Daily Archives: February 3, 2024

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg speaks at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, in Washington D.C., Jan. 31, 2024. (NATO)

NATOs top official mounted a defense of the U.S.-led alliance Wednesday at the headquarters of a conservative Washington think tank known for its ties to NATO skeptic Donald Trump.

Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg, who was in Washington this week to galvanize Western support for Ukraine, took the stage at the Heritage Foundation to talk up NATO before a pro-Trump audience.

In these dangerous times, we must stand strong against any regime that seeks to undermine us, Stoltenberg said. Any sign of wavering or weakening on our part will invite challenges from those who wish us harm.

Stoltenberg added that NATO is a vehicle for projecting Americas agenda from Europe to the Pacific. Meanwhile, European militaries are a rich market for U.S. weapons makers, who have reaped some $120 billion in sales to allies over the past two years, generating jobs in America, he said.

NATO is an incredibly powerful idea that advances U.S. interests and multiplies American power China and Russia have nothing like NATO, Stoltenberg said. That is why they are always trying to undermine our unity.

During the Trump administration, Stoltenberg guided the alliance through a tumultuous period that included intense criticism of NATO by the former president.

While Stoltenberg was dubbed by some NATO watchers as the Trump whisperer for his ability to manage that relationship, the former Norwegian prime ministers stint at the helm of NATO is slated to end later this year.

With Trump leading the race for the Republican nomination and polls indicating a toss-up in a 2024 rematch with President Joe Biden, political officials in Europe have been contemplating the implications of a Trump return for NATO.

Trump has reiterated his long-held ambivalence about the alliance, saying during a recent town hall meeting that his support for NATO depends on if they (Europeans) treat us properly.

NATO has taken advantage of our country, Trump said during the Jan. 10 Fox News broadcast. The European countries took advantage.

Heritage President Kevin Roberts, as he introduced Stoltenberg, also called out European allies for falling short on defense spending. He added that the conservative group was unwilling to back more support for Ukraine so long as the U.S. border crisis remained unresolved.

Stoltenberg, however, said allies have turned the corner on defense spending.

Much of Trumps criticism about NATO has centered on how a majority of the alliances 31 members fall short on defense spending benchmarks that call for all allies to dedicate 2% of their gross domestic product to defense.

Allies have improved in that area, with expenditures steadily rising every year since 2014. Still, some of the largest percentage increases have been made by smaller nations, such as the Baltic states, which have ramped up spending over concerns about Russia.

The major European power, Germany, still falls well short of the 2% mark, and its not clear when Berlin will reach the threshold.

U.S. presidents going back decades have had similar criticisms of European defense spending, but stated them in more diplomatic terms and while supporting the idea of the alliance as a critical aspect of global security.

Biden in December signed bipartisan legislation that would prevent a U.S. president from withdrawing from NATO without congressional approval.

The uncertainty about the future course of Washingtons commitment to shared defense comes at a time when concerns about Russian aggression in Europe are growing.

While Russia has suffered extensive casualties in its war in Ukraine, several military leaders in Europe in recent weeks have warned that Moscow could rebuild its forces within the next five years.

Adm. Rob Bauer, the Dutch chairman of the NATO military committee, following a meeting of NATO defense chiefs, said that allies must prepare for the possibility of conflict with Russia.

Im not saying it is going wrong tomorrow, but we have to realize its not a given that we are in peace, Bauer said Jan. 18.

While Biden has emphasized repeatedly that the U.S. is prepared to defend every inch of NATO territory, Trumps more vague position on collective defense could increase the angst in Europe.

During his tenure in office, Trump was more blunt behind closed doors than in public, according to European officials.

You need to understand that if Europe is under attack we will never come to help you and to support you, Trump reportedly told European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in 2020.

That statement was brought to light earlier this month by French European Commissioner Thierry Breton, who was present at a meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos, where the encounter was reported to have happened.

By the way, NATO is dead, and we will leave, we will quit NATO, according to Bretons account of what Trump said.

Read more:
NATO chief talks up alliance role in advancing US interests at think tank favored by Trump - Stars and Stripes

A woman casts her ballot at a polling station during presidential election in Helsinki, Finland, Sunday, Jan. 28, 2024. Sergei Grits/AP hide caption

A woman casts her ballot at a polling station during presidential election in Helsinki, Finland, Sunday, Jan. 28, 2024.

HELSINKI Ex-Prime Minister Alexander Stubb was projected to win the first round of Finland's presidential election on Sunday and face runner-up Pekka Haavisto in a runoff next month.

Finnish public broadcaster YLE projected that Stubb won the first round of the presidential election with 27.3% of the votes, while Haavisto, an ex-foreign minister, took second place with 25.8%. Parliamentary Speaker Jussi Halla-aho came in third place with 18.6%

The projected result will push the race into a runoff on Feb. 11 between Stubb and Haavisto as none of the candidates received more than half of the votes.

YLE's prediction, highly accurate in previous elections, is a mathematical model calculated on the basis of advance votes and a certain number of Sunday's votes under official data provided by the Legal Register Centre. Exit polls aren't generally used in Finland.

Stubb, 55, who represents the conservative National Coalition Party and headed the Finnish government in 2014-2015, and Haavisto, 65, who is making his third run for the office, were the main contenders in the election where about 4.5 million eligible voters picked a successor to hugely popular President Sauli Niinist, whose second six-year term expires in March. He wasn't eligible for reelection.

Unlike in most European countries, the president of Finland holds executive power in formulating foreign and security policy, particularly when dealing with countries outside the European Union like the United States, Russia and China.

The president also acts as the supreme commander of the Finnish military, a particularly important duty in Europe's current security environment.

Polls across the country closed at 8 p.m. About 4.5 million citizens were eligible to vote for Finland's new head of state from an array of nine candidates six men and three women.

"I expect strong leadership in the current global situation," said Eve Kinnunen, who voted in a polling station in the center of the capital, Helsinki.

Finland's new head of state will start a six-year term in March in a markedly different geopolitical and security situation in Europe than did incumbent Niinist after the 2018 election.

Abandoning decades of military nonalignment in the wake of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, Finland became NATO's 31st member in April, much to the annoyance of President Vladimir Putin of Russia, which shares a 832-mile border with the Nordic nation.

NATO membership, which has made Finland the Western military alliance's front-line country toward Russia, and the war raging in Ukraine a mere 600 miles away from Finland's border have boosted the president's status as a security policy leader.

In line with consensus-prone Finnish politics, months of campaigning have proceeded smoothly among the candidates. They all agree on major foreign policy issues like Finland's future policies toward Russia, enhancing security cooperation with the United States and the need to continue helping Ukraine both militarily and with humanitarian assistance.

Membership in the military alliance "also means that NATO should have a new Arctic dimension, because NATO is then stronger in the Arctic area when both Finland and Sweden are members," Haavisto told The Associated Press during his last campaign event at a music bar just outside Helsinki late Saturday.

As foreign minister, Haavisto, a Green League member who is running as an independent candidate, signed Finland's historic accession treaty to NATO last year and played a key role in the membership process.

Western neighbor Sweden is set to join NATO in the near future as the final holdout, Hungary, is expected to ratify Stockholm's bid by the end of February.

More:
NATO newcomer Finland's presidential election is headed for a runoff - NPR

When Mr. Chimp and Mr. Gorilla meet on the jungle path, who yields right-of-way? You got it. Law of the jungle. Sadly, the U.S. and NATO fail to understand that this is the law that Vladimir Putin operates by. Had they, instead of a war in Ukraine, we would have witnessed a bloodless victory for democracy in Europe. Putin (Mr. Chimp) may be a murderous dictator, but he is no fool. The 200-pound chump would never have challenged the 800-pound gorilla (the U.S. and NATO) had Mr. G told the chump that if he invaded Ukraine he would be met by Ukrainian and NATO forces. Mr. G could have offered to negotiate on disputed territories in eastern Ukraine as a face-saving gesture for Putin to further encourage Mr. C to make the right decision.

The best and the brightest have done it again. The U.S. State Department, which carries major sway in NATO decisions, has committed another major foreign policy blunder. By its "politically correct" act of omission, we now witness and are responsible in large part for the needless deaths, destruction, unfathomable human suffering, waste of taxpayer dollars and irreparable environmental degradation that continues to take place in Ukraine. Shame on the U.S. and NATO for standing by and not preventing this easily preventable war, and allowing "never again" to happen again.

Dan Falwell

Albemarle County

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

Read more here:
Letter | The US and NATO let 'never again' happen again in Ukraine - The Daily Progress

This week, Turkeys parliament finally approved Swedens bid for NATO membership, and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan swiftly ratified the measure.

Swedens NATO accession has dragged on for more than a year. While every other NATO member aside from Hungary supported Stockholms accession, Turkish leaders accused the Scandinavian country of harboring Kurdish terrorists. They demanded that Sweden tighten its anti-terrorism laws, extradite people accused of terrorist activities in Turkey, and resume arms sales to Turkey. The United States seems to have linked approval of Swedens NATO membership to future U.S. sales of F-16 fighter jets to Turkey.

As Swedens membership process stalled, analysts warned of the alliances decline and offered a range of proposed carrots and sticks to rein in Ankara. Some went so far as to suggest that Turkey be expelled from NATO, despite such an action being nearly impossible under its charter.

These concerns and threats come at a time when it has become common for U.S. experts to describe Turkish foreign policy as transactionalmeaning that Turkish national interests override NATOs common values. Once a reliable, Western-oriented U.S. ally, they argue, Turkey is now pursuing its own interests, which often run counter to those of the United States and European countries.

It is worth looking to history to understand Turkeys posture. The country waited nearly four years before it was finally allowed to join NATO in 1952. The experience convinced Turkish policymakers that relations with the United States, NATO, and Western countries always involve a degree of bargaining. Turkish-NATO relations in the seven decades that followed have often reinforced this view, sometimes in Turkeys favor and sometimes to its detriment.

American NATO official Charles M. Spofford signs the protocol to admit Greece and Turkey into NATO in London in 1952.Gamma-Keystone via Getty Images

Turkeys efforts to join NATO and other U.S.-dominated postwar institutions occurred under conditions of extreme insecurity for the country. Turkish leaders kept their country neutral during World War II, accepting aid from Britain and France without committing themselves as belligerents and selling war materials to Germany. At the conflicts end, Turkey found itself with few friends among the Allied victors. And it was surrounded on several sides by communist-controlled regimes: Bulgaria in the west, and the Georgian, Armenian, and Azerbaijani Soviet republics in the northeast.

In neighboring Iran, the Soviet Union and Britain occupied the north and south of the country, respectively. The Soviets supported the autonomy of the regions Azeri and Kurdish ethnic groups; Turkish leaders have long opposed the latter separatist movement. Soviet officials also pressured Turkish leaders to renegotiate treaties regulating transit through the Bosporus and Dardanellesstraits and cede control of several northeastern border provinces. To Ankara, the Soviet threat seemed existential.

Rather than comply with Soviet demands, Turkey turned to Britain and the United States. With London unable to maintain its expansive role in the eastern Mediterranean, Washington increased its commitments to Turkey and Greece, directing aid to both countries via the Truman Doctrine and Marshall Plan.

But U.S. and Western European leaders stopped short of including Turkey in NATO. Ankara first inquired about membership in 1948, when the alliance was taking shape, but it was rebuffed. Turkey tried again in 1950 but was offered only associate status. Western leaders objections to full Turkish membership were not based on the ideals of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law enshrined in the NATO charter; the military alliance included Portugals dictatorship. Rather, their reasoning was strategicnot wanting to extend NATOs political and military commitments so far east.

Turkey did not gain firm U.S. support for its NATO membership until after 1950 and 1951, when Ankara sent thousands of Turkish soldiers to fight alongside the United States in some of the most brutal months of the Korean War. Washington proposed Turkeys accession in May 1951, and support from and the whole NATO Council followed. Turkey was admitted in 1952, along with Greece.

From the beginning, Turkeys relationship with NATO was transactional. By demonstrating their willingness to place Turkish citizens in harms way to contain communist expansion in Korea, Turkish leaders convinced their Western peers that Ankara had strategic value. Turkeys geographic position between Europe and Asiaand on major waterwaysseemed beneficial to the Western alliance in the event of war with the Soviet Union. So did Ankaras large army.

Greek Cypriots participate in a communist-backed demonstration in Nicosia against the plan to enlarge the NATO peace force in Cyprus in 1964. Central Press/Getty Images

Though Turkey was often able to extract benefits from NATO, the country was not always on equal footing with its Western counterparts. Turkish leaders felt their national interests were subordinated to those of the United States and other allies. Washingtons willingness to bargain with the Soviet Union over U.S. nuclear missiles stationed in Turkey during the Cuban missile crisis was one example of this dynamic. But the main source of frustration was Cyprus.

Cyprus won independence from Britain in 1960 with a power-sharing agreement between its Greek majority and Turkish minority. When the deal broke down in 1963, Turkey began preparations to invade the island to protect its Turkish population.

But then-U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson informed the Turkish government that it could not count on NATO support should an invasion lead to Soviet intervention in Cyprus. Johnsons letter to Ankara stoked anti-U.S. sentiment in Turkey, putting Turkish leaders who supported the allianceand its various financial and security benefitsin a tough spot.

A decade later, when Turkey did intervene in Cyprus, NATO membership worked to its advantage. In 1974, Greeces military regimewhich had come to power in 1967supported a coup in Cyprus. Turkey responded by taking control of a third of the island, which remains divided to this day.

Then-U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger saw Turkey as more important than Greece and worried that pushing Ankara could result in a left-wing regime taking power. Unconvinced, Democrats in the U.S. Congress voted to halt weapons sales to Turkey. The Ford administration responded to the embargo, which would not fully end until 1978, by convincing West Germany and other NATO allies to increase weapons exports to Ankara.

The government in Ankara responded to the embargo by allowing several additional Soviet aircraft carriers to pass from the Black Sea into the Mediterranean and ending unilateral U.S. access to bases in Turkey. On the eve of NATOs annual summit in May 1978, Turkish Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit refused to sign on to a joint declaration and told reporters that he saw no threat to Turkey from the USSR. He added that a continued U.S. embargo was likely to reduce Turkeys contribution to NATO.

Two months later, the U.S. Senate voted to lift Turkeys arms embargo. By bargaining with NATO, Turkeys leaders satisfied short-term public anger with the United States without wholly undermining their countrys long-term strategic relationships. Transactional diplomacy had paid off.

Then-Turkish National Security Council chair Kenan Evren walks with other officials a few months after a military coup in Ankara, Turkey, on Nov. 10, 1980. Anadolu Agency via Getty Images

After Turkeys 1980 coup, NATO membership again became useful for the country. Military leaders emphasized their determination to honor NATO commitments. They also made conciliatory moves, offering potential territorial concessions in Cyprus (although they never followed through) and supporting the reintegration of rival Greece into NATOs command structure following its withdrawal during the 1974 crisis.

These gestures came as the Iranian Revolution, Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and outbreak of the Iran-Iraq War again placed Turkey at the center stage of U.S. strategyand gave Turkeys military rulers more room to maneuver. The United States increased its aid to Ankara even amid reports of torture, investigated by Amnesty International, which prompted countries such as Denmark and Norway to freeze their financial support. By 1991, only Israel and Egypt received more U.S. military aid than Turkey.

The fall of the Berlin Wall and the disintegration of the USSR between 1989 and 1991 threatened to make NATO irrelevantand diminish Turkeys importance to its Western allies. In part to reassert Turkeys centrality to Western interests, then-Turkish President Turgut Ozal gave his support to the U.S.-led campaign against Iraq following its 1990 invasion of Kuwait. He also liberalized Turkeys economy to encourage foreign investment. In return, Ozal hoped to secure concessions from the United States and other allies in Europe, such as increased access for Turkish textiles in the U.S. market.

NATO began to expand its ambitions in ways that suited Turkish interests. The alliance provided Turkey with additional aircraft during the Gulf War to deter Iraqi attacks. It chose to intervene in Bosnia and Kosovo, where Turkey was concerned about Serbian attacks against Muslims. There was even talk of an enhanced partnership between Ankara and Washington. The United States and other NATO allies played crucial roles in the 1999 capture of a key Kurdish separatist leader. That same year, the European Union formally acknowledged Turkeys candidacy for membership.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is surrounded by security on the eve of the NATO Summit in Vilnius, Lithuania, on July 10, 2023. Artur Widak/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Despite these developments, Turkey in the 1990s was rocked by economic crises, violence, and political instability. The chaos of these years helped discredit established parties and bring Erdogan and his Justice and Development Party (AKP) to power in 2003.

Initially, the AKP intensified Turkeys efforts to engage with Western allies. But there were multiple setbacks. Turkeys European Union membership talks stalled following Cypruss admission to the bloc and the elections of European leaders such as Germanys Angela Merkel and Frances Nicolas Sarkozy, both of whom opposed Ankaras EU membership.

As the AKP lost the support of Western-oriented groups in its coalitionincluding liberals and the Gulen religious movementErdogan became reliant on political factions that advocated for a Eurasianist foreign policy that was less Western and more engaged with Russia and Central Asia.

Of all the conflicts between Turkey and its NATO allies in the post-Cold War era, the most central has been over relations with Kurdish nationalist groups. Washington has repeatedly looked to Kurdish groups to act as local partners in military operationsfirst against Saddam Hussein in Iraq and later against the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq.

Meanwhile, anti-Kurdish measures taken by governments in Turkey, Iraq, Syria, and Iran have helped create a sizable, politically active Kurdish diaspora in Europe. Sweden is one of the most notable examples. There, a closely divided parliament in 2021 allowed a legislator who had fought with Iranian-Kurdish guerrillas in her youth to cast the deciding vote securing additional support for Kurdish groups in Syria.

But the actions of a single legislator were not at the root of Turkeys unwillingness to grant Sweden a quick NATO accession. In fact, Sweden itself is not the issue. Sweden was the first country after Turkey to designate the PKKthe Kurdistan Workers Partyas a terrorist organization in 1984, and other NATO member countries, such as Germany, also have influential Kurdish diasporas.

Rather, Turkeys leaders decided to pick a fight within NATO because the alliance remains one of the few venues where they can exert pressure on Western peers. Through NATO, Ankara can draw attention to its security concernsand gain importantconcessions along the way.

Visit link:
Why Turkey Waited to Approve Sweden's NATO Membership - Foreign Policy

A leaked German defense ministry paper outlining the start of a full-scale Russian attack on the Baltic states and Poland and thereby NATO is artfully imagined.

The scenario begins with the Putin regime mobilizing as many as 200,000 new conscripts in February. This would aim to raise pressure on Ukraine, while Russias army initiated a quiet build-up on the borders of Poland and Lithuania near the Suwaki Corridor. The German paper suggests this would trigger a NATO buildup, and be followed by a Russian attack at the years end, just as Donald Trump returns to office (US voters allowing.)

How might it go after that? The old military maxim states that if you want to understand your adversary, put yourself in his shoes. So I have followed the scenario to its likely conclusion.

Russian generals would need to start war planning immediately. The Kremlin loves a mighty name on a war plan, much like their American counterparts, who spend a lot of energy and time to come up with the most appealing name.

Given the old Soviet-era war plan Seven days to the Rhine, the proposed operational name will be Plan Red Three Days to Paldiski (a small community on the Baltic Sea just west of the Estonian capital, Tallinn.) This name was adopted the moment it hit the desk of Vladimir Putin, who admired its historical echoes.

First, the assumptions behind the plan must be agreed upon. This would be done under five general headings.

First, most Western European armed forces are in a grave state of unreadiness and have limited abilities. Even significant forces such as Germany, France, and Great Britain talk big, and as their politicians market impressive-sounding rearmament programs. But at the unit level, readiness is the same as it was 10 years ago.

The first significant NATO formation to arrive at the Lithuanian border would be Polish, after about 72 hours, but sizeable German and other European NATO forces will not be seen for at least 10-15 days. This, it goes without saying, is a dire start because the small NATO tripwire forces (which total about 6,000-7,000 personnel) in the Baltics rely on relief arriving fast. A German pledge to send an additional brigade of 4,000 troops has not yet materialized.

West European NATO members are in a state of denial about their readiness and inhabit an imaginary world where recent pledges of rearmament are already in place.

One example is the key Swedish island of Gotland, which commands access to much of the Baltic Sea but is still only defended by one mechanized company (barely a few hundred personnel) and some home guard forces.

This chasm between imagined readiness and actual readiness presents Russia with an excellent opportunity.

Second, since the Cold War the fear and ignorance about nuclear arms in Western Europe has built to such an extent they are no longer discussed. At all. At least in the 1970s and 1980s, there was a conversation, even if it came from nuclear abolitionists.

Added to the silence about nuclear arms is the almost 80-year-old geopolitical equilibrium where nuclear arms are never used and are seen as theatrical instruments solely to demonstrate strategic deterrence.

The Russians have no such difficulties and well know how they can be used for effect. The use of relatively small nuclear arms would send the West into a steep economic nosedive. The shock waves would cause widespread popular panic but would also shake political and military leadership and systems. It would cause utter mayhem in the financial markets.

The 9/11 attacks were not only a deadly event in human terms, they also created market chaos. US markets were closed for five days and lost $1.4 trillion in value in the week they reopened. A nuclear weapon detonation is unquestionably the sort of black swan event that terrifies investors and Western central banks would struggle to restore equilibrium.

Its true that nuclear weapons use is not nice, but Russia doesnt worry about nice. It worries about the effect.

Get the Latest

Sign up to receive regular emails and stay informed about CEPA's work.

Third, as the Russian planner, I would assess that NATO trip wire forces in the Baltics will be essentially passive. They lack sufficient artillery, logistics, and medical support, and have few heavy weapons to engage a Russian spearhead.

So I would circumvent these NATO units and once this is achieved there will be little serious interference in our operations during the first 72 hours. Rather than attack us, the NATO trip wire units will hold the territory where they are stationed.

Finland will not have time to mobilize or push units toward Russia, nor will it cross the Russian border, fully aware of the risk of a nuclear response. Russia can thus keep its military units unchanged in that area. They will not need to be reinforced.

Fourth, we will ensure surprise. Western observers like to say that Russians have proved themselves bone-headed in the failed war on Ukraine. Thats true. We made some terrible mistakes, but we also learned.

So rather than weeks and weeks of build-up (as with Ukraine) we will launch the offensive with what we have on the frontline. Yes, NATO will have noticed some military strengthening but it wont be sure. We will not share our intentions with much of our own government or foreign entities; even China will be unaware.

And we can rely on our friends on Western social media to spread our lies, as they did over Ukraine. Many others will suggest high-level talks. We like high-level talks; they keep everyone busy until its too late.

Meanwhile, Russias other weapons of war, our gray zone units, will continue to work at full pitch. Their messaging machine will be careful not to blow the cover of the operation, indeed they will deny it and sow confusion about our real aims. Practiced propaganda and psychological operations will get underway, including thousands of fake social media accounts under Anglophone names explaining the problem is once again NATO aggression. There will be peace demonstrations across Western cities.

We Russians know the considerable military risks. A small invasion force might repeat our humiliation at Hostomel airport near Kyiv in February-March 2022 when lead units were annihilated by the Ukrainian army. Audacity, we learned, has its price. But we wont make the same mistake twice.

The actual plan is simple.

Plan Red.

Day one, the war begins with an intensive missile barrage on high-value targets. An echelon of armor, attack helicopters, and rocket artillery pushes through Northern Estonia-Narwa and Tallinn to Paldiski. Simultaneously, battalion-size naval infantry landed in Tallinn harbor.

In the south, a second echelon pushes northwestwards from Belarus toward Kaliningrad Oblast through Lithuania and then immediately turns south to confront NATO forces coming from Poland. Rear echelon forces mop up the Lithuanian defenses and resistance in the following days.

Latvia is ignored and sits in the Kurland Kessel, the Courland pocket. Its army lacks the means to attack and is effectively removed from the board.

Now comes the drama. A relatively small, high-altitude nuclear device is exploded over international waters releasing a significant electromagnetic pulse (EMP) to knock out communications and computer systems on Gotland, including the main town of Visby, after which a battalion-sized airborne unit captures the nearby airfield. Day two is taken up with securing day ones targets and reinforcing first-echelon forces.

When the Polish army arrives at the main frontline on day three, the Kremlin informs NATO that any attempt to reoccupy Russias new Baltic oblasts will trigger a nuclear response.

After calling Washington to forewarn it and so avoid triggering a US nuclear response Russias Strategic Rocket Forces launch missiles that explode on its own territory targeting the Russian borderland in Novaya Zemlya, the large island north of Murmansk, and minor islands the East Siberian Sea in the Far East. This will not kill many Russians (most would be indigenous people and the Kremlin is indifferent to their welfare) but it would underline how far Putins regime is willing to go.

Allied intelligence meanwhile warns that its satellites and sensors have detected Russian strategic missile submarines putting to sea in unusual numbers in the previous weeks. Now its clear why.

The Kremlin explains to the West that it is a reasonable partner and wishes to restore fraternal relations. Yes, this has been a historic humiliation for the West and yes it must be painful to see the end of its supposed rules-based global order (which it always considered ridiculous and unfair.)

Russia offers a deal. We take the Baltic states, plus a land corridor across the remains of a partitioned Ukrainian state. Oh and Moldova; well have that too.

After all, youre in no position to negotiate. There is nothing to negotiate about.

And because were reasonable and seek brotherly relations, you can have Gotland back as a sign of goodwill.

What do you say?

Jan Kallberg, Ph.D., LL.M., is a non-resident Senior Fellow with the Transatlantic Defense and Security program at the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA) and a George Washington University faculty member. Follow him at cyberdefense.com and @Cyberdefensecom.

Europes Edgeis CEPAs online journal covering critical topics on the foreign policy docket across Europe and North America. All opinions are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the position or viewsof the institutions they representor the Center for European Policy Analysis.

Europe's Edge

CEPAs online journal covering critical topics on the foreign policy docket across Europe and North America.

View post:
Code Red: How Russia Conquers the Baltics - Center for European Policy Analysis

(Bloomberg) -- Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban escalated a standoff with Western allies over Swedens NATO accession after a senior US lawmaker called for potential sanctions against the lone holdout.

Most Read from Bloomberg

Orbans lawmakers wont allow a parliamentary vote on ratifying Swedens bid until the Nordic countrys leader visits Budapest to meet with his Hungarian counterpart, ATV television reported, citing the ruling Fidesz party. Theyll also boycott a special session the opposition called for Monday on the accession, ATV said on its website.

Swedish Foreign Minister Tobias Billstrom declined to comment on the report. Fideszs parliamentary group didnt respond to a phone call or email from Bloomberg.

Orbans invitation for Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson to visit Hungary was extended last month in what was seen as a face-saving step for the nationalist leader after he broke a pledge to ratify Swedens accession before Turkey.

Patience over Orbans obstructionism is wearing thin both inside the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the European Union. On Thursday, Orban finally dropped his opposition to a 50 billion ($54.4 billion) EU aid package for Ukraine after becoming the only of the blocs 27 leaders to veto it in December.

Hungary is the least reliable NATO member, US Senator Ben Cardin, the Democratic chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said in a statement on Thursday. He urged the Biden administration to consider imposing sanctions on Hungary for corruption and also to weigh the possibility of scrapping its participation in a US visa-waiver program.

Kristersson met Orban on Thursday on the sidelines of an EU summit in Brussels, but said he preferred to come to Budapest only after Hungarys parliament ratified Swedens NATO bid.

Hes been keen to avoid any optics of negotiating with Orban over his countrys accession, after Sweden received an invitation last year to join the military alliance. Swedens membership is seen as crucial for bolstering NATOs ability to defend its eastern flank nearly two years after Russias invasion of Ukraine.

Orban has sought to attribute the delay to his own lawmakers, who he said have been hurt by Swedish criticism over the erosion of democracy in Hungary. In fact, Fidesz has a supermajority in the chamber and the party is tightly controlled by the prime minister.

--With assistance from Niclas Rolander.

(Updates with Swedish foreign minister in third paragraph, context throughout.)

Most Read from Bloomberg Businessweek

2024 Bloomberg L.P.

Visit link:
Orban Escalates Standoff Over Sweden's Accession to NATO - Yahoo News

Donald Trump declared that he doesnt believe NATO would be there for the U.S. if the country were to be attacked.

At a Las Vegas rally on Saturday, the former president knocked Joe Bidens push for a bipartisan Senate deal on border security thats linked to Ukraine aid, claiming that its designed to continue the invasion of America while sending billions of dollars to other countries, according to a report from The Nevada Independent.

He went on to claim that the U.S. has provided $200 billion-plus to Ukraine while European nations are in for $20 billion, disregardingthe facts on aid to Ukraine since Russia invaded the country in February 2022.

Were spending were paying for NATO and we dont get so much out of it, said the Republican Party front-runner, who once called NATO obsolete and has campaigned on finishing the process of reevaluating the purpose and mission of NATO.

And you know, I hate to tell you this about NATO if we ever needed their help, lets say we were attacked, I dont believe theyd be there, trump continued. I dont believe. I know the people. I know them. I can tell you country by country who would be there and who but I dont believe theyd be there.

Journalist Aaron Rupar, who shared a clip of Trumps remarks on X, formerly Twitter, pointed out that NATO invoked Article 5 in its founding treaty for the first time following the 9/11 attacks. The article describes an armed attack against one member as an attack against them all.

See the article here:
Trump Unleashes His Doubts On NATO: 'We Don't Get So Much Out Of It' - Yahoo News

After blocking Swedens bid to join NATO for nearly two years, the Turkish parliament ratified Stockholms accession on Jan. 23, reaffirming Ankaras commitment to the Western alliance. A parliamentary majority that included the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP), its ally the Nationalist Action Party (MHP), and the main opposition Republican Peoples Party (CHP) ultimately rallied in support of Swedens NATO accession. Hungary, the last remaining NATO member left to ratify Swedens accession, is expected to follow suit in the coming weeks.

After blocking Swedens bid to join NATO for nearly two years, the Turkish parliament ratified Stockholms accession on Jan. 23, reaffirming Ankaras commitment to the Western alliance. A parliamentary majority that included the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP), its ally the Nationalist Action Party (MHP), and the main opposition Republican Peoples Party (CHP) ultimately rallied in support of Swedens NATO accession. Hungary, the last remaining NATO member left to ratify Swedens accession, is expected to follow suit in the coming weeks.

Turkeys support for Swedens accession long looked unlikely. By standing in the way, Turkey had a broader goal: to exploit the opportunity to undermine Western support for Kurdish aspirations in the Middle East. Sweden has been a sanctuary for the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), which Turkey labels a terrorist organization; it has offered political and financial support to PKK-linked Kurdish groups in northern Syria, the Democratic Union Party (PYD), and its military wing, the Peoples Protection Units (YPG). To get Turkeys backing to join NATO, Sweden agreed to cut these ties.

Still, a year ago, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan lambasted Sweden, saying that the country should not expect goodwill from Turkey if it fails to show respect for the religious beliefs of Muslims and Turkish people. Last September, Erdogan said Sweden had failed to keep its promises to Turkey to receive the green light, citing demonstrations in Stockholm in support of the PKK. Erdogans political ally Devlet Bahceli, who leads the far-right MHP, last year described Sweden as a country that threatens our national existence, adding that if Sweden remained unwilling to extradite Kurdish activists convicted of terrorism in Turkey, the MHP wouldnt ratify its NATO accession.

Sweden refused this last demand, yet Erdogan and Bahceli still folded. This is welcome news for the United States and NATO, and it shows that nationalism and religious resentment ultimately take a back seat to Atlanticism in Turkey. However, Turkeys stance on the so-called Kurdish issue will continue to sap NATOs strength and credibility. The continued repression of the Kurds in Turkey is not in line with the democratic values that NATO purports to defend, and Turkeys antagonism toward the Syrian Kurds puts it at odds with the United States. Turkey has now shown that it can bend, and in NATOs strategic interests, it must do more than acquiesce to Swedenit must acquiesce to a democratic resolution of the Kurdish question.

Erdogans and Bahcelis statements about Sweden did reflect resentment among both the Turkish public and the governing elite. However, the target was never really Sweden but instead the United States, which many Turks now consider a hostile power because of its support for the Kurdish militants in Syria. Turkey sees the establishment of a de facto Kurdish state in Syria as the principal threat to its national security and resents that the United States arms and finances the PKK-linked Kurdish militants there. Turkey may have entertained the illusion that Washington would stop supporting the YPG in return for Turkey ratifying Swedens NATO membership.

Still, when it came to Swedens NATO accession, Turkeys strategic imperative to stay anchored to the West carried the day. NATO membership remains as crucial for Ankaras ruling elite today as it did when the country joined the alliance in 1952. Neither occasional clashes with Western powers nor Turkeys business relations with Russia signal any latent desire to alter Turkeys Western orientation. Geopolitical turmoil from Ukraine to the Red Sea makes it even more paramount for Turkey to maintain its ties to the West. Furthermore, Turkey depends on the United States to refurbish its air force and now expects that the U.S. Congress will lift its embargo on the $20 billion sale of F-16 aircraft and modernization kits to Turkey.

Turkey identifies as Western only in a military-strategic sense that does not imply belonging to the West in political-ideological termsand it never has. Turkey shows how leaders who stand in opposition to the liberal and democratic values that NATO supposedly upholds can still embrace Atlanticism. Turkey was a democracy when it joined the bloc, but its democratic rule was regularly suspended by military coups without its membership being called into question. On the contrary, the coups aligned with NATO interests, as the military was loyal to the Western alliance and suppressed left-wing calls for a nonaligned Turkey.

In fact, NATO resources were mobilized in the service of anti-democratic forces in Turkey in the past, notably under Bahcelis predecessor as MHP leader, Alparslan Turkes. A military officer, Turkes received counterinsurgency education in the United States in the 1950s. He played a leading role in Turkeys 1960 military coup and was later connected to the political killings of leftist activists in Turkey in the 1970s. The latter campaign, led by right-wing militias, was motivated by the fear of a communist takeover. The Turkish military, the police, and the intelligence community benefited from covert NATO support and advice in their anti-communist campaign. No NATO allies questioned the role that Turkish security forces played.

Both NATO adherence and authoritarianism remain salient in Turkey. The Turkish parliamentary majority that ratified Swedens NATO accession was the same group of parties that made it possible to imprison lawmakers in 2016 by stripping parliamentarians of their immunity. That November, the co-chairs of the pro-Kurdish Peoples Democratic Party (HDP), Selahattin Demirtas and Figen Yuksekdag, and eight other HDP parliamentarians were arrested. They remain behind bars, in violation of fundamental democratic principles.

During the Cold War, anti-communism bound together liberal democracies and right-wing dictatorships, offering Atlanticism some ideological leeway. But NATO can no longer overlook violations of democratic principles among its members as lightly as it did back then, when the overriding goal of resisting communism conferred political legitimacy on authoritarian governments in Turkey, Greece, and Portugal. Today, as global forces pit Western democratic capitalism against Russian and Chinese authoritarian capitalism, the Wests claim to moral superiority relies exclusively on its pretention to represent democracy.

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg rejoiced that completing Swedens accession to NATO makes us all stronger and safer. But democracy advocates in Turkey and beyond have reason to question an Atlanticism that is embraced by authoritarian and nationalist forces in Ankaraand in turn empowers them. The fact that a strategic imperative compels Turkeys authoritarian leaders to back Sweden undermines the Western narrative that equates Atlanticism and the defense of liberal values.

Unless Western democrats and U.S. lawmakers begin caring as much about the liberation of imprisoned elected officials in Turkey as they do about Sweden joining NATO, Atlanticism will appear to lose some of its liberal democratic purpose. Furthermore, domestic repression in Turkeyand specifically the governments refusal to accommodate the democratic demands of its Kurdish citizenswill have destabilizing regional effects. Ankaras standoff with the Kurds will in turn keep the United States and Turkey at odds in Syria, standing in the way of their strategic relationship.

That Turkey has demonstrated that it has no other option than to submit to the United States and its allies reveals the limits of Turkish nationalism. It also offers U.S. lawmakers an opportunity to reassert the democratic purpose of Atlanticism. Although U.S. President Joe Biden urged Congress to approve the F-16 sale between Washington and Ankara without delay after Turkey ratified Swedens NATO accession, U.S. lawmakers should consider making the sale conditional on the release of Demirtas and other imprisoned elected officials in Turkey. Otherwise, NATO stands to lose credibility.

After a U.S. aircraft shot down a Turkish drone targeting Kurdish positions in northern Syria last October, a furious Erdogan vowed to respond, saying that Turkey has a security problem with the United States. But as Turkeys capitulation over the ratification of Swedens NATO accession makes clear, the United States has little reason to worry. Washington should instead expect that increased pressure on Ankara to live up to NATOs democratic standards will eventually pay off. A fully democratic Turkey would strengthen the bloc as muchif not morethan Swedens accession.

Visit link:
Turkey Acquiesced on Sweden Because It Needs the West - Foreign Policy

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg concluded his trip to the United States on Thursday, 1 February 2024, with a visit to the headquarters of the US Special Operations Command (SOCOM) in Tampa, Florida. Addressing troops, Mr Stoltenberg underscored that in a changing world with serious challenges, NATO Allies stand united around our core cause to protect and defend each other.

The Secretary General commended the troops for theirservice, noting that Special Operations Forces are vital to any military operation. And therefore, so important for the whole NATO Alliance. He also paid tribute to those who have fallen in the line of duty.

Mr Stoltenberghighlighted that Allies increased defence spending will not only result in boosting national capabilities, butwill also facilitatemore cooperation in NATO. Pointing to the increasingly global nature of security threats and challenges, the Secretary General stressed NATO is responding because we need to do that together. He underlined that together, NATO Allies make up half the worlds economic and military might, adding: NATO is a good deal for all Allies NATO is a good deal for the United States.

The visit to SOCOM wraps up a week of engagements in the U.S. by Mr Stoltenberg.

On Wednesday, at the Lockheed Martin facility in Troy, Alabama, the Secretary General emphasised NATOs crucial role in creating a vast market for defence sales and production.Earlierthat dayat the Heritage Foundation in Washington D.C, he outlined that NATO Allies must ensure robust deterrence, prepare for enduring competition with China, and invest more in defence to keep societies safe and free.

On Tuesday, Mr Stoltenberg met with US Congressional leaders and highlighted that a strong NATO is in the strategic interest of the United States, and support for Ukraine remains decisive for Ukraines survival and Europes stability. Through NATO, the U.S.has more friends and allies than any other power, he said.

On Monday, the Secretary General had discussions with senior U.S. officials, and at a press conference with Secretary of State Antony Blinken, he stressed that for a tiny fraction of annual defence spending, the United States has helped Ukraine destroy a major part of Russias combat capacity, without placing a single American soldier in harms way. He also met with Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan to discuss continuingthestrong support for Ukraine, as well aspreparations for NATOs Summit in Washington this July.

Read more here:
Secretary General in Florida: NATO makes the United States stronger and more secure - European Interest