Category Archives: NATO

President Donald Trump declared victory on a key element of his international agenda when he told Congress that money is pouring in from NATO countries to support the defense alliance, leaving aides to explain the boast.

Trump said in his joint address to Congress on Tuesday evening that his administrations very strong and frank discussions are succeeding in prodding NATO allies to boost defense spending. In an aside that was one of his few departures from his prepared text, the president added, In fact I can tell you, the money is pouring in. Very nice.

Not yet. The idea that money is pouring in appears at odds with the laborious defense budget decisions made by the groups 28 member nations. White House aides said Wednesday that the progress nonetheless is real, if less immediate than the president suggested.

The response of allies to the case made by the President, the Vice President and the Secretary of Defense (among others) has been overwhelmingly positive, Michael Anton, a spokesman for the National Security Council, said Wednesday in an email. We expect to see stepped up defense spending commitments reflected in their next budget cycles.

Specifically, a White House official who asked not to be identified added that the president was referring to Latvia, Lithuania and Romania, which have outlined plans to meet NATOs target that every member spend 2 percent of its gross domestic product on defense.

During his presidential campaign, Trump at various points called the North Atlantic Treaty Organization obsolete and warned the U.S. might not honor the pledge to defend any member under attack unless other members started paying their fair share of defense costs.

NATO countries set the 2 percent target for members defense spending in 2014. While several countries have increased defense spending in recent years, few meet the 2 percent threshold. The U.S., U.K., Estonia, Poland and Greece were alone among the alliances 28 members in meeting that target last year.

The latest official figures are due soon: NATOs annual report, which will include updated details on defense spending, is scheduled to be published on March 13.

The White House official said Latvia and Lithuania agreed to reach the NATO goal by 2018 and that Romania plans to hit that level next year. The three nations have moved to bolster their defense in response to Russias seizure of Crimea and intervention in Ukraine.

The economies of those three countries are among the smallest within the NATO alliance. Together they accounted for 0.4 percent of total defense spending by NATO members in 2016, according to a report released by the alliance.

In his speech to Congress, Trump gave his strongest backing yet for NATO while also claiming victory in prodding increased defense spending.

We strongly support NATO, an alliance forged through the bonds of two World Wars that dethroned fascism, and a Cold War that defeated communism, he said. But our partners must meet their financial obligations. And now, based on our very strong and frank discussions, they are beginning to do just that.

Countries including Germany and France have boosted spending on defense, although the increases began before Trump took office. Former President Barack Obama had also prodded -- more gently -- for NATO countries to increase defense spending to meet the target.

The issue has moved up the political agenda since Trumps election victory, withNATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg saying more must be done in the coming years on fair burden-sharing.

The president of the United States and the American people expect our allies to keep their word and to do more in our common defense, and the president expects real progress by the end of 2017, Vice President Mike Pence said at the NATO headquarters in Brussels last month. It is time for actions, not words.

Navy Commander Sarah Higgins, a Defense Department spokeswoman, said in an interview Wednesday that Defense Secretary James Mattis held discussions with partners about making afair contribution during the recent NATO Defense Ministerial meeting in Brussels.

That was one of the main messages that we were trying to get across -- that we are committed to NATO but as well we need everyone to have their fair share of the commitment. And the message was well-received.

Read the rest here:
Trump Says Money Is 'Pouring' Into NATO, But So Far It's Barely a Trickle - Bloomberg

How would NATO hold up in an all-out war against Russia? Rand Wargame found that Russian forces could quickly overwhelm NATO forces currently protecting Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia

How much of a threat do Russia's emerging 5th-generation stealth fighter, nuclear arsenal, high-tech air defenses, anti-satellite weapons, conventional army and submarines pose to NATO and the U.S.?

Current tensions between Russia and NATO are leading many to carefully assess this question and examine the current state of weaponry and technological sophistication of the Russian military -- with a mind to better understanding the extent of the kinds of threats they may pose.

Naturally, Russias military maneuvers and annexation of the Crimean peninsula have many Pentagon analysts likely wondering about and assessing the pace of Russia's current military modernization and the relative condition of the former Cold War military giants forces, platforms and weaponry.

Russia has clearly postured itself in response to NATO as though it can counter-balance or deter the alliance, however some examinations of Russias current military reveals questions about its current ability to pose a real challenge to NATO in a prolonged, all-out military engagement.

Nevertheless, Russia continues to make military advances and many Pentagon experts and analysts have expressed concern about NATO's force posture in Eastern Europe regarding whether it is significant enough to deter Russia from a possible invasion of Eastern Europe.

Also, Russias economic pressures have not slowed the countries commitment to rapid military modernization and the increase of defense budgets, despite the fact that the countrys military is a fraction of what it was during the height of the Cold War in the 1980s.

While the former Cold War giants territories and outer most borders are sizeably less than they were in the 1980s, Russias conventional land, air and sea forces are trying to expand quickly, transition into the higher-tech information age and steadily pursue next generation platforms.

Russias conventional and nuclear arsenal is a small piece of what it was during the Cold War, yet the country is pursuing a new class of air-independent submarines, a T-50 stealth fighter jet, next-generation missiles and high-tech gear for individual ground soldiers.

A think-tank known asThe National Interesthas recently published a number of reports about the technological progress now being made by Russian military developers. The various write-ups include reporting on new Russian anti-satellite weapons, T-14 Armata tanks, air defenses and early plans for a hypersonic, 6th-generation fighter jet, among other things. Russia is unambiguously emphasizing military modernization and making substantial progress, the reports from The National Interest and other outlets indicate.

For instance, Russia hasapparently conducted a successful test launch of its Nudoldirect ascent anti-satellite missile, according to The National Interest.

"This is the second test of the new weapon, which is capable of destroying satellites in space. The weapon was apparently launched from the Plesetsk test launch facility north of Moscow," the report from The National Interest writes.

In addition, The National Interests' Dave Majumdar reported that Russian Airborne Forces plan six armored companies equipped with newly modifiedT-72B3M tanks. Over the next two years, those six companies will be expanded to battalion strength, the report states.

Russia is also reportedly developing a so-called "Terminator 3" tank support fighting vehicle.

.During the Cold War, the Russian defense budget amounted to nearly half of the countrys overall expenditures.

Now, the countries military spending draws upon a smaller percentage of its national expenditure. However, despite these huge percentage differences compared to the 1980s, the Russian defense budget is climbing again. From 2006 to 2009, the Russian defense budget jumped from $25 billion up to $50 billion according to Business Insider and the 2013 defense budget is listed elsewhere at $90 billion.

Overall, the Russian conventional military during the Cold War in terms of sheer size was likely five times what it is today.

The Russian military had roughly 766,000 active front line personnel in 2013 and as many as 2.4 million reserve forces, according toglobalfirepower.com. During the Cold War, the Russian Army had as many as three to four million members.

By the same 2013 assessment, the Russian military is listed as having more than 3,000 aircraft and 973 helicopters. On the ground, Globalfirepower.com says Russia has 15-thousand tanks, 27,000 armored fighting vehicles and nearly 6,000 self-propelled guns for artillery. While the Russian military may not have a conventional force the sheer size of its Cold War force, they have made efforts to both modernized and maintain portions of their mechanized weaponry and platforms. The Russian T-72 tank, for example, has been upgraded numerous times since its initial construction in the 1970s.

On the overall Naval front, Globalfirepower.com assesses the Russian Navy as having 352 ships, including one aircraft carrier, 13 destroyers and 63 submarines. The Black Sea is a strategically significant area for Russia in terms of economic and geopolitical considerations as it helps ensure access to the Mediterranean.

Analysts have also said that the Russian military made huge amounts of conventional and nuclear weapons in the 80s, ranging from rockets and cruise missiles to very effective air defenses.

In fact, the Russian built S-300 and S-400 anti-aircraft air defenses, if maintained and modernized, are said to be particularly effective, experts have said.

Citing Russian news reports, the National Interest reported that the Russians are now testing a new, S-500 air defense systems able to reportedly reach targets up to 125 miles.

In the air, the Russian have maintained their 1980s built Su-27 fighter jets, which have been postured throughout strategic areas by the Russian military.

Often compared to the U.S. Air Forces F-15 Eagle fighter, the Su-27 is a maneuverable twin engine fighter built in the 1980s and primarily configured for air superiority missions.

Rand Wargame

While many experts maintain that NATOs size, fire-power, air supremacy and technology would ultimately prevail in a substantial engagement with Russia, that does not necessarily negate findings from a Rand study released last year explaining that NATO would be put in a terrible predicament should Russia invade the Baltic states.

NATO force structure in Eastern Europe in recent years would be unable to withstand a Russian invasion into neighboring Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, the Rand study has concluded.

After conducting an exhaustive series of wargames wherein red (Russian) and blue (NATO) forces engaged in a wide range of war scenarios over the Baltic states, a Rand Corporation study called Reinforcing Deterrence on NATOs Eastern Flank determined that a successful NATO defense of the region would require a much larger air-ground force than what is currently deployed.

In particular, the study calls for a NATO strategy similar to the Cold War eras AirLand Battle doctrine from the 1980s. During this time, the U.S. Army stationed at least several hundred thousand troops in Europe as a strategy to deter a potential Russian invasion. Officials with U.S. Army Europe tell Scout Warrior that there are currenty 30,000 U.S. Army soldiers in Europe.

The Rand study maintains that, without a deterrent the size of at least seven brigades, fires and air support protecting Eastern Europe, that Russia cold overrun the Baltic states as quickly as in 60 hours.

As currently postured, NATO cannot successfully defend the territory of its most exposed members. Across multiple games using a wide range of expert participants in and out of uniform playing both sides, the longest it has taken Russian forces to reach the outskirts of the Estonian and/or Latvian capitals of Tallinn and Riga, respectively, is 60 hours. Such a rapid defeat would leave NATO with a limited number of options, the study writes.

AirLand Battle was a strategic warfighting concept followed by U.S. and allied forces during the Cold War which, among other things, relied upon precise coordination between a large maneuvering mechanized ground force and attack aircraft overhead. As part of the approach, air attacks would seek to weaken enemy assets supporting front line enemy troops by bombing supply elements in the rear. As part of the air-ground integration, large conventional ground forces could then more easily advance through defended enemy front line areas.

A rapid assault on the Baltic region would leave NATO with few attractive options, including a massive risky counterattack, threatening a nuclear weapons option or simply allowing the Russian to annex the countries.

One of the limited options cited in the study could include taking huge amounts of time to mobilize and deploy a massive counterattack force which would likely result in a drawn-out, deadly battle. Another possibility would be to threaten a nuclear option, a scenario which seems unlikely if not completely unrealistic in light of the U.S. strategy to decrease nuclear arsenals and discourage the prospect of using nuclear weapons, the study finds.

A third and final option, the report mentions, would simply be to concede the Baltic states and immerse the alliance into a much more intense Cold War posture. Such an option would naturally not be welcomed by many of the residents of these states and would, without question, leave the NATO alliance weakened if not partially fractured.

The study spells out exactly what its wargames determined would be necessary as a credible, effective deterrent.

Gaming indicates that a force of about seven brigades, including three heavy armored brigadesadequately supported by airpower, land-based fires, and other enablers on the ground and ready to fight at the onset of hostilitiescould suffice to prevent the rapid overrun of the Baltic states, the study writes.

During the various scenarios explored for the wargame, its participants concluded that NATO resistance would be overrun quickly in the absence of a larger mechanized defensive force posture.

The absence of short-range air defenses in the U.S. units, and the minimal defenses in the other NATO units, meant that many of these attacks encountered resistance only from NATO combat air patrols, which were overwhelmed by sheer numbers. The result was heavy losses to several Blue (NATO) battalions and the disruption of the counterattack, the study states.

Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia could be likely Russian targets because all three countries are in close proximity to Russia and spent many years as part of the former Soviet Union, the study maintains.

Also like Ukraine, Estonia and Latvia are home to sizable ethnic Russian populations that have been at best unevenly integrated into the two countries post-independence political and social mainstreams and that give Russia a self-justification for meddling in Estonian and Latvian affairs, the study explains.

The Rand study maintained that, while expensive, adding brigades would be a worthy effort for NATO.

Buying three brand-new ABCTs and adding them to the U.S. Army would not be inexpensivethe up-front costs for all the equipment for the brigades and associated artillery, air defense, and other enabling units runs on the order of $13 billion. However, much of that gearespecially the expensive Abrams tanks and Bradley fighting vehiclesalready exists, the study says.

The actual NATO troop presence in Eastern Europe is something that is still under consideration and subject to change in this new administration. For quite some time, NATO and the US have been considering adding more troops to the Eastern flank as a way to further deter Russia.

The Pentagons European Reassurance Initiative, introduced last year, calls for additional funds, forces and force rotations through Europe in coming years, it is unclear what the force posture will ultimately be.

At the same time, the Pentagons $3.4 Billion ERI request does call for an increased force presence in Europe as well as fires, pre-positioned stocks and headquarters support for NATO forces.

Officials with U.S. Army Europe tell Scout Warrior that more solidarity exercises with NATO allies in Europe are also on the horizon, and that more manpower could also be on the way.

For example, NATO conducted Swift Response 16 from May 27 through June 26 of last year in Poland and Germany; it included more than 5,000 soldiers and airmen from the United States, Belgium, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal and Spain.

Read more:
How Much of a Military Threat Does Russia Pose to NATO and the US? - Scout

Ukraines navy is looking into the possibility of purchasing decommissioned NATO ships in order to add to its fleet, Ukraines Channel 5 reports.

Speaking on air, the navys commander, Ihor Voronchenko, said that to satisfy Ukraines role in occupying a significant portion of the Black Sea coastline, it should be better equipped to police these waters.

Ukraine is a transit state and we are obliged as naval forces to ensure the peaceful sailing of all vessels in the Black Sea, he said. We cannot fulfill the full spectrum of this work with only one minesweeper, Henichesk, that we obtained.

Try Newsweek for only $1.25 per week

Vice Admiral Ihor Voronchenko, commander of the Ukrainian Navy, speaks during an interview with Reuters in Kiev, Ukraine, October 27, 2016. He has just proposed using old NATO ships to boost Ukraine's coastal fleet. Valentyn Ogirenko/Reuters

The navy received the ship in question from the Black Sea Fleeta Crimea-based Soviet-era unit that in modern times existed under much facility-sharing between Ukraine, on whose territory the main port of the unit fell, and Russia. Henichesk was one of the handful of ships Ukraine received in the messy divorce between the two navies after Russias annexation of Crimea in 2014.

Voronchenko said a Ukrainian naval delegation recently returned from a NATO state that he was not authorized to name, where they discussed purchasing older Western ships to fill out Ukraines ranks.

Several options were looked at and we decided that for the resources that we have, we will be able to buy a mine-sweeping set, he said. The same (solution) is being worked on for acquiring ships for the coastal area.

Excerpt from:
Ukraine Looks Into Beefing Up Navy With Old NATO Ships - Newsweek

U.S. President Donald Trump addresses a joint session of the U.S. Congress on February 28 | Jim Lo Scalzo - Pool/Getty Images

Our partners must meet their financial obligations, Trump said.

By Nahal Toosi

3/1/17, 4:53 AM CET

Updated 3/1/17, 8:20 AM CET

Just in case any NATO members hadnt gotten the message, U.S. President Donald Trump said it once again Tuesday night: You need to pay up.

The Republican president, in his speech before a joint session of Congress, held firm to demands that other countries in the decades-old military alliance must spend more on defense and not simply count on the United States to cover for them.

We strongly support NATO, an alliance forged through the bonds of two World Wars that dethroned fascism, and a Cold War that defeated communism. But our partners must meet their financial obligations, Trump said. And now, based on our very strong and frank discussions, they are beginning to do just that.

He then ad-libbed: In fact, I can tell you the money is pouring in, very much.

He didnt offer details, but some NATO states have said since before Trump was elected that they were increasing their defense spending.

Trumps complaint about other NATO members not spending enough on defense is hardly unique to him. Even his Democratic predecessor, Barack Obama, urged other NATO members to stop relying so heavily on the United States to financially carry the military alliance.

Only a handful of NATOs 28 members meet the target of spending at least 2 percent of their gross domestic product on defense.

But despite his vows of support for NATO on Tuesday, Trump has often spoken of the alliance in highly dismissive terms, calling it obsolete and suggesting that the United States may not stick to its treaty obligations and come to the aid of fellow NATO members not paying their fair share.

That has deeply alarmed NATO members in Europe, who are increasingly wary of Russian aggression. Trumps insistence that the U.S. needs to improve its relationship with Moscow hasnt helped.

In what appeared to be a veiled reference to Russia, Trump on Tuesday said, America is willing to find new friends, and to forge new partnerships, where shared interests align.

We want peace, wherever peace can be found, he added later, noting. America is friends today with former enemies.

Continued here:
Trump demands other NATO members pay their fair share - POLITICO.eu

The Kremlin has revived its criticism of the U.S.-led intervention in Libya, days ahead of a possible visit by the war-torn north African countrys prime minister, state news agency Itar-Tass reports.

The NATO operation in 2011 toppled Libyan authoritarian leader Muammar al-Qaddafi quickly but the limited planning for rebuilding the country politically resulted in a collapse into civil war. Islamist extremist groups have risen to prominence in the country and ex-U.S. President Barack Obama pointed to the lack of planning as his worst mistake in his last year in office.

Russia was opposed to the move though did not block the resolution for an intervention in the United Nations Security Council. Regardless, Libya has become the Kremlins standard example of Western inadequacy in the Middle East. Monday Russian President Vladimir Putins spokesman gave yet another clue that Moscow intends to play a role in restoring a strong regime in the country.

Try Newsweek for only $1.25 per week

Fighters loyal to Libya's Government of National Unity (GNA) look through binoculars towards Sirte's conference centre, which had become a command headquarters for ISIS, July 18, 2016. Now ISIS has been overthrown in Sirte since December, Russia has indicated it would support Libya in its challenge to restore order to the country. Mahmud Turkia/AFP/Getty Images

Russia is interested in Libya finally becoming a working state after this barbaric intervention that was conducted from outside, that led to catastrophic consequences from the point of view of the Libyan state and the future of the Libyan people, Peskov said. That is why we are interested in the swift development of a durable power in Libya that can begin the process of restoring and recreating the state.

Peskov made his comments Wednesday after Putins Middle East envoy Mikhail Bogdanovs statement Monday, in which he announced that the prime minister of the Government of National Accord of Libya, Fayez al-Sarraj, would visit Russia in the coming days.

His is one of a handful of political institutions in Libya that are vying for de facto power over the country as a whole, though Moscow has recently courted rival factions, most notably the military leader Khalifa Haftar.

Haftar was given a statesmans welcome aboard Russias Syria-bound air carrier last year and has said he expects Russia to lobby for his and Libyas interests in the U.N. Security Council.

Peskov said Putin himself is currently not planning any meeting with Sarraj. The Kremlin has let the ministries of defense and foreign affairs negotiate with Libyan factions, including Haftars during his last visit to Moscow in November.

Continued here:
Kremlin Condemns NATO's 'Barbaric' Libya Intervention Ahead of PM Visit - Newsweek

Exclusive: Official Washingtons New Cold Warriors are painting NATOs admission of tiny Montenegro in the stark black-and-white colors of a heroic stand against Russian aggression but that misses the real reasons why its a bad idea, writes Jonathan Marshall.

By Jonathan Marshall

Any day now, Arizona Senator John McCain promises, the U.S. Senate will vote to approve the incorporation of Montenegro as the 29th member state in the NATO alliance. Though few Americans likely know where to find the tiny Balkan nation on a map, Montenegro has become another dubious focal point of the Wests new confrontation with Russia.

At first glance, the case for extending NATOs umbrella over a country with fewer than 2,000 troops isnt obvious. Its seven helicopters are unlikely to make America safer. The Obama administration, which championed this latest in a long line of recent additions to the alliance, actually offered as a rationale the fact that Montenegro had donated some mortar rounds to the anti-ISIS coalition in Iraq and $1.2 million to NATOs operations in Afghanistan over three years.

That sum is less than a third of what U.S. taxpayers spend in Afghanistan per hour. One critic quipped, if the Wests survival depends on Montenegros inclusion in NATO, we should all be heading for the bunkers.

Maybe thats why hawks are citing the mere fact of Russias predictable opposition as a prime reason to support Montenegros accession. Backing Montenegros membership is not only the right thing for the Senate to do, it would send a clear signal that no third party has a veto over NATO enlargement decisions, argues the Heritage Foundation.

And two advocates at the John Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, writing in Foreign Affairs, declared recently that Montenegro will be the key test of whether President Trump and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson kowtow to their friend Russian President Vladimir Putin and acquiesce . . . in another Yalta or stand up for core U.S. goals.

Raising the specter of Putin and Yalta diverts attention from troubling questions about Montenegros political suitability as a partner and whether it has anything of military value to offer.

NATO ostensibly conditions its acceptance of new members on strict criteria, which include demonstrating a commitment to the rule of law and human rights; establishing democratic control of armed forces; and promoting stability and well-being through economic liberty, social justice and environmental responsibility.

Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Michael Carpenter assured the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last September that Montenegro supported NATOs values of democracy, individual liberty, and the rule of law. He must have missed the report from Freedom House, which gave the country a rating of only partly free for both political rights and civil liberties.

The organization cited restrictions on the freedom of peaceful assembly and years of harassment and discrimination against LGBT people. It also noted ongoing concerns . . . about the independence of the judiciary and the public broadcaster, as well as numerous failures to effectively prosecute past attacks against media workers. The country suffers from a lack of trust in the electoral process among voters, it added.

Carpenter must also have missed the State Departments human rights report, which accused Montenegro of numerous violations, including impunity for war crimes, mistreatment by law enforcement officers of persons in their custody, overcrowded and dilapidated prisons and pretrial detention facilities, violations of the right to peaceful assembly, and selective prosecution of political and societal opponents.

A Bastion of Corruption

As for the rule of law, consider that Montenegros ruler for nearly three decades, Milo Djukanovi?, was given the 2015 Organized Crime and Corruption Person of the Year Award by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP), an organization of several hundred investigative journalists who report on corruption in Europe and Central Asia (and are partly financed by USAID).

Citing his success in creating an oppressive political atmosphere and an economy choked by corruption and money laundering, the OCCRP said Djukanovi? has built one of the most dedicated kleptocracies and organized crime havens in the world.

The organization pointed to his alleged role in cigarette smuggling with notorious Italian crime syndicates; his familys takeover of a former state bank, which became a money laundry for organized crime; his controversial sale of major stretches of the countrys coastline to shady foreign oligarchs; and his offer of citizenship to a notorious regional drug kingpin.

Djukanovi? knows the money is greener to the west of Montenegro than to the east. Thats why hes an ardent advocate of joining NATO. (Fewer than 40 percent of Montenegrins in a recent poll agreed in part because alliance warplanes bombed the country during NATOs campaign against Serbia in 1999.) President Obama congratulated Djukanovi? on his stand during an official reception in September.

Following national elections in October, Djukanovi? finally stepped down as prime minister, but he remains head of the ruling party. Taking his place as the countrys current prime minister was his hand-picked deputy, Dusko Markovic.

Markovic, a former state security chief, is considered one of Djukanovi?s closest confidantes, reported OCCRP. He was publicly accused by a former head of the countrys anti-organized crime police last year of involvement incigarette smuggling, but was never charged. In 2014, Markovic was also charged by the head of a government investigative commission with obstructing a probe into the murder of a prominent newspaper editor and critic of Djukanovi?.

Western media have large ignored such troubling facts. Instead, what little coverage there is of Montenegro focuses on the governments sensational claim that Russians plotted to assassinate Djukanovi? at the time of the October election.

Markovic recently told Time magazine that his security services at the last minute uncovered a criminal organization formed by two Russian military intelligence agents, who planned on election day to provoke incidents . . . and also possibly an armed conflict as a pretext for taking power.

The prosecutor in charge of the case says Russian state authorities backed the plot to prevent Montenegro from joining NATO. He vows to indict two alleged Russian plotters and 22 others, including a group of Serbian nationalists, by April 15. Russias foreign minister called the allegations baseless, but refuses to extradite any suspects. An independent expert, citing numerous anomalies in the official story, argues the plot was a rogue operation by Serbian and Russian nationalist freelancers.

Russia, which has long considered the Balkans to be in its sphere of influence, has a history of intruding in Montenegros affairs. But absent persuasive supporting evidence for the governments case, outsiders should bear in mind the cautionary observation by Freedom House that [Montenegros] intelligence service has faced sustained criticism from international observers for a perceived lack of professionalism.

Still, it should come as no surprise that anti-Russia hawks havent let ambiguous evidence deter them from demanding the expansion of NATO.

A Wall Street Journal editorial said the alleged coup plot gives a good taste of Russias ambitions and methods in Eastern and Central Europe and concluded with a call for accepting Montenegros bid to join NATO: Western security is best served by supporting democratic governments of any size facing pressure from regional bullies. The alternative is to deliver another country into Moscows grip, and whet its appetite to take another.

Time magazine commented even more breathlessly that The aborted coup was a reminder that a new battle for Europe has begun. From the Baltics to the Balkans and the Black Sea to Great Britain, Vladimir Putin is seeking to rebuild Russias empire more than 25 years after the fall of the Soviet Union. Trumps past criticism of NATO, the magazine warned, has raised flags that the U.S. might accept Russias territorial grab.

Such inflammatory comments are stoking the political fires burning around Trump, including investigations of his campaign contacts with Russians, assertions of Moscows interference with the election, and questions about business connections or personal indiscretions that make him vulnerable to Putin. Trumps stand on Montenegro still to be determined will signal whether he remains a critic of NATO or is caving to the New Cold Warriors.

Jonathan Marshall is author of many recent articles on arms issues, including Obamas Unkept Promise on Nuclear War, How World War III Could Start,NATOs Provocative Anti-Russian Moves,Escalations in a New Cold War,and Ticking Closer to Midnight.

See the original post here:
NATO's Strange Addition of Montenegro - Consortium News

THE (WARREN) TRIBUNE CHRONICLE (OHIO)

An online service is needed to view this article in its entirety. You need an online service to view this article in its entirety.

An online service is needed to view this article in its entirety. You need an online service to view this article in its entirety.

Need an account? Create one now.

Need an account? Create one now.

An online service is needed to view this article in its entirety. You need an online service to view this article in its entirety.

Need an account? Create one now.

kAm(9J D9@F=5 p>6C:42?D A2J >@C6 E@ 5676?5 @FC tFC@A62? 2==:6D E92? E2IA2J6CD 😕 >@DE @7 E96:C 4@F?EC:6D 2C6 H:==:?8 E@ 362Cnk^Am

kAm%92E ?@E H96E96C (2D9:?8E@? D9@F=5 232?5@? }p%~ E@ E96 ?@ED@E6?56C >6C4:6D @7 #FDD:2? =6256C '=25:>:C !FE:? 😀 E96 BF6DE:@? !C6D:56?E s@?2=5 %CF>A 92D 366? 2D<:?8 D:?46 367@C6 96 E@@< @77:46]k^Am

kAm*6E E@ 962C E96 @FE4C:6D 7C@> D6G6C2= tFC@A62? 42A:E2=D[ J@F >:89E E9:?< %CF>A 😀 C625J E@ DE23 }p%~ 😕 E96 324<]k^Am

kAmr@>>6?ED >256 3J ':46 !C6D:56?E |:<6 !6?46 2?5 s676?D6 $64C6E2CJ y2>6D |2EE:D 5FC:?8 G:D:ED E@ tFC@A6 92G6 366? H:56=J C6A@CE65 2D C62DDFC:?8 E96 tFC@A62?D @7 @FC 4@?E:?F65 >:=:E2CJ DFAA@CE] qFE E92E ?6G6C C62==J 92D 366? 😕 BF6DE:@?]k^Am

kAmq@E9 >6? >256 :E 4=62C %CF>A 😀 ?@E A=2??:?8 E@ 6?5 &]$] A2CE:4:A2E:@? 😕 }p%~] w:D 4@>>6?ED 5FC:?8 2?5 27E6C E96 6=64E:@? 42>A2:8? 92G6 7@4FD65 @? E96 F?72:C=J 9:89 AC@A@CE:@? @7 }p%~ DFAA@CE A2:5 3J p>6C:42? E2IA2J6CD]k^Am

kAmq@E9 !6?46 2?5 |2EE:D 6>A92D:K65 H9:=6 😕 tFC@A6 E92E E96 :DDF6 @7 A2J:?8 7@C }p%~ 😀 ?@E 8@:?8 2H2J]k^Am

kAmxE D9@F=5 ?@E] ~?=J 7:G6 @7 E96 ag 4@F?EC:6D A2CE:4:A2E:?8 😕 }p%~ DA6?5 2E =62DE a A6C46?E @7 E96:C 8C@DD 5@>6DE:4 AC@5F4ED @? 5676?D6] %96J 2C6 E96 &?:E65 $E2E6D[ vC62E qC:E2:?[ !@=2?5[ tDE@?:2 2?5 vC6646]k^Am

Original post:
EDITORIAL: Costs should be shared by NATO allies - Harrison Daily (subscription)

By Michael Hikari Cecire By Michael Hikari Cecire February 27

Americans cannot care more for your childrens security than you do, U.S. Defense Secretary James Mattis cautioned NATO defense ministers in Brussels in mid-February, urging European allies to get serious about providing for their own defense.

Mattis put the alliance on notice that U.S. patience was finite and suggested that Washingtons commitment to European security was potentially at risk, noting, [If] your nations do not want to see America moderate its commitment to the alliance, each of your capitals needs to show its support for our common defense.

Do Mattiss warnings represent a genuine shift in U.S. policy on European security? Here are three things to know.

1) U.S. concern over European allies low levels of spending is not new. Mattis is only the latest U.S. defense secretary to voice frustrations about NATO burden-sharing. Former secretaries Ashton Carter, Leon Panetta and Robert Gates all offered similar concerns during their tenures at the Pentagon. Even former president Barack Obama expressed worries about free riders in Europe. This sentiment is not without merit, as the United States is the leading direct funder of NATO and U.S. defense spending represents nearly 75 percent of the total defense spending of the 28-member alliance.

Washingtons weariness over being Europes dominant security provider are long-standing and bipartisan. However, while Mattis was more diplomatic in his choice of language compared with President Donald Trumps acerbic style, the implication was clear. The U.S. security commitment to Europe depends on alliance partners meeting their 2006 promise to spend 2 percent of GDP on defense.

[Yes, NATO is sharing the defense burden. Heres what we found.]

2) NATOs target of 2 percent of GDP defense spending obfuscates as much as it reveals. Although Mattiss statements might compel NATO allies to spend more, this spending will not necessarily produce a better-prepared or more unified alliance. Defense spending is an indirect indicator of military readiness and includes variables that may have only an ancillary effect on military strength budget entries such as salaries, health care, pensions, accommodations, training and logistics. These noncombat budget items can easily devour defense spending.

[The Trump administration wants Europe to pay more to defend itself. Its not that easy.]

Each of the 28 NATO member states have different means and methods of spending. Allies that rely on conscription, such as Norway and Estonia, may be able to spend less on personnel per unit than countries with an all-volunteer military. States with socialized health care, such as Britain, do not have to pay separately for a parallel military health system, such as the one available to the U.S. military and their families.

Defense budgets are also tethered to a countrys relative purchasing power and spending efficiency. States that use military spending for economic development or political purposes can spend more without necessarily improving combat readiness. Valeri Ratchev, a Bulgarian defense expert, perhaps put it best when he wryly suggested that the best way for a country to meet the 2 percent spending target was simply to double thesalaries of troops.

Front-line states bordering Russia are already spending more. Poland and Estonia spend at least 2 percent of GDP on defense, and other states on NATOs eastern flank are increasing their budgets in response to Russias annexation of Crimea in 2014. Yet Eastern European allies remain the most vulnerable of the NATO states.

By comparison, several of the most militarily credible NATO members dont quite hit the 2 percent target. France, one of the few NATO states capable of conducting large, complex military operations independently, spends just 1.78 percent of GDP on defense. Turkey, which operates extensively in Syria and fields the second-largest military in NATO after the United States, spends 1.56 percent of its GDP on defense.

Greece is one country that does hit the 2 percent target, spending about 2.4 percent of GDP on defense despite deep economic difficulties. But the bulk of Greek defense spending is oriented to counter neighboring Turkey, a fellow NATO member.

[Yes, Putin may be starting to win Georgia away from the West. Heres why that matters.]

3) The greater threat to NATO military readiness is about willpower, not money. Divergent threat perceptions and parochial interests among the 28 members do more damage to NATOs military credibility than spending ratios. As Russia demonstrated in Georgia, Ukraine and Syria, decisiveness and first-mover advantage can compensate for limited resources and sophistication Russias defense budget is barely larger than Britains and smaller than Saudi Arabias.

Conversely, there is little evidence to suggest that a better-funded army would make more dovish allies such as Germany more inclined to more aggressively confront Russian aggression. While its recent troop deployment to the Baltics sends a strong message, Germany is generally regarded as skeptical over deterring Russia, and even toward NATO obligations overall.

A 2015 Pew survey found that only 38 percent of Germans supported using force to defend NATO allies, compared with 56 percent among U.S. respondents and 53 percent in Canada (which spends less than 1 percent on defense). The relevant measure of Germanys commitment to collective security is its willingness to act, not whether it spends 1 percent or 10 percent on defense.

[Worried about NATO? Here are 3 things to watch.]

Threat perceptions diverge strongly throughout the alliance. Even in Afghanistan, many NATO states chose to constrain their involvement through national caveats. Troop contingents from Germany, Italy and Spain, for instance, were restricted in the types of operations they conducted in-country, leaving more dangerous missions to contributors without caveats, such as the United States, Britain, Poland and over-performing non-NATO partnerssuch as Georgia.

It is not difficult to understand why the United States would seek more equitable spending from NATO allies, but Washington gains more from the security architecture NATO enshrines than it would from marginal increases in European defense spending. NATO has been a good deal for U.S. national security; its founding helped arrest a spiral of destructive intra-European conflicts and established norms that contributed to an unprecedented period of peace and prosperity in much of North America and Europe.

So even if every NATO ally hit the 2 percent target, Washington would still easily dominate aggregate NATO defense spending. The new administrations tough talk may make for good politics, but it is unclear whether it will do much to make Europe or the alliance stronger.

Michael Hikari Cecire is an international security analyst and a nonresident fellow at New America and the Foreign Policy Research Institute.

Read the original post:
3 things to know about the Trump administration's warning shots on NATO - Washington Post

NATO AIR BASE GEILENKIRCHEN, Germany (AFNS) -- This month, members of the Iowa Air National Guard's 185th Air Refueling Wing based in Sioux City, Iowa, are refueling NATO Airborne Warning and Control System aircraft while assigned here.

Approximately 40 members from the 185th ARW are in Germany for two weeks supporting NATO missions.

The AWACS involves multifaceted radar equipped aircraft that provide surveillance, command and control for NATO areas of responsibility. Onboard aircraft crews provide communications and control for U.S. and partner nations, while also keeping a close eye on potential adversaries. These missions require long flight times and in-flight refueling provided by Air Guard units like the 185th ARW.

According to Royal Netherlands Air Force Capt. Andr Bongers, a public affairs officer stationed at Geilenkirchen, the long-standing partnership with the Air Guard is important to maintaining stability in the region.

"This has always been a very successful partnership, Bongers said. During 40 weeks per year the Air Guard provides essential training to the NATO E-3A Component. This is vital because pilots at the E-3A Component normally stay around for only four years. This means theres a high demand for training to ensure new crew members are combat ready. The high level of professionalism and flexibility delivered by the Air Guard is of great importance to get the right amount of training."

NATO AWACS play a critical role in many ongoing missions in the region, Bongers said, such as counter-Islamic State of Iraq and Syria operations, Eastern Europe surveillances and Mediterranean maritime operations. He said they also fly for high visibility events such as the recent NATO summit in Warsaw and big regional exercises like Red Flag and Arctic Challenge.

According to U.S. Air Force Lt. Col. Joseph Bosch, the Air National Guards liaison in Geilenkirchen, the Air Guard has been working with NATO forces since 2015. Bosch also said that the Air Guard brings a level of unmatched experience to refueling operations, especially units like the 185th ARW.

"It is always a pleasure having the 185th (ARW). This wing has a special dedication to this mission and shows time and again how much they love our mission here. Sioux City always brings their A game to make this special spot better than when they arrived," Bosch said. The 185th ARW will remain in Germany until the end of the week and will be followed by another Air Guard unit from Topeka, Kansas.

Read this article:
Iowa air refueling wing supports NATO - Air Force Link

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg welcomed Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan to NATO Headquarters on Monday (27 February 2017), for talks on current security challenges and the partnership between the Alliance and Yerevan.

The Secretary General thanked Armenia for its contributions to NATOs missions in Afghanistan and Kosovo. He stressed that the Alliance is committed to working with Armenia and other partners. Together, we are developing a new Individual Partnership Action Plan, tailored to your needs and requirements, said Mr. Stoltenberg. He added that there are opportunities for further cooperation on interoperability, defence reform and defence education. The Secretary General praised Armenia for its participation in NATOs Building Integrity Programme to counter corruption in the armed forces, and its progress on implementing UN Security Council Resolution 1325 to promote the role of women in peace and security.

The Secretary General and President Sargsyan also discussed the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Mr. Stoltenberg expressed concern over the continuing violence along the line of contact. It is important to avoid escalation, because there is no military solution to this conflict and its persistence is holding back the region, he said. NATO encourages both Armenia and Azerbaijan to return to the negotiating table and work toward a peaceful resolution to the conflict.

Link:
Secretary General welcomes Armenian President to NATO Headquarters - NATO HQ (press release)