Category Archives: NATO

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has been considered the main political and military forum to discuss security issues across the Atlantic since its creation in 1949. However, as the United States and EU member states advance in their quest for economic security, a key question for transatlantic policymakers to consider is whether NATO provides a potential space to address geoeconomic issues. This commentary analyzes instances in which NATO has previously tackled economic security and evaluates how NATO allies view the prospect of the alliance widening its focus from traditional defense and deterrence to hybrid threats such as supply chain disruptions or economic coercion.

In April 2007, Estonia faced denial-of-service cyberattacks on public and private servers for 22 days. The operation affected Estonias digital economy by blocking online banking operations and financial transactions, as well as by disrupting government websites and public services. The attackers were from Russia, raising suspicions of Kremlin backing. This possibility could have led to NATO triggering Article 5, the clause of collective defense, where an attack against one represents an attack against all. However, that never materialized due to the lack of evidence against Russias direct involvement and because it was one of the first instances of a large cyberattack against a nation-state, making it difficult for NATO allies to consider it a full-scale attack that would trigger Article 5. Nevertheless, this instance encouraged the alliance to reflect on the nature of unconventional warfare, prompting NATO to establish the NATO Cooperative Cyber Defense Centre of Excellence in Tallinn a year later. In 2014, for the first time, NATO acknowledged cyberattacks as part of Article 5 in the Wales Summit Declaration.

The securitization of supply chains during recent years has pushed NATO allies to reconsider what constitutes an existential risk. In December 2021, Lithuania was subjected to sanctions by China for allowing the opening of a Taiwan Representative Office in Vilnius. Not only Lithuania was impacted by this. Other European firms, like the German company Continental, faced uncleared customs in their Chinese operations. NATO then introduced the topic of economic coercion for the first time in the NATO 2022 Strategic Concept, stating that Beijing uses its economic leverage to create strategic dependencies and enhance its influence. Chinas use of economic coercion in the context of Lithuania was further condemned in the 2023 Vilnius Summit Communiqu, which NATO member states released during the annual summit.

However, NATO did not develop a tool similar to the European Unions anti-coercion instrument and did not trigger Article 5. The reason for this is very similar to that behind cyberattacks: NATO currently does not consider economic coercion as an attack on ones territory, showing that NATOs role is still limited to defense and deterrence, which could prove to be a shortcoming amid escalating hybrid warfare tactics. Additionally, in the same way the European Union has struggled to effectively substitute NATOs role as defense guarantor, the civilian and economic side of security has usually fallen into the formers field of action, leaving economic security outside of NATOs purview. Nevertheless, the acknowledgement of economic coercion demonstrates potential for the alliance to address, albeit in a limited manner, how economic security interacts with NATOs values and interests.

China and the Indo-Pacific are no longer new topics for NATO. This echoes the fact that, in contrast to past understandings, the European Union agrees that Chinas economic dependencies constitute a security threat, resulting in a more proactive stance against Chinese economic statecraft practices. Since 2019, China has become a systemic rival for European countries, and Italy has recently pulled out of the Belt and Road Initiative, for example.

In fall 2023, China retaliated against the U.S. controls on semiconductors by restricting exports of gallium, germanium, graphite, and rare earth processing technologies. These minerals are key for developing defense capabilities in the infrastructure, aerospace, automotive, industrial machinery, and electronics industries, all of which are critical for NATOs missionand China has strong leverage over them. Such dependency begs the question of whether NATO could lay the groundwork for a supply chain resiliency group on topics like critical minerals. Such a workforce could be led by the Defence Investment Division and cochaired with other relevant NATO bodies, similar to the White Houses Council on Supply Chain Resilience. This effort would identify critical supply chains for defense capabilities that would be disrupted if China deployed economic coercion, as well as establish an early-warning mechanism for this purpose.

It is increasingly difficult to separate NATO from geoeconomic risk calculations. However, discussing China still remains controversial within NATO. During the writing of the Vilnius Summit Communiqu, Germany and France were vocal against opening a NATO office in Japan, perceiving it as outside of the alliances mission. These countries are pushing for stronger European strategic autonomy and have been advocating for a close-knit and clear limitation of NATOs role that rests only at the Euro-Atlantic level.

NATO has previously supported efforts to foster investment between its allies in deep tech and critical dual-use technologies through joint procurement. To meet the growing demands of an increasingly advanced industrial defense ecosystem lacking sufficient investment, the alliance launched the Defence Innovation Accelerator for the North Atlantic and the NATO Innovation Fund (NIF) in 2023. This can be seen as the promote pillar of the respective approaches of the United States and European Union. Barely a month after its accession, Sweden has already joined the NIF as a limited partner, showing the relevance of these initiatives in advancing NATOs mission.

Every NATO defense ministry has a close relationship with private contractors and companies due to the need for public-private collaboration in defense procurement. Initiatives like the NATO-Industry Forum have tried to standardize government-industry collaboration across the alliance and push forward projects like NATOs Defence Production Action Plan.

NATO can play an important role in fostering a stronger European industrial landscape in defense procurement. NATO can serve as the prime contractor in a market where European countries have mostly relied on respective national firmsFrance with Thales, Italy with Leonardo, and Spain with Indra, among others. NATO is well positioned to promote both cross-industrial and cross-country procurement, as well as to cooperate with respective initiatives from the European Union and other external partners, including the United States, Japan, and others.

Apart from the supply chain resiliency group and early-warning mechanisms, NATO allies could commit to a fund to stockpile key critical minerals. Such a fund would prevent supply chains for projects on military mobility like railways from being disrupted or boycotted. As the United States and the European Union continue to release their respective lists of emerging technologies and critical minerals, NATO could help in standardizing and narrowing down these lists between allies. Government-industry relations will remain fundamental to the alliances quest for economic security. For example, the organization of military-industry red gaming and simulation exercises on economic disruption and coercion could provide useful insights in securing defense-related supply chains.

The debate about creating an economic NATO has been raised by policymakers, including former British prime minister Liz Truss. However, in terms of existing governance architectures, the G7 is largely considered the closest to what an economic NATO would look like. Economic security was a primary topic of discussion during last years summit in Hiroshima, and many member states responded by strengthening their domestic strategies. As all G7 allies except Japan are also in NATO, their priorities are broadly interconnected. However, the G7 may have some blind spots in covering economic security with a specific transatlantic lens.

Despite its controversial stances and its ambiguous position on Russia, Turkey is one of NATOs key partners due to its military size as well as its strategic position on the Black Sea and the Bosphorus Strait. When Russia decided to weaponize the commerce of grain in exchange for concessions with Ukraine, Turkey negotiated the Black Sea Grain Initiative, allowing such trade to continue for a while. As critical NATO allies like Turkey are not in the G7, the G7 would struggle to understand the full picture of NATOs supply chains and its geostrategic chokeholds from the Baltic to the Black Sea. This is why NATO should, with or without the G7, try to develop its own transatlantic vision on economic security.

In terms of new forums that could operate as an economic NATO, past regional ministerial meetings like the U.S.-EU Trade and Technology Council or the U.S.-Japan-Korea Camp David trilateral summit could produce a more cohesive approach to economic security. Another potential option would be a new multilateral export control regime meant to replace the Wassenaar Arrangement that includes targeted efforts to scale up defense and dual-use technology. As the World Trade Organization (WTO) is increasingly politicized and institutionally broken, the outcomes seem more limited, as shown in its 13th Ministerial Conference (MC13) in Dubai. This demonstrates that the WTO cannot be redesigned to arbitrate matters that interact with national security. However, in a moment when economic security is fast becoming omnipresent, international partners must determine where to house discussions that intersect with trade, technology, and national security.

The same way that cyberattacks were not originally seen as part of NATOs Article 5, NATO allies do not yet seem to have a clear stance on economic coercion and Chinas economic dependencies. Whether NATO should take on a greater role in economic security remains to be seen, particularly since economic security issues do not fall squarely within the mandate of NATO. It is likely that serious disagreements among NATO allies would surface, particularly regarding decisions on when to invoke an economic security instrument. NATOs Article 5 has only been raised once, after 9/11, and it requires the consensus of all its membersexpanding its application to economic coercion may turn it into a more ineffective and diffused deterrent.

However, given the increasing prominence of economic security concerns in global affairs, supply chain security initiatives and broader economic security efforts are not something NATO can ignore. NATO should begin to consider economic security and supply chain security initiatives as critical for maintaining hard security capabilities. Even if NATO does not become a broader economic NATO, it can still play a vital role in pushing for common efforts to monitor supply chain vulnerability, enhance public-private cooperation, and reduce the bite of potential retaliatory measures from competitors.

Emily Benson is the director of the Project on Trade and Technology and a senior fellow with the Scholl Chair in International Business at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, D.C. Pau Alvarez-Aragones is an intern with the Project on Trade and Technology at CSIS.

The authors would like to extend their sincere gratitude to Catharine Mouradian for her valuable insights during the research process.

Read this article:
NATO and Economic Security: A Political Oxymoron or Inevitability? - CSIS | Center for Strategic and International Studies

Watch the full event

Right now, NATOs Steadfast Defender 2024 military exercise is taking place across Europe and at sea.

The effort, the largest the Alliance has undertaken since the Cold War, is not just a demonstration of the transatlantic bond; it is also NATOs opportunity to rigorously test its defense and deterrence strategy, said General Christopher Cavoli, supreme allied commander Europe (SACEUR) and commander of US European Command.

Cavoli spoke at a May 7 Atlantic Council Front Page event, which was part of the Forward Defense programs Commanders Series (in partnership with Saab) and of the Transatlantic Security Initiatives programming organized in advance of the NATO Summit in Washington.

The general went on to say that NATOs 2020 defense and deterrence strategy is part of an effort to conduct a wholesale modernization of NATOs collective defense to respond to todays security challenges.

We had previously been optimized for a very different task, he said. Cavoli explained that after the Cold War, NATO pivoted toward conducting crisis-management missions well beyond its borders that allowed the Alliance to participate in missions on its own terms and on a predictable schedule.

But all that has changed, Cavoli said, pointing to Russias war in Ukraine. It is happening all the time, 24/7, [with] no respite for more than two years.

The war has shown that today, you either win up front, fast, and big, or youre in a long fight. So . . . win up front but be ready to win long, he said.

Below are more highlights from the event, where Cavoli touched upon NATOs plans to modernize its defenses and the intensifying threats to the Alliance.

Katherine Walla is an associate director on the editorial team at the Atlantic Council.

Image: General Christopher Cavoli speaks at the Atlantic Council on May 7, 2024.

Go here to see the original:
NATO must 'win up front but be ready to win long' in modern warfare, says General Christopher Cavoli - Atlantic Council

NATO allies are inching closer to sending military trainers into Ukraine. The move could draw the U.S. and Europe more directly into the war with Russia.

Ukrainian officials have asked their U.S. and NATO counterparts to help train 150,000 new recruits closer to the front line for faster deployment. So far the U.S. has been adamant that it will not put U.S. troops on the ground in Ukraine, and has urged NATO allies not to do so either.

But yesterday, Gen. Charles Brown, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that a NATO deployment of trainers seemed inevitable. Well get there eventually, over time, he told reporters.

For now, the general said, such a move would put NATO trainers at risk and would most likely mean deciding whether to use precious air defenses to protect the trainers instead of critical Ukrainian infrastructure near the battlefield. Any attack on the trainers would force the U.S. to honor its NATO obligations, dragging it into the war.

At the front: Ukraines position has worsened as Russia has stepped up attacks, in particular in the northeast. Yesterday, President Volodymyr Zelensky traveled to the Kharkiv region and acknowledged that the situation there remains extremely difficult. We are strengthening our units, he added.

Russia: As he intensifies his war effort, President Vladimir Putin called for stronger economic ties between Russia and China at a summit in Beijing with Xi Jinping, Chinas leader.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit andlog intoyour Times account, orsubscribefor all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?Log in.

Want all of The Times?Subscribe.

More:
Friday Briefing: NATO Considers Sending Trainers to Ukraine - The New York Times

This July, Washington, DC will host the NATO summit, marking the Alliances diamond jubilee. This summers summit comes at a critical juncture as for the first time since the end of World War II, a major power is committing aggression in Europe. Putins war on Ukraine not only seeks the subjugation of Ukraine but is also part of the Kremlins revisionist agenda, which threatens all of Ukraines neighbors and is designed to undermine the NATO Alliance and the values of democracy and transatlantic security that the Alliance protects.

Last summer in Vilnius, the NATO summit delivered a vague promise to invite Ukraine to join NATO when allies agree and conditions are met. The year since has been marked by enduring and increased violence by Russia in Ukraine and directed moves by the Kremlin to destabilize international financial and food systems and engage in influence campaigns to challenge the democratic world, all while the United States stalled on providing Ukraine with critical aid until just last month.

Russias aggressive policy, most evident in its savage war on Ukraine, is a grave threat to US and European security and prosperity. Ukraine is at the front lines of the defense of Europe.Long-term US and Allied security require a secure and stable Ukraine.Right now, that means NATO and its partners should provide Kyiv all the aid it needs to win this war; it also means the Ukraine must become a member of NATO.

The Atlantic Councils Eurasia Center convenes twopanels of former senior US national security officials, as well as top experts on Russia, Ukraine, the transatlantic relationship, and NATO to discuss the authoritarian challenge that Russia and its allies pose to the US, NATO, and the West, and what should happen at the summit this summer to address the specifics of Putins revisionist agenda.

Continue reading here:
The Washington NATO Summit: Ukraine and transatlantic security in the age of marching authoritarians - Atlantic Council

From May 21 to 24, Deputy Chairman of the Council of Ministers of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Minister of Defense Zukan Helez is visiting the NATO headquarters in Brussels, as well as the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, SHAPE (Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe) in Kingdom of Belgium.

The delegation of the Minister of Defense of Bosnia and Herzegovina in Brussels will be joined by Ambassador of Bosnia and Herzegovina to NATO Vanja Filipovi and the head of the military part of the Mission of Bosnia and Herzegovina to NATO and at the same time the military advisor for the EU Brigadier Edin Fako, it was announced from the Ministry of Defense of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

During his visit to Brussels, the minister will meet with the Deputy Secretary General of NATO, with the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces for Europe, and hold other meetings with relevant NATO and EU departments related to current cooperation projects with Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Original post:
The Minister of Defense Zukan Helez is visiting the NATO headquarters - Sarajevo Times

In a major escalation of the US-NATO war with Russia in Ukraine, US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Charles Q. Brown told the New York Times Thursday that the NATO military alliance will eventually send significant numbers of active-duty NATO troops to Ukraine, which the newspaper said meant the deployment was inevitable.

In asserting that NATO sending troops is inevitable, the Times means the decision has already been made, and all that is being awaited is the determination on how best to announce the escalation to the public.

Browns statement that NATO will send troops to Ukraine, after US President Joe Biden categorically ruled out such a move because it would lead to World War III, continues the pattern: Every time the White House has said it would not do something in Ukraine, it has subsequently done it.

It is high time for President Joe Biden to go on national television and inform the American people that a decision has been made to send US and NATO troops to fight Russia in Ukraine, that this is a massive escalation of the war, that there is a high probability that this will lead to a nuclear war, and that hundreds of millions of people will be killed if that happens.

Biden should also explain how the US government, or whatever is left of it, would deal with the obliteration of a large portion of the country. He should also explain clearly why the admission of Ukraine into NATO justifies risking such an outcome.

The claim that the troops being sent would merely be training Ukrainian forces, rather than serving as frontline troops, is meaningless. Once inside Ukraine, they would come under fire from Russian forces, leading to direct retaliation against Russian aircraft and air-to-ground sites by NATO forces.

The Times makes this clear: As a part of NATO, the United States would be obligated under the alliances treaty to aid in the defense of any attack on the trainers, potentially dragging America into the war.

Browns claim that the decision will be made eventually and over time is purely to obfuscate the fact that the USs leading military official has publicly announced an action that Russian officials have said would lead to direct attacks on US troops.

In fact, if there is anything the NATO war effort lacks, it is time. The Times article admits this, declaring, Ukraines manpower shortage has reached a critical point, and its position on the battlefield in recent weeks has seriously worsened as Russia has accelerated its advances.

In other words, the USs strategy of fighting Russia to the last Ukrainian has played itself out, and there are no longer enough Ukrainian troops left to hold the front. Any effort to rescue the Ukrainian position will require the rapid deployment not just of NATO trainers but of active-duty combat forces to fight on the front line.

The Times itself admits that planning for the NATO deployments inside Ukraine is already far advanced. It reports that NATO last month asked Gen. Christopher G. Cavoli, the supreme allied commander for Europe, to come up with a way for the alliance to do more to help Ukraine.

The declaration by the US Joint Chiefs chairman marks a new stage in a concerted and orchestrated campaign to legitimize the concept of sending NATO troops to Ukraine, which all US and other NATO politicians had vocally declared was beyond the pale.

In February, French President Emmanuel Macron declared that NATO should consider sending ground troops to Ukraine, which both he and Biden categorically promised not to do. Within weeks, Macron was joined by officials from France, Canada, Lithuania, the Netherlands and Poland. Last week, officials from Estonia echoed these statements.

Now, a US official has gone even further than Macron, not only declaring that sending NATO troops should be considered, but that it is inevitable.

The carefully stage-managed presentation of the US decision to send troops to Ukraine follows the exact same script that was used to introduce the sending of armored vehicles, tanks, fighter jets and long-range missiles.

In each case, the first stage is a categorical denial. In March 2022, Biden declared, The idea that were going to send in offensive equipment and have planes and tanks and trains going in with American pilots and American crewsjust understand, dont kid yourself, no matter what yall say, thats called World War III.

In June 2022, Macron echoed these sentiments, declaring, we are not entering the war. Thus, it has been agreed not to supply certain weaponsincluding attack aircraft or tanks.

By January 2023, Macron had declared France will provide light combat tanks and continue its support in air defense, followed by the announcement by Biden that the United States will be sending 31 Abrams tanks to Ukraine.

The script was then repeated in the decision to send long-range weapons to Ukraine and to allow them to be used against Crimea and other parts of Russia.

In May 2022, Biden declared, We are not encouraging or enabling Ukraine to strike beyond its borders. In September 2022, Biden declared Were not going to send to Ukraine rocket systems that strike into Russia.

But last month, the Biden administration announced that it had secretly sent long-range ATACMS missiles to Ukraine, which had already been used to strike Crimea, which Russia claims as its own territory. Earlier this month, UK Foreign Minister David Cameron declared that Ukraine has the right to use weapons provided by NATO to strike any part of Russian territory.

Beyond the Times declaration that the US has decided to send troops to Ukraine, the article makes another staggering admission: The United States has already sent defense contractors to Ukraine to service advanced weapons sent by NATO countries.

The article declares, a small number of US defense contractors have already been allowed in [to Ukraine], under State Department authorities, to work on specific weapons systems like Patriot air defenses.

The article quotes Alexander S. Vindman, a leading architect of the US war with Russia in Ukraine, who declared, There is an element of ally malpractice in the fact that were providing masses of Western equipment to Ukraine, but not giving them the resources to sustain it.

When, last year, the US announced that it was sending M1 Abrams battle tanks to Ukraine, the World Socialist Web Site warned, The significance of Bidens announcement lies less in the battlefield impact of the tanks than in the consequences of deploying them. We warned that these weapons will require a massive logistical network inside Ukraine, involving large numbers of specialist American contractors. Attacks on these supply networks and American personnel servicing the tanks will then be used to press for implementation of a no-fly zone and the deployment of US and NATO troops to Ukraine.

Under conditions in which the Ukrainian battle front is nearing collapse, these plans have been significantly accelerated, raising the threat of a rapid escalation of a direct war between NATO and Russia.

Sign up for the WSWS email newsletter

View post:
US chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff says NATO will deploy troops to Ukraine - WSWS

Republican presidential candidate former President Donald Trump speaks at a Get Out The Vote rally at Coastal Carolina University in Conway, S.C., Saturday, Feb. 10, 2024. Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP hide caption

Republican presidential candidate former President Donald Trump speaks at a Get Out The Vote rally at Coastal Carolina University in Conway, S.C., Saturday, Feb. 10, 2024.

NEW YORK Republican front-runner Donald Trump said Saturday that, as president, he warned NATO allies that he "would encourage" Russia "to do whatever the hell they want" to countries that are "delinquent" as he ramped up his attacks on foreign aid and longstanding international alliances.

Speaking at a rally in Conway, South Carolina, Trump recounted a story he has told before about an unidentified NATO member who confronted him over his threat not to defend members who fail to meet the trans-Atlantic alliance's defense spending targets.

But this time, Trump went further, saying had told the member that he would, in fact, "encourage" Russia to do as it wishes in that case.

"'You didn't pay? You're delinquent?'" Trump recounted saying. "'No I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. You gotta pay. You gotta pay your bills.'"

NATO allies agreed in 2014, after Russia annexed Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula, to halt the spending cuts they had made after the Cold War and move toward spending 2% of their GDPs on defense by 2024.

White House spokesperson Andrew Bates responded, saying that: "Encouraging invasions of our closest allies by murderous regimes is appalling and unhinged and it endangers American national security, global stability, and our economy at home."

Trump's comments come as Ukraine remains mired in its efforts to stave off Russia's 2022 invasion and as Republicans in Congress have become increasingly skeptical of providing additional aid money to the country as it struggles with stalled counteroffensives and weapons shortfalls.

They also come as Trump and his team are increasingly confident he will lock up the nomination in the coming weeks following commanding victories in the first votes of the 2024 Republican nominating calendar.

Earlier Saturday, Trump called for the end of foreign aid "WITHOUT "STRINGS" ATTACHED," arguing that the U.S. should dramatically curtail the way it provides money.

"FROM THIS POINT FORWARD, ARE YOU LISTENING U.S. SENATE(?), NO MONEY IN THE FORM OF FOREIGN AID SHOULD BE GIVEN TO ANY COUNTRY UNLESS IT IS DONE AS A LOAN, NOT JUST A GIVEAWAY," Trump wrote on his social media network in all-caps letters.

Trump went on to say the money could be loaned "ON EXTRAORDINARILY GOOD TERMS," with no interest and no date for repayment. But he said that, "IF THE COUNTRY WE ARE HELPING EVER TURNS AGAINST US, OR STRIKES IT RICH SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE, THE LOAN WILL BE PAID OFF AND THE MONEY RETURNED TO THE UNITED STATES."

During his 2016 campaign, Trump alarmed Western allies by warning that the United States, under his leadership, might abandon its NATO treaty commitments and only come to the defense of countries that meet the alliance's guidelines by committing 2 percent of their gross domestic products to military spending.

Trump, as president, eventually endorsed NATO's Article 5 mutual defense clause, which states that an armed attack against one or more of its members shall be considered an attack against all members. But he often depicted NATO allies as leeches on the U.S. military and openly questioned the value of the military alliance that has defined American foreign policy for decades.

As of 2022, NATO reported that seven of what are now 31 NATO member countries were meeting that obligation up from three in 2014. Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine has spurred additional military spending by some NATO members.

Trump has often tried to take credit for that increase, and bragged again Saturday that, as a results of his threats, "hundreds of billions of dollars came into NATO" even though countries do not pay NATO directly.

Read this article:
Trump says he'd 'encourage' Russia to attack NATO allies who don't pay their bills - NPR

CONWAY, S.C. Former president Donald Trump ramped up his attacks on NATO on Saturday, claiming he suggested to a foreign leader that he would encourage Russia to do whatever the hell they want to member countries he views as not spending enough on their own defense.

One of the presidents of a big country stood up and said, Well, sir, if we dont pay and were attacked by Russia, will you protect us?, Trump said during a rally at Coastal Carolina University. I said, You didnt pay. Youre delinquent. He said, Yes, lets say that happened. No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want.

Trumps remarks come as the GOP is debating whether to provide additional foreign aid to Ukraine, which is fighting a war with Russia after being invaded by Moscow in 2022. The Senate is considering legislation that would give $60 billion to Ukraine. House Republicans, however, have echoed Trumps skepticism about doing so.

Trump has long been a fierce critic of U.S. participation in the alliance, frequently hammering European countries on their share of defense spending, and appeared to be referring to indirect funding as part of participation in the alliance.

Since 2006, each NATO member has had a guideline of spending at least 2 percent of its gross domestic product on defense spending by 2024. NATO countries were already increasing their funding substantially before Trumps presidency, following Russias annexation of Crimea from Ukraine in 2014. More than half have met or come close to that goal as of 2023, and many member countries have increased their spending in response to Russias invasion of Ukraine.

Trump has previously suggested that he threatened not to protect NATO allies from a Russian attack. During a 2022 event at the Heritage Foundation, the former president recounted a meeting where he told fellow foreign leaders that he may not follow NATOs Article 5 collective defense clause if other countries did not spend more for their own defense.

The anecdote appears to be a reference to NATOs 2018 summit, in which leaders suggested that Trumps threats were not as explicit, as The Washington Post previously reported. But Saturdays remarks were an escalation from those previous statements.

Under Article 5, if a NATO ally is attacked, other member countries of NATO consider it an armed attack against all members and will take the actions it deems necessary to assist the Ally attacked. Since NATOs founding in 1949, the clause has been invoked only once: On Sept. 12, 2001, after the terrorist attacks in the United States the day before.

Several NATO partnership experts described Trumps understanding of the financial obligations of NATO member countries as inaccurate, and argued that his opposition to collective security as a member nation is misplaced.

NATO isnt a pay to play set up, as Trump seems to think. Its an Alliance that is first and foremost about US national security interests to prevent another world war originating in Europe, said Alina Polyakova, president and CEO of the Center for European Policy Analysis, in an email to The Post. The US investment in NATO is worth every dollar - the only time that the article 5 collective defense clause was initiated was in response to 9/11. Our Allies came to our aid then, and it would be shameful and misguided to not do the same.

In May 2017, Trump initially did not affirm the United States commitment to Article 5, but then reversed course two weeks later. Trump broadly has expressed skepticism about NATO. His campaign website states: we have to finish the process we began under my Administration of fundamentally reevaluating NATOs purpose and NATOs mission.

The New York Times reported in 2019 that Trump discussed withdrawing from NATO. While he was in office, Trump repeatedly tried to claim credit for making NATO countries pay more, claiming that hundreds of billions of dollars came to NATO as a result of his complaints about other countries as delinquent members.

Daniel Fried, a former assistant secretary of state for European affairs and fellow at the Atlantic Council, said of Trump: He seems to prefer a world based on pure power where other countries, where the [U.S.] intimidates or threatens other countries. The trouble with that is when we need them those other countries wont be there.

Encouraging invasions of our closest allies by murderous regimes is appalling and unhinged and it endangers American national security, global stability, and our economy at home, White House spokesperson Andrew Bates said in a statement.

Trump has also often suggested that Russian President Vladimir Putin would not have invaded Ukraine, had he remained in office.

Saturdays speech marked Trumps first visit to South Carolina this year, where he will face former U.N. ambassador Nikki Haley in the Feb. 24 primary. Trump is currently leading the polls in South Carolina and has the backing of several key officials in the state, including Gov. Henry McMaster. A recent Washington Post-Monmouth University poll found Trump had 58 percent support among potential Republican primary voters, while Haley had 32 percent.

In a sign of Trumps focus on the general election, he did not devote as much time to attacking Haley. Yet at one point in the speech, he attacked Haleys husband, a service member who is currently deployed overseas.

Wheres her husband? Oh hes away Trump said. Hes gone. He knew, he knew.

Haley responded to Trumps attack on her husband at an evening rally in Gilbert, S.C., defending his service and again challenging Trump to debate.

Ill say this: Donald, if you have something to say, dont say it behind my back. Get on a debate stage and say it to my face, Haley said. If you mock the service of a combat veteran, you dont deserve a drivers license, let alone to be president of the United States.

Haley continued to hammer Trump at her events throughout the state on Saturday. Her staff passed out mock mental competency tests to reporters, challenging both Trump and Biden to take one, and attendees sported stickers featuring a drawing of a chicken with Trump-like features reading Trump is too chicken to debate. A mobile billboard circling Trumps event read grumpy old men.

Dylan Wells contributed to this report.

View original post here:
Trump suggests he'd disregard NATO treaty, urge Russian attacks on allies - The Washington Post

Former President Donald Trump said Saturday he would encourage Russia to do whatever the hell they want if it attacked a NATO country that didn't pay enough for defense, referencing a conversation from his presidency.

Speaking to supporters in South Carolina, Trump recounted an exchange with the president of a big country who asked whether they would be protected if Russia attacked. Trump said he told the leader that the U.S. government would not protect the bloc if they didnt pay their fair share in defense spending.

No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. You got to pay. You got to pay your bills, Trump said.

Trump made the remark during a rally on the campus of Costal Carolina University. It comes as Russia continues its war in Ukraine, and after some North Atlantic Treaty Organization members have expressed concerns that Russia might look to expand into other nations.

The alliance was formed in 1949 to provide collective defense against the Soviet Union. A hallmark of the agreement is that an attack on one ally is an attack on all.

Trump has long groused about NATO and sparred with heads of member states, reportedly threatening to pull the United States out of the bloc over demands that member nations hit the target of spending 2% of their gross domestic product on defense.

A report released last year showed only 11 of the then-30 member nations were spending 2% of their GDP or more on defense. Finland was granted NATO membership status last year, having applied following concerns over bordering Russias invasion of Ukraine.

Since coming into office, President Joe Biden has sought to reassure NATO of the U.S. commitment to the group, a stark contrast to his Republican predecessor.

Last month, Biden signed an $886 billion defense bill that bars a president from unilaterally withdrawing from NATO, which could thwart Trump's 2024 campaign pledge to fundamentally reevaluate NATOs purpose and NATOs mission.

Asked about Trump's most recent comments about NATO, White House spokesperson Andrew Bates said, Encouraging invasions of our closest allies by murderous regimes is appalling and unhinged and it endangers American national security, global stability and our economy at home," Reuters reported.

Besides the NATO comment, Trump on Saturday also boasted about the recent failure to pass a bipartisan border deal.

We crushed crooked Joe Bidens disastrous border deal. Mike Johnson did a very good job, Trump said, referencing the Republican House leader and his opposition to the bill.

The failure to pass the border bill came after reports that Trump wanted his party to reject the legislation in hopes that he could use the crisis at the southern border as a political tool to win reelection in November.

This article was originally published on NBCNews.com

Read the original here:
Trump says Russia could do 'whatever the hell they want' to NATO countries that don't pay their share - Yahoo News

Former President Donald J. Trump said on Saturday that, while president, he told the leaders of NATO countries that he would encourage Russia to do whatever the hell they want to countries that had not paid the money they owed to the military alliance.

Mr. Trump did not make clear whether he ever intended to follow through on such a threat or what that would mean for the alliance, but his comment at a campaign event in South Carolina a variation of one he has made before to highlight his negotiation skills is likely to cause concern among NATO member states, which are already very nervous about the prospect of a Trump return.

Mr. Trumps suggestion that he would encourage Russian aggression against allies of the United States for any reason comes as Republicans in Congress have pushed back against more aid for Ukraine in its war against Russia, and as European officials have expressed concerns over possible Russian aggression on NATOs Eastern side.

Russias president, Vladimir Putin, dismissed those warnings as threat mongering" in an interview with Tucker Carlson, the former Fox News host, that aired on Thursday. We have no interest in Poland, Latvia or anywhere else, Mr. Putin said.

But he has also called on the United States to make an agreement to end the war in Ukraine by ceding Ukrainian territory to Russia, comments that were seen by some as an appeal to American conservatives to block further involvement in the war.

Some European officials and foreign policy experts have said they are concerned that Russia could invade a NATO nation after its war with Ukraine concludes, fears that they say are heightened by the possibility of Mr. Trump returning to the presidency.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit andlog intoyour Times account, orsubscribefor all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?Log in.

Want all of The Times?Subscribe.

See the rest here:
Trump Says He Gave NATO Allies Warning: Pay In or He'd Urge Russian Aggression - The New York Times