Category Archives: NATO

The NATO Information and Documentation Centre (NIDC) in Ukraine celebrated its 20th anniversary in Kyiv. A first-ever public information office opened in a NATO Partner nation, the NATO Information Centre has served for twenty years to increase awareness about NATO and promote NATO in Ukraine.

The NATO Deputy Secretary General, Rose Gottemoeller, who visited Kyiv on 6-7 April, addressed the gathering via a video message from Brussels: Twenty years ago, NATO decided to establish an office in Kyiv. Its mission was to open its arms to anyone eager to learn more about NATO. Today, the mission remains the same. Only by learning about each other we can dispel the myths and stereotypes, and build trust and friendship in each other.

On 7 May 1997, Javier Solana, the then NATO Secretary General, and Hennadiy Udovenko, Ukrainian Minister of Foreign Affairs, inaugurated NATOs Information and Documentation Centre in Kyiv. The NATO-Ukraine Distinctive Partnership Charter was signed two months later deepening the NATO-Ukraine cooperation and creating the NATO-Ukraine Commission.

For twenty years, the NATO Information and Documentation Centre (NIDC), has been hosted by the Institute of International Relations of the Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv. During this time, the Centre has organized more than two hundred study trips and visits for students, journalists, academics, parliamentarians to the NATO Headquarters in Brussels. Overall, two thousand Ukrainians have visited the NATO HQ in the framework of such visits. It has implemented over 600 information and media projects.

The NIDC has always supported Ukraines civil society and contributed to open dialogue about NATO. It actively supported many non-governmental actors during the Revolution of Dignity, such as the Ukrainian Crisis Media Centre, to provide the world with factual information and news about the events on the ground. It provided financial assistance to grass-root activists who fought Russian propaganda and we assisted in the formation of new independent Ukrainian media.

The Centre is also actively supporting the Ukrainian government to establish effective strategic and crisis communication.

Continue reading here:
The NATO Information and Documentation Centre in Ukraine celebrates its 20th anniversary - NATO HQ (press release)

WASHINGTON, May 19, 2017 NATOs chiefs of defense discussed the big changes happening to the alliance during the military committee meeting that ended yesterday in Brussels.

Marine Corps Gen. Joe Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said yesterday he was pleased with the discussions among the highest-ranking military members in the alliance.

I am enthusiastic coming out of today because today I felt like I was surrounded not by problem identifiers but by problem solvers, he said during an interview after the meeting.

We could disagree about the methodology, but everyone agreed we have some problems and challenges out there," he said. "We have to do something to enhance stability, project stability, to mitigate the flow of refugees and drive down the level of violence and capabilities of these extremist groups.

Historic Alliance

NATO stuck together during the Cold War, providing a bulwark against the threat of the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact satellites. When the Soviet Union fell, many of the nations that were part of the Warsaw Pact joined NATO. Russia, for a time, looked as if it would be a partner and worked with NATO in the Balkans and elsewhere.

At one point, it looked as if the need for NATO was going away. Europe looked like it was on the road to a new era of peaceful coexistence.

Today, however, a revanchist Russia appears set on regaining its power and influence on the continent. Russias actions in Georgia, its illegal annexation of Crimea and its continuing actions in Ukraine demonstrate its desire to operate according to its own agenda.

And there is yet another threat emanating from the south. Terrorist networks -- like the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria -- are driving people from their homes and trying to inculcate their fundamentalist philosophies on the populations of the Middle East, North Africa and Central Asia.

NATO adapted to meet these new threats. NATO units are forming in the Baltic Republics and in Poland. Exercises in Romania and in the Black Sea show that NATO is prepared to confront Russian aggression.

And NATO is confronting the new threat of terrorism with new methods, doctrines and capabilities.

Where we are going is -- we need a network to defeat a network, Dunford said. This is a global-transregional threat and we need a global-transregional network. And I think NATO is an important part of that network, and we are moving in the right direction in a number of important areas to get in place the enduring infrastructure [and] organizational construct to deal with the challenges out there.

During the Cold War, NATO was focused on deterring the Soviet Union. Now, it needs a variety of capabilities to handle the threats of today.

We believe you need to be trained, organized and equipped to conduct operations across the spectrum, Dunford said.

New Types of Conflict

U.S. military officials developing the National Military Strategy spoke about the 21st centurys transregional, multi-domain, multifunctional fight. Troops must be prepared for everything from outright war to deterring adversaries short of war.

Adversarial competition is the new term for the situation many parts of the world are in right now. This competition falls below the threshold of armed conflict and can involve information operations, unconventional operations, economic coercion and political influence, Dunford said.

At the military committee meeting, Army Gen. Curtis M. Scaparrotti, supreme allied commander for NATO and commander of U.S. European Command, along with French air force Gen. Denis Mercier, the commander of allied command transformation, led the discussion on the challenges that NATO allies face and the means they are employing and developing to combat those threats.

The discussion that General Scaparrotti led today was the equivalent of what weve been having in the United States over the last 15 months, Dunford said. The character of war has changed in some profound ways in space, cyber, land, air, sea. It involves all those domains.

He added, Any conflict is likely to have second and third order effects out of the geographic area. Even conflict with a non-state actor is still likely to see them leveraging cyber capabilities, information operations, and in some cases, high-end conventional capabilities.

Integrating Capabilities, Maintaining Relevance

NATO is involved each day in this type of adversarial competition with state and non-state actors, Dunford said. The pressing question, he added, is: Do alliance nations have in place the organization, training, equipment and leadership to be competitive in confronting these new threats?

The alliance still must be prepared for a conventional conflict and provide nuclear deterrence, Dunford said.

Todays challenges have grown from the Cold War-era scenario of tank-on-tank battle at the Fulda Gap in then-West Germany, to competition in all domains including space, electronic warfare and cyber, the general said.

When we bring together all of the countries with their collective capabilities we need to make sure we integrate our capabilities in a way that makes us competitive in the context of the character of war and the threat today as opposed to the threat in the 1980s, he said.

In the 1980s, the AirLand battle doctrine dealt with a conventional threat and a certain understanding of time and space, he said.

The speed of war has changed, and the competitive space runs across all spectrums, Dunford said. In the 1980s, we thought we were either at peace or at war, and that could be contained geographically. Today, there is conflict short of war, and we no longer think it can be contained.

Dunford said the conversation at the military committee meeting was about what actions the nations that make up NATO must take in the coming months to ensure the capability path we are on makes us relevant and competitive today and tomorrow.

Read the rest here:
Dunford 'Enthusiastic' About NATO's Ability to Address New Threats - Department of Defense

The Hindu

Sharif to attend Arab NATO in Riyadh The Hindu The Arab Nato summit being held to develop a security partnership against a growing threat of violent extremism will also be attended by US President Donald Trump. Saudi King Salman bin Abdulaziz invited Sharif for the summit. The ... Trump to unveil plans for an 'Arab NATO' in Saudi ArabiaWashington Post National Post View: Trump criticized NATO in his campaign, but is right to pursue a pan-Arab NATO in the Middle EastNational Post Trump wants to create an 'Arab NATO' in the Middle EastNew York Post ThinkProgress -DAWN.com -LifeZette all 1,360 news articles »

Read more:
Sharif to attend Arab NATO in Riyadh - The Hindu

Introduction

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, a cornerstone of transatlantic security during the Cold War, has significantly recast its role in the past twenty years. Founded in 1949 as a bulwark against Soviet aggression, NATO has evolved to confront threats ranging from piracy off the Horn of Africa to maritime security in the Mediterranean. But Russian actions in recent years, particularly its 2014 intervention in Ukraine, have refocused the alliance's attention on the continent. Recent developments have also exposed unresolved tensions over NATO's expansion into the former Soviet sphere.

After the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991, Western leaders intensely debated the future direction of the transatlantic alliance. President Bill Clinton's administration favored expanding NATO to both extend its security umbrella to the east and consolidate democratic gains in the former Soviet bloc. On the other hand, some U.S. officials wished to peel back the Pentagon's commitments in Europe with the fading of the Soviet threat.

European members were also split on the issue. London feared NATOs expansion would dilute the alliance, while Paris believed it would give NATO too much influence. Many in France hoped to integrate former Soviet states via European institutions. There was also concern about alienating Russia.

For the White House, the decision held larger meaning. [President Clinton] considered NATO enlargement a litmus test of whether the U.S. would remain internationally engaged and defeat the isolationist and unilateralist sentiments that were emerging, wrote Ronald D. Asmus, one of the intellectual architects of NATO expansion, inOpening NATO's Door.

In his first trip to Europe as president, in January 1994, Clinton announced that NATO enlargement was no longer a question of whether but when and how.Just days before, alliance leaders approved the launch of thePartnership for Peace, a program designed to strengthen ties with Central and Eastern European countries, including many former Soviet republics like Georgia, Russia, and Ukraine.

Many defense planners also felt that a postCold War vision for NATO needed to look beyond collective defenseArticle V of theNorth Atlantic Treatystates that an armed attack against one or more [member states] in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them alland focus on confronting acute instability outside its membership. The common denominator of all the new security problems in Europe is that they all lie beyond NATO's current borders, said Senator Richard Lugar (RIN) in a1993 speech.

The breakup of Yugoslavia in the early 1990s and the onset of ethnic conflict tested the alliance on this point almost immediately. What began as a mission to impose a UN-sanctioned no-fly zone over Bosnia and Herzegovina evolved into a bombing campaign on Bosnian Serb forces that many military analysts say was essential to ending the conflict. It was duringOperation Deny Flight[PDF] in April 1994 that NATO conducted its first combat operations in its forty-year history, shooting down four Bosnian Serb aircraft.

In 2017, NATO pursues several missions: security assistance in Afghanistan; peacekeeping in Kosovo; maritime security patrols in the Mediterranean; support for African Union forces in Somalia; and policing the skies over eastern Europe.

Headquartered in Brussels, NATO is a consensus-based alliance, where decisions must reflect the membership's collective will. However, individual states or subgroups of allies may initiate action outside NATO auspices. For instance, France, the UK, and the United States began policing a UN-sanctioned no-fly zone in Libya in early 2011 and within days transferred command of the operation to NATO (once Turkish concerns had been allayed). Member states are not required to participate in every NATO operation. For instance, Germany and Poland declined to contribute directly to the campaign in Libya.

NATO's military structure is divided between two strategic commands: the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, located near Mons, Belgium; and the Allied Command Transformation, located in Norfolk, Virginia. TheSupreme Allied Commander Europeoversees all NATO military operations and is always a U.S. flag or general officer (currently Army General Curtis M. Scaparrotti). Although the alliance has an integrated command, most forces remain under their respective national authorities until NATO operations commence.

NATO's secretary-general (currently Norway'sJens Stoltenberg) serves a four-year term as chief administrator and international envoy. TheNorth Atlantic Councilis the alliance's principal political body, composed of high-level delegates from each member state.

The primary financial contribution made by member states is the cost of deploying their respective armed forces for NATO-led operations. These expenses are not part of theformal NATO budget, which funds alliance infrastructure including civilian and military headquarters. In 2015, NATO members collectively spent more than$890 billion on defense[PDF]. The United States accounted for more than 70 percent of this, up from about half during the Cold War.

NATO members have committed to spending 2 percent of their annual GDP on defense, but by 2016 just five out of the twenty-eight members met this thresholdthe United States (3.6), Greece (2.4), the United Kingdom (2.2), Estonia (2.2), and Poland (2). U.S. officials have regularly criticized European members for cutting their defense budgets, but the Trump administration has taken a more assertive approach, suggesting the United States may reexamine its treaty obligations if the status quo persists. If your nations do not want to see America moderate its commitment to this alliance, each of your capitals needs to show support for our common defense,U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattistold counterparts in Brussels in February 2016.

NATO invoked its collective defense provision (Article V) for the first time following the September 11 attacks on the United States, perpetrated by the al-Qaeda terrorist network based in Afghanistan. Shortly after U.S.-led forces toppled the Taliban regime in Kabul, theUN Security Council authorizedan International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) to support the new Afghan government. NATO formally assumed command of ISAF in 2003, marking its first operational commitment beyond Europe. The fact the alliance was used in Afghanistan "was revolutionary," said NATO expertStanley Sloanin a CFR interview. It was proof the allies have adapted [NATO] to dramatically different tasks than what was anticipated during the Cold War.

But some critics questioned NATO's battlefield cohesion. While allies agreed on the central goals of the missionthe stabilization and reconstruction of Afghanistansome members restricted their forces from participating in counterinsurgency and other missions, a practice known as national caveats. Troops from Canada, the Netherlands, the UK, and the United States saw some of the heaviest fighting and bore the most casualties, stirring resentments among alliance states. NATO commanded more than 130,000 troops from more than fifty alliance and partner countries at the height of its commitment in Afghanistan. After thirteen years of war, ISAF completed its mission in December 2014.

In early 2015, NATO and more than a dozen partner countries began anoncombat support missionof about thirteen thousand troops (roughly half are U.S.) to provide training, funding, and other assistance to the Afghan government.

Moscow has viewed NATO's postCold War expansion into Central and Eastern Europe with great concern. Many current and former Russian leaders believe the alliance's inroads into the former Soviet sphere are a betrayal ofalleged guaranteesto not expand eastward after Germanys reunification in 1990although some U.S. officials involved in these discussions dispute this pledge.

Most Western leaders knew the risks of enlargement. If there is a long-term danger in keeping NATO as it is, there is immediate danger in changing it too rapidly. Swift expansion of NATO eastward could make aneo-imperialist Russiaa self-fulfilling prophecy, wrote Secretary of State Warren Christopher in theWashington Postin January 1994.

Over the years, NATO and Russia took significant steps toward reconciliation, particularly with their signing of the1997 Founding Act, which established an official forum forbilateral discussions. But a persistent lack of trust has plagued relations.

NATO's Bucharest Summit in the spring of 2008 deepened suspicions. While the alliance delayed Membership Action Plans for Ukraine and Georgia, it vowed to support their full membership down the road, despite repeated warnings from Moscow of political and military consequences. Russia's invasion of Georgia that summer was a clear signal of Moscow's intentions to protect what it sees as its sphere of influence, experts say.

Russia's annexation of Crimea and destabilization of eastern Ukraine in 20142017 have poisoned relations with NATO for the foreseeable future. We clearly face thegravest threat to European securitysince the end of the Cold War, said NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen after Russia's intervention in March 2014. Weeks later, NATO suspended all civilian and military cooperation with Moscow.

In an address honoring theannexation of Crimea, President Vladimir Putin expounded Russia's deep-seated grievances with the alliance. They have lied to us many times, made decisions behind our backs, placed us before an accomplished fact. This happened with NATO's expansion to the East, as well as the deployment of military infrastructure at our borders, he told Russia's parliament. In short, we have every reason to assume that the infamous [Western] policy of containment, led in the eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth centuries, continues today.

Incongressional testimony[PDF] in March 2017, General Scaparrotti said a resurgent Russia has turned from partner to antagonist, and has remained one of the top security challenges in Europe. Moscow continued to flex its military muscles in the region, he said, sending its sole aircraft carrier on its first-ever combat deployment, moving nuclear-capable missiles into Kaliningrad, and conducting significant operations in Ukraine and Syria. Meanwhile, Moscow pursued malign activities short of war, including misinformation and hacking campaigns against European member states, he said. The Kremlin has denied allegations it attempted to interfere in U.S. and European elections.

Ahead of a NATO summit in May 2017, Montenegro was expected to become the twenty-ninth member of the alliance, the first since Albania and Croatia joined in 2009. In a statement on the former Yugoslav republics accession, theWhite House notedto other NATO hopefuls that the door to membership in the Euro-Atlantic community of nations remains open and that countries in the Western Balkans are free to choose their own future and select their own partners without outside interference or intimidation. The Kremlin has warned thatNATOs eastward expansioncannot but result in retaliatory actions.

Another perennial point of contention has been NATO'sballistic missile defense shield, which is being deployed across Europe in several phases. The United States, which developed the technology, has said the system is only designed to guard against limited missile attacks, particularly from Iran. However, the Kremlin says the technology could be updated and may eventuallytip the strategic balancetoward the West.

Fears of further Russian aggression have prompted alliance leaders to reinforce defenses on its eastern flank. Since its Wales Summit in 2014, NATO has ramped up military exercises and opened new command centers in eight member states: Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, and Slovakia. The outposts, which are modestly staffed, are intended to support a newrapid reaction forceof about twenty thousand, including five thousand ground troops. In a major emergency, NATO military planners say that a multinational force of about forty thousand can be marshaled. At the Warsaw Summit in 2016, allies agreed to rotate four battalions (about four thousand troops) through Poland and the Baltic states. The United States has added an Army armored brigade to the two it has in the region, under its European Reassurance Initiative.

Meanwhile, NATO members, particularly Denmark, Germany, the UK, and the United States have increased air patrols over Poland and the Baltics. In 2015, NATO jets scrambled tointerceptRussian warplanesviolating allied airspace some four hundred times. In 2016 this number doubled, alliance officials said.

NATO members have also boosted direct security collaboration with Ukraine, an alliance partner since 1994. But as a nonmember, Ukraine remains outside of NATO's defense perimeter, and there are clear limits on how far it can be brought into institutional structures. The UK and the United States sent modest detachments of troops to train Ukrainian personnel in 2015, but the United States has refrained from providing Kiev with lethal weapons to help counter the Russia-backed insurgency out of fear this would escalate the conflict.

In the longer term, some defense analysts believe the alliance should consider advancing membership toFinland and Sweden, two Partnership for Peace countries with a history of avoiding military alignment. Both countries have welcomed greater military cooperation with NATO following Russias intervention in Ukraine. (Nordic peers Denmark, Iceland, and Norway are charter NATO members.)

The rest is here:
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) | Council on Foreign ... - Council on Foreign Relations

By Robin Emmott | BRUSSELS

BRUSSELS France and Germany are resisting a plan by U.S. officials for NATO to take a bigger role in the fight against Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, in line with calls from President Donald Trump for the alliance to do more to combat terrorism.

Many alliance members hope the plan will be announced in Brussels next Thursday, when Trump attends his first NATO summit. But France and Germany have misgivings, allies involved in the discussions said.

Among the concerns: NATO might be caught up in another costly, Afghan-style deployment, irk some Arab countries or risk confrontation with Russia in Syria.

"They are not buying it," said a senior European NATO diplomat, who said some other nations including Greece and Italy were also wary of the plan.

"They want to know what difference would it make. All 28 NATO allies are already part of this effort," the diplomat said, referring to a 68-nation U.S.-led coalition against Islamic State that includes all NATO members.

French and German officials declined to comment, but German Chancellor Angela Merkel left open the possibility of NATO as an institution joining the coalition when she met NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg last week. Both ruled out any combat role for NATO in Syria and Iraq.

France's new President Emmanuel Macron will have lunch with Trump - who last month withdrew his earlier charge that NATO was 'obsolete' because it was not 'taking care of terror' - before the Brussels meeting next Thursday.

While Islamic State is on the verge of defeat in its Iraqi stronghold of Mosul, and bracing for an assault against its de facto capital in Raqqa, Syria, U.S. officials are concerned fleeing militants could leave a vacuum that could prompt Arab tribal fighters to turn on each other to gain control.

U.S. officials say the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation as an institution could contribute equipment, training and the expertise it gained leading a coalition against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. NATO military chiefs favor the move, said General Petr Pavel, chairman of the alliance's military committee.

Diplomats said this could mean NATO using its surveillance planes over Syria, running command-and-control operations and providing air-to-air refueling.

SYMBOLIC STEP

One compromise would be for NATO as an institution to formally join the coalition at the dinner with Trump next week, but leave the details of any involvement to a later stage.

"If allies can be convinced that it is only a symbolic step, a deal should be possible," said a second NATO diplomat. "Trump goes home with a message that NATO is joining the coalition and NATO doesn't have to do anything extra, at least for now."

A broader hesitancy among European allies stems from the long mission that NATO has undertaken in Afghanistan, taking over the United States' bid to defeat militants in 2003 after the attacks on New York and Washington two years earlier.

Given Russia's concerns over NATO expansion in eastern Europe, and its role in Syria as the key military ally of President Bashar al-Assad, some allies also worry that deeper NATO involvement there could be taken by Moscow as a provocation.

But a stronger role in Iraq and Syria could also address concerns expressed by Mediterranean allies, such as Spain, Italy and Portugal, that NATO lacks a strategy for tackling the root causes of the migrant and refugee crisis.

Stoltenberg has talked about NATO's "untapped potential" in building up armed forces. Options include more NATO training of Iraqi troops and police, as well as strengthening government departments in areas taken back from Islamic State.

"NATO is the only security organization with the skills and breadth to take on this task," wrote Hans Binnendijk and David Gompert in a paper for the U.S. think-tank RAND Corporation.

(Reporting by Robin Emmott; Editing by Mark Trevelyan)

ISTANBUL Turkey is ready to retaliate if it faces a threat from the Syrian Kurdish YPG militia and will not shirk from launching a military campaign if need be, President Tayyip Erdogan said on Thursday.

JEDDAH, Saudi Arabia Saudi Aramco [IPO-ARMO.SE] is due to sign deals with 12 U.S. companies on Saturday during U.S. President Donald Trump's visit to Saudi Arabia, sources with knowledge of the matter said.

BAGHDAD Iraqi Shi'ite paramilitaries captured an air base from Islamic State militants on Thursday, gaining a strategic foothold in the western desert as they push toward the Syrian border.

Originally posted here:
France, Germany resist US plan for bigger NATO role against Islamic State - Reuters

The Allied Chiefs of Defence gathered in Brussels on 17th May 2017 for their second meeting of the year, ahead of the Heads of State and Government meeting on 25th May 2017. Discussions on the threats and challenges facing the Alliance emanating from the South, the implementation of Projecting Stability and enhancing NATOs role in fighting terrorism framed the morning sessions. The RESOLUTE SUPPORT Mission beyond 2018, recommendations on capability development and resource requirements and the NATO Command Structure review were the focus of the afternoon.

Meeting for the second time in 2017, the Chiefs of Defence took the opportunity to provide additional military advice on ongoing work strands and recommendations on the way forward for evolving initiatives. Throughout the days discussions, the Chiefs of Defence stressed their commitment to keeping NATO ready, relevant and able.

The morning sessions centered on the South, more specifically further implementation of the Framework for the South, Projecting Stability and enhancing NATOs contribution to fighting terrorism. The Chiefs of Defence reiterated their strong support for NATOs Projecting Stability as part of the broad efforts of the International Community, including continuation of NATOs Defence Capability Building in Iraq, and

the need to have a consistent, coordinated and coherent approach which enables NATO to provide more assistance to Partners. They also addressed the potential for joining the Global Coalition against ISIL.

On Afghanistan, the Chiefs of Defence reiterated their long term commitment to the RESOLUTE SUPPORT Mission building the Afghan National Defence and Security Forces (ANDSF), including by assisting the ANDSF to fulfil their four year Roadmap. They recommended the RESOLUTE SUPPORT Mission remain conditions-based and flexible taking into account the challenging security environment.

The Chiefs of Defence also developed recommendations on capability development and resource requirements to continue to underpin NATOs current and future tasks, operations, missions and activities relating to both Defence and Deterrence and Projecting Stability.

Speaking at the closing Joint Press Conference, General Pavel stated: What is crucial is that the military advice we provide is clear, concise and importantly, able to deliver the desired strategic effects.

View post:
The NATO Chiefs of Defence committed to keeping NATO, ready, relevant and able - NATO HQ (press release)

A German military exercise in 2016.

Germanys Social Democrats zeroed in on an election-year line of attack against Chancellor Angela Merkel, saying they reject a NATO defense-spending goal pushed by U.S. President Donald Trump.

Fresh from a string of electoral defeats, the SPD candidate for chancellor, Martin Schulz, stepped up his campaign against a major boost in military spending as the party works out its platform for the German election in September. National polls suggest the SPD trails Merkels CDU-CSU bloc by as much as 12 percentage points.

Photographer: Kay Nietfeld/picture-alliance/dpa/AP Photos

While the SPD has campaigned for weeks against the alliances target for all member countries to move toward spending 2 percent of economic output, Schulz now made it clear that he rejects it. Germany spends about 1.2 percent of gross domestic product on defense and Schulz said reaching the NATO goal would require as much as 30 billion euros ($33 billion) a year in additional outlays.

This most definitely wont happen with me and the SPD, Schulz told reporters in Berlin on Wednesday. Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel, Schulzs predecessor as SPD chairman, called the North Atlantic Treaty Organization benchmark nonsensical a day earlier.

Its a sign of growing partisan tension within Merkels government as she prepares to meet fellow leaders of NATO countries in Brussels on May 25 -- including Trump, who has said Germany owes vast sums of money on security. The Trump administration has demanded that members of the military alliance detail how theyll reach the 2 percent goal by 2024.

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

Get our newsletter daily.

Schulz and Gabriel said Germany has an obligation to increase defense expenditure, but balked at the 2014 pledge by NATO governments, which calls on those that dont meet the target to move towards the 2 percent guideline within a decade. The SPD leaders have said such spending levels are unrealistic for Germany and would provoke tension in a European Union already wary of German economic power.

Its a classic Social Democratic move,Jan Techau, head of the Richard C. Holbrooke Forum at the American Academy in Berlin, said by email. Trying to cash in on the assumed pacifism of Germans is an old strategy.

Merkel backs the NATO target, though she has recently stood up more assertively to Trump, reinforcing her point that security isnt only about military outlays.

Volker Kauder, head of Merkels Christian Democratic-led caucus in parliament, said Germany has been on the hook for some time.

The Americans have already pointed out before Trump that the German military has to be in better shape, and thats what well do, he told broadcaster N24.

In a draft campaign platform released this week, the Social Democrats reaffirm that NATO is an indispensable pillar of the trans-Atlantic partnership at a time of new international insecurities and challenges. They also express support for the preparedness and defense capability of our country and the trans-Atlantic alliance.

Read the rest here:
Merkel Re-Election Bid Roiled by Trump's NATO Spending Demands - Bloomberg

On 18 April 2017 a Group of Senior Experts (GSE) delivered a report on how to improve NATOs delivery of common funded capabilities.

Link to the report: PDF/1.2Mb

The Group of Senior Experts was appointed by the Secretary General on 20 October 2016 to provide independent advice and recommendations, in response to two recent performance audit reports by the International Board of Auditors for NATO (IBAN), which highlighted the need for improved governance arrangements. (List of Performance Audit Reports by the International Board of Auditors for NATO (IBAN)

The thirteen GSE experts came from NATO nations with a variety of backgrounds and experience gained at senior level in the military, defence, and academic worlds.

The IBAN audit reports and the report from the Group of Senior Experts are highly valuable. The Alliance is committed to taking the actions required to ensure that the right capabilities are delivered in the most timely and efficient manner to military commanders.

Continue reading here:
Experts present new report on improving governance and delivery of commonly funded capabilities - NATO HQ (press release)

WASHINGTON, May 18, 2017 Defense Secretary Jim Mattis yesterday met with Norwegian Minister of Defense Ine EriksenSreide at the Pentagon, where he praised the longstanding defense relationship between the United States and Norway, according to chief Pentagon spokesperson Dana W. White.

Extensive Military-to-Military Cooperation

Mattis and Sreide reaffirmed the extensive military-to-military cooperation between the U.S. and Norway as NATO allies that have resulted in effective combined operations on the battlefield, White said.

White said the secretary also thanked the minister for the opportunity for a limited U.S. Marine Corps rotational force to conduct cold-weather training in Norway to strengthen readiness and interoperability.

Norway, from our perspective on this side of the Atlantic, is an essential NATO ally with invaluable expertise in the North Atlantic and the Arctic, and we want to thank you for sharing that expertise with us, and for supporting the U.S. Marine Corps cold weather training taking place today in Norway, Mattis told Sreide.

White said the secretary thanked the minister for Norway's commitment to international security, including its significant contributions to NATOs Resolute Support mission in Afghanistan, the defeat-ISIS campaign and its leadership on security in the Nordic-Baltic region and the North Atlantic.

You are absolutely right in the fact that we are strengthening our relationships, Sreide told Mattis. We are entering into cooperation that will only deepen in the years to come, and we have a longstanding history of decades of cooperating in crucial areas, where I think that we can say that we mutually contribute to things that we could not do alone.

Read more:
Mattis Praises Norway as Important US, NATO Ally - Department of Defense

Wall Street Journal (subscription)

NATO Mulls Arctic and Atlantic Command to Counter Russia Wall Street Journal (subscription) BRUSSELSThe North Atlantic Treaty Organization may revive a Cold War naval command to counter Moscow's increased submarine activity in the Arctic and protect Atlantic sea lanes in the event of a conflict, according to allied diplomats and officials ...

Read this article:
NATO Mulls Arctic and Atlantic Command to Counter Russia - Wall Street Journal (subscription)