Category Archives: NATO

We live in times of turmoil and instability. All corners of the world are affected. Located far north, with a population of 5 million people, Norway is contributing along many lines of efforts to foster security and stability in our region, but also in other corners of the world. At the core of this engagement lies decades of strong transatlantic relations.

This week, Norway's Minister of Defense Sreide will meet with her counterparts, including newly appointed US Secretary of Defense Mattis, at the NATO Defense Ministers' meeting in Brussels to discuss today's security challenges and the way forward. At the same time, G20 Foreign Ministers will be meeting in Hamburg, where Foreign Minister Brende will represent Norway. Then, hundreds of decision-makers from heads of states, including Prime Minister Solberg, foreign and defense ministers, academics and experts will convene at the Munich Security Conference to debate critical security challenges, including the rise of illiberalism globally.

Strong transatlantic relations and global peace and security are top priorities for Norway. Because of this, Norway will be represented in full force at the aforementioned conferences.

Promoting stability requires a broad set of measures, including targeting economic and social development, providing assistance to forge good governance and facilitating political dialog. And in some cases, it may also require military contributions.

Some military contingents are deployed as part of our strong commitment to NATO and the transatlantic relationship, a cornerstone for Norway's security. Others operate within the framework of the United Nations or in cooperation with the European Union. Norway has stood alongside the US and NATO in numerous international operations. We have contributed to operations in Lebanon, in the Balkans, in Mali, in Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq and Syria, to mention a few. Since the Second World War, more than 100,000 Norwegian soldiers have participated in more than 100 international operations all over the world.

Norway is still actively contributing to support the Afghan government's efforts to stabilize the country and to counter terrorism by providing Special Forces to Kabul with a focus on capacity building. Since 2007, Norway has established, advised and supported a national Afghan Counter-Terrorism Police Unit. Every day they target terrorist networks, prevent attacks and respond to attacks against civilian and government targets. During my tenure as ambassador to Afghanistan, I witnessed firsthand the success of this cooperation. I visited several bases and spoke with the soldiers about their experiences. I also met with the "Afghan Crisis Response Unit" that, for the first time ever, included Afghan women training and participating within the Special Forces. This was a groundbreaking development, very important with regard to the future success of the country.

We also take part in US-led counter -ISIL coalition operations in Iraq and Syria. The coalition campaigns against ISIL are yielding considerable results. ISIL and its so-called Caliphate are rapidly losing territory.

As part of this campaign, Norway deployed a contingent of Special Forces to Jordan, in order to train, advise and assist local Syrian Sunni Arab forces to regain territory currently occupied by ISIL in southeastern Syria. Norway has also provided a military contingent operating out of Erbil (Iraq), training Kurdish Peshmerga forces.

The Norwegian government is considering future contributions to ongoing operations, as well as assisting NATO's mission in Iraq. As new challenges appear, we stand ready to join our NATO allies in sharing the burden and participating in joint efforts.

The offensive operations against the strongholds of Mosul and Raqqa are challenging and will take time, but we will succeed. To ensure lasting stability in Iraq and Syria, inclusive political processes are necessary.

Unfortunately, failed states and poorly governed areas along NATO's southern flank remain a major security challenge both to Europe and to the US. As a contribution to address these challenges, Norway provided a tactical airlift detachment to the UN Operation in Mali (MINUSMA) throughout 2016. Moreover, Norway also provides personnel to MINUSMA and UN's first modern Intelligence Unit. The establishment of this unit has been a significant success.

As a member of NATO, Norway takes its commitment to its allies seriously. We also take our commitment to security and defense seriously. As part of the Alliance's enhanced Forward Presence, Norway will, in May, deploy a mechanized company to Lithuania, as part of the German-led allied battalion. Norway is also providing a small force contribution to NATO's British-led Very High Readiness Task Force for 2017. We currently also sustain a limited participation in several other operations, including the UN Mission in South-Sudan, NATO's operation in Kosovo and the NATO HQ in Sarajevo.

Throughout Europe, Norway assists to ensure day-to-day situational awareness and to rescue operations. We contribute on a regular basis to NATO's Standing Maritime Forces (SNMG and SNMCMG) by providing the command ship and the commander to SNMG that consists of frigates and destroyers. Every six months we join NATO's Mine Counter Measures Group to conduct minesweeping and clearance in Northern European waters. Moreover, in response to the increasingly challenging influx of migrants from the Middle East, North Africa and parts of Asia, we are participating in the EU-led maritime operation in the Mediterranean, which patrols the southern perimeter of the EU's border.

Our Armed Forces maintain a high, but often overlooked level of peacetime activity at home that, in its own way, is an important contribution to transatlantic security. 24/7/365 the Norwegian Navy, Coast Guard and Air Force patrol vast Arctic Ocean areas over which we have jurisdiction. In total, these maritime areas are equivalent in size to 90% of the Mediterranean. Norwegian fighter jets are on 15 minutes Quick Reaction Alert on behalf of NATO. Our military border guard patrols and monitors the border with Russia. We maintain a robust posture in our neighborhood, which is important for stability in this area. We are NATO in the north.

Norway's continued commitment to peace and security will remain one of our top political priorities. As international developments evolve and unfold, I hope that by sharing this information I'm also offering a better understanding of my country's military contributions around the world in order to maintain peace and security.

Visit link:
Norway: NATO of the North - Huffington Post

Vladimir Putins forces posted a video online showing two menacing tanks storming a breach, believed to be in Ukraine, in a show of strength, at a time of heightened tensions on Russias border with Europe.

The video, released by the Russian defence ministry, shows the high-tech tanks descending on the beach from a vessel more than 100 metres from the shore during the training exercise carried out by troops from the Baltic Fleet.

The tanks can be seen driving into the water before emerging onto dry land just moments later.

Alongside the menacing footage, the ministry wrote: The crews of the Baltic Fleet landing craft carried out living firing of KPVT machine guns at sea and air targets, and landed six armoured marines at Hmelevka.

SG

The crews of the Baltic Fleet landing craft carried out living firing of KPVT guns at sea and air targets

Russian Ministry of Defence

Just days before, Russian President Putin launched a spot check on the countrys aerospace forces, in order to evaluate readiness for combat.

The feared leader has already ordered his air force to prepare for a time of war.

Russias show of military strength comes as an apparent warning to the West and Nato, who the Kremlin have accused of encircling Russia.

A joint military exercise between Russia and Belarus codenamed Zapad-2017 or West-2017, will see tens of thousands of soldiers stationed along the Baltic states.

President Putin is believed to be stationing up to 100,000 soldiers in the area, with ex-Nato chief General Phillip Mark Breedlove fearing it the war games could be targeted directly toward the West.

Lithuanias Minister of Defence Raimundas Karoblis said: It is clear Russia want to reinstate its dominance and change the defence system in the whole of Europe.

This is a danger for central Europe, especially the Baltic states.

The official stance in Moscow claims Russia is preparing to ward off foreign aggression, but with recent events in Ukraine, experts believe hostile scenarios are covertly under play.

In July 2016, Nato members agreed to the biggest reinforcement since the Cold War, posting four multinational battalions to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland.

1 of 24

As part of the operation, In January, 2,800 pieces of US military hardware, including Abrams tanks and Paladin artillery, and 4,000 troops have arrived in Europe.

The huge reinforcement continues with dozens of US Chinook, Apache and Black Hawk helicopters being shipped to the German port city of Bremerhaven, as part of Natos effort in Eastern Europe to counter the perceived Russian threat.

Last week the president of Lithuania, one of the former Soviet state that has felt vulnerable following Russias annexation of Crimea, said he was confident of US support on Europeans eastern borders.

Delia Grybauskaite said: We trust the US administration. We believe that all obligations will be fulfilled and we will have the same reliable Nato partner and ally as it was before.

This is done already. We have American troops on our soil.

Read the original post:
PUTIN'S WARNING: Russia shows off menacing amphibious vehicle after NATO deploys troops - Express.co.uk

Second, we are clearly not in a time to expand freedom in the world a point British Prime Minister Theresa May made in Washington last week. On the contrary, we need to defend and preserve freedom in our lands.

In order to reinforce our Western world, Nato must invite to become members countries that are alike in the defense of our values and with the willingness to share the burden in this civilizational struggle. Nato should invite without delay Israel, Japan, Singapore and India to become members.

Defense expenditures should be revised and increased, but ceilings and burden sharing are not the problem. We dont expend more because current leaders do not feel compelled to do so. Furthermore, to spend more on the same will not change our ability to confront the threats and challenges we face.

There is a myriad of things that can be done to put Nato back on track. Interior ministers should join defense ministers at council level and in summits.

Thats easy. But above all, what Nato needs is a vision and an impulse to transform from the new US President and administration. Yes, MrPresident, we agree with you that Nato has become obsolete. But we believe you can make it relevant again. Your allies will follow.

Mr. Bardaji is the Executive Director of the Friends of Israel Initiative and the former National Security Adviser to the Spanish government. Colonel Kemp is a board member of the Friends of Israel Initiative and the former Commander of British Forces in Afghanistan

See the rest here:
Nato needs to reform into a global alliance against Islamic terrorism ... - Telegraph.co.uk

CHISINAU -- Moldova's pro-Russian President Igor Dodon has told RFE/RL he thinks the planned opening of a permanent NATO liaison office in Moldova would amount to a provocation.

Moldova's pro-Western government signed an agreement with NATO on the opening of the civilian-staffed liaison bureau in November, before Dodon assumed office.

Moldovan Prime Minister Pavel Filip has urged his Foreign Ministry to accelerate the opening of a NATO liaison office in Chisinau, and the ministry has said it hopes to do so in April.

But in an interview in Chisinau on February 14, Dodon told RFE/RL that he wanted Moldova to remain neutral rather than joining any military alliance.

He said Moldova and NATO had been collaborating well so far.

But when asked about plans for the liaison office, he said: "What do we need a NATO office for? A NATO office in Chisinau, in a neutral country, is a provocation."

"I do not want this. I want neither NATO nor this Russia-led [military] alliance as far as armed forces are concerned," Dodon said in an apparent reference to the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), a military organization grouping Russia and five other former Soviet republics -- Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan.

The Moldovan presidency is a largely symbolic position, but Dodon's position has been strengthened by the fact that he was elected in a direct popular vote -- the first president of the country to win office through such an election since 1997.

On February 7, Dodon said after talks in Brussels with NATO Deputy Secretary-General Rose Gottemoeller that the Moldovan people did not "welcome" the opening of a NATO liaison office -- despite the request for the office made by the center-right-controlled parliament and government.

The Moldovan government is made up of officials from pro-Western parties while Dodon previously headed the pro-Russian Socialist Party, which wants closer ties with Moscow rather than closer integration with European institutions.

Dodon said he had recommended to Moldova's current parliament and government that they "not rush it."

"If they do rush it, the next parliament and government will cancel this agreement, NATO will close down the office and will run away from Moldova. Why do we need such a thing," he told RFE/RL.

Dodon also had argued in Brussels that the NATO liaison bureau would "create impediments in regard to negotiations in the Transdniester issue."

Transdniester, a Russian-speaking region in Moldova's east, declared independence from Chisinau in 1990 amid concerns among separatists there of a possible unification of Romania and majority Romanian-speaking Moldova.

A war broke out between Moldova and Transdniester in 1992, which resulted in hundreds of deaths.

Russian troops quelled the fighting, but the conflict remains unresolved, and some 1,200 Russian soldiers are still deployed in Transdniester.

Russia says those troops act as peacekeepers, despite repeated calls for their withdrawal by both Chisinau and the international community.

Asked by RFE/RL to explain his stance on Transdniester, Dodon said he wanted "very much" to see Russian troops leave Transdniester.

"I am quite optimistic about resolving this problem, maybe by the end of my term, maybe even earlier," he said without elaborating.

Dodon's first visit abroad as president was to Moscow, followed by a trip to Brussels.

He told RFE/RL that he planned to continue visiting former Soviet republics as well as some European Union member countries.

"I believe I will visit CIS members Azerbaijan and Belarus, and probably Armenia, EU member Hungary, and [Turkish President Recep Tayyip] Erdogan will probably come to Moldova in May."

An official visit to Moldova by Erdogan has so far not been confirmed by Turkey.

Link:
Moldovan President: Planned NATO Office In Chisinau 'Provocation' - RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty

UPI.com

Nato has troops 'shortfall' in Afghanistan - US general BBC News The commander of US and Nato forces in Afghanistan has said he needs a "few thousand" more troops to break a stalemate in the war with the Taliban. Gen John Nicholson told the US Senate Armed Services Committee he had enough forces for ... US general says NATO needs more troops in Afghanistan to be effectiveUPI.com Top commander: Russia 'legitimizing' Taliban to undermine US, NATOThe Hill US commander asks for more NATO troops in AfghanistanDeutsche Welle Reuters -Antiwar.com all 153 news articles »

Read this article:
Nato has troops 'shortfall' in Afghanistan - US general - BBC News

ISLAMABAD

Russia is hosting a conference in Moscow this week that will bring together Afghanistan, Pakistan, China, India and Iran to discuss a possible solution of the conflict in Afghanistan.

This meeting is part of Russia's effort at playing a more pro-active role in Afghanistan for the first time since its invasion of the country in 1979. Its efforts, however, have encountered controversies at the very outset.

The last conference Moscow hosted on Afghanistan in December included only China and Pakistan, prompting a strong protest from the Afghan government.

The one this week is more inclusive of the regional stakeholders, but excludes the United States or NATO, leading to speculation that Russia is more interested in undermining the Unites States than in solving the regional problems.

At a recent Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, chairman Senator John McCain said Russia is propping up the Taliban to undermine the U.S.

Given how troubling the situation is in Afghanistan, any efforts by any outside stakeholder to look for regional solutions to the war there should be welcomed, said Michael Kugelman, deputy Asia director at the Washington based Wilson Center. The question he asked, however, was what is Russia trying to do.

Is it genuinely trying to rally the key players to come up with an actionable plan to wind down the war? Or is it just trying to scale up its role in Afghanistan to undercut U.S. influence?

Other regional analysts, however, are looking at the development with more optimism.

This framework does include all the regional players that have a major stake in Afghanistan, according to Amina Khan of the Institute for Strategic Studies Islamabad, a Pakistani government run think tank.

Terrorism is a global phenomena but I think regional countries need to play a more pro-active role, she added.

At the last trilateral, Russias primary focus was on the presence of the Islamist militant group Islamic State in Eastern Afghanistan. Moscow does not want its influence to spread to the Muslim population in the Caucasus bordering Russia.

However, Gen. John Nicholson, the man leading the U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, told the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee recently that Russia is trying to publicly legitimize the Taliban with a false narrative that the Taliban is fighting Islamic State, not the Afghan government.

However, Russia is not the only country in the region worried about IS influence and using the Taliban as a hedge. Iran also has started supporting the Taliban to keep IS influence away from areas bordering Iran. China has had contacts with the Taliban for a while, hosting several secret meetings between the Taliban and Afghan government officials or peace envoys.

Expectations from the upcoming conference, meanwhile, are low at this stage.

The fact that three countries have been added to the list at this point for the first time means it's still going to be in the initial stages of getting to know each other, and getting to hear each others narrative and try to make sense of it. I dont see anything big coming out of this, said Omar Samad, former Afghan ambassador to the U.S.

Several similar efforts have fallen victim to the tension and mistrust between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Whether this process succeeds, will depend on whether Russia and China can persuade the two to work out their differences.

Read more here:
Russia Gathers Stakeholders, Sans US or NATO, for Afghanistan Conference - Voice of America

Sixty-seven percent of Russians view NATO as a threat, a new survey from Gallup shows. Its the highest number recorded since 2008.

In contrast, back in 2012, only 38 percent of Russians perceived the Western military bloc as a threat.

Read more

Fifty-four percent of Belarusians also view NATO, the security alliance of 28 countries from North America and Europe, as a threat, a 19-point jump from four years ago, the latest Gallup poll has found.

Along with the Russians and Belarusians, more people in Ukraine (35 percent), Kazakhstan (31 percent), Kyrgyzstan (30 percent), Moldova (27 percent), Armenia (20 percent) and Tajikistan (34 percent) view NATO as a threat rather than a protection, the international survey says.

The number of Ukrainians who view NATO as a threat has increased in recent years, according to Gallup. In 2014, when the military conflict broke out in eastern Ukraine, Ukrainians were more likely to see NATO as a protection (36 percent) than a threat (20 percent), researchers says.

Last year, however, the percentage viewing it as a threat shot back up to 35 percent, as the Ukrainian population has grown tired of the ongoing conflict. Without a clear end in sight to the conflict, Ukrainians may be losing confidence in NATO's ability to help them in this crisis, the latest survey says.

Eastern European countries that see NATO as a source of protection are mostly members of the alliance.

Read more

Poland (where 62 percent see NATO as their protector) in January saw the largest deployment of US troops in Europe since the Cold War, while Lithuania (57 percent) has been bolstered by German, French, Belgian and other troops. Estonia (with 52 percent backing NATO) is hosting 800 NATO personnel, while Romania (where 50 percent approve of NATO) is expected to receive several Royal Air Force Typhoon jets in 2017.

The poll results are based on telephone interviews conducted throughout 2016 in the countries featured in the analysis, with a random sample of some 1,000 adults aged 15 and older, living in each country. In Russia, the sample size was 2,000 adults, Gallup says.

Russia has long been accusing NATO of staging a military buildup across its borders, saying it was undermining security in Europe. The alliance, however, justifies it by what it describes as Moscows aggression.

In response, Russia stationed its most modern weaponry and armaments in its western regions, including the exclave of Kaliningrad, which shares a border with Poland and Lithuania, and is carrying out large-scale military drills on home soil.

View original post here:
67% of Russians view NATO as a threat poll RT News - RT.com - RT

George Visa

Trump is absolutely right and he should go ahead soon with the dismantling of NATO. We will get peace and save hundred of billions to be used by American children.. Russia is not anymore a threat other then in propaganda of extreme right, Eastern European corrupt regimes and evidently ..the neocons..

NATO is already obsolete and is an instrument of aggression. As well as of huge and unnecessary expenses and unbelievable corruption in the European Union countries and in Eastern European countries

NATO is controlled by the US neocons and the little European minikingdoms as Belgium , Denmark, etc., are happy with unexpected NATO leaders, these countries were nobody before 1989.

We should always remember Yugoslavia, Irak, Libya, Afghanistan and the Eastern Europe will follow soon.

It should be disloved.

Posted on 2/11/17 | 6:52 AM CET

Sure, a European pillar sounds great. Im not sure you truly understand what obsolecence means, however. That Europeans have allowed their defensive strategies to wither so grievously that they are now almost completely dependent upon the US is not Trumps fault. Your defense will never mean as much to us as it should to you.

Meanwhile, for us there is a much bigger world beyond your provincial horizons that includes China, Iran, Venezuela, not to mention Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria. That you can bring up soft power after the barbarism of Aleppo and the humiliation of Samantha Powers shows precisely why you are obsolete from our perspective. Often times your soft power undermines our interests and those of our allies such as Israel and India making us question what is the benefit of this arrangement.

No, no. Go your own way with Canada. Trudeau and Junker will make formidable opponents to Putin

Posted on 2/11/17 | 7:32 AM CET

I read that the European members of NATO spend more of the military than Russia and China combined. I suppose that it diluted somewhat because it is split between two dozen countries, so some combining of resources and specialization makes sense. Nevertheless the total budget should be more than enough to defend the continent. And except for Russia, which in reality has an economy smaller than Italys or Canadas, what external threat is there?

Posted on 2/11/17 | 9:04 AM CET

I am afraid the worlds collective unconscious will never allow Germany to have what it seeks most.. as much as they try to usher it in through the back door. Somethings can never be forgotten.. For the first time, America can believe what they thought was impossible propaganda. This is documentary evidence of sheer mass murder murder that will blacken the name of Germany for the rest of recorded history. Germany, a nation of willing executioners are wanting to weaponise again through the cleverly constructed vehicle the EU

Posted on 2/11/17 | 10:04 AM CET

General Eisenhower had no trouble hating the Germans. He wrote to his wife, Mamie: God, I hate the Germans! Strange how Germany are ahead in the gold repatriation scheme, I think they are at 89% and 3 years ahead of schedule..

Posted on 2/11/17 | 10:14 AM CET

Why is the author attempting to re-invent the wheel? And a mini-NATO, to boot? Good grief!

NATO structure is in place for decades. The only thing that has sorely deteriorated on the European side is the political will and matching financial muscle.

The author repeats the Leftist lie of the deliberately truncated Trump statement: NATO is obsolete. The full statement was that it is obsolete in fighting I*IS.

The new American Administration is committed to a strong NATO, and now with the coming elections in France and Germany, the shoe is on the European side to commit to the same politically, including the financial strength. Period.

No mini-NATO needed.

Posted on 2/11/17 | 1:34 PM CET

A lot of anger go and an take a chill pill please stop with the conspiracy theory

Posted on 2/11/17 | 2:21 PM CET

This article is hilarious. The U.S. contribution to NATO in 2016 was 66 Billion Dollars. The next closest nation was the U.K. with 6 Billion. When Clinton left office the U.S. contribution was 54%. Now it is 72%. Nobody is bullying Europe. After 25 years of neglecting their militaries Europe is now defenseless against any threat. RAND estimates under any scenario a Russian takeover of any Baltic nation in 72 hours. 63% percent of Western Europeans believe that they shouldnt get involved if Russia invades a Baltic state. European militaries are underfunded, badly trained and poorly equipped. Now comes the sober realization that Donald Trump isnt going to ask for 6 Trillion Dollars and millions of men to fight a war against Russia. Stop poking the bear. The bear is constantly planning how he can devour you and Europe is trying to figure out how to get transgender bathrooms into the barracks.

Posted on 2/11/17 | 3:39 PM CET

Its a pipe dream. Of course in theory a unified European pillar of NATO would be fantastic. individual European armies are duplicating everything 28 times over. But the fact is that it requires a united foreign and defense policy. And this is simply not on the cards. Even recently the French bought German HK 416s for their army and then the Germans decided to not buy the HK 416 but to go for a new design, So even when the French decide to throw the Germans a bone in the hope of combining their defense the Germans are like..nahwell buy our own new type of infantry rifle. Its not even close to being cost effective just constant duplication and waste of limited resources.

Posted on 2/11/17 | 4:08 PM CET

The good message is that Russia isnt an enemy any longer and Nato hasnt any enemy at the moment. Until some new enemy is detected Nato can perform logistic tasks.

Posted on 2/11/17 | 4:19 PM CET

@Ray Martinez Germany doesnt want atomic weapons. Keep your Schmarren and Schrott for yourself. Atomic weapons are out of time and are the origin of unluck and unhappiness.

Posted on 2/11/17 | 4:30 PM CET

For most European countries NATO is rather pointless. So it is going to be hard to persuade them to spend more. For example, which countries threaten the security of, say, Italy, Portugal or Belgium? The Russian bogie doesnt particularly frighten them as there are several large countries (such as Germany and Poland) between them and Russia. There are also quite a few European countries which do fine without being a part of NATO such as Ireland, Switzerland, Austria. Theoretically, half of Europe could follow their lead and just say stuff Trump, quit NATO because they just dont face any external threats. Nevertheless most of them WANT (rather than need) to be allies of the US. Which benefits the US as it gives them more clout in the world a large bloc of allies, especially economically powerful ones, is a boon and free access military bases, airports and ports in those countries lets the US extend its reach.

Posted on 2/11/17 | 7:33 PM CET

Russia absolutely is a threat to stability in Europe and the US. Russia operates hybrid war strategy rarely does this involve direct military confrontation but instead is usually on the basis of disrupting disorienting and dispiriting its oppoents at the levels of values, beliefs and identity. In that context falls the annexation of Crimea (Ukraines territorial integrty had been guarunteed in exchange for handing over USSR nuclear weapons to Russia). So too does the ongoing pressure applied in eastern Ukraine. So too does the tremendous effort placed in alternative news (e.g. RT) to create an alternative narrative. So too does bombing Syria senseless so as to intensify the flow of refugees to Europe. So too are the constant intrusions into the airspace of the Baltic states and constantly calling the bluff of NATO to respond. So too was the interference in the US election. So it will be with the forthcoming presidential election in France.

Quietly Russia has redeveloped its military technology. Missile technology now deployed forward in Kalinigrad faces no counter capability. Russian offensive cyber capability is vast.

NATO structures already exist into which European forces are integrated. The problem is that the majority of NATOs European members have just neglected their responsibilities to develop the armed forces into genune capabilities: morally (the will to fight), conceptually (professional miitary knowledge and, critically building forces around the common (US and UK writen) NATO doctrine, and physically (kit, training etc). It can all be achieved but it requires a common vision and the resolve to do so. Herein lies the rub, apart from the Poles and the Balts, the Eastern and southeastern powers are all courting Russian good will (again partly the result of a very effective hybrid warfare campaign by Putin).

In terms of capability, honestly, only the UK and perhaps France have really got the experience of conventional operations, and the networked capability to work seamlessley and reliably alongside the US This has been hard won. This said there are still major capability gaps right now even with these forces. Several states have excellent special forces capabilities but this is not sufficient. The UK and (surprisingly) Greece do pay the target 2% of GDP on Defence. Nealy all the others have let the side down badly. No excuses if Greece can pay so can you!

Given that NATO structures already exist, developing the EU Army that Verhofstadt and Schultz have been talking about will be an immense distraction (and at this rate a pointless exercise). There needs to be a re-evaluation of the force structures required to defend against obvious Russian initmidation. The only role that I think the EU can play is in preparing member states to accept certain commitments to development of defence capabilty (no money if they dont do it). Actually forming an EU Army would, IMHO be a disaster, the EU is not structured politically or morally to achieve this; NATO is. In the very long run, should the EU be around this action would have helped it towards a more unified starting position for a sizeable common force. Personally I dont think it will be around though.

The European allies have to take Defence more seriously and spend more and train more. Do not forget maritime power (God how many ship does the one ubiquitious British Royal Navy now have?). Do not forget air and space power. Do not forget cyber capability. The core for Land capability will come from the old NATO allies, in particiular the UK, Germany and hopefully France with the addition of Poland.

The NATO alliance was highly effective in deterring aggression during the Cold war and NATO military operations in the post Cold War era have been highly successful (note I am not saying that the intended political outcomes were necessarily achieved a key disinction). As a European I say clearly that whilst we have common cause with the US in so m ny regards, why should the US pay more and do more for Europes defence. We have to pull our weight.

Posted on 2/11/17 | 8:14 PM CET

What is actually needed is a real, common European Army with mixed units. Divide et impera is the oldest strategy in the world and Vladimir Putin has used it again and again against Europe.

A shared European Army would make one thing crystal clear: An attack on *any* military unit of the European Army would mean war with the whole European Union.

The risk for a war has increased dramatically because Donald Trump allowed Vladimir Putin to doubt NATOs committment to Article 5. We Europeans have to make clear: There is no doubt we defend each other.

Posted on 2/11/17 | 8:15 PM CET

We dont need or want NATO. Stop with this propaganda!

Posted on 2/11/17 | 11:51 PM CET

@Jacques

I cant see how my post is propagandist in the slightest. There are several posts in this stream from different political persuasions that present evidence and attempt some conclusions based on some sort of analysis of that evidence. Saying that we dont want or need NATO doesnt exactly lend any weight to your position. Who the hell is we? Not me. For all we know you are a stooge for Putin!. It works both ways. And unless you can generate a viable alternative to NATO (no evidence of that given parlous underspending and lack of focus on defence capability by continental Europeans and a collapsing EU then we all remain vulnerable to external aggression and we dont want or need that!

Posted on 2/12/17 | 8:18 AM CET

If Germans demonstrated their own commitment to European Security both delivering sound internal security and also contributed to Nato in proportion to their GDP, then and only then would NATO members accept this position, however, the whole precis for the authors position is seems rather disingenuous considering my two points. Forgive my cynicism but the author seems to be pushing the EU directive that Germany should take command and control of a European alliance, let us not forget the threat narrative of Russian aggression (Crimea: Propaganda and disinformation) is of the same rhetoric espoused by Hitler to vilIfy Stalins Communist Russia,resulting in a European military alliance in the form of voluntary SS divisions raised throughout the occupied countries. Those who forget lessons from history are bound to repeat the mistakes from the past

Posted on 2/12/17 | 5:21 PM CET

It is fundementally essential that Europeans take their own defense seriously. The US does not have the resources to protect us anymore. We need to be spending a minimum of 2% and probably an average of about 4%. That should be the first objective.

Spending that money efficiently and well should be the second objective. That means proper consolidations of European arms suppliers.

Posted on 2/12/17 | 6:24 PM CET

Recently Germany could not provide airlift for a battalion sized mission due to maintainence issues. The French are not the most cooperative allies when their commercial interests are effected. The British couldnt provide logistics for the Falklands without our help and have been downsizing their military ever since. Just where is the power to support this new pillar going to come from? Poland is the only NATO member taking defense seriously and they have no choice but to face this power east..

Posted on 2/12/17 | 6:24 PM CET

The only reason I like NATO because its a thorn in the undemocratic EUs side.

Of course the undemocratic EU wants to militarise, so they can prance around the world bringing democracy (aka forcing other countries to sign pro western trade treaties which is the real reason).

Posted on 2/12/17 | 8:59 PM CET

I love the way there are quite a few redneck yanks here dropping snide remarks about European defense spending and lack of cohesion. YOU GUYS HAVE DONALD TRUMP AS YOUR LEADER, YOU IDIOTS. Complaining that Europe is a waste of money is also hilarious, after spending trillions on completely f**king up the middle east. Youve become the penultimate global laughing stock, and the only reason you have respect is because youre unstable and holding the biggest stick. Everyone is waiting for you to cave in and hoping you dont take them down in the process.

Posted on 2/12/17 | 10:59 PM CET

Of course the undemocratic EU wants to militarise, so they can prance around the world bringing democracy (aka forcing other countries to sign pro western trade treaties which is the real reason).

You really need to look up the definition of democratic.

Posted on 2/12/17 | 11:01 PM CET

Just call it something else than NATO and Finland will be first to join in. We circle around NATO. Do everything else than actually apply for a membership in the fear of what Russia will do. But if its called something else, like Joint European Defence we are more than happy to be part of it.

Posted on 2/13/17 | 11:14 AM CET

@Jb

Id be interested to know what logistics help was provided to the UK during the Falklands War by whichever country you hail from. I am not aware of any. The US went to a great deal of effort back in 1982 to press the UK to desist from retaking the Islands so as not to let down its undemocratic Argentine trading partner. I think we may have acquired Sidewinder missiles from the US at that point I cant remember.

Posted on 2/13/17 | 11:31 AM CET

The suggestions in this stream that a common European Army integrated at all levels is the only way ahead is a bit naive. There is not the political will for a total unity. Whilst only the UK has so far voted to leave the UK, there are plenty of other states that want no further integration. Take Italy which has been royally screwed by the Euro.

Posted on 2/13/17 | 11:54 AM CET

@themanwithfangs Britain didnt want to get NATO involved in the Falklands for the same reason as it didnt want it involved in NI. National pride. Israel sold arms to Argentina with US explicit approval.

The EU doesnt need NATO which was always a vehicle for US involvement in Europe. We dont need to send our soldiers to fight in wars in Afghanistan and we dont need American soldiers kranking up the pressure in the Baltic states with their sword-rattling. When Trump fails, and he will fail, he will just like Bush start a foreign war to distract attention. Europe doesnt need to be involved in that. Europe doesnt need the US playing games in Ukraine and Georgia through NATO, trying to destabilise Russia.

Many EU states dont get involved in NATO so much because they know it means cowtowing to US foreign policy interests. Russia is aware of that, hence they feel obliged to increase their military presence on the borders. Without the US, Europe and Russia can seek a peaceful resolution.

Posted on 2/13/17 | 2:24 PM CET

Read more:
Why NATO needs a European pillar - POLITICO.eu

NATO accused Russia of escalating a disinformation campaign since the Kremlin's 2014 seizure of Ukraine's Crimea region, saying Russian websites such as Sputnik and RT had posted false stories, the alliance's spokeswoman said on Saturday.

There is increasing concern among senior NATO and European Union officials over Russia's ability to use television and the Internet to spread what they say is fake news.

The defense alliance of 28 democracies says it has recorded more than a score of Russian myths in the last two years which it has attempted to knock down with factsheets, interviews, rebuttals and videos.

Try Newsweek for only $1.25 per week

Russian military helicopters fly in formation, with warships seen on the water, during celebrations for Navy Day in the Black Sea port of Sevastopol, Crimea, July 26, 2015. Reuters

"NATO has been dealing with a significant increase in Russian propaganda and disinformation since Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014," spokeswoman Oana Lungescu said in an email.

She said a website set up by NATO in 2014 "catalogs 32 Russian myths about NATO systematically used by Sputnik, RT and a range of other outlets owned or controlled by the Russian government."

Lungescu said the most recent disinformation occurred earlier this month when Russian news website life.ru published a fabricated voice recording of NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg with a Russian prankster pretending to be Ukraine President Petro Poroshenko.

"Such a call never took place and this was an obvious example of disinformation," she said.

The Kremlin, Russian government, RT, Sputnik and Life could not immediately be reached for comment.

The Russian authorities have in the past denied seeking to interfere in the internal affairs of other states. Russian state-funded media deny acting as the propaganda arm of the Kremlin. They say they present an alternative viewpoint that is ignored by the mainstream Western media.

Lungescu cited another example of disinformation in July last year when Sputnik, RT and other Russian websites issued reports about a fire raging at a NATO base in Izmir, claiming it was a deliberate sabotage after the failed coup in Turkey.

"We engaged with Sputnik, RT and others to correct, as there was a forest fire at some distance from the base, but with no connection to it."

Follow this link:
NATO: Russian Propaganda Up Since Crimea Offensive - Newsweek

The Trump administration is moving to back Montenegros bid to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, according to senior U.S. officials, a decision that could both bolster the Western alliance and antagonize Russia.

The likely move would take place in a rapidly evolving political and diplomatic climate, in which President Donald Trump is steadfastly backing improved ties with Moscow but maintaining for now U.S. strictures imposed in recent years against the Kremlin.

The Russian government has vehemently opposed Montenegro joining NATO, keeping with its longstanding opposition to the alliances expansion. Montenegrin officials have publicly accused the Kremlin of trying to deter its membership by instigating an attempted coup against the government in October. Moscow has denied the charge.

Formal U.S. backing for the Balkan nations admission could emerge as the first flashpoint between Washington and Moscow since Trump took office, current and former U.S. officials said. At the same time, they said, the Kremlin may believe that Trump can go only so far in moderating U.S. policies concerning Russia and wouldnt expect him to make a sudden, sharp reversal on a decision made by the Obama administration in 2015.

An expanded version of this report appears at WSJ.com.

Slide show: Montenegros luxe coastal properties

Popular at WSJ.com:

Trump administration begins deportation raids across the U.S.

Mexicans vow to fight Trump by jamming U.S. courts

Yale renames Calhoun College over slavery ties

See the original post here:
US position on Montenegro accession to NATO is early test of Trump willingness to defy Putin's Russia - MarketWatch