Category Archives: NATO

What does NATO stand for?

NATO is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. NATO is an intergovernmental military alliance between countries in North America and Europe.

NATO was formed following World War II. Its founding treaty was signed in Washington, D.C., in 1949 by a dozen European and North American countries.

The NATO alliance was formed to respond to the threat posed after the Second World War by the Soviet Union. NATO's purpose was to protect democratic nations against the spread of communism in Europe. NATOs website states"It commits the Allies to democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law, as well as to peaceful resolution of disputes. Importantly, the treaty sets out the idea of collective defense, meaning that an attack against one Ally is considered an attack against all Allies."

The 12 founding member countries of NATO are:

Members of NATO have agreed to a system of collective defense for its members. This means that member states will step in and offer mutual defense when an outside party attacks one of the member states.

NATO also has what it calls aspiring members, who one day may join other states within NATO. This includes Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Macedonia, and Ukraine. Twenty-one countries are members of NATO's Partnership for Peace program. This program is designed to build trust between the organization and states in Europe and the former Soviet Union. Members of this program include former republics of the Soviet Union: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan. Members of Yugoslavia's former republics are Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of Macedonia, and Serbia. European Union members of the program include Austria, Finland, Ireland, Malta, and Sweden. Finally, the European Free Trade Association member Switzerland is also part of the Partnership for Peace program.

Is Ukraine part of NATO? Ukraine is not part of NATO, but it is an aspiring member. Ukraine and NATO's relations started in 1994 and applied to begin a NATO Membership Action Plan (MAP) in 2008. The 2010 presidential election of Viktor Yanukovych, who wanted to keep the country non-aligned, delayed Ukraine's M.A. After Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014, Ukraine's new government made joining NATO a priority. Ukraine became a NATO aspiring member in 2018. On February 7, 2019, the Ukrainian parliament voted to change its constitution to join NATO and the European Union.

Is Russia part of NATO? Russia is not part of NATO. The Russia-NATO Council was established in 2002 to handle security issues and joint projects. NATO decided to suspended cooperation with Russia in 2014 following Russia's Ukraine invasion, not including the NATO-Russia Council. Russia and NATO have held several meetings since 2016, and NATO states that an improvement in their relationship with Russia is dependent on Russia's compliance with international law and their commitments.

Is Turkey part of NATO? Yes, Turkey joined NATO in 1952.

Here is the original post:
NATO Countries - World Population Review

ANKARA

Following the US announcement that it would start withdrawing troops from Afghanistan, eyes turned to the situation of more than 5,000 soldiers in the country under the NATO-led Resolute Support Mission (RSM).

US President Joe Biden had announced that his country's troops would start to withdraw from Afghanistan as of May 1. The withdrawal will be completed by the 20th anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

After the announcement, eyes turned on the number of soldiers of NATO members and non-NATO countries in Afghanistan, and the general structure of the RSM.

On Oct. 7, 2001, the US launched Operation Enduring Freedom on grounds that Afghanistan was hiding Osama Bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders. More than 20 countries, including NATO members, supported the US during the 13-year operation in 2001-2014.

The International Security Support Force (ISAF), formed by NATO countries in 2003, was abolished after US President Barack Obama decided to withdraw most of the American troops from the country.

Immediately after, the RSM was established with a "Status of Forces Agreement" signed in Kabul on Sept. 30, 2014 and accepted by the Afghan parliament on Nov. 27, 2014.

The RSM consisting of 36 countries focused on training the Afghan army and providing assistance in operations against the Taliban. The RSM began operations on Jan. 1, 2015.

Supported by the UN Security Council Resolution 2189, the RSM aims to provide training, consultancy, and assistance to Afghan security forces and institutions.

RSM deployment in Afghanistan

Around 9,500 soldiers within the RSM are located in five different regions in Afghanistan, namely central Kabul, northern Mazar-i Sharif, western Herat, southern Kandahar, and eastern Laghman.

The US, Italy, Turkey, and Germany have training, consultancy, and assistance commands under the RSM.

In this context, Turkey is located in Kabul, Germany in Mazar-i Sharif, the US in Kabul, Lagman, and Kandahar, and Italy in Kabul and Herat.

More than 5,000 troops of NATO are expected to withdraw from Afghanistan.

Until now, NATO members such as Germany, England, Italy, Spain, Belgium, and Hungary announced that they would withdraw from Afghanistan.

The US has 2,500 soldiers, Germany 1,300, Italy 895, the UK 750, Belgium 72, Spain 24, and Hungary has eight.

Turkey has 500 soldiers in Afghanistan as part of the RSM.

The US military said earlier this week that the process to fully withdraw all 2,500 troops from Afghanistan by Biden's Sept. 11 deadline is 6% completed.

Amid stalled peace negotiations, Afghanistan has been witnessing intensifying violence since Biden announced on April 16 that American troops would be withdrawn later this year.

The Taliban ramped up its offensive against government forces following the start of intra-Afghan peace talks in September 2020 and has been blamed for a nationwide campaign of targeted killings that has left scores of Afghanistan's civil society members, journalists, and medical professionals dead.

* Writing by Gozde Bayar

Excerpt from:
Over 5,000 NATO troops expected to withdraw from Afghanistan - Anadolu Agency | English

The Alliance is reportedly set to hold a meeting of its North Atlantic Council at the level of heads of state and government, with no partner countries invited.

Photo from UNIAN, Mykhailo Palynchak

Ukrainian diplomacy continues negotiations with partners in NATO to ensure that Kyiv's interests are taken into account in the final declaration of the North Atlantic Council that will convene June 14, Deputy Head of the President's Office, Ihor Zhovkva, told UNIAN.

"As for the invitation to the NATO summit, it would be politically correct to say that the Alliance decided to hold a meeting of the NATO North Atlantic Council on June 14 at the level of Allies' heads of state and government," the official told the agency.

Read alsoUkraine, U.S. may conclude "very serious" bilateral deal ZelenskyAt the same time, in the remaining period before the summit, the Allies could yet reconsider the format, Zhovkva suggests.

The Alliance sometimes organizes summits without the involvement of partner countries, the President's Office recalls.

"For example, this was the case with the London 2019 summit and Strasbourg/Kehl 2009 summit, where only the Allies partook. Therefore, the upcoming summit of the Alliance following a presidential election in the United States is quite expected to be held in a 'narrow circle' of NATO member states," said the deputy chief of the President's Office.

The main thing for the Ukrainian side, Zhovkva believes, is the content of the NATO summit.

"Here we can be sure that the topic of Ukraine will be definitely discussed. We have been assured of this by all our closest NATO partners the United States, Canada, Germany, France, and Poland. As for the possible decisions of the summit, including with regard to Ukraine, they will be laid down in its joint final paper. Work on such a document continues. We keep negotiating with our partners to ensure that Ukraine's interests are taken into account in the Alliance's final decision," the official summed up.

Ukraine-NATO: Latest

Translation: Yevgeny Matyushenko

See the rest here:
Ukraine, likely not to be invited to NATO summit, believes its interests to be taken into account - UNIAN

The recent deployment of tens of thousands of Russian troops to Ukraines border, along with an array of equipment necessary for an invasion, fundamentally threatened Ukraines territorial integrity and political independence. Although Russia reportedly has returned the troops to their barracks, the equipment remains forward-based as prepositioned stocks, available on short notice should Moscow decide to invade at some future time.

Given this potential for a swift Russian fait accompli invasion, as well as the Wests interest in a stable, independent Ukraine, the United States and its NATO allies should make its response to a Russian invasion crystal clear to Moscow. Ambiguity, although sometimes useful in national security, is counterproductive in this situation. Instead, NATO can use the upcoming June summit to convey the kinds of steps Western countries could take following any incursion into Ukraine, such as cutting off Russian access to international finance, pulling the plug on Russian energy supplies, and opening the spigot on Western arms transfers to Ukraine.

Ukraine is not a NATO ally, despite the alliances ill-conceived promise of eventual membership in 2008. Nonetheless, Ukraines territorial integrity and political independence are important to the United States and its European allies for at least three reasons. First, Ukraines dismemberment or its political implosion because of Russian military action would completely undo the tenuous regional stability achieved in the past couple of years, thanks in large part to a rejuvenated U.S. and allied commitment to deterrence in Eastern Europe. Undoubtedly, another Russian invasion would throw the region into instability and result in still more not less requirements for U.S., German, British and French military forces in Central and Eastern Europe.

Second, a Russian invasion could result in waves of refugees fleeing Ukraine, creating social, economic and even political upheaval elsewhere in Europe. Given the terrain along Ukraines western and southern borders, those refugees probably would head to Poland, a challenge made more difficult by Polands COVID-19 lockdown measures and its slow rate of vaccination. Ukrainian refugees probably also would flee to other favored destinations beyond Poland, especially Germany and Italy.

Third, yet another violation of international norms and law at the hands of Russia would compel the United States to devote more energy, attention and resources to European security matters, possibly at the expense of the Indo-Pacific. Europe remains vital to American national security, regardless of what Russia does, and of course the American national security enterprise can walk and chew gum at the same time. However, as Washington increasingly focuses on China, Russian adventurism in Eastern Europe creates an unwelcome distraction.

What are the United States and its allies to do? Making it clear to Moscow whats at risk is necessary to avoid miscalculation and eliminate ambiguity, while deterrence is still a viable policy choice and before a Russian military operation is unleashed that leaves the West with fewer options. In about seven weeks, NATO allies will gather for their first summit of the Biden presidency, presenting a perfect opportunity to clarify potential Western responses to any further Russian military action against Ukraine. Of course, theres no guarantee that Russia can be deterred now or in the future, but speaking with unity and clarity at the NATO summit might preclude the most catastrophic of outcomes.

The menu of potential Western responses should focus first on Russias center of gravity the economy that fuels its military operations and modernization and secondarily on Russias ability to consolidate and maintain any gains from an expansion of its presence in Ukraine. Some might argue economic matters are outside NATOs purview, but Article 2 of its founding treaty calls on allies to collaborate more closely in the economic realm, which is an increasingly important vector for Russian (and Chinese) influence and other hybrid activities in Europe.

With regard to Russias economy, two areas in particular are ripe targets. The first is the financial sector. The U.S. and its allies should make clear that they likely would ban Western institutions trading of existing Russian debt in secondary markets and end Russian banks access to the financial messaging system used for most international money transfers. If implemented, these steps would have a chilling effect on the Russian economy by significantly increasing Moscows borrowing costs, weakening the ruble, and reducing liquidity in the Russian economy.

Second, the West should signal its willingness to close the taps on Russian fossil fuels. Such a move would demand sacrifice by both Washington and its European allies. On this side of the Atlantic, U.S. officials should reduce Americas recently growing reliance on Russian crude oil, which spiked last year as oil imports from Venezuela plummeted. However, given the global nature of the oil market, simply prohibiting the importation of Russian crude isnt enough. Instead, the West could announce its willingness to tap strategic petroleum reserves and its intent to get other major oil producers to expand production.

Meanwhile, Germany would need to put the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline project on ice, something Chancellor Angela Merkel has been loath to do. Moscow values consistent, predictable demand for its energy exports, though, since fees from oil and gas account for roughly 40 percent of Russias government revenues. More broadly, reducing Russian fossil fuel revenues would dramatically impact the Russian economy, which remains dependent on resource extraction.

Finally, NATO should be clear that another invasion of Ukraine could unleash Western arms transfers to Kyiv, making any attempted occupation painful for Russian troops. Since 2014, the United States has committed more than $2 billion in security assistance to Ukraine, including a recently announced package of $125 million for patrol boats, counter-artillery radars, and other equipment. However, there remains $150 million in unspent fiscal year 2021 funds under the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, which Washington could signal it intends to release immediately upon a Russian offensive. Meanwhile, key U.S. allies Germany and France could announce their intention to do more as well, joining the United Kingdom in its willingness to provide offensive weapons and capabilities.

The sanctions against Russia announced in early April by the Biden administration were viewed as limited in scope and impact. This was likely intentional on the administrations part, to retain a few arrows in its quiver but also in the hope of eventually reaching some kind of peaceful coexistence with Moscow. Its time to show Moscow whats in the quiver, but Washington cant act alone. Together during the upcoming June summit, the NATO allies should exercise their deterrent power while they still have it.

John R. Deni, Ph.D., is a research professor at the U.S. Army War Colleges Strategic Studies Institute, a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, and an adjunct professor at the American Universitys School of International Service. Hes the author of NATO and Article 5. The views expressed are his own.

View post:
Ukraine and Russia: NATO should clarify its deterrent approach, while it still can | TheHill - The Hill

The evolving US-led Quad forum is neither a security alliance nor an Asian version of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), a US White House official said Friday, stressing it is an open framework designed to tackle shared challenges.

Edgard Kagan, senior director for East Asia and Oceania at the National Security Council, made the remarks in a virtual seminar, amid a sense that the Quad, which consists of the United States, Australia, India and Japan, aims to counter the rise of China, making South Korea and other countries reluctant to join.

"I think it's also worth noting that it's important to keep in mind ... this is not a security alliance. It is not an Asian NATO," Kagan said in the webinar hosted by the local think tank Chey Institute for Advanced Studies.

"It is not something that has very clear governance structures. And so it offers a very flexible framework," he added.

His comment came amid expectations that the U.S. would encourage South Korea, a key Asian ally, to join an expanded version of the Quad forum, with Seoul apparently mindful of potential negative reactions from China.

Seoul has maintained that it is willing to cooperate with the Quad member countries on an issue-by-issue basis, and that it can join any architecture as long as it operates under the principles of openness, inclusiveness and transparency.

Observers said that the issue of South Korea's participation in the Quad could be brought up when President Moon Jae-in holds his first in-person summit with his US counterpart, Joe Biden, in Washington on May 21.

Noting a "great deal of interest" about the Quad in Korea, Kagan stressed that there are many "opportunities" that would arise if Seoul works together in the Quad framework.

"What we see is very much opportunities, opportunities to further expand areas of cooperation for countries that have common interests," he said. "We see this as something that will require discussion and we look forward to being part of that discussion."

Asked whether China can be part of Quad activities related to transnational challenges, such as climate change, Kagan stressed that the forum is "based on the idea of a free and open Indo-Pacific" -- a vision that Washington believes has been undermined by an assertive China.

"It's hard to imagine countries participating in activities that didn't sign on to the idea of a free and open Indo-Pacific free of coercion, free of intimidation, free of economic retaliation or economic threats," he said.

In the webinar, Michael Green of the Center for Strategic and International Studies said he does not anticipate expansion of the Quad, as it would get the forum "slower and more cumbersome."

Noting Korea's interest in the Quad agenda, such as maritime security and supply chain management, Green said that the question is not whether Korea should join the Quad or not.

"You know it's which part of the agenda, on an a la carte basis, will Korea join, as other countries -- Canada, Britain, France -- join in different aspects of the Quad," he said. (Yonhap)

See the original post here:
'Quad is neither security alliance nor Asian NATO': White House official - The Korea Herald

Prime Minister of Ukraine Denys Shmyhal and Prime Minister of Georgia Irakli Garibashvili discussed the development of cooperation, countering the spread of COVID-19, and strengthening defense capabilities.

This was reported by the Government portal.

"Prime Minister of Ukraine Denys Shmyhal held a videoconference with Prime Minister of Georgia Irakli Garibashvili. The heads of government discussed the development of cooperation, new areas of interaction, countering the spread of COVID-19, and strengthening the defense capabilities," the statement reads.

Denys Shmyhal congratulated Irakli Garibashvili on his appointment as Prime Minister of Georgia in February this year. He noted that Georgia is one of Ukraine's important partners.

"We have received completely new opportunities to strengthen relations between our countries. Ukraine and Georgia possess very good prospects for the development of cooperation in the field of logistics, transit and trade," the PM of Ukraine stressed.

Shmyhal offered his Georgian counterpart to resume the work of the Joint Intergovernmental Ukrainian-Georgian Commission on Economic Cooperation.

During the conversation, the parties also stressed the importance of strengthening the country's defense capability by implementing NATO standards and raised the issue of countering COVID-19.

Shmyhal also thanked the Georgian side for the return of the Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Georgia to Ukraine. According to him, this is one of the main steps to strengthen bilateral relations. The head of the Ukrainian government added that a personal meeting with the PM of Georgia will take interstate relations to a new level. In particular, Shmyhal confirmed his readiness to visit Georgia this year.

In turn, Irakli Garibashvili noted that Ukraine is a special friend of Georgia, and they are committed to further develop bilateral partnerships.

ish

Read this article:
PMs of Ukraine and Georgia discuss implementation of NATO standards and fight against COVID-19 - Ukrinform. Ukraine and world news

By Xinhua

Tripoli. Ali Al-Khalfouni, a 56-year-old Libyan elementary school teacher, used to make about 700 USdollars per month 10 years ago, an income high enough to cover the expenses of his entire family.

Nowadays, he makes less than 200 US dollars per month. In order to secure the basic needs of the family, he uses his spare time teaching private lessons to make more money.

"Actually, so many negative things happened over the past 10 years," Al-Khalfouni said. "A large number of the Libyan people became unemployed and hungry."

Besides economic degradation, the security situation has also been worsening. According to Al-Khalfouni, the quality of life today is "tens of times worse" than 10 years ago.

"At least, most of the Libyans lived in an acceptable life and in an good security situation to the point that we did not hear the sounds of bullets in our daily life 10 years ago. Today, we hear the sounds of warplanes, gun firing and various weapons," he explained.

A picture shows residential buildings, damaged during the 14 months of fighting between the UN recognized Government of National Union (GNA) and Marshal Khalifa Haftar, in a southern neighbourhood in the capital Tripoli on July 9, 2020.

In February 2011, many Libyans demonstrated against the regime of Muammar Gaddafi. The demonstrations then turned into an armed conflict between Gaddafi's forces and West-backed rebels.

In March 2011, NATO forces intervened in Libya's civil war with promises to liberate the country. The operation helped overthrow Gaddafi but left the country deeply unstable.

During the past 10 years, the Libyans have been plagued by political and economic collapse, inter-militia and intertribal warfare, as well as humanitarian crisis. In 2010, Libya's GDP per capita exceeded 12,000 USdollars. However, in 2011 it dropped to about 5,500 USdollars.

Khairiah Bouazoum, 67, is a retired employee at the Ministry of Economy. Now, she struggles to receive her pension due to the financial crisis and the country's delay in paying the salaries of retirees or current employees.

"We have lost the sense of life in Libya. Our suffering has become summarized in the power blackouts and the lack of money in the banks, in addition to the high prices of goods that have made the middle and poor classes struggle," Bouazoum told Xinhua.

"We do not want anything except security and economic stability, because these are conditions for the country to recover from its crisis," she said.

Libyans chant slogans during a demonstration due to poor public services at the Martyrs' Square at the centre of the GNA-held Libyan capital Tripoli on August 24, 2020.

The Libyan Political Dialogue Forum (LPDF) recently selected a new executive authority for the North African country, which was welcomed by all the Libyan parties.

The new authority's main task is to prepare Libya for the general elections on December 24, as agreed by the LPDF.

However, the situation in Libya cannot be described as stable yet, and the future of the North African nation still faces a high degree of uncertainty. Foreign forces have not yet completely withdrawn.

Asma Haggaj, a Libyan journalist, says the social instability has changed her life and restricted her career development during the past decade.

"I want to tell the United States: stop interfering in the lives of the Arab peoples!" she said.

Here is the original post:
Libyans struggling in poverty, chaos 10 years after NATO intervention - The Citizen

Speaking at the annual Riga Conference on Thursday (6 May 2021), NATO Deputy Secretary General Mircea Geoan stressed the importance of strategic communications to help build resilience among Allied societies faced with increased hybrid activities, including disinformation. Such hostile activities seek to undermine our democracies, our institutions, our shared values, on which our Alliance is founded, he said.

The COVID-19 pandemic has provided fertile ground for increased hybrid activities, but NATO has been able to adapt and continue to defend its one billion population.

Looking ahead, close cooperation with like-minded partners across the globe and a whole of society approach will be essential to continue to protect democratic societies against current security threats. NATOs 2030 initiative, Mr. Geoan stressed, also sets an ambitious agenda for enhanced transatlantic security and defence in such an uncertain world.

The event, held online on 6 and 7 May 2021, was organized by NATOs Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence.

The rest is here:
NATO Deputy Secretary General: unity and adaptation are key in today's uncertain world - NATO HQ

WASHINGTON Russia has withdrawn only a few thousand troops from the border with Ukraine, senior Biden administration officials said, despite signals from Moscow last month that it was dialing down tensions in the volatile region.

Senior Defense Department officials said that close to 80,000 Russian troops remained near various strips of the countrys border with Ukraine, still the biggest force Russia has amassed there since Moscow annexed Crimea in 2014.

The Russian military did order some units back to their barracks by May 1 and they did move from the border the officials said. But many of the units left their trucks and armored vehicles behind, a signal that they could go back if President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia decided to deploy them again.

President Biden said on Tuesday that it was his hope and expectation that he would meet with Mr. Putin during a trip to Europe in June that includes attending a NATO summit in Brussels. The administration has paired the offer of a meeting, an important symbol of Moscows continuing influence on the world stage, with a toughening of sanctions on Russia for its cyberattacks, election meddling, threats against Ukraine and poisoning of Aleksei A. Navalny, the opposition leader.

Administration officials said they were taking the sustained troop presence at the Ukrainian border as a message from Mr. Putin that he could match and, in fact, dwarf the number of troops taking part in American and NATO exercises in Europe. The American-led exercise, called Defender Europe, officially began on Tuesday. It includes about 28,000 troops from the United States and European allies participating in maneuvers over the next two months across Albania and other parts of Eastern Europe on Mr. Putins doorstep. And over the next month, NATO will lead another exercise, called Steadfast Defender 21, in Romania and Portugal.

Military analysts have noted that Mr. Putins troop deployment was clearly intended to be visible, an effort at muscle-flexing and part of standard operating procedure for the Kremlin, especially at the beginning of a new American presidency. Mr. Putin could well be looking for ways to test Mr. Bidens resolve, officials said. But the danger is that any military buildup could spiral out of control, or prompt a deeper crisis.

For all of the deliberative strategy, there is a standing risk of things going wrong, signals being misinterpreted, said Ian Lesser, the vice president of the German Marshall Fund. An aircraft could be shot down. Something could happen.

American officials say they remain unsure what exactly Mr. Putins aims are in his troop surge or in his decision so far not to follow through completely on the withdrawal announcement. That ambiguity could be part of the Russian leaders calculations.

They have retained a rather lethal force in the region and have only pulled back some forces, said Maj. Gen. Michael S. Repass, a retired former commander of U.S. Special Operations forces in Europe who is now NATOs special operations adviser to Ukraine.

That tells me they may want to come back later when timing and circumstances are more advantageous to Russia, General Repass said. This will happen again.

Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken will be in Kyiv on Thursday to reaffirm unwavering U.S. support for Ukraines sovereignty and territorial integrity in the face of Russias ongoing aggression, the State Department spokesman, Ned Price, said in a statement. But Mr. Blinken will also be looking for ways to lower the temperature in the region, officials said. He will talk about Ukraines NATO ambitions Kyiv wants to join the alliance, a move that would provoke fury in Moscow.

The big NATO exercise almost certainly has influenced that Russian decision to maintain a significant troop presence on the Russian-Ukrainian border, said James G. Stavridis, a retired admiral and former NATO commander. The message Vladimir Putin seeks to send is simple: Ukraine should not even think about a NATO membership. Nor should NATO offer one. Any move in that direction will lead to a Russian intervention.

Some American officials say the troop deployment is essentially intended to call the bluff of the United States and Europe and to make clear to Kyiv the limits of Western support. Russia, these officials say, wants to prompt a reaction from the West, but a reaction that will fall short of the hopes of the Ukrainian government.

Russia may have already achieved that goal. The United States has said it is prepared to impose further sanctions on Moscow and voiced strong support for Ukraine. But Mr. Bidens administration has taken no steps to move forward with NATO membership or significantly increase military aid to Kyiv.

The supply of water for Crimea remains a key friction point. If Russia makes an incursion into more Ukrainian-controlled territory, it could be to loosen sharp controls over the Crimean water supply that Ukraine put in after the 2014 annexation.

Senior American officials believe an incursion to secure the water supply remains a real threat. Moscow has played with the boundaries of occupied territories elsewhere; Russian forces regularly shift the boundary of their control of the occupied parts of Georgia.

But the water issue has been brewing for seven years and Russia has never made any such moves to seize control of the supply. Moving out of Crimea and into other parts of Ukrainian territory would bring a strong reaction from the international community, and Russian officials would have to decide whether it was worth the cost, both financially and diplomatically.

Andrea Kendall-Taylor, a scholar at the Center for a New American Security and a former senior intelligence official specializing in Russia, said any operation by Moscow to take control of the water supply would be difficult. It requires Russian forces to take it, garrison it and maintain control over it, which would be costly over the long run, she said.

Moscow had been spooked by the Ukrainian governments perceived shift to a more anti-Russia policy stance, Ms. Kendall-Taylor said. The Russian moves are primarily to put pressure on Ukrainians, while also trying to expose the limits of what the U.S. and Europe will do for Ukraine, she said.

The Biden administration could increase military aid to Ukraine to counter Moscow. But that, again, demands a balancing act, senior administration officials said. The trick would be bolstering the Ukrainian military so that an invasion by Russia looks as if it could be a slog, but not strengthening the military to the point where Russia feels it is threatened and has to act.

Eric Schmitt contributed reporting.

See the original post here:
As Russian Troops Stay at Ukraine Border, Biden Officials See ...

May 1KABUL, Afghanistan U.S. and NATO forces officially began their final drawdown from Afghanistan on Saturday after nearly two decades of war and as violence continued to rage across the country.

Tensions remained high throughout the day after the Taliban suggested they would launch attacks on coalition troops who remained in the country past the May 1 exit date outlined in a U.S.-Taliban deal signed last year.

Militants fired at Kandahar Airfield in the afternoon, but the assault caused no injuries or damage to equipment, Col. Sonny Leggett, a spokesman for the U.S. military in Afghanistan said on Twitter.

U.S. forces conducted a precision strike later in the evening, destroying additional rockets aimed at the airfield, Leggett said.

It was the only reported attack that may have been directed at foreign forces during the day. On Friday night, a bombing at an Afghan military base next to Bagram Airfield, the largest American installation in the country, killed one Afghan soldier and injured over two dozen others, said Abdul Wasi Rahimi, head of security at the provincial police chief's office.

A separate bombing Friday at a guesthouse in eastern Logar province killed over 20 people and wounded dozens more, Afghanistan's Interior Ministry said, highlighting the precarious security situation the U.S. and its allies are leaving behind.

No group immediately claimed responsibility for any of the attacks.

Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid tweeted Saturday that the continued presence of foreign forces violated the U.S.-Taliban deal and said Taliban fighters were waiting for their leadership to decide what actions would be taken next.

The final months of America's longest war which began in late 2001 in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks and has claimed the lives of more than 2,300 American service members have largely been shrouded in secrecy. Many details of the withdrawal, including when specific bases will close and when individual partner countries will leave, have been restricted due to security concerns, NATO and American military officials said.

"At this point, we will not go into operational details, including troop numbers or timelines for individual nations," NATO's press office said in an emailed statement.

On Saturday, Afghanistan's acting Defense Minister Yasin Zia said at a news conference in Kabul that the drawdown had begun and that some bases would probably be handed over to Afghan forces within a week.

"Maybe tomorrow, in Shorabak, a small team of foreign forces will leave the area and like this, they will step-by-step leave other areas," Zia said, referring to a base in southern Helmand province.

The final drawdown follows a series of troop reductions that began shortly after the Trump administration signed a deal with the Taliban in Qatar on Feb. 29, 2020, which called for all coalition forces to leave Afghanistan by May 1, if the Taliban met vague counterterrorism pledges.

Two weeks ago, President Joe Biden said the U.S. and its allies would continue with the withdrawal plans, regardless of the conditions on the ground. Biden said it could take until Sept. 11 to get all foreign forces out of the country.

"Our reasons for staying have become increasingly unclear," Biden said in a televised address to the nation on April 14. "It's time for American troops to come home."

Days later, German Defense Ministry spokesman David Helmbold was quoted by the dpa news agency as saying NATO was considering moving all troops out of Afghanistan by July 4.

Despite the imminent end to the U.S. and NATO presence in Afghanistan, the Taliban who since last February have largely refrained from attacking foreign forces have criticized pushing back the original exit date and have warned there would be a "reaction."

Withdrawing from the country involves ground and air movements of troops, supplies and equipment, which U.S. defense officials said the Taliban might try to attack. The U.S. is keeping an aircraft carrier in the Middle East and has moved at least four B-52 bombers and portions of an Army Ranger task force to the region as a precaution, the officials said.

With regard to protecting Afghans, the Defense Department had yet not decided whether "to change or reduce air support" for security forces during the drawdown, the Pentagon said in a statement Tuesday, walking back earlier comments by Pentagon Press Secretary John Kirby that suggested otherwise.

While the final drawdown of forces officially began on Saturday, the military in preceding weeks had been taking inventory and deciding what to ship back to the U.S. or hand over to Afghan forces. In recent days, some U.S. and NATO officials have said a small number of troops had withdrawn before the official start date.

There are currently between 2,500 and 3,500 American troops in Afghanistan in addition to 7,000 coalition troops and thousands of contractors, who are also being pulled out. At the height of the war there were over 100,000 American troops alone in the country.

wellman.phillip@stripes.com

Twitter: @pwwellman

___

(c)2021 the Stars and Stripes

Visit the Stars and Stripes at http://www.stripes.com

Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

See the rest here:
US and NATO Forces Begin Final Withdrawal From Afghanistan After Nearly Two Decades of War - AviationPros.com