Daily Archives: June 18, 2022

Norways far-left Reds Party spoiled the Norwegian Parliaments otherwise overwhelming support for bids by Sweden and Finland to join NATO. The Reds were the only party to dissent when the issue came up for a vote this week, and its leader was being roundly criticized.

Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Stre of the Labour Party accused the Reds of failing to show solidarity at a time when Russia has invaded Ukraine and is escalating verbal assaults on the rest of Europe and the West. Russian President Vladimir Putins war on Ukraine has prompted both Sweden and Finland to end years of neutrality and seek to join NATO to further strengthen Europes and their own defense.

Stre has strongly supported both countries and called the Parliaments vote on Thursday historic. He told newspaper Aftenposten that it also marks an historic shift for Europe, and opens the way for much stronger defense cooperation among all five Nordic countries.

The Reds spoiled Stres hopes for unanimous support for the NATO expansion in Parliament, though. What the Reds are really saying is that NATO should block the two countries membership, he told Aftenposten. I think that runs deeply against solidarity.

When Finland and then Sweden both voted in favour of finally joining NATO in May, they were widely met with open arms and NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg seemed confident the application process would proceed quickly. Turkey has since spoiled that, though, and submitted a long list of demands. All current NATO members must approve all new members.

In Norway, only the Reds and the Socialist Left Party (SV) were skeptical, claiming it would increase tensions with Russia, not least in Northern Norway. Even SV, which has long favoured a Nordic military alliance over NATO membership, ultimately supported membership for Sweden and Finland.

That left the Reds alone in voting against it. Reds leader Bjrnar Moxnes was unyielding, reasoning that in a democracy we can think differently, and land on different responses. He still thinks that the inclusion of Sweden and Finland in NATO will especially raise tensions between the US and Russia, and the risk of nuclear war.

He found no support among his colleagues in Parliament, with the leader of the Liberal Party even claiming that the Reds refusal to support Sweden and Finland in NATO will go into the history books. Its like the Reds are slamming the door in the face of Sweden and Finland.

newsinenglish.no/Nina Berglund

Visit link:
Reds bashed over NATO dissent - Views and News from Norway

As the war in the Donbas grinds on and Ukrainian losses continue to mount, Russia seems to have gained the upper hand. By some estimates, Russia now controls 25% of Ukrainian territory territory that is responsible for some 75% of Ukraines gross domestic product.

Yet, nearly four months into the war, there seems to be little appetite in Washington to push Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to sue for peace.

To discuss the war in Ukraine and more, I spoke with Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute and one of the foremost American critics of NATO expansion.

He is the author of more than 950 articles and policy studies and 12 books, includingNATO: The Dangerous Dinosaur(2019),Gullible Superpower: U.S. Support for Bogus Foreign Democratic Movements(2019),and The Ties That Blind: How the U.S.-Saudi Alliance Damages Liberty and Security(2018).

Below is a lightly edited version of our discussion.

James Carden: Ted, I want to start out by discussing something you wrote recently: As long as Russian forces continue their advance, however difficult the slog, theres little chance that Moscow will escalate matters. However, if it appeared that Ukraine actually might win the war, all bets are off. What do you mean by all bets are off?

Ted Galen Carpenter: I believe that [President Vladimir] Putin and the rest of the Russian leadership regard Ukraine as a vital security interest for Russia; therefore, defeat is not an option in their view.

Now, would they prefer to get a diplomatic settlement? Would they prefer to have this settled solely with conventional weapons? Absolutely. I dont believe they want to escalate to the nuclear level at all.

But if it comes to a choice between defeat, national humiliation and, for Putin, personal humiliation, and rolling the dice and taking a chance by using tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine, I think he is likely to take that risk. Nothing certain, but the risk is very severe as far as Im concerned.

JC: It seems like the people advising the US president, and perhaps the president himself, are not quite alive to the danger that you just outlined. Do you have any insight as to who might be advising Joe Biden on these issues?

TGC: Well, I think the usual office holders. Jake Sullivan, I would assume, has a great deal of influence. Lloyd Austin and his people I would assume have great influence over policy. And youre getting input from outsiders like Michael McFaul, the former ambassador to Russia, who takes a very hawkish view.

And their attitude, which is reflected with some of the neocons in the press like Max Boot, is that for all the talk that Putin might make about using nuclear weapons, thats all a bluff. We really dont have to worry about that. And we shouldnt use that as an excuse not to stand up to him and to Russian aggression.

Thats their rationale. I would like to ask them, what if their assumption is wrong? They dont seem to even consider that possibility. And yet if theyre wrong, the consequences are dire indeed.

JC: Weve been reading a lot of worry about the division of the world between democracies and autocracies. That seems to me to be the new dividing line for these people. Putin is, obviously, enemy No 1 in their mind, but right behind him is Viktor Orbn in Hungary. This division of the world has gained wide acceptance within the US Democratic Party, especially among parts of what used to be the anti-war left. What do you make of that?

TGC: It is a very interesting development, Ive noticed it too. Again, it seems much more intense in terms of the opposition to right-wing autocracies like Orbn, like Putin. Its a little more awkward when, for example, youre dealing with Xi Jinping and China.

In fact, its almost schizophrenic behavior on the part of a lot of people on the left. They will denounce that regime but theyre not prepared to sign on to actual hawkish US policies to resist it.

That attitude, though, is weakening. In other words, you see more and more greater support for Taiwan, for example, on the left, even though that would require a pretty hardline military policy, a very risky policy.

But the intensity of the hatred of autocratic regimes, that from what used to be the anti-war left, seems much more directed at the likes of Putin and that right-wing nationalist regime. They seem to be the epitome of evil in the minds of, I would call them, Democratic crusaders in this country.

JC: It seems like that mindset is now even across the Atlantic and has infected the worldview of nations that had previously been proudly neutral, and right now were seeing a real push by and for Finland and Sweden to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. What should we make of Finland and Sweden joining the alliance?

TGC: I would say that Finland and Sweden wanting to join NATO constitutes an overreaction to what Russia did in Ukraine. I can understand why that would make European countries, especially, very nervous.

On the other hand, if they looked at it soberly, given all the problems Russia has encountered just trying to subdue Ukraine, I think they would view the Russian threat to the rest of Europe with more perspective. Lets not assume that this military is 10 feet tall and can sweep to the Atlantic, thats not about to happen.

I also worry that Sweden and Finland may have made the same mistake that the Republic of Texas did in joining the Union in 1845. Texas got in just in time to get caught up in all the sectional divisions and the animosity, and, of course, ended up as a participant in the US Civil War.

I suspect there were a good many Texans, when that happened, who wished the Republic had stayed independent. They got no benefit from joining the Union at that point and there were a lot of drawbacks.

But again, I think the ideological factor is important here, that you have centrist and left-of-centrist factions in Sweden and Finland who regard Russia as this existential evil, not necessarily an existential threat. Theres a difference there.

I saw something similar right after the Russian invasion in Ukraine when Switzerland signed on to sanctions. When has that ever happened before? I cant recall a single instance. And yet that was done with virtually no debate. They were on board within the first couple of days, along with the European Union countries and others.

There is more here than just security concerns. I think a cold calculation of security concerns would lead Sweden and Finland to say, Look, were likely to provoke a crisis with Russia, with us on the front lines rather than gain security by doing this. But the ideological animosity toward Moscow I suspect is overruling those considerations.

JC: You say that theres more at play there than a cold calculation of interest. The same might be said about whats taking place here in the US as well. I wonder if you see any role in foreign lobbies in all this.

The Ukrainian lobby played a very active role in the 2016 US presidential election campaign and then in the first impeachment of Donald Trump. There were very credible reports by mainstream American outlets like Politico that outlined the role of people from the Ukrainian diaspora working with the Ukrainian Embassy to leak damaging information on the Trump campaign.

And this has been a problem that weve had in this country for a long time.Foreign lobbies and the havoc that they can cause was something that the Founders were very cognizant of potentially happening. And now it does seem to be happening. Do you have any thoughts on that before we wrap up?

TGC: Very much so. I mean, the Ukraine lobby has been extremely active trying to influence US policy, and with a fair degree of success. In addition, you have the more traditional NATO-forever lobby and pro-NATO-expansion lobby. Think of the Atlantic Council and other virtually wholly owned subsidiaries of that lobby.

And, of course, you have the usual military-industrial complex wanting more and more money, and they see this arena as a terrific opportunity to sell weapons in unprecedented numbers and dollars. So thats a pretty potent alliance.

You have the usual sycophants in the news media pushing that agenda. I dont think its surprising that at least initially there was a massive propaganda campaign, a very successful one. They got otherwise sensible Americans to say, Yes, we need to stand with Ukraine, we need to defend Ukraine.

Thats beginning to fade as people are having second thoughts. Well, wait a minute, what level of risk are we incurring here? And wait, how good is this Ukrainian government? And the more you look at that you go OK, this is a corrupt semi-autocracy. So were supposed to risk the lives of all Americans to defend that regime.

There is some reconsideration going on. And youre even finding somewhat greater balance in the news media and the treatments. Thats not saying much, thats a very low bar to clear given what was going on early on. The enthusiasm for Ukraines cause seems to have waned somewhat.

JC: So lets just circle back to the war and whats actually going on, on the ground. Even Zelensky has now admitted that things arent going as well as they were earlier. The euphoria, as you suggest, seems to be wearing off in Washington.

Theyve admitted that they have tremendous disadvantages in artillery ammunition, theyre losing 700 men a day. Its not looking great. So it looks like the Russians are going to succeed in taking the Donbas. If Phase 1 of the war saw the Russians repelled from Kiev, and if Phase 2 is the Donbas campaign, how do you see Phase 3 playing out? Is it possible Zelensky sues for peace?

TGC: Im not sure he will sue for peace. The Russians likely will offer him an opportunity if they complete their conquest of the Donbas. At that point, I think they would hold out an olive branch to Zelensky.

What I worry about is the position of the United States and some NATO countries. Would we be pressing Zelensky not to give in? To keep fighting? The West might say: We can keep supplying you. You can wage a vigorous guerrilla warfare lasting months or even years. You can do what the Afghan mujahideen did, and we were happy to supply them as well.

Now, of course, it means Ukrainians will be doing the bleeding for an indefinite period of time, but Im afraid some policymakers in Washington are not necessarily averse to that.

This article was published previously by the American Committee for US-Russia Accord (ACURA) and is used with the permission of the author. Read the original here.

Link:
Ukraine, NATO and the politics of war - Asia Times

At the meeting, US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said that there was need to redouble aid to Ukraine saying that it was facing a pivotal moment in the battlefield after four months of war with Russia. He said that they could not afford to lose steam. He said that while they had supplied tanks, missiles and artillery, it was clearly not enough and there was need to redouble the effort.

During the meeting, the Ukrainians complained that they had received just 10 per cent of the military assistance they had requested from the West and that this assistance was vital for Ukraine to win the war. However, the US officials pushed back noting that the speed of delivery had been exemplary and that no one weapon system would make a difference.

After the meeting, Austin and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the US, Gen Mark Milley reported that the West would focus on providing aid for Ukraine for as long as necessary. Additionally, Germany would supply Ukraine with three sets of multiple launch rocket systems M 270. Ukraine would get ten other sets from other NATO countries, Slovakia would provide Mi-17 helicopters and rocket munition. Canada, Poland and the Netherlands discussed fresh donations of artillery to Ukraine, which could add up to 300-400 more artillery systems.

There is a possibility that the US could, in addition, provide tanks and advanced air defence systems as well.

Read the original here:
NATO's Message: The West will Extend Support, But Ukraine Must Defend Itself - The Quint

AHEAD OF the NATO summit in Madrid on June 28, visiting Spanish Foreign Minister Jos Manuel Albares on Wednesday said that NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation), which traditionally only looked towards the eastern flank, must also look to the southern flank, and reach out to all those countries that like India, might be good partners, and interested in keeping stability in the world.

In an exclusive interview to The Indian Express, Albares who met External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar when asked about possible discussions between India and the NATO, said, It is not for me to decide, it is up to the UN Secretary General to decide that. But of course, a dialogue, certainly between NATO and India, is most welcome.

He said the NATO summit is, above all, meant for NATO members. But of course, there is always space for partners and allies, he said.

Limited Time Offer | Express Premium with ad-lite for just Rs 2/ day Click here to subscribe

The Ministry of External Affairs said that Jaishankar and Albares welcomed signing of the defence contract as part of which Airbus Spain will supply 56 C295 aircraft, 40 of which would be Made in India, and agreed to further deepen defence and security cooperation.

Edited excerpts of the interview:

What were the main topics of conversation with minister Jaishankar?

There are three main topics. One, is we agreed that we have to reinforce the bilateral relationship. India is a reliable partner and a very important country, a key actor in the region. And we have agreed that more exchanges must happen between both of us. And we have to exchange more about our view of global affairs, regional affairs and also exchange ideas on how to solve world problems.

The second one is economy and investment. There are more than 200 Spanish companies here and Spanish companies have a know-how that can help India in infrastructure, railway, water and sanitation or renewable energy. And because of the European funds The Next Generation EU funds are coming to Spain 140 billion Euros in the next year, there are a lot of opportunities for Indian companies to invest in two main sectors, digital and green economy. There are already Indian companies doing investments in Spain but we can do it more.

And the third is global issues. Without India, very important challenges like climate change, the food security crisis that we are facing cannot be solved. Since both of us are attached to multilateralism and have respect for international law, we have decided to join forces.

On Russias invasion of Ukraine:

Spain, as all European countries, has condemned the Russian aggression. The main objective of Spain and all the European partners is that peace should be restored as soon as possible in Ukraine, and the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine is respected. That is our main and only objective.

On Indias position:

Im not going to tell any country since every country is sovereign. But I think we must all join forces today, to make sure that the war stops, that peace goes back to Ukraine, and that the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine are respected. And Im sure that all countries in the world must agree at least on that basis.

What is important is that India, it is a big country that plays a stabilising role in this region. And we must count on India to face the challenges. Today it is world peace, but also the spillover of the Ukrainian crisis food security. So what Spain wants, is to engage with India, both bilaterally but also to reflect and to join forces on global issues. There are things that will be much more difficult to do if we dont count on India.

On food security:

We have exchanged views about the gravity of the situation, about the Indian measures, how India engages with its neighboring countries, to prevent them from having an impact from this crisis. I have given the Spanish point of view, and we have all agreed that we must do as much as we can to prevent this crisis from becoming a very, very serious global crisis, that will affect parts of the world that are very far from Russia and Ukraine as they can be in Latin America, or the Far East, in Asia.

On Indias ban on wheat exports:

Yes, I have been told that it has not been a total ban. The [Indian] government has put in a lot of effort on reassuring the neighbouring countries, giving them assurance that they will get what they need. Spain thinks that what we must do is join forces and measures that are too protectionist, can trigger a faster and deeper food crisis the worst thing we can do concerning this food crisis is that each one of us try to solve their small national problem, because that will make global management very complicated.

On Chinas actions in the region and lessons it draws from the Russian invasion of Ukraine:

China is a very important country, a permanent member of the Security Council. And we expect China to play the role of world power and permanent member of the Security Council, to preserve its stability, and world peace. And this is a role that is even more crucial in the region, in Chinas own region.

On Chinas aggressive moves with India, as a two-year border standoff is ongoing:

What we expect from all of our friends that are neighbours is that they have the best relations. And we also think that war, as the United Nation charter says, must be avoided to solve any political conflict of dispute.

On Europes energy needs from Russia:

Europe started a fair energy transition several years ago to move towards neutral carbon sources. Not all the countries have the same energy mix in the European Union. So there is a fine balance. We have targets for carbon-neutral energy by 2030 and 2050, and we are going to keep them. Spain has been at the forefront of that effort. At the same time, we must be very careful in this very complex time in Europe and in the world, not to destabilize countries because of the energy flows.

On the NATO summit in Madrid:

The NATO summit is, above all, meant for NATO members. But of course, there is always space for partners and allies. This will be a very crucial summit. Because there is this document called the Strategic Concept there are pressing challenges and threats on the eastern flank, and also from the southern flank. And at the same time, because there are two countries, Finland and Sweden, that theyre asking for accession, all of that will make the Madrid summit in about two weeks, a very special one.

But more and more, we talk within NATO of the 360 degrees NATO. That means that NATO that traditionally only looked towards the eastern flank, must also look to the southern flank, and reach out to all those countries that like India, might be good partners, and interested in keeping stability in the world. But we must not forget that NATO is a defensive alliance, not an offensive one.

On Indias possible participation in discussions with NATO:

It is not for me to decide, it is up to the NATO Secretary General to decide that. But of course, a dialogue, certainly between NATO and India, is most welcome.

On the perception that NATOs eastward expansion led to Russian actions against Ukraine:

I rule that out completely. Ukraines accession to NATO was not on the table. Ukraine is not a threat to Russian security. NATO is a defensive alliance. So, no one can feel threatened by its expansion. And above all, each country must be sovereign, to decide to which alliances, organization or a scheme of security you belong. So no, I dont think that is a possibility.

Key takeaways from the bilateral discussions:

There is an economic partnership that we are building in different sectors, including airports, railways, water and sanitation, renewable energy. There must be concrete and structured political dialogue, in order to be able to exchange points of view on global issues and to foster common global initiative.

Trade has been increasing a lot in the last few years, but I think that we can focus on some big projects for instance, high speed trains and at the same time investments, Indian investment in Spain is most welcome. There are already a few companies doing it, but they must be more and more involved. And another thing is a larger exchange of people can be through mobility of qualified and talented people, or also through tourism. And in order to do that, we have to go back to the connectivity, direct connectivity between Delhi and Madrid, as it was before the pandemic.

The Prime Ministers, who have already met, should meet again. And there should be political consultations at the level of the Minister of Foreign Affairs at least once a year, and then sectoral ministers, ministers of transport and ministers of infrastructure should meet.

Read more from the original source:
Spanish Foreign Minister Jos Manuel Albares: 'NATO must reach out to all countries like India which might be good partners' - The Indian Express

A MYSTERY plane has crossed six NATO countries and triggered a swarm of jets before the pilot landed and vanished.

The suspicious two-seater was spotted by Hungarian and Romanian Air Forces flying through their airspace and over Poland, Slovakia and Serbia before landing in Bulgaria.

2

Every one of those countries bar Serbia is a NATO member.

The mystery plane is believed to have taken off from Lithuania and landed in an abandoned airfield in Targovishte, Bulgaria, according to media outlet Euractiv.

Fighter jets including USAF F-16s, two Romanian F-16s and two Hungarian Gripens were scrambled and tracked the 60-year-old two seater's journey after it failed to respond to radio transmissions.

The small Beechcraft plane reportedly landed in a small airport in Debrecen, Hungary, where a group of people got off to refuel before taking off again and narrowly escaping police.

Bulgarian authorities have launched an investigation into what happened after the pilot and crew vanished after landing at Targovishte Airport, leaving the plane's engine still warm, according to reports.

The airport has been left unused for years and is now reportedly used for agricultural purposes, according to reports.

Bulgarian Ministry of Defence official Dragomir Zakov said the aircraft entered his countrys airspace in the evening of June 8.

He is reported to have said: "At no time was the plane a threat to civilian or military infrastructure in Bulgaria.

"It flew at low altitudes, which made difficult the interception for fighter jets, but it was monitored all the time.

"The Ministry of Defense is taking the appropriate actions to establish the circumstances."

It comes a matter of weeks after NATO scrambled its jets to intercept two Russian aircraft near the Finnish border with Norway amid heightened tensions in the region.

TheNorwegianAir Force intercepted a Mikoyan MiG-31 'Foxhound' and a Sukhoi Su-24 'Fencer' jet near their airspace on May 27.

Tensions betweenRussiaand the Nordic countries have skyrocketed sinceFinlandandSwedenenragedVladimir Putinbyrequesting to join NATO on May 18- almost doubling Russia's border with their feared nemeses overnight.

The Russian warplanes were intercepted by twoNATOF-35 jets over the Norwegian Sea before retreating east, the air force said.

The jets were observed outside Finnmark, in Norway's far north, but were never in official Norwegian airspace.

Stine Barclay Gaasland, comms manager in the Norwegian Air Force, said two F35s are always on standby, in what's called the Quick Reaction Alert for NATO.

"In 15 minutes they must be in the air and be ready at all times. It is 24 hours a day, 365 days a year," Gaasland told Norway'sTV 2 Nyhetene.

Trespassing into Norwegian airspace could have provoked a "more aggressive action", Gaasland said.

Asked if the incursions were a threat to Norway, she said: "I do not want to say that, because we are used to it happening, and there is nothing illegal in it.

"We pay close attention to all activity in our local areas."

Some 58 similar identifications prompted 34 scrambled last year, Norway's Armed Forces said.

The Nordic countries submitted their application together and said they were spurred on by Russia's invasion of Ukraine on February 24.

2

See the rest here:
Mystery plane crossed six NATO countries and triggered fighter-jet response before pilot vanished... - The Sun