biggest threats to the alliance are. In the past Macron has claimed it is terrorism, while members in Eastern Europe say it is the increasing activity of Russia and the annexation of areas of Georgia and Ukraine.

In response to Russia, NATO has stepped up its presence in Eastern European states to maintain a strong deterrent force.

Follow this link:
NATO needs an overhaul - Army Technology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Michael Klare: Thank you.

Erik Vold: Thank you.

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

See the article here:
NATO's Arctic War Exercise Unites Climate Change and WWIII - The Real News Network

The second volume of Winston Churchills The Second World War is titled Alone. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoan seems intent on preparing to apply that title to a volume in the series recording Turkeys position in the ongoing Syrian war, now several years longer than WWII.

Over the last few years, he struck out on an ambitious program to expand Turkeys and his influence to entanglements in foreign lands - Qatar, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, and Syria most of all. Now he finds his nation facing a vengeful Syrian leader undeterred in his drive to restore control over every square foot of Syrian land. Unlike his Syrian rival, Erdoan does not enjoy unrestricted support for his military endeavours from a powerful third state.

To his dismay, he is learning too late that Russias President Vladimir Putin was happy to encourage Turkeys distancing itself from the West and its accompanying increased dependency on Russia as it serves Putins interests, but not Turkeys. Both the distancing and dependency will prove difficult to undo.

Recent press accounts quote Turkish Defence Minister Hulusi Akar as suggesting Turkey will turn to the United States and other NATO countries to secure thedeployment of Patriotmissile defence batteries near its border with Syria. Some officials and pundits of western countries see in this suggestion an opportunity to foster a rapprochement between Turkey and the other NATO members and pull Erdoans Turkey away from Russia.

But, would Putin let Turkey simply walk away? Would members of the U.S. Congress back providing support for Ankara given thepresence of Islamist militantsin the Turkish-backed Syrian rebels? Recent Twitter comments by Senator Bob Menendezreveal a strong reluctance to re-engage with Turkey as if Erdoans anti-U.S. and anti-West rhetoric had never happened.

Which leaves the U.S. initiative to support Erdoan in the hands of President Donald Trump. Not likely - the Turkish President has disappointed Trump too many times.

Erdoan told Trump thatTurkey could handle the Islamic State (ISIS) in Syriaso U.S. troops could leave. Trump touted this guarantee when he announced the withdrawal of U.S. forces. Erdoan then attacked the Kurds, erstwhile U.S. battlefield allies, more than the remnants of the ISIS. In some cases, Turkey used irregular fighters under its control that many others considered being Islamist militants affiliated with al Qaeda or other radical Sunni terrorist groups. Though Trump is unlikely to admit it, he was forced to back-pedal on his decision to remove all U.S. forces from Syria. One wonders if any of Trumps advisors had the courage to tell him that Erdoan had misled him. Perhaps Trump remains convinced that he can still rely on Erdoan - more likely not.

One suspects from the brief non-committal Feb. 18readout from the tarmacof a recent conversation between the two leaders that Trump has little use for Erdoan and even less motivation to help him. In the past, the U.S. President could be expected to stand apart from the anti-Erdoan (and by extension anti-Turkey) rhetoric coming from pundits and politicians in Washington. But with Erdoan being at best unhelpful in Libya, contentious in the Eastern Mediterranean over rich hydrocarbon resources, strongly denouncing the U.S. Middle East peace plan for Israel and Palestine, and presuming incorrectly that the United States needs Turkey more than vice versa, its hard to see Trump set aside his America First stance to save Erdoan from the dilemma he has put himself in.

Might Erdoan be able to blackmail European countries in possession of Patriots to lend those to defend Turkey or provide other assistance to his forces in Syria? Would veiled threats of unleashing a tsunami of migrants from Turkey into Europe motivate the European leaders to help Erdoan in his Syria deployment? Not likely.

Theanti-immigrant sentimentsin European politics have increased dramatically in the last few years. Centrist politicians know their political careers would be ruined by allowing millions of migrants, regardless of humanitarian needs, into Europe. The more likely response among more sophisticated commentators would be a stiffening of the borders, and a hardening of attitudes against Turkey, or at least against Erdoan.

Thus, at least in Syria, Erdoan and Turkey are on their own. Putin will restrain Assad only as much as Putin deems it necessary to maintain the appearance of being an honest broker between Erdoan and Assad. Also, he will restrain Assad from attacking Turkish forces in Turkey, which could lead to a collective NATO response under Article 5 of theAlliance Treaty(Article 5 does not apply to a Syrian attack on Turkish forces operating in Syria, see Article 6 of the Treaty.)

This is another reason why the deployment of Patriots to Turkey is unnecessary. Theprevious deployments of Patriotswere needed to defend against an inadvertent or poorly aimed missile impacting Turkey. Very few considered it a serious possibility that Assad would deliberately target Turkey, for doing so would have called forth a collective NATO response. And now, Assads forces are using helicopters and aircraft to bomb the opposition in Syria, not launching SCUDs or similar rockets against those near the border with Turkey, further undermining the supposed need for Patriots. Turkey does not need U.S.-made batteries to defend itself from Syrian missiles - its soldiers need re-deployment out of the path of the Assads forces committed to conquering all Syrian territory regardless of who stands in their way.

In sum, Erdoan stands alone, but not as the leader of a nation united against threatened foreign invasion and fighting for its survival, but as the director of efforts to extend his influence while distracting the nation from its internal discord.

Ahval English

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

See the article here:
Will U.S. and NATO deliver Patriot missiles to Turkey? - Ahval

The Turkish government released a video to celebrate the 68th anniversary of NATO membership, which includes a map of Cyprus marked in red.

Today we proudly celebrate the 68th anniversary of Turkeys accession to NATO. Throughout the 68 years, our country has protected NATOs borders and upheld the alliances values and principles, Osman Akn Bak, who is also a lawmaker of Turkeys ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party), said in a tweet.

This is another provocative tactic.

Last year, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan was photographedstanding in front of a map that depicts half of the Aegean Sea as well as the eastern coast of Crete belonging to Turkey.

*Credit: T.C. Mill Savunma Bakanl

Erdogan photographed in front of Turkey, Blue Homeland map

See the article here:
Turkey celebrates "the 68th anniversary of NATO membership" with a provocative message - Greek City Times

One of the four Norwegian Air Force F-35 touching down at Keflavik Air Base deploying its brake chute. (Image credit: Sigurd Tonning Olson).

On Feb. 19, 2020, four RoNAF F-35A aircraft arrived in Iceland, where they have deployed to support NATOs Airborne Surveillance and Interception Capabilities to meet Icelands Peacetime Preparedness Needs (ASIC IPPN) mission. The purpose of the NATO mission, initiated in 2008, after the withdrawal of US forces from the island, is to provide air surveillance and interception coverage over Iceland, in order to maintain the integrity of the NATO airspace.

The RNoAF F-35s will carry out a 3-week deployment with some 130 military and civilian personnel; Norwegian Control and Reporting Centre (CRC) personnel will be working alongside their Icelandic Coast Guard colleagues in the CRC at Keflavik Air Base.

RNoAF is the second F-35 operator to deploy the 5th generation aircraft in support of NATOs Icelandic Air Policing: the first one was the Italian Air Force, that deployed its Lightning II jets to Keflavik in October 2019.

Norwegian F-35As achieved the IOC (Initial Operational Capability) on November 6, 2019, becoming the third European country to reach IOC with the F-35 after Italy and the UK. The deployment to Iceland is a milestone towards full operational capability in 2025. The RNoAF plans to replace its F-16s, that are currently performing Quick Reaction Alert missions, by 2022, when there will be enough F-35s (out of 52 ordered), pilots and maintainers available to deploy to Evenes Air Station (Northern Norway).

Norwegian F-35s are unique compared to other nations F-35s as they are the only ones to use a drag chute during landing, housed in a special fairing on the upper rear fuselage between the vertical tails. It can be used to rapidly decelerate Norwegian F-35s after landing on icy runways under windy conditions.

See the rest here:
Norwegian F-35s Have Deployed To Iceland for NATO Air Policing Mission - The Aviationist