Category Archives: NATO

WASHINGTON Norway has designated its F-35 aircraft for a NATO quick-reaction alert mission in the High North, ending a 42-year run of the countrys F-16s for that job, the government announced Jan. 6.

The Lockheed Martin-made jets are held at Evenes Air Base in northern Norway, with at least three ready to scramble within 15 minutes and examine potential airspace violations of Norway and, by extension, NATO. The fifth-generation aircraft have previously accompanied F-16s on such missions in anticipation of the formal takeover on Thursday.

The change in aircraft types further embeds the F-35 jet into the fabric of alliance patrol missions in Europe, just as Lockheed recently recorded initial wins in its sales campaigns for Finland and Switzerland.

Norways F-16 have operated the quick-reaction mission from Bod Air Base for four decades, according to a defense ministry statement. The new location of Evenes puts the missions center of gravity about 100 miles further north.

The Norwegian military is expanding the base to also house P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft, putting key aerial and naval surveillance assets into an area that has seen an uptick in Russian military exercises.

Norway expects to have its fleet of 52 F-35s fully operational by 2025, according to the defense ministry. Aside from a handful of scramble-ready planes at Evenes, the fleets home base is rland, located in the south-central part of the country.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Defense Department continues to use F-16 aircraft in the Baltics, another hotspot for NATO air patrols along the border with Russia. American jets arrived in Poland earlier this month, joining Polish and Belgian F-16s to prepare for that mission, according to a Jan. 6 alliance statement.

Sebastian Sprenger is associate editor for Europe at Defense News, reporting on the state of the defense market in the region, and on U.S.-Europe cooperation and multi-national investments in defense and global security. Previously he served as managing editor for Defense News.

Visit link:
Norway swaps in its F-35s for NATO quick-reaction mission in the High North - DefenseNews.com

Vladimir PutinVladimir Vladimirovich PutinUK working on 'high impact' sanctions against Russia over Ukraine Putin's one-two punch European strategy to defeat America Russia wants to see progress from security talks within weeks, negotiator says MORE is forcing President BidenJoe BidenBiden hopes for big jobs number on Friday Jan. 6 brings Democrats, Cheneys together with GOP mostly absent Equilibrium/Sustainability Climate, democracy emergenciesindivisible MORE todeal with the worst Russia-U.S. security confrontation since the Cuban Missile Crisis. He says he will invade Ukraine unless NATO bans it from membership.

The threat is taken seriously, given his regimes legacy roots in Soviet regional domination and its invasions and ongoing occupations of Crimea and parts of Georgia and Eastern Ukraine. Putin is not a former Soviet KGB operative to be trifled with.

In October 1962, President John KennedyJohn Neely KennedyMORE was warned by Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev to accept Soviet nuclear-armed missiles Moscow secretly had placed in Cuba or precipitate World War III. Having met with Kennedy in Vienna the year before, Khrushchev was convinced the young, callow leader would cave under such pressure. He misjudged his adversary. Kennedys Irish prevailed over his Harvard, and Moscow agreed to remove the missiles. As Secretary of State Dean Rusk put it: Were eyeball to eyeball and the other guy just blinked.

At least thats what JFK mythologists long have told the world. It turns out the situation was more complicated and less a complete stare down than mutual missile disarmament. Newly emplaced Soviet SS-4 ballistic missiles were taken out of Cuba in exchange for removal of NATOs Jupiter systems from Italy and Turkey as Moscow had demanded for years. As a bonus to the Soviets, Kennedy gave a permanent security guarantee to Communist Cuba after the Bay of Pigs fiasco, America never again would seek to liberate the Cuban people and overthrow the regime of Fidel Castro or his successors.

Communist China has proved especially adept at the strategy of winning without fighting, which they are presently employing in the South China Sea and elsewhere. The coercive strategy is now in full force with Putins threatened invasion of Ukraine and his warning to retaliate with unspecified military-technical measures against Western punitive actions.

Biden, of course, is a lot older and more experienced than Kennedy was at the time. He warned Putin last week that Russia would pay a heavy price if the country made further military moves against Ukraine. In return, Putin said imposition of severe U.S. sanctions would cause a complete rupture of relations. Bidens catastrophic abandonment of Afghanistan, his earlier foreign policy record, and his instinctive rejection of American unilateral use of force to defend Ukraine provide ample grounds for Putin to question his resolve.

Yet, Putins demand of veto power over NATOs decision-making is so extreme, and has been rejected so often by Washington and Brussels, that some observers believe it is an offer made to be refused again. He deliberately has created a situation that is existential for him politically and existential for the West morally and geopolitically, with no room for compromise. Moscow, it is argued, will have no face-saving course of action except to invade Ukraine and achieve a quick initial victory. From that point on, any negotiations will be entirely on Russias terms, if they take place at all. The West would then bear the unbearable responsibility for initiating war with Russia over a fait accompli or to do what it has done after Putins three earlier invasions and incursions: swallow hard and accept them as the new normal.

The alternative theory flows from the first that Putin expects the extreme pressure to work this time, compelling the West to reappraise its commitment to Ukraine. After all, despite the brave affirmations from the Biden administration and Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg that no country can dictate NATOs membership decisions, Russias objections have already significantly delayed admission of Ukraine and Georgia.

Moreover, Putin knows the Wests aversion to using force and its commitment to diplomacy work in his favor. Washington and its allies will strive to understand the other sides legitimate needs and to find a way to accommodate them. Putin may well have up his sleeve an idea that will serve that purpose, one that he broached in the early 2000s: NATO membership for Russia itself.

George Robertson, NATOs secretary-general from 1999 to 2004, reported on a conversation he had with the Russian leader at that time: Putin said, When are you going to invite us to NATO? And Robertson said he responded, We dont invite people to join NATO; they apply to join NATO. Putin allegedly replied, Well, were not standing in line with a lot of countries that dont matter.

NATOs rejection of the arrogant Russian demand was the right response then and it would be the right posture now if Putin is indeed dangling the Russia-in-NATO possibility as a way out of the Wests predicament and his. If he contemplates Russia replacing Ukraine in NATO, it is an obvious nonstarter. But Biden and NATO can build on the raw concept and shape an authentic solution that would fairly serve the long-term security interests of all countries in the region.

Instead of the burden-free NATO admission that Putin sought earlier, NATO should announce a new expansion program for all interested countries that qualify by Jan. 1, 2027. That would provide a five-year window for potential applicants to get their political and economic houses in order to meet the NATO standards.

Putin is unlikely to be willing to make major changes in Russias economic and political system, but that is his governments choice and he would have five years to change his mind. If he does reject the opportunity to apply and qualify for membership like other countries, or initially indicates he wishes to join but does not seriously undertake the necessary reforms, NATO should not further delay the admission of Ukraine, Georgia, or other states that have been dutifully preparing for membership and are ready to join.

NATO should not repeat the mistake of the World Trade Organization, which delayed Taiwans admission in the early 2000s in order to allow China to catch up. Once in the organization, Beijing proceeded to shape it to serve Chinas interests. Russia and China both have distorted the workings of the United Nations in the same way. NATO should require Russia to demonstrate its good-faith intentions before it is allowed in, first, by withdrawing from Georgia, Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. Putin will take umbrage, but he has well-earned the worlds suspicion and distrust. As the Chinese like to say, He who tied the knot must untie it.

Joseph Bosco served as China country director for the secretary of Defense from 2005 to 2006 and as Asia-Pacific director of humanitarian assistance and disaster relief from 2009 to 2010. He is a nonresident fellow at the Institute for Corean-American Studies and a member of the advisory board of the Global Taiwan Institute. Follow him on Twitter @BoscoJosephA.

See the rest here:
To avert war, the West should welcome Ukraine and a reformed Russia into NATO | TheHill - The Hill

House Intelligence Committee chair Adam Schiff says that Russia's invasion of Ukraine would only bring NATO's assets closer to Russia's borders.

Russia needs to understand we [the United States and its allies] are united in this. I also think that a powerful deterrent is the understanding that if they [Russians] do invade [Ukraine], it is going to bring NATO's closer to Russia, not push it farther away. That we will move more NATO's assets closer to Russia. That it will have the opposite impact of what Putin is trying to achieve, Schiff told CBS News in an interview.

He also added that the imposition of new strong sectoral sanctions against Russia would be a deterrent against Moscow.

I think the sector sized sanctions will be the most important deterrent [against Russia, Schiff noted.

As reported, President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky and U.S. President Joe Biden discussed on January 2 reforms, de-oligarchization, and joint actions to prevent further escalation.

On December 30, 2021, the American leader had a telephone conversation with Russian President Vladimir Putin, which lasted less than an hour. In particular, the head of the White House warned his interlocutor about the imposition of large-scale economic, financial, and political sanctions in case of further escalation of the situation around Ukraine.

ol

See the original post:
House Intelligence Committee chair: Russia's invasion going to bring NATO closer to Russia - Ukrinform. Ukraine and world news

NATO Reveals Fighters Were Scrambled Daily During 2021 | Aviation Week Network

https://aviationweek.com/themes/custom/particle/dist/app-drupal/assets/awn-logo.svg

Credit: John Thys/AFP/Getty Images

NATO fighters were scrambled the equivalent of more than once a day during 2021, mostly in response to Russian military flights, figures disclosed by the alliance reveal. Fighters are usually launched in response to those aircraft flying unannounced near Allied air space, NATO officials said Dec...

NATO Reveals Fighters Were Scrambled Daily During 2021 is published in Aerospace Daily & Defense Report, an Aviation Week Intelligence Network (AWIN) Market Briefing and is included with your AWIN membership.

Already a member of AWIN or subscribe to Aerospace Daily & Defense Report through your company? Loginwith your existing email and password.

Not a member? Learn how you can access the market intelligence and data you need to stay abreast of what's happening in the aerospace and defense community.

Excerpt from:
NATO Reveals Fighters Were Scrambled Daily During 2021 - Aviation Week

The new Bulgarian government has not yet discussed the deployment of NATO troops in the country, but such talks will undoubtedly take place, Prime Minister Kiril Petkov has announced.

In December, Defence Minister Stefan Yanev spoke out against the deployment of NATO troops in Bulgaria for now. Still, the prime minister was quick to explain that this was the personal position of the minister, not the Bulgarian government.

At the moment, we have not discussed with any of our NATO partners, nor internally in the government, anything specific about additional military units. There will be discussions, Petkov said in an interview for Bloomberg.

The Bulgarian Prime Minister has already met with NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg and explained that they talked mainly about strategic infrastructure after the meeting. We have not discussed the details of the troops so far, Petkov said.

Bulgaria is currently governed by a complex quadruple coalition of two pro-Western political formations Continuing Change and Democratic Bulgaria, the populist party There is such a people and the pro-Russian Bulgarian Socialist Party.

The deployment of NATO troops on Bulgarian territory will be one of the hot issues in the new ruling coalition due to the expected resistance of the Socialist Party. However, tensions in Ukraine are increasing pressure on Bulgaria to become more committed to NATOs interests in the region.

The topic of increasing NATOs military presence in Bulgaria and Romania was raised in mid-December. Der Spiegel quoted a secret video conference by NATOs Supreme Allied Commander Europe, Todd Walters, urging a NATO contingent in the two countries to increase by 1,500.

He was quoted as saying that NATO troops in the two Balkan countries should co-operate with local armies and, if necessary, serve as a bridge to further expand NATOs representation on the Black Sea coast.

View original post here:
Bulgarian PM to open discussion on the admission of NATO troops - EURACTIV

International Relations January 6, 2022 Volodymyr Ishchenko

After weeks of media scare about a purported Russian military invasion of Ukraine, the conflict may get a chance to be solved in a negotiated way. The public conversation on the current escalation of the Russian-Western conflict over Ukraine is, however, quite ironic. At least on the surface, it focuses on guarantees that Ukraine would not join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) military alliance, which is not only far from inviting Ukraine to join but which most Ukrainians themselves do not want to enter.

Ukraine is not merely playing a secondary role in the exchange of threats and negotiations about its destiny. But in a typical colonial way, commentators are homogenizing Ukrainians and misrecognizing the political diversity in a country of 40 million people. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently tweeted about the principle Nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine, contrary to Russian President Vladimir Putins inclination to determine Ukraines membership in NATO in a narrow circle of Great Powers. However, the problem is not only deciding without Ukraine but also deciding for very diverse Ukrainians as if they held identical opinions on the critical issues in question.

A popular interpretation of the Euromaidan revolution contributes to this strategic disguise. As the story goes on, in 2014, Ukrainians from different regions, which merged into one modern state only during WWII, finally truly united in the civic inclusive nation born in the revolution. Ukrainians made their civilizational choice in favor of the Western geopolitical orientation and are defending it against Russian aggression, which is attempting to return Ukraine to its sphere of influence. The war in Donbas that followed in 2014 is presented as primarily an inter-state war and not a direct continuation of the violent civil conflict that started in the last days of Euromaidan even before any military moves by Russia.

In reality, Euromaidan was a deficient revolution. It did not form any national unity, but the elite groups which benefited from it (together with ideological cheerleaders) need to sustain this illusion for internal and external legitimacy via combination of silencing and repression. It is, therefore, in their interest to paint the alternative positions on Ukrainian past, present and future as non-Ukrainian or even anti-Ukrainian, even though these positions are shared by many (if not most) Ukrainian citizens. As a result, these Ukrainians are more and more deprived of a voice in the domestic and international public spheres.

Ukraine has not simply turned into an object of the Great Powers play. In an especially humiliating way, Ukraine is exploited to cover imperialist interests and misrepresent them as a noble endeavor. The pathos-laden references to Ukraines sovereignty parallel the reality of the state, which is more dependent on foreign powers politically, economically and militarily than ever before since the Soviet collapse. Recognizing Ukraines diversity and shifting the discussion to the interests of Ukrainians is particularly imperative not only for immediate de-escalation of the conflict, but for any sustainable solution for Ukraine and the peace in Europe.

Russia is demanding ironclad guarantees that Ukraine (and other ex-USSR states) will not join NATO, and that NATO would not use the territory of these states for military expansion. The typical answer from Western officials and observers so far has been that it is for NATO and Ukraine to decide, not for Russia. Many Western commentators are obsessed with reading Putins mind: How he would react if not satisfied with a response to his ultimatums? They are mirrored by the viral symmetrical speculations on the opposite side whether Biden would be ready to strike a deal with Russia. Not so many are interested in what Ukrainians think about all this. Do Ukrainians actually want to join NATO?

Ukraines neutral status, which excludes it from entering any military blocs, was inscribed into the foundational documents of the modern Ukrainian state: the Declaration of Sovereignty (adopted July 16, 1990) and the Constitution of Ukraine (June 28, 1996). In December 2007, on the eve of the infamous Bucharest summit that settled that Ukraine and Georgia will become members of NATO, less than 20 percent of Ukrainian citizens supported joining NATO. The majority of Ukrainians were split between support for a military alliance with Russia or retaining the non-bloc neutral status.

NATO membership remained a cause of only a small minority within Ukrainian society until the tumultuous events of 2014. As a result of Russias annexation of Crimea and the start of the war in Donbas, support for NATO membership jumped up to about 40 percent. However, it was still not embraced by a majority of Ukrainians.

Two things contributed to this shift in public opinion. Some previously skeptical Ukrainians started to see NATO membership as a protection against further hostile actions from Russia. But no less important reason for the hike in support was that the surveys no longer included the most pro-Russian Ukrainian citizens from the territories not under Ukrainian government control Crimea and Donbas. Millions of Ukrainian citizens have been effectively excluded from the Ukrainian public sphere.

In the rest of Ukraine, support for a military alliance with Russia sharply dropped since 2014. However, most of the former Russia supporters did not turn into supporters of NATO but switched to support for a neutral status, plague on both of your houses position. If you think about the seven years of military conflict, which is predominantly (mis)represented as the war with Russia, the reluctance to embrace NATO by a very large part of Ukrainians is amazing.

Before the elections of 2019, the previous Ukrainian president, Petro Poroshenko, pushed for changes to Ukraines constitution to put it on a path to join the European Union (EU) and NATO. It did not help to prevent his devastating defeat by Zelensky.

Support for NATO in Ukraine varies by region. A stable, solid pro-NATO majority exists only in the western regions. There is, perhaps, pro-NATO plurality in Central Ukraine. But in the eastern and southern regions, neutrality is more popular than NATO membership, despite the fact that this part of Ukraine would most probably be occupied in case of any real Russian invasion.

A correlation between support for NATO and different visions of Ukrainian national identity makes the issue especially divisive. Many Ukrainians see NATO as a defense from Russia. Many other Ukrainians feel that NATO membership would forfeit more of Ukraines sovereignty to the West, which they feel has been happening since 2014, and, at the same time, would increase tensions with Russia, escalate internal tensions among Ukrainians, and drag the nation in one of the USs forever wars, one of which just recently ended in a humiliating defeat.

There is some evidence that the Russian military build-up in spring 2021 could increase support for NATO. It is quite probable that NATO supporters would win a potential referendum. However, such projections for the referendum are less valid to assess the preferences for Ukraines security strategy among Ukraines general population because they squeeze the choice to yes or no and do not cover millions of Ukrainian citizens in Donbas and Crimea who would not be able to vote at the referendum but have a strong opinion on the issue. Besides, it remains uncertain how Ukraines public opinion would react to very clear messages that the US excludes sending troops to fight Russia in case it attacks Ukraine and to any potential compromises in the course of negotiations with Russia.

While criticizing Putins demands to decide Ukraines membership between the Great Powers, it is important not to fall into a similar fallacy and dubiously impose the desire to join NATO on Ukrainians. Ukrainians are far from unified in support of NATO membership. It is a contentious issue that can only be properly resolved in a political process in which a large part of dissenting Ukrainians are not discarded and stigmatized by default as traitors or stooges of Russian propaganda for being skeptical about NATO for good reasons.

The opposition segment may represent a large minority or sometimes even the majority of Ukrainian citizens, but it has been poorly mobilized and organized in comparison to the nationalist and neoliberal sections of civil society. The latter only expanded its pressure for their unpopular agendas on the weakened Ukrainian state. The radicalizing nationalist policies during Poroshenkos rule were followed, in 2021, by the sanctions and threats by Zelensky targeting a leader of the popular opposition party, powerful oligarchs and most of the major opposition media. Despite human rights criticism, this did not provoke any significant public reaction from the West, unlike repression of the Russian and Belarusian opposition. Many observers accepted a lazy securitizing explanation that repression of allegedly pro-Russian forces is inevitable or even legitimate in the country under the foreign threat. However, further limitations on the political and public representation of a large segment of Ukrainian society does not make Ukraine stronger only weaker and even more divided.

The Minsk Peace Accords, which require institutionalizing a special status for the breakaway territories in Donbas, could be an important part of the possible solution for Ukraine. They were signed after a series of defeats of the Ukrainian military in 2014-2015; however, little has been implemented since then. Noteworthy, even some supporters present it as an unsavory compromise with Russias terms, imposed using armed aggression.

However, it is important to understand the Minsk Accords as not something that Putin wants, but as a possible way toward a more democratic and pluralistic Ukraine that recognizes and accepts its own political diversity. Simultaneously, the Accords are both the ends and the means in this process. The Minsk Accords presuppose that the people in Donbas return as a legitimate part of the Ukrainian nation. Mostly they have very different opinions about the history and recent events, language policies, and international alliances than the nationalist political and civil society who speak on behalf of the Ukrainian society but only poorly represent its diversity. This would require a radical change of the dominant post-Euromaidan discourse in Ukraines public sphere and work toward a more inclusive definition of the national identity.

On the other hand, by returning the millions of Ukrainian citizens in Donbas back to Ukraine, the Minsk accords restore some of the lost balance (now institutionally protected) into Ukrainian politics that diverged from the attitudes and expectations of the general population. The Minsk accords simultaneously require and enable a substantive dialogue on Ukraines future.

There are risks, of course. There is a strong demand for peace in Ukrainian society, but specific clauses of the special status for Donbas (such as amnesty for combatants or institutionalizing separatist armed units as peoples militia) are not popular. However, the lack of majority support has never been the main reason for the Ukrainian government to evade implementing the Minsk Accords, as it has never been an obstacle to the campaign for NATO membership and even less popular nationalist and neoliberal policies. Importantly, despite that the Minsk accords were an outcome of the military defeats, most Ukrainians supported them right after their signing in 2015. If many Ukrainians are disappointed now, it is primarily because of the little progress and ineffectiveness in bringing peace to Ukraine, not because the accords are fundamentally unacceptable.

More important was the explicit threat of violence articulated by the nationalist civil society leading the so-called anti-capitulation protests. They were rather small and only 26 percent of Ukrainians expressed support for the protests, while 41 percent were clearly against them. Nevertheless, they stalled further progress in implementing the Minsk Accords after initial successes that followed Zelenskys landslide victory in the 2019 election.

At stake, however, is not the capitulation of Ukraine, but of a very specific nation-building project for Ukraine, where Russia plays the role of the main other, against which the adepts of the project articulate their national identity. The problem with this project is that the attempted assimilation of Ukraines internal cultural and political diversity (to repeat the problematic path of how the modern Western nations were constructed since the 19th century) is incompatible with how many people see democracy today. Arguably, it is as incompatible as replay of the Great Power politics from the golden age of imperialism. However, this nation-building project is also hardly even feasible under the present conditions because it will not be supported by the parallel modernization processes. One cannot repeat the turning peasants into Frenchmen process nowadays because the Communist Party completed this task for Ukraine decades ago. It is no surprise that the fundamentally anti-Communist project of Ukrainian civil society has continuously failed to unify the nation, despite three revolutions in the life of one generation and supposedly mobilizing threat from abroad. So far, the attempts to push forward this nation-building project did not solve but rather intensified the deep post-Soviet crisis of political representation.

A different, pluralistic Ukraine developing in a more synthetic and dialogical way as a sovereign bridge between Europe and Russia is certainly possible. To get there, recognizing Ukraines political diversity and establishing conditions for institutionally protected national dialogue among Ukrainians with opposing views are vital. Whether it is really needed by anyone except Ukrainians is a different question.

This article appeared in LeftEast.

Volodymyr Ishchenko is a political activist in Ukraine and editor of the review Spilnya. He is a research associate at the Institute of East European Studies, Freie Universitt Berlin.

Continued here:
Ukrainians Are Far From Unified on NATO - The Bullet - Socialist Project

Russias foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, warned on Friday that the Kremlin perceives the United States and its allies as stoking the war in eastern Ukraine, a shift in tone from Moscow just hours after another Russian official had said the Kremlin was satisfied with a phone call between the leaders of the two countries.

The civil war in Ukraine, ongoing for eight years, is far from over, Mr. Lavrov said, in remarks carried by the Russian Information Agency. The countrys authorities dont intend to resolve the conflict through diplomacy, he added.

Unfortunately, we see the United States and other NATO nations supporting the militaristic intentions of Kyiv, provisioning Ukraine with weapons and sending military specialists, Mr. Lavrov said.

Amid high-stakes diplomatic talks over what the United States has described as a serious Russian military threat to Ukraine, Mr. Lavrovs remarks were the latest in a series of conflicting commentary from the Kremlin that has seesawed between ominous and conciliatory, sometimes within the space of a few days. Earlier in December, Mr. Putin said Moscow might resort to military technical means, referring to the use of force, if talks failed.

But after President Biden and Mr. Putin of Russia spoke for about 50 minutes on Thursday, Yuri V. Ushakov, Mr. Putins foreign policy adviser, declined to say whether a specific threat of military action had come up. Though the call ended without clarity on the Kremlins intentions after massing about 100,000 troops on the Ukrainian border, both sides said it had been constructive.

The call was seen as an effort by both sides to shape the diplomatic landscape before talks on the Ukraine crisis that will begin in Geneva on Jan. 10 and then move to Brussels and Vienna later in the week, according to Russian and American officials who briefed journalists.

Russia has issued demands for NATO and the United States to pull back forces in the region and pledge not to admit new Eastern European members to the alliance.

In Thursdays call, according to American officials, Mr. Biden made clear that Western countries would impose harsh sanctions if Russia stepped up military activities along the Ukrainian border. Mr. Putin warned that imposing new sanctions could lead to a complete rupture in relations.

Officials in both countries had assessed Thursdays conversation positively. In principle, we are satisfied with the contact, the negotiations, because they have an open, substantive, concrete character, Mr. Ushakov told journalists in a briefing early Friday in Moscow.

Mr. Lavrovs comments later in the day, in contrast, revived a more confrontational tone. Mr. Ushakov had also said concerns about U.S. weaponry provided to Ukraine had come up in the call, but emphasized the respectful tone between the two leaders.

On Friday, Mr. Biden told reporters that the Russian leader had laid out some of his concerns about NATO and the United States and Europe. We laid out ours. Mr. Biden added, Im not going to negotiate here in public but we made it clear he cannot, Ill emphasize, cannot invade Ukraine.

After Russian troops massed near the Ukrainian border over the fall, officials in Moscow repeatedly characterized the eastern Ukraine conflict as a pressing security concern for Russia, though it has been simmering for eight years now between Ukraines central government and Russia-backed separatists. Analysts have viewed these statements with alarm, as Russian justifications for invading Ukraine.

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.

Russian diplomats call the conflict a civil war, something Ukraine and Western countries reject as Russian soldiers and special forces fomented the uprising in 2014 and continue to fight on the anti-government side, while Moscow arms and finances what Ukrainians refer to as a combined separatist and Russian force.

American officials have declined to discuss the substance of the talks so far, insisting that, unlike the Russians, they would not negotiate in public. Russia in December published two draft treaties the foreign ministry said it would like the United States and NATO to sign, publicly staking out positions before even talks had commenced.

A former Ukrainian official and a member of Parliament in Kyiv said, speaking on condition of anonymity, that they worry the Biden administration, which has been focused on China as a principal foreign policy concern, is overly wary of antagonizing Russia.

That was a dynamic evident in Thursdays call. Mr. Putins threatening of a breach in relations in retaliation for Western sanctions may suggest that the Kremlin has ascertained that Washington is more interested than Moscow in a stable bilateral relationship.

Mr. Biden has attempted a two-track approach, trying to deter Russia with unusually specific warnings about imposing a series of sanctions that would go far beyond what the West agreed upon in 2014, after the Russian annexation of Crimea, while simultaneously pursuing the diplomatic negotiations.

Link:
Sergey V. Lavrov Accused NATO of Stoking Ukraine Conflict - The New York Times

WASHINGTON, January 4. /TASS/. The initiatives implying the introduction of more US anti-Russian restrictions, as well as weapons supplies to Ukraine and that countrys accession to NATO run counter to US security interests, the publisher and editorial director of The Nation magazine, Katrina vanden Heuvel, said on Monday.

"The hawkish outcry for more sanctions, more weapons, NATO membership for Ukraine, and an even more confrontational stance toward Russia is exceedingly dangerous and is not in our security or national interests," reads her commentary uploaded to the website of the Washington-based non-governmental organization Institute for Public Accuracy.

"While there is no question that Russia has contributed to tensions, the West should have understood that an attempt to bring Ukraine into NATO would spark deep, historical divisions within Ukraine and escalate Russian concerns. What is essentially a civil war has become a proxy war, a site of dangerous geopolitical focus," said Heuvel, the president of the American Committee for U.S.-Russia Accord.

"It is imperative that we embrace sober reasoning and diplomacy to end the conflict more than 14,000 lives have already been taken. Make no mistake: There is no military solution to this conflict. Only reasoned dialogue and political settlement can put Ukraine on the path to long-term stability and some semblance of peace."

Lately, the Western countries and also Kiev have been speculating about alleged risks of Russias invasion of Ukraine. Russian presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov dismissed such rumors as groundless fanning of tensions. He stressed that Russia posed no threat to anyone. He did not rule out the possibility of provocations that might be staged in order to back up such claims and warned that attempts at handling the crisis in southeastern Ukraine might entail the direst effects.

US administration officials earlier repeatedly stated that what they described as hypothetical Russian invasion of Ukraine would be impermissible and entail more sanctions against Moscow and a US military buildup in Europe.

See the article here:
Calls for anti-Russian sanctions, Ukraines accession to NATO harm US interests - expert - TASS

Russia's foreign ministry has warned against the inclusion of Finland and Sweden in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO).

According to Maria Zakharova, the ministrys spokeswoman, ''The persistent attempts by NATO to draw those countries into the orbit of its interests and opportunistic policies havent gone unnoticed by Russia.''

Its quite obvious that Finland and Sweden joining NATO would have serious military and political consequences that would require an adequate response from the Russian side, she highlighted.

''The policy of not being part of any alliances, traditionally pursued by Stockholm and Helsinki, is viewed by Moscow as an important factor in ensuring stability in northern Europe,'' Zakharova added.

It comes after Russian President Vladimir Putin had said NATO had "brazenly tricked" the country with successive waves of expansion since the Cold War.

Also see |Rebel-held regions of eastern Ukraine are growing closer to Russia

Moscow says the expansion of NATO threatens Russia and has contravened assurances given to it as the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991.

It has presented the West with sweeping security demands, saying NATO must not admit new members and seeking to bar the United States from establishing new bases in former Soviet republics.

Also read |Russia cannot 'dictate' to NATO, says Germany

Speaking about Moscows proposals, Zakharova reiterated that ''ruling out the expansion of NATO and the deployment of weapon systems that threaten our security near the Russian borders are going to be the main, key issues at the upcoming talks with the US and NATO.''

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken spoke with NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg on Thursday to discuss concerns about Russias military build-up on the borders of Ukraine, the US State Department said.

"They discussed NATOs dual-track approach to Russia, noting the alliance remains ready for meaningful dialogue with Russia while standing united to defend and protect allies," the State Department said on Thursday.

(With inputs from agencies)

Visit link:
Russia warns NATO against inclusion of Finland, Sweden - WION

Polish presidential officials have said that Poland and the US believe that US-Russia talks should reflect the position of the entire North Atlantic Alliance.

"This especially concerns a response to Russia's most aggressive demands," PAP was told on Monday by the head of the Polish President's International Policy Bureau, Jakub Kumoch, and the head of the National Security Bureau (BBN), Pawe Soloch.

Kumoch and Soloch made the statement following their phone conversation with Jake Sullivan, the US National Security Advisor to President Joe Biden. They added that it focused on the situation around Ukraine and Nato-Russia relations.

Russia has built up its forces on the Ukrainian border, prompting speculation that Moscow might launch an invasion at the beginning of next year.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Monday that Russian diplomats and military officials would take part in talks with the United States next month on a list of security guarantees that Moscow wanted from Washington.

The two officials also said that the conversation had been held at the request of the US side, and that it was a part of consultations with allies concerning the threat of Russia's aggression against Ukraine.

More here:
US-Russia talks to reflect Nato's stance The First News - The First News