Category Archives: NATO

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

FIRST ON FOX: Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., doubled down on his opposition to Ukraine joining the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), saying it would be an extremely provocative action toward the "pariah nation" of Russia.

Fox News Digital asked the senator on Thursday about his prediction on if or when Russia will invade, to which he responded that no one knows, but that it would be a "great downside" for "pariah nation" Russia.

RUSSIA-UKRAINE: BLINKEN TELLS UN WHAT US THINKS WILL HAPPEN NEXT: LIVE UPDATES

"I think nobody knows, I'm still hopeful that they won't invade. I think there's a great downside for Russia. They are already somewhat of a pariah nation, but I think they become more excluded from things, and I think there will be significant repercussions from the Europeans who buy a lot of natural gas from them if they invade Ukraine. So I think they need to know this is not going to, they're not going to get just a pass on this."

Rand Paul on Hannity. (Fox News)

The senator also doubled down on his criticism of Ukraine joining NATO, saying it would likely provoke and anger Russia and isn't the United States' problem to solve.

"On the other side of the coin, though, I do think it would be good, and it was at least a statement from the Ukrainian prime minister and the German saying there is no imminent call to put Ukraine in NATO. They should have been saying that for a decade or more. It's a dumb idea to put Ukraine in NATO, and it's a very provocative one. I asked the secretary of state the other day, Blinken, I said, What do you think our response would be if Mexico were joining a military alliance with Russia against the United States? We would be hopping mad."

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and Ukraines President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said recently that Ukraine's NATO membership is not on the table for the alliance, at the current moment.

United States Secretary of State Antony Blinken speaks as he greets embassy staff at the U.S. embassy, in Kyiv, Ukraine, Wednesday, Jan. 19, 2022. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon, Pool)

These statements come after President Biden and the State Department have expressed support for NATO's "open door" policy when it comes to Ukraine. However, State Department spokesperson Ned Price said during a press briefing recently that it will be up to Ukraine to fulfill membership requirements in order to join the alliance down the road, if the country decides to do so.

RUSSIA-UKRAINE: PENTAGON CALLS REPORTED SHELLING OF VILLAGE 'TROUBLING'

"So we have to understand that asking countries right on the border of Russia that used to be part of Russia to be in a military alliance against Russia is just a foolhardy idea. Kissinger said this, many others have said this, and I think we should offer them the carrot of that, that they won't be in NATO and at the same time, tell them, though, that if you invade there, the repercussions will be very, very costly and these will be economic repercussions. But all of that requires the cooperation of Europe because we don't buy that much from Russia," Paul told Fox News Digital.

Henry Kissinger, the former secretary of state and national security advisor under Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, held similar views as the Kentucky senator.

WASHINGTON, DC - MAY 11: U.S. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) questions Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, during a Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee hearing to discuss the ongoing federal response to COVID-19 on May 11, 2021 in Washington, D.C. (Greg Nash-Pool/Getty Images)

In a recent op-ed, Paul points out that Kissinger advised that Ukraine should remain neutral to survive due to its geographical location. Kissinger previously wrote, "For Ukraine to survive, "it must not be either sides outpost against the other it should function as a bridge between them."

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Paul threatened on Thursday to block a quick passage of the Senate resolution pledging support for Ukraine. The resolution required unanimous consent, meaning every senator had to agree in order to pass it in a timely manner.

"We have some amendments to it. We believe that it should say nothing in this resolution is to be construed as an authorization of war and nothing in this resolution is to be construed as authorizing the use of troops into Ukraine," Paul reportedly said.

Paul's amendment, that nothing should be construed as a declaration of war, was accepted and included in the resolution, which passed Thursday evening.

See original here:
Rand Paul says Ukraine joining NATO is a 'dumb idea', that would provoke 'pariah nation' of Russia - Fox News

Vladimir Putin on Tuesday said he is ready to engage in negotiations with the US and NATO over limiting missile deployments in Europe but the Russian leaders claims that he is pulling back some troops along Ukrainesborders were met with skepticism by Western leaders.

Putin, speaking at a joint news conference with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, characterized the deterrenceof Russia by force asa direct and immediate threat to national security and said the US and the alliance had not satisfied the security guarantees that he demanded.

The US and NATO responded in writing last month to his concerns.

As the minister of foreign affairs of the Russian Federation told me yesterday, the provided responses contain a number of proposals that we are not just open to discussing, but in fact we have proposed them to our partners in previous years: proposals on European security issues, on certain weaponry issues and on military transparency, Putin said.

We are ready to continue this joint work further. We are also ready to follow the negotiation track but all issues must be considered as a whole, without being separated from the main Russian proposals, he said.

The Russian leader has massed more than 130,000 troops and heavy equipment on the countrys western border with Ukraine, as well as participating in joint military drills in Belarus, Ukraines northern neighbor, and conducting naval maneuvers in the Black Sea.

Putin has demanded that the US and its allies bar Ukraine from joining NATO, that Western forces be rolled back from Eastern Europe and that missile systems not be deployed in Ukraine.

Western officials immediately rejected the NATO proposal but expressed willingness to discuss other security concerns.

Scholz, who met on Monday with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, called Putins offer to talk a good sign.

Likewise, NATO, the EU, and we do not agree with the demands of Russia, but we believe there are some points in there that are worth discussing, he said.

Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba said only Kiev and NATO should be able to determine whether his country can join the alliance.

No one but Ukraine and NATO members should have a say in the discussions about Ukraines future NATO membership, Kuleba said.

Putin said of course not when asked if Russia wants to start a war in Europe, addingthats exactly why we put forward proposals on a negotiating process that should result in an agreement ensuring equal security for all, including our country.

Scholz hoped a diplomatic resolution to the standoff will end the standoff and avert a major war from breaking out on the continent.

We need to make sure to work towards a peaceful solution of the conflict, the chancellor said, as he hailed the withdrawal of some Russian troops.

The Russian Defense Ministryannounced earlier in the day that some troops would return to their garrisons but that military exercises would continue.It did not say how many troops were leaving.

Kuleba didnt have much faith in the announcement.

We wont believe when we hear, well believe when we see. When we see troops pulling out, well believe in de-escalation, Kuleba said.

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg added: So far, we have not seen any de-escalation on the ground, not seen any signs of reduced Russian military presence on the borders of Ukraine.

With Post wires

Original post:
Vladimir Putin willing to negotiate with US, NATO over 'security issues' - New York Post

Fianna Fil MEP Barry Andrews has accused his counterpart Mick Wallace of "making excuses for Russia" under the protection of the very democracy it is trying to destroy.

Mr Andrews said it is "extraordinary" to see the two extremes of the European Parliament - the far left and the far right - "speaking off the same Moscow-generated talking points".

In a speech to the European Parliament, Mr Wallace - an Independent MEP for Ireland South - strongly criticised NATO and the United States, who he accused of "warmongering."

"We have had three months of this farce now and the line between the real and the imaginary is blurred," Mr Wallace said.

He said the purpose of NATO was the protection of Western corporate interests and and the interests of the military industrial complex "but it looks like now they are [to] protect the interests of US gas and oil".

He told MEPs: "The warmongering of NATO and the US for these past few months has done nothing for peace in Europe" adding that "people who want peace in Europe should be calling for NATO to be abolished".

But speaking to RT One's European Parliament Report, Mr Andrews said NATO was "trying to stop a war".

He said: "Mick is trying to fight the last war around Iraq, where NATO and US were using fake information to justify a way. Now Russia is using fake information to try to start a war and we have to call that out at every opportunity."

The Dublin MEP added: "The far-left in the European Parliament (which includes Mr Wallace's speech) and the far-right seem to be reading from the exact same talking points.

"They are making excuses for Russia which is trying to destroy democracy in the EU and they are making those excuses under the protection of the very democracy that Russia is seeking to destroy."

Mr Andrews concluded: "It is extraordinary to see the extremes of the European parliament speaking off the same Moscow-generated talking points."

European Parliament Report is on RTE One at 11:30am today

Continued here:
MEP rejects claim that NATO is 'warmongering' - RTE.ie

By JOSEPH WENZEL, MARISSA SULEK, ALEXANDRIA ADAMS

Click here for updates on this story

FORT CAMPBELL, Kentucky (WSMV) Fort Campbell soldiers are on their way to Europe.

It was announced on Tuesday that some of the 101st Airborne Division would be a part of the Joint Task Force Dragon Operation. The focus of the deployment is to assure our NATO Allies and partners in the region.

Fort Campbell officials told News 4 the preparations for this deployment have been going on for several weeks.

As we have since 1942, the 101st Airborne Division stands ready to deploy anywhere to support and defend the Nation and our Allies, Commanding General of the 101st Abn. Div. Maj. Gen. JP McGee.

The units from Fort Campbell will join the members of 18th Airborne Corps, who are already in Europe. It comes amid tensions at the border between Russia and Ukraine. The troops are heading to Poland. There are no threats of Russian invasion there.

But it is one of four NATO allies that borders Ukraine. WSMV spoke with some of the soldiers just hours ago about how they felt as they head on this mission.

Im excited and nervous. Cause one this is my first deployment. I dont know what to expect. Im kind of excited because I get to see the world for the first time because Ive never been outside the U.S. Its an exciting new experience at the same time its also nerve-racking and scary, Mark Berg Jr., Kentucky native, said. Hoping maybe I can still maybe have contact with my family but if not thats fine because a missions a mission and I joined for a reason.

The 101st Airborne Division is set to deploy worldwide on short notice to conduct a range of military operations from humanitarian assistance to combat capabilities.

Fort Campbell units are always prepared to deploy world-wide on short notice to conduct contingency operations in support of our national security objectives. Preparations for this deployment have been underway for several weeks and our Soldiers are ready. They will provide valuable support for our higher headquarters and reassure our Polish Allies at this critical moment, Lt. Col. Kari Mcewen, 101st Abn. Div. public affairs officer.

Please note: This content carries a strict local market embargo. If you share the same market as the contributor of this article, you may not use it on any platform.

Originally posted here:
Fort Campbell units heading to Europe to help NATO Allies and partners - kuna noticias y kuna radio

Lsna, northern Estonia As the U.S. and its allies continue negotiating with Russia in a bid to prevent the standoff on Ukraine's borders escalating, they are also preparing for war, and the preparations are clearly aimed at deterring any Russian invasion. French President Emmanuel Macron met Ukraine's president on Tuesday after flying to Moscow for talks with President Vladimir Putin.

Macron said the standoff with Russia could go on for "weeks and months."

Amid the flurry of diplomacy, NATO has bolstered its presence in countries around Ukraine, and the Western military alliance is holding war games hoping to deter a Russian attack.

CBS News senior foreign correspondent Charlie D'Agata watched on Tuesday as British and Estonian tanks squared off against each other in a simulated battle on a snowy wasteland in northern Estonia, not far from the Russian border.

The military exercise is a direct response to Russia's massive military buildup on three sides of Ukraine, which has sent jitters through the entire region.

As Russia prepares to kick off huge combat exercises of its own at land and at sea, the NATO war games have never felt more real, or more urgent.

If a wider conflict were to break out on the far eastern edge of Europe's democracies, the conditions at the NATO training ground in Lsna, Estonia are exactly what troops would encounter: Deep snow and difficult terrain, with limited visibility.

They would also face an enemy that far outnumbers NATO's forces, in both troops and weaponry.

Estonia and the other Baltic states, Latvia and Lithuania, sit right along the borders of Russia and its ally Belarus. Each of the three nations is home to a multinational NATO battlegroup.

American reinforcements have been deployed to Lithuania, Poland and Romania, while Moscow has sent tens of thousands of forces to Belarus to carry out drills as part of Russia's own military buildup.

Lithuanian President Gitanas Nauseda said at a news conference on Wednesday that his country would "be talking to the U.S. to make sure that the rotational U.S. forces would be in Lithuania permanently."

"That would be the best boost to security and deterrence that NATO could provide, not only to Lithuania, but to the whole region," he said.

There is still hope for a diplomatic solution to the crisis in Ukraine.

Moscow on Wednesday indicated that Putin's government was still determining how to respond to U.S. proposals to ease the tension, but deputy foreign minister Sergey Ryabkov said the Kremlin had at least "taken seriously" the ideas presented.

But while the negotiations continue, so do the war games, because military preparations are never based on a best-case scenario.

For Breaking News & Analysis Download the Free CBS News app

Excerpt from:
NATO and Russia hold war games amid negotiations to reverse the escalating crisis on Ukraine's borders - CBS News

The escalating tensions among Russia, Ukraine and its allies represents a monumental challenge for the international community while also creating a political environment that could violently upend the way security is approached.

Read more: Russia has reached the point of no return in its conflict with Ukraine

The very real risk of warfare between the military forces of Russia and Ukraine is the primary focus. But for Canada and its allies, this conflict is not only about Ukrainian sovereignty, but also the structure of NATO and the viability of the rules that govern international activities.

If Russia conducts any activity that harms Ukraine or the Ukrainian government, it represents a very public failure of key NATO members to deter such action.

Furthermore, Russia attacking Ukraine whether through a traditional military invasion or via cyber attacks or misinformation campaigns would demonstrate the inadequacy of existing security-related international regulations. By escalating tensions, Russia would also exacerbate existing differences of opinion within NATO.

By threatening Ukraine, Russia has put pressure on NATO to either offer unequivocal support to Ukrainians and risk being pulled into a damaging conflict, or make concessions to the Russians.

These concessions could include NATO forces withdrawing further from Russia, a commitment not to allow Ukraine into NATO or the formal acknowledgement of Crimea as Russian territory.

This puts NATO in a difficult position. Such concessions would be seen as NATO bowing to Russian pressure, and potentially be perceived as abandoning its members on Russias borders.

Conversely, there are differences of opinion within NATO about the most effective and appropriate way of engaging with Russia. This was highlighted by the recent resignation of Germanys Vice Admiral Kay-Achim Schoenbach. He stepped down after saying Russian President Vladimir Putin deserves respect and that the Crimea Peninsula, former Ukrainian territory that was annexed by Russia in 2014, is gone and will never be part of Ukraine again.

The latter claim was in direct opposition to the public positions of the German government and its allies, who continue to express the belief that the annexation should be reversed.

Of course, Ukraine is not a NATO member, so theres no absolute requirement for any other NATO member to come to its defence. Nevertheless, some key NATO members, including Canada, have been vociferous in their opposition to Russian activities.

Should Russia invade Ukraine, it will be very difficult for these NATO members not to respond forcefully. Other NATO allies would also be forced to decide whether theyll provide support. Failing to do so, even though it may not technically represent an abdication of NATO responsibilities, would signify a considerable breach in the alliance.

Furthermore, for NATO members, stability in Europe is heavily based on ensuring that the actions of states in the region are predictable, which is partly achieved through openness and transparency.

In theory, if everyone is open about their activities and benefits and the risks of their actions are clearly understood then the likely course of future policy and activity can be predicted. This also makes it easier to prepare if another states actions appear to be threatening or aggressive.

If actions are predictable, the ability to act aggressively by surprising another state is reduced, and relationships between states are therefore stabilized.

To a certain extent, this approach is based on being clear about the costs involved in acting aggressively. The publication of details about the material support given to Ukraine by NATO members, including the United States and the United Kingdom, is an example of how NATO has sought to use openness and predictability to create stability and deter Russia from attacking Ukraine.

By highlighting the improvement in Ukrainian military capability, it suggests that a higher number of Russian troops would be killed if they tried to invade. The intention here is not to surprise Russian troops with Ukrainian capability and defeat them in battle, but instead to deter Russia from attacking Ukraine by indicating a predictable increase in potential Russian casualties.

More fundamentally, predictability has stemmed from the agreement of regulations intended to govern behaviour. When such rules are established and followed, the game of international security is easier to play. All participants are aware of the rules and understand that adhering to them benefits everyone.

These rules are now under huge stress. The possibility of a Russian invasion rips apart the basic tenets of international agreements that generally prohibit the use of force.

In addition, Russia may use force that doesnt meet the threshold of war, such as launching more cyber attacks or, as the U.K. Foreign Office has suggested, leveraging political pressure that results in the installation of a pro-Russian politician as the head of the Ukrainian government.

These tactics suggest Russia and NATO members have a different understanding of the importance of international law, and that the existing rules provide insufficient guidance around the use of whats known as force-short-of-war. Consequently, predictability is undermined, and NATO decision-making becomes much more difficult.

The situation marks an existential crisis for NATO. Low-level Russian action against Ukraine would have limited implications for NATO. However, if NATO cannot deter Russia from taking open military action against Ukraine or theres broad international failure to respond robustly, faith in the rules and regulations that have underpinned international relations could be terminally undermined.

That would result in a re-evaluation of how to successfully establish security. Its not likely that introspection would lead to greater international collaboration and more robust rules, but a return to more individualistic security policy shouldnt be accepted lightly.

This situation is therefore a watershed moment. If diplomatic efforts cannot avert further conflict between Ukraine and Russia whether its traditional warfare or activities that fall below this threshold a dramatic shift in international relations could occur.

A loss of faith in the ability of existing rules and international organizations to ensure peace and stability could wrench apart NATO and result in costly and jarring reconfigurations of security policy.

Read the rest here:
The Ukraine-Russia standoff is a troubling watershed moment for NATO - The Conversation CA

After the disastrous abandonment of Afghanistan, after years of bickering over the 2 percent of gross domestic product target for defense spending, and after French President Emmanuel Macron deemed the Alliance brain dead, NATO is front and center on the geopolitical stage and reclaiming relevance in the current cacophony. On June 29 and 30, the Alliance will meet in Madrid with two major issues on the agenda: the upcoming expiration of the Secretary Generals mandate on October 1 this year and the articulation of a new Strategic Concept, an outline of action that allies typically establish every ten years, though the current one was released in 2010.

It is therefore time to go above the noise and take stock of NATOs purposecreated by the 1949 North Atlantic Treatyand the philosophy that conceived it. General Lord Hastings Ismay, NATOs first Secretary General, is credited with coining the often-repeated shorthand description of the projects raison dtre when he first took office in 1952: Keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down. In other words, in the face of Soviet expansionism, rebuild the continent by avoiding the resurgence of nationalist militarism in Europe. This endeavor convinced US President Harry S. Truman to, instead of bringing US troops back home as soon as hostilities ended, consolidate their presence in Europe.In keeping with the architecture for peace developed after World War II, the United States bet on Europeand Europe bet on the protection offered by Washington.

The will of the twelve North Atlantic Treaty signatories (ten European countries plus Canada and the United States) was to advance the architecture of the international liberal system. With express mention of the recently formed United Nations, the preamble could not be clearer: Its founding impulse is to bring together countries founded on democracy, individual liberty, and the rule of law in order to promote stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area.

Both a political and military partnership, NATO is focused on collective defense, as touted in Article 5 of its founding treaty, which clearly states, if such an armed attack occurs, each of [the members] will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Afghanistan has been a topic of almost constant conversation in the past year, owing to the United States haphazard departure in August 2021 with some NATO allies saying they werent consulted. But in the hubbub of Augusts events, a crucial fact was forgotten: NATO allies had been in Afghanistan since the first (and only) time that Article 5 has been invokedfollowing the September 11 attacks. Beyond being an attack on the United States, 9/11 represented a challenge to the very core of the North Atlantic Treaty: democracy and the multilateral order. And it forced NATO allies to develop an awareness of the potential for new, unconventional threatsthat is, those outside traditional warfare.

Just as the beginning of the Afghanistan operation marked a symbolic milestone, so, too, did its end. While former President Donald Trump damaged the image of the US presidency in the eyes of the world, those who hated the United States still had a general respect for the White House. However, since the scenes from Kabuls airport, Washington has been perceived as an unreliable partner shedding its Atlantic ties to concentrate on the Indo-Pacific: Some fear it is evidence of its abdication of global leadership. But the United States ability to respond to global challenges and the integration of values in its foreign policy should not be underestimated. After all, Uncle Sam has bounced back from other difficult situations in recent historyVietnam comes to mind.

In that vein, the United States and NATOs coordinated responses to Russian President Vladimir Putins December 17 ultimatum offer Moscow a serious and in-depth dialogue on arms control and strategic stability, but proclaim transatlantic commitment and steadfastness; a resounding rejection of Russian demands; and reaffirmation of the centrality of the principles of sovereignty, the inviolability of borders, and territorial integrity. They direct the Kremlin to refrain from the threat and use of force. Finally, and critically, both reiterate countries right to choose or change their security arrangementsto decide their future without external interference. This right is laid out in NATOs well-known Open-Door Policy which prompted one of Putins classic responses of convolution: They saya policy of open doors. Where did it come from? NATO has an open-door policy. Where is it stated? Nowhere.

As for Europeans, the situation in Ukraine has made internal contradictions come to a head. From the outset, the European Union (EU) has been largely absent from the dialogue with Moscow, barring Macrons bravado-riven bilateral conversations and his insights into the contemporary traumas of this great people [Russians] and great nation. Europes energy has been focused on grandiloquent speeches (unsurprisingly, primarily in French) and pompous formulas: while strategic autonomy loses momentum in Brussels talks, the term Strategic Compass is gaining ground after the European Council promised to adoptwithin six weekswhat it has described as a road map to turning the Union into a more effective international security actor by 2030 and to strengthening its strategic sovereignty. Per a lesson from Aesops Fables, the mountain will give birth to another mouseunless there is a miracle here, this speech promising great things will amount to little.

Europeans do not perceive danger in the same way across the board for historical and geographic reasons. Furthermore, there is the concerning about-facingsuch as Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbns recent visit to Moscow and his statements that Putins requests for security guarantees are normal despite the fact that they include proposals to block NATO weapons and forces from NATO members who joined after 1997, which includes Hungary. Allies also have to face the weakening of the democratic link within the organization, and particularly within the EU. Finally, Europeans have not accepted that defense must be paid for. All of the above serves as a backdrop for pessimistic outbursts such as Macrons.

The Kremlin has spent years toward Putins objective of undermining the West but, more specifically, Europe and its futurethe democratic system. And Putin makes no attempt to hide it with his litany of aggressive statements, weaponization of energy, Russo-Georgian war in 2008, and invasion of Crimea in 2014. But Ukraine seems to be the straw that broke the camels back. Procrastination in the face of gradualism is not a solution for NATO. It is time for an analysis of the range of Russias capabilities that the current situation has confirmed: misinformation, hybrid attacks, new technologies (including cyberattacks), little green men, and mercenaries. Those are gray areas that the Strategic Concept will have to clarify due to their impact on the interpretation of Article 5.

In addition to the risk posed by non-state actors and terrorism, the working hypothesis in the run-up to the NATO meeting in Madrid is that tension with Russia will not disappear soon (regardless of the outcome of the current crisis), underscoring the need for a solid defense and reach to the east, and a realistic approach in the Mediterranean and Africa. Likewise, Europeans must develop a common policy towards China: In a dialogue organized by the Atlantic Council, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg highlighted both the need for North America and Europe to maintain unity in the face of new threats, as well as the challenge of addressing the security consequences of the rise of China.

Putin, in his efforts to destroy the liberal international order, has shaken the foundations of NATO. It would be ironicand welcomefor the crisis over Ukraine to reinvigorate the Alliance.

A version of this article originally appeared in El Mundo. It has been translated from Spanish by the staff of Palacio y Asociados and is reprinted here with the authors and publishers permission.

Ana Palacio is a former minister of foreign affairs of Spain and former senior vice president and general counsel of the World Bank Group. She is also a visiting professor at the Edmund E. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University and a member of the Atlantic Councils Board of Directors.

Thu, Jan 20, 2022

New AtlanticistByAna Palacio

There will be no peace in Europe if the States are reconstituted on the basis of national sovereignty. This warning by Jean Monnet sums up the crisis Europe is currently experiencing nearly eighty years later.

Image: NATO flag flies in front of the Independence monument at the Independence Square in Kyiv, Ukraine. Photo by STR/NurPhoto.

See the original post here:
Why NATO will endure well beyond today's crises - Atlantic Council

Spy planes are conducting missions to track Russian movements, which might include listening to Russian soldiers' phone calls home, according to one expert.

The planes are equipped with devices that allow them to collect signals sent from Russian bases and to intercept communications.

Sky News analysis of flight tracking data from a typical day in recent weeks shows that a host of NATO and Swedish planes are monitoring key Russian positions.

Scroll through the maps below to see what aircraft movements on 25 January - represented by yellow dots - can tell us:

Two tracked the coastline of Crimea - one an RAF plane that departed from Lincolnshire and another from a US base in Sicily.

Three maritime patrol aircraft - "sub-hunters" - departed RAF Lossiemouth earlier in the day.

One of which flew for over 5 hours east with its transponder recording intermittently. It circled a position near the Baltic Sea where Russian naval vessels were believed to be close by.

A US Navy aircraft departed an airbase in Spain in the afternoon and flew along the Portuguese coast.

It turned off its transponder for an hour, but it was picked up again near the position of three Russian ships making their way into the Mediterranean.

Two more US flights departed an airbase in Lithuania in the afternoon and moved along the border of the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad.

The RAF plane that was near Crimea earlier can also be seen coming close to the area, and taking an interest in the Belarusian border, on its return journey.

On 25 January there were at least 10 US, UK, and Swedish reconnaissance flights that took place.

Two tracked the coastline of Crimea - one an RAF plane that departed from Lincolnshire and another from a US base in Sicily.

Three maritime patrol aircraft - "sub-hunters" - departed RAF Lossiemouth earlier in the day.

One of which flew for over 5 hours east with its transponder recording intermittently. It circled a position near the Baltic Sea where Russian naval vessels were believed to be close by.

A US Navy aircraft departed an airbase in Spain in the afternoon and flew along the Portuguese coast.

It turned off its transponder for an hour, but it was picked up again near the position of three Russian ships making their way into the Mediterranean.

Two more US flights departed an airbase in Lithuania in the afternoon and moved along the border of the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad.

The RAF plane that was near Crimea earlier can also be seen coming close to the area, and taking an interest in the Belarusian border, on its return journey.

What are the planes doing?

The aircraft are equipped with sensors that collect information on the electronic and radio signals being emitted in the areas they are monitoring.

Professor Mark Westwood, head of the centre of aeronautics at Cranfield University, said some of the aircraft typically "fly along a border and image off to the side, building up quite a detailed 3D picture of what's operating there".

Analysts stationed on the plane and back at base can then assess the information gathered and turn it into "intelligence" about Russian movements and capabilities.

The position of the planes also helps reveal where NATO countries are interested in and the position of Russian warships - a circling aircraft at sea suggests they are interested in something at the location.

Why all the activity?

The flurry of reconnaissance flights over recent weeks has coincided with a Russian troop build-up on the Ukrainian border.

It is likely that the spy planes are feeding in more specific information about this build-up, such as the type of equipment the Russians are using.

But it is not just about equipment.

Some of the planes are capable of intercepting voice and text communications.

According to Douglas Barrie, a senior fellow for military aerospace at The International Institute for Strategic Studies, this includes "listening to chatter and not just the official stuff. It could be troops phoning their boyfriend or girlfriend. It's why there are protocols in place to not phone home, but people don't always adhere to that. It's human nature to want to ring home".

Are we seeing everything?

These flights are only recorded on flight tracking databases because their transponders are turned on. The military could turn them off if they wanted, so there may be more that are not being picked up.

However, given the amount of reconnaissance aircraft countries like the UK are known to have, Mr Barrie thinks we are probably seeing most, but not all, of the flights taking place.

And there is a reason for making this activity public. It sends a clear message that Russia is being watched.

But the activity will not all be one way. Russia, and many other countries, have reconnaissance planes of their own.

As Mr Barrie said: "Everyone's listening to everyone else, on one level or another".

Digital Production: Ganesh RaoAdditional flight tracking: Amelia Smith

The Data and Forensics team is a multi-skilled unit dedicated to providing transparent journalism from Sky News. We gather, analyse and visualise data to tell data-driven stories. We combine traditional reporting skills with advanced analysis of satellite images, social media and other open source information. Through multimedia storytelling we aim to better explain the world while also showing how our journalism is done.

Why data journalism matters to Sky News

Read more here:
Russia-Ukraine crisis: What are NATO spy planes doing to keep tabs on the Russians? - Sky News

Why has Russias President Vladimir Putin become so aggressive in his attitude to the US, NATO and Ukraine? In this article, I begin by examining the disintegration of the former Soviet Union and how it is still seen in the Kremlin as a great humiliation. Then I turn to the enlargement of NATO, and how Putin claims to see Ukraine and Russia as one people and why he is risking war. I conclude by sketching out how Putin sees opportunities in a friendship with China that has no limits and in which China opposes further enlargement of NATO and supports Russias proposals to create long-term, legally binding security guarantees in Europe.

I need to stress at the outset that by trying to understand Moscows hostile stance and the way it is currently threatening to use military force against Ukraine, I do not endorse Moscows belligerent attitude or the dictatorial role that Putin is playing in what is now a potentially very dangerous situation for peace in Europe and, indeed, globally.

If we are to attempt to understand why Russia is behaving in this potentially very dangerous manner, we need to begin by recalling what happened to the Soviet superpower as it collapsed in 1991 and how that calamity continues to affect current strategic thinking in Moscow. Putin recalls the Soviet collapse as a time when gross injustice was done to the Russian people: It was only when Crimea ended up as part of a different country that Russia realised that it had not been simply robbed, but plundered. The UK ambassador to Moscow from 1988 to 1992, Rodric Braithwaite, observes that the disintegration of the USSR at the end of 1991 was a moment of triumph for the West, but for the Russians it brought national humiliation, domestic chaos, great poverty, and even famine.

Former CIA director and US defence secretary Robert Gates recently stated that almost everything Putin does at home and abroad these days is rooted in the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, which for him marked the collapse of the four-century-old Russian Empire and Russias position as a great power. Gates remarks that Putins current actions however deplorable, are understandable. Since becoming president in 1999, Putin has been focused on returning Russia to its historical role as a major power and its historical policy of creating a buffer of subservient states on its peripherythe so-called near abroad.

Readers who wish to consult the definitive account of the USSRs collapse are strongly advised to read the just published authoritative book called Collapse: the fall of the Soviet Union by Vladislav Zubok, a professor of international history at the London School of Economics. Braithwaite describes it as a deeply informed account of how the Soviet Union fell apart and how we have once again come to the brink of a major armed stand-off between Russia and the West.

Zubok concludes that the speed and ease with which the Soviet central structures collapsed baffled even the most experienced Western observers. He believes Mikhail Gorbachevs leadership, character and beliefs constituted a major factor in the Soviet Unions self-destruction. His fumbling policies of reform generated total chaos that legitimised runaway separatism in the Baltics and, ultimately, in the core Slavic territories of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus.

In the summer of 1991, the expectation of a new Marshall Plan among the Soviet elites became almost universal. But many in Washington wanted to break up the Soviet Union for security reasons. Treasury secretary Nicholas Brady advised President George H.W. Bush that Americas strategic priority was to see the Soviets become a third-rate power, which is what we want. During the 1990s, Zubok claims that 7080% of Russians lived in poverty with the old Soviet social safety net gone and with rampant crime and mafia-like rule in most towns and regions.

Regarding the prospect of the incorporation of a democratising Russia into a larger Europe and NATO, the view was that the post-Soviet geopolitical space was too huge and unpredictable for integration within the Western orbit. The enlargement of NATO took place quickly, because the newly independent Baltic countries and Poland wanted to be free of the Russian military menace. Boris Yeltsin wanted Russia to join NATO, but the new US administration under Bill Clinton chose to offer Russia only a partnership with the alliance because the general view in Washington was that Russia was simply too big to fully belong to NATO.

Yeltsin warned that NATOs enlargement could lead to a new division in Europe. The US secretary of state, James Baker, reassured Gorbachev that NATO would not shift one inch eastward from its present position once it had safely taken in a reunited Germany. Those words were never recorded in any mutually agreed formula.

Neither was the issue of Crimea raised when the leaders of what became the new countries called the Russian Federation, Ukraine and Belarus, met in secret in the Viskuli hunting lodge near Minsk on 7 December 1991. It was there that they agreed to the dissolution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. According to Zuboks book, before Yeltsins departure from Moscow his adviser, Galina Starovoitova, suggested he offer the Ukrainian leadership an option of negotiated changes to the borders of Ukraine after a moratorium of three to five years. She was concerned about Crimea.

This option would have helped to placate Russian public opinion and leave open the possibility of settling the territorial issue according to international law. Yeltsin, however, didnt raise this issue in the Viskuli negotiations. The subsequent attitude of his state secretary, Gennady Burbulis, was that all this could be resolved by skilful diplomacy. And the rest, as they say, is history.

Turning now to the NATO issue, Braithwaites view is that, under relentless US pressure, NATOs borders have advanced until they are within spitting distance of Russia and Ukraine. That is how its seen in Moscow, but it is ridiculous in my opinion to suggest that current NATO members Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland present any realistic military threat to such a powerful country as todays Russia.

Putin, of course, takes an entirely different point of view. He believes that the Americans conspired to break up his country and encourage the creation of a separate country called Ukraine. We are now in a situation where the animosity between Moscow and Washington over NATOs future and the existence of an independent Ukraine has become central to the future of peace in Europe. As Gates observes, Putins embrace of the strategy of securing Russias near abroad is seen in his actions in Belarus, Moldova, Transnistria, Georgia, the 2020 ArmeniaAzerbaijan conflict, Kazakhstan and nowmost dramaticallyUkraine.

Putin regards Ukraine as a critical security risk for Moscowa dagger pointed at the Slavic heart of Russia. Gates believes that Putin has overplayed his hand on Ukraine because he finds himself in a situation where Russian success is defined as either a change of government in Kyivwith the successor regime bending the knee to Moscowor Russian conquest of the country. Resolving this serious threat peacefully is going to be an immense challenge to the resolve and unity of the Western alliance. Already, Germany is looking like a key weak link because of its dependence on Russia for half of its natural gas supplies.

Putin is proclaiming that Ukraines membership of NATO is a redline issue for Moscow and that he wants written guarantees from the US that Ukraine NATO membership will never be allowed. In July 2021, he allegedly wrote a 7,000-word article titled On the historical unity of Russians and Ukrainians. In it, he asserts that Russians and Ukrainians are one peoplea single whole. He argues that modern Ukraine is entirely the product of the Soviet era. We know and remember well that it was shapedfor a significant parton the lands of historical Russia. He goes on to claim that the US and EU countries systematically pushed Ukraine into a dangerous geopolitical game aimed at turning Ukraine into a barrier between Europe and Russia, a springboard against Russia.

Putin asserts that what he terms the formation of an ethnically pure Ukrainian state, aggressive towards Russia is comparable in its consequence to the use of weapons of mass destruction against us. He ominously concludes: And we will never allow our historical territories and people close to us living there to be used against Russia. And to those who will undertake such an attempt, I would like to say this way they will destroy their own country. So, in effect, there is Putins declaration of war if the US and NATO do not for ever ban Ukraine from NATO membership.

But there is a further potentially dangerous international complication. As I have argued in ASPI publications over the past two years or more, Russia and China are increasingly looking like a de facto alliance. Last week, Putin visited China and met with President Xi Jinping. In a joint statement, the two leaders agreed that friendship between their countries has no limits; there are no forbidden areas of cooperation.

The two sides specifically agreed to oppose further enlargement of NATO, and the Chinese side proclaimed that it supports the proposals put forward by the Russian Federation to create long-term legally binding security guarantees in Europe. This is Chinas most explicit support to date of Moscows confrontation with the West over NATO membership.

The joint statement of this meeting between the leaders of the worlds two major authoritarian powers includes serious concern about AUKUS and strongly condemns the decision to initiate cooperation in the field of nuclear-powered submarines. The statement marks an increasingly serious joint confrontation with the West. What we are witnessing now is Beijings encouragement of Moscows hostility against the US over NATO membership.

Xi will now be closely scrutinising how Washington reacts to Moscows military threats against Ukraine and the implications for Beijings military intimidation of Taiwan.

See the rest here:
Why Putin sees the US, NATO and Ukraine as a threat | The Strategist - The Strategist

Issued on: 04/02/2022 - 18:19Modified: 04/02/2022 - 18:22

With concern still high over a potential war between Russia and Ukraine, NATO's deputy secretary general spoke to FRANCE 24. Mircea Geoana told our Europe editor Catherine Nicholson: "NATO will not get involved militarily in Ukraine we support Ukraine in many other ways, individual allies support Ukraine.And in order to deter Russia from doing that ... is to really demonstrate to the leadership in the Kremlin that in a cost-benefit analysis, an additional military intervention in Ukraine is a net loss for Russia."

On the latest mobilisation of Russian troops and weapons in Ukraine and Belarus, Geoana described the movements as "suspicious and very unusual"."We are seeing a further mobilisation of Russian military presence in and around Ukraine, in Belarus, in a suspicious and very unusual way. Of course you do not know the real intentions of President Putin and what he will decide or not. But we are seeing with growing concern, further mobilisation of Russian presence in and around Ukraine," he said.

On Russian President Vladimir Putin's demand that NATO rule out Ukraine ever joining the military alliance, the deputy secretary general toldFRANCE 24: "Nobody says that Ukraine will join NATO any time soon. Ukraine has lots of things to reform domestically. And also we need NATO to have consensus today we don't have consensus for eventual membership of Ukraine into NATO. But having said that, no third party has a veto right on a decision that is sovereign of the country, and the organisation they want to join. So it's up to us."

Finally, after Moscow accused the United States of trying to incite a war by moving NATO troops "to Russia's doorstep", Geoana contested that it's Russia's own actions that have pushed NATO to deploy troops and weapons in the region: "NATO didn't have any military presence in the Eastern flank before 2014, after the illegal annexation of Crimea. [Russia] want to have Ukraine in their sphere of influence. What's the result of the continuous war in the Donbass and the annexation of Crimea and the threat today against Ukraine? Ten years ago, only 20 percentof Ukrainian people wanted to join NATO and the EU, today we have 60-something percent. So in a way we hope that Russia will realise that they get the opposite of their intentions."

Submit your views and put forward your ideas on the role of the EU in the world to the Conference on the Future of Europe.

Produced by Isabelle Romero, Sophie Samaille, Georgina Robertson and Perrine Desplats

See the original post here:
Talking Europe - NATO will not get involved militarily in Ukraine, says alliances deputy chief - FRANCE 24