Daily Archives: June 20, 2024

The outcome of the upcoming U.S. presidential election is going to have major consequences for the relationship between the U.S. and its allies. While President Joe Biden is a firm believer in the value of the transatlantic alliance, Republican contender Donald Trump has for years railed against U.S. participation in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the military alliance commonly referred to as NATO.

In February 2024, for example, Trump said that if he were reelected president, he would tell Russia to do whatever the hell they want against NATO members that are delinquent in not having invested enough in their own military capabilities. Foreign policy commentators viewed that as an invitation for Russia to attack these NATO countries.

In September 2022, six months after Russias full-scale invasion, Ukraine applied to join NATO. Now, Ukraines potential membership is one of the top questions that representatives from NATOs 32 member countries in North America and Europe will consider when they meet in Washington in July 2024.

At the root of debates over policy toward alliances such as NATO is the assumption that NATO requires its members to step in and help with defense if another member of the alliance is attacked.

As political scientists who study the role of international organizations like NATO, we think it is important to understand that, in reality, alliance agreements are more flexible than people think.

In practice, it is possible for the U.S. and other Western countries to stay out of a conflict that involves a NATO country without having to break their alliance commitments. The NATO treatys language contains loopholes that let member countries remain out of other members wars in certain situations.

One key part of the NATO treaty that countries sign when they join the alliance is called Article 5. This says that an armed attack against one NATO member in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all.

In the case of such an attack, NATO countries agree to assist the country that requires help, including through the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

But the treaty does not include a clear definition of a what an armed attack actually is.

This mattered in February 2020, when Turkey asked for a NATO meeting and requested that NATO intervene with military force in response to Russian and Syrian forces attacks on its territory, which had killed 33 Turkish soldiers, during the Syrian civil war. NATO allies chose not to defend Turkey with military force, arguing that the level of violence against Turkey wasnt enough to call it an armed attack.

Even when NATO members decide that Article 5 should apply to a specific situation, each country can still individually decide how to act. That is, while NATO does have administrative staff based in Brussels, there is no central NATO authority that tells each country what it must do.

Instead, each country tells NATO what it is and is not willing to do.

NATO members have only formally invoked Article 5 once following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon outside of Washington.

At that time, 13 NATO countries sent fighter aircraft to help the U.S. patrol its skies from mid-October 2001 to mid-May 2002.

But most NATO allies chose not to send troops to Afghanistan to support the U.S. in its fight against the Taliban. This lack of action on the part of some NATO allies was not seen as breaking the treaty and didnt prompt a major debate and the countries that chose not to join the fight were not sanctioned by or ejected from the alliance.

The NATO treaty also provides some exceptions based on geography. When Argentina went to war with the United Kingdom (a NATO member) over the Falkland Islands in 1982, the U.S. and other NATO members were able to use the fact that the alliance only applies to the North Atlantic region as a reason to stay out of the conflict.

Some political scientists argue that voters will demand their leaders take the country to war to defend an ally. This implies that what really binds the members of an alliance together is not the legal text of an international treaty itself, given that no international court is empowered to enforce the treaty, but rather the publics expectations of what it means to be an ally.

As part of our research into how the American public thinks about international legal obligations, we decided to construct an experiment to see if presidents could use alliance loophole language to justify keeping the U.S. out of a war involving an ally.

In 2022 and 2023, we conducted a pair of survey-based experiments that involved asking nearly 5,000 American adults to consider a hypothetical scenario in which a U.S. ally comes under attack from a powerful neighbor.

Some of the respondents were told that the text of the alliance treaty would allow the U.S. government to avoid having to send troops to defend the embattled ally, while others were not told that information. Though the survey did not mention a specific alliance, we described the terms of the alliance in a way that matches the language used in treaties like NATOs. We then asked the respondents to tell us their views on sending U.S. troops to defend the ally under attack.

Our results revealed a big difference between the people who were told about the flexibility in the alliance treaty and those who were not. While respondents from both groups were generally inclined to come to the defense of an ally, their willingness to do so was significantly lower when they were told that the alliance treaty did not necessarily require the U.S. to send troops.

This suggests that political leaders can, under certain circumstances, manage to convince a large segment of the public that its OK to abandon an ally in a time of need.

So, when it comes to debates about U.S. policy toward its alliance partners and whether it should admit new members like Ukraine it is important for both sides to appreciate that alliance commitments are not quite as binding, either legally or politically, as the conventional wisdom suggests.

The rest is here:
Joining NATO binds countries to defend each other but this commitment is not set in stone - The Conversation Indonesia

1. Stoltenberg: Record number of NATO allies hitting defense spending targets during war in Ukraine  Voice of America - VOA News
2. Record Number of NATO Allies Hit Military Spending Targets  The New York Times
3. More than 20 countries will meet NATO spending targets, Stoltenberg says  POLITICO

Follow this link:
Stoltenberg: Record number of NATO allies hitting defense spending targets during war in Ukraine - Voice of America - VOA News

The Biden administration sometimes refers to the need to build a bridge to NATO membership for Ukraine. Its an apt metaphorjust not in the way its proponents might think.

One might think of a bridge as a mere symbol of hope. But, invoked in a military context, a bridge is best understood in its role as wartime infrastructure. And that metaphor works precisely because building a bridge in wartime is an incredibly difficult and complex operationone that military planners call a wet gap crossing. Conducting a contested wet gap crossing is periloussee Ukraines evisceration of a Russian battalion attempting to cross the Siverskyi Donets River in May 2022but the possible strategic rewards are high. In 1944, George S. Pattons Third Army crossed the Moselle River at Nancy, turning the German defensive line and opening a strategic position for the Battle of the Bulge.

Much like a wet gap crossing, bringing Ukraine into NATO would be risky and costly, but it could lead to strategic success. If NATO nations are truly serious about bringing Ukraine into NATO, then creating a bridge to NATO cannot just be a clever diplomatic metaphor, and it should not be attempted merely in order to get to the other side, like the Russians at Siverskyi Donets. It has to be approached like the difficult, sophisticated, multifaceted operation that it is, and it must be part of a broader strategy for postwar Euro-Atlantic security, as was the Moselle crossing in World War II.

Diplomats and politicians planning for Ukraines future role in NATO at Julys NATO summit in Washington would do well to understand the U.S. militarys own approach to wet gap crossings. The lessons are instructiveand sobering.

Step 1: Try to go around

Because wet gap crossings are so difficult, the preferred option, if possible, is to avoid them altogether. Some would say we should not bring Ukraine into NATO because it is too risky. But that ignores the fact that there are no good options short of NATO membership for Ukraine, and the risks of not bringing Ukraine into NATO are greater in the long run. As in military operations, crossing a river often is the fastest, most effective way to an objective.

Despite the known risks and difficulties inherent in combat bridging, militaries still maintain this capability because they know that sometimes the strategic opportunity afforded by a successful wet gap crossing is worth the risks and difficulties. They also know that sometimes, going around is not an option. Russia has invaded its neighbors and rattled its nuclear saber, but one thing it has not done is attack NATO directly. That is because NATOs Article 5 remains an effective deterrent. Nothing else has worked.

Those arguing against Ukrainian membership in NATO assert that perhaps we should choose an Israel model of continued materiel support to Ukraine or that a combination of countries, such as the G-7 nations, providing long-term economic support to Ukraine, would convince Russia that it cannot win. The Israel model will not work because Israel has nuclear weapons and Ukraine does not. In fact, thats the whole point. Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons in 1994 when Russia, among other nations, agreed to respect Ukraines sovereignty and territorial integrity. Similarly, Swedens and Finlands decisions to join NATO despite already being members of the European Union demonstrate that bringing Ukraine into the EU and affording it the EUs Article 42.7 mutual assistance clause would be insufficient to deter Russian aggression.

Step 2: Plan and rehearse

Once a decision has been made to conduct a deliberate wet gap crossing, planning is crucial. Simply moving your forces up to the edge of the water and trying to figure out a way across when you reach it would guarantee disaster. You must reconnoiter potential crossing sites, assess which will likely be successful given the terrain as well as your and your enemys strengths and weaknesses, and prepare multiple crossing sites.

There are several options for bridging Ukraine into NATO, all of which should be considered but not all of which seem promising. The firstdeclaring Ukraine a NATO member while hostilities are ongoingis theoretically possible but likely politically untenable given the need for unanimity among the 32 allies to bring in a new member. The fact that it took a year to bring the geographically blessed and militarily advanced Sweden into the alliance belies this harsh fact. If, somehow, this became politically tenable, then NATO would have to quickly deploy forces into Ukraine to make the Article 5 guarantee more than just lip service.

The second option would be to bring Ukraine into NATO as part of a guarantee during negotiations over a cease-fire or cessation of hostilitiesi.e., as soon as a cessation is in place, Ukraine will accede to NATO. This likely would not work because Russia would continue fighting rather than agree to a cessation of hostilities that triggered Ukrainian membership in NATO.

The third option would be for a critical mass of NATO nations to guarantee Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity following a cease-fire by deploying forces on Ukrainian territory. This has the benefit of offering concrete security guarantees to Ukraine while allowing time to bring onside skeptical NATO nations.

While the future shape of Ukraine is unknowable, and the timeline for Ukrainian admission to NATO is unknown, the alliance should start working now to achieve unanimity of political support among NATO nations for Ukrainian accession and also to determine how, where, and when forces from NATO nations will be used to guarantee the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine. Both measures will be unavoidable, regardless of which option is deemed most credible.

Step 3: Prepare the battlespace

In combat bridging, you dont just line up all your vehicles in a convoy and drive directly to the location where you want to build your bridge and then start putting things in the water. That would be suicide. You plan, rehearse, prepare your forces, and conduct a preparatory campaign to establish favorable conditions. Similarly, simply declaring a Ukrainian bridge to NATO without doing any planning or preparation would just leave Ukraine in the same strategic limbo it faced following the 2008 Bucharest declaration and similarly would motivate Moscow to redouble its efforts to undermine Ukrainian sovereignty before it is able to join NATO.

For NATO, this means that members need to begin whipping together votes in favor of Ukrainian NATO accession now. Diplomats need to understand who in the alliance already is on board with bringing Ukraine into NATO and under what conditions. For those whose position is never or not until the war is over, more creative solutions must be proposed, discussed, and solidifiedin private. This cannot be a one-off discussion; it must be a constant campaign to prepare the battlespace for eventual Ukrainian accession.

Regardless of whether the war ends with Ukraine in control of its 1991 borders or Kyiv settles for something short of that, troops from NATO nations will need to be stationed on Ukrainian soil to provide the time, space, and security necessary to complete the bridge into NATO. These forces should include a coalition of key alliesideally including NATOs three nuclear states (Britain, France, and the United States) to signal that despite a lack of Article 5 security guarantees, NATOs nuclear nations are committed to upholding the agreed-on bordersjust as NATO troops were stationed in West Germany to deter Soviet forces in East Germany in the years between the end of World War II and West Germanys accession to NATO.

Moving these forces into Ukraine in a short timeframe following an armistice or cease-fire would be extremely difficult both logistically and politically. Therefore, NATO nations should begin to set the theater now for those moves by declaring that NATOs air defenses surrounding Ukraine will begin to shoot down Russian missiles and one-way attack drones that are on a trajectory to hit NATO territory; sending small numbers of NATO military personnel into Ukraine to provide training to Ukrainians; and negotiating with Turkey on allowing NATO naval capabilities into the Black Sea to protect civilian shipping.

Step 4: Commit

A wet gap crossing is a massive operation. It is viewed as a corps-level effort in the U.S. Army and is assumed that the Air Force, Space Force, and cyber assets also will provide critical support. It is difficult, risky, and costly, but if done properly, it can lead to strategic breakthrough.

Precisely because it is so risky, the commander of the operation must assess the risks involved, mitigate as much risk as possible without jeopardizing the mission, and accept that it is impossible to mitigate every risk. This is a critical step because once a combat wet gap crossing has begun, a commander must fully commit to the plan and leverage all forces available to make it a success. Half-measures in this type of operation lead to failure.

If NATO is serious about bringing Ukraine in as a memberand it should bethen it must be clear-eyed about the risks. It must develop a concrete plan, not just a political laundry list. This plan must be in support of a broader strategy. And most importantly, it must commit itself to success. Anything less is likely to lead to failure.

Read the rest here:
Ukraine Needs a 'Wet Gap Crossing' to NATO - Foreign Policy

Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III underscored NATO's enduring commitment to Ukraine after meeting with his alliance counterparts in Brussels today.

The leaders discussed Ukraine during a meeting of NATO defense ministers, marking the final round of high-level talks before next month's NATO summit in Washington.

"Like nations of goodwill around the world, our NATO allies continue to stand up for Ukraine's sovereignty and self-defense," Austin said. "And as we prepare for the Washington summit, the NATO-Ukraine partnership continues to deepen."

Today's meeting included discussions on the alliance's defense and deterrence initiatives, including progress toward meeting capability requirements for NATO's new generation of regional defense plans.

The defense ministers also discussed defense industrial production to ensure delivery of key capabilities to Ukraine and NATO's plan for training Ukraine's defenders.

Following the discussions, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said the group has agreed to a plan on how NATO will lead future coordination of security assistance and training for Ukraine's armed forces.

The effort will involve nearly 700 NATO personnel and partner countries, who will oversee training for Ukrainian armed forces at facilities in allied countries. The alliance will also plan and coordinate security assistance for Ukraine, manage the transfer and repair of equipment and support the long-term development of Ukraine's armed forces.

"These efforts do not make NATO party to the conflict," Stoltenberg said. "But they will enhance our support to Ukraine to uphold its right to self-defense."

NATO leaders will formally launch the effort during next month's summit.

Ahead of today's meeting, Austin hosted the 23rd iteration of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group, a U.S.-led coalition of some 50 countries committed to helping Ukraine defend itself from Russian aggression.

As he met with members of the coalition on Thursday, Austin underscored the group's collective commitment to helping Ukraine meet its urgent defense needs and bolster its long-term security amid what he said is a critical moment in Russia's ongoing war of aggression.

"Ladies and gentlemen, this is a critical moment," Austin said as he kicked off Thursday's discussions. "The stakes of this war are high. Ukraine's survival is on the line. But so is all of our security.

"None of us would want to live in a world where [Russian President Vladimir] Putin prevails," he said. "And we would all be less secure if tyrants think that they can trample borders and cow their neighbors."

Today, Stoltenberg also previewed a new defense industry pledge that will be formalized at next month's summit.

The pledge, which is aimed at sending a sustainable demand signal to industry, will allow the alliance to "scale up production and to develop a defense industrial base that's fit for purpose," Stoltenberg said.

Austin said investment in the defense industrial base "is crucial to the future of our alliance."

The defense ministers also discussed the ongoing adaption of NATO's nuclear capabilities and made further progress translating regional defense plans into concrete requirements and identifying the forces needed to defend the alliance.

"For 75 years, NATO has been the greatest defensive alliance in human history," Austin said today. "NATO has prevented conflict, maintained freedom and the rule of law, and upheld the principles of democracy and human rights.

"We still have more work to do together," he said. "And as we look toward the summit in Washington and beyond, I am confident that we will continue to make the United States and our world more secure."

Here is the original post:
Austin Meets With NATO Counterparts Ahead of Washington Summit - Department of Defense

President Biden met with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg on Monday afternoon as the two leaders prepared for next months potentially rocky NATO summit in D.C., which will bring dozens of heads of state and government and potentially thousands of protesters to the nations capital.

Biden has made buttressing international alliances such as NATO a centerpiece of his foreign policy, increasingly seeking to contrast his worldview with that of former president Donald Trump, his presumptive opponent in 2024. But as they look ahead to the summit from July 9-11, White House officials are expecting pressure from foreign leaders intent on giving Ukraine a green light to hit back at Russia more aggressively.

The NATO alliance has grown in the wake of Russias unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, as Finland joined the alliance in 2023 and Sweden became its 32nd member in March. In a pair of European trips this month, Biden argued that, contrary to the arguments of his political adversaries, the United States would be foolish to isolate itself from major European conflicts.

The best way to avoid these kinds of battles in the future is to stay strong with our allies, Biden said during a trip to the Aisne-Marne American Cemetery in France while commemorating the 80th anniversary of D-Day. I think theres a new rise and a sense of some within the country of wanting to let that slip, the idea that we become semi-isolationist now, which some are talking about. Its not who we are.

His words were a not-so-subtle reference to Trumps foreign policy. Trump has said he would not protect NATO allies who spend too little on their own defense, remarks Biden has called dangerous and un-American.

At the upcoming summit, participants will celebrate NATOs 75-year history and its decades-long successes in serving as a bulwark against the Soviet Union and now Russia.

But the gathering also will pose a big test for Biden, as many allies are unhappy with his reluctance to let Ukraine attack targets in Russia, while others are frustrated with his staunch backing of Israels invasion of Gaza. The summit could also attract large-scale pro-Palestinian protests. Such demonstrations have erupted at almost every international gathering and Biden appearance in recent months, and a large summit of military powers in the U.S. capital is unlikely to be an exception.

Stoltenberg on Monday touted increased European defense spending and said the continent was a strong partner in Washingtons efforts to keep the world safe. He said that 23 of NATOs 32 members are now meeting the alliances defense spending targets of 2 percent of their nations gross domestic product, up from seven just five years ago.

The number has more than doubled since I took office, Biden said during remarks with Stoltenberg from the Oval Office. And we look forward to building on all of this progress next month.

Stoltenberg, who has been secretary general since 2014, has made it clear that he agrees with Bidens emphasis on the importance of the transatlantic alliance. Twice when Europe has been at war, the USA chose isolationism and twice it realized this didnt work, he said at an event at the Wilson Center, a foreign affairs research group in D.C., before his meeting with Biden.

How that sentiment plays out in daily decisions as the war in Ukraine enters its third summer fighting season will be a chief topic among the leaders headed to D.C. Many NATO leaders have been frustrated at Bidens reluctance to give Ukraine more latitude to strike military targets inside Russia.

Last month, Biden signed off on letting Ukrainian commanders use U.S.-provided weaponry against limited military targets inside Russia, authorizing them to hit back against Russian forces that are attacking Ukrainian soldiers, or preparing to attack them, in and around the city of Kharkiv, near the border in northeast Ukraine.

But a set of European elections in the days leading up to the NATO summit could weaken some countries arguments against Biden. French President Emmanuel Macron, a leading advocate of further empowering Ukraine, could be significantly weakened by parliamentary elections. That means he would arrive in Washington not as a leader who will push NATO forward, but as a warning symbol to others about the far rights potential to swing foreign policy more toward Russias interests.

The United Kingdom is also set to hold elections less than a week before the summit starts, and its ruling Conservative Party is expected to fare poorly. A new government is unlikely to have a dramatically different Ukraine policy, but an incoming prime minister might not be prepared to immediately pressure Biden, said Ivo Daalder, U.S. ambassador to NATO under President Barack Obama.

The countries most likely to push hard to do more on Ukraine are going to be significantly weakened because of European elections, Daalder said. That changes a lot of the situation.

Biden has also taken a number of actions to reaffirm U.S. support of Ukraine. Vice President Harris and national security adviser Jake Sullivan traveled to Switzerland last week for a Ukraine peace summit, where Harris announced more than $1.5 billion in aid for Ukraines energy sector and humanitarian efforts.

The United States also widened its sanctions against Russia last week to include Chinese defense companies that help Russia pursue its war against Ukraine. And when Biden was at the Group of Seven summit in Italy last week, he held a joint news conference with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky after the two leaders signed a 10-year security agreement.

Still, the White House has been clear that it wants to minimize conversations at the summit about Ukraines prospective membership in NATO, offering general assurances but no concrete timeline.

In the coming weeks, NATO leaders are expected to take other actions to bolster the alliance against potential policy changes by Trump, should he win the 2024 election. They are planning to move the coordination of arms assistance to Ukraine, shifting it to NATO from its current role with the U.S. military, for example.

NATO allies also have sought to show that the alliance benefits the United States, in hopes of rebuffing arguments from a wing of the Republican Party that contends that NATO, and European defense in general, is a sap on U.S. resources rather than a boost.

NATO is good for U.S. security, good for U.S. industry and good for U.S. jobs, Stoltenberg said Monday. Over the last two years, more than two-thirds of European defense acquisitions were made with U.S. firms. That is more than $140 billion worth of contracts for U.S. defense companies.

Whatever debates unfold inside the high-level meeting are likely to be matched by vociferous protests outside. International gatherings such as the NATO summit are often a magnet for demonstrators who want to express their dissatisfaction with the presidents policies, and that has become even more true in recent months.

Since Hamass attack on Israel on Oct. 7, Biden has stressed that his commitment to the country is ironclad, even as the number of civilians casualties have mounted. Critics, including American liberals and many Western leaders, have accused him of supporting a scorched-earth invasion that has left more than 37,000 Palestinians dead. Biden has faced protests over his support of Israel for months everywhere from his childhood home in Scranton, Pa., to the streets of Paris.

D.C. leaders have not said how many demonstrators they are expecting. Last year, ahead of the summit in Vilnius, Lithuania, protests against NATO were held in several European countries. The year before, thousands of demonstrators flocked to Madrid.

Police and city leaders in Washington said they are working with federal authorities to launch a robust law enforcement response to the event, noting that they are used to hosting large summits, conferences and other events with significant security needs.

D.C. Mayor Muriel E. Bowser will activate the citys Emergency Operations Center to help coordinate law enforcements response to the event, officials said at a news conference last week.

Federal and local law enforcement also plan to set up a security perimeter and checkpoints around the Walter E. Washington Convention Center through the duration of the summit, probably snarling vehicular and pedestrian traffic and causing public transportation disruptions around the convention center, Carnegie Library and Mount Vernon Square.

Residents will be able to get into their homes and businesses, city leaders said, but may have to undergo security screening. Police said they plan to contact potentially affected businesses in the weeks leading up to the summit.

Jenny Gathright and Peter Hermann contributed to this report.

Continued here:
Biden meets NATO chief ahead of potentially rocky D.C. summit - The Washington Post

In order to get through the first round, parties that share a political hue such as the countrys four main left-wing parties tend to club together and agree to not run candidates against each other.

Sounds easy, right? But heres the rub: Turnout really matters. In 2022, when turnout was close to 50 percent, parties had to get approximately a quarter of the votes cast to reach that magic figure of 12.5 percent of registered voters. Voter turnout is expected to be higher in this heavily scrutinized election, which will make it easier for candidates to advance to the second vote. That means well probably see more three-way contests than usual in the July 7 round.

A big caveat about opinion polls ahead of the first round: Its a two-round vote, so the percentage of overall votes doesnt translate directly into seats. For now, the National Rally and some if its allies from the fracturing center-right have about 37 percent support, while the left wing New Popular Front grouping is at 28 percent and Macrons liberals have about 18 percent.

The question on everybodys mind is whether the anti-immigration National Rally will be ruling the country as of next month.

Marine Le Pens party needs at least 289 seats to command a majority in the French parliament, and at the moment the far right looks likely to make big gains on the back of a successful campaign in the European election. Again, opinion polls must be taken with a pinch of salt, but the National Rally could get between 195 and 245 seats, according to current projections. That would be a record increase from the 89 MPs they currently have.

If the far right gets a majority in the parliament, the French president would have to enter into a cohabitation arrangement with the National Rally and appoint a far-right prime minister. Bardella, the president of the National Rally, has said he would not seek to lead a government unless he had a majority. That presumably means he will need coalition partners or its an electoral strategy to bag a big turnout.

Originally posted here:
French election: Your guide to a vote that is set to shake the EU and NATO - POLITICO Europe