Category Archives: NATO

international relations New York University Posted by Eileen Reynolds-NYU July 24th, 2017

President Donald Trump has said that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), an almost 70-year-old international organization, may be obsoleteigniting a national debate over whether the United States should continue to take a leading role in the promised defense of European nations, who some perceive to have invested insufficiently in their own militaries.

While the administration has stopped short of a pay up or else message, strong words from the president and others have led some world leaders to wonder if the days of relying on the US as an indispensable ally are over.

For many of us, mention of NATO conjures little more than a fuzzy memory from history class. But at the time of its birth, it was considered an indispensable safeguard against a looming existential threat.

Created by the North Atlantic Treaty in 1949 with nations from Western Europe and the United States and Canada, it was formed to provide a common defense against possible attacks from the Soviet Union in the early Cold War years. Over time, its membership grew from 12 to 29, with some countriessuch as Spain, Greece, and Turkeytransitioning into democracies after they became members.

But where does that leave NATO today? Michael John Williams, director of New York Universitys international relations program and the author of The Good War: NATO and the Liberal Conscience in Afghanistan (Palgrave Macmillan, 2011)and NATO, Security, and Risk Management: From Kosovo to Kandahar(Routledge, 2009) discusses the intricacies of transatlantic relations and what the consequences for a weakened NATO might be.

Link:
Is NATO 'obsolete' or still vital? - Futurity - Futurity: Research News

Turkeys Recep Tayyip Erdogan bashed Germany, NATO, the U.S. and Israel in a speech to his party on Tuesday, signaling an accelerated political realignment away from the West as he seeks to conclude a missile defense deal with Russia.

The Turkish president accused foreigners of attempting to break Turkey apart and vowed to continue to crush agents acting against the country. He also dismissed U.S. concerns about Turkeys negotiations with Russia to buy S-400 missile defense batteries that would be incompatible with NATO systems, saying the agreement was moving ahead and denouncing the U.S. for partnering with Kurdish militant groups in Syria.

Erdogans rhetoric comes after Germany announced a reorientation of its Turkey policy following the arrests of 10 human rights activists, including the director of Amnesty International and a German citizen, at a hotel off Istanbuls coast where they were conducting a workshop. Relations between the two countries have turned increasingly hostile this year after Turkey arrested a German-Turkish journalist in February and Germany refused to allow Turkish ministers to campaign for expatriate Turks votes before a referendum giving Erdogan sweeping powers in April.

Get the latest on global politics in your inbox, every day.

Get our newsletter daily.

Youre going to prevent Turkeys president and ministers from speaking in your country, but your agents are going to swarm in, come to hotels here and break my country up into pieces? Erdogan said. Thats not going to happen. Either youre going to show respect for our sovereign rights, youre going to be partners, friends and allies on just and equal terms, or youre going to get a response to every act of disrespect.

Agreements to buy Russias most advanced missile defense systems have been signed and God willing, well see them in our country soon," Erdogan said. Turkey had worked for years to buy similar systems from the U.S. but was unable to conclude a deal allowing joint production, he said. If we cant get what we want from America, we have to search elsewhere, he said.

Erdogan also called on all Muslims to visit Jerusalem and the Al-Aqsa mosque thats been the trigger of recent Israeli-Palestinian unrest, accusing Israel of attempting to take the site away from Muslims. He warned against attacks on synagogues inside Turkey as an act of protest against Israel, saying they were meaningless and banned by our religion.

The rest is here:
Erdogan Bashes Germany, NATO as Turkey Goes for Russian Missiles - Bloomberg

Wall Street Journal (subscription)

Disputes Between Germany and Turkey Threaten to Affect NATO Mission Wall Street Journal (subscription) BRUSSELSThe North Atlantic Treaty Organization is working urgently to defuse a dispute between Turkey and Germany that threatens its operations including counterterrorism missions in the Middle East. The deepening political divide risks curtailing ... and more »

Read more here:
Disputes Between Germany and Turkey Threaten to Affect NATO Mission - Wall Street Journal (subscription)

NATO and the Jordanian Armed Forces inaugurated the newly established Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT) in Amman on 19 July 2017. The CERT was set up as part of a NATO Science for Peace and Security (SPS) project to enhance Jordanian cyber defence capabilities.

Jordans geographical location and security environment the conflict in Syria and Iraq on its borders, the refugee crisis in the region and the threat of terrorist organisations such as ISIL make the country vulnerable to a number of threats. Particularly challenging are cyber attacks. To help counter this growing threat, NATOs SPS Programme has been strengthening the cyber defence capabilities of the country, an active partner country in NATOs Mediterranean Dialogue forum for cooperation. Launched in 2014, the SPS project led by experts from Germany and Jordan and further supported by France and the United States responds to a key national priority and forms part of the Defence and Related Security Capacity Building (DCB) package for Jordan. The DCB Initiative reinforces NATOs commitment to partners and helps to project stability beyond NATOs borders by providing support to nations requesting defence capacity assistance from NATO.

This project signifies a milestone for cooperation in the area of cyber defence with a partner nation, and is the first of its kind to have been approved by NATO Allies, says Christian Liflnder, Head of NATOs Cyber Defence Section. It supported Jordan in developing capabilities to defend its infrastructure, mitigate the impact of cyber attacks, and enhance the overall security situation in the county, he explains.

The SPS project established a Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT) within the Jordanian Armed Forces, which represents a major milestone in Jordans national cyber defence programme and enhanced the countrys cyber defence posture. Through training and professional development, it contributed to the creation of a qualified and well-trained workforce. The success of the project was underscored by a decree of the Jordanian government, declaring the project to be a recognised national priority.

Building on the projects accomplishments, a follow-on multi-year SPS project is currently under development. It will deliver additional capabilities that will complement, consolidate and strengthen those built during the first project.

NATO support for Jordan is not limited to the area of cyber defence. Under the umbrella of the SPS Programme, numerous practical activities to strengthen Jordans capabilities in the security sector have been launched. Two examples which also form part of the DCB package for Jordan, are a border security symposium for the Jordanian Armed Forces in March 2017 and a multi-year project in the domain of counter improvised explosive devices (C-IED) which was recently approved by NATO Allies. It will contribute to strengthening the C-IED capabilities of the Jordanian Armed Forces, including through the development of an official C-IED policy and doctrine.

Follow this link:
NATO - News: NATO supports Jordan's national cyber defence ... - NATO HQ (press release)

Last month, a Russian jet flew within five feet of a U.S. reconnaissance plane near the Baltic Sea. According to U.S. officials, the Russian Su-27 rapidly approached the U.S. RC-135 plane and acted provocatively by performing unsafe maneuvers. Russias Defense Ministry, for its part, blamed the U.S. plane for making a provocative turn towards the Su-27 while being escorted away from Russias borders. Whatever the truth about this incident, it serves as a reminder of Moscows ceaseless belligerence toward NATO.

Earlier this year, NATO reported an increase in European Quick Reaction Alert aircraft Alpha (Air Policing) launches in response to Russian military aircraft from 400 (of a total of 480) in 2014 to 780 (of a total of 807) in 2016. Admittedly, a change in the way that NATO records such events accounts for some of this increase. But there was, nevertheless, a marked increase in Russian military air activity being monitored and responded to across NATOs two Combined Air Operations Centres (CAOCs) in Europeat Uedem in Germany, which covers northern Europe north of the Alps, and at Torrejon in Spain, which covers southern Europe south of the Alps.

It is not just in Europe that Russian jets are buzzing the airspaces of NATO members. In April, two nuclear-capable Tu-95 Bear bombers were intercepted by two CF-18 fighter jets as they approached Canadian airspace. The following month, Russias Defense Ministry confirmed that two Tu-95 Bear bombers, flanked by two multirole Su-35 fighter jets, had been intercepted by U.S. aircraft flying over the Alaska Air Defense Zone. This was not a one-off incident. In 2014, the U.S. intercepted Russian aircraft on fifteen occasions; and since then it has averaged around ten intercepts each year.

During the Cold War, Soviet military activity in the vicinity of NATO members air space was commonplace. The point was to test out the defense systems of NATO members in the case of war. Today, the idea of war between Russia and NATO seems farfetched. So why does Russia rehearse such a scenario?

Russias military activities serve a propaganda purpose. By demonstrating that its military can come so close to the air spaces of NATO members states, with little (if any) consequence, Moscow is able to showcase its apparent strength and the alliances apparent weakness. Such activities are one of few things that allows the Kremlin to look strong at home as well as abroad.

They also serve a military purpose. Through them, Russia has been able to gain valuable information about the chain of command within the defense systems of NATO member states; the reaction times of various countries air forces and the capabilities of their pilots; and, the levels of cooperation between NATO members. Such intelligence-gathering is supplemented by the work of Russias human intelligence assets who recruit and run sources in the defense establishments of NATO countries.

Knowing how NATO members react in an emergency gives Russia crucial insights into how they will behave in war. But Russias activities are not only a test of the Wests military readiness and preparedness; they are also a test of its own abilities to meet the various threats identified by the Kremlin. The modernization of Russias military, which began in 2008, includes not only a substantial investment in arms procurement, but also an improvement of the command-and-control systems, enhanced coordination between ministries and an intense program of exercises.

There are, of course, important differences between Russias activities in North America and those in Europe. In Europe, Russian aircraft have carried ordnance and often fly with their transponders switched off or without flight plans. None of this has been reported in North America. But the type of planes involved informs some of this difference in behavior: a Su-27 fighter jet is, for example, a more effective tool to probe reactions and adopt an aggressive behavior than a slow and defenseless Tu-95 bomber.

There is little that individual NATO members can do to deter Russias aggression in the skies per se. Both Canada and the United States have a bilateral Agreement on Preventing Dangerous Military Activities with Russia, which establishes procedures to prevent the use of force in response to accidental military contacts, incidents and accidents. Other member states could pursue similar agreements with Moscow.

But Russias military activities near NATO skies should not be seen in isolation. They are part of a wider pattern of military assertiveness in the Euro-Atlantic region. So what can NATO do?

NATOs recent reassurance measures are necessary to enhance deterrence of Russian military adventurism in eastern Europe, but they should be supplemented with robust measures to mitigate the risks should an incident occur as a result of Russias aggressions near the alliances skies. These measures could include increased military-to-military communication and greater public and private messaging, as well additional diplomatic and economic incentives.

Andrew Foxall is Director of the Russia Studies Centre at The Henry Jackson Society, a London-based international affairs think-tank.

See the article here:
Russia Is Testing NATO in the Skies | The National Interest - The National Interest Online

KIEV/SEVASTOPOL, Crimea (Reuters) - The career of Sergei Yeliseyev helps to explain why Ukraine's armed forces gave up Crimea almost without a fight - and why NATO now says it is alert to Russian attempts to undermine military loyalty in its eastern European members.

His rise to become number two in the Ukrainian navy long before Russia seized Crimea illustrates the divided loyalties that some personnel in countries that once belonged to the Soviet Union might still face.

Yeliseyev's roots were in Russia but he ended up serving Ukraine, a different ex-Soviet republic, only to defect when put to the test. NATO military planners now believe Moscow regards people with similarly ambiguous personal links as potentially valuable, should a new confrontation break out with the West.

In 2014, Yeliseyev was first deputy commander of the Ukrainian fleet, then largely based in Crimea, when Russian soldiers in unmarked uniforms took control of Kiev's ships and military bases on the peninsula.

Instead of resisting, Yeliseyev quit and subsequently got a new job: deputy chief of Russia's Baltic Fleet.

Yeliseyev, now aged 55, did not respond to Reuters questions sent to him via the Russian defense ministry.

In Kiev, however, there is no doubt where his loyalties lay. "When he took an oath to Ukraine, these were empty words for him. He has always been pro-Russian," said Ihor Voronchenko, now commander of the Ukrainian navy, who once served with Yeliseyev.

In fact, the Russian soldiers were pushing at an open door in late February 2014 - Yeliseyev was just one of many to defect and almost all Ukrainian forces in Crimea failed to resist.

Russia annexed Crimea the following month, prompting a major row with the West which deepened over Moscow's role in a rebellion in eastern Ukraine that lasts to this day.

At the time, Moscow and its allies in Crimea exploited weaknesses within Kiev's military to undermine its ability to put up a fight, according to interviews conducted by Reuters with about a dozen people on both sides of the conflict.

The Russian defense ministry did not respond to questions on their accounts of the events in 2014 submitted by Reuters.

One NATO commander told Reuters that, in a re-run of the tactics it deployed in Crimea, Russian intelligence was trying to recruit ethnic Russians serving in the militaries of countries on its borders.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, the commander said the alliance was particularly sensitive to the risk in countries with high concentrations of ethnic Russians, notably the Baltic states.

NATO had to guard against this, said the commander, though the risk should not be overstated because having Russian roots did not necessarily mean that a person's loyalty is to Moscow.

Officials in the Baltic states, former Soviet republics which unlike Ukraine are NATO members, play down the danger.

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg likewise said he trusted the armies of the Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Still, he told Reuters: "We always have to be vigilant. We always have to develop our intelligence tools and to be able to see any attempts to try to undermine the loyalty of our forces."

Years before the Crimean annexation, a Ukrainian appointment panel appeared to drop its guard when it interviewed Yeliseyev for the deputy naval commander's post.

Yeliseyev was born near Moscow, graduated from a Soviet naval school in the Russian city of Kaliningrad in 1983 and served with the Russian Pacific fleet.

So the panel asked Yeliseyev what he would do if Russia and Ukraine went to war. He replied that he would file for early retirement, according to Myroslav Mamchak, a former Ukrainian naval captain who served with Yeliseyev. Despite this response, Yeliseyev got the job in 2006.

Mamchak did not disclose to Reuters how he knew what was said in the interview room but subsequent events bear out his account.

Relations between Russia and Ukraine dived as Kiev moved closer to NATO and eight years after his appointment, with the countries on the brink of conflict over Crimea, Yeliseyev stayed true to his word by quitting.

Russia's actions were not the only factor in the Crimean events. Ukraine's military had suffered years of neglect, there was a power vacuum in Kiev after the government was overthrown, and many Crimean residents felt more affinity with Moscow.

Still, Ukrainian service personnel with Russian ties switched sides when the annexation began and some officers pretended to put up resistance only to avoid court-martial. Moscow also intercepted orders from Kiev so they never reached the Crimean garrison.

"There was nothing spontaneous. Everything was organized and each fiddler played his role," said Mykhailo Koval, who at the time was deputy head of the Ukrainian border guard and is now deputy head of the Security Council in Kiev.

Voronchenko, who was another deputy commander of the navy at the time of the annexation, said he had received invitations to defect to Moscow's side soon after the Russian operation began.

These, he told Reuters, came from Sergei Aksyonov, who was then head of Crimea's self-proclaimed pro-Russian government, as well as from the commander of Russia's southern military district and a deputy Russian defense minister.

Asked what they offered in exchange, Voronchenko said: "Posts, an apartment ... Aksyonov offered to make me defense minister of Crimea." Neither Aksyonov nor the Russian defense ministry responded to Reuters questions about the contacts.

Voronchenko, in common with many other senior Ukrainian officers, had been in the Soviet military alongside people now serving in the Russian armed forces. He had spent years in Crimea, where Russia leased bases from Ukraine for its Black Sea fleet after the 1991 break up of the Soviet Union.

"Those generals who came to persuade me ... said that we belong to the same circle, we came from the Soviet army," he said. "But I told them I am different ... I am not yours."

Naval chief Denis Berezovsky did defect, along with several of his commanders, and was later made deputy chief of the Russian Black Sea fleet.

Many in the ranks followed suit. At one Ukrainian signals unit, service personnel were watching Russian television when President Vladimir Putin appeared on the screen.

"To my surprise, they all stood up," said Svyatoslav Veltynsky, an engineer at the unit. "They had been waiting for this." The majority of the unit defected to the Russian side.

Even those willing to resist found themselves in a hopeless position. One member of the Ukrainian border guards told Reuters how his commander had despatched their unit's ships to stop them falling into Russian hands, and ordered his men to train their rifles on anyone trying to enter their base.

However, the base's military communications were not working, having been either jammed or cut by the Russians. Isolated from his own side, and outnumbered and outgunned by Russian troops outside, the commander struck a deal with the head of a Russian special forces unit.

Pro-Russian civilians were allowed to force the base's gate without reprisals. The Ukrainians "supposedly could not do anything; you cannot shoot civilians", the member of the unit said on condition of anonymity because he is still living in Crimea and feared repercussions.

Russian troops then followed the civilians in, taking over the base and offering the unit a chance to switch allegiance to Russia. About half agreed, although the base's chief refused and was allowed to leave Crimea.

"The commander did not resist," said the unit member. "On the other hand, he did what he could under the circumstances."

Two other people involved in the annexation - a former Ukrainian serviceman now on a Russian base in Crimea, and a source close to the Russian military who was there at the time - also described witnessing similar faked confrontations.

"You have to understand that the seizure of Ukrainian military units in Crimea was just a show," said the source close to the Russian military.

NATO's Baltic members differ significantly from Ukraine. Soviet-era commanders, for instance, largely left their armed forces after the countries joined the Western alliance in 2004.

Officials also point out that Russian speakers were among the seven members of Latvia's forces to die during international deployments to Afghanistan and Iraq.

Nevertheless, lessons have been learned from Crimea. "We learned, of course, that there was not only the issue of loyalty, but also false orders were submitted and there was a blockage ofcommunication during the Crimea operation," said Janis Garisons, State Secretary in the Latvian defense ministry.

Latvia has changed the law so that unit commanders are obliged to resist by default. But Garisons said the simplest step was taken long before the annexation, with the introduction in 2008 of vetting by the security services for "everybody who joins the armed forces, from private to general".

Additional reporting by Margaryta Chornokondratenko in KIEV, Andrius Sytas in VILNIUS, Gederts Gelzis in RIGA, David Mardiste in TALLINN, and Robin Emmott in BRUSSELS; editing by David Stamp

View post:
Why Ukrainian forces gave up Crimea without a fight - and NATO is alert - Reuters

Last month Sweden and Finlandthe two neighbors and long-time proponents of neutralityjoined a military formation. On June 30, their defense ministers and UK defense secretary Michael Fallon signed the accession of Sweden and Finland to the Joint Expeditionary Force, a British-led outfit that also includes Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands and Norway. The JEF, as its known, is one of several military mini-alliances now operating in Europe. And thats good news for NATO.

The JEF is a high-readiness force tasked with quickly responding to emergencies around the world. Its also a very recent multinational formation. It was launched only two years ago and JEFs members are still adding to its capabilities. Also, it is scheduled to become fully operational next year, which means that it could deploy ten thousand troops to military or humanitarian crises.

Britain uses its expeditionary troops for another joint force, the Combined Joint Expeditionary Force, which it operates with France. The CJEF, part of the so-called Lancaster House military cooperation treaty signed by the two countries seven years ago, likewise deploys troops to crises; a recent exercise involved more than five thousand troops.

In fact, these days Europe has a host of military mini-formations. The EU operates battle groups with the same task as the JEF and CJEF forces, though those EU forces are smaller. On the day before they signed the JEF agreement, Sweden and Finlands defense ministers signed a military cooperation treaty with Germany. Germany and France, in turn, operate a joint brigade, while EU member states operate the twenty-five-year-old Eurocorps. Poland, Ukraine and Lithuania, in turn, have a joint brigade with the somewhat clunky name LITPOLUKRBRIG. Taking armed forces cooperation to a new level, Germany is integrating units from three other countriesNetherlands, Romania and the Czech Republicinto the Bundeswehr. According to Dick Zandee, a senior research fellow at Clingendael (the Netherlands Institute of International Relations) and a former head of the Planning and Policy Unit at the European Defence Agency, such smaller military groupings makes perfect sense. Clusters optimize the military cooperation between countries armed forces, he said. In terms of optimization, clusters are the only thing that works. The more member states you have, the more complicated it becomes.

But most of the countries involved in these European mini-formations are also members of NATO. That raises the question: with NATO available to defend Europe, why does the continent need more military formations? Specifically, does Europe need military formations whose capabilities are dwarfed by those of NATO? The United States armed forces alone feature some 1.3 million men and women; at the recent Saber Strike Seventeen exercise some eleven thousand troops trained in the Baltic states and Poland.

Indeed, in case of a real emergency NATO members would rely on that alliance, not on the JEF or another mini-formation. And while the JEF has supported Ebola efforts, the EUs battle groups have never been deployed despite having been fully operational for ten years. Indeed, chances are they will never be deployed because the EUs members would have to agree to deploy themand most crises are either too small or too large to be effectively addressed by 1,5002,500 soldiers. And nobody would expect the JEF or the EU battle groups to perform the same massive effort as NATOthats not their mission.

Even so, the mini-formations are extremely useful. Thats because they have two things that NATO lacks: permanent forces and a small number of members, whose armed forces are very similar in training and equipment. Additionally, the regular exercises conducted by mini-formations have a benefit in themselves: they help European armed forces integrate. The EUs battle groups may only consist of some two thousand soldiers, but constant exercises with troops from other countries they learn to operate effectively together.

Read more here:
Mini-Battlegroups: How NATO Can Take On the Threats of the Future - The National Interest Online

The West should recognize that if NATO is going to expand to the border of Smolensk, that is going to worry the Russians; Also the Russian-Chinese alliance has got the potential to offset America in the terms of military, says political analyst Chris Bambery.

The first ever joint Russia-China drills in European waters started in the Baltic Sea. The military exercise between the two countries will last for a week.

Meanwhile, the US and allied countries have just finished their own massive exercise in the region. Saber Guardian took place in Eastern Europe, on the territory of three countries, aimed at deterring so-called 'Russian aggression'.

Some 25,000 personnel from more than 20 states participated in the biggest drills of their kind in five years.

Despite that, NATO allies are worried by the upcoming Russian war games in Belarus this September. The US Army's top general in Europe even suggested that Moscow might carry out a so-called "Trojan horse" maneuver there.

People are worried, this is a Trojan horse. They say, Were just doing an exercise, and then all of a sudden theyve moved all these people and capabilities somewhere, Lieutenant-General Ben Hodges, commander of US Army forces in Europe, told Reuters on Thursday.

Political analyst Chris Bambery says NATO and America only have themselves to blame for the uptick in tensions.

Read more

RT: The US Army's top general in Europe even suggested that Moscow might carry out a so-called "Trojan horse" maneuver. What do you think about that?

Chris Bambery: I think what NATO and the Americans should be saying is that they themselves are building up their military presence in the region firstly through NATO expansion, something that was specifically promised to Mikhail Gorbachev back when the Soviet Union was collapsing would not happen. That was one of the deals that was done at the time of the fall of the Berlin Wall. It was a promise to Russia that NATO will not expand into the former satellite states of former USSR territory. And secondly weve seen not just those countries joining NATO, but NATO sending troops into the Baltic States and elsewhere, putting the missile shields into Poland and the Czech Republic and carrying out exercises in Hungary, Bulgaria, but also in the north in Poland, Sweden and the Baltic States. And this build-up has destabilized the region. We have a potential Cold War in that region, largely stemming from the NATO expansion into it.

But I think also it is something else. The Chinese have got their own ax to grind given what is happening in the South China Sea, where there is a standoff between them and the Americans, the Taiwanese and the Japanese allies over these islands there. So it is not surprising to anyone that China and Russia are allies. Is this news to anyone? Is it news to this General [Ben Hodges] because they have not been following the news, if that is the case. And it is also the case that clearly if NATO and Americans carry out military exercises in this region, that there is going to be a response. I think what sent the West into a tizzy is the fact that Chinese warships have entered the Baltic, which is unprecedented. And it is a demonstration that, while China is not yet able to match America in terms of its military capacity, that that is something which is going to develop over the years. And the Russian-Chinese alliance has got the potential to offset America in the terms of military might in the world. This has revived fears of what China is going to become in the years to come.

Read more

RT: Why's there so much fuss about Russia given that NATO recently carried out huge drills too?

CB: Weve had this strange attempt to portray Russia as being an enemy of everyone. Blame for everything, including attacks on House of Commons emails here in London. And it is still regarded, despite everything that has happened, as being a problem for the West as it was after WWII, as Britain regarded it in the 19th century. There is unresolved business here.

It is the expansion of NATO, despite a promise made at the time of the USSR to Gorbachev, it is that expansion which has destabilized relationships in Eastern Europe. And clearly, if NATO is going to expand to the border of Smolensk, that is going to worry the Russians. And rather than this stuff coming from the American general, perhaps the West should turn around and recognize that what it is doing is causing concern in Russia because of unrelenting NATO expansion.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

Read the original:
Russia-China exercises a 'natural response' to US-NATO military advances - RT

Kay Bailey Hutchison, a Republican and former U.S. senator from Texas, appears on track to win Senate confirmation as President Trumps choice for U.S. ambassador to NATO, the Texas Tribune reported this week.

Hutchison, 74, whom Trump nominated in June, faced questioning at a hearing Thursday before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and appeared to have bipartisan support.

Her backers included Sens. John Cornyn and Ted Cruz, both R-Texas, and Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., who was Hillary Clintons running mate in the 2016 presidential election.

Few statesmen have the qualifications, the relationships, and gravitas that Senator Hutchison brings to this position, Cruz told the panel. After years of inadequate resourcing, Kay led an effort in the Senate to rebuild our military and helped prepare it to meet the new, more stringent demands of the global war on terror.

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, speaks in Washington, D.C., on October 11, 2013. (2013 Getty Images)

Cruz succeeded Hutchison in the Senate, where the nominee served from 1993 to 2013.

Added Kaine: Kay Bailey, Im so excited youre the nominee. Your nomination sends a signal the NATO relationship is an important one.

U.S. Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., speaks Aug. 1, 2016 in Richmond, Virginia. (2016 Getty Images)

Hutchison used part of her testimony Thursday to assure committee members that, if confirmed to represent the U.S. in the Western military alliance, she intended to take a tough stance on Russia, the Tribune reported.

We are beefing up defenses for an aggressive Russia," she told the committee, adding that she backs members of Congress who are considering new sanctions against Russia in response to its cyberattacks.

Several senators said they found Hutchisons positions reassuring, given concerns on Capitol Hill about Trumps relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin, the Tribune reported.

In her testimony,Hutchison said it was likely that Russia interfered in the 2016 American elections, a conclusion that aligns with a consensus among the country's intelligence agencies.

If confirmed for the ambassadorship, Hutchison will likely have to chart a path between the longtime U.S. commitment to the alliance and Trumps criticism of other member countries, the Dallas Morning News reported.

The president has frequently charged NATO members with failing to pay their fair share of the organizations defense costs.

In June, Trump opted not to reaffirm Americas commitment to Article V of the NATO treaty, which assures that all member countries will come to each others defense in case of an attack.

But Hutchisons remarks seemed designed to reassure senators that she believed in NATOs mission, the Morning News reported.

I am a strong supporter of this historic defense and security alliance that was formed to protect freedom for all of its members, united and indivisible, Hutchison said.I look forward to the Senate confirmation process.

Originally posted here:
Hutchison, Trump's pick for NATO envoy, seems headed for ... - Fox News

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, a Republican and former U.S. senator from Texas, appears on track to win Senate confirmation as President Trumps choice for U.S. ambassador to NATO, the Texas Tribune reported this week.

Hutchison, 74, whom Trump nominated in June, faced questioning at a hearing Thursday before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and appeared to have bipartisan support.

Her backers included Sens. John Cornyn and Ted Cruz, both R-Texas, and Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., who was Hillary Clintons running mate in the 2016 presidential election.

Few statesmen have the qualifications, the relationships, and gravitas that Senator Hutchison brings to this position, Cruz told the panel. After years of inadequate resourcing, Kay led an effort in the Senate to rebuild our military and helped prepare it to meet the new, more stringent demands of the global war on terror.

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, speaks in Washington, D.C., on October 11, 2013. (2013 Getty Images)

Cruz succeeded Hutchison in the Senate, where the nominee served from 1993 to 2013.

Added Kaine: Kay Bailey, Im so excited youre the nominee. Your nomination sends a signal the NATO relationship is an important one.

U.S. Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., speaks Aug. 1, 2016 in Richmond, Virginia. (2016 Getty Images)

Hutchison used part of her testimony Thursday to assure committee members that, if confirmed to represent the U.S. in the Western military alliance, she intended to take a tough stance on Russia, the Tribune reported.

We are beefing up defenses for an aggressive Russia," she told the committee, adding that she backs members of Congress who are considering new sanctions against Russia in response to its cyberattacks.

Several senators said they found Hutchisons positions reassuring, given concerns on Capitol Hill about Trumps relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin, the Tribune reported.

In her testimony,Hutchison said it was likely that Russia interfered in the 2016 American elections, a conclusion that aligns with a consensus among the country's intelligence agencies.

If confirmed for the ambassadorship, Hutchison will likely have to chart a path between the longtime U.S. commitment to the alliance and Trumps criticism of other member countries, the Dallas Morning News reported.

The president has frequently charged NATO members with failing to pay their fair share of the organizations defense costs.

In June, Trump opted not to reaffirm Americas commitment to Article V of the NATO treaty, which assures that all member countries will come to each others defense in case of an attack.

But Hutchisons remarks seemed designed to reassure senators that she believed in NATOs mission, the Morning News reported.

I am a strong supporter of this historic defense and security alliance that was formed to protect freedom for all of its members, united and indivisible, Hutchison said.I look forward to the Senate confirmation process.

Here is the original post:
Hutchison, Trump's pick for NATO envoy, seems headed for confirmation - Fox News