Category Archives: NATO

Despite the impact of the pandemic, the NATO Science and Technology Organization (STO) persistently delivered excellent Programmes of Work (PoWs) thanks to its network of over 5,000 scientists, engineers and analysts. This ensures that the STO remains at the vanguard of S&T, and is committed to sustaining NATO, Allies and Partners technological advantage in an ever-competitive world.

In 2022, the STO has distributed publicly three reports that highlight its insightful achievements and plot the way forward.

The 2021 STO HIGHLIGHTSexemplifies the impact and significance of STO PoWs for the Alliance, covering the Centre for Maritime Research and Experimentation (CMRE) PoW and Collaborative PoW (CPoW). This comprises over 300 activities ranging from major research programmes to horizon scanning and lecture series, as well as cooperative demonstration of technologies.

The report is intended as a compendium of recently completed projects and achievements in both CMRE and the Collaborative PoW 2021. It also summarizes the advice produced for NATO leadership to assist high-level decision-making on decisive topics such as: Women In the Armed Forces, CBRN Threats and Hazards, Emerging and Disruptive Technologies (EDTs), Climate change and S&T Trends 2020-2040.

The mission of CMRE is to organize and conduct scientific research and technology development, centred on the maritime domain, delivering innovative and field-tested Science & Technology (S&T) solutions to address the defence and security needs of the Alliance.

The CMRE 2021 ANNUAL REPORThighlights the CMREs activities in executing its 2021 programme of work and its achievements in delivering value-added products and services to its customers, and in particular to NATO Allied Command Transformation as part of the Maritime S&T programme with its focus on: autonomous naval mine countermeasures; autonomy for anti-submarine warfare; data-environmental knowledge and operational effectiveness; and maritime unmanned systems enablers.

The annual report illustrates how CMREs scientists, engineers and technologists exploit emerging and disruptive technologies in innovative ways in order to maintain NATOs technological edge.

The 2022 COLLABORATIVE PROGRAMME OF WORK provides an overview of the Science and Technology Organizations (STO) projects planned for 2022 in defence and security-relevant research and technology development for enhanced operational military capabilities for the Nations and NATO. The 2022 CPoW is comprised of 283 ongoing and planned technical research activities and 49 exploratory teams.

The CPoW is a tool designed to answer the Nations needs and NATO requirements. Therefore, its construct is based on the strategic orientation provided by the Nations, the Panels/Group during their business meetings, and the higher NATO centralised organization. Ultimately, the Nations, through the Science & Technology Board (STB), remain the collective authority deciding on how the CPoW should develop. The CPoW research projects, managed by the STO Collaboration Support Office (CSO) near Paris, France, will be conducted across all topical areas of the CPoW: Applied Vehicle Technology (AVT); Human Factors and Medicine (HFM); Information Systems Technology (IST); System Analysis and Studies (SAS); Systems Concepts and Integration (SCI); Sensors and Electronics Technology (SET); as well as Modelling and Simulation (NMSG).

For 2022, many CPoW projects continue to be focused on the applications and implications of the NATO Emerging and Disruptive Technologies: artificial intelligence, autonomy, big data, biotechnology, hypersonics, quantum sciences, space, and novel materials.

Read more:
Empowering NATO's Technological Edge - 2021 snapshot of the work of NATO Researchers - NATO HQ

In 2007, a Finnish conservative politician summarized the countrys three main security considerations as Russia, Russia and Russia. Many Finns have again brought up these words in recent months. In countries further West, news about the Russian invasion of Ukraine and related atrocities led to a response along the lines of, Oh my, those poor people! For Finns, the reaction has been closer to Jesus that could be us!

Memories of the Winter War of 193940 a key part of the Finnish national mythos are raw in the minds of even many committed pacifists. The current discussion has gone back to basics: How can Finland avoid becoming the next Ukraine?

There is no question that the invasion of Ukraine represents simultaneously a horrifying breach in European security and another escalation in the long trend of Russian imperialism both near to its borders and further afield. Nothing that could be said, for instance, about events in the Donbas or the far rights role in Ukraines politics provide any justification for this appalling war.

Belligerent rhetoric in Russian media about expanding its so-called denazification and special operations has been aimed more at the Baltic states, as well as Poland and Moldova, than at Finland. And its situation doesnt quite resemble Ukraine or Georgia, with their fraught conflicts and regionalized minorities that Moscow might exploit for its own power politics. Precisely because so few people could have foreseen a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, even after all the threatening rhetoric, these events have thrown discussions in Finland for a loop. If this couldnt have been predicted, what else can we be sure about?

This uncertainty has led to a new emerging consensus about matters like defense spending and the importance of Finnish agriculture and self-sufficiency. Helsinki has joined other European capitals in providing weapons to Ukraine; like many other countries, it has expelled Russian diplomats and is exploring ways to speedily end reliance on Russian gas and oil. Still, the main topic of interest is an older mainstay of Finnish security policy debates, now posed with a completely new urgency: the question of whether to join NATO.

The center-left governments previous stance, which was shared by all its parties, was that it shouldnt. In January, Finlands prime minister, Sanna Marin a left-wing social democrat gave an interview confirming that short-term Finnish membership of NATO is unlikely, though still retained as a potential future option. Many NATO supporters interpreted this as evidence of irresponsibility, though it is the same line Finland has taken since the organizations creation.

Marins recent statements indicate this line has changed. The same goes for the previously reluctant president of Finland, whose word is perhaps even more influential on foreign policy. Now the decision date may arrive sooner than almost anyone would have foreseen just a few months ago.

Finland has long been neutral but it still has a history of gazing eastward. Even before this war, the pro-NATO, Atlanticist faction saw Finland under constant threat of Russian attack, which could materialize at any moment. This group believes that the only thing that will really defend against this eventuality is NATO. Likewise, the anti-NATO faction has argued that joining NATO is precisely what would put Finland under threat of becoming an arena of conflict.

There are also deeper cultural attitudes at play. Spurring pro-NATO discourses is a belief that Finland is not sufficiently Western, or that it is still Finlandized a term used during the Cold War to refer to Finlands policy of Soviet-friendly neutrality, but inside Finland as an attack on politicians seen as too deferential toward Moscow. Despite widespread campaigning for NATO among much of Finlands foreign policy and security elites, echoed by much Finnish media, Finland has remained out of the alliance so far, despite extensive cooperation.

The war on Ukraine has upended this status quo completely. Whereas NATO membership was a remote prospect before the invasion, Finnish application for membership is now widely considered all but certain. This sea change started already during the months in which Russia assembled its troops near Ukraine and made its ultimatums. The formal decision to apply for membership might happen before Easter.

Theres more than just sending in an application, though. It also has to be approved. Atlanticists know that the balance of opinion in Finland has swung in their favor. One poll begun on February 23, the day before the invasion, found support for NATO membership at just over 53 percent, and the numbers have only grown since then. Still, they worry the crisis might mean that the door will be shut in their faces. NATO secretary general Jens Stoltenberg, Norways former prime minister, has indicated that Finland would receive security guarantees during the process, which would be expedited. Still, questions remain about the possibility of countries like Hungary blocking the accession or demanding a quid pro quo deal regarding EU punishment for infractions of judicial independence by Viktor Orbns government.

One thing that might cause questions among NATO members is how Moscow would immediately react to the possibility of Finnish NATO accession. There has already been a bit of saber-rattling an airspace violation here, a belligerent address by a Russian politician there but these are nothing particularly unusual for Finns. Russian politicians making threats aimed at random neighboring countries has been the normal state of affairs for decades.

Overall, the Russian reaction has been, if anything, subdued perhaps reflecting the fact that much of its northwestern army usually stationed in regions bordering Finland is today fighting in Ukraine, and suffering heavy losses. Still, anything can happen, which is why Finnish politicians have been focused on security guarantees before the actual accession to membership.

Another problem is presented by Finlands other major neighbor: Sweden. Sweden and Finland joined the European Union at the same time in 1995, with the process in Finland initiated by Swedens surprise application. There is extensive defense cooperation between the two, and for many years, Finnish Atlanticists predicted a similar surprise announcement that Sweden would seek to join NATO, encouraging Finland to do the same. This time, the roles are different; its the Finnish government gunning for fast NATO membership and the Swedish government taking a slower approach.

The current public debate mostly concerns whether Finland should join NATO as soon as possible or wait for a bit and then join. NATO-critical voices are often shouted down and condemned as Putin sympathizers.

The Left is divided. Even in the Left Alliance, the biggest party to the left of the Social Democrats, the shift in opinion has led to the party leader announcing that NATO membership will no longer be a make-or-break issue for government participation. This has already been an upheaval in party thought on what was once a defining stance. Some members have pushed for an even further shift.

There are also some opponents of NATO membership on the other side of the spectrum, both among right-wing populists and more mainstream conservatives, who prefer to conserve Finlands traditional neutrality. For instance, former foreign minister Paavo Vyrynen, from the Center Party (the second-biggest force in the current government), is a long-standing opponent of NATO, and he has not been shy about this view although hes currently a powerless minority among his party. Perhaps the only MP to take a clearly pro-Russian standpoint, Ano Turtiainen belongs to a conspiracy-theorist splinter of the right-wing-nationalist Finns Party. But even this party has stood by the governments line and recently endorsed NATO membership.

Questions like what Finlands role in NATO would be defending the Baltic states or something more remain less considered. As far as Finns are concerned, NATO is either an organization meant to defend Finland from Russia or an organization that intends to make Finland its front line for a conflict with Russia.

This myopic approach, typical of many countries primary concern for their own affairs, prevents a global focus on the future development of NATO. In particular, there has been a general trend of American presidents turning their focus from Europe to the Pacific. Many in the United States who see Europe as a declining and secondary continent will take potential future conflict with China as most decisive, and a cold war with China has now been pushed during several presidencies. If there is, for instance, a serious Baltic conflict and a serious Pacific conflict going on at the same time, how many resources would the United States focus on each?

In opposition to glib rhetoric about the West standing together, many cite the fact that Turkey, known for its oppression of Kurds and its wider authoritarianism, is itself a NATO member. But there are more obviously Western countries in the alliance who engage in postcolonial wars of the sort that Finns generally have little desire to join. For all the counterposing of the West against Russian autocracy, plenty of Western politicians, in line with a long-standing and cynical tradition, have sought deals with Russia over the heads of its border countries. To many Western Europeans, Eastern Europe in general remains a terra incognita, full of nations that are only noticed in affairs that affect the West directly. These, too, are questions for Finland to consider.

Now, though, whatever happens in countries as far away as Turkey seems remote to most Finns. Even many reluctant and newfound NATO supporters consider it obvious that membership would be at most a marriage of convenience, not an endorsement of the idea that NATO represents democracy, freedom, and light. But no matter how the eventual process goes and, in all probability, Finland will be a NATO member by the end of the year there is one force that ought to be blamed for the shift.

Preventing the expansion of NATO might have been one of the stated goals of Russias rapacious invasion. But the sheer unpredictability of the wholesale invasion is one of the tipping points that has made Finlands NATO application all but inevitable. Even a more limited incursion in the style of Georgia might have left the outcome more uncertain. Not a few people have made the same observation: for all the ink spilled by Atlanticists in Finland for thirty years, no politician has been more efficient a salesperson for NATO than Vladimir Putin has been.

Read the rest here:
Finland Is Closer Than Ever to Joining NATO - Jacobin magazine

Able Archer was an annual NATO military exercise that involved thousands of military personnel and equipment. The goal of the exercise was to simulate an escalation in a conflict between NATO countries and the USSR, culminating in a co-ordinated nuclear attack.

In 1983, the annual exercise almost triggered the outbreak of war between NATO and the Soviet Union, when miscommunication led the Soviet government to believe the West was in fact mounting an invasion.

Able Archer, was an annual NATO exercise and the culmination the culmination of the Autumn Forger maneuvers that involved 100,000 personnel, some 16,000 of which were flown in from the United States according to The Atomic Heritage Foundation. The exercise was designed to end with a simulated nuclear strike following a theoretical Warsaw Pact invasion of Western Europe.

Related: The first atomic bombs: Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Although the Soviet Union was aware that the annual event was due to take place, in 1983 Able Archer differed in many ways from previous exercises.

First, there were large periods of radio silence, as well as encrypted messages among the NATO forces.

Second, the imaginary forces were moved to high alert and there were even reports of fake missiles being taxied out of hangers with dummy warheads.

Finally, senior officials were involved with even President Ronald Reagan himself scheduled to participate, although in reality he dropped out, according to the BBC.

In the buildup to the 1983 Able Archer exercise the Warsaw Pact countries had become increasingly paranoid about the potential of a U.S. nuclear attack.

In 1981 Ronald Reagan became the 40th President of the United States and quickly proved himself aggressive in his approach towards the USSR. In March 1983, just a few short months before Able Archer, Reagan referred to the Soviet Union as an "evil empire", according to Voices of Democracy and announced his intent to build the "Star Wars" space-based anti-missile program, according to the Atomic Heritage Foundation.

That same year, the U.S. deployed Pershing II Nuclear Missiles at their bases in West Germany, able to reach a Soviet target in less than 10 minutes, according to Missile Threat.

As a result of the this threat and the fear of a nuclear strike, the KGB created Project RYaN, which stood for "Raketno-Yadernoe Napadenie" translated meaning "Nuclear Missile Attack" according to the Wilson Center.

"The Soviet Intelligence community was still traumatized by its failure to anticipate the German attack in 1941 and was determined not to be taken by surprise again," Colonel Robert E Hamilton wrote in his article "Able Archer At 35: Lessons from the 1983 War Scare".

As well as using traditional intelligence methods, including human agents, RYaN also utilized computers in a bid to monitor indicators from both NATO and the United States that a nuclear attack was imminent.

On Sept. 26, the Soviet Early Warning Satellite System registered a warning that five American minuteman missiles were on their way to Russian soil, according to Stanford University. The warning was revealed to be a false alarm.

"1983 was a supremely dangerous year in which a series of events seriously raised the temperature between East and West," historian Taylor Downing told All About History Magazine "Most obvious here was the shooting down of a Korean civilian airliner, flight KAL 007, by a Soviet fighter plane after it had strayed off course by about 350 miles and ended up crossing Soviet airspace above a sensitive military area.

"Reagan could not believe this was a case of mistaken identity, a tragic accident that caused the death of 269 innocent people, " Downing continued. "He called the Soviet Union "a terrorist state" that showed no regard for human life. I argue that at this point the Cold War nearly went hot as some in Washington demanded a military retaliation against the Soviet Union."

As tensions between the two sides began to rise, so did the danger of a possible nuclear conflict. According to the strategy of Mutually Assured Destruction, if this occurred then both sides would annihilate each other.

"When situations are this tense it is always possible that one side will misinterpret what the other side is doing," Downing said. "In the end, the safety of all nuclear systems is reliant upon the human factor it is a politician or military leader who finally has to respond to threats perceived or real and press the nuclear button. So, no matter how sophisticated the failsafe systems are, it is down to a person to make the final decision and all humans are fallible."

When the Able Archer exercise began on Nov. 7, 1983, the Soviet response was unprecedented.

Almost immediately all flight operations that were not intelligence gathering in nature were suspended and nuclear weapons were taken to their intended delivery units.

For the entire duration of Able Archer, aircraft in Poland and East Germany, both Soviet republics at this time, were kept armed and fueled, according to Colonel Colonel Hamilton.

Perhaps most disturbingly, a 30-minute readiness time for a full nuclear strike was imposed, which would remain on alert until the end of Able Archer, on the Nov. 11, according to the National Security Archive.

It would be some time before the extent of the Soviet war scare would become apparent to U.S. Intelligence officers. Despite defector Oleg Gordievsky informing both MI6 and the C.I.A., it was only the former who believed him.After being briefed, Margaret Thatcher ordered her officials to "urgently consider how to approach the Americans on the question of possible Soviet misapprehensions about a surprise Nato attack," according to Unredacted.

In 1990 the Presidents Foreign Advisory Board crafted a top secret report entitled "The Soviet War Scare" which makes clear the threat posed by Able Archer, stating that the US "may have inadvertently placed our relations with the Soviet Union on a hair trigger."

General Yesin, an operator of SS-20 missiles targeted at Western Europe, stated years later that: "We knew that NATO was doing an exercise although we couldnt fully eliminate the possibility that a nuclear strike could be delivered," Gordon Barrass reported in a 2016 article for Taylor Francis Online.

The Atomic Heritage Foundation contains a lengthy article on Able Archer 83 which details just hot close the world came to nuclear war. The Reagan Foundation has uploaded the entirety of the 'Evil Empire' speech and this can be viewed on YouTube. Colonel Robert E Hamilton's paper on Able Archer can be read on the Foreign Policy Research Institutes site.

Continue reading here:
Able Archer: The NATO exercise that almost went nuclear - Livescience.com

PARIS Rejecting a herd-like conformity with the Biden administration, Marine Le Pen, the French far-right candidate for the presidency, said Wednesday that France would quit NATOs integrated military command if she were elected and would seek for the alliance a strategic rapprochement with Russia.

As Russias war in Ukraine rages on, Ms. Le Pen effectively signaled that her election would terminate or at least disrupt President Bidens united alliance in confronting President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, and perhaps create a breach in Western Europe for Mr. Putin to exploit.

Dismissing multilateralism, blasting Germany, criticizing the European Union, relegating climate issues to a low priority, attacking globalists and maintaining a near silence on Russias brutal assault in Ukraine, Ms. Le Pen gave a taste of a worldview that was at once reminiscent of the Trump presidency and appeared to directly threaten NATOs attempts to arm Ukraine and defeat Russia.

A lurch to the far right by France, a nuclear power and permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, would realign the world, with unpredictable and disruptive consequences.

In a wide-ranging 75-minute news conference devoted to international relations, and apparently conceived to bolster her credentials on the global stage, Ms. Le Pen said France would remain in NATO and respect its core Article 5, which says an attack on one alliance member is an attack on all.

But, she added, I would place our troops neither under an integrated NATO command nor under a European command.

Her position, she said, was no submission to an American protectorate exercised on European soil under the cover of NATO a stance she compared to that taken by Gen. Charles de Gaulle in 1966, when he took France out of NATOs integrated military command, where it remained until 2009.

Her position, she said, did not signal submission to Moscow. But her promise to withdraw France from the command was consistent with the policy of equidistance from great powers she said she would pursue if she defeats the incumbent, President Emmanuel Macron, in a runoff vote for the French presidency on April 24.

Polls show Mr. Macron with 53 to 55 percent of the vote, ahead of Ms. Le Pen with 45 to 47 percent. But the political situation is volatile as the president, scurrying around the country, scrambles to make up for a lackluster initial campaign. The French nationalist extreme right is closer to attaining power than at any time since World War II.

The proposed rapprochement with Russia, once the Russian-Ukrainian war is over and settled by a peace treaty, would even be in the interest of the United States, Ms. Le Pen suggested, because Washington would not be served by a close Russian-Chinese union.

Ms. Le Pen, the leader of the National Rally, formerly the National Front, a fiercely anti-immigrant party, dismissed the Biden administration as too aggressive toward Beijing, saying the United States needs enemies in order to unite its allies under its domination.

It was one of very few references to the United States, none of them positive, as Ms. Le Pen embarked on a kind of world tour of her preoccupations that also omitted Russia but did include a long exegesis of why France has solemn obligations in Lebanon.

France is not France without grandeur, she declared.

Nor is it France without protests. The news conference was briefly disrupted by a protester carrying a heart-shaped image of Ms. Le Pen and Mr. Putin. The protester was wrestled to the ground and dragged out by security guards.

Ms. Le Pen said that the nonaligned France she imagined would threaten enemies of the Western camp in a more effective way because the country would no longer follow an alignment with the United States and so would cause greater, dissuasive uneasiness in the calculations of all adversaries.

Mr. Macron has attacked Ms. Le Pen as intent on the destruction of the European Union and compared the April 24 vote to a referendum on Europe. Nationalism, he said Tuesday in Strasbourg, leads to an alliance of nations that want to make war.

Ms. Le Pen said that a British-style exit from the European Union was not in her plans but that she favored a European alliance of nations, rejecting Mr. Macrons frequent references to European sovereignty and European strategic autonomy. In practice she favors a series of measures including favoring French over E.U. citizens for jobs and housing designed to undermine the 27-member union.

The same objective appeared to lie behind her diatribe against Germany, Frances most important partner in the construction of a united Europe. Franco-German friendship has stood at the heart of postwar Europe, the symbol of the continents healing after the devastation of two world wars.

Ms. Le Pen declared that France and Germany confronted irreconcilable strategic differences.

She said she would stop all cooperation with Germany on the development of new military equipment in order to pursue national programs. She denounced the discreet and clever hegemony over Europe orchestrated by Angela Merkel, the former German chancellor. She suggested that Germany has embarked on a surreptitious plan to subvert Frances centralized model with a German federal model or even the creation of big border-crossing regions.

Germany would not be allowed to destroy the French nuclear industry, Ms. Le Pen vowed. She insisted that Germanys interests diverged from Frances in that Germany considers NATO as the natural pillar of its security, yesterday and today, which leads it to buy American.

Driving home her point, Ms. Le Pen said, Germany thus represents the polar opposite of Frances strategic identity. Nevertheless, she said, I want to underline that I have no hostility to the German nation.

The overall message was clear enough. Dismissive of French-German cooperation, hostile or suspicious toward the United States and NATO, seeking rapprochement with Russia and a softer approach to China, Ms. Le Pen would take France in a direction that, for the Biden administration, would severely test one of Americas oldest alliances at a time of war in Europe.

Go here to see the original:
Ukraine-Russia War Live News and Latest Updates - The New York Times

IE 11 is not supported. For an optimal experience visit our site on another browser.

Now Playing

Putin lashing out at NATO backfires as interest in membership grows11:48

UP NEXT

Samantha Power on Russian atrocities and 'genocide': 'The facts are plain as day'08:10

Rachel Maddow returns from hiatus; new schedule announced03:26

Report of massive Saudi payout to Kushner raises new questions about Trump admin policies07:51

Kremlin critic Kara-Murza reportedly arrested in Russia08:43

In Ketanji Brown Jackson's success, a lesson in what is possible in a democracy05:26

Russia bombs train station, wartime hub for Ukrainian civilians06:15

Velshi: Ukraine shows what an existential fight for democracy looks like03:10

Putin's information war drives wedge through cross-border families05:09

Judge Jackson blazes important trail in ascent to Supreme Court11:10

Senator Warnock marks historic day with note to his daughter01:16

New audio evidence further points to lying by Russia on atrocities in Ukraine07:34

Patriotism supplants political ideology in Ukrainian fight to repel Russian invasion08:02

Putin manipulates Russians' memory of World War II to shape false Ukraine narrative04:40

Putin sacrifices Russian culture for war to deny Ukraine's existence: Snyder05:15

Fake Trump elector loses reelection bid to volunteer poll worker01:51

Alarm for areas still occupied by Russia after atrocities exposed in liberated towns07:22

U.S. aid to Ukraine adjusts to Russian threat; longer term planning considered04:17

Panic escalates as Russia increases attacks on civilian targets in southern Ukraine05:32

Ivanka's 'adult in the room' self-image risks implicating her father in bad behavior02:32

Rachel Maddow reports on how Russia's invasion of Ukraine has made Sweden and Finland actively interested joining NATO when they weren't interested in doing so previously, and looks at how Finland has prepared itself for war with Russia ever since it was invaded by the Soviet Union in 1939.April 13, 2022

Now Playing

Putin lashing out at NATO backfires as interest in membership grows11:48

UP NEXT

Samantha Power on Russian atrocities and 'genocide': 'The facts are plain as day'08:10

Rachel Maddow returns from hiatus; new schedule announced03:26

Report of massive Saudi payout to Kushner raises new questions about Trump admin policies07:51

Kremlin critic Kara-Murza reportedly arrested in Russia08:43

In Ketanji Brown Jackson's success, a lesson in what is possible in a democracy05:26

The rest is here:
Putin lashing out at NATO backfires as interest in membership grows - MSNBC

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who has urged NATO to take stronger actions throughout Russias invasion, said in an interview that aired Sunday he is no longer interested in their diplomacy.

When youre working in diplomacy, there are no results. All of this is very bureaucratic, Zelensky said in an interview with CBSs 60 Minutes.

Thats why the way I am talking to them is absolutely justified. I dont have any more lives to give. I dont have any more emotions. Im no longer interested in their diplomacy that leads to the destruction of my country, the president added.

Since the unprovoked military invasion of Ukraine began on Feb. 24, Zelensky has referred to NATO as weak and under confident, while also previously pushing for Ukraines membership in the body.

Knowing that new strikes and casualties are inevitable, NATO deliberately decided not to close the sky over Ukraine, Zelensky said in an earlier video, urging the security alliance to think about all those people who will die because of you.

Because of your weakness, because of your disunity, all the alliance has managed to do so far is to carry 50 tons of diesel fuel for Ukraine, he said in March. Is this the alliance you were building?

NATO has saidit condemns in the strongest possible terms Russias full-scale invasion of Ukraine and last week called for Russian President Vladimir Putin to withdraw all his forces from Ukraine without conditions and engage in genuine diplomacy.

NATO Secretary-GeneralJens Stoltenberghas also said that the invasionhas already had long-term consequencesthat will require the alliance to adapt to that reality.

NATO is the most successful alliance in history for two reasons. One is that we have been able to unite Europe and North America. The other is that we have been able to change when the world is changing. Now the world is changing and NATO is changing, the secretary-general added.

Later in Sundays interview with CBS, Zelensky added that he was not disappointed with President Bidens response to the crisis.

I dont know how another president in his place would help us. I dont know. Its difficult, he said.

We have a good relationship, he added, speaking of Biden. Ukraine depends on the support of the United States and I, as the leader of a country of war, I can only be grateful.

Biden has also rejected Ukrainian demands for a no-fly zone, and nixed a Polish plan to transfer fighter jets into the country.

However, the U.S. has sent hundreds of millions of dollars worth of weapons to Ukraine, including missile systems and lethal drones.

Link:
Zelensky on NATO: No longer interested in their diplomacy - The Hill

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg on Friday warned that the conflict in Ukraine was heading into a "dangerous" new phase, as the Kremlin simultaneously claimed that Russia's unprovoked six-week war could end in the "foreseeable future."

Stoltenberg told NPR that Russian President Vladimir Putin has not "changed his overall aim, and that is to control Ukraine," warning that the war is likely to see "much heavier fighting" in the days to come.

The NATO chief said Putin was unlikely to "sit down and engage in good faith in negotiations for a political solution," adding, "Therefore, we need to also be prepared for the long haul. And it's hard to predict. Wars are always unpredictable. But this can last for months and even years."

Meanwhile, Putin's spokesperson Dmitry Peskov told reporters that Moscow's so-called "special military operation" in Ukraine could soon be over because Russia was succeeding at reaching its goals in the eastern European country, according to the Russian state-owned TASS news agency.

"The operation continues and the goals are being achieved," Peskov said, according to TASS.

Peskov added, "Substantive work is being carried out both on the military side, in terms of advancing the operation, and on the side of the negotiators who are in the negotiation process with their Ukrainian counterparts," TASS reported.

The Kremlin spokesman said during a live interview with Sky News on Thursday that the Russian military was "doing their best to bring an end to that operation."

"And we do hope that in coming days, in the foreseeable future, this operation will reach its goals or will finish it by the negotiations between Russian and Ukrainian delegation," Peskov said.

When pressed Friday by whether the war could actually end in days, Peskov said, "We are talking about the foreseeable future," according to TASS.

On Thursday, Peskov admitted that Russian forces had endured "significant losses."

Despite Ukraine's armed forces being largely outnumbered and outgunned by the Russians, the Ukrainians have put up fierce resistance, which has resulted in heavy losses for Russian troops. NATOestimates between 7,000 to 15,000 Russian troops have been killed since the war began less than two months ago. Russia has also lost an astonishing number of generals in the conflict.

As Peskov claimed the war would wind down soon, the brutal Russian onslaught continued. At least 50 people were killed on Friday including five children after two Russian rockets hit a train station in the eastern city of Kramatorsk that was packed with people attempting to evacuate, Ukrainian officials said.

Putin launched Russia's invasion of Ukraine on February 24, with Russian troops surrounding and shelling towns and cities across the country. Civilian areas have consistently been targeted, killing at least 1,611 and leading over 4.3 million Ukrainians to flee the country, according to the UN's latest figures.

Both Western and Ukrainian leaders have accused Moscow of committing war crimes in Ukraine, and in a rare diplomatic rebuke, Russia was suspended from the UN Human Rights Council on Thursday.

Though there's strong evidence to the contrary, Russia has repeatedly and falsely stated that it's not targeting civilian areas.

Russia has continuously spread disinformation on the war, habitually offering misleading and inaccurate assessments of the situation on the ground.

The Russian military has struggled to make major gains in the war thus far, in spite of the Kremlin's claim that the "operation" has achieved its goals.

Russia failed to take Kyiv, the Ukrainian capital, and for the time being has shifted its focus to the eastern Donbas region where Russian-backed separatists have been fighting Ukraine since 2014.

Stoltenberg on Tuesday warned that Russia would launch a "concentrated" offensive in the Donbas.

"In the coming weeks we expect a further Russian push in the east and southern Ukraine, to try to take the entire Donbas and to create a land bridge to the occupied Crimea," the NATO chief said.

Originally posted here:
NATO chief says Ukraine war could last years as Russia claims it will end soon - Business Insider

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg: NATO foreign ministers will meet today and tomorrow, we will address the brutal war in Ukraine and we have all seen the atrocities that have been committed in Bucha and other places in Ukraine. This reveals the true nature of President Putin's war, and the targeting and killing of civilians is a war crime and therefore, NATO allies are supporting the international efforts to establish all the facts, to investigate, and to make sure that perpetrators are punished. We are now in a critical phase of the war. We see that Russia is moving forces out of the north to reinforce them, to resupply them, to rearm them and then to move them into the east where we are expecting a major offensive. President Putin's aim is to try to control the whole of Donbas and to establish a land bridge [...]. We have seen no indication that President Putin has changed his ambition to control the whole of Ukraine and also to rewrite the international order. So we need to be prepared for the long haul. We need to support Ukraine, sustain our sanctions, and strengthen our defences and our deterrence, because this can last for a long time and we need to be prepared for that. We will be joined by Foreign Minister Kuleba from Ukraine, and I think it's important that we have this opportunity to engage directly with him. To discuss with him to listen, to hear Minister Kuleba and also to discuss the way forward together. We'll also be joined by other partners, the Foreign Minister of Georgia, Finland, Sweden, the European Union, and also by our partners from the Asia Pacific, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and South Korea. And these are all highly valued partners.

Tonight, Foreign Ministers will discuss NATO's New Strategic Concept which will address of course the new security reality we are faced with the Strategic Concept will be the roadmap for NATO and how to address a more dangerous world and how to make sure that we continue to protect and defend all NATO Allies. In the Strategic Concept we need to address the security consequences of Russia's aggressive actions, of the shifting global balance of power, the security consequences of a much stronger China, and the challenges Russia and China are posing together to our rules based international order and our democratic values. But of course also in the Strategic Concept, we will sort out the strategy for how to deal with cyber, hybrid, terrorism, and also the security consequences of climate change. So I'm looking forward to the meeting and it will be, an important meeting. Not least facing the grim reality in Ukraine. And with that, I'm ready to take your questions.

Question 1: Mr. Stoltenberg, some allies are already sending heavy equipment to Ukraine. Others are still reluctant, such as Germany, what is your position? Should, in this new phase of a war, Western Allies send heavy weapons, heavy equipment such as tanks, to Ukraine?

NATO Secretary General: NATO allies have supported Ukraine for many years, we have trained 10s of 1000s of Ukrainian troops, who are now on the front, fighting the Russian invaders, and the NATO allies have also provided different kinds of equipments over many years. And of course, this combined with the courage, the commitment, of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, is really making a difference every day on the battlefield. Since the invasion, allies have stepped up their support. I also expect that ministers when they meet today, and tomorrow, will discuss how we can further support Ukraine. Allies are providing both anti-tank, anti-air or air defence systems, but also different kinds of advanced weapon systems and also both light and heavier weapon systems to Ukraine. I will not go into all details, so exactly what kind of weapons equipment allies are providing, but I can say that the totality of what Allies are doing is significant. And that includes also some heavier systems combined with lighter systems.

Question 2: Thank you very much. Mr. Secretary General, we want to be sure that the part of the strategic concept which you will discuss, will include open door policy, which is very important for Georgia as an aspirant country, especially now, what can you tell us about this? More about this, and also, you yesterday said that the importance of stepping up support for Georgia, and support the country to prevent future aggression. What do you mean and what threats do you see? Thank you.

NATO Secretary General: I believe that one of the lessons we all should learn from the invasion of Ukraine by Russia, is that it is important that all of those also believe in democracy, the rule of law need to provide support to close and highly valued partners like Georgia. It's better to support them sooner than later. And therefore, one of the issues that will be discussed at the Foreign Ministerial meeting, today and tomorrow, is how can we step up support for other partners which are under Russian pressure and of course, Georgia is one of them. Russia controls part of Georgian territory, and we will look into how we can provide more support both when it comes to everything from cyber to secure communications, capacity building, and other ways to strengthen Georgia in resisting the pressure from Russia. NATO's door remains open. The enlargement of NATO over several decades has been a great success, helped to spread democracy, the rule of law, stability, peace across Europe, and it is for the applicant country, the country aspiring for membership, and for the 30 allies, to decide on membership issues. Russia and no other country has any veto on that issue. It is for the applicant and the 30 allies to decide.

Question 3: This time partner countries such as Japan participates, what they aim for that?

NATO Secretary General: We very much welcome that we have the Japanese Foreign Minister participating at the NATO meeting. It demonstrates the strong partnership between Japan and NATO. Japan has been a long standing partner with NATO for many years. And I think that we all understand that even though Japan and NATO are geographically far apart from each other, we share the same values, we share the same challenges, and therefore we need to work closely together, both to protect our core values, democracy, international rules-based order, but also for instance, to address the challenges posed by a more assertive China. And the fact that China now has the second largest defence budget in the world, it's investing heavily in new modern military equipments. And therefore we need also to work together with our partners in the Asia Pacific. Also to work together on issues like maritime security, cyber, and other areas where we have common interest, Japan and NATO to work together.

Question 4: How quickly does NATO countries need to supply Ukraine with heavy military equipment if it's going to be able to defend itself against the stronger onslaught from Russia in the east and the south? And secondly, what is your comment in Norway expelling three Russian diplomats today?

NATO Secretary General: Ukraine has an urgent need for military support. And that's the reason why it is so important that NATO Allies agree to further support Ukraine with many different types of military equipment, both heavier equipment, but also light weapon systems. And we have seen that this support is actually having an effect every day. We can see just the pictures of all the destroyed Russian armour. This is something which has been done with weapons, anti-tank weapons, so anti-armour equipment delivered by NATO Allies and the US Congress just decided, the United States just decided, to allocate more money for anti-armour systems. Just one of many examples of how allies are stepping up. There is urgent need and therefore I also expect allies to provide further support of many different types of weapon systems. It is of course the Norwegian decision to expel Russian officials from the diplomatic mission or the embassy in Norway, but this is now a pattern where many allies have done that because we see that many of those who say that they are conducting normal diplomatic activity are actually not doing that, they are intelligence officers for Russia and therefore, several allies have expelled several Russian officials from different NATO Ally countries.

Question 5: You mentioned yesterday that if Finland and Sweden applied for NATO membership, allies would find ways to address security concerns over the interim period before, between application and ratification. Could you expand on that? What would that entail?

NATO Secretary General: It is for Finland and Sweden to decide whether they would like to apply for membership or not and we will respect that decision. If they, regardless of the conclusion, if they decide to apply, I expect that all allies will welcome them, and that building on the fact that Sweden and Finland are our closest partners. We have worked together for many years, we know that they meet the NATO standards when it comes to interoperability, democratic control over the armed forces. We know that they can easily join this alliance if they decide to apply. Then on the interim period, I'm certain that we will find ways to address concerns they may have regarding the period between the potential application, and the final ratification. Again, I think it's not helpful if I start to speculate in the public exactly how we'll do that. First of all, we need to know whether Finland and Sweden will like to apply. But I'm confident that if they apply we will sit down and we'll find a way to address that issue.

Question 6: Thank you. You said that we may be in this for the long haul, that the war may take a long time, does that require NATO Allies changing their approach, and their strategy, and will you be discussing that?

NATO Secretary General: So first of all, this war must end now. And President Putin can end it by withdrawing his troops and forces and stop attacking independent, sovereign, country Ukraine, and sit down in good faith and to find a political solution. But at the same time, we have to be realistic and realise that this may last for a long time, for many months, for even years. And that's the reason why we need also to be prepared for the long haul. Both when it comes to supporting Ukraine, sustaining sanctions, and strengthening our defences. And I expect the ministers to address the long term perspectives, the need to be prepared for the long haul both when it comes to support to Ukraine, sustaining sanctions, and strengthening our defences. I also believe that regardless of when the war ends, this has long term implications for our security, because we have seen the brutality. We have seen the willingness by President Putin to use military force to reach his objectives. And that has changed the security reality in Europe for many, many years. So therefore, we have started the process in NATO, we have tasked our military commanders to provide options for the political leaders to take decisions on how to reset our deterrence and defence for the long term. This will of course, build on what we have already done. The invasion of Ukraine was a wakeup call. But that happened in 2014. So we have actually since 2014, implemented the biggest reinforcement to our collective defence, increased readiness of forces, tripled the size of the NATO Response Force, reformed the command structure, and started to invest more increased defence spending across the Alliance. So we, NATO, was actually quite well prepared when Russia invaded Ukraine for the second time, and on the day of the invasion, we activated our defence plans, deployed 1000s of additional troops in the eastern part of the Alliance. Now there are 40,000 troops on the NATO command in the eastern part of the Alliance. And there are more US troops in Europe, 100,000 in total, and other Allies have also increased their presence. So, this demonstrates that for years we have been actually adapting to the aggressive actions of Russia. We were well prepared when they invaded Ukraine. But now we need to take a new step, for a more long term strengthening of our deterrence and defence and I expect that NATO, that this will be discussed among the foreign ministers today and tomorrow, but then decisions for the longer term will be made at the summit in Madrid in June when the heads of state and government meet.

Question 7: On a very quick follow up, Secretary General, on Finland and Sweden. The idea of fast track membership should they want to do that, what does that message does that send to other countries who might want to join NATO?

NATO Secretary General: It is for each and every nation in Europe to decide whether they would like to apply. Then, if they apply, we will sit down and assess the need for reforms, the need to ensure interoperability, the need to strengthen their governance, fight corruption, and all of the different types of reforms which different countries need to implement to join NATO and therefore, the time it has taken for different countries to join this alliance has varied significantly, reflecting different starting points. And the only thing I'm saying today is that Finland and Sweden, there is no other countries that are closer to NATO, that have for many, for so many years worked so closely with us on military interoperability, on exercises, training, and also where we know them, you know that they actually also meet the NATO standards, for instance, when it comes to political, democratic, civilian, control over the security institutions and the armed forces. So, that's reason why I believe that an accession process for these countries can be quite smooth, meaning that we know that they are very close to NATO already. But again, this is for Finland and Sweden to decide and then if they apply, we'll sit down and address the old issues related to membership. Thank you.

Read the original here:
Doorstep statement by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg ahead of the meeting of NATO Ministers of Foreign Affairs on 6 and 7 April 2022 - NATO...

Just over two months ago, the prospect of Finland joining NATO was virtually unthinkable to most in the northern European country. It had grown closer to the military alliance over the last three decades but resisted the idea of becoming a full-fledged member.

That all changed when tens of thousands of Russian troops rolled across Ukraines border in late February.

Now, top Finnish leaders are edging closer to joining NATO, buoyed by a drastic turnaround in Finnish public opinion that went from opposing the move to supporting it virtually overnight.

Just over two months ago, the prospect of Finland joining NATO was virtually unthinkable to most in the northern European country. It had grown closer to the military alliance over the last three decades but resisted the idea of becoming a full-fledged member.

That all changed when tens of thousands of Russian troops rolled across Ukraines border in late February.

Now, top Finnish leaders are edging closer to joining NATO, buoyed by a drastic turnaround in Finnish public opinion that went from opposing the move to supporting it virtually overnight.

It has been a major change, said Pete Piirainen, a visiting senior fellow at the Finnish Institute of International Affairs. We feel Russia broke the rules, broke the international system and security architecture.

Finlands sudden shift on NATO membership is a sea change in Europes security environment in the wake of Russias invasion of Ukraine, one that could drastically alter the map of the showdown between Russia and the West.

If Finland were to join the alliance, the total land border between NATO territory and Russia would more than double, from around 754 miles currently to nearly 1,600 miles. It would also extend NATOs northern flank across the full length of the border with Russias strategically important Murmansk region and Kola Peninsula, where a sizable chunk of Russias navy is based.

A similar debate over NATO membership is playing out in neighboring Sweden, another longtime partner of the alliance that had spurned full membership for decadesuntil Russias brazen invasion of Ukraine. Of the two countries, it is the Swedish public that has historically been more open to membership of the military alliance than their Finnish neighbors. That is no longer the case. The biggest momentum is in Finland, and that has been a bit surprising actually, said Anna Wieslander, director of the Institute for Security and Development Policy, a Swedish think tank.

In the days after Russias invasion of Ukraine in February, support for NATO membership in Finland surged into the majority for the first time, reaching 62 percent in a second survey conducted in mid-March by the Finnish public broadcaster. In Sweden, 51 percent now support NATO membership, according to a poll from early March, up from 42 percent in January.

Although Finland is edging closer to NATO membership than Sweden, most analysts and diplomats agree that the countries are a package deal. If one joins, the other is likely to follow suit. Given their shared geography on the Scandinavian Peninsulaalong with NATO member Norwaythe alliance would prefer if the two countries joined at the same time. [With] that, you will have one new solution for the security arrangements, Wieslander said.

Finland is on a path toward membership. I think now its a question of when, not if, said Erik Brattberg, an expert on trans-Atlantic security with the Albright Stonebridge Group, a consulting firm. I think Sweden is still adjusting to the new geopolitical reality. It has been slower in that adjustment, but they are also moving in the same direction.

NATO members seem universally ready to welcome Sweden and Finland with open arms. Diplomats from Germany, Britain, France, Canada, Lithuania, and Estonia all told Foreign Policy their governments would likely support Finland and Swedens membership bid.

Julianne Smith, the U.S. ambassador to NATO, said Washington would welcome the two new members but stressed it was up to the governments in Helsinki and Stockholm to make the first move. They bring very capable militaries. They are some of our closest allies in Europe, and so I cant imagine a situation where there would be tremendous resistance to this idea, she told reporters in a briefing on Tuesday. Quite the contrary, I think NATO allies would be generally enthusiastic.

The Finnish government is working on a white paper on security due to be released this month, which will fuel conversation about NATO membership ahead of the security alliances summit in Madrid in June. The white paper will clearly influence the debate here in Sweden as well, Wieslander said.

Brattberg said the ruling party in Sweden, the center-left Swedish Social Democratic Party, appears to be starting to shift its foreign-policy platform in the wake of Russias war, prodded in part by the center-right parties in opposition to renewing a push for NATO membership. The Social Democratic Party has traditionally, historically stood for Swedish neutrality and military nonalignment, Brattberg said. But even amongst leading Social Democrats in Sweden, that stance is increasingly being seen as less and less relevant in a new era marked by the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

The question of NATO membership is likely to factor higher than ever before in debate ahead of the Swedish general election scheduled for September. The countrys Moderate Party has already announced that it would back membership of the military alliance.

The prospect of Finland and Sweden joining NATO is likely to further inflame tensions between Russia and the NATO alliance. The Kremlin has characterized the alliance, borne out of the Cold War rivalry between the Soviet Union and the West, as its top geopolitical foe and signaled that Ukraines prospective NATO membership played a major role in its decision to fully invade the country. A senior Russian diplomat warned last month that there would be serious military and political consequences if the two countries joined the alliance.

Finlands ambassador to Washington, Mikko Hautala, told Foreign Policy in an interview that he expected a reaction from Moscow if Finland or Sweden were to move ahead with applying to NATO. [At] a minimum, we will see information influencing those kind of activities, he said. But its hard to say what the reaction would be.

During the Cold War, as Europe was carved up into spheres of influence, Finland opted for neutrality, serving as an important buffer between the East and the West. The collapse of the Soviet Union gave Finland more room to maneuver in its foreign policy, joining the European Union in 1995 and deepening its cooperation with NATO. We are basically as close to NATO as you can get without being a member, Hautala said.

Smith, the U.S. NATO ambassador, said the Kremlins fierce opposition to NATO enlargement wouldnt deter allies from welcoming new members, even in the face of a full-scale Russian war in Ukraine. Russia tried its very best in recent months to try and get NATO allies to revisit that policy, she said. It sent a treaty requesting that NATO basically turn off the process of NATO enlargement, and the answer that came back in stereo surround sound from all 30 allies was: absolutely not. NATOs door will remain openfull stop.

NATO diplomats say Finland brings more advantages to the alliance than just military hardware. Few countries know how Russia works better than Finlandat least as well as foreign countries can in the shadowy and opaque power structure that Russian President Vladimir Putin has built. They say adding Finlands expertise and experience in balancing relations with its larger eastern neighbor would add significant value to the alliance.

Other experts on trans-Atlantic security said while Russia would likely condemn Finland and Swedens membership, it doesnt view those countries in the same light as other prospective members that used to be in the Soviet Union and, at least in the eyes of Putin, should fall under Moscows orbit.

Russia would be furious, but I dont think it would react the same way if, say, Georgia or Ukraine were on a clear track to NATO membership now, said Rachel Rizzo, a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council think tank.

Originally posted here:
Finland May Finally Want In on NATO - Foreign Policy

Senator Rosen: I am honored to be appointed to the Senates bipartisan NATO Observer Group to work alongside my colleagues to reaffirm the United States enduring commitment to NATO

WASHINGTON, DC U.S. Senator Jacky Rosen (D-NV) announced that she has been appointed as one of three new members to join the bipartisan Senate NATO Observer Group at a time when the Alliance is playing a critical role in coordinating the response to Russias unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. The Senate NATO Observer Group has a mission to closely monitor and inform Senators about defense spending commitments of Alliance members, the process of upgrading military capabilities, the Alliances counter-terrorism capability, NATO enlargement, and the ability of NATO member states to address non-conventional warfare. Re-established in 2018, the Senate NATO Observer Group is co-chaired by Senators Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) and Thom Tillis (R-NC) and made up of seven Democrats and seven Republicans in total.

As Russia continues its brutal and horrific invasion of Ukraine, a strong and united NATO is vital to the security of the United States and our allies, said Senator Rosen. NATO is one of the most successful alliances in history and has been the bedrock of peace and security in Europe for over half a century. I am honored to be appointed to the Senates bipartisan NATO Observer Group to work alongside my colleagues to reaffirm the United States enduring commitment to NATO, assess the strength and capabilities of the Alliance, and coordinate the transatlantic response to Russian aggression. We will ensure that NATO has the resources needed to protect the United States and the security of our allies.

The strength and resilience of the transatlantic alliance has never been as critical as it is today amid Putins war in Ukraine. The close coordination among NATO nations, led by the United States, has been pivotal to increasing military assistance and humanitarian aid to Ukraine, and imposing historic punitive measures against Putin for his unprovoked invasion and barbaric war crimes against the Ukrainian people, said Senator Shaheen. Senator Tillis and I re-established the Senate NATO Observer Group four years ago as we observed the increasing belligerence of Russia and other adversarial regimes that pose a threat to U.S. security and our global stability. Im encouraged to see our effort strengthened by this new expansion to include Senators Hagerty, Rosen and Moran, reaffirming the robust bipartisan support in the Senate for NATO and the U.S. commitment to the transatlantic alliance.

The last few months have shown the importance of unequivocal U.S. support for NATO and unity among our transatlantic allies as Russia continues its unprovoked invasion and atrocities against Ukraine. Congress will continue to play a vital role in ensuring we stand together against Putins invasion and any attack on our democratic allies, said Senator Tillis. I want to welcome Senators Hagerty, Rosen, and Moran to the Senate NATO Observer Group. I am proud to co-lead this important coalition with Senator Shaheen, and the addition of these members, bringing the total to 14 senators, only strengthens our mission to advocate and demonstrate strong Congressional support for NATO.

###

Continue reading here:
Rosen Named to Bipartisan Senate NATO Observe - Jacky Rosen