Category Archives: NATO

The club of economic analysts of the Thai Bankers Association said Thailands economy could be affected in either of two scenarios.

In the first scenario, Russia invades Ukraine and retaliates against Nato member states by cutting off its gas supply to Europe 46 per cent of European gas needs are imported from Russia.

Such a situation would lead to a spike in the prices of natural gas, coal and oil both in Europe and globally. Many businesses in Europe would have to close because of lack of energy.

The club also sees the prices of precious minerals, such as palladium, platinum, aluminium, copper, nickel and iron rising sharply in that scenario.

The club said the Thai economy would be affected by rising oil prices, that would add financial burden to the fund to control diesel oil price. Thai businesses that have to import goods which require precious minerals would see costs shoot up.

Thailand imports Bt152 billion worth of goods that use precious minerals as raw materials each year, and Bt7.7 billion worth of such goods are imported from Russia.

In the second scenario, Nato and the US retaliate against Russia by suspending all kinds of transactions with it. They would stop providing credits and loans to Russian banks as well as remove Russian banks from the international transaction alliance or SWIFT code.

This would cause very high inflation in Russia and the Russian rouble would be greatly depreciated. The situation would affect stock and bond markets and global gross domestic product would contract by 5 per cent.

Thai-Russian bilateral trade totalling Bt88 billion Bt56 billion of imports from Russia and Bt32 billion exports would be affected, they said.

The club added that the export and import of vehicles, rubber products, machines, vegetables and fruit, and electric appliances would be affected. Fewer tourists from Russia would visit Thailand because of the economic slump in their country, the club added.

Go here to see the original:
Aggravation of Russian-Nato conflict will hit Thai economy hard - Nation Thailand

During the Arab Spring in 2011,protests eruptedin Libya as people demanded dictator Muammar Gaddafis removal. When he came to power in 1969, Ghaddafi was a charismatic yet eccentric and unpredictable leader who controlled Libya for 42 years. The West viewed his death in October 2011 as another victory for democracy in the Arab Spring, alongside the removal of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt. In reality, Gaddafis death was largely a result of foreign intervention rather than an indigenous uprising. NATO and its regional allies had astrong interestin Gaddafis removal, leading to a highly effective military campaign to end his regime.

On February 15, 2011, protests against repression and food shortages began in Benghazi. Two days later, Libya had its day of rage; a wave of protests erupted in cities around the country. Gaddafi responded by instructing the military to attack protestors. The protests continued, escalating into a full-scale insurgency, now known as the First Libyan Civil War.

Though fighting against Gaddafis regime, the rebel groups were often extremely violent and unpredictable. According to Amnesty International, Libyan rebel groups were responsible for numerous human rights violations, including ethnic cleansing and the systematic kidnapping and murdering of dark-skinned Libyan residents they claimed were pro-Gaddafi mercenaries from West Africa.Many Libyans interviewed during the time said they preferred living under Gaddafi than under the constant threat of rebel groups, as Gaddafis regime was at least predictable.

As the Civil War escalated, Al-Jazeera was responsible for the majority of international reporting on the conflict. Al-Jazeera, owned in part by the Qatari government, portrayed the conflict to the international community in a way that vilified Gaddafi while letting violent rebel forces off the hook. They published several articles that pushed accusations against Gaddafis forces, corroborated by little to no evidence. Italso reportedthat Gaddafi was using air power to attack protestors, a claim that both the US State Department and International Crisis Group later contradicted. Furthermore, Al-Jazeera reported that Gaddafis soldiers weregiven Viagraand ordered to systematically rape civilian and rebel women. An investigation by Amnesty Internationalcontradictedthis claim, concluding they found insufficient evidence to support it.

On March 17, the UNauthorizedNATO and its regional allies in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) to impose a no-fly zone over Libya. The resolution clearly stipulated that the operation should prioritize protecting civilian lives. It also authorized anarms embargoon belligerent forces and the freezing of all Libyan authoritys assets. The ensuing intervention campaign consisted of primarily French, American, British, and Qatari forces.

Despite the UNs clear parameters regarding foreign intervention in Libya, it was clear that NATO and the GCC weremore concernedwith removing Gaddafi than with protecting civilian lives. The strikes carried out by the US, Britain, and France all seemed to disregard the directive of keeping civilians safe, as they carried out attacks that often intentionally harmed Gaddafi loyalists. Furthermore, Britain, Italy, France, Jordan, Qatar, and the UAE lateradmittedto sending special forces into the region, even though it was not allowed under theUN resolution. Qatari special forces, many of which received secret training from the French, lateradmittedto having led much of the rebellion, advising and planning key battles in the fight against Gaddafi. Despite NATO and GCCs blatant disregard of the UN resolution, the international community still generally supported the intervention. They maintained that the intervention was a purely humanitarian mission, preventing any backlash or opposition from their own citizens.

After evading attack for many months, Gaddafi was eventually found in a drainpipe by a rebel group, captured,killed, and buriedin the desert in October 2011.

The West was far keener to assist in the Libyan uprising than any other country during the Arab Spring. While the NATO intervention claimed a humanitarian purpose, NATO failed to intervene in other countries, such as Syria, where protests were also met with brutal crackdowns. To understand the Wests involvement in the 2011 Libyan civil war, it is necessary to look at Gaddafis relationship with foreign powers throughout his time in power.

After coming to power, Gaddafi was extremely unfriendly and distrustful of the West. The West wanted access to Libyas vast oil reserves, but Gaddafis nationalist and protectionist stance made contracts unaccessible. As a result, Western powers were interested in removing the dictator from power. Throughout the1980s, the Reagan administration fabricated stories about Gaddafi to turn the American public and international actors against him, hoping to justify a coup or attack. Britain went so far as to cooperate and work with the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), a terrorist organization connected with Al-Qaeda, to weaken Gaddafis rule.

In the early 2000s, however, Gaddafi began to open Libyan oil markets to the West, striking deals with the US and various European Nations. As he thawed economic relations, the Wests relationship with Gaddafi shifted considerably. Gaddafi was seen in Paris and New York shaking hands with prime ministers and celebrities as he was given a warm welcome into their countries. The West now considered Libya a key ally in protecting its interests in both the Middle East and Africa. Libya became a priority market for European arms producers. In 2009 alone, these producers sold an estimated $500 million USD of German, French, British, and Italian arms to Libya. A raid of the regimes offices in 2011 uncovered a letter written in 2007 by Tony Blairthe Prime Minister of a country that had recently partnered with an Al-Qaeda cell to weaken Gaddafi to Gaddafi himself, fondly signed Best Wishes Yours Ever, Tony. The same year, Gaddafi allegedly financed Nicholas Sarkozys presidential campaign, dumping 50 million EUR to assist his victory in France.

The cooperative relationship was short-lived, as Gaddafis regime began to turn its back on its deals with the West. After signing concessions with Libya, ExxonMobil and Total both entered into agreements with unfavourable terms, in which they were forced to front billions of dollars to Gaddafis regime. In 2009, Gaddafi threatened to renationalize Libyan oil while giving a video conference lecture at Georgetown University. The regime extorted Italy, threatening to send mass numbers of migrants across the Mediterranean if they did not agree to invest $5 billion USD in Libya. They made oil concessions and deals with NATO adversaries Russia and China. Finally, in early February 2011, weeks before the uprising, the regime announced it would officially divest from British and American deals.

As the Libyan Civil War began, the West saw an opportunity to remove an erratic leader and finally secure access to Libyan oil. In an attempt to re-assert French presence in Africa, as well as his own political position, Sarkozy was caught using planes meant for humanitarian aid to transport executives from large oil firms like Total to meet with rebel groups and make deals. Britain similarlyadmitted to forming a Libyan Oil Cell to strategize obtaining access to Libyan oil. Italy and Qatar also tried to secure favourable standing with Libyas potential leaders, funding a Libyan interim government, the National Transition Committee (NTC).

The Arab Spring and following rebellion came at an opportune time for the West to dethrone Gaddafi, who, in addition to being an erratic, nationalist dictator, had now also betrayed the West and cost them millions of dollars. NATO, along with its regional allies, contributed to his removal using its military, political, and economic influence. NATO maintained that its intervention was purely humanitarian. In reality, NATO wanted to remove Gaddafi and finally access Libyan oil. Their mission was widely successful, as Gaddafis death is still seen as a victory of the Arab Spring rather than an example of illegal foreign intervention.

Featured Image: Muammar al-Gaddafi, 12th AU Summit by U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Jesse B. Awalt, licensed under CC0 1.0 Universal. No changes were made.

Edited by Ewan Halliday

Read this article:
NATO, Gaddafi, and the Arab Spring MIR - The McGill International Review

Matt Lehman| Opinion contributor

Americans, for good reason, have become wary of international military intervention, engaging in state building exercises that have shown little success. But it is too easy for us to think of Ukraine as another Iraq or Afghanistan to avoid.The current Ukrainian situation is not the same.

The United States has a duty to help Ukraine.We promised to guarantee the security of Ukraine in 1994 when its leaders gave up the worlds third-largest nuclear arsenal.Imagine for a moment how much risk they took in the name of a safer world. Americans should be proud of our military when it upholds our promises.

Ukraine is a democracy and Ukrainians are a free people.While the country is still a developing post-communist state with its own challenges, we are not imposing a foreign value system in a culture we dont understand.Since its independence in 1991, Ukraine has threatened no one. Ukraine does not harbor terrorists, nor does it cause security issues for its neighbors.Ukraines success, and its increasingly Western orientation, are exactly why Vladimir Putin sees it as a threat.

Putins regime is nothing more than a mafia gang pretending to be a legitimate government. He cynically deploys xenophobic tropes against "Ukrainians, Tatarsand Jews" to prop up his regime. He has destroyed any semblance of what we would understand as a free press or free practice of religion. His thugs poison and kill his enemies anywhere in the world. He will shoot down passenger airlines full of civilians if it serves his needs. He dabbles in anti-feminism and homophobia to distract his people from his own crimes. The truth is that Putin rules over a declining and aging population with limited economic opportunities as he and his cronieshoard billions of dollars. Destabilizing Ukraine is a useful prop in advancing his antidemocratic USSR delusion.

If our moral obligation to honor our promise to support free people is not enough, let us not forget that Putin controls the worlds second-largest nuclear arsenal. One day, Putin will die without having established any plan for a peaceful transfer of power.For our own safety, the U.S., with its NATO allies, must prepare for the near certain bloody struggle for power that will engulf Russia.

Ukrainians are not asking for U.S. boots on the ground. They are asking for our moral support and weapons to help them protect their homes and communities from unjust invasion. A recent poll has confirmed that only 3.7% of Ukrainians would flee in the event of war.They will stand and fight for their own independence.

There are moments in history when fundamental human values embodied by the United States and other Western democracies must take precedence over narrow and short-term economic issues. We have a clear choice: arm the Ukrainians and prepare severe sanctions on Russian oligarchs; or just give into Putins reality distorting propaganda and watch thousands lose their life fighting for the freedom we take for granted in the U.S.

Tragically, U.S. Rep. Thomas Massie seems to be siding with the Russian tyrant against our ally in tweets and statements that point toward the economic costs of supporting our ally and make false equivalencies between free Ukraine and the Russian dictatorship.

I support the Biden administration and the sensible Republican coalition working with him to ensure Americas leadership position in this crisis.I call on my fellow Americans to do the same.

Matt Lehman and his family live in Newport, Ky. They lived in Kyiv, Ukraine for five years. He is a candidate for Congress to represent Kentuckys 4th District.

Read more from the original source:
Opinion: US and NATO must stand with Ukraine - The Cincinnati Enquirer

As Russian troops continue to mass around Ukraine, the United States and many of its NATO allies have begun deploying combat troops, warships, and aircraft to Eastern Europe to reassure anxious member states bordering Ukraine and Belarus.

Washington has dispatched 3,000 airborne and mechanized infantry soldiers and a half-dozen F-15 fighters, while London is deploying more than 1,000 additional troops. An additional 8,500 U.S. troops remain on heightened alert status, meaning they could deploy on short notice, perhaps in event of Russian escalation in Ukraine.

Nonetheless, Washington and NATO leaders have emphasized the new troops would not be sent into Ukraine, neither preemptively nor in event of a Russian invasion. That is manifestly credible because the forces involved are relatively small, lack heavy armored vehicles, are widely dispersed, and dwarfed by the tens of thousands of troops Russia has arrayed in western Russia and Belarus.

Poland and the Baltic states are especially concerned with Moscows deployment to Belarus of 30,000 troops mostly from its faraway Eastern military District, along with advanced weapon including Iskander and S-400 missiles, and Su-35S fighters. Though conveniently positioned for an offensive on Kyiv, these forces are also on the borders of Poland, Lithuania and Latviacountries invaded by Moscow in 1939-1940. Currently, Russian battalions in Brest, Belarus (site of a border fortress Soviet troops captured from Poland in 1939) are just 110 miles east of Warsaw.

Further to the south, Romania and Bulgaria are alarmed by Russias large naval buildup on the Black Sea, and the possibility that neighboring Ukraine could become a Russian-occupied warzone. Putins recently issued demands that NATO withdraw all international troops from these countries are not well received either.

That said, two NATO members bordering Ukraine have not requested NATO deployments yet: Hungary (which has warmer relations with Moscow) and Slovakia.

This article outlines where additional NATO forces are deploying in response to Russias buildup around Ukraine, with additional commentary regarding the capabilities of U.S. forces. It also explains what NATO deployments were already present (rotated under the Enhanced Forward Presence policy) that were not there in response to Moscows most recent actions.

Poland

The 82nd is a legendary airborne infantry division based in Fort Bragg, North Carolina. Such light infantry units and their towed artillery can be rapidly airlifted across the globe, but are vulnerable to Russian-style mechanized forces due to lacking armored vehicles for mobility, protection and firepower.

Preexisting forces

Poland already hosts 4,500 U.S. troops (going on 5,500), plus a rotating multinational battalion of around 1,000 troops from Croatia, Romania, U.K. and U.S.

Germany

The XVIII Corps, also based at Fort Bragg, is the long-standing parent formation for U.S. rapid response divisions, notably the 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions, and the light infantry of the 10th Mountain Division. The 300 soldiers therefore will provide additional support to the troops from the 82nd, as well as likely prepare the ground in the event Washington decides to send more troops to Europe.

Romania

This 2nd Cavalry has been stationed in Vilseck, Germany since 2006. It disposes of three infantry and one scout squadrons (ie. battalions) all mounted on 18-ton Stryker 88 wheeled armored personnel carriers, as well as an engineer and field artillery squadrons and other support units.

Though more affordable to operate and easier to transport, the Stryker was criticized in the past for lacking the firepower to counter Russian mechanized forces. Recently, the Army has sought to address this shortcoming by integrating new turrets on some Strykers with 30-millimeter cannons (Stryker Dragoon) and Javelin missiles (CROWS-J). The 2nd Cavalry happens to have been the lead unit to test the up-gunned Stryker.

Preexisting NATO Deployment

Since 2017, theres been a 5,000-strong NATO Multinational Brigade Southeast based in Craiova, composed 80% of Romanian troops, but with international elements, especially from Poland and Bulgaria. Italy currently deploys four Eurofighters and 140 personnel for air policing; they are due to be relieved by German Eurofighters.

900 U.S. military personnel are based in Romania, including air cavalry and armored elements at Mikhail Kogalniceau Airbase, and USAF drone operators at Campia Turzii.

Russia-Romania relations have been poisoned by a frozen conflict in neighboring Moldova, formerly part of Romania. In the 1990s, Russias 14th Guards Army intervened to prop up a separatist republic on the east bank of the Dniester River called Transnistria. Some analysts Russian forces remaining there could be activated for military action in Ukraine.

Moscow, in turn, professes outrage at the U.S. Aegis Ashore missile defense system deployed in Deveselu in southwestern Romania, claiming its launchers could also fire offensive Tomahawk land-attack missiles.

Bulgaria

Like Romania, Bulgaria is another NATO state with a Black Sea coastline. Russias demands that NATO withdraw foreign troops from Romania and Bulgaria havent been appreciated.

A U.S. Air Force F-35A Lightning II fighter jet performs during the California International Airshow in Salinas, California, Oct. 30, 2021. The F-35A is a fifth-generation multi-role fighter platform. (U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Andrew D. Sarver)

Preexisting Forces

Bulgaria is presently hosting 200 U.S. mechanized troops for training through June.

The Baltics: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania

The Baltics have long been vulnerable to encompassing Russian forces in Kaliningrad, Belarus, and western Russia, so Moscows current military flex is raising alarm. NATO contingents rotated there would only serve as a speed bump or trip-wire against a serious Russian attack, serving to buy time and boost political will until more substantial forces could enter the theater.

U.S. Military

Fast and heavy-lifting, the two-seat F-15Es are capable ground-attack aircraft that can still carry their weight in an air superiority role. However, they are not stealth aircraft, so the Air Force would avoid dispatching these too deeply into airspace interdicted by Russias extensive air defense systems.

An F-15E flies watch over the skies of Afghanistan on July 30. The F-15 and crew are deployed to Bagram Air Field, Afghanistan, from Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho.

British military

London is reportedly planning dispatch of up to 1,200 British Army, Royal Marine, and Royal Air Force personnel to unspecified destinations in the Baltics.

Danish Military

Pre-existing Deployments

Estonia hosts a rotating multinational mechanized battlegroup of 900 personnel, currently including troops from Denmark, France, Iceland and the United Kingdom. Four Belgian F-16 jets are based there on air-policing duties.

Lithuania hosts a multinational mechanized battalion with 1,200 personnel, including troops from Belgium, the Czech Republic, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway; and a U.S. mechanized infantry battalion with 500 soldiers. Four Polish F-16 jets are based there for Baltic air policing.

Latvia also has a Canadian-led multinational battlegroup with 1,500 personnel.

The Black Sea

British Royal Navy

Spanish Navy

Russia is heavily reinforcing its formidable Black Sea Fleet with warships and amphibious landing craft from Russias Northern, Baltic and Pacific currently in transit via the Mediterranean. Despite Russias extensive maritime strike capabilities in the Black Seas confines, Spain, France and the United Kingdom have dispatched ships to patrol its international waters and surveil Russian military activity.

Far more powerful NATO forces cruise in the neighboring Mediterranean, including Italian, French, British and U.S. carrier strike groups, counting dozens of F-35B stealth jump jets, and Rafale-M and Super Hornet fighters.

NATO Advisors in Ukraine

Since 2014, several hundred NATO military advisors have been deployed to Ukraine to train and advise its military. U.S. and British troops are also instructing Ukrainian troops on use of recently transferred NLAW, Javelin and Stinger missiles.

These advisors are not equipped for serious combat, and would surely be instructed to avoid combat with Russian forces should they invade. However, they do enhance the proficiency of Ukraines armed forces, and should Russia attack Ukraine, some possibly might remain in country to advise and liaise with Ukraines military.

Summary

Moscow predictably has decried the deployments as destructive stepping stones to World War III. But NATOs recent deployments are meant for signaling, not to fight a Russian invasion of Ukraine. Thats not an assertion reliant on trusting Washington press releases, just observing material reality.

NATOs latest deployments lack the mass and heavy weapons to counter the hundreds of armored vehicles and heavy artillery and missile systems Russia has concentrated in the region. Even the heavier elements of NATOs preexisting Enhanced Forward Presence amount to roughly a half-dozen mechanized battalions, compared to the 70 to 100 Russian battalion tactical groups arrayed in Belarus and western Russia.

The deployments simply assure NATOs eastern members the alliance will put its troops on the line to protect them, particularly as Putin contemplates pulling the trigger on what could become the most destructive armed conflict in Europe since World War II.

Sbastien Roblin writes on the technical, historical, and political aspects of international security and conflict for publications including the 19FortyFive,The National Interest,NBC News,Forbes.com,andWar is Boring. He holds a Masters degree from Georgetown University and served with the Peace Corps in China. You can follow his articles on Twitter.

Original post:
Where NATO Forces Are Going In Response to Russia's Military Buildup Around Ukraine - 19FortyFive

U.S. Ambassador to NATO Julianne Smith said the U.S. and its allies are continuing to signal to Russia that they are ready to respond to an escalation, including by imposing "massive economic sanctions and consequences."

"We're looking at all options," she told CNBC's Hadley Gamble on Thursday.

In response to a question on whether sanctions are limited in their effectiveness, Smith said there isn't "any indication yet" that Russian President Vladimir Putin has decided what to do with the troops that he has deployed to the border with Ukraine.

"We're trying to sharpen the choice for President Putin as he weighs his options here," she added.

The growing military presence at the border has sparked fears of a war between Moscow and Kyiv. Negotiations with the U.S. and other Western powers have not yielded much progress, and the possibility of punishing sanctions has not pressured Russia into de-escalating the situation.

The former president of Ukraine,Petro Poroshenko, previously told CNBC that sanctions on Nord Stream 2 would make Russia weaker and discourage Putin from attacking. Nord Stream 2 is a pipeline project that would bypass Ukraine while carrying gas from Russia to Europe.

The Kremlin has denied it is planning to invade Ukraine, in what would be a repeat of its illegal annexationand occupation of Crimea in 2014.

Russian President Vladimir Putin is seen on a screen as he speaks during his annual press conference at the Moscow Manege on December 23, 2021, in Moscow, Russia.

Mikhail Svetlov | Getty Images News | Getty Images

Separately, Smith said that the decision to send 3,000 U.S. troops closer to Ukraine was made partly to reassure allies in the region and to serve as a deterrent.

Asked if that could be seen as provocative to Russia, she pointed out that the numbers differ greatly, estimating that around 127,000 troops are stationed around Ukraine's border.

"I really think we're comparing apples and oranges," she said, adding that U.S. troops are not going into Ukraine and will not be permanently moved to central and eastern Europe.

Read more here:
U.S. is weighing all options including 'massive' sanctions if Russia invades Ukraine, ambassador to NATO says - CNBC

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

Mayor Eric Adams: NYC will do its job on fighting crime, but we need help on a federal level11:58

John Elway says accusations in Flores suit 'false and defamatory'07:30

Steele: GOP rails against cancel culture, but censuring Cheney, Kinzinger is ultimate in cancel culture08:05

Speaker Pelosi urges Olympic athletes against protesting while in China04:45

Massive winter storm knocks out power, moves to Northeast01:50

Steve Rattner: Facebook under significant competitive pressure04:08

Now Playing

NATO Secretary General: NATO allies stand together in calling on Russia to de-escalate08:13

UP NEXT

U.S. adds 467,000 jobs in January03:56

U.S. raid in Syria took 'months of planning', says White House Middle East coordinator07:50

President Biden chooses Supreme Court nomination team03:32

Why Mike Pence is in a 'tough spot' politically11:53

Flores says he won't drop suit; fmr. Browns coach accuses team of incentivizing losing10:02

Trump considered blanket pardons for Jan. 6 rioters before leaving office05:49

A major counterterrorism win': U.S. forces kill ISIS leader in Syria raid12:14

Biden: U.S. military raid in Syria results in death of ISIS leader02:48

Memos show how Trump campaign sought to buy time to undo election results: NYT04:40

President Biden set to visit NYC as major crimes rise in city10:19

'A historic moment': Former Dolphins head coach files suit against NFL06:45

Trump doubles down on giving pardons to January 6 rioters05:08

State Department: We are 'clear-eyed about the stakes' with Putin07:30

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg joins Morning Joe to discuss the latest developments in Ukraine along with Russia and China opposing NATO expansion.Feb. 4, 2022

UP NEXT

Mayor Eric Adams: NYC will do its job on fighting crime, but we need help on a federal level11:58

John Elway says accusations in Flores suit 'false and defamatory'07:30

Steele: GOP rails against cancel culture, but censuring Cheney, Kinzinger is ultimate in cancel culture08:05

Speaker Pelosi urges Olympic athletes against protesting while in China04:45

Massive winter storm knocks out power, moves to Northeast01:50

Steve Rattner: Facebook under significant competitive pressure04:08

See the rest here:
NATO Secretary General: NATO allies stand together in calling on Russia to de-escalate - MSNBC

]]>

Over the past decade, Turkey has launched its defense industry into the space domain, in an attempt to match the fast-developing capabilities of its regional and global counterparts. The oft used term space race does not represent global industrial activities in the domain, but it does hint at the growing pressure for countries who previously were not involved in extra-terrestrial activities to catch up and participate. Turkeys goals include a plan for a hard landing of a domestically produced rocket on the moon by 2023, with a soft landing and rover launch by 2028, the construction of a Turkish space port, and plans to send a Turkish citizen to the ISS.

Madeline Wild, Associate Defense Analyst, comments: Turkeys ambitious aim to have launched a rocket that can reach the moon by 2023 reflects the overall nature of its space program. Rather than purely being necessitated by the desire for sovereign use and control of satellites, it revolves around the power and political superiority that headline grabbing achievements (such as reaching the moon) can bring. The introduction of Turkeys space program in 2021 came shortly after Turkeys longtime rival the UAE, announced that its space probe had entered Mars orbit. President Erdogans speech in February 2021, launched the Turkish space program and reinforced the geopolitical importance of the space program, much of which was rhetorically charged with ideas of domain leadership and the space race.

Last year NATO made space the fifth domain to be covered by the collective security principles set out in the organizations charter. Subsequently it is unsurprising that members such as Turkey are boosting their space programs, in order to fulfil their commitments in the event of any potential incident in this domain. This will have been noted by TUA, the Turkish Space Agency, but it will not be the desire to uphold NATOs collective security principle driving Turkish space development. Instead, Turkeys fractious relationship with certain NATO members will fuel the desire to become a regional leader in the domain.

Wild continues: In the Strategic Plan 2019-2023, Turkey set out its aims to produce and procure 75% of all goods domestically by 2023. In order to do so whilst still meeting its space related targets, Turkeys aerospace industry will have to rapidly upskill. Whilst Turkey will benefit from the fact that its domestic industry (namely state-owned company Rokestan) has already launched a sounding rocket, much of the current space activities are reliant on international cooperation. For example, US-based SpaceX is currently responsible for the launch of Turkish satellites, Trksat 5A being the most recent of these. Elon Musk and President Erdogan have had direct communication to discuss future cooperation and collaboration.

Turkey is also collaborating with Russia on space-based technology, a move which could heighten already tense relationships between NATO and the Black Sea state. Russia will help Turkey construct two launch platforms, one on land and one on sea. This forms part of a wider package of defense cooperation between the states, after the US denied the sale of the F-35 to Turkey, pushing President Erdogan further into the President Putins sphere of influence.

GlobalData is this websites parent business intelligence company.

View post:
Regional rivalries and Nato tensions defining Turkey's military space ambitions - Aerospace Technology

International concern about Russias provocative stance toward Ukraine continues, even as Russian President Vladimir Putin denies plans for an attack and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy cautioned on Jan. 28, 2022, against the idea that there is war here.

Putin has built up more than 100,000 troops along the Ukrainian border, and the U.S. is ready to deploy thousands of troops. The U.S. has also asked the United Kingdom and other NATO allies to deploy hundreds of soldiers to Eastern Europe.

Putin says he will stand down if NATO prohibits Ukraine from joining its alliance a demand that has been rejected.

Understanding NATO and its history with Ukraine offers insight into the weight of this ultimatum.

NATO is a military alliance established in 1949 by the United States, Canada, France, the United Kingdom, and eight other European countries. Additional countries have since joined NATO most recently North Macedonia in 2020. Thirty nations are now part of the organization.

NATOs 4,200 staff members and member country embassies are headquartered on the outskirts of Brussels.

The alliance works with the United Nations, and the two are sometimes confused including in my classroom, where I teach history of the Soviet Union and the Cold War.

But NATO does have some things in common with the U.N. Both are international organizations that participating countries financially support. Both are dominated by the political influence of Western powers, including the U.S.But the organizations are not the same. NATO is designed to fight war, if necessary, with its military alliance. The U.N. works to avoid war through peacekeeping, political negotiations and other means.

NATOs key, traditional principle is collective defense. This means an attack on one or more members is considered an attack on all members.

NATO has invoked the collective defense principle only once: immediately after the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, when it deployed European military planes to patrol U.S. skies.

But NATO has used other political and legal means to justify engagement in the Kosovo War in former Yugoslavia during the 1990s and in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars in the 2000s. The U.S. interprets NATOs military mandate broadly, for example, as the right to use force whenever its members interests are at stake.

NATO has long responded to Russian military threats and served as a bulwark to protect against potential Soviet aggression during the Cold War.

Countries could vote by consensus to respond with military force to protect members in the event of any eventual Russian attack on Ukraine. But this military force would not directly protect Ukraine under the collective defense principle, as is not yet a NATO member.

Ukraine has had a partnership with NATO since 1992. NATO established a Ukraine-NATO commission in 1997, providing a discussion forum for security concerns and as a way to further the NATO-Ukraine relationship without a formal membership agreement.

Membership with NATO would significantly increase Ukraines international military backing, allowing for NATO military action within Ukraine and alongside members of its military. This guarantee of military might would act as a firm deterrent to Russian aggression.

NATO is clear about the limits of its support to nonmember countries. While it has supported nonmember countries like Afghanistan during humanitarian emergencies, NATO does not commit to deploying troops to a nonmember state.

Membership would draw Ukraine more firmly toward Europe, making it more likely that Ukraine could join the European Union another policy goal for Ukraine. Membership would also help the country build a closer relationship with the U.S.

Joining the alliance would also pull Ukraine further away from Russias sphere of influence.

But regional tensions could be exacerbated if Ukraine becomes a NATO member, as Russia has said it would interpret the alliances expansion as a direct threat.

While Ukraine is making progress toward gaining NATO membership, it is unlikely to join NATO quickly, if at all.

All NATO members must unanimously approve a new country, based on factors like a functioning democracy and unresolved external territorial disputes, so the Russian troops camped on Ukraines border pose a problem.

NATO membership is open to any European country that can contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area. Aspiring member countries follow a Membership Action Plan, an application process that involves countries detailing their security and political policies. It can take a country 20 years to complete the plan and gain admittance, as in the case of North Macedonia.

Former Ukrainian president Leonid Kuchma publicly announced Ukraines interest in NATO membership in May 2002.

Ukraine then applied for a Membership Action Plan in 2008. This process stalled in 2010 under former President Viktor Yanukovich, a Putin-backed politician who did not want to pursue a NATO relationship.

Ukraine has more recently re-energized its plans to join NATO, especially in the face of the building Russia-Ukraine conflict and Russias annexation of Crimea in 2014.

In 2017, Ukraine adopted a constitutional amendment that committed itself to NATO membership.

Ukraine then adopted a National Security Strategy aimed at developing its NATO partnership in 2021.

The NATO application process has been dragging on for an indecently long time, Ukraine Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba said in September 2021.

[Over 140,000 readers rely on The Conversations newsletters to understand the world. Sign up today.]

An independent and sovereign Ukraine would support NATOs goal of Euro-Atlantic stability, even if Ukraine has expressed greater urgency than NATO to join the alliance.

But Ukraine joining NATO now would, quite simply, be a liability. The threat of an imminent conflict between Ukraine and Russia would commit NATO to take military action against Russia.

See the rest here:
What's NATO, and why does Ukraine want to join? - The Conversation AU

Nowhere is the credibility of the United States and its allies at greater risk than in the Baltic Sea region. NATOs Article 5 pledges the alliance to defend its members. Doing that for the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuaniathree thinly populated states squeezed between Russia, Belarus, and the Baltic Seais hard. Years of cost-cutting, timidity, and wishful thinking by NATO governments make it harder.

As the Russian military buildup around Ukraine raises fears of a broader East-West security crisis, NATO allies are hastening to bolster the Baltic states defenses while non-NATO members Sweden and Finland are tightening their ties with the alliance. In late January, U.S. Air Force F-15 fighters arrived in Estonia as part of a wide-ranging reassurance effort. At bases elsewhere in Europe and the United States, 8,500 U.S. military personnel are on heightened alert, ready to deploy to the region as part of NATOs 40,000-strong Response Force.

These moves, though desirable, are belated and insufficient. Regional security in the Baltic Sea has been a problem for much longer than the current standoff with Russia. Solving this requires more than a one-off, reactive deployment. With Ben Hodges, a former U.S. Army commander in Europe and now my colleague at the Center for European Policy Analysis, I have spent the past year deep in the weeds, looking at the problems of Baltic Sea regional security and how to fix them.

Nowhere is the credibility of the United States and its allies at greater risk than in the Baltic Sea region. NATOs Article 5 pledges the alliance to defend its members. Doing that for the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuaniathree thinly populated states squeezed between Russia, Belarus, and the Baltic Seais hard. Years of cost-cutting, timidity, and wishful thinking by NATO governments make it harder.

As the Russian military buildup around Ukraine raises fears of a broader East-West security crisis, NATO allies are hastening to bolster the Baltic states defenses while non-NATO members Sweden and Finland are tightening their ties with the alliance. In late January, U.S. Air Force F-15 fighters arrived in Estonia as part of a wide-ranging reassurance effort. At bases elsewhere in Europe and the United States, 8,500 U.S. military personnel are on heightened alert, ready to deploy to the region as part of NATOs 40,000-strong Response Force.

These moves, though desirable, are belated and insufficient. Regional security in the Baltic Sea has been a problem for much longer than the current standoff with Russia. Solving this requires more than a one-off, reactive deployment. With Ben Hodges, a former U.S. Army commander in Europe and now my colleague at the Center for European Policy Analysis, I have spent the past year deep in the weeds, looking at the problems of Baltic Sea regional security and how to fix them.

On the surface, everything looks fine. NATO allies have stationed so-called enhanced forward presence tripwire forces, roughly 1,000 troops strong, in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. These units obviously cannot withstand a Russian assault; they are there to make sure the Kremlin knows an attack on the Baltic states would also be an attack on other NATO members. In nearby Poland, the United States has a more substantial presence of 5,000 service members. The Baltic states and Poland play their part too: Their defense budgets exceed the minimum 2 percent of GDP mandated by NATO. These funds are spent wisely, including on modern weaponry that could at least slow, and thus help deter, a Russian attack.

Across the Baltic Sea, Sweden and Finland have also been boosting their spending. These two non-NATO countries have close military ties with each other as well as NATO. Neighboring Norway, though not a littoral state, is closely involved in Baltic Sea security through its logistical, intelligence, and military aviation capabilities. Denmark has upended its previous defense posture, which discounted any need for territorial and regional defense. Combined, Poland plus the Nordic countries and three Baltic states have a greater GDP than Russias. Their combined defense spending is around half of Russiasbut the Kremlin has global ambitions, such as space weapons, a blue-water navy, and a strategic nuclear arsenal.

The black hole in the regions security is Germany. Its size and location would add crucial heft, but the other countries around the Baltic Sea are privately mistrustful of decision-makers in Berlin. Germany has backed the two Nord Stream natural gas pipelines along the Baltic seabed. Other countries in the region see them as a grave threat, entrenching the Kremlins dominance of the regions energy supply. (In a countermove, Poland has just built a pipeline to Norway to secure another source of gas.) In the event of a Russian provocation, would Germany back deterrence or call for dialog and compromise? Germanys shilly-shallying over Ukraine, which included banning Estonia from donating some much-needed howitzers to the beleaguered Ukrainians, have intensified doubts. Last week, Latvian Defense Minister Artis Pabriks described Germanys approach as immoral and hypocritical.

Many think that NATOs presence in the region has gone far enough already. Russian President Vladimir Putin has demanded NATO withdraw all outside forces from the region and commit to Sweden and Finland never being allowed to join.

Yet below the surface, the regions defense and security arrangements, far from threatening Russia, look troublingly flimsy. In our Center for European Policy Analysis report, we identified more than a dozen serious problems. It starts with the Wests attitude to Russia. Politicians and decision-makers in the region still have radically different threat assessments. The Baltic states have been sounding the alarm since the 1990s. Other countries are much later to the party and more cautious in what they sayand thats before you get to the huge problem of Germany.

These differing threat assessments and political approaches are obstacles to everything else. Intelligence collection and sharing are hampered by the gulf between NATO and non-NATO members. Washington jealously guards its best intelligencefor example, anything involving Russian submarines. Even within NATO, there are inner and outer circles. For example, there is the British-U.S. intelligence-sharing agreement, which also includes the other so-called Five Eyes: Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Military mobilitythe vital business of moving large numbers of troops and equipmentis patchy too. There is no common maritime strategy, though control of the Baltic Sea in a crisis will determine what happens on land. Systems to defend ground targets against air and missile attacks are costly. No country in the region has enough of these defensive systems, and some have none. NATOs small air policing deploymenttypically just four warplanes based in Estonia or Lithuaniais there to deal with peacetime problems, such as airspace intrusions, not to fight off the Russian Air Force.

The command structure is like a bowl of spaghetti. Each country guards its national decision-making jealously. Although the Baltic states are one small operational area in military terms, they have three national headquarters, each commanding pint-sized forces. NATO has two divisional and one corps headquarters, with Estonian and Latvian forces under a Danish headquarters that is based partly in Denmark and partly based in Latvia. The two other headquarters are in Poland. Further up the hierarchy, NATOs main land forces headquarters is in the Netherlandsbut splits taking charge on a six-month rotating basis with its naval counterpart in Naples, Italy. Behind all that is the regional U.S. headquarters in Poland and its main headquarters for Europe in Virginia. Somewhere else are the Brits with their Joint Expeditionary Forcea 10-nation military framework for rapid deploymentand the Germany-based Joint Support and Enabling Command, which is meant to ensure that the right forces are in the right place at the right time. Confused yet? And I havent even mentioned the five-nation Nordic Defence Cooperation framework, the French-led European Intervention Initiative, and, of course, the European Unions own nascent defense efforts: battle groups that mainly exist on paper.

The assumption is that in a crisis, this spaghetti will spontaneously straighten under the pressure of events and thanks to U.S. leadership. It would be good to test that assumption with realistic, hard exercises where decision-makers can practice surmounting the bureaucratic and physical obstacles hampering effectiveness in real time. Current exercises in the region are too small, too well scripted, and too devoid of complexity. Planners are given many months to ensure that everything goes smoothly. All too often, the highlight is a distinguished visitor day closer to a theatrical performance than a training event, where participants identify problems by experiencing them.

NATO exercises used to be different: harder, bigger, and costlier. In Cold War West Germany, for example, British and U.S. tanks would thunder across farmland, crushing hedges and ruining crops. A jeep would follow behind with an officer bearing cash and checks to compensate farmers for their losses. Road closures were common, as were bouts of deafening nighttime noise. Such inconveniences and costs are the price of securityand of freedom. Nowadays, civilian life takes precedence. That reflects a much deeper issue: Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, NATO has been an organization designed for peace, not war. That was a defensibleif optimisticassumption in the 1990s. It is dangerously outdated now.

All of these issues involving NATO and the Baltic littoral states are coming to a head in the current standoff with Russia. Putins proposed veto on enlarging NATO any further directly infringes on the sovereignty and security of Finland and Sweden, which have for years maintained that though they do not wish to join the alliance right now, they have the right to apply should they choose to. Russias growing military presence in Belarus highlights the vulnerability of the Suwalki corridor, the thin neck of land connecting the Baltic states and Poland. Putins threat to respond to NATO with military-technical measures could easily involve the deployment of medium-range missiles, perhaps even nuclear-armed weapons, in Russias Kaliningrad exclave. Russian cyberattacks and sub-threshold warfare are already evident; Sweden, for example, is worried by mysterious drone flights.

How can NATOs problems in the Baltic region be fixed? One of the easier steps would be to align the regions security objectives by compiling and publishing a common threat assessment. An unclassified version would boost public awareness. The classified version would form the basis for military planning, exercises, and budgeting. For more than 20 years, Estonias counterintelligence service has published a hard-hitting annual report about Russian subversion and other threats. Although this may give the Kremlin clues about sources, methods, and targeting, the benefits in terms of deterrence, political will, and societal resilience are much greater.

This highlights our next recommendation: fostering a public security culture that increases not only military resistance but also economic, social, and political resilience. Finland is the standout example of this, with military conscription, extensive training for civilian decision-makers, counter-disinformation training in schools, and regular exercises.

The tripwire forces in the Baltic states are currently hostagesa reminder to the Kremlin that an attack on what Russian hard-liners regard as renegade provinces would also mean tangling with Britain, France, and Germany. These deployments need to be on a war-fighting footing. It is therefore time to plug the gaping holes in air and missile defense as well as intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities. Some of these are expensive, and the countries that need them most cannot afford them. Rich countries that are farther from the front line should pay to have them where they matter most. Proper intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilitieswhich combine drone, sensor, and satellite capabilities with modern computing powercreate an unblinking eye that can look deep inside Russia, identifying what Kremlin forces are doing long before a crisis actually develops. Rewriting the rules on data-sharing with non-NATO members Sweden and Finland would maximize the usefulness of these insights.

NATO needs to change too, writing a new strategic conceptin essence, the alliances manifestoto more clearly stress defense against and deterrence of a Russian attack in the region. The European Unions fumbling efforts to codify its approach to common security and defense policy need clear language on military preparedness and its willingness to use force in response to aggression.

Decision-making needs streamlining. It is the United States that makes the NATO security guarantee fully credible. It therefore makes sense for the senior U.S. officer on the continentthe Supreme Allied Commander Europe, known as SACEURto have the political preauthorization they need to issue orders in circumstances short of war. By the time the North Atlantic Council, NATOs political body, has met, been briefed, deliberated, ironed out potentially dissenting views from countries such as Hungary, and reached a decision, it could be too late. A lightning attack by Russian forces, likely following a period of intense, artificially created confusion, could reach the Baltic Sea or cut the Suwalki corridor in a matter of hours.

Above all, NATO needs exercises. The best way to increase the internal and external credibility of defense is to practice using difficult scenarios in real time. These must include surprises, disruptions, escalations, and hard decision-making, with advanced technology at the forefront. A good result of these exercises would be if they produced numerous embarrassments. For example, a Polish exercise last year, despite making generous assumptions about their access to advanced weaponry, ended with Polish forces being slaughtered in five days and the Russians poised to take Warsaw.

That caused a furor in Polandbut the brickbats should have been bouquets. Nobody in Polandor, for that matter, anyone else involved in the regions securitywould claim privately that defenses against Russia are adequate. For everyone living around the Baltic Sea, it will be better to find their shortcomings early and fix them than to wait until the enemy is at the gates.

Read the original post:
NATO Is Dangerously Exposed in the Baltic - Foreign Policy

BRUSSELS The confrontation between Russia and the United States over Ukraine deepened on Wednesday, as leaked documents confirmed the U.S. and NATO rejection of key Russian security demands, while the Biden administration ordered 3,000 additional troops into Eastern Europe.

Although the leaked documents showed the United States had offered to provide more transparency about missile deployments in Eastern Europe, the basic message to Moscow was American and NATO resolve not to bow to Russian demands, in a dispute that has pushed relations to their worst since the Soviet era.

The broad outlines of the U.S. and NATO written replies to the Kremlin had already been known and President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia said Tuesday that Moscows demands had basically been ignored, even as he said his government was still analyzing the responses.

But the publication of those answers provided additional detail and reinforced the obstacles to a resolution, as fears escalated in the West about the large Russian troop buildup surrounding Ukraine.

Even as diplomacy aimed at defusing the crisis intensified on Wednesday, the responses, delivered to the Kremlin last week, underscored the pressure on Mr. Putin to decide whether to go to war over demands the West has rejected or to take up the opportunity to negotiate arms control agreements offered by the West. He said on Tuesday that the United States was trying to goad Russia into war.

The American and NATO replies to Russia were obtained and published by El Pas, the Spanish daily, and confirmed by John F. Kirby, the Pentagon press secretary.

I note that in the past few hours a proposal made by the United States leaked to a European news outlet, Mr. Kirby said. We did not make this document public, but now that it is, it confirms to the entire world what weve been saying.

President Bidens new troop deployment order appeared aimed at reinforcing the message that the United States and its 29 NATO partners were unified in their resolve, and at reassuring NATO members closer to the Russian border.

The troops, including 1,000 already in Germany, will head to NATO members Poland and Romania, Mr. Kirby, said, though there remains no intention of sending troops into Ukraine. He said the deployment was meant to be temporary.

We are making it clear that we are going to be prepared to defend our NATO allies if it comes to that, Mr. Kirby said.

Jen Psaki, the White House press secretary, said in explaining the deployment that there was no question that Russia and President Putin has continued to take escalatory, not de-escalatory steps.

The initial response from Moscow was negative. The unfounded destructive steps will only fuel military tensions and narrow the field for political decisions, Aleksandr V. Grushko, a deputy foreign minister, was quoted as saying by the Interfax news agency.

The developments came as top European leaders pushed a diplomatic outreach to Mr. Putin. Prime Minister Boris Johnson of Britain spoke with him by phone, and Mr. Johnsons office said they had agreed on the need for a peaceful resolution and that aggravation was in no ones interest.

President Emmanuel Macron of France, who has spoken with Mr. Putin at least twice in the past week, spoke with Mr. Biden later Wednesday. In a readout of their phone call, the French presidency said the two leaders had shared the same logic of de-escalation. Mr. Macron is scheduled to talk with the leaders of Russia, Ukraine and Poland on Thursday.

Olaf Scholz, Germanys new chancellor, told the German broadcaster ZDF that he planned to meet with Mr. Putin soon but did not specify a date.

Moscow issued its security demands in mid-December, as the West sounded alarms about a potential invasion of Ukraine. Among the most contentious were Russias insistence that Ukraine, a former Soviet republic of 44 million, never be allowed to join NATO, and that the West scale back its military presence in Eastern Europe to mid-1990s levels.

Mr. Putin wants to expand Moscows sphere of influence to something resembling the one it had before the Soviet Unions collapse 30 years ago. He has described the possibility of Ukraine joining NATO as a threat not just to Russia, but to world peace.

If Ukraine were to align itself fully with the West and acquire NATO weapons, he suggested on Tuesday, it might go to war to recapture Crimea which Russia seized in 2014, a move unrecognized by the international community. That, he said, could lead to war between Russia and the NATO bloc.

Feb. 3, 2022, 2:31 p.m. ET

Mr. Putin, whose renewed troop buildup along Ukraines borders led to the current crisis, has regularly expressed concern that NATOs Aegis missile-defense systems in Romania and Poland could also fire offensive Tomahawk cruise missiles at Russia. NATO and Washington insist that the systems are only defensive and are not aimed not at Russia but at other possible adversaries, like Iran.

In its response, the Biden administration proposes a reciprocal transparency mechanism under which Russia could verify the absence of offensive missiles at the sites in Romania and Poland, while the United States would do the same at two missile-launching bases of its choice in Russian territory; one would likely be in Kaliningrad, the slice of Russia bordering two NATO members, Lithuania and Poland.

Moscow has stationed intermediate-range missiles in Kaliningrad that can carry conventional and nuclear warheads, one reason the United States and its allies abandoned the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, known as the I.N.F. Treaty, in 2019.

Ukraines foreign minister, Dmytro Kuleba, endorsed on Wednesday another U.S. proposal to help defuse the crisis: an assurance that it would not deploy offensive missiles or permanently base ground troops in Ukraine. The proposal was presented to Russia as contingent on consultations with the Ukrainian government.

The United States and its NATO allies say they have no combat troops or missiles in Ukraine, and no intention of deploying offensive military capabilities there. They have also made clear that they would not wage war against Russia to defend Ukraine, which is not covered by NATOs commitment to collective defense.

Ominous warnings. Russia called the strike a destabilizing act that violated the cease-fire agreement, raising fears of a new intervention in Ukraine that could draw the United States and Europe into a new phase of the conflict.

The Kremlins position. President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, who has increasingly portrayed NATOs eastward expansion as an existential threat to his country, said that Moscows military buildupwas a response to Ukraines deepening partnership with the alliance.

NATO promised in 2008 that Ukraine and Georgia could one day join the alliance, though it appears no closer to happening now than it did then. The pledge infuriated Mr. Putin, who was already incensed that NATO had added the former Soviet Baltic republics and former Soviet satellites like Poland.

The Russian president has been trying ever since to ensure NATOs door remains shut, including to Finland and Sweden.

The offer to rule out future U.S. deployments in Ukraine addressed a concern Mr. Putin has raised repeatedly: that if Ukraine were to join the alliance, missiles deployed there could reach Moscow in mere minutes.

But it was not a clear-cut concession to Russia. The proposal called for reciprocal commitments by both Russia and the United States to refrain from deploying missiles or troops in Ukraine. Not only has Russia annexed Crimea, it also backs a separatist insurgency that holds a slice of eastern Ukraine.

I would like to note that while the United States has neither missiles nor combat units in Ukraine, Russia has both, Mr. Kuleba said in a video call with foreign journalists. And if this proposal is accepted on a reciprocal basis, that will imply that Russia has to withdraw. So, no, we have no objections.

Mr. Kuleba said he remained hopeful, in part simply because the diplomacy was continuing despite warnings from Western governments, starting months ago, that an intervention could begin in December or January, and now we are at the beginning of February.

In the leaked documents, the United States also proposed negotiations with Moscow on other arms-control measures, announced publicly in Washington in the past. They include a treaty to replace the current New START accord limiting intercontinental-range missiles, and talks to enhance transparency on military exercises and reduce the risk of accidental conflict.

The United States is also prepared to discuss another Russian concern, known as the indivisibility of security the idea that a nation may not seek to increase its security at the expense of anothers.

But Washington rejected any restraint on the rights of any sovereign country to choose or change its security arrangements, including treaties of alliance.

Both Washington and NATO also rejected the Russian demand that they negotiate separate treaties with Moscow that would require them to remove all troops and equipment from NATO member countries that border Russia, including Poland and the Baltic States.

Washington insisted that NATOs enhanced forward battalions in Poland and the Baltic countries, established after Russia annexed Crimea and supported separatists in eastern Ukraine, were not permanent, since they rotate. It said those deployments, totaling 5,000 troops, did not constitute substantial combat forces, in accordance with a 1997 agreement between NATO and Russia.

Instead, the documents say that any more Russian buildup or aggression aimed at Ukraine will force the United States and our Allies to strengthen our defensive posture.

The documents that the United States and NATO provided to Moscow are relatively general in tone and do not attempt to draft treaty language. Instead, they set out for Russia where the United States and NATO are prepared to engage in negotiations once Russia de-escalates around Ukraine.

El Pas did not describe how it obtained the documents; the Kremlin spokesman, Dmitri S. Peskov, said on Wednesday that Russian authorities had not released them.

Steven Erlanger reported from Brussels and Andrew E. Kramer from Kyiv, Ukraine. Michael Crowley, Helene Cooper, Eric Schmitt and Zolan Kanno-Youngs contributed reporting from Washington, Roger Cohen from Paris, Shashank Bengali and Marc Santora from London, and Rick Gladstone from New York.

Go here to see the original:
U.S. and NATO Don't Budge in Answering Russian Demands - The New York Times