Category Archives: NATO

Washington The U.S. will accept up to 100,000 Ukrainians who have fled the violence and attacks on their home country by Russian forces in the weeks since it invaded, the White House said Thursday.

News of the Biden administration's plans to welcome the Ukrainians into the U.S. came as President Biden meets with allies in Brussels as part of broader efforts with NATO and European Union partners to continue its coordinated response to Russia's ongoing war in Ukraine.

More than 3.6 million refugees have fled Ukraine since Russia invaded the country in late February, and more than half of the country's children have been displaced, according to United Nations refugee and children's agencies. More than 2.1 million people have flooded into Poland seeking to escape the bombardment by Russian forces, while another more than 500,000 left for Romania.

The war has prompted the fastest-growing refugee crisis in Europe since World War II.

To bolster its humanitarian efforts, the U.S. will also contribute another $1 billion in aid to assist displaced Ukrainians, according to the White House, and commit $11 billion over the next five years to address global food security concerns due to the war's potential impacts on agricultural production.

The U.S. is also imposing new sanctions on the more than 300 members of Russia's State Duma, its parliament, and over 40 Russian defense companies, the White House said. The latest economic penalties from the Biden administration will align with sanctions from Group of Seven nations to maximize their effect, according to a senior administration official.

The Biden administration had previously imposed sweeping penalties on Russian oligarchs, financial institutions and political leaders, including President Vladimir Putin, in an effort to cut Russia's access to the global financial system. But Putin has continued his bombardment in Ukraine, and on Tuesday, Secretary of State Antony Blinken said the U.S. assessed Russian troops committed war crimes.

U.S. efforts to receive displaced Ukrainians will focus on activists, journalists, members of the LGBTQ community, political dissidents, those seeking medical treatment and others with family in the U.S., administration officials said.

The displaced Ukrainians could arrive in the U.S. through different immigration pathways, the officials said, including the refugee program, which allows selected immigrants fleeing war and violence to obtain permanent U.S. residence. This process typically takes years to complete due to vetting, medical checks and interviews.

Another pathway is a process known as parole, which allows U.S. immigration officials to admit immigrants without visas on humanitarian grounds. Parole allows beneficiaries to enter the U.S. much more quickly than the refugee process, but it does not place them on a pathway to permanent residency.

Since the start of the Russian invasion, the U.S. has received 168 humanitarian parole requests from Ukrainians, and has approved a few applications from children seeking urgent medical treatment, according to internal U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) data obtained by CBS News.

The Biden administration set an ambitious goal of receiving up to 125,000 refugees in fiscal year 2022, which ends in September. However, the U.S. has resettled only 6,500 refugees, including roughly 700 Ukrainians, as of the end of February,State Department figuresshows.

The refugee program, which was suspended early in the coronavirus pandemic, is still recovering from dramatic cuts under the Trump administration, when officials set the refugee cap at record lows.

Biden officials said other Ukrainians could also come to the U.S. with immigrant visas, which are for those with U.S.-based family members and employers willing to sponsor them, or nonimmigrant visas, which include those for tourists and other short-term travelers.

So far, Ukrainian Americans have struggled to bring their displaced relatives to the U.S. since many lack visas, which are currently required to enter the country and typically take months to process because of the massive backlog of applications at American consulates.

In addition to the new round of sanctions on Russian politicians, the U.S. and G7 nations will also work to prohibit any transaction from Russia involving gold, which makes up roughly 20% of Russia's central bank reserves, one of the administration officials said.

"Our purpose now is to fully disarm its war chest by making sure its foreign reserves serve no purpose in propping up the Russian currency," the official said.

Camilo Montoya-Galvez is the immigration reporter at CBS News. Based in Washington, he covers immigration policy and politics.

Here is the original post:
U.S. plans to receive 100,000 Ukrainians displaced by ...

Leaders of NATO member nations pose for a family photo at NATO Headquarters in Brussels on March 24. John Thys/AFP via Getty Images hide caption

Leaders of NATO member nations pose for a family photo at NATO Headquarters in Brussels on March 24.

As Russia continues its attack on Ukraine, the role of NATO is at the forefront.

Here's a quick overview of the alliance, the role that the United States plays within it, and what it's doing to help Ukraine amid Russia's invasion.

NATO is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. It's a military and political alliance that was founded in 1949 in response to the actions of the Soviet Union.

"The Allies in the West began to see that the Soviets were trying to take their advantage after World War II," seeking to turn countries in Central and Eastern Europe into "satellite nations" of the Soviet Union, Jim Townsend, who served as deputy assistant secretary of defense for Europe and NATO during the Obama administration, tells NPR.

Townsend, who spent 30 years at the Pentagon, says during the earliest days of the Cold War, it was obvious that Russia was going to be very aggressive. So the European allies came together and asked the U.S. to join a new alliance.

The result was NATO. Retired American general and future U.S. president Dwight Eisenhower was tapped to be NATO's first military leader: the Supreme Allied Commander Europe.

In 1955, the Warsaw Pact was formed by the Soviet Union and seven Eastern bloc nations as a collective defense treaty in response to NATO.

Dwight Eisenhower, seen here in France in 1951, was the first Supreme Allied Commander of NATO. AFP via Getty Images hide caption

Dwight Eisenhower, seen here in France in 1951, was the first Supreme Allied Commander of NATO.

There were 12 founding members of the alliance in 1949: Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the United Kingdom and the U.S.

The alliance has expanded over time, and its membership now numbers 30. The other nations are Greece, Turkey, Germany, Spain, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Albania, Croatia, Montenegro and North Macedonia.

Three additional countries have declared their desire to join the alliance: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia and Ukraine. Membership is officially open to any "European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area." The decision to invite a country to join NATO is made by consensus of the member nations.

Ukraine has not entered NATO essentially because of Russia's opposition to it, and the conflict that its admission would cause.

NATO's Article 5 spells out its key principle of collective defense: If any member of the alliance is attacked, it shall be considered an attack on all members.

And if such an armed attack does occur, each member will take the actions it deems necessary to assist the ally attacked, "to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area." What assistance is provided is determined by the individual country, in concert with the other allies. The assistance doesn't necessarily have to be military.

Article 5 has been invoked just once: Following the terrorist attacks on the U.S. on Sept. 11, 2001. NATO launched its first ever anti-terror operation, to help patrol the skies over the U.S. The alliance also sent patrols to the Mediterranean to detect and deter terrorist activity.

Even without invoking Article 5, NATO has taken collective defense measures several times, including in Syria and now with the Russian attack on Ukraine.

Townsend likens NATO's role as hosting a potluck for member nations, and asking each to bring something in particular to the picnic. Otherwise "everyone would just bring potato chips, because that's the cheapest thing."

There was a time in the 1990s when it was thought that Russia might potentially join NATO at some point, says Townsend, as countries like the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland were preparing to enter the alliance. But Russia's trajectory changed in the 2000s, and that never happened.

NATO's relations with Russia deteriorated in 2014, when Russia illegally annexed Crimea. Practical cooperation between the alliance and Russia has been suspended since then, though political and military channels of communication remain open.

French army personnel stand during an official welcoming ceremony for the French Defense Minister at an air base in Romania on March 6. Daniel Mihailescu/AFP via Getty Images hide caption

French army personnel stand during an official welcoming ceremony for the French Defense Minister at an air base in Romania on March 6.

NATO's multinational Response Force is composed of troops from member nations. Troops wear their own country's uniform, and individual military units are headed by leaders from those units' home countries.

The Supreme Allied Commander is at the top of the chain of command. An American is always in this role, says Townsend, "because we bring most of the toys." His or her deputy is usually a Brit and the chief of staff is usually a German, Townsend says.

Putin has said he regards Ukraine as a part of Russia.

"The idea that Ukraine would actually establish relationships like a nation would to the European Union and NATO, that upsets in his mind this idea that Ukraine is Russia, Russia is Ukraine," says Townsend.

Robert Pszczel, a former Polish diplomat and a former NATO official, says that one of Putin's obsessions is Russia's role in the global order. "He believes that Russia has the right, because it's a big power, to dictate to other countries," he tells NPR. "Just the very existence of NATO creates a problem for Putin because NATO stands for collective security and stands for upholding that international order."

The Russian president has also expressed concern that if Ukraine joins NATO, the alliance would put pack Ukraine full of weapons and be within striking distance of Moscow. "In creating a threat for Russia, Ukraine creates a threat for itself," Putin said last month.

Several countries bordering Russia are already part of NATO: Estonia and Latvia. Lithuania and Poland border the Kaliningrad region, the chunk of Russia on the Baltic Sea.

NATO has been amassing battalion-size "battlegroups" in countries along the alliance's eastern flank in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland. These forces are prepared for combat and are led by the United Kingdom, Canada, Germany and the U.S., respectively. The alliance has sent planes and ships to NATO territory in eastern and southeastern Europe, and there's a multinational brigade in Romania.

Last week NATO announced it would create four new battlegroups in Hungary, Slovakia, Bulgaria and Romania.

The alliance has also been providing huge amounts of weapons and equipment to Ukraine.

So far, the alliance has not met one repeated request by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy: to impose a no-fly zone. That's because NATO fears that doing so would lead to direct combat with Russia, widening the conflict into a regional war and potentially even a third World War.

The U.S. has provided Ukraine with anti-aircraft weapons, though, which can can be used to shoot down aircraft and cruise missiles.

The alliance is likely also providing help in ways it isn't talking about. "Not everything should be advertised, for security reasons," Pszczel says.

Some wonder why NATO isn't giving Ukraine everything Zelenskyy asks for. A recent NPR/Ipsos poll found that 39% of Americans think the U.S. should be doing more when it comes to the war in Ukraine.

NATO is doing as much as the politics of its members currently allow, Pszczel says: "These are free nations, democratic nations, and they all have to agree on things. At the moment, there is no consensus. There's not willingness to go a step or two step further and essentially send troops or enter into direct military confrontation with Russia."

But public opinion is a powerful force, he says, and there is a strong moral opposition in NATO countries to Russia's attack on Ukraine.

If Putin's war continues, might consensus be reached to take NATO's involvement to the next level? "Time will show," says Pszczel.

Read this article:
NATO, explained the alliance and why it's crucial now - NPR

We, the Heads of State and Government of the 30 NATO Allies, have met today to address Russias aggression against Ukraine, the gravest threat to Euro-Atlantic security in decades. Russias war against Ukraine has shattered peace in Europe and is causing enormous human suffering and destruction.

We condemn Russias invasion of Ukraine in the strongest possible terms. We call on President Putin to immediately stop this war and withdraw military forces from Ukraine, and call on Belarus to end its complicity, in line with the Aggression Against Ukraine Resolution adopted at the UN General Assembly of 2 March 2022. Russia should comply with the 16 March ruling by the UN International Court of Justice and immediately suspend military operations. Russias attack on Ukraine threatens global security. Its assault on international norms makes the world less safe. President Putins escalatory rhetoric is irresponsible and destabilizing.

Ukrainians have inspired the world with heroic resistance to Russias brutal war of conquest. We strongly condemn Russias devastating attacks on civilians, including women, children, and persons in vulnerable situations. We will work with the rest of the international community to hold accountable those responsible for violations of humanitarian and international law, including war crimes. We are deeply concerned about the increased risk of sexual violence and human trafficking. We urge Russia to allow rapid, safe, and unhindered humanitarian access and safe passage for civilians, and to allow for humanitarian aid to be delivered to Mariupol and other besieged cities. We also condemn attacks against civilian infrastructure, including those endangering nuclear power plants. We will continue to counter Russias lies about its attack on Ukraine and expose fabricated narratives or manufactured false flag operations to prepare the ground for further escalation, including against the civilian population of Ukraine. Any use by Russia of a chemical or biological weapon would be unacceptable and result in severe consequences.

Russia needs to show it is serious about negotiations by immediately implementing a ceasefire. We call on Russia to engage constructively in credible negotiations with Ukraine to achieve concrete results, starting with a sustainable ceasefire and moving towards a complete withdrawal of its troops from Ukrainian territory. Russias continuing aggression while discussions are taking place is deplorable. We support Ukraines efforts to achieve peace, and those undertaken diplomatically by Allies to weigh in on Russia to end the war and relieve human suffering.

We stand in full solidarity with President Zelenskyy, the government of Ukraine, and with the brave Ukrainian citizens who are defending their homeland. We honour all those killed, injured, and displaced by Russias aggression, as well as their families. We reaffirm our unwavering support for the independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders extending to its territorial waters.

Ukraine has a fundamental right to self-defence under the United Nations Charter. Since 2014, we have provided extensive support to Ukraines ability to exercise that right. We have trained Ukraines armed forces, strengthening their military capabilities and capacities and enhancing their resilience. NATO Allies have stepped up their support and will continue to provide further political and practical support to Ukraine as it continues to defend itself. NATO Allies will also continue to provide assistance in such areas as cybersecurity and protection against threats of a chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear nature. NATO Allies also provide extensive humanitarian support and are hosting millions of refugees. Foreign Ministers will discuss further our support to Ukraine when they meet in April.

We are united in our resolve to counter Russias attempts to destroy the foundations of international security and stability. We are holding Russia and Belarus to account. Massive sanctions and heavy political costs have been imposed on Russia in order to bring an end to this war. We remain determined to maintain coordinated international pressure on Russia. We will continue to coordinate closely with relevant stakeholders and other international organizations, including the European Union. Transatlantic coordination remains crucial for an effective response to the current crisis.

We call on all states, including the Peoples Republic of China (PRC), to uphold the international order including the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity, as enshrined in the UN Charter, to abstain from supporting Russias war effort in any way, and to refrain from any action that helps Russia circumvent sanctions. We are concerned by recent public comments by PRC officials and call on China to cease amplifying the Kremlins false narratives, in particular on the war and on NATO, and to promote a peaceful resolution to the conflict.

We remain committed to the foundational principles underpinning European and global security, including that each nation has the right to choose its own security arrangements free from outside interference. We reaffirm our commitment to NATOs Open Door Policy under Article 10 of the Washington Treaty.

We are providing tailored support to partners affected by Russian threats and interference and will step up our assistance to help them resist Russian malign influence and strengthen their resilience, based on our partners requests and our long-standing partnership programmes.In April, Foreign Ministers will consider concrete proposals for enhancing our support to these partners.

We will continue to take all necessary steps to protect and defend the security of our Allied populations and every inch of Allied territory. Our commitment to Article 5 of the Washington Treaty is iron-clad.

In response to Russias actions, we have activated NATOs defence plans, deployed elements of the NATO Response Force, and placed 40,000 troops on our eastern flank, along with significant air and naval assets, under direct NATO command supported by Allies national deployments. We are also establishing four additional multinational battlegroups in Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, and Slovakia. We are taking all measures and decisions to ensure the security and defence of all Allies across all domains and with a 360-degree approach. Our measures remain preventive, proportionate, and non-escalatory. We will now accelerate NATOs transformation for a more dangerous strategic reality, including through the adoption of the next Strategic Concept in Madrid. In light of the gravest threat to Euro-Atlantic security in decades, we will also significantly strengthen our longer term deterrence and defence posture and will further develop the full range of ready forces and capabilities necessary to maintain credible deterrence and defence. These steps will be supported by enhanced exercises with an increased focus on collective defence and interoperability.

We are increasing the resilience of our societies and our infrastructure to counter Russias malign influence. We are enhancing our cyber capabilities and defences, providing support to each other in the event of cyber-attacks.We are ready to impose costs on those who harm us in cyberspace, and are increasing information exchange and situational awareness, enhancing civil preparedness, and strengthening our ability to respond to disinformation. We will also enhance our preparedness and readiness for chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear threats. We will take further decisions when we meet in Madrid.

The steps we are taking to ensure the security of our Alliance and of the Euro-Atlantic area will require adequate resourcing. Allies are substantially increasing their defence expenditures.Today, we have decided to accelerate our efforts to fulfil our commitment to the Defence Investment Pledge in its entirety. In line with our commitment in Article 3 of the Washington Treaty, we will further strengthen our individual and collective capacity to resist all forms of attack.At our meeting in Madrid, we will submit additional plans on how to meet the Pledge.

Russias unprovoked war against Ukraine represents a fundamental challenge to the values and norms that have brought security and prosperity to all on the European continent. President Putins choice to attack Ukraine is a strategic mistake, with grave consequences also for Russia and the Russian people. We remain united and resolute in our determination to oppose Russias aggression, aid the government and the people of Ukraine, and defend the security of all Allies.

Link:
Statement by NATO Heads of State and Government - Brussels 24 March 2022 - NATO HQ

DUBLIN Most citizens of Ireland want to boost military spending and nearly half want to join NATO in response to Russias invasion of Ukraine, according to a new poll.

The findings by pollsters Red C, published in Sundays Business Post newspaper in Dublin, suggest sharply shifting public attitudes on Irelands official policy of neutrality.

It found that 48 percent now want to join NATO versus 39 percent opposed, a record high for this question. As recently as January, a similar poll found only 34 percent support for joining the transatlantic military alliance.

Irelands age-old determination to avoid any military alliance with Britain meant it stayed out of World War II and even offered official condolences to Nazi Germany following news of Adolf Hitlers death. Such studious neutrality has been newly tested since February, when Russia staged naval military exercises off Irelands Atlantic coast.

The episode highlighted the inability of Irelands ill-equipped Defence Forces to monitor those Russian maneuvers. The Irish have no military-grade radar or sonar capabilities, no jets capable of long-range surveillance or interception missions, and too few sailors to operate its nine-vessel fleet.

Instead, under a two-decade-old confidential agreement, Ireland permits the Royal Air Force to intercept any Russian aircraft sorties off Irelands Atlantic coast.

Irelands annual defense spending is currently 1.1 billion, lowest in the EU at just 0.2 percent of economic output. A government-commissioned report last month recommended that this spending should be increased by at least 50 percent or, in the most aggressive scenario, tripled.

Among those polled, 59 percent said they wanted Ireland to significantly increase military spending, while 28 percent opposed this.

And 46 percent said they would support a referendum for Irish troops to serve in a potential future European army.

Nonetheless, the poll also illustrated confusion over what joining NATO or an EU-organized force might really mean. When asked whether Ireland should drop its policy of neutrality, 57 percent said no.

And only 39 percent said Ireland should send weapons to Ukraine. Ireland instead is offering nonlethal aid, including ration packs, medical supplies and body armor, as part of EU-wide support for Ukraines defense.

The main opposition Sinn Fin party, traditionally hostile to NATO and sympathetic to Russia, has shifted that position in recent weeks. But a smaller band of Irelands most staunchly left-wing lawmakers still sees the current Ukraine crisis as a moment to strengthen, not weaken, Irelands neutral posture.

Later this week Dil ireann, Irelands lower house of parliament, will debate a bill seeking to amend Irelands 85-year-old constitution to include neutrality. The bill is sponsored by five socialists in the 160-seat Dil.

One of its authors, Richard Boyd Barrett, said many citizens are alarmed to see the Irish government attempting to bring Ireland closer to the idea of an EU army and NATO.

There is no question that Ireland stands against the repugnant and despotic actions of Putin and the Russian regime in Ukraine, he said. But military neutrality is important because it means that Ireland should stand up and oppose all forms of imperialism, empire and war, regardless of who instigates it.

See more here:
Poll: More Irish want to join NATO in wake of Ukraine invasion - POLITICO Europe

NATO Deputy-General Secretary Mircea Geoana said in an interview with The Associated Press that the group would respond if Russia used chemical or nuclear weapons inits war against Ukraine.

NATO is a defensive alliance, but also its a nuclear alliance, said Geoana, who is also the former Romanian foreign minister and ambassador to the United States. If they will be using chemical weapons or other kinds of higher-end systems against Ukraine, this will be changing fundamentally the nature of the war that Mr. Putin has waged against Ukraine."

I can guarantee that NATO is ready to respond proportionately, Geoana added.

Geoana would not detail to the AP what those actions could be, but his comments come as Russian officials have refused to say that Russia wont use chemical or nuclear weapons in its invasion.

Russia has become more desperate as the war has gone on for more than a month, with Russian forces previously believing they would take over Ukraine within days.

Mr. Putin probably believed his own post-imperial fantasies, thinking that Ukrainians will welcome them with open arms, Geoana said. In fact, they got very fierce resistance. We are convinced that today, even with reinforcements that are still coming into Ukraine, Russia does not possess the forces and the capacity to occupy the whole of Ukraine.

Shortly after Russia invaded Ukraine on Feb. 24, the international community retaliated with harsh sanctions and private companies pulled their business out of Russia.

Geoana said Russian President Vladimir PutinVladimir Vladimirovich PutinRussian rocket attacks wound five in western Ukraine city of Lviv If we de-list the IRGC, what will the dictators think? Putin's war against Ukrainian civilians is not new nor will it work MORE did not calculate the bravery of the Ukrainian army and the unity of the political West when deciding to start this war, according to the AP.

NATO estimates more than 40,000 Russian troops have been killed, injured or captured since the invasion began.

We see that for the time being, the Russian military planning is trying to reassess the situation to try to compensate for the massive losses in people and material that they suffered in the first month of the war, Geoana said.

NATO countries have been providing humanitarian and military aid to Ukraine, but have refrained from implementing a no-fly zone or giving fighter jets as the alliance sees those as moves that get the countries too directly involved in the fighting.

Read the original post:
NATO official says alliance would be forced to take action if Russia uses chemical, nuclear weapons | TheHill - The Hill

Russian President Vladimir Putin has sought to justify his invasion of Ukraine in part based on a threat he sees to his country from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the alliances offer to Ukraine of potential membership. The alliance spent its first four decades defending Western Europe, North America and Turkey against possible threats from the Soviet Union. Since the USSRs disintegration in 1991, NATO has added members from the former Soviet bloc and sought new missions because Russia wasnt seen as a serious threat for most of the past 30 years.

Following Russias seizure from Ukraine of the Crimean Peninsula and support for separatists in Ukraines east, NATO members have reinforced their defenses in countries near Russia. The alliance held an emergency summit on March 24, attended by President Biden and other NATO leaders to address ways to strengthen the alliance and provide more assistance to Ukraine. NATO says it is purely a defensive organization.

Original post:
What Is NATO and Which Countries Are Members? - The Wall Street Journal

Nato leaders are meeting for an emergency summit in Brussels today to address the war in Ukraine. While there, they must discuss and agree on how to respond in the event of further escalation from Russia. In the best case, clarifying Natos response to further escalation will deter Vladimir Putin from taking that step. At the very least, it will prepare the allies for what may follow.

Having failed to quickly oust the elected government in Kyiv, Putin now faces a choice between negotiating an end to the war, or escalating further. While talks are ongoing, Putin himself has given no indication that hell settle for anything less than Ukraines complete subjugation. Two weeks ago, CIA director William Burns told Congress that the Russian leader is likely to double down. He will try to grind down the Ukrainian military with no regard for civilian casualties.

Putin could ramp up the war in many ways from a deliberate decision to widen the war against Nato, to an attack on allied territory from a stray missile, to using chemical or biological agents or even a nuclear weapon.

How should Nato respond to any of these scenarios? A deliberate attack on a member of Nato is unlikely because the allies have made clear they would defend every inch of Nato territory. An attack on Nato would mean war and given the state of its armed forces, it would be a war Russia would be likely to lose.

The other forms of escalation would require a more calibrated response. The possibility of a missile hitting Nato territory was underscored when Russia attacked a target just miles from the Polish border. What if the missile had landed in Poland instead? Nato could counter such escalation by taking out the launcher or aircraft that sent the missile. Though risky, such a proportionate response would leave the onus to escalate further on Putin.

The use of chemical or biological agents would be a different story. US officials have repeatedly warned that false Russian accusations about Ukrainian chemical weapons and bioweapons labs may constitute a pretext for Moscow to use these weapons and blame Ukraine.

How Nato responds should depend on the circumstances. Russia could bomb an industrial chemical or biological research facility and blame the resulting damage on Ukraine. It has already targeted an ammonia storage facility. Other such attacks could cause hundreds or even thousands of casualties, depending on the location, weather, and other conditions.

Nato could not let such an escalation go unanswered. At the very least, it should take out the forces responsible for bombing the facilities with surgical strikes. The US, Europe, and other countries would also need to tighten economic sanctions for example, banning imports of all Russian goods or denying all Russian banks access to the Swift banking system.

Moscow, no doubt, would blame any release of chemical or biological agents on Ukraine, and could use those false claims to escalate further. This could include using industrial chemical agents such as chlorine or ammonia to target civilians, as happened repeatedly in Syria, with planes and helicopters dumping barrels full of chemicals on civilians below.

Nato would have to respond to such barbarism, for example, by imposing a real no-fly zone to prevent further Russian aerial attacks. Of course, deploying Nato aircraft into a war zone would require attacking Russian aircraft and air defences threatening Nato planes. But that would be an appropriate response to Russias deliberate escalation.

Though less likely, Russia might decide to use actual chemical weapons (such as mustard gas or sarin nerve agents), biological agents, or even a nuclear weapon. After all, Russian military doctrine foresees the possibility of escalating a conflict to convince the other side to back down. And Putins determination to win makes using any of these weapons a conceivable option.

Though a Nato response would risk even further escalation, not responding would risk the future credibility of Nato and its capacity to deter. An effective response need not include responding in kind nor require a full-on war against Russia. But if Russia uses chemical or biological agents, let alone a nuclear weapon, Nato should come to the direct defence of Ukraine deploying its air, ground and naval forces to ensure Russias defeat and the full restoration of Ukraines independence and sovereignty.

No one wants to start world war three. But Putin should know that if he escalates, Natos calculation of risks and rewards will change. Letting Moscow know that Nato would come to Ukraines direct defence under these circumstances would not only be legal and legitimate, but necessary to demonstrate to Russia and others that escalation does not pay.

See the article here:
Putin may ramp up his war in Ukraine heres how Nato should respond - The Guardian

In a direct warning to Russian President Vladimir Putin, President Joe Biden said "don't even think" about moving on NATO territory during a speech from the Royal Castle in Warsaw, Poland, on Saturday.

"America's forces are not in Europe to engage in conflict with Russian forces," Biden said. "American forces are here to defend NATO allies."

"Don't even think about moving on one single inch of NATO territory," Biden added.

The president visited US troops in Poland on Friday who is along the country's border to bolster the presence on NATO's eastern flank and aid refugees escaping the war, according to the Associated Press.

During his speech, Biden emphasized his support for Ukrainians: "My message to the people of Ukraine is a message I delivered today to Ukraine's foreign minister and defense minister, who I believe are here tonight: We stand with you, period."

Biden also said that Putin cannot stay in power, a statement that the White House has walked back.Following his visit with Ukrainian refugees early Saturday, Biden labeled Putin as a butcher."

Read more:
Biden to Putin: 'Don't think' about moving on NATO territory - Insider

Royal Navy vessels have joined ships, aircraft and personnel from six Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF) nations to provide support to NATO and bolster security in the Baltic Sea.

HMS Northumberland and sister ship HMS Richmond joined Danish frigate HDMS Niels Juel and warships from Sweden, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania for maritime patrols in the strategically important region.

JEF naval vessels escorted Danish and British supply ships as they delivered military vehicles and equipment to resupply the UK-led NATO Battlegroup in Estonia, where troops from the UK and Denmark are serving side by side. The UK recently doubled the number of troops in Estonia as part of wider NATO efforts to strengthen its eastern defences following Russias illegal and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine.

As well as patrolling and delivering the vital supplies, the warships and aircraft conducted a series of joint exercises to demonstrate and hone their seamless interoperability. Danish F-16s and Swedish Gripen fighter jets rehearsed air defence tactics with the vessels, while one of the UKs new RAF Poseidon P8A submarine hunter aircraft practiced working with the ships to spot enemy vessels.

Activities such as these in the Baltic Sea are routine business for us and our JEF partners, in one of our principal areas of geographical interest.

Given the current level of aggression being displayed by Russia, there has never been a more important time to ensure that freedom of navigation is maintained in the Baltic Sea.

This region is of vital strategic importance as we seek to ensure stability and freedom of navigation in the Baltic Sea.

The JEF is a UK-led force, comprising 10 nations working together to deliver forces at high readiness, across a range of roles, complementing NATO and European security. The coalition focuses on security in the Baltic Sea region, the High North and the North Atlantic, where its members are located.

In March, the Prime Minister hosted JEF leaders in London for the first ever leader-level summit. At the leaders summit, JEF members committed to supporting Ukraine with defensive military aid and ensuring that JEF continued to play a credible role in contributing to defence and deterrence in the region. The meeting followed meetings of Defence Ministers and Chiefs of Defence in February.

The coalition is complementary to NATOs wider strategic posture which originated from the 2014 NATO summit in Wales. Led by the UK as framework nation, it is agile and responsive, acting flexibly either in smaller groupings or as ten nations communicating with one voice.

The current situation calls for increased focus on security of the Baltic Sea and stability of our region. The Danish Navy will, with our partners in the JEF alliance, do our utmost to contribute to that.

A busy schedule of activity over the coming months and years will see the JEF operating across its core areas of the North Atlantic, High North and Baltic Sea Region, with a particular focus on the upcoming Command Post Exercise Joint Protector later in 2022, followed by the Live Exercise JEF Warrior in 2023.

See the rest here:
UK delivers NATO supplies and conducts patrols with JEF partners - GOV.UK

President BidenJoe BidenRussian rocket attacks wound five in western Ukraine city of Lviv If we de-list the IRGC, what will the dictators think? Biden to propose minimum tax on billionaires in budget MOREs escalating sanctions and increased military aid for Ukraine, in response to Vladimir PutinVladimir Vladimirovich PutinRussian rocket attacks wound five in western Ukraine city of Lviv If we de-list the IRGC, what will the dictators think? Putin's war against Ukrainian civilians is not new nor will it work MOREs invasion, have crippled Russias economy, strengthened Ukraines resistance, unified NATO allies and prompted Europeans to rethink their security policies and increase defense spending.

But the horrendous price Ukrainians are paying has prompted questions about whether the U.S. and other democracies could have done more before the invasion to deter Putin, and whether Washington is doing enough even now to help Ukraine.

Has Biden fundamentally misjudged Putin? And, as Putin escalates his threats to use chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, is Biden still doing so?

The unwillingness to challenge Russias president more assertively is grounded in the view that Putin fears NATO encirclement and feels threatened by the U.S.-led alliance of 30 nations. Because the Biden administration sees Putins motivation as defensive, it has tried to assure him that in aiding Ukraine, Washington is not seeking to weaken Russia.

Even late last year, as the White House shared sensitive intelligence with NATO members, warning that Putin planned to invade, senior U.S. officials avoided actions that Putin might see as provocative. In December, for instance, as ever more Russian troops surrounded Ukraine, Biden delayed providing the Stinger missiles for which Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was pleading. Plus, Biden and top aides repeatedly assured Putin that the U.S. would not send troops into Ukraine unless a NATO member was attacked.

Even after Putin invaded and then announced he was putting his nuclear forces on high alert, the administration chose not to inflame him. Instead of responding in kind, White House press secretary Jen PsakiJen PsakiThe Memo: Biden in a bind as Ukraine crisis fails to pump up polls North Korea's latest missile tests prompts calls for new UN sanctions Issa lays groundwork for House GOP probe into Hunter Biden laptop story MORE chided Putin for unprovoked escalation and his pattern of manufactured threats.

In retrospect, the administrations response to Putins threatened and actual aggression may have been a profound miscalculation. While officials and analysts disagree about whether Putin could have been deterred, there is little indication that he feared the U.S. or NATO. Quite the contrary. Putin seemed to have contempt for what he saw as a series of weak American presidents leading a nation eager to withdraw from seemingly endless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and from a NATO alliance in disarray.

Arguing that Putin probably could not have been deterred, Amb. Frank Wisner, a former senior official in Republican and Democratic administrations, cites several reasons for Putins miscalculation. Given our shambolic performance in Afghanistan, our partisan divides and political deadlock at home, his belief that the Ukrainians would not fight and that his military could easily defeat them if they did, and his Feb. 4 deal with China which led him to conclude that he had a major power behind him, Putin probably saw this as the best moment to attack, Wisner says.

The notion that Putins invasion was aimed at stopping Ukraine from joining NATO, however, is doubtful. Although Secretary of State Antony BlinkenAntony BlinkenBiden rallies allies against Russia: Five takeaways White House attempts to walk back Biden stating Putin can't stay in power Biden meets with top Ukrainian officials in Poland MORE may have given Putin ostensible justification for his aggression by telling the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last June that Washington supported NATO membership for Ukraine and that Ukraine had all the tools that it needs to move forward in that direction, Putin surely knew that key NATO members had long opposed admitting Kyiv. He also knew that Ukraine had not undertaken the anti-corruption reforms needed for admission to the European Community, much less NATO. Nor is there much evidence that Putin felt threatened by the 30-member NATO alliance itself. Only 6 percent of Russian territory shares a border with NATO members. Looking back, as the CIA has now recently done again, what Putin sought was not a defensive separation between Russia and NATO, but the seizure and/or submission of all of Ukraine to Russian hegemony.

Having fundamentally misjudged Putins motivations, the Biden administrations statements aimed at assuaging his alleged fears in fact may have reinforced his calculation that the West would do little to respond to yet another blatant attack on a neighbor. Had Biden better understood his adversary, for example, he might not have lifted sanctions on the German company building the Nord Stream 2 pipeline designed to double the flow of Russian gas directly to Germany. Nor would he have repeatedly reassured Putin a policy that continues to this day that no American or NATO forces would fight to defend Ukraine.

If there were a do-over, says Alexander Vershbow, a former deputy secretary general of NATO, we would not have repeatedly said that U.S. troops would never set foot on Ukrainian soil. While such declarations might have been politically useful, given the widespread domestic opposition to being dragged into another bloody conflict, Vershbow said, it signaled to Putin that short of his crossing the U.S. red line attacking a NATO member he had little to fear by invading Ukraine again. President ObamaBarack Hussein ObamaThe Hill's 12:30 Report - Manchin's magic 'yes' vote Jackson faces growing GOP opposition on Supreme Court Obama, Clinton, Psaki cases show COVID-19's lingering threat MORE levied only limited sanctions against Russia when Putin invaded Crimea in 2014; Biden was vice president then, as he was during the failure to attack Syria after its Russian-assisted president used chemical weapons and he was president during the chaotic withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan.

Some analysts argue that Biden could not have taken tougher measures prior to Putins invasion, given the opposition of NATO members. But John Herbst, a former ambassador to Ukraine now at the Atlantic Council, who praised Bidens emphasis on diplomacy and repairing the badly frayed ties with NATO allies, criticizes the administrations timid stance. They havent understood, til this day, he said, that the second part of leadership is persuading the alliance of where it needs to go.

Moreover, Herbst added, while some in the administration understood the geopolitical challenge Russia posed, Team Biden continued attempting to implement what he called a stealth reset of relations with Moscow, just as his predecessors had tried and failed to do. While the administration was warning of stiff sanctions and grave economic consequences if Russia invaded Ukraine, Biden still had the goal of establishing what he called stable and predictable relations with Russia, a contradictory objective.

Before the invasion, had Washington sent more of the most modern Stinger and Javelin missiles to Kyiv, had they leaned on Slovakia to give the Ukrainians more S-300 missiles (which, unlike Stingers, can shoot down Russian warplanes flying several miles above ground), had they pressed Poland to provide MiG-29 fighter jets all of which Zelensky has pleaded for such actions might have deterred Putin, Herbst said, or made it harder for him to succeed if he still chose to invade.

Vershbow says that, although even tougher action by NATO might not have deterred Putin, the alliance should have responded more assertively, perhaps by staging a training exercise on Ukrainian territory or rotating more NATO battalions through Poland and Ukraines other neighbors. There were options, he said.

But he and other analysts assert that the administration was right not to match Putins nuclear escalation. Seeing them and raising them could have been genuinely risky, Vershbow said, especially since Putin didnt raise his nuclear alert levels. It was bluster, he said.

Others disagree, however. Speaking recently at the Society of the Four Arts in Palm Beach, Fla., former Defense Secretary Gen. James MattisJames Norman Mattis'We win, they lose': America must end the danger Putin poses Russia's attack on Ukraine is a clear warning to US to become energy independent with renewables Trump's 'Enemies List' end of year edition MORE said that the U.S. response could have been tougher. The White House could have reminded Putin that NATO is a nuclear-armed alliance and that we could respond in kind.

Wisner said that Biden shouldnt have rolled over to nuclear blackmail: Biden could have said, We have more nuclear missiles than you and they are better aimed. Reminding Putin that Gen. Mattis had deployed more of Americas nuclear force on submarines in response to Putins earlier nuclear threats, the memory of mutual assured destruction so deeply ingrained in the DNA of a former KGB officer would have helped ensure that the logic of deterrence would prevail, he said.

We should have responded publicly in some fashion, Herbst agreed. Some say that increasing our nuclear force alert level to DEFCON 3 would have been too provocative, too escalatory, he said. But the administration could have announced that NATO would conduct a nuclear exercise in Europe, which the alliance has done previously, or taken other steps to warn Putin that playing nuclear poker and risking World War III could be disastrous for Russia, and for him.

The failure to respond to his nuclear threat assured Putin that he could continue destroying Ukraine with conventional weapons because the U.S. was paralyzed by the prospect of a nuclear war. What will happen when he threatens a nuclear holocaust over Estonia? Herbst asked, referring to Russias Baltic neighbor, which is also a NATO member.

Judith Miller is a contributing editor at the Manhattan Institutes City Journal, a former reporter with the New York Times, and the author of The Story: A Reporters Journey. Follow her on Twitter @JMfreespeech.

Original post:
If Biden's timidity led Putin to invade Ukraine, what about his next threat? | TheHill - The Hill