Category Archives: NATO

Italy is ready to supply an additional 3,400 troops to support NATO in its response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, Italian premier Mario Draghi told parliament on Friday.

About 1,400 troops from the army, navy and air force are ready - with afurther 2,000 military personnel available - to join the 240 Italian soldiers already deployed in NATO missions in eastern Europe, Draghi said.

"Our priority today must be to strengthen the security of our continent and apply maximum pressure on Russia to withdraw its troops and return to the negotiating table", he said, noting however that Russia's violent actions in Ukraine makes diplomatic dialogue "impossible".

Draghi toldparliament that the EU is finalising a first package of "very stringent and incisive" sanctions against Russia, and that Italy is preparing a 110 million aid package for Ukraine.

The EU measures were "coordinated together with our G7 partners", Draghi said, stressing that Italy's position is in line with other EU nations, "first and foremost France and Germany".

"The images we see - of defenceless citizens forced to hide in bunkers and subways - are terrible and take us back to the darkest days of European history", he said, adding that there are "long lines of cars leaving Kyiv and other Ukrainian cities, especially towards the border with the EU."

Reiterating Italy's solidarity with the people of Ukraine, Draghi said: "The return of war in Europe cannot be tolerated".

"Italy strongly condemns the invasion, which we consider unacceptable" - the premier said - "The attack is a very serious violation of the sovereignty of a free and democratic state, of international treaties, and of the most fundamental European values".

Draghi said plans are underway for the "safe evacuation" of Italians in Ukraine and that Italy's embassy in Kyiv is "open and fully operational".

Read more from the original source:
Ukraine: Italy ready to supply NATO with 3,400 soldiers - Wanted in Rome

As some Western observers have feared, Russian President Vladimir Putin has just proved that his aggression toward Ukraine was never really about NATO.

In a speech on Feb. 21, 2022, Putin recognized the occupied territories in Ukraine of Donetsk and Luhansk and moved Russian forces into them.

Putins speech showed that he has concocted his own view of history and world affairs. In his view, Ukraines independence is an anomaly its a state that should not exist. Putin sees his military moves as a way of correcting this divergence. Largely absent from his discussion was his earlier emphatic grievance that an eventual spread of NATO to Ukraine threatens Russias security.

Since he came to power in 1999, Putin has created an ever-shrinking group of advisers who reinforce his worldview. This allows Putin to ignore not only Ukrainian public opinion, which has turned strongly against Russia since 2014, but also global voices condemning his moves.

Many writers have debated how Putin has remained in power for over two decades. While his popular support in Russia has generally been high especially during high-profile moves such as the annexation of Crimea what may be more important in facilitating his longevity is this small circle of advisers who tell him what he wants to hear. After he served as prime minister, he returned to the presidency in 2012. From that point onward, Putin began to focus heavily on his narratives about Russia in the world, and he began to make moves on Ukraine.

Putins echo chamber keeps him insulated from needing to respond to public opinion that might otherwise discourage him from trying to bring Ukraine back into Russias orbit by force. Military operations in Ukraine are unpopular among Russians, but Putins inner circle continues to protect the president and defend his decisions.

One of Putins most important ideas is that Ukrainians and Russians are the same, sharing history, cultural traditions and, in many cases, a language.

Putins claims on Ukraine have made Ukrainians more united in their views of their own country and its European future.

Ukrainians also feel more negatively toward Russia than they have in the past, with a sharp drop in pro-Russian attitudes since 2014. Fully 88% of Ukrainians support their countrys independence from Russia. Survey data from February 2021 shows that 56% of people across Ukraine support the countrys path toward NATO membership. This number was 30% in 2014, just after the annexation of Crimea.

Even the Ukrainian citizens living in the occupied territories care increasingly less about how the conflict is resolved. They are less concerned about being part of Ukraine or Russia and more worried about their own economic well-being.

Putins anti-NATO rhetoric has also pushed Ukraines Western allies toward unity against Russia. These Western countries see a further Russian invasion of Ukraine as a European problem, and many support a NATO response to defend Ukraine.

But wed argue that Putins claims that NATO threatens Russias security, and that the only way Russia will back down is if NATO promises never to admit Ukraine, is a bait and switch.

First, Ukraine does not have a clear path toward NATO membership. Ukraine would need to implement substantial reforms including, but not limited to, major reforms in its military in order to qualify for NATO membership.

Second, Putin has lied many times about his plans for Ukraine. Any concession from NATO is no guarantee of peace or security for Ukraine.

Finally, as scholars of contemporary Ukraine and Russia, we have seen this tactic from Putin before. In response to the 2013-2014 pro-democracy, anti-corruption Euromaidan protests in Ukraine that ousted a Russian-backed leader, Putin annexed Crimea, a large peninsula in the south of Ukraine. When separatists declared autonomy in Donetsk and Luhansk in 2014, Russia supported them first with economic and military aid and later with Russian troops. While Putin claimed this was to protect Russian speakers in these regions, it is now clear that these moves were a precursor to this weeks territorial grabs.

The increasing hostilities threaten to exacerbate a crisis of internally displaced peoples and refugees. At least 1.5 million people have already been forced to leave their homes in Donetsk and Luhansk. Current estimates project that some 5 million Ukrainians might be forced to leave the country if Russia invades further.

Putins recognition of the Donetsk and Luhansk Peoples Republics could have a spillover effect on other territorial disputes in the region. Some believe that Transnistria, located on the Moldovan-Ukrainian border, could be the next to receive recognition from Russia. The recognition of separatist claims in Ukraine could just be the start of a greater trend of Russian action to capture more former Soviet territories.

In an attempt to thwart further violence and aggression, the European Union and the United States have imposed new, aggressive sanctions on Russia, targeting its politicians and members of the economic elite. The German government made the decision not to certify the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which would have brought Russian natural gas directly to Germany instead of transiting through Ukraine.

Of course, taking these stands against Russia will have an economic impact in Europe. In a tweet responding to Germanys decision, Dmitry Medvedev, the former President of Russia, snidely noted that Europeans should be prepared for more expensive gas. The U.S., too, may see higher prices on certain goods such as fuel, and the conflict could impact global food security if Ukraines significant agricultural exports are affected.

However, wed argue that such concerns pale in comparison to the hardships that Ukrainians are facing.

Ultimately, Russias actions are not caused by fears of NATO expansion. That is merely pretext. Rather, as Putin so clearly laid out on Feb. 21, they are motivated by an antagonism that refuses to recognize the reality of Ukrainian statehood.

[Get The Conversations most important politics headlines, in our Politics Weekly newsletter.]

The rest is here:
Putin's antagonism toward Ukraine was never just about NATO it's about creating a new Russian empire - The Conversation US

The role of NATO the trans-Atlantic military alliance founded in 1949 specifically to counter the Soviet Empire in Europe has been an evolving discussion since the breakup of the USSR in 1991.

Back then, many foreign policy experts were urging triumphant Western leaders to establish a new security framework to redefine relations with Russia, which inherited the ruins of the Soviet Union.

The West "held all the cards in 1990-1991," Dan Plesch, a professor of diplomacy at the SOAS University of London, told DW. "The Soviet Union managed a [relatively] peaceful end to empire, which is almost unprecedented and for which they got no credit," he said.

The demise of the USSR led to a flurry of high-level meetings and negotiations between American and Soviet later Russian officials, but "we never made a serious effort to bring the Russians in," according to Plesch.

Amid intense political and economic instability in Russia during the 1990s, opposing the Western alliance was one of the few issues that united the country's fractious political spectrum, according to declassified documents maintained by the National Security Archive at George Washington University in Washington, D.C.

"We believe that the eastward expansion of NATO is a mistake and a serious one at that," Boris Yeltsin, Russia's first post-Soviet president, told reporters at a 1997 news conference with US President Bill Clinton in Helsinki, where the two signed a statement on arms control.

Indeed, documents show a pattern of promises US negotiators made to their Russian counterparts as well as internal policy discussions opposing NATO expansion to Eastern Europe.

"In the current environment, it is not in the best interest of NATO or the US that [Eastern European] states be granted full NATO membership and its security guarantees," according to a State Department memorandum in 1990, while those states were still emerging from Soviet control as the Warsaw Pact disintegrated. "[We] do not, in any case, wish to organize an anti-Soviet coalition whose frontier is the Soviet border. Such a coalition would be perceived very negatively by the Soviets."

None of these discussions ever became official policy, and none of the alleged pledges ever made it into a legally binding document with Russia. Moreover, they took place in a specific contemporary historical context: The Berlin Wall had just fallen in 1989.

Especially the Baltic Sea states of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia which were part of the Soviet Union from the 1940s to 1991 saw an increased drive for political self-determination and a reorientation of the region's security structure.

The three states pointed to the UN Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention and Interference in the Internal Affairs of States, which refers to "political independence both internally and externally."

After the dissolution of the Soviet Union the Eastern European military alliance, the Warsaw Pact, disbanded in 1991.US president Bill Clinton pursued Partnership for Peace, which Russia joined in 1994. However, there was disagreement over whether that was an alternative to NATO membership or a pathway to it.

In 1997 NATO and Russia signed the "Founding Act" on mutual relations, cooperation, and security, and the NATO-Russia Council was founded in 2002, both of which were intended to boost cooperation. Moscow received access and a permanent presence at NATO headquarters in Brussels. But this exchange has been largely halted since Russia's attack on Ukraine in 2014.

All the while, NATO maintained an "open door" policy on membership and stood by all countries' right to choose their alliances. From the Western perspective, keeping NATO to its Cold War borders was only valid so long as Soviet forces remained in Eastern Europe.

In the "Two plus Four" negotiations for a reunited Germany in 1990, the two German states and the four World War II allies the US, Britain, France, and the Soviet Union agreed that no NATO soldiers may be stationed on the territory of the former East German communist GDR. To this day, only the German Bundeswehr operates here.

Russia's sensitivities over NATO's possible eastward expansion were well known. "No matter how nuanced, if NATO adopts a policy which envisions expansion into Central and Eastern Europe without holding the door open to Russia, it would be universally interpreted in Moscow as directed against Russia," US diplomat James Collins wrote in a State Department cable in 1993.

In 2004 George W. Bush greeted seven new eastern European NATO members in Washington: Latvia, Slovenia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Estonia

But since 1990, NATO has gone through five rounds of enlargementto include former parts of the Soviet Union and several former Warsaw Pact states.

In 2010, NATO's strategic concept, which governs alliance policy, says "NATO poses no threat to Russia" and calls for a "true strategic partnership" between the two sides. The document came out two years after Russia's military intervention in Georgia but before its first attack on Ukraine. It is based on many of the post-Cold War arrangements that Putin now appears to want to abandon.

In 2008 NATO floated the possibility of Georgia joining and intensified cooperation with Ukraine in 2014. At the same time, many of the Cold War fail-safes such as arms control verification and lines of communication have fallen away.

NATO carried out an aerial bombing campaign against Serbia in 1999 during the Kosovo war. Serbia was a Russian ally. Vladimir Putin was elected president not long thereafter.

He still cites the bombing as proof of NATO aggression also in the context of the current crisis.

The latest crisis over Ukraine has led NATO defence ministers to meet

The issue has taken a central role as he has ordered his armed forces towards Ukraine's borders, most recently sending some of them into breakaway regions that Russia supports.

"If Ukraine were to join NATO, it would serve as a direct threat to the security of Russia," Putin said in televised remarks on Monday, during which he described Ukraine as a "springboard" for a NATO strike against Russia.

NATO has dismissed Putin's sense of encirclement, given Russia's massive size that extends to the Pacific Ocean. However, the vast majority of the Russian population lives on the country's European side.

JD Bindenagel, a former deputy US ambassador to Germany, told DW that he believes NATO's mistake was not so much the actual enlargement, but with not taking seriously the Russian view that it had been betrayed.

"We never engaged with it; we thought this was a ridiculous narrative. And so we would say, 'no that didn't happen,'" he said.

Frank Hofmann contributed to this report.

Edited by: Rina Goldenberg

While you're here: Every Tuesday, DW editors round up what is happening in German politics and society.You can sign up here for the weekly email newsletter Berlin Briefing.

See the original post here:
NATO: Why Russia has a problem with its eastward expansion - DW (English)

I condemn Russias decision to extend recognition to the self-proclaimed Donetsk Peoples Republic and Luhansk Peoples Republic. This further undermines Ukraines sovereignty and territorial integrity, erodes efforts towards a resolution of the conflict, and violates the Minsk Agreements, to which Russia is a party.

In 2015, the United Nations Security Council, which includes Russia, reaffirmed its full respect for the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Ukraine. Donetsk and Luhansk are part of Ukraine.

Moscow continues to fuel the conflict in eastern Ukraine by providing financial and military support to the separatists. It is also trying to stage a pretext to invade Ukraine once again.

NATO supports the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine within its internationally recognised borders. Allies urge Russia, in the strongest possible terms, to choose the path of diplomacy, and to immediately reverse its massive military build-up in and around Ukraine, and withdraw its forces from Ukraine in accordance with its international obligations and commitments.

Read the rest here:
Statement by the NATO Secretary General on the recognition by Russia of the self-proclaimed Donetsk and Luhansk ''People's Republics'' - NATO HQ

Russian strongman Vladimir PutinVladimir Vladimirovich PutinAustralia, Canada, Japan impose sanctions on Russia over Ukraine crisis Cheney: Trump's 'adulation' of Putin 'aids our enemies' Defense & National Security: US, allies hit Russia with sanctions MORE, if he continues to escalate his illegal war against Ukraine, will make a historic and cataclysmic mistake that will destabilize world security, damage the world economy and create grievous harm to people across Russia and Ukraine.

Dramatic economic sanctions will cause damage to the Russian economy, which will worsen if Putin orders a full-scale invasion that will result in extreme damage to the Russian and world economy beyond the sanctions. Putin would be forced to send hundreds of thousands of occupying troops, who would be targets for Ukrainian resistance forces, for a lengthy time, while Putin will be blamed across the globe and throughout Russia.

While Putin threatens to wage the most bloody and dangerous war in Europe since the 1940s, most of the key players opposing Putins war are rising to the occasion, which should inspire defenders of security and democracy.

President BidenJoe BidenPentagon approves request for National Guard deployment ahead of DC trucker convoy Lee Harris discusses the past of the Development Finance Corporation's new CEO Defense & National Security: US, allies hit Russia with sanctions MORE has grown into the presidency and commander in chief as President Kennedy did, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and President Reagan did, when he saw the opportunity to protect our security and achieve nuclear arms control when Mikhail Gorbachev became leader of the then-Soviet Union.

President Emmanuel MacronEmmanuel Jean-Michel MacronFive takeaways while the Ukraine crisis intensifies US public not blameless in Russia-Ukraine conflict Sanctions will hurt Russia, but they won't deter Putin MORE of France, Prime Minister Boris JohnsonBoris JohnsonFive takeaways while the Ukraine crisis intensifies EU nations vote unanimously to impose Russia sanctions EU recommends lifting testing, quarantine requirements for vaccinated travelers MORE of Britain, and Chancellor Olaf Scholz of Germany have joined Biden in handling the crisis exceptionally well. The decision made by Germany to halt certification of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline was a critical moment of leadership. Bidens skillful diplomacy with allied leaders has created an extraordinary unity of the NATO alliance.

In Ukraine, President Volodymyr Zelensky has proven to be a strong, courageous and skilled wartime leader. The mobilization and determination of Ukrainians against the foreign invader dramatizes the power of the idea of freedom, democracy and sovereignty.

A Russian launch of a bloody and savage attack across Ukraine would begin with allegations of illegality and potential war crimes, and ultimately force Putin to install hundreds of thousands of occupying Russian troops for a lengthy period of time. They would be surrounded by a determined, well-armed and patriotically passionate Ukrainian resistance that would do dramatic damage, and create significant casualties, against the occupying Russian troops.

A recent must-read column in Bloomberg, by Ret. Adm. James Stavridis, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, was titled If Russia Takes Ukraine, Insurgency Could Be Putins Nightmare. In his important column, Stavridis offers a detailed analysis and strategy to accomplish the mission of backing a Ukrainian resistance, that would impose severe cost to Russian occupiers.

Russian military morale would be harmed. Russian public opinion would become more negative about a self-destructive and illegal war. Opposition would grow against an unwanted war that significantly harms Russian workers and business as economic damage and hardship mounts, and from Russian military families as occupation casualties mount.

In an excellent January op-ed in the Washington Post, Ret. Gen. Wesley Clark, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, warned of immense security danger from Putin, who would pursue attacks against other European nations after Ukraine. Clark praised the unity of NATO and called for continued dramatic military aid to Ukraine to support its military AND a Ukrainian resistance if needed.

If Putin unleashes carnage throughout Ukraine, the world would witness sickening videos of massive bloodshed, massacred civilians, outraged Ukrainians fighting back with valor, and children and innocent people killed.

I was recently warned by Harvey Wasserman, a nuclear power expert, that Ukraine has 15 nuclear reactors, which could be endangered by a chaotic Russian bombing campaign, with potentially catastrophic consequences.

The Biden administration has written to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights calling for an investigation of allegations that Russia has an internal kill list of Ukrainian public officials, journalists, religious and ethnic minorities, and LGBTQ persons targeted to be killed or sent to camps.

A Google search for Russia Ukraine war crimes reveals ongoing public, media and expert commentary about these matters.

One way or the other, with steadiness and resolve, President Biden, NATO and Ukraine can defeat Putins illegal war against Ukraine.

Budowsky was an aide to former Sen. Lloyd Bentsen (D-Texas) and former Rep. Bill Alexander (D-Ark.), who was chief deputy majority whip of the House of Representatives.

See original here:
Budowsky: Biden, NATO and Ukraine can unite to defeat Putin | TheHill - The Hill

Russian President Vladimir Putin signs documents, including a decree recognising two Russian-backed breakaway regions in eastern Ukraine as independent entities, during a ceremony in Moscow, Russia, in this picture released February 21, 2022. Sputnik/Alexey Nikolsky/Kremlin via REUTERS

Register

MOSCOW, Feb 23 (Reuters) - Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday expressed his disappointment to Turkey's President Tayyip Erdogan at what he said were attempts by the U.S. and NATO to ignore Russia's legitimate security demands, Interfax cited the Kremlin as saying.

In a phone call, Putin said he had recognised the independence of two breakaway regions in eastern Ukraine, a move that prompted sanctions from Western countries, because of what he alleged was Ukraine's rejection of the Minsk peace agreements.

Erdogan told Putin Turkey did not recognise steps against Ukraine's territorial integrity, the Turkish presidency said. read more

Register

Reporting by Alexander Marrow

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Read this article:
Putin tells Erdogan U.S., NATO tried to ignore Russia's security demands - IFX - Reuters

A very small group of officials and policy wonks at that time, myself included, asked that same question, but we were drowned out.

The most important, and sole, voice at the top of the Clinton administration asking that question was none other than the defense secretary, Bill Perry. Recalling that moment years later, Perry in 2016 told a conference of The Guardian newspaper:

In the last few years, most of the blame can be pointed at the actions that Putin has taken. But in the early years I have to say that the United States deserves much of the blame. Our first action that really set us off in a bad direction was when NATO started to expand, bringing in Eastern European nations, some of them bordering Russia.

At that time, we were working closely with Russia and they were beginning to get used to the idea that NATO could be a friend rather than an enemy but they were very uncomfortable about having NATO right up on their border and they made a strong appeal for us not to go ahead with that.

On May 2, 1998, immediately after the Senate ratified NATO expansion, I called George Kennan, the architect of Americas successful containment of the Soviet Union. Having joined the State Department in 1926 and served as U.S. ambassador to Moscow in 1952, Kennan was arguably Americas greatest expert on Russia. Though 94 at the time and frail of voice, he was sharp of mind when I asked for his opinion of NATO expansion.

I am going to share Kennans whole answer:

I think it is the beginning of a new cold war. I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else. This expansion would make the founding fathers of this country turn over in their graves.

We have signed up to protect a whole series of countries, even though we have neither the resources nor the intention to do so in any serious way. [NATO expansion] was simply a lighthearted action by a Senate that has no real interest in foreign affairs. What bothers me is how superficial and ill informed the whole Senate debate was. I was particularly bothered by the references to Russia as a country dying to attack Western Europe.

Dont people understand? Our differences in the Cold War were with the Soviet Communist regime. And now we are turning our backs on the very people who mounted the greatest bloodless revolution in history to remove that Soviet regime. And Russias democracy is as far advanced, if not farther, as any of these countries weve just signed up to defend from Russia. Of course there is going to be a bad reaction from Russia, and then [the NATO expanders] will say that we always told you that is how the Russians are but this is just wrong.

See the original post:
Opinion | This Is Putins War. But America and NATO Arent Innocent Bystanders. - The New York Times

NATO has officially told Reuters that an official invasion of Ukraine hasbegun. So far, however, risk currencies in forex areholding their own battle lines, with AUD/JPY at daily trendline support:

NATO's General Stoltenberg said, "We stand with the people of Ukraine at this terrible time, adding that NATO will do all it takes to protect and defend all allies.

Reuters has reported that Russian President Vladimir Putin authorised a military operation in eastern Ukraine on Thursday in what could be the start of the war in Europe over Russia's demands for an end to NATO's eastward expansion.

"The goal is to defend people who have been victims of abuse and genocide from the Kyiv regime. And we will strive to demilitarize and de-Nazify Ukraine. We will also hand over everyone who committed bloody crimes against civilians, including Russian citizens, to court," said the Russian President.

''I am sure Russia's armed forces will fulfil their duty professionally and bravely. I have no doubt that all levels of government will work effectively together: the specialists in charge of economic stability, the financial and social system, and our business."

Meanwhile, US president Joe Biden has said Putin is responsible for the human suffering as a consequence to come and he will speak to the American population tomorrow. US President Biden promises "further consequences" for Russia.

This comes as Reuters witnesses are reporting explosions head in Kievandin the Belgorod Province of Russia.

Read more here:
Breaking: NATO has officially told Reuters that an official invasion of Ukraine has begun - FXStreet

NATO needs to prepare for the reality of a more aggressive Russia in the face of tensions with Ukraine. It's time to strengthen alliances.

Wesley K. Clark| Opinion contributor

Retired Gen. Wesley Clark talks about Russian aggression in Ukraine

Retired Gen. Wesley Clark talks to USA TODAY Opinion about Russian aggression in Ukraine

Staff video

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg says Russian pressure and threats against Ukraineare the new normalfor Europe, as Russia has massedmore than 150,000troops andis prepared to attack.

This is a new escalation, but Ukrainians havebeen under constant hybrid attackfrom Russia since 2014.The United States itself has been under growinghybrid attacks for several years, includingelection interferenceand cyberattacks.If this is indeed the new normal, and even if Russia doesnt attack, the United States must adapt our policies economic, diplomaticand military to face this new reality.

The Russian military buildup has brought President Vladimir Putin clear diplomatic gains as Western leaders line up tospeak with him in Moscow.Russian diplomatsproclaim a willingness to negotiate, but Russian demands on NATO and Ukraine violate the precepts of international law and fundamental NATO commitments.Western offers to negotiate matters of strategic interest, likemissile deploymentsand military exercises, have been dismissed, while Russia fishes for cracks in allied unity.

Our positions have been made clear: There is allied unity and resolve that NATO will not give Russia a veto over itspolicies, including the right to consider new nations for membership, nor will it roll back its invitation to Ukraine or its military deployments in Eastern Europe.

While the West should never turn down the opportunity to communicate with Russia, it is time to stop the frantic rush to engage Moscow. The diplomatic burden must now be put on Russiain conversations at all levels, including a possible summit meeting with President Joe Biden, and in international forums like the United Nations and theOrganization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. The message shouldbe that Russia must de-escalate as a sign of good faith.

To underscore the diplomatic burden, deter Russian actionsand penalize Russia for creating this crisis, the time is approaching to implement certain economic measures,if Russia does not de-escalate. Russian activities are alreadyimposing severe economic and financial hardshipson Ukraine.

Akira Olivia Kumamoto: Identity, family, love: What Alzheimer's helped my Japanese American grandmother remember

The Biden administration along with the European Union have pledged nearly $3 billion of new economic assistance to Ukraine. But this is short-term relief, and the costs to Ukraine, and the world economy as Ukrainianexports of food and manufacturing goods are blocked, will rise substantially.

Russian leaders continue to say there is no intent to invade.The military exercises as originally scheduled were to be completed last Sunday. Enough is enough.If there is not immediate Russian de-escalation, the United States and our allies should begin ratcheting up sanctions against Russian oligarchs and financial institutions until Russia does de-escalate, both in troop deployments as well naval activities blocking the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov.

Finally, NATO must be prepared to recognize the new reality of a more adversarial Russia.This will require new force deployments, logisticsand emergency procedures, and deepening cooperation in the nonmilitary spheres. Temporary, rotating deployments of NATO forces to the Baltic statesare being increased now.

Because theBaltics are the likely next targets, NATO must move to make such forward stationing permanent.Designations of activities such as air policing should be replaced by a shift to air defense.A NATO composite airwing with the most advanced technologies should be forward-stationed in Romania, where it can cover the Black Sea and deter any spillover of threats against Ukraine. Interoperable logistics and routes of ground reinforcement must be strengthened, with reserves periodically mobilized and trained in supporting NATO movements to the east.

The U.S. Army contingent in Europe needs to be strengthened with additional armored brigades and their associated supporting arms and headquarters.Germany should remain the center of all NATO defense preparations in Europe, but the alliance must both protect its Eastern members and take advantage of the strategic depth their membership provides. Under the Cold War NATO rules, the export of certain technologies to the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact nations was prohibited.These rules should be revisited, updated and reimposed already the West has contributed far too much to Putins formidable military machine.

Kelsey Baker: Abolish doctrine that stops military families from suing for troops killed by negligence

Europesdependence on Russian energy, and especially natural gas, deserves special mention.Despite years of experience with Russia using or threatening to use energy as a weapon in its relations with Europe, European dependence on Russian natural gas has continued to grow.

During the Cold War,NATO built and operateda complex pipeline system to provide fuel to itsforces.In a similar vein, NATO could today commence planning for an allied public-private partnership to construct additional gasification facilities in Americaand Canada, and regasification terminals in Europe, which could eliminate European dependence on Russian gas.

This could be an important component of an allied infrastructure program to free Europe from Russian coercion, stimulate European economic development and at the same time provide the means to reduce the carbon footprint from thecoal-burning power plants in Europe.

We are today in a new, complex world.President Putin has helped all of us recognize it. Let Putin have no further illusions about American or European weakness.The United States and Europe have it fully within their capabilities to respond appropriately to safeguard European security, strengthen transatlantic linkages, rebuild the American economyand at the same time deal with the issues of an ascending andincreasingly assertiveChina.

We and our allies should welcome the challenge, together.

Retired Gen. Wesley Clark is a former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, Europe and a Senior Fellow at theUCLA Burkle Center. Follow him on Twitter @GeneralClark

Read more:
Vladimir Putin and Russia are threatening the world, not just Ukraine. Here's how NATO can respond. - USA TODAY

Putins opposition to Nato, the annexing of Crimea and a supposed claim to Ukraines territory - its all behind the conflict

As is often the case with national tensions and geopolitical strife, things can seem to be quite convoluted and complex to the average person looking in.

And thats no different from the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine.

That, coupled with strong rhetoric from politicians and diplomats, headlines shouting for your attention from the newspapers and worrying imagery on the news can all make for a pretty uneasy feeling.

So, weve done our best to summarise the conflict - including the reasons behind it - into an easy to understand digest as best we can.

Here is everything you need to know.

Why are there tensions between Russia and Ukraine?

Though things have ramped up dramatically in the last few months, tensions between Ukraine and Russia are long standing.

The current difficulties date back to the 2014 overthrow of the pro-Moscow Ukrainian government.

Russia saw this move as a sign that Ukraine could more closely align itself with the West in future.

In response, Russian troops took control of Crimea, a peninsula in the south of Ukraine.

Russia then held a referendum in Crimea, in which voters were asked whether the disputed territory should officially become a part of the country of Russia.

Despite 95% of citizens voting in favour of joining Russia and the Crimean Parliament quickly declaring independence from Ukraine, the referendum is not legally recognised by the international community.

Ukraine and the world community consider Crimea to still be a Ukrainian territory under law.

The conflict has been ongoing ever since, and the UN estimates at least 14,200 people to have been killed in eastern Ukraine, including over 3,000 civilians.

Why would Putin want to invade Ukraine?

Put simply, it appears as if Russian President Vladmir Putin views Ukraine as traditionally part of Russia, and would very much like it back under his countrys control.

On Monday 21 February, Putin decided to recognise the regions in east Ukraine the so-called Donetsk Peoples Republic and Luhansk Peoples Republic as independent states.

These areas are under the control of pro-Russian separatists backed by the Russian government.

Though this recognition has no legal binding within the wider international community, it is thought Putin will use his decision to justify sending in troops, as civilians there are now officially (at least in the eyes of Putin) Russian citizens.

Putin also sees Ukraines proposed admission to Nato as a no-go.

During an hour-long speech setting out his intentions on Monday evening, the leader demanded the expansion of Nato be rolled back, and that Ukraine must not be allowed to join its fold.

He complained that Russias concerns had been ignored as irrelevant for years and accused the West of trying to contain Russia as a resurgent global force.

This speech was Putin the angry; impatient and directly threatening, said the BBCs Eastern Europe correspondent, Sarah Rainsford. It felt like Russias president was getting 20-odd years of hurt off his chest and hitting back.

And, of course, there was his re-writing of Ukrainian history, to claim it has never really been a state. In todays context, that had deeply ominous overtones.

Diplomatic correspondent Paul Adams said much of Putins speech sounded like a fever dream.

A nightmarish vision of a country economically crippled, he said, utterly corrupt, bent on developing nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, and ungrateful for all the generous attention lavished on it by Russia since independence.

How has the West responded?

Putins moves have been met with condemnation around the world, with many countries imposing sanctions on Russia in response.

Sanctions are a diplomatic tool to disadvantage countries in ways without using combat. They are usually financial in design, and can restrict how easy it is for one country to trade with another, or freeze important overseas assets.

Many leaders - including the UK and US - have said the sanctions they have put in place are just a first wave of possible measures that could be implemented if Putin does continue with plans to invade.

It is hoped that such measures could eventually hamper Russias financial ability to carry out military manoeuvres in the future.

A message from the editor:

Thank you for reading. NationalWorld is a new national news brand, produced by a team of journalists, editors, video producers and designers who live and work across the UK. Find out more about whos who in the team, and our editorial values. We want to start a community among our readers, so please follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram, and keep the conversation going. You can also sign up to our newsletters and get a curated selection of our best reads to your inbox every day.

Read more:
Why is Russia invading Ukraine? Simple explanation of 2022 conflict, Putin's Nato and Crimea history - and map - NationalWorld