Category Archives: NATO

What does it take to defend, fight and survive in an Arctic environment? What do you do if you fall through the ice while wearing 20 kilograms of military gear? Cold Response 2022 is a long-planned exercise bringing together thousands of troops from NATO Allies and partners, testing their ability to work together in cold weather conditions across Norway on land, in the air and at sea.

Every year, NATO organises dozens of military exercises. NATO members also organise national exercises that include other Allies. Cold Response 2022 is organised by the Norwegian Armed Forces. Learn more about the exercise on their website.

Over the coming weeks, Allied and partner armed forces will trek across the vast wilderness, conduct live-fire drills, leap into freezing lakes, and much more. It's all about training vital skills, making sure that our armed forces are prepared to respond to any threat or crisis and keep our countries and people safe. Cold Response 2022 is bringing together Allies from Europe and North America, demonstrating the enduring transatlantic bond at the heart of NATO.

Cold Response 2022 is a long-planned and regular exercise, which Norway hosts biannually. This year's exercise was announced over eight months ago. It is not linked to Russia's unprovoked and unjustified invasion of Ukraine, which NATO is responding to with preventive, proportionate and non-escalatory measures.

Why did Norway, a neutral country with close links to its neighbours, join an Atlantic alliance in 1949 instead of a Scandinavian union? How did Norwegians encourage greater cultural and economic cooperation among NATO Allies? And who was the "Breakfast Diplomat"? Find out on NATO Declassified!

Allied forces need to be ready to operate in any environment under any conditions. Training in Norway allows NATO Allies and partners to practise their skills operating in extreme and rugged surroundings, from frozen fjords to shivering seas to ice-encrusted mountains. There's a reason that Norway hosts the NATO Centre of Excellence for Cold Weather Operations!

But many other NATO Allies host exercises and help develop this expertise as well, from the bitterly cold Baltics to the remote volcanic beaches of Iceland to the Canadian High Arctic. Check out the videos below to see cold-weather troops in action.

Norway has hosted exercises with NATO Allies and partners since the early 1950s. From Anchor Express to Northern Express, Atlas Express to Winter Express, over the decades Norway has helped Allies and partners learn how to operate together in its rough northern terrain. Exercise Cold Response itself was first held in 2006. Click through the gallery to see archival images of soldiers during these exercises and the beautiful Norwegian countryside where they trained.

Regular exercises allow NATO and partners to train together, identifying what works and what needs improving. Exercises are defensive, proportionate and announced months in advance. NATO Allies respect the transparency obligations under the OSCE Vienna Document, which governs the rules for military exercises in the Euro-Atlantic area.

Under the Vienna Document transparency obligations, Norway has invited all OSCE member states to send observers to the exercise. The Chief of the Norwegian Joint Headquarters also informed the Commander of the Russian Northern Fleet about Cold Response 2022 in a video call in January 2022.

Learn why it's important for NATO and partner forces to train together on land, at sea, in the air and in cyberspace.

What is it like to be a soldier on a NATO exercise? This video walks you through a day in the life.

Read this article:
Exercise Cold Response 2022 NATO and partner forces face the freeze in Norway - NATO HQ

On a visit to Poland Thursday, U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris reaffirmed the United States commitment to defend members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization during a press conference in Warsaw, where she met with Polish President Andrezj Duda.

The United States has bolstered its military presence in Poland and other ally countries bordering Russia and Ukraine since the start of the war. It sent 5,000 troops to Poland as Russia built up its army on the Ukrainian border in February and deployed hundreds more to European countries earlier this week. The alliance has been on high alert since Russian President Vladimir Putin undertook his military campaign against Ukraine, preparing to repel potential Russian aggression against NATO states.

The United States commitment to Article 5is ironclad, Harris said. The United States is prepared to defend every inch of NATO territory.

Harris referenced the most integral provision in the alliances treaty, Article 5, which calls on member nations to come to thedefense of any member nation who is attacked.

Heres what to know about NATOs Article 5.

NATO is a transatlantic military alliance that was founded in 1949 by 12 North American and European nations. The post-World War II alliance formed as a bulwark to the Soviet Union, which had taken on satellite states in Eastern Europe and forming what was known as the Eastern Bloc.NATOs stated purpose is to maintain security for its members.

NATO expanded over the years to 30 member states. It has expanded eastward in Europe, with many former Soviet republics joining the alliance.

Putin has long held that NATO's eastward expansion is a threat to Russias security. In the run-up to his invasion of Ukraine, he demanded that Ukraine never join NATO.

Russia bombs maternity hospital: 'Horrifying.' Russia strike on Ukraine maternity hospital draws outrage as civilian war toll rises

NATO describes Article 5as a cornerstone of the Alliance."

It lays out the organization'sbasic promise of collective defense: An attack against one member state is an attack against all member states.

If such an armed attack occurs, each of them, Article 5 reads. will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Article 5calls for member states to takeaction it deems necessary, including the use of armed force. In other words, it authorizes military force, but doesnt mandate it.

But Harris pronouncement Thursday about defending every inch of NATO territory and the increased American troop deployments in NATO countries makeclear that the invocation of Article 5in response to a Russian attack would likely trigger American military action. This would mean that two world military superpowers would be drawn into direct war against each other in what wouldthe largest global conflict seen since the second World War.

Yes, NATO invoked Article 5 in 2001 in response to the September 11 terrorist attacks on the U.S.. It was the first and only time Article 5has been invoked. The alliance coordinated efforts to assist the United States in securing its airspace after the attacks and assisted U.S. President George W. Bushs subsequent global war on terror.

U.S. bans Russian oil: House votes to ban imports of Russian oil and energy products in retaliation for Ukraine invasion

Refugee crisis: Refugees flee Ukraine to neighboring countries following Russian military attack

Continue reading here:
Kamala Harris reaffirmed the US pledge to NATO's Article 5. What is it? What does that mean for Ukraine? - USA TODAY

Thank you so much Kerry, its great to see you again.Thank you so much for inviting me here today.

As Ambassador to NATO, you were instrumental in Canadas decision to lead our multinational battlegroup in Latvia,which I actually visited just yesterday with Prime Minister Trudeau.

This was a clear example of your strong personal commitment, Kerry, to our Alliance. So, thank you so much.

We meet at a dark time for our security.Russia has shattered peace in Europe.President Putin has instigated a brutal war against a peaceful, sovereign Ukraine.Simply because it dares to choose its own path.The path of democracy and freedom.

President Putins war is not only against international law,it seeks to destroy the entire international rules-based order,on which our peace and security depend.

Our message to President Putin is clear.Stop this war.Withdraw your forces.And engage in diplomacy.I would like to recognize the leadership of President Zelenskyy.And the exceptional bravery of the Ukrainian people and armed forces, as they defend their homeland.

We see with horror the rising civilian casualties.The senseless destruction of cities and infrastructure. And the massive humanitarian crisis.This is heart breaking for all of us. Including for Canada, with its large Ukrainian community.

In response, NATO Allies have been stepping up support for Ukraine.Imposing costs on Russia.And bolstering our deterrence and defence.

Allies are providing more military, humanitarian and financial aid to Ukraine.To help Ukraine uphold its fundamental right to self-defence, as enshrined in the UN Charter.

At the same time, we are imposing unprecedented costs on Russia.Targeting Russian companies, banks, and energy suppliers.As well as oligarchs close to President Putin.And the private sector is contributing as well, from the energy sector to high-tech companies.

NATO has a responsibility to ensure that this conflict does not escalate beyond Ukraine.Because this would be even more dangerous, destructive, and deadly.For Ukraine, and for all of us.So Allies are also significantly increasing our defensive presence in the east of our Alliance.With thousands more troops, and hundreds more aircraft and ships.More than doubling our presence there in the recent weeks.

This sends a clear message that we will protect and defend every inch of Allied territory.

Canada is playing a leading role in our response.For many years, you have helped to strengthen the Ukrainian armed forces and institutions.Including with training for tens of thousands of Ukrainian troops many of whom are on the front lines today.You have also provided Ukraine with hundreds of millions of dollars of support.And essential equipment.

We are all inspired by the way in which the Ukrainian forces are bravely resisting the Russian invasion.And Canadas support has helped to make this possible.

Canada is also making significant contributions to the biggest reinforcement of our collective defence since the end of the Cold War.

Yesterday, as I said, I was with Prime Minister Trudeau and Defence Minister Anand in Latvia.Where Canada has led NATOs multinational battlegroup with skill and dedication for several years.

I thanked them for Canadas decision to deploy hundreds more troops to reinforce our presence in the region.As well as other capabilities, including in the air and at sea.

For whatever happens in the months ahead,whatever Moscow seeks to achieve through violence and aggression,it will fail.It is failing already.

President Putin wants less NATO on Russias borders.But he is getting more NATO.

He wants to divide Europe and North America.But we stand more united than ever.

He wants to hold European nations hostage with Russian oil and gas.Instead he is pushing countries to diversify their supplies.And move even faster to a renewable future.

And most of all, President Putin wants to snuff out the flame of freedom and democracy in Ukraine.But however dark the coming days and weeks may be,the flame will continue to burn.

Europe and North America will help keep that flame alive.We stand in solidarity with our partner, Ukraine.And we will protect and defend all NATO Allies.

Thank you.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Ambassador Kerry Buck [Moderator]: Thank you very much, Secretary General. I will launch the discussion, if I may, with a question, or two questions, to allow the audience time to formulate their own questions.We should have as much as half an hour, I hope, for the discussion. And with that, I'll begin. So as you said, Secretary General, you were in Latvia and met with Prime Minister Trudeau yesterday. We're seeing that on the screen. So can you tell us what you're hearing from leaders in the Baltics about the risks that they're facing? Is NATO ready to deter Russia in the East of the Alliance? And how is that deterrence changing? Will NATO have to move to permanent defence in the East? Your thoughts on that would be very much appreciated.

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg: NATOs core task is to prevent an attack on any NATO Ally. And we have been successfully doing that for more than 70 years. We actually started, as you also mentioned, a very big adaptation of NATO back in 2014, after the illegal annexation of Crimea and Russia's move into, and support of the separatists, in Donbass.

So since then, NATO Allies have invested more, increased defence spending 270 billion in total. They have acquired new, advanced capabilities. And we have increased our presence in the eastern part of the Alliance. For the first time we have combat ready battlegroups in the East. And we have tripled the size of, for instance, the NATO Response Force. Then, actually when we saw the intelligence.. so we have done a lot already over all these years.Then, when we saw intelligence last fall, and we were also very transparent about the risk of Russia invading Ukraine, then we stepped up further. So we increased the readiness of the NATO Response Force. We started to deploy more capabilities to the eastern part of the Alliance. And over the last weeks Allies have really stepped up. Canada, Germany, doubling the number of troops in Lithuania, the United States sending in more troops to the eastern part of the Alliance.

And I myself I've been in Romania, I've been in Latvia, in Estonia, in Poland. I met Canadian troops, US troops, many other troops, from many other NATO Allied countries. And they send a very clear message that we are there to protect and defend all them. And this has been our, Id would say, imminent response to the crisis we have seen unfold after the invasion of Crimea.

But separate from that, or in addition to that imminent response, I think we need to actually now also have a serious assessment of longer-term adaptation of NATO. Our posture, our presence, and also how we can strengthen our ability to reinforce quickly.

We will have a Defence Ministerial Meeting in NATO next week. I think we will have a very important discussion there. I don't expect conclusions, but I expect that that will be kind of the first meeting where we start deliberations within the Alliance. And then, as we move towards the Summit in late June, we will then have a final decision. So we have already responded. We started in 2014. We stepped up during the autumn and especially after the innovation, but then there will also be some more longer-term changes. And that discussion has now started in [March].

Ambassador Kerry Buck: Okay. Thank you very much. I'm going to turn to questions from the audience now and relay them to you. So the first question is from Ambassador [inaudible]. Thank you, Ambassador, good to see you again. And he's asking if you think that one of the results of NATO's mission in Afghanistan was emboldened Russia to try to test NATO's resolve in Ukraine.

NATO Secretary General: I think there's no meaning in speculating in that. Because we speak about two different challenges and events. We ended our mission in Afghanistan after close consultations between all Allies. We did so after we have been there for 20 years. And of course, it was hard to see the collapse of Kabul. And also how the leadership, the political military leadership in Kabul collapsed. And that also led to the collapse of the defence of Kabul and the Afghan Security Forces throughout the country.

But we have to understand that our mission in Afghanistan was not in vain. We went in after 9/11 and the main task, and the main reason we went in, was to fight international terrorism. And since 9/11 there has been no terrorist attacks organized from Afghanistan against any NATO country. But of course, we were not going to stay there forever. We will continue to be vigilant, we will continue to fight international terrorism. And therefore, we ended our mission because we thought the time has come to not continue to stay. So that's one story, on one issue.

In parallel or that, and especially since 2014, we have implemented a big change of NATO. Less focus on out of area operations and missions. Because even with our presence in Afghanistan, it was like 10,000 or very small compared to more than 100,000 not so many years ago. So I've seen a gradual shift from being in out of area operations, to strengthening collective defence in Europe with the high-end capabilities, with increased defence spending, high readiness, the battlegroups and all that, new command structure, and so on.

So, I think that Russia knows very well that we are there to protect and defend all Allies. They see that not only in words but also in deeds. And they see more North America in Europe. They see the United States, but also see Canada, the battlegroup that you supported and you actually were very instrumental in making sure that we got in place, was the first time Canada deployed troops on the ground to Europe since the Second World War.So all of that has sent a very clear signal and continues to send a clear message to Russia that we are there to defend and protect all Allies.

Ambassador Kerry Buck: Thank you very much. Two questions together turning back to Ukraine now. So the questions are: what are the red lines for NATO in Ukraine? Are there any red lines? But.. And link to that, if you could, should NATO and Canada be concerned about a potential threat from Russia to the Arctic? And what does NATO need to do about that?

NATO Secretary General: Ukraine is a highly valued partner. We support them. And we have supported them for many years. Especially Canada, but also the United States and United Kingdom, have provided significant training of tens of thousands of Ukrainian troops, provided essential equipment, antitank weapons, air defence systems. And NATO has also helped to modernize their defence and security institutions, cyber defence and other Allies have done this for many, many years. And Allies are now stepping up. I saw [Prime Minister] Trudeau announced actually new, additional support to Ukraine today during his visit to Berlin.

So, we provide support, we are stepping up, and we have supported them for many years. So we help them in their very courageous fight against invading Russian forces. But of course, that is not the same as being a NATO Ally. We provide support to Ukraine. For NATO Allies, we provide absolute security guarantees. An attack on one Ally will trigger the full response from the whole Alliance. And that's the difference between being a member and being a close partner. And to remove any room for miscalculation, or misunderstanding about our resolve, commitment, to protect and defend all Allies to Article 5 of the Founding Treaty, we have increased the presence on land, at sea and in the air. And that's the message we're sending again and again: support for Ukraine, absolute security guarantees for all Allies.

Ambassador Kerry Buck: Thank you. The question from the audience. And I'll frame it as the audience has framed it. In light of the war in Ukraine, what concerns do you have that some countries, including Canada, still aren't living up to their 2014 promise to spend 2% of its GDP on defence?

NATO Secretary General: Canada is contributing in many ways to our collective defence, to our shared security. Canada lead [inaudible] the Baltic region with the battlegroup, increasing another number of troops there, providing extra frigate, maritime patrol aircraft, and stepping up further in many different ways.Canada also lead our mission in Iraq, playing a key role in fighting terrorism. So Canada is contributing in many ways. And I welcome the announcements of further support and the Canadian contributions.

Then, of course, I would like to see all Allies to do even more. And therefore, I call on all Allies to step up. And I welcome the message from Prime Minister Trudeau that in light of the Russian brutal invasion of Ukraine, Canada will also then assess the need for further increases in defence spending.

Ambassador Kerry Buck: So, I'd like to explore what you see as the new normal. You've spoken frequently about the current crisis being the new normal for NATO. So how is that the new normal? How do you see this as the new normal right now, but in the medium term what does NATO do to be prepared? What does NATO need to be prepared for in the medium term?

NATO Secretary General: I think it is obvious that we are faced with a new reality, new security environment, a new normal. And this is reflected in many different ways. And of course, the illegal, brutal invasion of Ukraine demonstrates this very clearly. Because what we see now is that Russia, more openly, is contesting core values for our security. Including the right of every nation to choose their own path, or NATO's right to protect and defend all Allies. And they're demonstrating their will to use force to obtain their objectives. Russia has claimed.. President Putin has clearly stated that it will be very serious if Finland and Sweden decide to apply for NATO membership. And he has threatened with what he called military-technical consequences. So this is, this goes beyond Ukraine. This is about denying every nation in Europe the right to choose its own path and to become a NATO member, if they so want. NATO, we respect the decision of countries, regardless whether they apply for membership or not apply for a membership. That's a sovereign decision by every sovereign nation.

And then, Russia has also contested and challenged our right to protect all Allies. Because in his written proposal for a new security agreement between NATO and Russia, they sent us in December, it was one of the provisions is that we should remove all NATO troops and all NATO infrastructure from all countries that have joined NATO after 1987. That means 14 out of the 30 members we have in NATO, and the whole enlargement of the end of the Cold War, will be then some kind of a second-class members. If you look at this, and then combine that with the fact that you see that Russia and China are now operating more closely together, exercising more closely together, interacting militarily and politically more closely together, and that China has not been able to come out and condemn the invasion of Ukraine, and also to have the statement, the joint statement of President Xi and President Putin at the beginning of the Olympics, where China stated clearly that they, China now for the first time, criticize NATO enlargement. So we have two authoritarian powers, which are challenging the rules based order. Who are openly as against our core values: freedom of speech, freedom of expression, democracy, the rule of law and oppressing those values in Hong Kong and in Ukraine, or in many other countries.

This is the new normal. This is the challenge we have to step up to. And that's exactly what we do. Europe and North America standing together.

Ambassador Kerry Buck: Thank you so much. Yes, I saw the Russian proposal sent prior to Christmas and a one Russian Moscow newspaper said that President Putin has now asked the West for a live unicorn for Christmas.So I was very worried and curious to see how those negotiations went. But as we've seen, they didn't go anywhere and launched the full scale invasion.

May I turn, Secretary General, to nuclear issue? And many commentators are worried that the risk of President Putin resorting to the nuclear option is at the highest risk that we have seen. So if you could tell us your thoughts about his threats in this regard and the NATO strategic posture, that would be very helpful.

NATO Secretary General: President Putins rhetoric on nuclear issues, his messages that we will see consequences, which the history has never seen before. And actually the way he has also, in a way, directly referred to and demonstrated in different presentations, the new nuclear capabilities of Russia, including hypersonic glide vehicles and other advanced weapon systems that can carry nuclear weapons, is reckless and dangerous. And it contradicts what Russia actually officially states. Because not so many weeks ago, Russia signed, together with other permanent members of the UN Security Council, a declaration where they restated that nuclear war cannot be one and should not never be formed.

And then, the next day, they have this, President Putin has this reckless nuclear rhetoric, which is contradicting the message of never fight a nuclear war. NATO's response is that we strongly believe that we should continue to work for nuclear disarmament. We have been doing that for many years. And actually, there are many things that has not worked as we hoped and planned for when it comes to Russia, but at least over the decades, there has been some very important nuclear disarmament agreements.

We have lost, or we have seen regularly the demise of the INF treaty banning intermediate range weapons but we still have the New START limiting the number of long-range weapon systems, which is important.

But at the same time, we also made it clear that as long as there are nuclear weapons NATO will remain the nuclear Alliance. Because we just don't believe that the world where NATO get rid of our nuclear weapons and then Russia, China, North Korea, keep theirs, that's not the safer world. So the way to reach a safer world without nuclear weapons, or with fewer nuclear weapons, is balanced, verifiable arms control. We're ready to do that. But as long as nuclear weapons exist, we have to make sure that we have a nuclear deterrence which is safe, and secure, and effective.

Ambassador Kerry Buck: You were very clear, Secretary General, coming out of the last Ministerial Meeting about the NATO position on no-fly zones. We've also seen the humanitarian situation worsening with tremendous outflow of refugees from Ukraine. So if you could perhaps speak to us about the rationale for the position on no-fly zones and what NATO can do to help support some of the measures to get humanitarian assistance to those who need it.

NATO Secretary General: What we see, the pictures, the reports we see coming out from Ukraine, is painful, it's heinous, the violence. And we have seen credible reports about attacks against civilians, which is a war crime. And therefore, we continue to call on President Putin to end this war and to withdraw all his forces, and to sit down and engage in real efforts to find a political solution.

And of course, the first step should be to allow the humanitarian corridors to be established, and to respect those. NATO Allies are providing significant support to Ukraine. Of course, it's first and foremost the bravery, the courage of Ukrainian people, the Ukrainian leadership and its armed forces that has made it possible to actually fight back, stop the invading Russian armed forces. But our support is essential. And NATO Allies has supported and has stepped up and continues to provide support in many different ways to Ukraine: weapons, military support, but also humanitarian aid.

On the no-fly zones. What is important is that I think everyone has to understand that it's not only about declaring a no-fly zone, it has to be imposed. And the only way to impose a no-fly zone in a hostile environment, as we see in Ukraine right now, is to massively attack Russian air defence systems. We cannot operate a no-fly zone with all the Russian air defence systems intact. So no-fly zone will require massive attacks on Russian air defence systems. And it will require that we are ready to engage directly in confrontation with Russian planes. So no-fly zone entails NATO massively attacking Russian air defence systems in Ukraine, in Belarus, and in Russia. It entails direct confrontation between NATO air capabilities and Russian air capabilities. This will significantly escalate the war, the fighting in Ukraine. But also of course, risk a full-fledged war in Europe, involving NATO Allies. NATO against Russia. And that will lead to so much more human suffering, civilian casualties, destruction. And it will be extremely dangerous. So it is a painful decision made by NATO Allies. But we need to make sure that this conflict ends. We have to avoid that it expands, escalates. And that's exactly what we're doing. Providing support, but also acting in ways which doesn't trigger escalation of the conflict you now see in Ukraine.

Ambassador Kerry Buck: Thank you. You're being very generous with your time, Secretary General. And I think you.. I may end up, unless I get another burning question in the chat from the audience, I may end up with a question to you about cyber. So we've seen over the past few years, very sophisticated, both cyberattacks and disinformation campaigns from Russia in NATO Allies, all NATO Allies. So I'm curious about what you're seeing at NATO in terms of Russia in cyber and disinformation activity against Allies? And what conversations you had about the cyber threshold for Article 5?

NATO Secretary General: Well, cyber is, will be and is, a part of any military confrontation, there will be a cyber dimension. And of course, we are faced with this more blurred line between peace and war, hybrid tools, hybrid conflicts. And of course, Allies have reported about many different types of cyberattacks against political institutions, private companies. We have seen attempts to meddling in political, domestic, democratic processes in different countries, and attributed this to Russia in many of the cases.

So NATO has significantly stepped up the way we address cyber threats. We have, as you alluded to, also decided to make clear that a cyberattack can trigger Article 5. But we will never give the privilege to a potential adversary to tell exactly where that threshold is. But we will deem, we will assess, and then we will make our own decisions when we trigger Article 5.

Then, of course, we can respond in cyber. But we can also respond in another domain. We have established now cyber as a military domain alongside, air, sea, land and space. And, for instance, for Ukraine we have, over the years but also recently, help them to improve their cyber defences, to protect their own networks. We recently signed the agreement with Ukraine on how to facilitate, support. That was before the invasion but Allies and NATO are helping with cyber defences. And because this is so important for Ukraine, but also for all NATO Allied countries.

Ambassador Kerry Buck: Thank you so much. Secretary General, I'm going to end into the questioning here. You have been, as I said, remarkably generous with your time. I know that you have and your staff have been working more than 24/7 since the invasion began. And I know as well that there will be a lot of work over the next few months heading into the Madrid Summit, responding to the crisis in Ukraine, the new Strategic Concept will be.. ever so more important right now and more difficult to decide how NATO can and should adapt to both the immediate concerns, the immediate crisis, but also some of the medium term risks, numerous risks that NATO is facing. So I would like to thank you very much for your kind words to me and your kind words to Canada. We are very, very supportive with NATO. It's the backbone of our security policy and something that we take to heart. So I thank you very much for your generous time this morning. And I thank the audience for their excellent questions as well.

NATO Secretary General: Thank you so much Kerry, great to see you again. Thank you.

Go here to see the original:
Speech by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg at the Ottawa Conference on Security and Defence - NATO HQ

President BidenJoe BidenBiden expected to call for nixing normal trade relations with Russia Senate averts shutdown, passes .6B in Ukraine aid GOP senators urge Biden to expedite transfer of airpower, air defense systems to Ukraine MORE on Friday stressed that the U.S. and NATO allies would not fight Russia in Ukraine, describing such a scenario as "World War III."

"Were going to continue to stand together with our allies inEuropeand send an unmistakable message. We will defend every single inch of NATO territory with the full might of the united and galvanized NATO," Biden said after announcing additional sanctions on Russia. "We will not fight a war against Russia in Ukraine. Direct conflict between NATO and Russia is World War III, something we must strive to prevent."

The president's comments were his starkest warning yet as some experts and journalists have asked what type of Russian escalation might trigger a U.S. military response.

ADVERTISEMENT

Some lawmakers have pushed for establishing a no-fly zone over Ukraine, something White House officials have ruled out because it would involve U.S. and allied forces potentially shooting down Russian planes in Ukrainian airspace.

And multiple reportershave asked in recent days whether the use of chemical weapons by Russia would trigger a U.S. military response.

But Biden and his team have been consistent that they have no intention of sending American forces into Ukraine to fight Russia, warning that doing so would likely lead to a protracted and potentially global war with another nuclear power.

"The President and our NATO partners have not changed their assessment about their plans to send U.S. troops in," White House press secretary Jen PsakiJen PsakiBiden expected to call for nixing normal trade relations with Russia Fears grow over Russian chemical threat to Ukraine Equilibrium/Sustainability Rising prices add fuel to online conspiracies MORE said Thursday after warning Russia could be setting up a pretext for a chemical weapons attack.

Biden said Friday Russia would pay a "severe price"if it carries out a chemical weapons attack.

More:
Biden: Direct conflict between NATO and Russia would be 'World War III' | TheHill - The Hill

In the wake of Russias brutal invasion of Ukraine, theres a question worth asking: If Donald Trump gets re-elected in 2024, is NATO toast?

It is axiomatic that free countries have a harder time guaranteeing long-term commitments, but Trump is incomparable as a wild card. What is more, the possibility that Trump will be re-elected isnt implausible. Theres a general consensus that the Republican nomination is his for the taking.

President Joe Biden is currently enjoying a post-State of the Union bounce, but his approval numbers are still underwater. His party is well-positioned to get absolutely trounced in the midterms. And if we havent already learned that anything can happen from the 2016 electionas well as Trumps failed coup attempt in 2020then we never will learn.

During his presidency, Trump harshly criticized our allies, while lavishing praise on dictators like North Koreas Kim Jong Un. I have NATO, I have the UK, which is somewhat in turmoil, and I have Putin. I think Putin may be the easiest of them all, who would think! he said.

Trump also undermined the U.S. intelligence community, most infamously in Helsinki, when he sided with Russia over the FBI. During a 2019 NATO summit, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, French President Emmanuel Macron and U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson were caught on camera mocking Trump.

These are just a few of the many examples of how in four short years, Trump buddied up to dictators while simultaneously straining Americas relationship with our allies.

It could have been even worse. Former National Security Adviser John Boltons memoir says that he had to talk Trump out of quitting NATO in 2018. In a second Trump term, I think he may well have withdrawn from NATO, Bolton said recently. And I think Putin was waiting for that.

Carol Leonnig and Phil Rucker, authors of the book I Alone Can Fix It: Donald J. Trumps Catastrophic Final Year, buttressed this belief; they reported that some of Trumps advisers warned of the political fallout that could come from leaving NATO in his first term.

Well do it in the second term, Trump reportedly decided.

Trump may still get that second term. Then the question could shift from What happens to non-NATO states like Ukraine and Taiwan to What happens to the Baltic states? What happens to Poland?

What I am saying is that Americas ability to maintain the trust of our allies and preserve NATOs principle of collective defense is incredibly tenuous. Regardless of the messages of deterrence that the West is now sending Russia (and China), it could all be upset by an incoming president with little regard to preserving past systems.

In a mere two-and-a-half years, we may (re-)elect a leader of the Free World who is hostile to the idea of preserving the post-World War II rules-based international system and the institutions and alliances that have supported it for more than 70 years. If that happens, a lot of the hard work and sacrifice that is taking place right nowby Ukraine and, to a far lesser extent, the Westcould be in vain.

Of course, it could be that Russias cold-blooded invasion has finally done what Trumps past comments about John McCain, the Access Hollywood tape, and a zillion other third rails could not do. National Journals Josh Kraushaar thinks Trumps Putin praise, coupled with his lack of moral clarity about the invasion, may prove to be his kryptonite. During a recent conversation, Kraushaar told me, I think this is a tipping point moment where the Republican Party may be returning more to its Reaganite roots

Time will tell, but there is little doubt that Trumpian populism has been dealt a blow. In North Carolinas May 17 primary, a Republican candidate is already using the pro-Putin comments of a Trump-endorsed candidate against him.

But theres also a chance that Trump could win the 2024 election at the same time that already-hawkish Republicans (think Sens. Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio, Tom Cotton, et al.) become simultaneously more anti-Russia. The assumption has always been that a second term for Trump would be one where he was more liberated from establishment advisers and deep state interference. But its at least conceivable that, when it comes to Russia and NATO, Trump would trim his sails.

Sure, this transformation is possible. But I wouldnt want to bet the future of the free world on it. Who would believe that Trump could be fenced in by Republican senators who care more about the countrys interests than they do about not offending the rabid Trumpist base, much less that he learned his lesson and has grown into the role of president?

So long as the potential for a President Trump Part 2 looms on the horizon, our friends and allies will have to look over their shoulders, and our enemies will have good reason to believe they can bide their time.

Thats no way to run a railroad, let alone the Free World.

Read the original post:
What Happens to NATO if Trump Wins in 2024? - The Daily Beast

John Bolton, the former national security advisor to President Donald Trump, saysthat the U.S. would be in "worse shape" had Trump withdrawn the U.S. from the North American Treaty Organization (NATO), the Western alliance seeking to limit Russia's military expansion.

Trump repeatedly considered leaving the 30-nation alliance during his presidency, Bolton and The New York Times have reported. Doing so would have emboldened Russian President Vladimir Putin and left the U.S. in a weaker position to oppose him during Russia's recent invasion into Ukraine, Bolton said. The administration of current President Joe Biden believes that NATO's unity has deterred Russia from further aggression.

"Where would we be right now...if the U.S. had followed through with former President Trump's idea of withdrawing from NATO?" SiriusXM's Julie Mason asked Bolton in a Wednesday interview.

"I think we'd be in a lot worse shape, that's for sure," Bolton replied. "I think one of the reasons that Putin did not move during Trump's term in office was [that] he saw the president's hostility with NATO...and to Putin's mind, it's a binary proposition: A weaker NATO is stronger Russia."

"So I think Putin saw Trump doing a lot of his work for him and thought, maybe in a second term, Trump would make good on his desire to get out of NATO, and then it would just ease Putin's path just that much more," Bolton added.

Trump opposed U.S. involvement in NATO during his presidency as he reportedly didn't see the point of the alliance and thought the country put far more money into NATO than its other member nations. In Bolton's 2020 memoir, The Room Where It Happened, he details how he had to convince Trump not to quit NATO in the middle of a 2018 international summit.

While it's true that member nations are required to invest a percentage of their gross national income toward NATO's military-related operations, maintenance and headquarters activity, as one of the world's largest economies, the U.S. has made the largest financial contribution of NATO's members.

However, the U.S. ostensibly benefits from its NATO alliance because it deters nonmember nations from attacking the U.S. or NATO's other European members. NATO depends on the concept of collective defense, and considers an attack on one of its member states as an attack on all of them.

NATO has said that it won't send any troops to Ukraine. However, it has said it will increase military presence along the eastern border of its member states closest to Russia in case Putin attempts to expand his conquest, something analysts say is unlikely, The Washington Post reported.

Putin has been vocal about his opposition to NATO. He has said that the U.S. is using NATO to "contain Russia" and complained that Ukraine's possible entry into NATO would "undermine Russia's security" by installing NATO's military at Russia's borders.

This week, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said he is no longer pressing for his country to join NATO. His comment could be a way of trying to placate Russia, as Putin has repeatedly demanded Ukraine's nonmembership as a precondition of peace.

However, opinion polls released last week showed that in light of Russia's invasion, citizens of Finland and Sweden wanted their historically neutral nations to become NATO members. Russia's defense minister has previously said such moves would be met with military consequences.

The actual process of joining NATO membership can take years. To be considered, potential members must follow NATO's required democratic values and contributions to Euro-Atlantic security. These criteria are then evaluated over time as other diplomatic and governmental preparations begin for new countries to fully enter the alliance.

White House press secretary Jen Psaki last Friday reiterated President Biden's support of NATO.

"Another reason the American people are gratefulthe majority of the American peoplethat President Biden has not taken a page out of his predecessor's playbook as it relates to global engagement and global leadership, because certainly we could be in a different place," Psaki said.

"I mean, there's no question that the strength and unity of NATO has been a powerful force in this moment," she added.

Newsweek contacted NATO for comment.

Read the original:
Bolton Says U.S. Would Be in 'Worse Shape' Had Trump Nixed NATO - Newsweek

(NewsNation) A U.S. congressman is calling on NATO to join the fight in Ukraine and volunteered to join the cause.

Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R, Ill.) criticized President Joe Biden for allowing Putin to set the rules of the war and said allowing the 40-mile long Russian convoy to sit undisturbed in Ukraine for days is a moment the West will regret, similar to Nazi invasion of France.

Kinzinger served in the Air Force during this centurys war in Iraq and is a member of the National Guard. If it came to it, he says he would fight in Europe.

I hope Im wrong in this, but I fear Im not. And as a member of the military, Im willing to go if we do, Kinzinger tweeted.

The six-term representative praised the Biden administration for the stiff sanctions Russia is facing, but believes it will not be enough to prevent Russian President Vladimir Putin from getting his way.

Biden has promised to defend NATO territory, but he and other leaders have taken care not to do anything Putin would consider an act of war. Western countries have provided supplies and weapons to Ukraine, but wont declare a no-fly zone over the country because they fear it could lead to World War III.

Putin has also warned that a country delivering planes to Ukraine would also be considered an act of war. This spooked Poland and the Pentagon enough to back away from a plan to send dozens of MiG-29 fighters.

Kinzinger said the West could point to apparent war crimes as a reason to escalate their military response.

Its worth debating maybe the best time to stop this is when he is on his heals [sic], now, before he can rearm and regroup, he wrote. He believes NATO would win a war with Russia.

Even if this is the right moment militarily for the West to apply pressure, a recent NewsNation/DecisionDesk HQ poll casts doubt on whether its the right moment politically. Only 35% of those surveyed favored sending U.S. troops into the war. However, nearly three-fourths of respondents agree with sending weapons.

The war will enter its 16th day Friday, and while experts are praising the Ukrainian resistance, retired Lt. Col. Daniel Davis is not yet convinced they will outlast Russias larger army in the long-term. He supports Bidens strategy of avoiding a direct fight with Russia.

As bad as its been so far and as bad as it is in Kyiv, we simply cant have that expand into Warsaw or into Berlin or anywhere else in Western Europe, because then it could expand into a nuclear exchange, Davis said on NewsNation Prime. God forbid if that happened, it would be really dark.

Excerpt from:
Congressman: Time for NATO to join fight, would go himself - NewsNation Now

Russias senseless invasion of Ukraine, which has destroyed a maternity hospital among the many confirmed civilian targets, is shifting its focus west, with an attack on an airport Friday just 70 miles from the Polishread NATOborder.

It is the first time previously unaffected cities in the countrys west have come under attack with heavy mortars since the first day of the invasion. The airport at Lutsk took substantial fire, pocking its runway and rendering it useless. The airport had been a key link in the supply chain to this point. High precision long-range weapons attacked Ukraines military infrastructure, Russian Defense tweeted Friday. The military airfields in Lutsk and Ivano-Frankivsk were put out of action.

The regional governor confirmed that four missiles were fired from a Russian bomber, killing at least two people. The airport at Ivano-Frankivsk was hit on the day Russia invaded the country, now more than two weeks ago, but has been spared since. On Friday, the United Nations also suggested Russia has used cluster bombs in civilian populations, which constitutes a war crime if proven to be true. Due to their wide area effects, the use of cluster munitions in populated areas is incompatible with the international humanitarian law principles governing the conduct of hostilities, UN human-rights spokesperson Liz Throssell said in Geneva on Friday, according to Reuters.

The change in tack was also evident in the disbursement and redeployment of the now infamous 40-mile column of Russian tanks and other machinery that has been idling outside the capital Kyiv for more than 10 days. According to satellite images disseminated by Maxar Technologies, elements from the column, which have been hit hard by Ukrainian forces from air and land, are now in forests and along tree lines near Lubyanka, some with their howitzers in firing position.

Experts say they believe Russia will increase its assault on the capital Kyiv in the coming hours based on the movements of the military. It is possible that an attack on Kyiv will be carried out in the next few days, Pascal Ianni told France2 TV on Friday. But actually taking control of Kyiv is a whole other matter and will take a long, long time.

The U.K. Ministry of Defense echoed the general sentiment that Russias attempt to reset and reposture is a reflection of its failure to see any significant gains so far in the war. It remains highly unlikely that Russia has successfully achieved the objectives outlined in its pre-invasion plan, the British defense ministry said Friday. Logistical issues that have hampered the Russian advance persist, as does strong Ukrainian resistance.

Part of the restructuring also appears to be introducing foreign fighters. Ukraine has had more than 20,000 people express interest in joining its defensive forces. And now Russias propaganda television is showing footage of Syrian volunteer combatants skilled in urban warfare lining up to help Russia, which provided substantial military assistance to the Syrian government under Bashar Al-Assad during their bloody civil war. Putin is said to have endorsed the move, citing mercenaries from the West helping Ukraine fend off his invasion. Russian defense minister Sergey Shoigu said 16,000 volunteers from the Middle East had expressed interest in joining Russia, according to ABC News, which added that the fighters will be paid a few hundred dollars.

Meanwhile, panic appears to be setting in within Putins inner circle, with the Russian leader allegedly firing eight generals and putting the head of his FSB spy arm Sergei Beseda and his deputy under house arrest, according to Andrei Soldatov, a Daily Beast contributor and head of argentura.ru media outlet.

Russia instead insists that the war is on target. All is going according to the plan, we report to you here every day this week, Sergei Shoigu told Russian President Vladimir Putin at a televised Security Council Meeting on Friday, according to CNN.

While the battle rages on and now spreads west, more than 2.5 million people from Ukraine have fled through Romania, Poland and Moldova, and are now making their way into the rest of Europe. Germany has so far accepted more than 100,000 refugees and other countries are preparing for tens of thousands of displaced people.

See original here:
Now Russia Is Bombing Western Ukraine Right by the NATO Border - The Daily Beast

As a medic in the British Army during the late 1980s, I was taught that a war in Western Europe, started by the Soviet Union, would immediately result in hundreds of thousands of refugees, with that number escalating to millions in a matter of days. Because the region is oneof the top three most densely populated subcontinents, battlefield casualties and medical management of refugees were expected to place enormous strain on military and civilian medical care in every area of Europe.

Forward military medical systems represent the most effective way to reduce death and severe injury from warfare; therefore, impairment of the function of frontline units because of such amass exodus of civilians from the war zone was predicted to have a significant impact on all aspects of military effectiveness.

What we are seeing in the Russian invasion of Ukraine is this scenario writ large. Russias Vladimir PutinVladimir Vladimirovich PutinHogan, Maryland legislative leaders agree to halt state gas tax for 30 days Overnight Defense & National Security Senators grill Biden officials on Ukraine Biden warns Democrats it will be a 'sad two years' if Republicans take control of Congress MORE, like his supporter President Alexander Lukashenko in Belarus in December 2021, has weaponized refugees (particularly women, children, the elderly and infirm) as a potent way to destabilize neighboring nations in this case, Poland, Romania, Moldova and, eventually, other Western European countries.

The destruction of civilian health care structures by the Russian Army is not a chance result nor is it collateral damage. Rather, it is a deliberate military strategy to create massive waves of refugees that destabilize and overwhelm civilian and military structures, first in Ukraine and then in surrounding countries. To this extent, the war has already spread beyond Ukraines borders and into NATO-member countries. Meanwhile, Putin protests that any intervention from beyond Ukraine (e.g., the United States or the European Union) to impair his ability to reach Russian military objectives is effectively an act of war.

The first 12 days of this war and its humanitarian catastrophehave already produced anestimated 2 million Ukrainian refugees. Millions more are possible.

Since Putin clearly calculates refugees as part of his military operational plan, he is incentivized to create as much civilian chaos, terror and fear as possible. This includes creating the illusion of safe humanitarian corridors, the willful destruction of medical institutions and nuclear energy facilities in Ukraine, and potentially using chemical, biological ortactical nuclear weapons, all of which are in his armamentarium.

The use of chemical weaponshappened in Syria, was sanctioned by Russia, and generated an anemic response, at best, by the West. Furthermore, in 2006,Russian defector Alexander Litvinenkowas assassinated in London, dying weeks after drinking tea spiked with the radioactive compound polonium-210; in 2018, Putins agents attempted toassassinate another defector, Sergei Skripal,using an outlawed next-generation nerve agent, Novochok. This agent, developed after the Soviet Union had signed aglobal chemical-weapons treaty, was purposefully engineered to defeat NATOs most advanced chemical weapons gear.

The Kremlins willingness to use outlawed nerve agents and radioactive isotopes to commit murder heralds the threat that Russia might go even further during its illegal invasion and deploy chemical orbiological munitions among the Ukrainian people.

We also cannot ignore the fact that Putinlaunched his invasion during a pandemic albeit, as the latest Omicron variant is waning in Europe. While all medical and psychological illness is amplified in refugee populations, it should be noted that Ukraine reported a 7-day average ofmore than 27,000 casesof COVID infection during the week prior to Russias invasion. The 1918 influenza pandemic commenced in Europe during the last nine months of the First World War, when Central Europe was in ruins. An extremely contagious virus spreading rapidly among vast numbers of people, displaced and suffering from food shortages and deprivation, is a deadly combination.

The monitoring of COVID infection in Ukraine is at a standstill as the medical infrastructure is paralyzed by the war. Civilians and refugees are crowded into bomb shelters, community halls, train stations and buses in Ukraine and Poland. In the West,we must recognize this and redouble our efforts to simultaneously monitor both the effects of the war and the pandemic while providing maximum assistance to bordering European nations to monitor, prevent and treat diseases, including COVID, among the rapidly growing, vulnerable and dispossessed refugee population.

Putin has cynically and mercilessly weaponized refugees as part of his military strategy to spread the impact of what hedeceptively calls a special military actionwell beyond the borders of Ukraine and into the neighboring states of our democratic allies. NATO must acknowledge that the war has already crossed into NATO member nations. The severe consequences of a collapsing health care infrastructure in Ukraine and the enormous stress on bordering countries who are, for now, unreservedly taking in refugees must be part of the equation when Western allies decide how to respond to Putins war. Ignoring this allows an already hazardous situation for Ukrainian refugees and non-combatants who stay in their country as well as Polish, Romanian and Moldovan civilians to slip further out of control.

Steps to protect lives should involve the use of NATO forces to establish secure humanitarian corridors to help move refugees across safe borders. NATO-member nations must remain united in the face of this onslaught and pre-emptively draw and enforce clear redlines to protect the health of both civilians and refugees, including against the threat of attack from chemical or biological weapons.

We must presume Putins past actions will serve as his current playbook, or worse.

Mark C.Poznansky, M.D., PhD., FIDSA, is director of theVaccine and Immunotherapy Center, Infectious Diseases Division, of Massachusetts General Hospital and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School. He served as a captain in Great BritainsRoyal Army Medical Corps (V).

Jacqueline A. Hart, M.D., is director of theBassuk Center on Homeless and Vulnerable Children, Families and Youthin Needham, Mass., which works with communities and organizations nationally to promote housing, health and other opportunities for individuals and families. She has more than 20 years' experience working in lifestyle, behavioral and integrative medicine, applying those principles to vulnerable populations and marginalized communities.

Michael V. Callahan, M.D., DTM&H, MSPH, is former COVID special adviser to the Assistant Secretary for Public Health Preparedness at the Department of Health and Human Services. Hehas led seven disease outbreak deployments for Ebola, bird flu and SARS, directed the DARPA Biodefense Program, and is director for Clinical Translation,Vaccineand Immunotherapy Centerat Massachusetts General Hospital.

Continue reading here:
Putin weaponizing refugees: NATO must draw red lines and enforce them | TheHill - The Hill

The protection of civilians (POC) in armed conflict has become a core strategic objective for the United Nations system and for UN peace operations in particular. The UN, however, is not the sole actor engaged in POC. The European Union (EU) and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), among other regional actors, have been developing their own policies and approaches to POC. While the significant overlap in these organizations member states and interorganizational developments create an opportunity to coordinate and synergize their POC policies, their approaches to POC differin some cases substantially.

As the EU and NATO are both in the process of reassessing their strategic direction against the backdrop of new conflict scenarios, there is a need to reflect on the differences and similarities between these three organizations approaches to POC, their comparative advantages, and the future direction of the POC agenda. At a time when international peace operations and protection efforts are under intense political and operational pressure, such an understanding could also lay the foundation for more informed and effective interorganizational cooperation on POC.

Toward this end, this paper examines the conceptualization of POC in the UN, the EU, and NATO, lays out the core POC policies and approaches of the three organizations and examines their approaches to implementing these policies in the field. The paper concludes with policy recommendations for the UN, the EU, and NATO to strengthen POC efforts within and between the three organizations:

Adapt POC to new operational realities;

Revitalize discussion on POC within and between the organizations;

Improve POC training, preparedness, and institutionalization; and

Focus on both passive (harm mitigation) and active approaches to POC.

Continue reading here:
UN, EU, and NATO Approaches to the Protection of Civilians: Policies, Implementation, and Comparative Advantages - World - ReliefWeb