Category Archives: NATO

There are two broad options: work harder to save the alliance, or turn inward and opt for self-reliance. In practice, we are likely to see elements of both, as different countries hedge their bets in different ways.

Last month, Prime Minister Theresa May declared that Britain and the US are "united in our recognition of NATO as the bulwark of our collective defense," while the President nodded alongside her in agreement.

On the other hand, the UK believes that to keep Trump on its side, it will also need to persuade other European nations to contribute more to the alliance in the form of higher defense spending.

Higher defense spending serves two purposes. For some, like Theresa May, it will help to neutralize Trump's charge that allies are merely free riding on American efforts. After all, even those NATO allies most skeptical of the President are not ready to give up on America.

If President Trump himself has been amongst those who would weaken NATO, who is left? One answer is Defense Secretary James Mattis, a retired general who served as NATO's Supreme Allied Commander of Transformation between 2007 and 2009. Another is Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who gave a calm, assured speech on his first day in the office. European states hope that Mattis, Tillerson, and others will prove a moderating influence on President Trump.

However, Europeans also realize that this may not be enough. Mattis and Tillerson can be sacked, and the President has shown a willingness to treat the very closest of allies, like Australia, with open hostility.

Higher defense spending therefore serves a second purpose: it increases Europe's safety net, should the US indeed weaken its commitment to the continent's defense.

That safety net is not very strong. While Europe's collective defense spending is around four times that of Russia, European militaries duplicate a lot of spending, and would be constrained in a crisis by the need for political approval from dozens of different capitals.

One answer to this is more cooperation. But should this cooperation be within NATO, the EU, or something else?

But NATO's Supreme Allied Commander is always an American, and the US continues to provide some of the key supporting capabilities, such as refueling aircraft and airborne radar, without which it would be very hard for even Britain, France, and Germany to act on their own.

Some European powers have therefore pushed for the EU to further develop its own defense institutions.

In September, France and Germany -- backed by Italy and Spain -- proposed a permanent military headquarters to plan and run the bloc's military missions, as well as a medical command, a logistics hub, and common officer training. These plans were later diluted, but it is clear that EU defense policy is receiving more attention in Brussels.

Here, the UK is a wildcard. The UK was once a major advocate of European defense cooperation, signing the landmark Saint-Malo declaration with France in 1998. But it has since grown warier of European defense integration, arguing that these efforts distract from NATO and encourage wasteful duplication.

Given Theresa May's eagerness to prove NATO's worth to the new leadership in Washington, she is likely to worry that such steps by the EU will encourage the US to walk away. But Britain is leaving the union and can no longer block what the EU does in the future.

At the same time, the UK is the largest military power in Europe, and far outstrips its allies in some areas, such as signals intelligence.

Any EU military institution that did not include the UK would have a very limited capability. Other European countries, like Poland and Slovakia, also share the UK's view, and would prefer to focus on strengthening NATO.

The first test for Trump's credibility on the issue of European security will come over Ukraine, where fighting between Russia-backed separatists and the Ukrainian government has escalated.

Many feared that Trump might reverse sanctions on Russia, without securing Moscow's compliance with a ceasefire agreement.

However, on Thursday, the US ambassador to the United Nation delivered a stinging, and surprising, rebuke of "Russia's aggressive actions." This will reassure European allies for now, but they will continue to watch how the White House deals with Russia in its first months, and its approach to military allies in Asia.

Speaking in Malta, French President Franois Hollande echoed Europe's fears. "We must have a European conception of our future. If not, there will be -- in my opinion -- no Europe and not necessarily any way for each of the countries to be able to exert an influence in the world."

Europe cannot be complacent about the Trump administration. But if European leaders push too quickly on defense cooperation outside NATO, they risk widening a rift with the region's largest military power, the UK, and encouraging those who believe that the European security order established after the Second World War is indeed over.

Europe is right to think about greater self-reliance in defense, but it should make every effort to work with those in Washington and in the Trump administration who understand the unique role of NATO.

See the original post here:
Can Europe still rely on NATO? - CNN

Thousands of Nato troops have amassed close to the border with Russia as part of the largest build-up of Western troops neighbouring Moscows sphere of influence since the Cold War.

The Baltic states, Poland, Romania and Bulgaria are hosting soldiers from across Natos 28 member states, with more than 7,000 troops deployed in countries bordering Russia.

The UK is the lead nation in Estonia, where 800 soldiers are based at the Tapa base, about 50 miles from Tallinn, helped by French and Danish forces.

British soldiers are also deployed in Poland as part of a US-led Nato mission numbering some 4,000 troops, which is supported by the Romanian army.

Poland's leaders hold ceremony to welcome US troops as part of Nato build-up

In Latvia and Lithuania, around 1,200 troops from Canada and Germany (respectively) are deployed alongside forces from across Europe.

Tanks and heavy armoured vehicles, plus Bradley fighting vehicles and Paladin howitzers, are also in situ and British Typhoon jets from RAF Conningsby will be deployed to Romania this summer to contribute to Natos Southern Air Policing mission.

This map, produced for The Independent by Statista, illustrates the scale of Nato's military build-up in Eastern Europe.

In the far north of the continent, more than 300 US marines are also on rotation in Norway, which shares a border with Russia inside the Arctic Circle.

Kremlin officials claim the build-up is the largest since the Second World War.

The extensive troop deployment comes as defence budgets in the Baltic States continue to rise.

Combined, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania spent little more than 900 million Us dollars on defence in 2005.

Fast forward to 2019 and that figure will have more than doubled to a little over two billion dollars.

Chart showing defence budgets rising in the Baltic States (Statista)

According to research by the US-based think tank Heritage Foundation, between 1950 and 2000 on average 22 per cent of all US troops were stationed on foreign soil.

The low point for US soldier deployments abroad came in 1995 as East-West tensions began to subside, with just 13 per cent of Americas armed forces serving abroad.

Now, Russia believes the US and its Nato partners are expanding.

The US is also increasing its presence in the Black Sea and in Western Europe at bases in the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany.

Tensions between Russia and the West have been heightened since the annexation of Crimea and the war in Syria, which put Washington and Moscow on opposing sides.

Russia blames the West for worsening relations and says the build-up of Nato troops in the Baltics is a provocation.

Moscow has criticised recent deployments as truly aggressive.

More:
The map that shows how many Nato troops are deployed along Russia's border - The Independent

NATO launched a new training programme in Iraq on Sunday (5 February 2017), teaching Iraqi security forces to counter Improvised Explosive Devices (IED). Around 30 enlisted soldiers are participating in the first five-week course. ''NATO's training and capacity building in Iraq is strengthening the country's ability to fight ISIL and provide for its own security,'' said NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg.

NATO Allies are supplying protective equipment to Iraqi security forces as part of their training. The new counter-IED training scheme will run alongside NATO-run courses in Iraq on civil-military cooperation.Since January 2017, NATO advisers have been working in the country, overseeing training activities and working with the Iraqi authorities to reform their security institutions. NATO has been training Iraqi security forces in several areas, including counter-IED, explosive ordnance disposal and de-mining in neighbouring Jordan. At the Warsaw Summit in July of last year, Allies agreed to expand this training into Iraq itself.

The Secretary General stressed that training Iraqi forces is an important part of NATOs contribution to the fight against terrorism, which includes AWACS surveillance support to the Coalition against ISIL. "The best weapon we have in the fight against terrorism is to train local forces," said Mr. Stoltenberg, adding that "a more effective Iraqi military means a safer Iraq, and a more stable Middle East."

Continued here:
NATO - News: NATO launches training effort in Iraq, 05-Feb.-2017 - NATO HQ (press release)

Wall Street Journal

NATO to Start Training Soldiers in Iraq - WSJ Wall Street Journal The North Atlantic Treaty Organization will begin its training effort in Iraq on Sunday, as the alliance looks to step up its efforts to assist in the fight against Islamic ... and more »

See the original post:
NATO to Start Training Soldiers in Iraq - WSJ - Wall Street Journal

May is expected to brief EU leaders on her recent trip to the United States, where she received assurances that President Trump is fully committed to NATO.

The push for more defense spending follows a warning from U.K. Defense Secretary Michael Fallon on the dangers of Russia's military resurgence: Moscow's recent aggression couldn't be treated as "business as usual."

NATO was designed to counter exactly such a threat. But Trump called the alliance "obsolete" during the presidential campaign and accused other members of not spending their fair share.

"We are spending a tremendous amount in NATO and other people proportionately less," he said. "No good."

When it comes to costs, Trump and May have a point. Only five of NATO's 28 members -- the U.S., Greece, Poland, Estonia and the U.K. -- meet the alliance's target of spending at least 2% of GDP on defense.

U.S. ambassador to UN hits Russia hard over Ukraine

The alliance increased overall defense spending for the first time in two decades in 2015, but the U.S. is still doing a lot of the heavy lifting. It spends the highest proportion of its GDP on defense: 3.61%.

The second biggest NATO spender in proportional terms is Greece, at 2.38%, according to NATO. The U.K. is third, at 2.2%. Meanwhile, Germany spent 1.19% last year, while France forked out 1.78%. Canada, Slovenia, Belgium, Spain and Luxembourg all spent less than 1%.

NATO admits it is overly dependent on the U.S. for the provision of essential capabilities, including intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, air-to-air refueling, ballistic missile defense and airborne electronic warfare.

According to NATO statistics, the U.S. spent an estimated $664 billion on defense in 2016. That's more than double the amount all the other 27 NATO countries spent between them, even though their combined GDP tops that of the U.S.

NATO is now pushing hard for the 2% guideline to be taken more seriously.

Back in 2014, all member countries that fall below the threshold committed to ramp up military spending to reach the target within a decade. Most countries are sticking with the promise: 12 increased their spending in 2014, and 16 did so in 2015. Last year, 22 countries spent more as a share of their national economic output.

Trump, China, Europe: Why 2017 is impossible to predict

Fear of Russian aggression is driving some of the splurge. Latvia, which shares a border with Russia, increased its defense spending by 42% in 2016. Its neighbor Lithuania boosted its outlays by 34%. Both, however, are still below the 2% threshold.

NATO is based on the principle of collective defense: an attack against one or more members is considered an attack against all. So far that has only been invoked once -- in response to the September 11 attacks.

Retired Marine Gen. James Mattis, Trump's defense secretary, has described NATO as vital to U.S. national interests and security. Former ExxonMobil (XOM) CEO Rex Tillerson, who has been confirmed as secretary of state, has also defended the alliance.

CNNMoney (London) First published February 3, 2017: 6:11 AM ET

Read the rest here:
Britain tells Europe: Pay your fair share into NATO - CNNMoney

ZAGAN, Poland On a snowy Polish plain dominated by Russian forces for decades, American tanks and troops sent a message to Moscow and demonstrated the firepower of the NATO alliance on Monday.

Amid concerns that President Donald Trump's commitment to NATO is wavering, the tanks fired salvos that declared the 28-nation alliance a vital deterrent in a dangerous new world.

The tank rounds of "The Iron Brigade" of the 4th Infantry Division were not directed towards Russia, but the signal to the Kremlin was clear: "Don't mess with Poland, or any other NATO member an attack on one, is an attack on all."

The 87 tanks, 144 armored vehicle and 3,500 troops represent the biggest U.S. deployment in Europe since the end of the Cold War.

Three years ago, when separatists loyal to Russian President Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine eventually leading to its annexation, the U.S. didn't have a single tank in Europe.

That's what brought this force to Poland; to bolster the defense of Eastern Europe against any further incursions by Putin.

"This is the largest ever U.S. deployment in Poland and it's about deterrence," Gen. Ben Hodges, the commander of the U.S. Army in Europe, told NBC News. "An outright attack by Russia is unlikely, but the best way to keep it unlikely is to do what we're doing here today."

He watched the half-hour live-fire exercise with Polish President Andrzej Duda and many lawmakers who've been campaigning for years for a permanent U.S. presence to deter Russian troops on their border.

Russia sees the deployment very differently; not as a warning, but as a provocation, a "security threat," according to Putin's spokesman Dmitry Peskov.

But in the past year, Russian forces have carried out massive military exercises and deployed missiles capable of carrying nuclear weapons on the Polish border.

Tensions are rising between a resurgent Russia and a nervous NATO, including some members which were once part of the Soviet Union.

Former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev even warned Friday that "it all looks as if the world is preparing for war."

"More troops, tanks and armored personnel carriers are being brought to Europe," the 85-year-old wrote in Time magazine. "NATO and Russian forces and weapons that used to be deployed at a distance are now placed closer to each other, as if to shoot point-blank."

A map showing the location of Monday's joint exercise in Poland. Google Maps

Hodges made clear NATO believes the threat from Russia is real.

"Russian aggression takes many forms," he said. "Cyber, misinformation, threatening other countries, Russian snap exercises. We're serious this is not just a training exercise. It's to demonstrate a strategic message that you cannot violate the sovereignty of members of NATO ... Moscow will get the message I'm confident of it. "

The alliance's troops have been deployed across several NATO states in recent weeks; with German troops arriving in Lithuania which was part of the Soviet Union a quarter century ago and occupied by German Nazi troops during World War Two.

U.S. soldiers march with their flag in Zagan, Poland, on Monday. Natalia Dobryszycka / AFP - Getty Images

British troops are reinforcing Estonia and Canadian troops have been sent to the third Baltic state, Latvia.

The message from all these vulnerable countries to Russia is the same; think twice before you make a move here; either by sending troops across the border (the ultimate red line for NATO), by cyber warfare or by inciting ethnic Russians against the Baltic governments.

At least two large NATO exercises, involving tens of thousands of troops, are planned for the summer.

Last year there were more than 150 exercises in Europe, an escalation over other years.

One of President Barack Obama's last acts was to quadruple the funding of American forces in Europe to $3.5 billion in 2017.

Originally posted here:
NATO Shows Firepower in Poland as U.S. Allies Worry About ...

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg says the alliance and the new U.S. administration agree on the need for dialogue with Russia "from a position of strength."

Stoltenberg said on January 31 that in phone conversations with U.S. President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary James Mattis, "they all conveyed the same message: that the United States remains committed to NATO and the transatlantic bond."

"The message of the new administration is that they also want dialogue with Russia but from a position of strength," he added.

Relations between NATO and Russia have sunk to lows not seen since the Cold War amid tension over Moscows annexation of Ukraines Crimean Peninsula in 2014, its backing of insurgents in eastern Ukraine, its involvement in the Syrian conflict, and other issues.

Trump, who took office on January 20, has called for improved relations with Russia and has rattled Europe with criticism of NATO and praise for Britain's plans to leave the EU.

He has called NATO "obsolete" but also said the alliance is still "very important" to him.

See the original post:
NATO, U.S. Want Dialogue With ...

Operation Allied Force Part of the Kosovo War Novi Sad on fire, 1999 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Belligerents

NATO

Wesley Clark (SACEUR) Rupert Smith Javier Solana

Over 1,031 aircraft[11][12]

Human Rights Watch verified that around 500 civilians died as a result of air attacks, nearly 60% of whom were in Kosovo.[16][17] Serbian sources estimated between 1,200 and 5,700 civilian deaths.[16]

The NATO bombing of Yugoslavia was the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation's (NATO) military operation against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) during the Kosovo War. The air strikes lasted from March 24, 1999 to June 10, 1999. The official NATO operation code name was Operation Allied Force; the United States called it Operation Noble Anvil,[18] while in Yugoslavia the operation was incorrectly called "Merciful Angel" (Serbian Cyrillic: ), as a result of a misunderstanding or mistranslation.[19] The bombings continued until an agreement was reached that led to the withdrawal of Yugoslav armed forces from Kosovo and the establishment of United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK), a UN peacekeeping mission in Kosovo.

NATO claimed that the Albanian population in Kosovo were being persecuted by FRY forces, Serbian police, and Serb paramilitary forces, and that military action was needed to force the FRY to stop. NATO countries attempted to gain authorization from the United Nations Security Council for military action, but were opposed by China and Russia that indicated they would veto such a proposal. NATO launched a campaign without UN authorization, which it described as a humanitarian intervention. The FRY described the NATO campaign as an illegal war of aggression against a sovereign country that was in violation of international law because it did not have UN Security Council support.

The bombing killed between 489 and 528 civilians, and destroyed bridges, industrial plants, public buildings, private businesses, as well as barracks and military installations.

The NATO bombing marked the second major combat operation in its history, following the 1995 NATO bombing campaign in Bosnia and Herzegovina. It was the first time that NATO had used military force without the approval of the UN Security Council.[20]

After its autonomy was quashed, Kosovo was faced with state organized oppression: from the early 1990s, Albanian language radio and television were restricted and newspapers shut down. Kosovar Albanians were fired in large numbers from public enterprises and institutions, including banks, hospitals, the post office and schools.[21] In June 1991 the University of Pritina assembly and several faculty councils were dissolved and replaced by Serbs. Kosovar Albanian teachers were prevented from entering school premises for the new school year beginning in September 1991, forcing students to study at home.[21]

Later, Kosovar Albanians started an insurgency against Belgrade when the Kosovo Liberation Army was founded in 1996. Armed clashes between two sides broke out in early 1998. A NATO-facilitated ceasefire was signed on 15 October, but both sides broke it two months later and fighting resumed. When the killing of 45 Kosovar Albanians in the Raak massacre was reported in January 1999, NATO decided that the conflict could only be settled by introducing a military peacekeeping force to forcibly restrain the two sides. After the Rambouillet Accords broke down on 23 March with Yugoslav rejection of an external peacekeeping force, NATO prepared to install the peacekeepers by force.

NATO's objectives in the Kosovo conflict were stated at the North Atlantic Council meeting held at NATO headquarters in Brussels on April 12, 1999:[22]

Operation Allied Force predominantly used a large-scale air campaign to destroy Yugoslav military infrastructure from high altitudes. After the third day of aerial bombing, NATO had destroyed almost all of its strategic military targets in Yugoslavia. Despite this, the Yugoslav Army continued to function and to attack Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) insurgents inside Kosovo, mostly in the regions of Northern and Southwest Kosovo. NATO bombed strategic economic and societal targets, such as bridges, military facilities, official government facilities, and factories, using long-range cruise missiles to hit heavily defended targets, such as strategic installations in Belgrade and Pristina. The NATO air forces also targeted infrastructure, such as power plants (using the BLU-114/B "Soft-Bomb"), water-processing plants and the state-owned broadcaster, causing much environmental and economic damage throughout Yugoslavia.[citation needed]

Commentators[who?] have debated whether the capitulation of Yugoslavia in the Kosovo War of 1999 resulted solely from the use of air power, or whether other factors contributed.[clarification needed][citation needed]

Due to restrictive media laws, media in Yugoslavia carried little coverage of what its forces were doing in Kosovo, or of other countries' attitudes to the humanitarian crisis; so, few members of the public expected bombing, instead thinking that a diplomatic deal would be made.[23]

According to John Keegan, the capitulation of Yugoslavia in the Kosovo War marked a turning point in the history of warfare. It "proved that a war can be won by air power alone". By comparison, diplomacy had failed before the war, and the deployment of a large NATO ground force was still weeks away when Slobodan Miloevi agreed to a peace deal.[24]

As for why air power should have been capable of acting alone, it has been argued[by whom?] that there are several factors required. These normally come together only rarely, but all occurred during the Kosovo War:[25]

On 20 March 1999 OSCE Kosovo Verification Mission monitors withdrew from Kosovo citing a "steady deterioration in the security situation",[37][38] and on 23 March 1999 Richard Holbrooke returned to Brussels and announced that peace talks had failed.[39] Hours before the announcement, Yugoslavia announced on national television it had declared a state of emergency citing an "imminent threat of war ... against Yugoslavia by Nato" and began a huge mobilization of troops and resources.[39][40] On 23 March 1999 at 22:17 UTC the Secretary General of NATO, Javier Solana, announced he had directed the Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR), General Wesley Clark, to "initiate air operations in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia."[40][41] On 24 March at 19:00 UTC NATO started the bombing campaign against Yugoslavia.[42][43]

NATO's bombing campaign involved 1,000 aircraft operating from air bases in Italy and Germany, and the aircraft carrier USSTheodore Roosevelt stationed in the Adriatic Sea. At dusk,[when?]F/A-18 Hornets of the Spanish Air Force were the first NATO planes to bomb Belgrade and perform SEAD operations. BGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missiles were fired from ships and submarines. The U.S. was the dominant member of the coalition against Yugoslavia, although other NATO members were involved. During the ten weeks of the conflict, NATO aircraft flew over 38,000 combat missions. For the German Air Force, this mission was its first conflict participation since World War II. In addition to air power, one battalion of Apache helicopters from the U.S. Army's 11th Aviation Regiment was deployed to help combat missions. The regiment was augmented by pilots from Fort Bragg's 82nd Airborne Attack Helicopter Battalion. The battalion secured AH-64 Apache attack helicopter refueling sites, and a small team forward deployed to the Albania Kosovo border to identify targets for NATO air strikes.

The campaign was initially designed to destroy Yugoslavian air defences and high-value military targets.[citation needed]

NATO military operations increasingly attacked Yugoslavian units on the ground; as well as continuing the strategic bombardment. Montenegro was bombed several times, and NATO refused to prop up the precarious position of its anti-Miloevi leader, Milo ukanovi. "Dual-use" targets, used by civilians and military, were attacked; the targets included bridges across the Danube, factories, power stations, telecommunications facilities, headquarters of Yugoslavian Leftists, a political party led by Miloevi's wife, and the Avala TV Tower. Some protested that these actions were violations of international law and the Geneva Conventions. NATO argued these facilities were potentially useful to the Yugoslavian military and that their bombing was justified.

On April 14, NATO planes bombed ethnic Albanians near Koria who had been used by Yugoslav forces as human shields.[44][45] Yugoslav troops took TV crews to the scene shortly after the bombing.[46] The Yugoslav government insisted that NATO had targeted civilians.[47][48][49]

On May 7, NATO bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, killing three Chinese journalists. NATO had aimed at a Yugoslav military target, but navigational errors led to the wrong building being targeted.[50] The United States and NATO apologized for the bombing, saying it occurred because of an outdated map provided by the Central Intelligence Agency. The bombing strained relations between the People's Republic of China and NATO, provoking angry demonstrations outside Western embassies in Beijing.[51]

Solana directed Clark to "initiate air operations in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia." Clark then delegated responsibility for the conduct of Operation Allied Force to the Commander-in-Chief of Allied Forces Southern Europe who in turn delegated control to the Commander of Allied Air Forces Southern Europe, Lieutenant-General Michael C. Short USAF.[52] Operationally, the day-to-day for responsibility for executing missions was delegated to the Commander of the 5th Allied Tactical Air Force.[53]

The Hague Tribunal ruled that over 700,000 Kosovo Albanians were forcibly displaced by Yugoslav forces into neighbouring Albania and Macedonia, with many thousands displaced within Kosovo.[54] By April, the United Nations reported 850,000 refugees had left Kosovo.[55] Another 230,000 were listed as internally displaced persons (IDPs): driven from their homes, but still inside Kosovo. German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer claimed the refugee crisis was produced by a Yugoslav plan codenamed "Operation Horseshoe".

Serbian Television claimed that huge columns of refugees were fleeing Kosovo because of NATOs bombing, not Yugoslav military operations.[56][57] The Yugoslav side and its Western supporters claimed the refugee outflows were caused by a mass panic in the Kosovo Albanian population, and the exodus was generated principally by fear of NATO bombs.

The United Nations and international human rights organizations were convinced the crisis resulted from a policy of ethnic cleansing. Many accounts from both Serbs and Albanians identified Yugoslav security forces and paramilitaries as the culprits, responsible for systematically emptying towns and villages of their Albanian inhabitants by forcing them to flee.[58]

Atrocities against civilians in Kosovo were the basis of United Nations war crimes charges against Miloevi and other officials responsible for directing the Kosovo conflict.

An important portion of the war involved combat between the Yugoslav Air Force and the opposing air forces. United States Air Force F-15s and F-16s flying mainly from Italian air force bases attacked the defending Yugoslav fighters; mainly MiG-29s, which were in poor condition, due to lack of spare parts and maintenance. Other NATO forces also contributed to the air war.

Air combat incidents:

By the start of April, the conflict seemed closer to resolution. NATO countries began to deliberate about invading Kosovo with ground units. U.S. President Bill Clinton was reluctant to commit US forces for a ground offensive. At the same time, Finnish and Russian negotiators continued to try to persuade Miloevi to back down. Faced with little alternative, Miloevi accepted the conditions offered by a Finnish-Russian mediation team and agreed to a military presence within Kosovo headed by the UN, but incorporating NATO troops.

On June 12, after Miloevi accepted the conditions, KFOR began entering Kosovo. KFOR, a NATO force, had been preparing to conduct combat operations, but in the end, its mission was only peacekeeping. It was based upon the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps headquarters commanded by then Lieutenant General Mike Jackson of the British Army. It consisted of British forces (a brigade built from 4th Armored and 5th Airborne Brigades), a French Army Brigade, a German Army brigade, which entered from the west while all the other forces advanced from the south, and Italian Army and US Army brigades. The U.S. contribution, known as the Initial Entry Force, was led by the U.S. 1st Armored Division. Subordinate units included TF 135 Armor from Baumholder, Germany, the 2nd Battalion, 505th Parachute Infantry Regiment from Fort Bragg, North Carolina, the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit from Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, the 1st Battalion, 26th Infantry Regiment from Schweinfurt, Germany, and Echo Troop, 4th Cavalry Regiment, also from Schweinfurt, Germany. Also attached to the U.S. force was the Greek Army's 501st Mechanized Infantry Battalion. The initial U.S. forces established their area of operation around the towns of Uroevac, the future Camp Bondsteel, and Gnjilane, at Camp Monteith, and spent four months the start of a stay which continues to date establishing order in the southeast sector of Kosovo.

The first NATO troops to enter Pristina on the 12th of June 1999 were Norwegian special forces from FSK Forsvarets Spesialkommando and soldiers from the British Special Air Service 22 S.A.S, although to NATO's diplomatic embarrassment Russian troops arrived first at the airport. The Norwegian soldiers from FSK Forsvarets Spesialkommando were the first to come in contact with the Russian troops at the airport. FSK's mission was to level the negotiating field between the belligerent parties, and to fine-tune the detailed, local deals needed to implement the peace deal between the Serbians and the Kosovo Albanians.[76][77][78][79]

During the initial incursion, the U.S. soldiers were greeted by Albanians cheering and throwing flowers as U.S. soldiers and KFOR rolled through their villages.[citation needed] Although no resistance was met, three U.S. soldiers from the Initial Entry Force lost their lives in accidents.[80]

Following the military campaign, the involvement of Russian peacekeepers proved to be tense and challenging to the NATO Kosovo force. The Russians expected to have an independent sector of Kosovo, only to be unhappily surprised with the prospect of operating under NATO command. Without prior communication or coordination with NATO, Russian peacekeeping forces entered Kosovo from Bosnia and seized Pristina International Airport.

In 2010 James Blunt in an interview described how his unit was given the assignment of securing the Pristina in advance of the 30,000-strong peacekeeping force and the Russian army had moved in and taken control of the airport before his unit's arrival. As the first officer on the scene, Blunt shared a part in the difficult task of addressing the potentially violent international incident. His own account tells of how he refused to follow orders from NATO command to attack the Russians.[81]

Outpost Gunner was established on a high point in the Preevo Valley by Echo Battery 1/161 Field Artillery in an attempt to monitor and assist with peacekeeping efforts in the Russian Sector. Operating under the support of 2/3 Field Artillery, 1st Armored Division, the Battery was able to successfully deploy and continuously operate a Firefinder Radar which allowed the NATO forces to keep a closer watch on activities in the Sector and the Preevo Valley. Eventually a deal was struck whereby Russian forces operated as a unit of KFOR but not under the NATO command structure.[82]

While not directly related to the hostilities, on 12 March 1999 the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland joined NATO by depositing instruments of accession in accordance with Article 10 of the North Atlantic Treaty at a ceremony in Independence, Missouri.[83] These nations did not participate directly in hostilities.

A large element of the operation was the air forces of NATO, relying heavily on the US Air Force and Navy. The French Navy and Air Force operated the Super Etendard and the Mirage 2000. The Italian Air Force operated with 34 Tornado, 12 F-104, 12 AMX, 2 B-707, the Italian Navy operated with Harrier II. The British Royal Air Force operated the Harrier GR7 and Tornado ground attack jets as well as an array of support aircraft. Belgian, Danish, Dutch, Norwegian and Turkish Air Forces operated F-16s. The Spanish Air Force deployed EF-18s and KC-130s. The Canadian Air Force deployed a total of 18 CF-18s, enabling them to be responsible for 10% of all bombs dropped in the operation. The fighters were armed with both guided and unguided "dumb" munitions, including the Paveway series of laser-guided bombs.[citation needed] The bombing campaign marked the first time the German Air Force actively participated in combat operations since the end of World War II.[84]

However, NATO forces relied mostly upon the Americans and the proven effectiveness of its air power by using the F-16, F-15, F-117, F-14, F/A-18, EA-6B, B-52, KC-135, KC-10, AWACS, and JSTARS from bases throughout Europe and from aircraft carriers in the region. The American B-2 Spirit stealth bomber also saw its first successful combat role in Operation Allied Force, all while striking from its home base in the continental United States.

Even with this air power, noted a RAND Corporation study, "NATO never fully succeeded in neutralizing the enemy's radar-guided SAM threat".[85]

Operation Allied Force incorporated the first large-scale use of satellites as a direct method of weapon guidance. The collective bombing was the first combat use of the Joint Direct Attack Munition JDAM kit, which uses an inertial-guidance and GPS-guided tail fin to increase the accuracy of conventional gravity munitions up to 95%. The JDAM kits were outfitted on the B-2s. The AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW) had been previously used in Operation Southern Watch earlier in 1999.

NATO naval forces operated in the Adriatic Sea. The Royal Navy sent a substantial task force that included the aircraft carrier HMSInvincible, which operated Sea Harrier FA2 fighter jets. The RN also deployed destroyers and frigates, and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary (RFA) provided support vessels, including the aviation training/primary casualty receiving ship RFAArgus. It was the first time the RN used cruise missiles in combat, operated from the nuclear fleet submarine HMSSplendid. The Italian Navy provided a naval task force that included the aircraft carrier Giuseppe Garibaldi, a frigate (Maestrale) and a submarine (Sauro-class). The United States Navy provided a naval task force that included the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt, USSVella Gulf, and the amphibious assault ship USSKearsarge. The French Navy provided the aircraft carrier Foch and escorts. The German Navy deployed the frigate Rheinland-Pfalz and Oker, an Oste-classfleet service ship, in the naval operations.

U.S. ground forces included a battalion from the 505th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 82nd Airborne Division. The unit was deployed in March 1999 to Albania in support of the bombing campaign where the battalion secured the Tirana airfield, Apache helicopter refueling sites, established a forward-operating base to prepare for Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) strikes and offensive ground operations, and deployed a small team with an AN/TPQ-36 Firefinder radar system to the Albania/Kosovo border where it acquired targets for allied/NATO air strikes. Immediately after the bombing campaign, the battalion was refitted back at Tirana airfield and issued orders to move into Kosovo as the initial entry force in support of Operation Joint Guardian. Task Force Hawk was also deployed.

Human Rights Watch "concludes that as few as 489 and as many as 528 Yugoslav civilians were killed in the ninety separate incidents in Operation Allied Force". Refugees were among the victims. Between 278 and 317 of the dead, between 56 and 60 percent of the total number of deaths, were in Kosovo. In Serbia, 201 civilians were killed (five in Vojvodina) and eight died in Montenegro. Almost two thirds (303 to 352) of the total registered civilian deaths occurred in twelve incidents where ten or more civilian deaths were confirmed.[86]

Military casualties on the NATO side were limited. According to official reports, the alliance suffered no fatalities from combat operations. However, on May 5, an American AH-64 Apache crashed and exploded during a night-time mission in Albania.[87][88] The Yugoslavs claimed they shot it down, but NATO claimed it crashed due to a technical malfunction. It crashed 40miles from Tirana,[89] killing the two crewmen, Army Chief Warrant Officers David Gibbs and Kevin Reichert.[90] It was one of two Apache helicopters lost in the war.[91] A further three American soldiers were taken as prisoners of war by Yugoslav special forces while riding on a Humvee on a surveillance mission along the Macedonian border.[92] A study of the campaign reports that Yugoslav air defenses may have fired up to 700 missiles at NATO aircraft, and that the B-1 bomber crews counted at least 20 surface-to-air missiles fired at them during their first 50 missions.[90] Despite this, only two NATO aircraft (one F-16C[93][94][95] and one F-117A Nighthawk[96][97]) were shot down.[98] A further F-117A Nighthawk was damaged[69][70] as were two A-10 Thunderbolt IIs.[99][100] One AV-8B Harrier crashed due to technical failure.[101] NATO also lost 25 UAVs, either due to enemy action or mechanical failure.[102]

In 2013, Serbia's then-Defence Minister Aleksandar Vui announced that Yugoslavia's military and police losses during the air campaign amounted to 956 killed and 52 missing. Vui stated that 631 soldiers were killed and a further 28 went missing, and that 325 police officers were also among the dead with a further 24 listed as missing.[103] The Government of Serbia also lists 5,173 combatants as having been wounded.[104][105] In early June 1999, while the bombing was still in progress, NATO officials claimed that 5,000 Yugoslav troops had been killed in the bombing and a further 10,000 wounded.[106][107][108] NATO later revised this estimation to 1,200 soldiers and policemen killed.[109]

Throughout the war; 181 NATO strikes were reported against tanks, 317 against armored personnel vehicles, 800 against other military vehicles, and 857 against artillery and mortars,[110] after a total of 38,000 sorties, or 200 sorties per day at the beginning of the conflict and over 1,000 at the end of the conflict.[111] When it came to alleged hits, 93 tanks, 153 APCs, 339 other vehicles, and 389 artillery systems were believed to have been disabled or destroyed with certainty.[112] The Department of Defense and Joint Chief of Staff had earlier provided a figure of 120 tanks, 220 APCs, and 450 artillery systems, and a Newsweek piece published around a year later stated that only 14 tanks, 18 APCs, and 20 artillery systems had actually been obliterated,[112] not that far from the Serbs own estimates of 13 tanks, 6 APCs, and 6 artillery pieces.[113] However, this reporting was heavily criticised, as it was based on the number of vehicles found during the assessment of the Munitions Effectiveness Assessment Team, which wasnt interested in the effectiveness of anything but the ordnance, and surveyed sites that hadnt been visited in nearly three-months, at a time when the most recent of strikes were four-weeks old.[113] The Yugoslav Air Force also sustained serious damage, with 121 aircraft destroyed.[114]

Operation Allied Force inflicted less damage on the Yugoslav military than originally thought due to the use of camouflage. Other misdirection techniques were used to disguise military targets. It was only in the later stages of the campaign that strategic targets such as bridges and buildings were attacked in any systematic way, causing significant disruption and economic damage. This stage of the campaign led to controversial incidents, most notably the bombing of the People's Republic of China embassy in Belgrade where three Chinese reporters were killed and twenty injured, which NATO claimed was a mistake.[50]

Relatives of Italian soldiers believe 50 of them have died since the war due to their exposure to depleted uranium weapons.[115]UNEP tests found no evidence of harm by depleted uranium weapons, even among cleanup workers,[116] but those tests and UNEPs report were questioned in an article in Le Monde diplomatique.[117]

In April 1999, during the NATO bombing, officials in Yugoslavia said the damage from the bombing campaign has cost around $100 billion up to that time.[118]

In 2000, a year after the bombing ended, Group 17 published a survey dealing with damage and economic restoration. The report concluded that direct damage from the bombing totalled $3.8 billion, not including Kosovo, of which only 5% had been repaired at that time.[119]

In 2006, a group of economists from the G17 Plus party estimated the total economic losses resulting from the bombing were about $29.6 billion.[120] This figure included indirect economic damage, loss of human capital, and loss of GDP.[citation needed]

When NATO agreed Kosovo would be politically supervised by the United Nations, and that there would be no independence referendum for three years, the Yugoslav government agreed to withdraw its forces from Kosovo, under strong diplomatic pressure from Russia, and the bombing was suspended on June 10. The war ended June 11, and Russian paratroopers seized Slatina airport to become the first peacekeeping force in the war zone.[121] As British troops were still massed on the Macedonian border, planning to enter Kosovo at 5am, the Serbs were hailing the Russian arrival as proof the war was a UN operation, not a NATO operation. After hostilities ended, on June 12 the U.S. Army's 82nd Airborne, 2505th Parachute Infantry Regiment entered war-torn Kosovo as part of Operation Joint Guardian.

Yugoslav President Miloevi survived the conflict and declared its outcome a major victory for Yugoslavia. He was, however, indicted for war crimes by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia along with a number of other senior Yugoslav political and military figures. His indictment led to Yugoslavia as a whole being treated as a pariah by much of the international community because Miloevi was subject to arrest if he left Yugoslavia. The country's economy was badly affected by the conflict, and in addition to electoral fraud, this was a factor in the overthrow of Miloevi.

Thousands were killed during the conflict, and hundreds of thousands more fled from the province to other parts of the country and to the surrounding countries. Most of the Albanian refugees returned home within a few weeks or months. However, much of the non-Albanian population again fled to other parts of Serbia or to protected enclaves within Kosovo following the operation.[122][123][124][125][126] Albanian guerrilla activity spread into other parts of Serbia and to neighbouring Republic of Macedonia, but subsided in 2001. The non-Albanian population has since diminished further following fresh outbreaks of inter-communal conflict and harassment.[citation needed]

In December 2002, Elizabeth II approved the awarding of the Battle Honour "Kosovo" to squadrons of the RAF that participated in the conflict. These were: Nos 1, 7, 8, 9, 14, 23, 31, 51, 101, and 216 squadrons. This was also extended to the Canadian squadrons deployed to the operation, 425 and 441.

Ten years after the operation, the Republic of Kosovo declared independence with a new Republic of Kosovo government.

Those who were involved in the NATO airstrikes have stood by the decision to take such action. U.S President Bill Clinton's Secretary of Defense, William Cohen, said, "The appalling accounts of mass killing in Kosovo and the pictures of refugees fleeing Serb oppression for their lives makes it clear that this is a fight for justice over genocide."[127] On CBS' Face the Nation Cohen claimed, "We've now seen about 100,000 military-aged men missing. ... They may have been murdered."[128] Clinton, citing the same figure, spoke of "at least 100,000 (Kosovar Albanians) missing".[129] Later, Clinton said about Yugoslav elections, "they're going to have to come to grips with what Mr. Miloevi ordered in Kosovo. ... They're going to have to decide whether they support his leadership or not; whether they think it's OK that all those tens of thousands of people were killed. ..."[130] In the same press conference, Clinton also claimed "NATO stopped deliberate, systematic efforts at ethnic cleansing and genocide."[130] Clinton compared the events of Kosovo to the Holocaust. CNN reported, "Accusing Serbia of 'ethnic cleansing' in Kosovo similar to the genocide of Jews in World War II, an impassioned Clinton sought Tuesday to rally public support for his decision to send U.S. forces into combat against Yugoslavia, a prospect that seemed increasingly likely with the breakdown of a diplomatic peace effort."[131] President Clinton's State Department also claimed Serbian troops had committed genocide. The New York Times reported, "the Administration said evidence of 'genocide' by Serbian forces was growing to include 'abhorrent and criminal action' on a vast scale. The language was the State Department's strongest up to that time in denouncing Yugoslav President Slobodan Miloevi."[132] The State Department also gave the highest estimate of dead Albanians. In May 1996, Defense Secretary William Cohen suggested that there might be up to 100,000 Albanian fatalities."[133]

Five months after the conclusion of NATO bombing, when around one third of reported gravesites had been visited thus far, 2,108 bodies had been found, with a estimated total of between 5,000 and 12,000 at that time;[134] Serb forces had systematically concealed grave sites and moved bodies.[135][136]

The United States House of Representatives passed a non-binding resolution on March 11, 1999 by a vote of 219191 conditionally approving of President Clinton's plan to commit 4000 troops to the NATO peacekeeping mission.[137] In late April the House Appropriations Committee approved $13billion in emergency spending to cover the cost of the air war, but a second non-binding resolution approving of the mission failed in the full House by a vote of 213213.[138] The Senate had passed the second resolution in late March by a vote of 5841.[139]

There has also been criticism of the campaign. Joseph Farah accused the coalition of exaggerating the casualty numbers to make a claim of potential genocide to justify the bombings.[140] The Clinton administration were accused of inflating the number of Kosovar Albanians killed by Serbians.[141]

In an interview with Radio-Television Serbia journalist Danilo Mandic on April 25, 2006, Noam Chomsky claimed that Strobe Talbott, the Deputy Secretary of State under President Clinton and the leading U.S. negotiator during the war, had written in his foreword to John Norris' 2005 book Collision Course: NATO, Russia, and Kosovo that "the real purpose of the war had nothing to do with concern for Kosovar Albanians", but rather "It was because Serbia was not carrying out the required social and economic reforms, meaning it was the last corner of Europe which had not subordinated itself to the US-run neoliberal programs, so therefore it had to be eliminated".[142] On May 31, 2006, Brad DeLong rebutted Chomsky's allegation and noted that in the original passage which Chomsky had cited,[143] Talbott claimed that "the Kosovo crisis was fueled by frustration with Milosevic and the legitimate fear that instability and conflict might spread further in the region" and also that "Only a decade of death, destruction, and Milosevic brinkmanship pushed NATO to act when the Rambouillet talks collapsed. Most of the leaders of NATO's major powers were proponents of 'third way' politics and headed socially progressive, economically centrist governments. None of these men were particularly hawkish, and Milosevic did not allow them the political breathing room to look past his abuses."[143][144]

The United Nations Charter does not allow military interventions in other sovereign countries with few exceptions which, in general, need to be decided upon by the United Nations Security Council. The issue was brought before the UNSC by Russia, in a draft resolution which, inter-alia, would affirm "that such unilateral use of force constitutes a flagrant violation of the United Nations Charter". China, Namibia and Russia voted for the resolution, the other members against, thus it failed to pass.[145][146][dead link]

Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs Ariel Sharon criticized the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia as an act of "brutal interventionism".[147] Sharon said both Serbia and Kosovo have been victims of violence. He said prior to the current Yugoslav campaign against Kosovo Albanians, Serbians were the targets of attacks in the Kosovo province. "Israel has a clear policy. We are against aggressive actions. We are against hurting innocent people. I hope that the sides will return to the negotiating table as soon as possible." During the crisis, Elyakim Haetzni said the Serbs should be the first to receive Israeli aid. "There are our traditional friends," he told Israel Radio."[148] It was suggested[who?] that Israel's pro-Serbian position may have been a result of the Serbian population's history of saving Jews during the holocaust, personal memories of which were still present among many older Israeli politicians serving in government at the time such as Tommy Lapid.[149]

On April 29, 1999, Yugoslavia filed a complaint at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) at The Hague against ten NATO member countries (Belgium, Germany, France, United Kingdom, Italy, Canada, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, and the United States) and alleged that the military operation had violated Article 9 of the 1948 Genocide Convention and that Yugoslavia had jurisdiction to sue through Article 38, para. 5 of Rules of Court.[150] On June 2, the ICJ ruled in an 84 vote that Yugoslavia had no such jurisdiction.[151] Four of the ten nations (the United States, France, Italy and Germany) had withdrawn entirely from the court's optional clause. Because Yugoslavia filed its complaint only three days after accepting the terms of the court's optional clause, the ICJ ruled that there was no jurisdiction to sue either Britain or Spain, as the two nations had only agreed to submit to ICJ lawsuits if a suing party had filed their complaint a year or more after accepting the terms of the optional clause.[151] Despite objections that Yugoslavia had legal jurisdiction to sue Belgium, the Netherlands, Canada and Portugal,[151] the ICJ majority vote also determined that the NATO bombing was an instance of humanitarian intervention" and thus did not violate Article 9 of the Genocide Convention.[151]

Amnesty International released a report which stated that NATO forces had deliberately targeted a civilian object (NATO bombing of the Radio Television of Serbia headquarters), and had bombed targets at which civilians were certain to be killed.[152][153] The report was rejected by NATO as "baseless and ill-founded". A week before the report was released, Carla Del Ponte, the chief prosecutor for the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia had told the United Nations Security Council that her investigation into NATO actions found no basis for charging NATO or its leaders with war crimes.[154]

A majority of U.S. House Republicans voted against two resolutions, both of which expressed approval for American involvement in the NATO mission.[155][156]

Moscow criticised the bombing as a breach of international law and a challenge to Russia's status.[157]

More here:
NATO bombing of Yugoslavia - Wikipedia

Definition: NATO (the North Atlantic Treaty Organization) is an alliance of 28 countries bordering the North Atlantic Ocean. It includes Canada, the United States, Turkey and most members of the European Union.

The United States contributes three-fourths of NATO's budget. Donald Trump said other NATO members should contribute more. He also accused it of being obsolete. He argued that it focuses on defending Europe against Russia instead of combating terrorism.

(Source: "Trump Rattles NATO With 'Obsolete' Blast," CNN, January 17, 2017.)

NATO's mission is to protect the freedom of its members. For example, on July 8, 2016,NATO announced it would send up to 4,000 troops to the Baltic states and eastern Poland. It will increase air and sea patrols to shore up its eastern front afterRussia's attack on Ukraine. (Source: "NATO Agrees toReinforce the Baltic States," Reuters, July 8, 2016.)

That includesweapons of mass destruction, terrorism, and cyber attacks.On November 16, 2015, NATO responded to theterrorist attacks in Paris. It called for a unified approach with the European Union. That's because France did notinvoke NATO'sArticle 5. That would be a formal declaration of war uponthe Islamic state group. France preferred to launch air strikes on its own. Article 5 states"...an armed attack upon one...shall be considered an attack upon them all."(Source: "NATO Addresses European Defense Agency," NATO, November 16, 2015.

"Will NATO Respond to the Paris Attacks?" The Atlantic, November 15, 2015.)

The only time NATOinvoked Article 5was after the9/11 terrorist attacks. It responded to U.S. requests for help in thewar in Afghanistan. It took the leadfrom August 2003 to December 2014. At its peak, it deployed 130,000 troops.

In 2015, it ended its combat role and began supporting Afghan troops. (Source: "NATO and Afghanistan," NATO, June 14, 2016.)

NATO's protection does not extend to member's civil wars or internal coups. On July 15, 2016, the Turkish military announced it had seized control of the government in a coup. But Turkish President Recep Erdogan announced early on July 16 that the coup had failed. As a NATO member, Turkey would receive its allies' support in the case of an attack, but not a coup. (Source: "Turkey Coup: How Does NATO Respond?" NBC News, July 16, 2016.)

NATO's second purpose is to protect the stability of the region. In those cases, it would defend non-members. On August 28,2014, NATO announcedit had photos proving that Russiainvaded Ukraine. Although Ukraine is not a member, it worked with NATO over the years. Russia's invasion of Ukraine threatenednearby NATO members. They worried they would be next because they were also former U.S.S.R. satellite countries.

As a result, NATO'sSeptember 2014 summitfocused on Russia' aggression.

President Putinvowed to create a "NewRussia" out of Ukraine's eastern region. President Obamapledged to defend countries such as Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia. (Source: "U.S. Vows NATO Defense of Baltics," The Wall Street Journal, September 4, 2014.)

NATO itself admits that "Peacekeeping has become at least as difficult as peacemaking." As a result, NATO is strengthening alliances throughout the world. In the age of globalization, transatlantic peace has become a worldwide effort. Itextends beyond military might alone. (Source: "A Short History of NATO," North Atlantic Treaty Organization.)

NATO's 28 members are: Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom and the United States.

Each member designates an ambassador to NATO. It supplies needed officials to serve on NATO committees. It will send the appropriate official to discuss NATO business. That includes its President, Prime Minister, Foreign Affairs Minister, or head of Defense.

On December 1, 2015, NATO announced its first expansion since 2009. It offered membership to Montenegro. Russia responded by calling the move a strategic threat to its national security. It worries that too many Balkan countries along its border have joined NATO. (Source: "NATO Prepares for Expansion," The Wall Street Journal,December 1, 2015.)

NATO participates in three alliances. That expands its influence beyond its 28 member countries. The Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council allows partners a vehicle to become NATO members.Itincludes 23 non-NATO countries that support NATO's purpose. It beganin 1991.

The Mediterranean Dialogue seeks to stabilize the Middle East. It non-NATO members include Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Mauritania, Morocco, and Tunisia. It began in1994.

The Istanbul Cooperation Initiativeworks forpeace throughout the larger Middle East region.It includes four members of the Gulf Cooperation Council. They are Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. It began in 2004.

NATO cooperates with eight other countries in joint security issues. There are five in Asia. They are Australia, Japan, Republic of Korea, Mongolia and New Zealand. There are two in the Middle East -- Afghanistan and Pakistan. (Source: "Partnerships," NATO.)

The founding members of NATO signed the North Atlantic Treaty on April 4, 1949. NATO'sprimary purpose was to defend member nations againsttroops in pro-communist countries. The United States also wanted to maintain a presence in Europe. It soughtto prevent a resurgence of aggressive nationalism and foster political union. In this way, NATO made the European Union possible. (Source: "A Short History of NATO," NATO.)

NATO and the Cold War

During the Cold War, NATO's mission expanded to prevent nuclear war. After West Germany joined NATO, theCommunist countriesformed theWarsaw Pact alliance. That included the USSR, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and EastGermany. In response, NATO adopted the "Massive Retaliation" policy. It promised to usenuclear weaponsif the Pact attacked. NATO'sdeterrence policy allowed Europe to focus oneconomic development. It didn't have to build large conventional armies.

The Soviet Union continued to build its military presence. By the end of theCold War, it was spending three times what the United Stateswas with only one-third the economic power. When theBerlin Wallfell in 1989, it was due to economic as well as ideological reasons.

After the USSR dissolved in the late 1980s, NATO's relationship with Russia thawed. In 1997, they signed the NATO-Russia Founding Act to build bilateral cooperation. In 2002, they formed the NATO-Russia Council to partner on shared security issues.

The collapse of the USSR led to unrest in its former satellite states. NATO got involved when Yugoslavia's civil war becamegenocide. NATO's initial support of aUnited Nationsnaval embargo led to the enforcement of ano-fly zone. Violations then led to a few airstrikes until September 1999. That's when NATO conducted a nine-day air campaign that ended the war. By December of that year, NATO deployed a peace-keeping force of 60,000 soldiers. That ended in 2004 when NATO transferred this function to theEuropean Union.

2017 About, Inc. All rights reserved.

Read the rest here:
NATO: Definition, Purpose, History, Members

Donald Trump shocked foreign-policy professionals and observers when he remarked to The New York Times that if he were president, the United States might not come to the defense of an attacked NATO ally that hadnt fulfilled its obligation to make payments. The remark broke with decades of bipartisan commitment to the alliance and, as Jeffrey Goldberg wrote in The Atlantic, aligned well with the interests of Russia, whose ambitions NATO was founded largely to contain. One Republican in Congress openly wondered whether his partys nominee could be seemingly so pro-Russia because of connections and contracts and things from the past or whatever.

Its not unlike Trump to make shocking statements. But these ones stoked particular alarm, not least among Americas allies, about the candidates suitability for the United States presidency. So whats the big deal? What does NATO actually do?

It's Official: Hillary Clinton Is Running Against Vladimir Putin

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was formedthree years, two months, and 10 days after Donald J. Trump was bornto keep peace in post-World War II Europe. But Lord Hastings Ismay, the alliances first secretary general and a friend of Winston Churchill, is said to have remarked that the alliance really had three purposes: to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.

The treaty had evolved out of an initiative of the so-called Benelux countries (the vertical stripe of Europe comprising Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg), who were worried above all about keeping Germany down after World War II. In signing on, the 12 original members who joined in 1949 agreed to uphold peace and international law among themselves. And importantly, they agreed to Article 5, which can obligate member states to come to one anothers defense should one of them be attacked in continental Europe or North America (or in territories north of the Tropic of Cancer). An additional 16 countries have joined since the alliances founding.

During the Cold War, though, keeping Russia out became priority one. It stayed a priority, to one degree or another, even after the breakup of the Soviet Union. In 2014, with Russias invasion of Ukraine raising concerns that a NATO state could be next, the alliance made its most formal statement about minimum defense spending obligations each member owed. Each country, the alliance stated, should try to meet the goal of spending 2 percent of its GDP on defense within a decade. It was those obligations Trump was referring tobut unlike the Article 5 collective-defense requirement, the spending target is not legally binding.

Trumps comments throw the keeping America in function of NATO into question for the first time. I asked Michael Mandelbaum of Johns Hopkins Universitys School of Advanced International Studies, who is an expert on NATO and American foreign policy, what it would mean if Trump put his ideas about the alliance into practice, and about what role the alliance has played historically. Mandelbaum is the author of Mission Failure: America and the World in the Post-Cold War Era. In addition to detailing how NATO has helped constrain European nations from fighting among themselves, Mandelbaum followed up after our conversation to note one more benefit of the alliance: NATO has been an effective measure against nuclear proliferation. Security guarantees may have helped prevent countries like Germany and Japan from seeking their own nuclear weapons (a legacy Trump has also questioned). Our conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity.

Nicholas Clairmont: If a NATO country were invaded [and invoked] Article 5, and the other member states didnt come to its defense, what would happen?

Michael Mandelbaum: Well, they would be violating their treaty obligations. And so you would have to assume that the North Atlantic Treaty and NATO as a military organization would become null and void.

Clairmont: One of the positive effects of NATO that is sometimes touted is that NATO countries generally don't go to war with one another. Is that valid?

Mandelbaum: That has generally been true. You might make an exception for the Turkish invasion and occupation of the northern part of Cyprus.

NATO turned out to part of the solution to the problem that had bedeviled and in some ways devastated Europe for 75 years, between the beginning of the Franco-Prussian War and the end of World War II. And that is the German problem, which was how to fit Germany into Europe in a way that was acceptable both to Europe and to Germany. Dividing Germany, and enveloping its two parts in military alliances led by a stronger power, turned out to be a stable solution. So, it did serve that purpose. And it certainly helped to deter the Soviet Union. Theres a lot of debate about whether Stalin or Krushchev was ever really serious about invading. But its an unanswerable question even with the Russian documents, and we don't have all of them. And its particularly unanswerable, if I can use that ungrammatical construction, because we dont know what Soviet attitudes would have been if there had been no NATO.

Clairmont: What do you think about Trumps comments about NATO in general? Do you think making them was a good idea?

Mandelbaum: Well, they were certainly irresponsible. Although you have to qualify that, because to call them irresponsible might imply that Trump really had an understanding of what he was doing. And I dont get the impression that he does.

I think his two defining features are his temperament, and his ignorance.

Clairmont: His claim is: Its bad for the U.S. to go on sustaining NATO, because we pay a great deal more for our defense, by percent, than do a lot of other NATO members. And thats the only reason the alliance is sustainable, and that we need to make a credible threat that America is willing to walk away and stop basically footing the bill for NATO, in order to get everyone else to pay up. One of the things Im exploring is that he has not understood how much value NATO provides to the United States.

Mandelbaum: He looks at everything as a real estate dealthat we're not getting enough.

I would make two points. One is that, although the burden of the common defense is a bit lopsidedwith the United States paying more than what American administrations have considered our fair shareits not as lopsided as Donald Trump seems to think. Americas allies really do make contributions. Especially in Asia. And, it also must be borne in mind that the United States has a global military. So, a lot of the American defense budget, and the budget that can be assigned to NATO or to Japan, is naval and air force. Which, presumably, the United States would want to have anyway. Maybe not to the same extent, but the Navy is a senior service. Weve had one since the early 19th century. We're not going to give it up. So that's the first point.

The second point is: I do think that one consequence of what Trump has been saying, and what Obama said in the Jeffrey Goldberg interview [for The Atlantic cover story The Obama Doctrine], is that whoever is elected, there will be pressure to get the Europeans to pay more. If Mrs. Clinton is elected, she will feel that pressure, because its been placed on the national agenda as an issue.

Clairmont: Do you see a connection at all between Trumps equivocation about honoring NATO Article 5, and Obamas distinction between core and non-core interests, and [his discussion of] free riders, in The Obama Doctrine?

Mandelbaum: Well, they're connected by inference. But if you have signed a treaty to protect a country such as Estonia, Latvia, or Lithuania, that would seem to make it a core interest.

Clairmont: Russia has made military incursions in Chechnya, Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine, all non-NATO countries. And one gets the sense that [Russian President Vladimir] Putin has designs on Estonia [as well as the other Baltic states Latvia and Lithuania], which are NATO countries. But he hasnt done anything in those countries. Is this because NATO, so far, works?

Mandelbaum: I think the fact that Ukraine and Georgia were not in NATO certainly made them attractive targets. And now the Baltic states are in question. Theyre not defensible, at least not with the force the United States and NATO have there. So they are in some sense the equivalent to the Cold War status of West Berlin. But Putin has lots of ways to harass the Baltics: cyberattacks, stirring up ethnic Russians. So, he could make a lot of trouble for Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, without having Russian troops cross the border between them and Russia.

When NATO expansion was proposed it was presented by the Clinton administration as being a way to unite Europe. And those of us who were opposed 20 years ago said: To the contrary, this is going to create a line of division in Europe. And so it did. It would have been a line of division if only Russia had been excluded. But for various reasons Georgia and Ukraine were also excluded, and now they are in no-mans land.

Clairmont: Walter Russell Mead, the foreign-policy writer and my former boss, sometimes says that if you put up signs over one half of a lake that say no fishing, people are going to make an assumption about the other half of that lake.

Mandelbaum: There is something to that.

I think that although NATO expansion was a terrible mistakeand a very costly one, in that Russia might well have a different foreign policy than it does if not for NATO expansion and all that followedprecisely because of what Russia has become, there is a need for NATO. Europe is important to the United States. But its true that the Europeans pay less than what every American president since Eisenhower regarded as their fair sharePresident Obama called the Europeans free riders, and to some degree indeed they are. They have been for over 60 years, dating back to 1952 and the Lisbon Agreement [on NATO Force Levels]. The idea was that NATO should have many more ground troops than it had, and they would come from the Europeans. But the Europeans never stumped up.

Clairmont: Can you tell me more about the Lisbon Agreement? The discussion of force levels did not begin until after the treaty was inked in 49?

Mandelbaum: No, it was a few years afterwards. And there was another, later point at which the Kennedy administration, because of changes in the nuclear balance, adopted a policy of flexible response, which meant that there needed to be more NATO ground troops. And the Europeans agreed in principle, but never supplied them. I wrote about this in the first book that I ever published, called The Nuclear Question.

Clairmont: So, is the requirement to spend 2 percent as binding as the Article 5 collective self-defense requirement? Is it legally required as a term of membership?

Mandelbaum: No, it is not in the treaty.

Clairmont: Do you have any closing points?

Mandelbaum: The Europeans have been not quite been free riders, but they pulled less than their weight. And the case that we are paying an inordinate amount for collective defense is sort of true in the Pacific with Japan. Although, the United States does get economic benefits. That is, the Japanese pay a lot of the cost of the bases, and if we wanted to base American troops in the United States rather than overseas, it would be expensive. So NATO is not exactly a paying proposition, and its not intended to be a paying proposition.

But simply abandoning NATO would be costly, just in economic terms. And it would be very costly in geopolitical terms.

Clairmont: Is NATO worthwhile? Is the world a better, more peaceful place for America's being in NATO and being willing to honor Article 5?

Mandelbaum: Yes, it is.

Christopher I. Haugh contributed reporting.

See more here:
Why Donald Trump's Recent NATO Comments Caused Such an Uproar ...