Category Archives: NATO

The White House says comments made by former US President Donald Trump about not protecting NATO allies from a potential invasion by Russia were appalling and unhinged.

Trump, appearing to recount a meeting with NATO leaders, told a political rally in South Carolina on Saturday, One of the presidents of a big country stood up, said: Well sir if we dont pay, and were attacked by Russia will you protect us?'

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 they want. You gotta pay.

White House spokesperson Andrew Bates, asked about Trumps comments, says, 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 told the story in the context of his role in helping torpedo congressional legislation that would have sent military aid to Ukraine and Israel.

You're a dedicated reader

Were really pleased that youve read X Times of Israel articles in the past month.

Thats why we started the Times of Israel eleven years ago - to provide discerning readers like you with must-read coverage of Israel and the Jewish world.

So now we have a request. Unlike other news outlets, we havent put up a paywall. But as the journalism we do is costly, we invite readers for whom The Times of Israel has become important to help support our work by joining The Times of Israel Community.

For as little as $6 a month you can help support our quality journalism while enjoying The Times of Israel AD-FREE, as well as accessing exclusive content available only to Times of Israel Community members.

Thank you, David Horovitz, Founding Editor of The Times of Israel

Continue reading here:
White House says Trump comments on refusing to back NATO allies 'unhinged' - The Times of Israel

By Andrea Shalal

WILMINGTON, Delaware (Reuters) -The White House on Saturday rejected comments made by former U.S. President Donald Trump about not protecting NATO allies from a potential Russian invasion as "appalling and unhinged."

Trump, appearing to recount a meeting with NATO leaders during a political rally in South Carolina on Saturday, quoted the president of "a big country" that he did not name as asking, "Well sir if we don't pay, and we're attacked by Russia - will you protect us?"

"I said: 'You didn't pay? You're delinquent?' He said: 'Yes, let's say that happened.' No I would not protect you. In fact I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. You gotta pay."

White House spokesperson Andrew Bates, asked about Trump's comments, 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."

The NATO treaty contains a provision that guarantees mutual defense of member states if one is attacked.

Trump, frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination, was a fierce critic of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization when he was president, repeatedly threatening to pull out of the alliance. He cut defense funding to NATO and frequently complained that the United States was paying more than its fair share.

Bates said President Joe Biden, a Democrat seeking reelection in the November election, had restored U.S. alliances after taking office in 2021, ensuring that NATO was now "the largest and most vital it has ever been."

"Rather than calling for wars and promoting deranged chaos, President Biden will continue to bolster American leadership and stand up for our national security interests not against them, he said in a statement issued late Saturday.

With Trump leading Biden in some polls, European allies worry a Trump victory in November could jeopardize the U.S. commitment to the alliance, but NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg last month said he did not think a second Trump presidency would jeopardize U.S. membership.

Story continues

Stoltenberg, who has been pushing member states to boost defense spending, said European allies were increasing their military contributions and "moving in the right direction."

Trump has continued to hammer the transatlantic alliance, telling a campaign rally last month that he did not believe NATO countries would support the United States if it were attacked.

On Russia's war in Ukraine, Trump has called for de-escalation and complained about the billions spent so far, although he has put forward few tangible policy proposals.

Since Moscow's full-scale invasion in February 2022, U.S. aid to Ukraine has totaled around $75 billion, Stoltenberg said, while other NATO members and partner states combined have provided more than $100 billion.

(Reporting by Andrea Shalal in Wilmington; Additional reporting by Mike Stone in Washington; Editing by Tom Hogue and William Mallard)

See the original post here:
Trump comments on Russia, NATO 'appalling and unhinged' -White House - Yahoo News Canada

CONWAY, S.C. Former President Donald Trump said 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.

Trump did not make clear whether he 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 nervous about the prospect of a Trump return.

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.

Russia President Vladimir Putin dismissed those warnings as threat mongering in an interview with Tucker Carlson, the former Fox News host, that aired Thursday. We have no interest in Poland, Latvia or anywhere else, 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 U.S. 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 Trump returning to the presidency.

Trump has previously expressed his belief that support for NATO is overly burdensome on the United States, saying the alliance drains its financial and military resources. His campaign website says that the country must re-evaluate the organizations purpose.

He has in the past recalled privately telling NATO members that the United States would not defend them from Russian attacks if they were in arrears. Last year, he claimed during a campaign speech that hundreds of billions of dollars came flowing in to NATO after he made that threat.

On Saturday, he again brought up that anecdote, saying that he told European leaders they had to pay up.

Then, he said, the president 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 he asked the other president if the country was delinquent in its payments. The leader responded, Yes. Lets say that happened, Trump said.

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

This article originally appeared in The New York Times.

Go here to read the rest:
Trump says he warned NATO: Pay in or he'd tell Russia 'to do whatever the hell they want' - The Spokesman Review

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington Washington D.C. West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Puerto Rico US Virgin Islands Armed Forces Americas Armed Forces Pacific Armed Forces Europe Northern Mariana Islands Marshall Islands American Samoa Federated States of Micronesia Guam Palau Alberta, Canada British Columbia, Canada Manitoba, Canada New Brunswick, Canada Newfoundland, Canada Nova Scotia, Canada Northwest Territories, Canada Nunavut, Canada Ontario, Canada Prince Edward Island, Canada Quebec, Canada Saskatchewan, Canada Yukon Territory, Canada

Zip Code

Country United States of America US Virgin Islands United States Minor Outlying Islands Canada Mexico, United Mexican States Bahamas, Commonwealth of the Cuba, Republic of Dominican Republic Haiti, Republic of Jamaica Afghanistan Albania, People's Socialist Republic of Algeria, People's Democratic Republic of American Samoa Andorra, Principality of Angola, Republic of Anguilla Antarctica (the territory South of 60 deg S) Antigua and Barbuda Argentina, Argentine Republic Armenia Aruba Australia, Commonwealth of Austria, Republic of Azerbaijan, Republic of Bahrain, Kingdom of Bangladesh, People's Republic of Barbados Belarus Belgium, Kingdom of Belize Benin, People's Republic of Bermuda Bhutan, Kingdom of Bolivia, Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana, Republic of Bouvet Island (Bouvetoya) Brazil, Federative Republic of British Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago) British Virgin Islands Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria, People's Republic of Burkina Faso Burundi, Republic of Cambodia, Kingdom of Cameroon, United Republic of Cape Verde, Republic of Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad, Republic of Chile, Republic of China, People's Republic of Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia, Republic of Comoros, Union of the Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, People's Republic of Cook Islands Costa Rica, Republic of Cote D'Ivoire, Ivory Coast, Republic of the Cyprus, Republic of Czech Republic Denmark, Kingdom of Djibouti, Republic of Dominica, Commonwealth of Ecuador, Republic of Egypt, Arab Republic of El Salvador, Republic of Equatorial Guinea, Republic of Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Faeroe Islands Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Fiji, Republic of the Fiji Islands Finland, Republic of France, French Republic French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon, Gabonese Republic Gambia, Republic of the Georgia Germany Ghana, Republic of Gibraltar Greece, Hellenic Republic Greenland Grenada Guadaloupe Guam Guatemala, Republic of Guinea, Revolutionary People's Rep'c of Guinea-Bissau, Republic of Guyana, Republic of Heard and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras, Republic of Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region of China Hrvatska (Croatia) Hungary, Hungarian People's Republic Iceland, Republic of India, Republic of Indonesia, Republic of Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq, Republic of Ireland Israel, State of Italy, Italian Republic Japan Jordan, Hashemite Kingdom of Kazakhstan, Republic of Kenya, Republic of Kiribati, Republic of Korea, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait, State of Kyrgyz Republic Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon, Lebanese Republic Lesotho, Kingdom of Liberia, Republic of Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein, Principality of Lithuania Luxembourg, Grand Duchy of Macao, Special Administrative Region of China Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar, Republic of Malawi, Republic of Malaysia Maldives, Republic of Mali, Republic of Malta, Republic of Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania, Islamic Republic of Mauritius Mayotte Micronesia, Federated States of Moldova, Republic of Monaco, Principality of Mongolia, Mongolian People's Republic Montserrat Morocco, Kingdom of Mozambique, People's Republic of Myanmar Namibia Nauru, Republic of Nepal, Kingdom of Netherlands Antilles Netherlands, Kingdom of the New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua, Republic of Niger, Republic of the Nigeria, Federal Republic of Niue, Republic of Norfolk Island Northern Mariana Islands Norway, Kingdom of Oman, Sultanate of Pakistan, Islamic Republic of Palau Palestinian Territory, Occupied Panama, Republic of Papua New Guinea Paraguay, Republic of Peru, Republic of Philippines, Republic of the Pitcairn Island Poland, Polish People's Republic Portugal, Portuguese Republic Puerto Rico Qatar, State of Reunion Romania, Socialist Republic of Russian Federation Rwanda, Rwandese Republic Samoa, Independent State of San Marino, Republic of Sao Tome and Principe, Democratic Republic of Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of Senegal, Republic of Serbia and Montenegro Seychelles, Republic of Sierra Leone, Republic of Singapore, Republic of Slovakia (Slovak Republic) Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia, Somali Republic South Africa, Republic of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands Spain, Spanish State Sri Lanka, Democratic Socialist Republic of St. Helena St. Kitts and Nevis St. Lucia St. Pierre and Miquelon St. Vincent and the Grenadines Sudan, Democratic Republic of the Suriname, Republic of Svalbard & Jan Mayen Islands Swaziland, Kingdom of Sweden, Kingdom of Switzerland, Swiss Confederation Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan, Province of China Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand, Kingdom of Timor-Leste, Democratic Republic of Togo, Togolese Republic Tokelau (Tokelau Islands) Tonga, Kingdom of Trinidad and Tobago, Republic of Tunisia, Republic of Turkey, Republic of Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda, Republic of Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom of Great Britain & N. Ireland Uruguay, Eastern Republic of Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Viet Nam, Socialist Republic of Wallis and Futuna Islands Western Sahara Yemen Zambia, Republic of Zimbabwe

See the original post:
Trump says he warned NATO ally: Spend more on defense or Russia can 'do whatever the hell they want' - WV News

White House hopeful Donald Trump said on Saturday he would "encourage" Russia to attack members of NATO who had not met their financial obligations, his most extreme broadside against the military alliance he has long expressed skepticism about.

With US lawmakers debating new aid for Ukraine ahead of the second anniversary of Russia's invasion, the former president has repeatedly said it was unfair to commit the United States to defending NATO's 30 other member nations.

Speaking at a campaign rally in South Carolina Saturday, Trump described a conversation with a fellow head of state at an unspecified NATO meeting.

"One of the presidents of a big country stood up and said, 'Well, sir, if we don't pay, and we're attacked by Russia, will you protect us?' I said, 'You didn't pay, you'redelinquent?'"

"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's remark comes after Senate Republicans on Wednesday rejected a bipartisan bill that would have included sorely needed new funding for Ukraine, plus aid for ally Israel, along with reforms to address the US-Mexico border crisis.

The White House hit back at Trump's assertions, touting President Joe Biden's efforts to bolster alliances around the globe.

"Encouraging invasions of our closest allies by murderous regimes is appalling and unhinged," White House spokesman Andrew Bates said in a statement Saturday night.

"Rather than calling for wars and promoting deranged chaos, President Biden will continue to bolster American leadership," Bates added.

The Senate bill's death highlighted Trump's iron grip on the Republican Party, as its lawmakers acceded to the former president's calls to torpedo any deal in order to deny Biden a win on immigration ahead of November's election.

At the rally Saturday, Trump celebrated the collapse of the legislation, vowing that, if reelected, he would carry out a massive "deportation operation" on his first day in office.

"Let's not forget that this week we also had another massive victory that every conservative should celebrate. We crushed crooked Joe Biden's disastrous open borders bill," Trump declared at a rally in South Carolina.

"The whole group did a great job in Congress."

Trump -- whose first presidential campaign featured a central plank of building a "big, beautiful wall" on the US-Mexico border -- on Saturday declared that deporting migrants would be one of his first tasks.

"On day one I will terminate every open border policy of the Biden administration and we will begin the largest domestic deportation operation in American history. We have no choice."

The Senate is now considering a foreign aid package that decouples the aid from the border issue entirely.

The $95 billion package set to be debated next week includes funding for Israel's fight against Hamas militants and for key strategic ally Taiwan. The lion's share, however, would help Ukraine restock depleted ammunition supplies, weapons and other crucial needs as it enters a third year of war.

At the South Carolina rally, Trump needled Nikki Haley, his former UN ambassador who is also seeking the Republican Party's nomination, though her bid is almost certainly doomed as she badly trails her ex-boss in the race.

Addressing voters in Haley's home state, Trumpquestioned the whereabouts of her husband Michael, who has not been seen on the campaign trail as he is on a year-long military deployment to the Horn of Africa country of Djibouti.

"Where's her husband? Oh, he's away. He's away. What happened to her husband? What happened to her husband," he said, raising his voice for dramatic effect.

Haley clapped back on social media platform X.

"Michael is deployed serving our country, something you know nothing about. Someone who continually disrespects the sacrifices of military families has no business being commander in chief," she said.

And Michael Haley had his own message for Trump, tagging the candidate in a post on X that was accompanied by a close-up photo of a wolf overlaid with the text: "The difference between humans and animals? Animals would never let the dumbest ones lead the pack."

Originally posted here:
Trump threatens to 'encourage' attack of NATO members behind on payments - Port Lavaca Wave

The Palestinian issue has always been close to Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogans heart and a rallying cry for his conservative base. During his two decades in power, Turkeys strongman has had a tumultuous relationship with Israel, marked by periodic spars with Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and occasional attempts at normalisation. All the while, Erdogan has never shied away from publicly displaying his support for Hamas, hosting its leaders in Istanbul and viewing the group as a legitimate part of the Middle Easts political map.

But after 7 October, Erdogan gravely miscalculated, failing to condemn its atrocities against Israeli civilians and reiterating that Hamas is not a terrorist organization. It is a liberation movement. Such strong endorsement of the group at such a painful time effectively led to Turkey being frozen out of hostage negotiations, regional diplomacy, and prospects of playing a greater role in a post-conflict Gaza. Outraged and shaken by Israels disregard for Palestinian civilians in its military offensive in Gaza, Erdogan has since blasted Israel for war crimes and genocide, while criticising the West for its perceived double standards and unequivocal support for Israel.

Had the Turkish president been more measured in his public endorsement of Hamas, slightly more diplomatic in his tone and less willing to endorse Hamas so wholeheartedly after 7 October, Ankara would have likely found itself at the core of international diplomacy on Gaza. In much the same way he did on the Black Sea grain deal and the prisoner swaps between Russia and Ukraine, Erdogan could have led the diplomacy around hostage negotiations and regional de-escalation. He also could have found a bigger global pulpit to make a case for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and grab the international communitys attention for Turkish proposals such as a trusteeship system for a future Palestinian state.

Instead, 7 October highlighted Turkeys diplomatic estrangement when it comes to Arab-Israeli matters, despite Erdogans popularity on the Arab street. In the aftermath of the Hamas attacks, Turkey was all too eager to play a role in regional diplomacy and emerge as the leader of a regional front that could isolate and pressure the Israeli government to abandon its hardline policies in Gaza. Instead, it was largely bypassed in hostage negotiations, and despite its links with the political leadership of Hamas, Turkey has not emerged as a diplomatic hotspot on the Palestinian issue nor in efforts to avert regional escalation.

Worse for Ankara, the Gulf states and Egypt despite their condemnation of Israels disregard for civilian lives in Gaza have made it abundantly clear that they are not interested in entering a united anti-Israel front led by Turkey or abandoning the normalisation track with Tel Aviv.

Ankaras tepid ties with Washington has not made it any easier for Erdogan. Once the lynchpin of US policy in the Middle East, for almost a decade now Turkish-US relations have been a drama shaped by mutual grievances, which range from Turkeys objections to US support for Syrian Kurds to Washingtons criticism of Turkeys human rights record and its burgeoning relations with Russia. To many in Washington, Turkey came to be seen as an unfaithful ally. Increasingly, Turkish-US relations look to be on the verge of a slow marital break-up, with deep suspicions and grievances on both sides.

The Biden administration started off in 2021 with a policy of keeping Erdogan at arms length, initially intended to better manage the relationship after four confusing years of President Donald Trump. But things have hardly improved much since then. There is little engagement at the leadership level between Erdogan and Biden and the strategic divergence between the two capitals on the emerging world order and its various challenges is stark.

With the war in Ukraine, Washington had to accept Turkeys balancing act between Moscow and Kyiv and turn a blind eye to Turkish trade with Russia in violation of Western-led sanctions. Inside NATO, there is both appreciation (for closing off the Bosphorus to Russian warships) and frustration (for blocking Swedens membership bid for a time and trading with Russia) with Turkey.

When it comes to the Middle East, Erdogans pro-Hamas position has irritated the Israeli government and its public so much that it has rendered a potential Turkish role in Gaza is unrealistic, at least in the short-term. For the United States, this created a new level of regional tension that needed to be managed. The US secretary of state Anthony Blinken skipped Turkey in his first tour of regional diplomacy after 7 October, and Erdogan, angry at Washingtons unequivocal backing for Israel, refused to meet with Blinken when he visited Ankara in November.

When the two finally met in January, on Blinkens fourth trip, the conversation was as much about Gaza as about getting Turkey to ratify Swedens NATO accession a priority item for the White House ahead of the NATO summit in Washington this summer. Turkey finally did ratify Swedens accession much to the relief of Sweden and NATO member states.

The question now is whether or not this provides enough of a basis for a reset in Turkish-US relations one where the two allies can work together on a number of strategic issues, including European security. The period of estrangement has helped neither side strategically and is particularly glaring at a time when the US is trying to manage its diplomacy around two major wars both in Turkeys immediate neighbourhood. Amid such geopolitical turmoil, both Turkey and the US need better relations with one another. But to get there, Washington and Ankara need to manage their divergences and identify common interests especially on the geoeconomic front. They also need to accept that whatever partnership emerges will be la carte and very different from the perfect alignment of the post-cold war period.

The period of estrangement has helped neither side strategically and is particularly glaring at a time when the US is trying to manage its diplomacy around two major wars both in Turkeys immediate neighbourhood

Getting the much-delayed ratification of Swedens NATO accession through the Turkish parliament has given a temporary boost to the relationship and created a feel-good moment within the alliance as it prepares for the 75th anniversary summit. Swedens ratification will now be followed by the US Congress signing off on the sale of F16s to Turkey something that Ankara desperately wants.

But the real strategic conversation starts afterwards. Once the give-and-take is over, the two allies need to sit and talk about the future of Syria and Iraq and the worsening situation in Gaza. Ukraine and the Black Sea are also burning issues, as is Iran, and the tightening of sanctions on Russia. The Biden administration is painfully aware that Turkey is politically and geographically very close to it all and more vulnerable than it would like to admit.

All of this ties back to Gaza. At some point, there could be a role for Turkey in the reconstruction of Gaza or within a multinational peacekeeping force. It is hard to imagine the current Israeli government agreeing to a Turkish role but then again it is hard to see what will happen in the region in a year or two.

For now, Turkey and the US need to take baby steps learn to talk again, rediscover each other and build some level of trust to better coordinate in the two wars raging on Turkeys borders. This conversation is largely bilateral, but can benefit Europe and other NATO allies as well. Europeans in particular could benefit from a Turkey that is on better terms with the US by reaching out to Ankara off the back of this dtente, and focus on nurturing closer cooperation with Turkey on key security concerns in Europes eastern neighbourhood and further afield in the Middle East. From this, they could also benefit from a deeper economic partnership with Turkey both a top market and a production base for Europes. If Turkey manages to tilt towards transatlantic partners in Ukraine, and can play a constructive role in Gaza, it can once again emerge as a useful partner, indispensable for the US and for Europe.

The European Council on Foreign Relations does not take collective positions. ECFR publications only represent the views of their individual authors.

Read more here:
NATO, Gaza, and the future of US-Turkish relations - European Council on Foreign Relations

Early this year, the United States placed Azerbaijan on a watchlist for violating religious freedom after it invaded Nagorno-Karabakh, a region with Christian religious sites. The move, which could include sanctions, is one of several steps the United States has taken to punish Azerbaijan for its unprovoked aggression; in November, the Senate unanimously voted for legislation to reduce military aid to Azerbaijan.  

Potential sanctions and limiting military aid are part of a growing consensus that aiding Azerbaijan is not a priority for the United States, if it ever was. But the vote raises questions about the United States’s role in the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict overall. 

Reducing conflict abroad is a noble goal in American foreign policy, but the way that Washington has historically approached foreign conflict has often exacerbated it. Lawmakers should acknowledge two realities and act accordingly: first, that the outcome of the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict has limited connections to American interests and security, and second, U.S. involvement in the conflict has typically been a method of combating Russia that could lead to longer-term conflict, both in the Caucasus and between the United States and Russia directly.  

Instead of ignoring the atrocities of unprovoked conflict and ethnic cleansing from Azerbaijan or arming either side, the United States should become a mediator. 

Reducing arms shipments to Azerbaijan is a necessary start. Azerbaijan has been a crucial supplier of energy to Washington’s European allies after Russia’s war in Ukraine began, but these foreign relationships are not enough of a reason to contribute to a conflict through military means. 

As American lives and core interests are not at stake, it would also be a mistake to hint at military support for Armenia, as joint exercises did in September. Likewise, designating Armenia as a military ally, as some in the foreign policy community have previously argued, should be recognized as a move that would bring more risk to the U.S. and no clear benefit for the American people. 

Armenia has geographic and economic links to Russia, and Russia has long sought dominant influence in the Caucasus. As a result, American leaders have chosen to treat the region as important for security — or in reality, crucial for combatting Russia. This reactive foreign policy has contributed to worsening relations with Russia and unnecessary regional violence. 

Despite Russia’s historical links to Armenia and aid in times of conflict, its failed efforts to prevent conflict in 2020 and 2023 have led to an increasing sense in Armenia among its people and its leader, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, that the nation would need to look elsewhere for military and diplomatic support. In an October 2019 poll conducted by the International Republican Institute, 88 percent of Armenians surveyed named Russia as among the most important political partners of Armenia; after the Russian failure to moderate the 2020 conflict, the number dropped to 50 percent. 

As the October 2023 conflict demonstrated Russia’s failures, Armenia drifted further from Russia. Pashinyan publicly indicated that relying on Russian security had been a mistake and took steps to join the International Criminal Court, which had issued an arrest warrant for President Vladimir Putin. But the Armenian drift, encouraged by the United States, is not an adequate reason to push the country further from Russia; there is ample evidence that the expansion of NATO and its influence closer to Russia has historically increased Russian aggression, specifically in the Caucasus. 

Shortly after the 2008 Bucharest summit, during which the United States pushed for Georgian NATO membership, Russia invaded Georgia, as its conflict with the breakaway region South Ossetia turned into full-scale war. Fifteen years later, Russia still occupies 20 percent of internationally recognized Georgian territory. At the summit, Putin had warned that the expansion of NATO closer to Russian borders would be viewed as a “direct threat.” While Russia is in no position to use its own military to pressure Armenia or Azerbaijan, lawmakers must recognize that Russian reactions to NATO overreach in the Caucasus have exacerbated regional conflicts. 

Armenia’s drift away from Russian influence could tempt officials from the United States to combat Russia in the region via proxy. But Azerbaijan’s aggression demonstrates the need for a resolution, and the United States can best provide it with diplomacy, in the hopes of bringing stability to the region. Beyond promoting diplomacy, American interests are not directly linked to promoting war through providing arms in the regional conflict. 

Instead of expanding the role of NATO and Washington in the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict, the United States can and should continue to use diplomatic and humanitarian methods to mediate the conflict, as head of USAID Samantha Power and Secretary of State Antony Blinken did when the conflict began. Less provocative and more effective than military involvement, Washington would be wise to learn the lessons of its previous failures by choosing diplomacy. 

America’s embrace of great power competition in the South Caucasus has incited Russian aggression by threatening Russia’s perceived regional influence. Overall, these mistakes have reduced the likelihood that the United States and Russia, two nuclear superpowers, can engage diplomatically and effectively. 

Zachary Weiss is a political risk analyst living in Tbilisi, Georgia, who has conducted research concerning foreign and domestic politics in the Balkans, Caucasus, and Central Asia. 

Go here to see the original:
The Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict demands American diplomacy without NATO overreach - The Hill

Story Highlights

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Over the past two decades, the European Union and NATO have weathered many storms, from the Iraq War to the European debt crisis, Brexit and the invasion of Ukraine. Both are also expanding.

A new Gallup analysis suggests the ability of these international institutions to survive -- and thrive -- may be tethered to the actions of powerful member states and the confidence that people in member states have in their domestic political institutions.

In the near term, continued broad approval for these international institutions may hinge on the coming 2024 elections in the United States and 2025 elections in Germany.

When Gallup asked people in their respective member states in 2022 whether they approved of NATO leadership and EU leadership, the responses varied widely, but the overall picture looked positive:

###Embeddable###

By far the strongest predictor of the way people in member states view NATO and the EU is their views of major global powers. This relationship is not wholly unexpected, but the magnitude of the effect is almost outsized.

Controlling for other factors, an individual who approves of U.S. and German leadership -- pillars to these Western institutions -- was 7.7 times more likely to approve of NATOs leadership and 6.5 times more likely to approve of the EUs leadership than an individual who approves of neither.

For powers outside the Western bloc, the picture is mixed. Views of Chinas leadership are not strongly associated with views of EU and NATO leadership. However, a respondent who disapproves of Russias leadership is roughly twice as likely to approve of EU and NATO leadership as an individual who does not disapprove.

###Embeddable###

Gallups Migrant Acceptance Index was born largely out of reaction to the migrant crisis that swept Europe in 2015, with migration into the EU remaining an especially salient and divisive political issue ever since. After years of wrangling, the EU only recently reached an agreement on reforms to deal with the numbers of migrants and refugees coming into the bloc.

The index gauges people's acceptance of migrants based on three questions that ask whether people think migrants living in their country, becoming their neighbors and marrying into their families are good things or bad things.

Controlling for other factors, a respondent who says all three scenarios are a good thing is 1.3 times more likely to approve of NATOs leadership and 1.7 times more likely to approve of the EUs leadership compared with an otherwise similar respondent who says none of those scenarios is a good thing.

The National Institutions Index is based on whether respondents expressed confidence in the military, judicial system, national government, financial system and honesty of elections in their own country.

Accounting for other factors, a respondent who expresses confidence in all five institutions is 3.8 times more likely, on average, to approve of NATOs leadership and 4.4 times more likely to approve of the EUs leadership compared with an otherwise similar respondent who lacks confidence in any domestic institution.

These relationships are statistically robust but conceal interesting differences. For instance, the relationship between confidence in domestic institutions and approval of EU or NATO leadership varies significantly across member states.

###Embeddable###

Believers -- those who express confidence in four or all five domestic institutions -- approve of EU and NATO leadership more than skeptics -- those who express confidence in two or fewer domestic institutions. The sole exception is Hungary, where approval of EU leadership is slightly higher among those with less confidence in national institutions.

In some countries like Spain and Poland, the gaps in approval toward EU and NATO leadership do not differ dramatically between believers in and skeptics of domestic institutions. However, this gap between believers and skeptics is at least 20 percentage points in most countries for NATO leadership (22 out of 31) and EU leadership (20 out of 27).

The gaps are largest in Finland and Slovakia, where approval of EU and NATO leadership is over 50 points higher among believers than among skeptics. Yet, this similarity obscures a significant difference. Believers in domestic institutions (82%) far outnumber skeptics (10%) in Finland, whereas skeptics (52%) outnumber believers (31%) in Slovakia.

The EU and NATO undergird the economic and security ties that bind the Western international political order together. In turn, these international institutions depend on sustained elite and popular support across democratic member states. Approval of the EU and NATO are most strongly associated with attitudes toward domestic institutions and major global powers. These factors are potential sources of cohesion and fragility.

Internal and external efforts to sow mistrust in domestic institutions will likely erode support for these international institutions. Conversely, the ability of democratic political systems to deliver results that secure broad societal confidence in domestic institutions will likely boost support for the EU and NATO. In this case, an institutionalist at home appears more likely to be an institutionalist abroad.

Leadership by the most powerful countries in the EU and NATO -- Germany and the United States, respectively -- also matters. Policies and actions that nurture favorable attitudes toward these great powers will likely strengthen popular support for these international institutions, while policies and actions that elicit unfavorable attitudes will likely weaken popular support for the Western international political order.

* Includes Finland, which joined NATO in 2023

To stay up to date with the latest Gallup News insights and updates, follow us on X.

For complete methodology and specific survey dates, please review Gallup's Country Data Set details.

Learn more about how the Gallup World Poll works.

###Embeddable###

Go here to read the rest:
Can NATO and the EU Survive and Thrive? - Gallup

President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia once proclaimed the dissolution of the Soviet empire the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century. At the time, back in 2005, few expected him to do anything about it.

But then came Russias occupation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia from Georgia in 2008, its backing for Ukrainian separatists and the annexation of Crimea in 2014 and, most resoundingly, the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

Now, with the rise of former President Donald J. Trump, who in the past has vowed to leave NATO and recently threatened never to come to the aid of his alliance allies, concerns are rising among European nations that Mr. Putin could invade a NATO nation over the coming decade and that they might have to face his forces without U.S. support.

That could happen in as few as five years after a conclusion of the war in Ukraine, according to some officials and experts who believe that would be enough time for Moscow to rebuild and rearm its military.

We have always kind of suspected that this is the only existential threat that we have, Maj. Gen. Veiko-Vello Palm, the commander of the Estonian Armys main land combat division, said of a possible Russian invasion.

The past few years have also made it very, very clear that NATO as a military alliance, a lot of countries, are not ready to conduct large-scale operations meaning, in simple human language, a lot of NATO militaries are not ready to fight Russia, General Palm said during an interview in December. So its not very comforting.

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.

Visit link:
For Europe and NATO, a Russian Invasion Is No Longer Unthinkable - The New York Times

WASHINGTON, D.C. U.S. Senator Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) yesterday questioned witnesses during a U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Europe and Regional Security Cooperation about the possible process for Ukraine to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in the future.

You all have the belief that in this upcoming Summit that some process should be offered to Ukraine for a future in NATO is that fair to say? asked Sen. Menendez. And so, the question then becomes, what is that process? Is it a merely an invitation with a long-term opportunity? Is it something more substantial? Is it something that is just another stronger statement that its future is in NATO? What would be desirable to walk away from the Summit, especially at this point in time with Ukraine and its challenges that it has with Russia?

Sen. Menendez quoted Ambassador Douglas Lute, former U.S. Permanent Representative to NATO and retired Lieutenant General of the U.S. Army, when in 2016 he stated that there was no chance of NATO expansion [] because of fears it could destabilize Russia. The Senator asked what the Ambassadors assessment is of the Alliance in terms of expansion destabilizing Russia.

In 2021, NATO for the first time identified systemic challenges posed by Chinas assertive behavior and coercive policies. And since then, it has sought to enhance cooperation with governments in the Indo-Pacific region, including Australia, Japan, New Zealand, and South Korea, and strengthened resilience guidelines for member states, including for critical infrastructure and supply chains, to maintain NATOs technological edge, said Sen. Menendez. Id offer this to anyone in the panel, what additional steps can the Alliance take to address challenges posed by China, and what type of agreement is there within the Alliance on the extent of these challenges?

Sen. Menendez also asked witnesses about their thoughts on NATO establishing cooperation with Arab nations as Iran-backed militia groups continue to sow chaos in the region.

In December, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg made a historic visit to Saudi Arabia, becoming the first sitting secretary-general to visit an Arab state, said Sen. Menendez. I applaud that he went, but it seems to me that its a totally different challenging theatre for NATOs engagement."

In November, during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing entitled U.S. National Security Interest in Ukraine, Sen. Menendez asked Secretary OBrien a series of questions regarding the impact of pulling support for Ukraine on U.S. national security, economy and relationship with allies.

In October, Sen. Menendez met with 25 members of the New Jersey delegation of the American Coalition for Ukraine to highlight the Senators advocacy on behalf of the country and Ukrainian-American citizens. The Senator has reaffirmed his unshakeable commitment to ensure Ukraine receives the resources it needs, and remains committed to calling out Russian aggressions and holding Putin accountable for his actions against the people of Ukraine.

In July, Sen. Menendez introduced the Responding to the Energy Security Crisis in Ukraine and Europe (RESCUE) Act of 2023, which addresses Ukraines fuel needs while helping it reconstruct and modernize its energy infrastructure. In January 2022, Sen. Menendez led 38 of his Senate Democratic colleagues in introducing the Defending Ukraine Sovereignty Act, critical legislation to authorize security assistance for Ukraine and required sanctions against Russia.

###

Read the original post:
Sen. Menendez Questions Witnesses During SFRC Subcommittee Hearing About the Possible Process for Ukraine to ... - Senator Menendez