Daily Archives: March 8, 2022

Russian President Vladimir Putin's brutal campaign to deter Ukrainian admission to NATO has inadvertently boosted the military alliance's popularity among other prospective member states.

As Russia's assault on its neighbor intensifies, nearby Finland and Sweden are rethinking their long-standing positions of military neutrality, with a majority of voters now favoring membership of the 30-member alliance for the first time.

In opinion polls released Friday, half (51%) of Swedes and 48% of Finns said they would support their country joining NATO, while around one-quarter opposed it. An earlier poll conducted in February indicated majority Finnish support too.

Speaking to CNBC Monday, Finland's former prime minister said the recent Finnish poll represents a "reversal" in public opinion reflecting the "rational fear" currently felt by the public.

"[It's] fear of an aggressive superpower in the form of Russia. Fear of an aggressor and a military power," Alexander Stubb told CNBC's "Street Signs Europe."

Prospective NATO members can apply to the defense bloc by meeting certain political and economic requirements, with eventual admittance being voted on by existing member states.

However, any move for the two Nordic states to join is unlikely to be speedy or straightforward.

Right now, we do not want to escalate the crisis or the war up here to the northeastern part of Europe.

Alexander Stubb

professor and director, European University Institute

Putin has long viewed NATO's refusal to block its neighbor, Ukraine, from the alliance as an act of military aggression, listing it among a series of preconditions for halting his current assault. Admitting Finland which shares a 1,300 kilometer land border with Russia, the European Union's largest or Sweden would likely be met with similar resistance.

Indeed, Russia's defense minister has previously said such moves would be met with military consequences. Already, Russian warplanes have reportedly been intruding into Swedish airspace.

Jeff Overs | BBC News & Current Affairs | Getty Images

Authorities in Sweden and Finland have so far shown no signs of testing that resolve.

Sweden's Defense Minister Peter Hultqvist told reporters last week that despite deepening its cooperation with NATO, it would not change its position overnight based solely on opinion polls.

Meanwhile, Stubb, who served from 2014 to 2015, said the current government was increasing military spending but stopping short of NATO membership.

"Right now, we do not want to escalate the crisis or the war up here to the northeastern part of Europe," said Stubb, who is currently a professor and director of transnational governance at the European University Institute.

Still, the shift in public mood is a historic one for two countries with previously amicable relations with Russia, and another potential miscalculation in Putin's war.

"I predict that as the war is prolonged, day by day, support for Finnish NATO membership will increase," said Stubb.

"The train has left the station," he added.

View original post here:
Putin wanted to block Ukrainian NATO membership. Now more countries are eager to join - CNBC

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Monday assured Lithuania and Latvia of NATO protection and American support as he made quick visits to two of three Baltic states that are increasingly on edge as Russia presses ahead with its invasion of Ukraine.

Along with Estonia, which Blinken will visit on Tuesday, the former Soviet republics are NATO members, and the Biden administration is aiming to calm any fears they have about their security in the event Russia chooses to expand its military operations.

In the Latvian capital, Riga, Blinken said the Baltics have formed a democratic wall that now stands against the tide of autocracy that Russia is pushing in Europe. The United States is more committed than ever to standing with you as our democracies rise to the challenge, Blinken said.

We are bolstering our shared defense so that we and our allies are prepared, he said, stressing that the US commitment to NATOs mutual defence pact is sacrosanct and that NATO and the US were discussing the permanent basing of troops in the Baltics.

We will defend every inch of NATO territory if it comes under attack, he said. No one should doubt our readiness. No one should doubt our resolve.

Leaders in both countries expressed grave concerns about Russian President Vladimir Putins intentions as it relates to former Soviet bloc countries that are now allied or otherwise linked to the West.

We have no illusions about Putins Russia any more, Latvian foreign minister Edgars Rinkevics said after meeting Blinken in Riga. We dont really see any good reason to assume that Russia might change its policy.

Rinkevics said that the Russian invasion of Ukraine had shown the Baltic countries, in particular, the need to bolster air and coastal defenses and that Latvia would like its security cooperation with NATO to be more efficient.

Unfortunately, the worsening security situation in the Baltic region is of great concern for all of us and around the world, Lithuanian President Gitanas Nauseda told Blinken earlier in Vilnius. Russias reckless aggression against Ukraine once again proves that it is a long-term threat to European security, the security of our alliance.

Memories of Soviet rule are still fresh in the Baltics and since the invasion of Ukraine last month, NATO has moved quickly to boost its troop presence in its eastern flank allies while the US has pledged additional support.

Blinken opened his Baltic tour in Vilnius, where Lithuanian support for Ukraines resistance to the Russian invasion was palpable as signs of solidarity with Ukrainians are evident in many businesses and on houses, public buildings and buses. He later traveled to Riga, which has been similarly festooned with blue and yellow Ukrainian flags.

Lithuanias Nauseda said a policy of deterrence was no longer enough and that forward defence was now needed. He predicted that Putin will not stop in Ukraine if he will not be stopped.

It is our collective duty as a nation to help all Ukrainians with all means available, said Nauseda. By saying all, I mean, indeed all means all, if we want to avoid the Third World War. The choice is in our hands.

Lithuanian foreign minister Gabrielius Landsbergis called for a surge in assistance to Ukraine, noting that the NATO allies are doing a lot, but we cannot stop. He also called for an immediate halt to imports of Russian energy. We cannot pay for oil and gas with Ukrainian blood, he said.

Lithuania is dealing with pressure from another large power China for its relationship with Taiwan, the island China regards as a renegade province. China has taken actions, including halting imports of certain products, against Lithuania for allowing Taiwan to open a de facto embassy in Vilnius.

Blinken said the Ukraine situation was relevant to Lithuanias Taiwan situation as all countries should have the right to pursue their own foreign policies. Every nation is free to associate with whom it chooses, he said. The United States continues to stand by Lithuania and every nation to choose its own path.

Blinken arrived in the Baltics late Sunday from non-aligned Moldova, which is also warily watching the war on its doorstep, and Poland, where he visited the Polish-Ukrainian border and met with refugees from Ukraine.

After his meetings with senior Latvian officials and Israeli foreign minister Yair Lapid in Riga, Blinken will visit Tallinn, Estonia on Tuesday and then go on to Paris for talks with French President Emmanuel Macron.

Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett met with Putin over the weekend and Macron has been in frequent contact with the Russian leader. Both Israel and France sought meetings with Blinken to discuss those interactions.

Blinken declined to discuss those meetings in detail before they have been held but said: There is certainly no change in our message to Moscow, our message to Russia and to President Putin: End the war. End it now.

Follow this link:
Blinken tells nervous Baltics NATO will protect them from Russia - Al Jazeera English

A Ukrainian military vehicle speeds by on a main road near Sytnyaky, Ukraine, on March 3, 2022.

Photo: Marcus Yam/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

Many governments of the world havedenounced Putins actions. But when it comes to the U.S. and its NATO allies, these condemnations demand greater scrutiny. While many statements from Western leaders may be accurate regarding the nature of Russias actions, the U.S. and other NATO nations are in a dubious position to take a moralistic stance in condemning Russia. That they do so with zero recognition of their own hypocrisy, provocative actions, and history of unbridled militarism particularly in the case of the U.S. is deeply problematic. From the beginning of this crisis, Putin has exploited the militarism and past bombing campaigns of the U.S. and NATO to frame his own warped justification for his murderous campaign in Ukraine. But the fact that Putin is trying to justify the unjustifiable does not mean that wemust ignore the U.S. actions that fuel his narrative.

In recent days, U.S. and NATO officials have highlighted Russias use of banned weapons, including cluster munitions, and have said their use constitutes violations of international law. This is indisputably true. What goes virtually unmentioned in much of the reporting on this topic is that the U.S., like both Russia and Ukraine, refuses to sign the Convention on Cluster Munitions.

The U.S. has repeatedly used cluster bombs, going back to the war in Vietnam and the secret bombings of Cambodia. In the modern era, both Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush used them. President Barack Obama used cluster bombs in a 2009 attack in Yemen that killed some 55 people, the majority of them women and children. Despite the ban, which wasfinalized in 2008 and went into effect in 2010, the U.S.continued to sell cluster bombs to nations like Saudi Arabia, which regularly used them in its attacks inYemen. In 2017, President Donald Trump reversed an internal U.S. policy aimed at limiting the use of certain types of cluster munitions, a move which a Human Rights Watch expert warned could embolden others to use cluster munitions that have caused so much human suffering. None of this exonerates Russia for its unconscionable use of cluster bombs against civilians, but these facts are clearly relevant when assessing the credibility of the U.S.

It is much easier to express outrage at the actions and crimes of a foreign autocrat than it is to come to terms with the conduct of your own government. This is why the images of masses of Russians protesting in the streets is a more powerful repudiation of Putins war than the rhetoric from U.S. politicians on cable news or the statements from NATO officials.

It is also true that the laws of war and international law should applynot only to the declared bad guys of the moment or toparties thatunilaterally attack other nations, but also to every nation including our own. Putin has framed his aggression against Ukraine in part as a response to NATO expansion, and he and other Russian officials have in recent weeks invoked the 1999 Kosovo war as precedent for Russias current actions in Ukraine.

Moscows argument is that the U.S. and NATO, under the pretext of humanitarian intervention, and with no United Nations authorization, unilaterally bombed Serbia for more than two months in 1999 followed by a ground incursion into Kosovo. In February, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov suggested, in remarks at the U.N., that the U.S. had set a precedent with the Kosovo war and that this negated the value of Western critiques of Russiasplansto attack Ukraine. Ihave torecall these facts, because some Western colleagues prefer toforget them, Putin said in his February 24 speech. When we mentioned the [Kosovo war], they prefer toavoid speaking about international law.

Although many of Putins comparisons are nonsense and even when they are cogent do nothing to justify his own current murderous campaign, there are relevant insights we can extract from reviewing some of NATOs actions in Kosovo.The most direct analogy in recent U.S. military history to Putins large-scale ground invasion of Ukraine is obviously the Iraq War.Yet its important to examine the Kosovo air war because it highlights military tactics that the U.S. and NATO now rightly condemn Russia for using. Like Iraq, it also illustrates the entrenched double standard that permeates the consistently hypocritical U.S. response to the actions of its enemies.

Slobodan Miloevi had for many years imposed a system of minority rule, repression, and terror against Kosovo Albanians, which constituted 90 percent of the southern provinces population. Beginning in 1989, he began to hack away at Kosovos long-held autonomous status within the Yugoslav federation. The situation steadily deteriorated over the next decade as Yugoslavia disintegrated, and by 1998 the U.S. was threatening to intervene militarily to confrontMiloevi, accusing his forces of massacring and terrorizing Albanian civilians andplotting a wider campaign of ethnic cleansing.

Throughout the year leading up to the NATO bombing, Miloevis forces regularly clashed with armed insurgents from the separatist Kosovo Liberation Army. After the killing of several police officers in early 1998, Miloevis forces launched a murderous retaliatory campaign in which they repeatedly killed civilians, including the family members of KLA guerrillas.Human rights groups also documented abuses by the KLA, including killings and kidnappings of civilians, though on a far smaller scale than those carried out by Serbian forces. This situation, combined with the general state of repression of ethnic Albanians, brought Kosovo to wider public attention and drew sharper focus from the U.S. and NATO, which stood accused, earlier in the decade, of failing to respond earlier to the mass slaughter of Bosnian Muslims.

There were also influential voices in the U.S. including then-Sen. Joe Biden, who advocated directly targetingSerbia and Miloevi since the Bosnia warand the worsening situation in Kosovo helped them make their case. We talk about humanitarian interests it far exceeds the humanitarian interest, Biden said in October 1998. If I were president, I would just bomb him, and I mean that sincerely, and I would have the NATO allies come along. Belgrades position was that it was engaged in a fight against terrorist KLA militants and that theU.S. and NATO wereattempting to undermine the countrys sovereignty, a position supported by both Russia and China. As the violence intensified in early 1999, and reports of Serbian police andspecial forces killing civilians garnered more public attention, the prospect of a U.S.-NATO war became real.

By March 1999, an estimated 460,000residents of Kosovo had been internally displaced, forced from their homes, or fled to neighboring countries. The U.S.-NATO position was that given the mass atrocities committed by Bosnian Serb forces throughout the early 1990s in Bosnia, particularly the massacre of 8,000 Bosnian Muslim men and boys at Srebrenica in July 1995, it was necessary to stop Miloevi from accelerating a campaign of ethnic cleansing against the majority ethnic Albanian population of Kosovo. Multiple subsequent war crimes trials at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia determined the Srebrenica massacre to be an act of genocide.

NATOasserted that in order to avert a bombing campaign,Miloevi would have to sign the Rambouillet Accord andagree to the deployment of as many as 30,000 NATO-led troops in Kosovo. Thedocument, drafted by NATO and signed by representatives of the Kosovo Albanians, contained a provision that stated NATO personnel shall enjoy, together with their vehicles, vessels, aircraft, and equipment, free and unrestricted passage and unimpeded access not just in Kosovo but also throughout the entire Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. In mid-March, international monitors pulled out of Kosovo asNATO military action grew imminent. Miloevis forcesused the opportunityto intensify their rampages through KLA strongholds, burning Albanian homes and shops. Clinton dispatched his envoy Richard Holbrooke to Belgrade to personally meet with Miloevi on March 23. We presented the ultimatum to Milosevic that if he didnt sign the agreement, the bombing would start, Holbrooke recalled. And he said, No.

Russia was the most powerful ally of Miloevi and was dead set against the U.S. and NATO bombing Serbia. Clinton failed to get U.N. approval for a military operation, in part because of Russias repeated threats of a veto, so he sidestepped the fierce debates in both Congress and the U.N. and, on March 24, proceeded with a NATO military operation. Congress never authorized the war despite the efforts of Biden, one of the most passionate proponents of bombing Serbia. Russia, for its part, denounced the bombing as prematurely abandoning diplomacy and characterized it as a violation of the U.N. charter. From Moscows perspective, NATO was steadily asserting its dominance over the republics of the former Yugoslavia, which had been a socialist, nonaligned state since the end of World War II.

At the end of the bombing, Russian forces entered Kosovo ahead of NATO and briefly took control of a key airport resulting in a showdown between NATO and Russia, which some analysts feared could have severe consequences. Putin, who at the timewas head of Russias national security council, has actuallyclaimed hehad a role in the incident. While it was ultimately resolved peacefully, at one point during the standoff a British general refused to implement the orders of U.S. Gen.Wesley Clark, the NATO supreme allied commander, to block the runway. Lt. Gen. Michael Jackson reportedlytold Clark, I am not going to start Third World War for you. The U.S. ultimately establisheda large military base in the Balkans, Camp Bondsteel, and led the effort to make Kosovo, at the time a Serbian province, an independent state. To Russia, this campaign constituted an act of aggression by NATO, in circumvention of the U.N., that carved up the territory of a Russian ally in Europe and resulted in a new U.S.-NATO military base in Europe.

High U.S. officials confirm that it was primarily the bombing of Russian ally Serbia without even informing them in advance that reversed Russian efforts to work together with the U.S. somehow to construct a post-Cold War European security order, said Noam Chomsky in a recent interview. This reversal accelerated with the invasion of Iraq and the bombing of Libya after Russia agreed not to veto a UN Security Council Resolution that NATO at once violated.

None of this history lends an iota of legitimacy to Putins invasion of Ukraine. What it does offer, however, is an opportunity for the citizens of the U.S. and NATO countries to review the history of their own forces and to examine the ways in which our conduct damages our moral standing and ultimately gives propagandistic fodder to leaders like Putin.

The fact that Miloevi was a murderous gangster who orchestrated mass deportations, atrocities, and widespread killings of ethnic Albanians in Kosovo does not justify NATOs repeated use of cluster bombs, including on a crowded marketplace and hospital in the city of Ni, killing more than a dozen people. Human Rights Watch determined NATO killed between 90 to 150 civilians in cluster bomb attacks. Nor does it exonerate Clark, theNATO supreme allied commander, for ordering the deliberate missile attack on Radio Television Serbia that killed 16 media workers in April 1999, an act which Amnesty International labeled a war crime. It does not excuse the U.S. bombing of the Chinese Embassy (which killed three journalists), or any of the other U.S.-NATO attacks that killed civilians.

The U.S. and its allies also sought, at times, to cover up or justify incidents in which they killed civilians. In one attack, NATO struck a civilian passenger train on a bridge, killing 10 people. It later released a videotape that was played at three times the speed, making it appear as though the strike was a split-second decision and a tragic mistake. But moments after the strike, NATO fired another missile at the train. In another incident, NATO bombed a convoy of Albanian refugees fleeing Serb forces on April 14, 1999. Some 73 civilians, including 16 children, were killed in the attack, which was carried out by an American F-16. After initiallysuggesting that Serbian forces hadkilled the refugees, NATO was forced when international journalists traveled to the scene to admit responsibility for the strike. NATO then expressed deep regret for what it labeled a mistake, though NATO spokesperson Jamie Shea also assertedthat sometimes one has to risk the lives of the few to save the lives of the many. A month later, NATObombed another convoy of Kosovo Albanian refugees in a similar strike.

The overwhelming majority of Kosovo Albanians who were killed by Serbian forces perished after the NATO bombing began. Miloevi unleashed both conventional and special units as well as vicious paramilitaries in a systematic and deliberately organized mass killing and forced displacement operation. The Independent International Commission on Kosovoconcluded, The NATO air campaign did not provoke the attacks on the civilian Kosovar population but the bombing created an environment that made such an operation feasible. More than 8,600 Albanian civilians were killed or disappeared between 1998-2000, according to human rights groups; more than 2,000 Serb, Roma, and other non-Albanian civilians died or went missing during the same period.

Within nine weeks of the beginning of the air strikes, nearly 860,000 Kosovo Albanians fled or were expelled, according to areportfrom the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees. They did so amid a campaign of terror, rape, and pillaging by both official and paramilitary forces. The NATO strikes were accompanied by escalating violence on the ground and a large refugee outflow that included organized expulsions, according to the UNHCR. The sequence of violence and displacement underlined the importance of the Western powers in the events that produced the refugee emergency. After the war, when NATO occupied Kosovo, some 200,000 Serbs, Roma, and other minorities fled their homes, the UNHCR found.

The crimes of despots, dictators, and thugs do not give the U.S. and NATO permission to kill civilians.

These facts do not justify a single thing Miloevi and his forces did, and Miloevi deserved his indictment for war crimes. International prosecutors charged that Miloevi planned, instigated, ordered, committed or otherwise aided and abetted in a deliberate and widespread or systematic campaign of terror and violence directed at Kosovo Albanian civilians. The vast majority of the charges against Miloevi were for killings and other crimes against Albanians that occurred after the start of the NATO bombing. In 2001, after being ousted from power amid his attempts to overturn an election he lost, Miloevi was arrested by Serbian special forces in the middle of the night and extradited to The Hague to face trial for his role in mass killings and other atrocities in Bosnia, Croatia, and Kosovo. He died in jail before his trial ended. The crimes of despots, dictators, and thugs including vile criminals like Miloevi do not give the U.S. and NATO permission to kill civilians. Nor do they grant authority to the U.S. to bomb other nations for 78 days, particularly when Congress has explicitly declined to authorize the action. The crimes of declared enemies also do not erase the culpability of the U.S. and its personnel for war crimes.

It is precisely the history of these actions by the U.S. and NATO that Putin has sought to weaponize in his insane attempts to justify his invasion of Ukraine. That some of these claims are rooted in fact does not absolve Putin of a single Russian atrocity. But citizens of the U.S. and other NATO nations should deeply examine whether they support the use by their own governments of some of the very tactics and weapons favored by Putin.It is also relevant that to this day there has been no accountability for the crimes committed by the U.S. in its invasion and occupation of Iraq, its 20-year war in Afghanistan, the post-9/11 CIA torture and kidnapping program, or the killing of civilians in drone and other airstrikes in numerous countries. The U.S. has systematized a self-exoneration machine. And Russia and every nation on Earth knows it.

Since the invasion of Ukraine began, people expressing horror and outrage at Putins actions in Ukraine while also referencing the history of the U.S. and NATO governments have been portrayed as traitors or apologists for Russia. This is a classic tactic in the history of pro-war discourse; it has been used throughout U.S. history and was a common cudgel used to attack anti-war views in the aftermath of 9/11.

The U.S. has systematized a self-exoneration machine.

There is no contradiction between standing with the people of Ukraine and against Russias heinous invasion and being honest about the hypocrisy, war crimes, and militarism of the U.S. and NATO. We have an undeniable moral responsibility to prioritize holding our own government accountable for its crimes because they are being done in our names and with our tax dollars. That does not mean we should be silent in the face of the crimes of Russia or other nations, but we do bear a specific responsibility for the acts of war committed by our own nations.

Some prominent U.S. politicians and diplomats have also called for collective punishment against ordinary Russian people in order to pressure them into toppling Putins government, and Sen. Lindsey Graham went so far as to openly encourage Russians to assassinate Putin. While many opponents of Russias invasion and Putin have been clear that they do not hold Russian people responsible for the crimes of their leaders, some high-profile U.S. political figures have taken a different stance. There are no more innocent neutral Russians anymore, tweeted Michael McFaul, the former U.S. ambassador to Russia under Obama. Everyone has to make a choice support or oppose this war. The only way to end this war is if 100,000s, not thousands, protest against this senseless war. Putin cant arrest you all! McFaul later deleted the tweet. Ordinary Russians will be key to any meaningful hope of ending this war and Putins insanity, but we cant overlook the brutality they face from their own government. Those who are protesting inside of Russia deserve immense credit for their bravery. Sanctions aimed at billionaire Putin cronies and government officials responsible for this invasion are fundamentally different from sanctions that directly impact civilians in an effort to blackmail them into an uprising against a regime that has shown no compunction about violently repressing and at times murdering dissidents.

The global response to Putins war has already exposed the tragic double standard when it comes to war victims. The people of Yemen have been suffering for more than a decade under a merciless campaign of bombing initiated by Obama in 2009thatmorphed into a scorched-earth campaign by U.S.-armed-and-supported Saudi Arabia, whichcontinues to this moment. How many of the people with Ukrainian flag avatars on their Twitter profiles have spent days or weeks pleading for the world to stand up for ordinary Yemenis living under the hell of American bombs and Saudi warplanes? The same question applies in the case of the Palestinians who live under an apartheid state imposed by Israel and backed up by a sustained campaign of annihilation supported and encouraged by the U.S. How can people argue in favor of Ukrainian rights to self-defense while simultaneously stripping Palestinians of that same right?

Vladimir Putin and the Russian officials responsible for this invasion of Ukraine should face justice. Once the evidence has been gathered, every war crime should be investigated, indictments issued, and prosecutions undertaken. The obvious venue for this would be before the International Criminal Court. Yet here is an inconvenient fact: The U.S. has refused to ratify the Rome Statute, which established the ICC. In 2002, Bush signed legislation that authorizes the U.S. to literally conduct military operations in The Hague to liberate anyAmerican personnel brought to trial for war crimes. It is indefensible that the U.S. has established a precedent that powerful nations need not be held accountable for their crimes. It is a precedent that Russia knows well, exploits regularly, and will certainly use again and again.

Read more from the original source:
Putin's Criminal Invasion of Ukraine Highlights Some Ugly Truths About U.S. and NATO - The Intercept

A staff member, center right, from the Russian representative office receives a protest sign from a demonstrator during a protest against Russia's invasion of Ukraine, outside the Russian representative office in Taipei, Taiwan, on March 1, 2022. (Sam Yeh, AFP via Getty Images/TNS)

Chinas concern that the U.S. is seeking to build an Indo-Pacific version of NATO has one major problem: A previous effort failed in the 1970s, and most Asian countries havent been interested in trying again.

China Foreign Minister Wang Yi raised eyebrows on Monday when he accused the U.S. of looking to form a NATO-style military alliance to maintain theU.S.-ledsystemof hegemony. The charge echoed Russian President Vladimir Putins justification for invading Ukraine, raising questions about whether Beijing may one day take similar preemptive military action in the region.

But as European nations become increasingly open to joining the U.S.-led military alliance, Asian governments that dont already have mutual defense treaties with America have been reluctant to get too close. Many are economically dependent on China, whose economy is 10 times larger than Russias, and have resisted picking sides in the broader geopolitical struggle between the worlds biggest economies.

It certainly is a nonstarter for our region, definitely, Marty Natalegawa, Indonesias foreign minister from 2009 to 2014, said of an Indo-Pacific NATO. Whenever you speak either of Southeast Asia or the Indo-Pacific in general, for decades our efforts have been to build an architecture that is inclusive in nature, rather than returning to the old Cold War, East-West type of divisions.

Southeast Asias modern-day foreign policy is mostly aimed at avoiding becoming a battleground in great-power competition, as occurred during the Vietnam War and other bloody conflicts. Back then, the U.S. and other colonial powers sought to form the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization as a regional NATO to fight communism, but it suffered from organizational problems and eventually disbanded in 1977.

While Beijing long benefited from peace in the region underpinned by the U.S. military, over the past few decades it has accused America of militarizing the South China Sea and seeking to contain Chinas rise. At the same time, Chinas reputation has suffered due to its increased assertiveness over disputed territory along the Indian border and the South China Sea, and use of economic coercion against Australia, South Korea, Japan and other nations.

I cant think of a single country in this region that doesnt have some concerns about Chinese behavior, said Bilahari Kausikan, who was the top bureaucrat in Singapores Foreign Ministry until 2013.

While the U.S. has security arrangements with most countries in Asia, they are fundamentally different from NATO, which provides for a common defense if one member is attacked.

All of the U.S. mutual defense treaties in Asia with Japan, South Korea, the Philippines and Australia are bilateral and have been around for decades. The other agreements in the five-four-three-two formation that Chinas Wang cited on Monday Five Eyes, the Quad and Aukus dont contain any military obligations.

China is right to be worried about solidarity among democracies and middle powers, and Ukraine is an extraordinary example now of democratic solidarity building, said Rory Medcalf, head of the Australian National Universitys National Security College who wrote Indo-Pacific Empire: China, America and the Contest for the Worlds Pivotal Region. Thats quite distinct from a formal treaty commitment to automatically go to war with a great power.

The one wild card in the region is Taiwan, which is the main issue China cares about and the biggest flash point with America. While the U.S. formally ended its defense treaty with Taiwan in the 1970s when it recognized Beijing as Chinas legal government, many analysts still expect the U.S. and its allies to intervene in a conflict.

Still, the U.S. and Taiwans leaders have avoided a formal declaration of independence that would trigger a war, and China faces a host of risks if it invades including pushing Asia into more formal security alliances with the U.S.

The only way such a security alliance could emerge would be through some kind of shock look at the responses to Russias invasion of Ukraine, said Natasha Kassam, director of the Lowy Institutes public opinion and foreign policy program. Countries in the region would need to feel as imperiled by China to consider such a significant departure from their current positions.

Right now theres no sign of that. In 2020, China was by far the biggest partner in Southeast Asia with over $503 billion in traded goods, compared with $301 billion from the U.S., according to Asean statistics. U.S. allies like Japan have also become heavily reliant on Chinese imports.

Many countries in Southeast Asia now want the U.S. more involved economically in order to balance ties with China. Theyve been waiting months for the Biden administration to reveal a long-awaited Indo-Pacific economic strategy meant as an alternative to an Asia-Pacific trade deal the Trump administration withdrew from in 2017.

But thats more aimed at balancing ties between major powers rather than jumping in a particular camp, said Carl Schuster, a former operations director at U.S. Pacific Commands Joint Intelligence Center.

They will not join an alliance that ties them to military actions in response to developments that do not threaten their nations, he said. They want the geopolitical freedom to choose their courses of action and shape the condition and nature of their participation.

2022 Bloomberg L.P.

Visitbloomberg.com.

Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Continued here:
China's fears of an Indo-Pacific NATO are more myth than reality - Stars and Stripes

Russian President Vladimir Putin is showing no signs of calling off his invasion of Ukraine.

On Monday the United Nations Human Rights Office released figures confirming 406 civilians, including 27 children, have died so far, with a further 801 people reported injured. It warned the real number could be much higher.

Ukraines military has claimed more than 11,000 Russian troops have been killed since the start of the invasion.

Russian forces have only been able to seize control of one large city so far Kherson in the south. Kyiv, Kharkiv, Chernihiv and Mariupol have remained in Ukrainian hands despite heavy Russian bombardment.

A whistleblower from Russias security service has said the invasion will be a total failure and could result in real international conflict in the coming months.

There arefears President Putin could turn to other countriesif he is successful in Ukraine, and thepossibility of him attacking Nato countries cannot be ruled out completely.

Karin von Hippel, who was a nonpolitical senior adviser at the US State Department during the Obama administration told NBC President Putin could potentially target non-Nato nations in Eastern Europe, such as Moldova and Georgia.

He added that if the Russian leader starts to slowly expand his empire, there will be several other places that are in Nato that are going to be getting extremely stressed out.

Its very unclear at this stage that anyone can convince Putin to do anything other than what he wants to do, he said.

Belarusian dictator Alexander Lukashenko may have revealed Russian plans to invade Moldova.

His troops are believed to have joined Russias invasion of Ukraine, having reportedly entered the Chernihiv region in the north of the country on Tuesday morning.

The UK has imposed sanctions on Belarus for its role in the war. President Lukashenko is a close ally of President Putin, and Russia has been able to use his country as a launchpad for attacks.

But their plans could go beyond Ukraine based on a map shown during a televised broadcast from President Lukashenko.

The map showed attack plans for Ukraine, but also displayed a possible route into Moldova from the Ukrainian port city of Odessa, via a large red arrow.

It also showed red shading around the Moldovan border, potentially indicating plans for an occupation.

If Russia were to invade Moldova or Georgia the situation is likely to be similar to that of Ukraine, in that Nato forces including the UK and US would support Moldova by sending both military and non-military aid, but would not engage in battle with Russian troops directly.

President Putin has warned other countries against intervening in Ukraine. He has also compared Western sanctions against Russia to a declarations of war.

To anyone who would consider interfering from outside: If you do, you will face consequences greater than any you have faced in history, he said last week. All the relevant decisions have been taken. I hope you hear me.

He later issued what many took to be a threat of nuclear war, adding: Russia, even after the collapse of the USSR and the loss of a significant part of its nuclear potential, is today one of the most powerful nuclear powers.

And moreover, it has certain advantages in a number of the latest types of weapons. In this regard, no one should have any doubt that a direct attack on Russia will lead to defeat and dire consequences for a potential aggressor.

There are also fears he may want to continue expanding Russias empire out, with the Baltic states the most likely targets.

However, Nato uses a system of collective security, whereby its independent member states agree to mutual defence in response to an attack by any external party.

This means were Russia to attack a Nato state such as Estonia, Latvia or Lithuania, it would then be at war with all 30 Nato members.

While Russias forces are strong they would be dwarfed by Natos collective power, making touching a Nato member incredibly risky.

Natos core task is to protect and defend all allies, Nato Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said. There must be no room for miscalculation or misunderstanding.

An attack on one will be regarded as an attack on all. This is our collective security guarantee.

Link:
Will Russia attack Nato? How Putin could respond to Ukraine sanctions from the UK and other Nato countries - iNews

President Levits,Dear Egils,

Thank you so much for this warm welcome.It is always a pleasure to be in Latvia and to meet with you again.

We just had an important discussion about Russias brutal invasion of Ukraine.And the implications for our security.

The Ukrainian people and armed forces have inspired the world with their courage.

But President Putins assault continues.And the humanitarian impact is devastating.

Many civilians have been killed or wounded.And 2 million people have fled Ukraine.This is Europe's fastest-growing refugee crisis since the Second World War.

There are very credible reports of civilians coming under fire as they try to evacuate.Targeting civilians is a war crime.And it is totally unacceptable.

We need real humanitarian corridors that are fully respected.

We made clear for months that President Putin would pay a high price for renewed aggression against Ukraine.And this price is exactly what he is paying now.

Russia has been hit with severe and unprecedented sanctions.And near-total isolation on the world stage.

Allies are helping Ukraine to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence.Stepping up with billions of euros worth of support.And opening their borders and providing aid for refugees.

The suffering we now see in Ukraine is horrific.It affects us all.

And we have a responsibility to ensure the conflict does not escalate and spread beyond Ukraine.That would be even more dangerous, destructive, and even more deadly.And the situation could spiral out of control.

To make sure there is no room for miscalculation in Moscow, NATO has significantly strengthened our presence in the eastern part of our Alliance.

We have 130 jets at high alert.Over 200 ships from the High North to the Mediterranean.And thousands of additional troops in the region.Including at NATOs multinational battlegroup in Adazi,Which I will visit later this afternoon.

Allies including Canada, the United States, and Spain are deploying hundreds of additional troops here.

We will protect and defend every inch of Latvia.And we will protect and defend every inch of all Allied territory.North America and Europe together, standing strong in NATO the strongest alliance in history.

President Levits,

NATO stands united at this critical moment for our shared security.

Thank you again for hosting me here today.

Question: I have a question, Mr. Stoltenberg. So for now, in this situation after almost two weeks of war in Ukraine, how NATO can help or how NATO will help Kyiv do you have a plan?

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg: The last part was I didnt hear the last?

Question: Do you have a plan? How NATO can help Kyiv?

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg: NATO Allies provide support to Ukraine in many different ways. Allies provide military support to help Ukraine to uphold the right for self defence. Allies have done so for many years.

Canada, who's present also here in Latvia with the leadership of the battlegroup, has actually helped to train tens of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers over the last years.And many other Allies have provided equipment and support and they have stepped up over the last days and weeks with more support to Ukraine to help them in their courageous fight against the invading Russian forces. Allies also provide fiscal, financial support to Ukraine and humanitarian aid.

Then, NATO Allies together with partners and the European Union have imposed unprecedented economic sanctions, which we now see are having an effect. The ruble is at historical low levels, the stock market has been closed. And we see that many companies are also leaving Russia and so the economic sanctions are unprecedented in their effect and the constraints imposing significant costs on Russia for their brutal invasion of Ukraine.

And then of course, Allies are also making sure that we protect all Allies. We need to end this conflict, not expand it. And therefore, we are increasing our presence also in Latvia and the other eastern parts of our Alliance to make sure that Russia understands that we are here to protect and defend all Allies, every inch of Allied territory.

Question: And I have a question to Mr Levits. Do you think that we here in the Baltics can feel completely safe given the support and the protection of our Allies or do we face any immediate threats from Russia here?

President of Latvia Egils Levits: Well, the answer is very clear. We are safe. We are protected. We are a NATO member state and other Allies will stand by us and will protect us. NATO protects each of its member states, every inch of its member state territory, including Latvia of course. And the measures that we've today discussed with the Secretary General include various practical measures to show Moscow, show [the] Kremlin that NATO is read, NATO is prepared to protect its territory, all of its territories of its member states, including of course Latvia. And that way we will deter Moscow from further aggression because Moscow only understands brute force and NATO is the most powerful defensive organisation in the world.

Moderator: Thank you. This concludes our press conference. Thank you all, and thank you Secretary General.

Read the original:
Press conference with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg and the President of Latvia, Egils Levits - NATO HQ

Russias unprovoked invasion of Ukraine has challenged Western assumptions about security, economics and the postwar world order. In Europe and the U.S., public finances have long favored social spending over public goods such as defense. While President Biden doubled down on his proposal to increase social spending during his State of the Union address, Russias aggression highlights the shortcomings of this model. Western democracies now face a more uncertain and dangerous world than they did two weeks ago. Navigating it will require significantly higher levels of defense and security spending.

But change will be difficult, and the magnitude of what needs to be done is sobering. The U.S. currently spends 3.2% of gross domestic product on defenseroughly half of Cold War spending levels relative to GDP. An increase in spending of even 1% of GDP would amount to about $210 billion. Thats about 5% of the total federal spending level using a 2019 pre-Covid baseline. While Covid spending was large, it was transitory. Defense outlays would be much longer-lasting, an insurance premium or transaction cost for dealing with a more dangerous world.

Excerpt from:
NATO Needs More Guns and Less Butter - The Wall Street Journal

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg visited U.S. troops at Lask Airbase, Poland Monday.

In a press conference after the visit, Stoltenberg said Russian President Vladimir Putin has shattered the peace in Europe.

"The Russian assault is totally unacceptable. And, it is enabled by Belarus," he said.

"We welcome the leading role of Poland," Stoltenberg said, noting that Poland has opened its border to hundreds of thousands of refugees fleeing the conflict.

NATO will always stand together, he said, mentioning that fighter jets from the United States are now flying alongside the Polish Air Force, keeping the skies over NATO nations safe 24/7.

French troops are arriving in Romania, as well, Stoltenberg noted.

NATO's commitment to Article 5 is iron-clad, he said, referring to the alliance's collective security defense.

Later in the day, Stoltenberg and U.S. Air Force Gen. Tod D. Wolters, the commander of U.S. European Command and NATO's supreme allied commander for Europe, visited NATO's multinational battlegroup in Tapa, Estonia. They were joined by British Prime Minister Boris Johnson.

Wolters thanked Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas for hosting U.S., U.K. and other NATO forces in her nation.

The general noted that rigorous military training has enabled U.S. forces to be confident, responsive, resilient, competent and capable in whatever tasks are asked of them.

"We thank you for what you are doing today," Wolters told the troops in Estonia. "You are protecting the sovereignty of our NATO nations and our territories and we're in the business of generating peace."

At a press conference with Johnson and Kallas, Stoltenberg said: "Our message to President Putin is: Stop the war. Pull out all your forces from Ukraine and engage in good faith in diplomatic efforts. The world stands with Ukraine."

He also stressed that allies will protect and defend every inch of NATO territory, and thanked Johnson for doubling the U.K. troop presence in the NATO battlegroup.

Continue reading here:
Allies Will Protect, Defend Every Inch of NATO Territory, Says Secretary General - Department of Defense

Units of the NATO Response Force arrived in Romania on Monday and Tuesday (28 February 1 March 2022) to reinforce NATOs defensive posture in the eastern part of the Alliance. 500 French troops assembled in Istres in southern France before deploying to Romania.

This is the first time NATO has activated the NATO Response Force for collective defence and deterrence. It follows NATOs activation of its defence response plans amid the biggest security crisis in Europe in decades, triggered by Russias massive military build-up and its invasion of Ukraine.

France leads this years highest-readiness element of the NATO Response Force, a multinational force comprised of up to 40,000 land, air, maritime and special operations personnel that NATO can deploy at short notice as needed.

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg welcomed the deployment: Over the last weeks, we have increased our presence in the eastern part of the Alliance and now, we are for the first time in our history deploying the NATO Response Force. French troops have arrived in Romania as the lead element of this force. Our commitment to Article 5, our collective defence clause, is iron-clad. We will protect and defend every inch of NATO territory.

More:
NATO Response Force units arrive in Romania - NATO HQ

BRUSSELS NATO officials, determined to show a unified front of support for Ukraine, on Friday accused Russia of using cluster bombs in its invasion, but rejected Kyivs plea to impose a no-fly zone over Ukrainian airspace, fearing that would draw the military alliance into a larger war with Russia.

Dozens of protesters waving Ukrainian flags chanted NATO, act now! outside the headquarters of the alliance as its foreign ministers met in a special session focused on helping Ukraine repel Russias expanding invasion. Ministers also met in sessions organized by the European Union and the Group of 7.

Inside the NATO headquarters, the ministers heard an appeal from Ukraines foreign minister, Dmytro Kuleba, asking for more military assistance than NATO has so far been willing to give.

Help us, Mr. Kuleba pleaded in a video that was posted on Twitter. If you dont, Im afraid you will have to share responsibility for the lives and the suffering of civilian Ukrainians, who die because of ruthless Russian pilots who throw bombs on them.

Shortly afterward, the NATO secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg, confirmed that Russia had attacked Ukraine with anti-personnel cluster bombs, which kill so indiscriminately they are banned under international law.

But he rejected Mr. Kulebas plea for a no-fly zone. Allies agree that we should not have NATO planes operating over Ukrainian airspace or NATO troops on Ukrainian territory, he said.

Cluster bombs can be dropped from planes or launched from rockets. Enforcing a no-fly zone usually requires warplanes to patrol airspace, with troops below to identify and report violations.

The day of meetings of the NATO, E.U. and G7 foreign ministers was billed as a display of Western unity in response to Russias war on Ukraine. Even Liz Truss, the British foreign secretary, set Brexit aside to preach complete unity at the E.U. meeting, which the U.S. secretary of state, Antony J. Blinken, also attended.

We are faced together with what is President Putins war of choice unprovoked, unjustified, Mr. Blinken told journalists ahead of the meeting. Were committed to doing everything we can to make it stop. So the coordination between us is vital.

The crisis has reminded Europeans of how much they depend on the United States for leadership and military muscle, as well as the nuclear umbrella that serves as the most important element of deterrence against countries like Russia, China or even Iran.

March 8, 2022, 9:32 p.m. ET

And if the European Union, under a French presidency, chafed about Americas leading role at the start of the crisis, President Biden and Mr. Blinken have gone to great lengths to inform and consult with the Brussels institutions as well as member states.

But as the crisis unfolded, Washington provided convincing intelligence to its allies and organized the response. It brought the European Union, Britain, Canada and Australia along on a tough package of economic sanctions and was quick to start supplying weapons to Ukraine and to move troops and matriel to shore up allied forces along NATOs eastern flank.

While our focus should remain on Ukraines sovereignty and the restoration of Ukrainians safety, I believe Putins war will also elevate Americas global standing, wrote Kori Schake, a former American defense official. Indeed, it has already strengthened Americas position at the center of the international order that it created from the ashes of World War II.

Other countries also played a key role, with France volunteering to lead a new NATO battalion in Romania and with Germany mothballing Nord Stream 2, the gas pipeline from Russia to Western Europe, and allowing the export of weapons to Ukraine. The European Union, too, moved to Europeanize the efforts of many of its 27 member states 21 of which belong to NATO and promised for the first time to reimburse them for weapons sent to Ukraine.

Whether more weapons should have been sent to Ukraine in the long buildup to the war remains an open question, but NATO officials were concerned that an open display of weapons being supplied might provoke Russia, rather than deter it.

With weapons and supplies coming from Poland and other neighboring countries into western Ukraine, there are concerns that Russia will move to block or bomb convoys and that there could be accidental confrontations with NATO planes.

A halt to Russian sales. After days of seeming reluctance to take a stance over Russias invasion of Ukraine, three high-profile American food and beverage companies McDonalds, Coca-Cola and Starbucks said they were pausing operations in Russia.

A humanitarian crisis. Indiscriminate Russian shelling has trapped Ukrainian civiliansand left tens of thousands without food, water, power or heat in besieged cities.The United Nations said that the number of refugees who have fled Ukraine has reached two million.

Mr. Blinkens visit, in large part, sought to keep the European Union in sync with the Western drumbeat of economic sanctions with possibly more to come to punish the government of President Vladimir V. Putin and his allies.

He also rallied allies to send more humanitarian support to relief workers in Ukraine and its neighboring states, including to Poland and Moldova, where he will hold meetings on Saturday. More than one million refugees have fled Ukraine over the last week, and at least 100,000 more who remain in Ukraine have been forced from their homes in the fighting.

Josep Borrell Fontelles, the E.U. foreign policy chief, said Russia had bombed and shelled houses, schools and hospitals.

This is a barbarian way of doing war, Mr. Borrell said.

Mr. Stoltenberg said that in addition to cluster bombs, Russia has used other banned weapons in Ukraine.

We have seen the use of cluster bombs, and we have seen reports of use of other types of weapons which would be in violation of international law, he said. He did not specify any other kind of weapon.

Anti-personnel cluster munitions are rockets, missiles, artillery shells and bombs that deploy a large number of small explosives over a wide area, intended to attack infantry formations. The Convention on Cluster Munitions, a treaty banning such weapons, took effect in August 2010.

NATO forces used cluster bombs during the Kosovo war in 1999, and the United States dropped more than 1,000 cluster bombs in Afghanistan from October 2001 to March 2002, according to a Human Rights Watch report.

View post:
NATO Accuses Russia of Using Cluster Bombs in Ukraine - The New York Times