Category Archives: NATO

"I am committing the United States to Article 5," Trump said at Friday's press conference, referring to the alliance's principle that an attack on one NATO nation is an attack on them all.

"And certainly we are there to protect," Trump added, saying this is why the US is "paying the kind of money necessary to have that force."

"Yes, absolutely I would be committed to Article 5," he concluded.

But Trump declined to make the same statement during his speech at NATO headquarters in Brussels last month, when he scolded NATO leaders for failing to meet the alliance's defense spending guideline of 2% of GDP.

Appearing with Romanian President Klaus Iohannis on Friday, Trump also reiterated his call for NATO members to meet the guideline along with his claim that NATO members should repay what he regards as underpayments from previous years.

That didn't seem to bother Iohannis, who noted that Romania was the first country under Trump's administration to "step up to 2 percent of GDP for defense spending."

"I'm very glad that due to your strong leadership NATO decided to go against terrorism," the Romanian president said. "Your involvement made so many nations conscious of the fact that we have to share the burden inside NATO."

Ahead of Trump's comments Friday, Democrats had slammed the President for failing to commit to Article 5 while at NATO, as well as his comments during the campaign that the alliance was "obsolete."

"While it is important that senior officials such as the vice president, secretary of state and secretary of defense reiterate that commitment, explicit endorsement -- and the absence of an endorsement -- has meaning," seven House Armed Services Democrats, including ranking member Adam Smith of Washington, wrote in a letter Friday.

But Sen. Tom Cotton, an Arkansas Republican and ally of Trump in the Senate, argued Trump was just misunderstood.

"It's a good thing that President Trump made explicit what he plainly meant in Brussels last month: the United States stands by the collective security guarantee of NATO Article 5," Cotton said in a statement. "But make no mistake: uttering magic words does not deter aggressors like Vladimir Putin. Only the credible threat of military force does. And until Democrats and our European allies get serious about funding our common defense, deterrence in Europe will remain dangerously weak."

CNN's Dan Merica contributed to this report.

Go here to see the original:
Trump commits to NATO's Article 5 - CNN International

New York Times

Trump Commits United States to Defending NATO Nations New York Times WASHINGTON President Trump on Friday reaffirmed the longstanding United States commitment to come to the defense of any NATO members that are attacked, more than two weeks after his refusal to do so during a trip to Europe stirred resentment ... Trump confirms commitment to NATO's Article 5Fox News all 166 news articles »

More here:
Trump Commits United States to Defending NATO Nations - New York Times

U.S. President Donald Trump stands outside the West Wing of the White House as Klaus Iohannis, Romania's president, not pictured, arrives at the West Wing of the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., on Friday, June 9, 2017. Pete MarovichBloomberg/Getty Images

President Donald Trump is at last publicly confirming his commitment to NATO's mutual defense pact .

When Trump spoke at the alliance's gathering in Belgium last month , he did not make reference to the agreement, which is known as Article 5.

But on Friday during a press conference with Romanian President Klaus Iohannis, Trump said was "committing the United States to Article 5."

Trump's omission in Brussels raised concerns on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean. White House aides said that the president's support was implied even though he deliberately did not utter the words.

The only time that Article 5 was invoked was after the United States was attacked on September 11, 2001. Trump was asked if he would move the U.S. to defend NATO if Russia attacked; he did not answer that part of the question.

More:
President Trump Confirms His Commitment to NATO's Article 5 Mutual Defense Pact - TIME

On the night of November 20, 1983, Armageddon went prime time. Over 100 million Americans tuned in to the ABC television network to watch the two-hour drama The Day After. This depiction of a hypothetical nuclear attack on the United States attracted a great deal of publicity and controversy. Schools made watching the film a homework assignment, discussion groups were organized in communities across the country, and even the secretary of state at the time, George Schulz, took part in a question-and-answer session hosted by ABC after the films broadcast. That a mere made-for-TV movie could garner such attention from a leading figure in the Reagan administration indicates how real the fear of a nuclear apocalypse was at the time. But almost no one watching that Sunday night realized just how close fiction came to reality in the fall of 1983.

The possibility of the worlds two greatest military powers destroying each other and the earth in a full-scale thermonuclear war was a fear shared by many throughout the world. At the time, both the United States and the USSR maintained huge nuclear arsenals of over 20,000 nuclear warheads each. In North America and Western Europe, nuclear freeze movements were gaining new members daily, with mass demonstrations that routinely numbered in the tens of thousands.

World events seemed to only reaffirm peoples fears. It was the third year of the presidency of Ronald Reagan, a man who had built his political career on a virulent hatred for all things communist. His 1980 victory over incumbent President Jimmy Carter had largely been the result of his hard-line stance against the Russians. A former film actor with a natural flair for the dramatic, Reagan both inspired and shocked people with his hardcore rhetoric, such as his statement before the British House of Commons in 1982 that the Marxist ideology would be relegated to the ash heap of history. Perhaps his most memorable and antagonistic remarks came on March 8, 1983, when Reagan referred to the Soviet Union as the focus of evil in the modern world and an evil empire.

The actions of the Reagan administration in its first three years backed up his uncompromising rhetoric. To match the USSRs huge expenditures on its armed forces, Reagan and Secretary of Defense Casper Weinberger initiated one of the largest peacetime military buildups in American history. Weapons programs such as the M1 Abrams tank, Trident nuclear submarine, and Stealth bomber were accelerated, while previously cancelled programs such as the B1 Lancer strategic bomber and the MX Missile were resurrected. To achieve the goal of creating a 600-ship navy, the Defense Department brought all four of its mammoth World War II-era Iowa-class battleships out of mothballs and returned them to active duty.

Star Wars and Fleetex 83: On the Brink of Nuclear War

On March 23, 1983, Reagan took the superpower rivalry to a new level when he unveiled the Strategic Defense Initiative Program during a live television address. The SDI program, more popularly referred to as Star Wars, was to provide an orbital shield that would protect the United Statesat least partlyfrom a nuclear strike. Reagan and supporters of the project argued that such a defense network, while not being able to completely block a full-scale strike from Russia, would at least cut down its effectiveness considerably and would be able to destroy smaller scale strikes, accidental nuclear launches, or missile attacks from rogue states. Reagan proposed to share the technology with the Soviets in a bid to eliminate the threat of nuclear war altogether.

To Yuri Andropov, then general secretary of the USSR, Reagans intentions spelled trouble. Andropov had dedicated his entire life to defending the Soviet Union, whether as a member of the partisans fighting behind German lines during World War II or as head of the Soviet secret police, the KGB. His supreme ambition to lead the nation had been realized with the death of Leonid Brezhnev in November 1982.

Andropov was scared to death of Ronald Reagan. He sincerely believed that Reagan meant what he said about the Soviet Union being an evil empire and seeing himself as a crusader who would not have any qualms in ordering the USSRs destruction. During the summer and fall of 1983, events only served to add fuel to Andropovs burning fears. In Western Europe, the United States prepared to deploy the latest generation of Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles (IRBM), the Pershing II. The Pershing missiles were a countermove to the Soviet deployment of the larger SS-20 IRBMs. But while the SS-20s could only reach targets in Western Europe, the Pershing IIs had the range to hit targets inside the USSR itself. It represented a new threat that the Soviets found intolerable.

In April and May of that year, as the rhetoric between Washington and Moscow escalated, the United States Navy conducted a series of fleet exercises in the Northwest Pacific known as FLEETEX 83. With more than 40 warships massed into three carrier battle groups, it was the largest concentration of American naval might in the Western Pacific since World War II. The massive exercise involved the counterclockwise sweep of these waters with the extreme right flank of the formation coming close to Russias Kamchatka Peninsula. Round-the-clock air operations from the carriers Enterprise, Coral Sea, and Midway were meant to make the Soviets respond by putting their eastern air bases on constant alert. During the course of the maneuvers, a combined flight of six F-14 Tomcat fighters from Midway and Enterprise flew over Zelyony Island in the Kuril Archipelago, a violation of Soviet airspace that the U.S. Navy later insisted was an accident, an explanation that the Soviets obviously did not accept.

Visit link:
In 1983, A NATO Military Exercise Almost Started a Nuclear World War III - The National Interest Online (blog)

What is the future of NATO? How significant is the debate over Article V? What policy should Washington adopt towards Ukraine? Will the German Bundeswehr play an increasingly important role in coming years? Does the American nuclear force need to be modernized or is the cost simply prohibitive?

Philip M. Breedlove, a retired four-star General in the United States Air Force and former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, visited the National Interest to discuss some of the most pressing questions facing America and its allies. Currently, Breedlove is Distinguished Professor at the Sam Nunn school at Georgia Tech. A forceful and cogent speaker, Breedlove is intimately familiar with Russia and Europe. He is keenly attuned to the threat of cyberwarfare and was himself the victim of a successful hack that posted a number of his emails, some of which discussed Obama administration policy, on a site called DC Leaks.

In February 2016, Breedlove told the House Armed Services Committee that the U.S. military must rebuild in Europe to face a more aggressive Russia, which has chosen to be an adversary and poses a long-term existential threat to the United States. In this interview, Breedlove makes it clear that he is bullish on the future of NATO and is very familiar with the German defense establishment, including officials such as defense minister Ursula van der Leyen. Above all, he is emphatic about the need to modernize America's nuclear forces, noting that other countries such as Russia are moving ahead in improving their arsenals.

Jacob Heilbrunn is editor of the National Interest.

Image: U.S. Department of Defense.

Read more here:
What Is the Future of NATO? - The National Interest Online

Seven Democrats on the House Armed Services Committee are calling on President Trump to explicitly endorse NATOs mutual defense clause after he declined to do so during a speech last month.

We call on you to commit explicitly to Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, the Democrats wrote in a letter to Trump released Friday.

It is not enough to speak to our NATO allies generally of the commitments that bind us together as one or note that we will never forsake the friends who stood by our side. Each president since the treatys signing has endorsed Article 5, and we call on you to do the same.

The letter was organized by the Armed Service Committee's ranking member, Rep. Adam SmithAdam SmithDems to Trump: Endorse NATO's Article 5 now Overnight Cybersecurity: Comey delivers dramatic testimony | Key takeaways from former FBI chief's account | Lawmakers want more oversight of cyber ops | Russia sanctions push gains steam Democrats a party in search of an agenda MORE (Wash.), and co-signed by Democratic Reps. Joe Courtney (Conn.), Niki Tsongas (Mass.), Beto ORourke (Texas), Ruben Gallego (Ariz.), Seth Moulton (Mass.) and Stephanie Murphy (Fla.).

Trump attended his first NATO meeting May 25. During his speech, Trump scolded allies as not paying enough for their defense. He also did not explicitly endorse Article 5, which says an attack on one ally is an attack on all, despite such an affirmation reportedly being part of his written speech.

The omission was even more glaring because his speech was delivered at the dedication of a memorial to the only time NATO have ever invoked Article 5 after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States.

Still, Trump said in the speech that the memorial is a reminder of what forever endures, including the commitments that bind us together as one.

We will never forsake the friends who stood by our side, he added.

Top administration officials, including Vice President Pence, have since said the United States is committed to Article 5.

In their letter, the Democrats said thats not good enough.

While it is important that senior officials such as the vice president, secretary of State and secretary of Defense reiterate that commitment, explicit endorsement and the absence of an endorsement by our commander in chief has meaning, they wrote.

Trumps silence, they wrote, could be spun into a dangerous narrative about U.S. commitment in the event of an attack, helping U.S. adversaries.

Your explicit and immediate endorsement of Article 5 is a national security imperative, they concluded. The European security environment has significantly evolved, and deterring Russian aggression is as important now as it has ever been.

See the original post here:
Dems to Trump: Endorse NATO's Article 5 now - The Hill

There often is a disconnect between what U.S. President Donald Trump says and what he actually does. Boeing and Lockheed Martin are just fine, thank you, despite Trumps Twitter attacks on the F-35 and Air Force One procurements. And the president has toned down his rhetoric on China after warnings from Boeing and others that a trade war with Beijing could put many U.S. aerospace jobs at risk.

But sometimes it is what Trump does not say that can be alarming. We were dismayed when, during a speech to NATO leaders in Brussels last month, the president failed to reaffirm the alliances collective-defense clause, which stipulates that an attack on one member is an attack on all. Shortly afterward, German Chancellor Angela Merkel proclaimed that Europe could no longer rely on the U.S. and should prepare to go it alone.

But fears that the 68-year-old alliance might be cracking up, a prospect that must delight Russian President Vladimir Putin, are overblown. The economic ties and shared values of the U.S. and Europedemocracy, rule of law, human rightsare too strong to be shredded by political bickering. Vice President Mike Pence said as much in a June 5 address to the Atlantic Council, declaring that the U.S. commitment to the 28-member alliance is unwavering and that an attack on one of us is an attack on all of us.

While NATO helps protect Europe from a meddlesome Russia to its east and chaos sown by Islamic extremists to its south, it also benefits the U.S. Bases in Europe serve as forward platforms to deploy American forces, and military alliances enable Washington to project power around the globe. Soldiers from places such as the UK, Denmark and Estonia have served in Afghanistan and sustained casualties in the fights against the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

We wholeheartedly agree with Trump that most NATO members need to spend more on defense. Airbus Group CEO Tom Enders has noted that the UK and France were unable to manage limited military operations over Libya without massive U.S. support. While European military budgets are rising, and a move toward efficiency with the new EU Defense Fund is encouraging, most NATO members have a long way to go to meet an agreed goal of spending at least 2% of GDP on defense by 2024. Germanys share stands at just 1.2%, compared to 3.5% for the U.S.

It would help, however, if Trump acknowledged that a strong and unified NATO aligns with U.S. interests. Publicly echoing Pences commitment to the alliance would be a good start. As leader of the free world, he must realize words do matter.

Go here to see the original:
Editorial: Speak Up, Pay Up On NATO - Aviation Week

The flag of Montenegro was raised at NATO Headquarters on Wednesday (7 June 2017) in a special ceremony to mark the countrys accession to NATO. Flag raising ceremonies were also held simultaneously at Allied Command Operations (SHAPE) in Mons and Allied Command Transformation in Norfolk, Virginia. Montenegro became the 29th member of the Alliance on Monday (5 June 2017) when it deposited its instrument of accession to the North Atlantic Treaty with the US State Department in Washington DC.

Standing alongside President Filip Vujanovi of Montenegro, Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said, We value Montenegro, and recognise the unique contribution you make to the Alliance. The Secretary General also commended Montenegros commitment to Euro-Atlantic integration and congratulated the Montenegrin government and people for their achievements in the 11 years since the country regained independence.

Allied foreign ministers signed Montenegro's Accession Protocol in May 2016, after which all 28 national parliaments voted to ratify its membership. Montenegros accession represents NATO's first enlargement since 1 April 2009, when Albania and Croatia joined the Alliance.

Read the original here:
NATO - News: Flag-raising ceremony marks Montenegro's entry into ... - NATO HQ (press release)

Gender representatives from NATO member states, partner countries, international organisations and academia came together for the annual conference of the NATO Committee on Gender Perspectives from 30 May to 2 June 2017. This years theme was Beyond the Stereotypes Integrating Gender Perspectives in Projecting Stability.

The aim was to discuss how to integrate a gender perspective into NATOs efforts to work with partners to project stability beyond its territory in areas such as maritime operations, the refugee and migrant crisis, terrorism and extremism, and capacity-building.

General Petr Pavel, Chairman of the NATO Military Committee, officially opened the 41st annual conference of the NATO Committee on Gender Perspectives, along with NATO Deputy Secretary General Rose Gottemoeller.

The Alliances ability to succeed in projecting stability will require a comprehensive approach, embracing diversity and equality an all-inclusive approach. While we cannot impose our values on others, we can export those crucial values and share our perspectives, said General Pavel. Furthermore, he challenged conference participants to push boundaries, break stereotypes and give us some fresh perspectives and ideas.

Deputy Secretary General Rose Gottemoeller underlined that we have seen the effects and added value of integrating the gender perspective in our operations in Kosovo and Afghanistan, in particular. Womens equal and meaningful participation is not just a question of equality and doing the right thing, its a question of how you engage and its a question about achieving your objective in a more efficient, more effective manner. Its about bringing different perspectives, different capabilities to the table, its about making our militaries and institutions more capable, more credible, and better equipped. Its doing things right, its the smart thing to do.

The conference brought together more than 100 national delegates and observers from NATO member and partner countries, experts from NATO, the United Nations, the European Union, academia and civil society.

On the last day of the conference, Lieutenant Colonel Katrien DHert of the Belgian Armed Forces was introduced as the new Chair of the NATO Committee on Gender Perspectives. She takes over from Lieutenant Colonel Nevena Miteva of the Bulgarian Armed Forces. The new Chair said she hoped to bring further the work of Allies, partners and international organisations on the Women, Peace and Security agenda. The integration of the principles of UNCSR 1325 and gender perspectives, should be a common endeavour and inherent to our daily work in the political, civilian and military environments.

Read the original:
Annual conference on gender perspectives - NATO HQ (press release)

Petro Poroshenko, president of Ukraine, speaks in Tokyo on April 6, 2016.

Ukraines parliament set NATO membership as a key foreign-policy goal, replacing the non-aligned status adopted by ousted Kremlin-backed President Viktor Yanukovych in a move thats likely to further sour relations with Russia.

A bill submitted by the ruling coalition was backed by 276 lawmakers in the 450-seat legislature Thursday in Kiev, the capital. President Petro Poroshenko wants to meet NATO entry requirements by 2020 and has promised to hold a referendum on joining.

The former Soviet republic sees NATO as a security guarantee after a second pro-European revolution in a decade poisoned ties with Russia, which later annexed Crimea and backed an insurgency across its neighbors border. Ukraine has also signed an Association Agreement with the European Union, though has no formal path to joining the worlds biggest trading bloc. Russia has opposed the two organizations eastward expansion.

Russian aggression against Ukraine and the annexation of Ukrainian territory have set an urgent task for Ukraine to ensure real national security, the authors of the legislation said. The most effective tool for the security, territorial integrity and sovereignty is collective security, the most effective of which is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

In response to NATO expansion toward its borders, Russia is taking steps to re-balance the situation and defend its security, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters on a conference call. Ukraine is a country in civil war and decisions on its membership are taken in Brussels and other capitals, he said.

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

Get our newsletter daily.

Thursdays move formalizes Ukraines efforts to join NATO after having a fast-track application rejected in 2008. The alliance has already absorbed 13 ex-communist nations, most recently Montenegro, which became its 29th member on June 5. Historic affinity to Russia soured its accession, with the Kremlin denying allegations it backed a failed coup attempt in October to overthrow the former Yugoslav republics pro-Western leadership.

NATO itself has faced questions about its future after the election of Donald Trump. The U.S. president has criticized some members for investing too little in their armies and failed during a recent trip to Europe to clearly state his commitment to the alliancescollective-defense pledge, known as Article 5.

Read more:
Ukraine Restores NATO Membership as Key Foreign Policy Goal - Bloomberg