Category Archives: NATO

The PKK terrorists' execution of 13 unarmed Turkish citizens in Gara, northern Iraq, will remain the subject of heated political debate for some time. The debate could have an impact on Turkey's foreign policy if it builds on the political consciousness that awakens following events of this nature and supports our fight against terrorism rather than the oppositions accusations.

Unlike the U.S. Department of State, which was compelled to condemn the PKK after issuing a scandalous initial statement, NATOs Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg unequivocally denounced the act of terrorism and offered his condolences to the Turkish people.

Praising Turkeys contributions to the fight against Daesh terrorists, he highlighted that the country has suffered more terror attacks than any other NATO ally and hosted millions of refugees.

I must say that Stoltenberg plays a constructive role through his promotion of dialogue and empathy among NATO allies, opposing Turkeys alienation at a time when there is talk of NATOs brain death.

However, it is expected that Turkey's role within NATO will be more intensely debated in the coming months.

In December, when NATO allies were discussing their vision for 2030, Washington was preoccupied with the turbulent transfer of power to Joe Biden, who intends to strengthen the alliance.

Under former U.S. President Donald Trump, NATO summits had been uncharacteristically tense. Replacing a president who called NATO obsolete, threatened to leave the alliance citing the failure of European allies to pay and moved to pull U.S. troops out of Germany, Biden intends to restore faith in the United States.

The Biden administration consists of policymakers who believe that international order must rest firmly on American values. In addition to strengthening Washingtons cooperation with its European and Asian allies, containing China and Russia are at the top of the new administrations agenda.

Biden, too, is expected to emphasize collective security and pursue a foreign policy centered around economic security. That approach inevitably calls for stronger ties to NATO and the European Union.

It remains unclear, however, how exactly Washington intends to get there. When Trump belittled NATO, the Europeans began to think about securing their own future and pursuing strategic autonomy.

They may not have agreed on that goal, but whether Europe will choose to re-engage with the U.S., as they did in the past, under Biden is unknown.

Another important question is how pro-European the Biden administrations alliance plans to be. For example, Germany remains under pressure over the Nord Stream 2 project.

It remains unclear whether Chinas commercial expansion, a shared concern, will compel Washington and the Europeans to adopt a common policy. Indeed, Trump (or someone else) may win the U.S. presidential election in four years to restore America First and downplay the trans-Atlantic alliance.

As NATO allies attempt to reinvigorate the organization, budget issues, the withdrawal from Afghanistan and Turkeys position will be on the table.

In the recent past, French President Emmanuel Macron expressed his frustration with Turkeys actions in Syria, the Eastern Mediterranean and Libya by taking a jab at NATO.

The Western media echoed the sentiment, complaining about Turkeys problematic situation within the alliance.

It is unclear how the U.S. will treat Turkey, as it attempts to strengthen NATO. If the Biden administration were to object to Turkey's relations with Russia on the grounds they harm NATO, not to mention the S-400 missile deal, it would have a negative impact.

President Recep Tayyip Erdoan clearly expressed Turkeys disappointment with its allies over their failure to support the country against terrorist groups like the PKK and the Glenist Terror Group (FET), declaring: If we are to stand together with you around the world, and within NATO, you must act sincerely. You cannot stand with the terrorists. A warning that must be taken seriously.

Calls for the creation of new mechanisms to limit Turkeys veto powers and for closer cooperation with countries that are concerned about Turkish foreign policy are ideologically motivated as opposed to rational.

The rational nature of Turkeys relations with Russia must be appreciated. Any policy that successfully addresses Turkeys national security concerns would only strengthen NATO.

Link:
Turkey's position in NATO and terror concerns | Daily Sabah - Daily Sabah

President Joe Biden came to office promising to renew the spirit of the Western alliances born after World War II. Its his deliberate rejection of the Trump-and-Brexit era of hyper-nationalism and the America First bullying that has beleaguered Europe for five years.

Im sending a clear message to the world: America is back. The transatlantic alliance is back, Biden said in a Friday speech streamed from the White House to Western leaders listening in at this years virtually-held Munich Security Conference. And we are not looking backward, we are looking forward together.

But are they?

Frances President Emmanuel Macron is looking forward to an entirely new transatlantic security architecture for the 21stcentury. Macrons vision is an all-European defensive collective that is armed up and can act independently and ahead of brain dead NATO. Biden knows this, but made no mention of it in his remarks, offering instead only sweeping declarations that Europe and the United States must again trust in one another. And so, just minutes after Bidens speech, the first by a sitting U.S. president to the annual event, Macron pumped the brakes.

I listened to President Biden and appreciated the list of common challenges, Macron responded in French, but we have an agenda that is unique. Declaring that his message to this years conference had not changed since last years, he delivered his by-now-familiar sales pitch, repeating that Europe has its own security issues that should not always require or rely on U.S. participation or permission, especially for military actions on Europes borders with the Middle East and North Africa. We need more of Europe to deal with our neighborhood, Macron said. I think it is time for us to take much more of the burden for our own protection.

Like Biden, Macron is reacting in part to his tumultuous experience with President Donald Trump and the far-right American nationalists who almost kept him in power for four more years. Dont forget: for a short while Macron tried to buddy up to Trump and American political leaders. But three years ago, he popped the bromance bubble and delivered the best political speech Americans had heard in years, rebuking Trumpism and isolationism during a joint session of Congress. And by last year, he was delivering a codified lesson from those experiences: Europeans no longer should leave their security to the Yanks.

For Macrons idea to work, he must convince the new American president, European politicians and voters, and his own electorate in France. Macron is up for reelection this year, and the left already is unhappy with his less-than-liberal shifts, including this push for a far-more-robust European defense.

To Frances allies, Macron argues, this new order is no threat. It is totally compatible. More than thatI think it will make NATO even stronger than before, he said Friday. But it also would require shifting resources, strategy, and culture, increasing defense spending and acting collectively to deploy troops beyond Europes borders.

And statesman-to-statesman, the 43-year old French leader will have to convince the 78-year old Biden or, at least, Bidens team of Secretary of State Tony Blinken, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan.

Macron laid some of that groundwork two weeks ago when he spent 90 minutes speaking to the Atlantic Council, the influential Washington-based think tank. He gave three priorities for working with the Biden administration, all of which would lead him to his new-era multilateralism that gives Europe more control and flexibility over its regional security. My mandate has been to try to reinvent or restore an actual European sovereignty, he said.

Macron argued that NATO had been under U.S. control for decades, and that its European members under the umbrella of the U.S. Army had to buy American. Meanwhile, American troops, he suggested, are beginning to linger in Europe without purpose.

First, because this is not sustainable to have, I mean, U.S. soldiers being in Europe and in our neighborhood involved at such a scale without clear and direct interests. At a point of time, we have to be much more in charge of our neighborhood. In other words, he said, NATOs sustainability was always at risk.

I think we are in a periodin a moment of clarification for NATO, he said.

Macron hopes the idea of shifting European defense to Europeans is palatable to Americans. I think the more Europe is committed to defend, invest, and be part of the protection of its neighborhood, the more it is important for the U.S. as well, because this is a more-fair burden sharing. The question is the nature of the coordination at NATO and the clarity of our political concept and our common targets at NATO. To wit, he said, the Middle East, Africa [are] our neighbors. It is not the U.S.s neighborhood.

At the moment, this neighborhood is more on Macrons mind than Washingtons. Frances spat with Turkey over its independent positioning in Libya and at-sea standoffs with the Greeks has the French president calling for a new system that somehow requires NATO allies agree to work together to be of the same minds militarily but also politically. What he seems to want is a way to force Turkeys President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to capitulate. Macron said Turkeys military incursion into northern Syria hurt the entire alliance.

The absence of any regulation, I would say, by NATO the absence of intervention to stop the escalation was detrimental for all of us, he said. At the time, NATO forces were on the ground in Syria with their proxies, the Syrian Democratic Forces, which Ankara broadly alleges are all anti-Turkish terrorists, he recounted. And suddenly one of our members decided to kill them because they became terrorists. This is exactly what happened. The credibility of NATO, U.S., France was totally destroyed in the region. Who can trust you when you behave in such a way, without any coordination?

Macron pushed for NATO members to deliver concrete results meaning, Fix the Libyan situation. Get rid of Turkish troops from Libya. Get rid of thousands of jihadists exported from Syria to Libya by Turkey, itself, in complete breach of the Berlin conference.

Its a hot moment for Macron, who is fighting for his political life and European strategic autonomy. If Biden and his team are ready for it, they didnt show it on Fridays virtual teleconference.

I know the past few years have strained and tested our transatlantic relationship, but the United States is determined determined to re-engage with Europe, to consult with you, to earn back our position of trusted leadership, Biden said, in a rather low-energy reading of the speech.

Consulting may not be enough. Biden and his team may have to act. They have an opportunity and momentum to fundamentally re-make the outdated transatlantic security balance with less reliance on American dollars and troops. That may not necessarily mean Washington has less influence, as NATOs Article V promise Bidens unshakable vow and NATOs treaty-based nuclear deterrent umbrella will remain intact. Macron just may need to find a way to lead Biden where he wants this to go.

Read the original here:
Biden Wants to Restore NATO. Macron Is Looking to Move On. - Defense One

In the latest episode of Eastern Approaches, Jamestown President Glen Howard and former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) General (ret.) Philip Breedlove discuss the challenges facing the new Biden administration and the Transatlantic alliance. NATO must continue to stay united as it confronts a hostile Russia, but it will have to maintain credible and effective warfighting capabilities despite likely renewed budget shortfalls caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Breedlove offers poignant and timely advice for increasing NATOs readiness posture and ability to deter future conflict in Eastern Europe, the Black Sea region, and the Arctic.

The Eastern Approaches video series is named after the book by British diplomat, spy and adventurer, Fitzroy Maclean, and features conversations with renowned experts on the most important geostrategic issues the United States faces in Eurasia, with an eye toward detail typically absent in foreign policy discussions today.

Featuring

Gen. (ret.) Philip BreedloveFmr. Supreme Allied Commander Europe, NATO Allied Command Operations

Interviewed By

Glen HowardPresident, The Jamestown Foundation

Participant Biographies

Gen. Philip M. Breedlove (Ret.)is a proven strategic planner, motivational leader and talented communicator. He is a highly decorated retired general of the U.S. Air Force where he reached the highest levels of military leadership as one of six geographic combatant commanders and the Supreme Allied Commander of NATO. During 39 years of service, General Breedlove served in a variety of demanding command and staff positions, leading large-scale, diverse, global operations across two theaters of combat and earning a reputation as an inspirational leader focused on his people, their families and mission accomplishment. Leading a diverse political-military alliance, he was able to build consensus and form teams to accomplish complex tasks spanning multiple continents.As the Supreme Allied Commander Europe and the Commander of U.S. European Command, he answered directly to NATOs governing body, the North Atlantic Council, and to the President of the United States and Secretary of Defense. He led the most comprehensive and strategic structural and policy security changes in the alliances 70-year history. His diplomatic skills reassured allies, deterred potential aggressors and maintained alliance unity during the most dynamic and challenging period since its inception. He led the forces of 28 nations and multiple partners in ensuring the security of an alliance that accounts for more than half the worlds gross domestic product.

As Commander, U.S. Air Forces Europe and Air Forces Africa, General Breedlove was responsible for organizing, training, equipping and maintaining combat-ready forces while ensuring theater air defense forces were ready to meet the challenges of peacetime air sovereignty and wartime defense. This diverse portfolio included both theater and operational air and ballistic missile defense, areas where his operational designs remain in place today.

As Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force, he presided over the Air Staff and served as a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Requirements Oversight Council and Deputy Advisory Working Group during a period of intense challenge, including devising measures to meet the requirements of the Budget Control Acts required $480 billion reduction of the Department of Defense budget. Accordingly, he led the organization, training and equipping of more than 690,000 people serving in the U.S. Air Force and provided oversight of its $120 billion annual budget.

***

Glen Howardis the President of the Jamestown Foundation, one of the worlds leading research and analysis organizations on Eurasia. Based in Washington, D.C., Mr. Howard has overseen the research and analysis activities of Jamestown for the past 16 years and extensively dealt with Russia and Eurasia in his capacity as Jamestown President, working with the regional leaders and national strategists across Eurasia from the Baltic to Central Asia.

An expert on Eurasia and Russia, Mr. Howard is the co-author with Matt Czekaj of the new bookRussias Military Strategy and Doctrine, a collection of writings on Russian military strategy and doctrine by some of the worlds leading defense experts. Mr. Howard is also the editor of the bookVolatile Borderland: Russia and the North Caucasus, and other works. He has published articles in theWall Street Journal, Real Clear Defense, the Hill, and other prominent publications.

Mr. Howard is privileged to have worked for the late Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski from 2002 to 2008 as the executive director of an advocacy organization seeking a peaceful resolution of the second Russo-Chechen war. Mr. Howard worked at the U.S. Embassy Moscow from 1984-1986 and is fluent in Russian and proficient in French, Turkish and Azerbaijani.

Mr. Howard received a Masters degree in Soviet and East European Studies from the University of Kansas (1988) and has an undergraduate degree from Oklahoma State University in Business Management (1984).

More:
Eastern Approaches - The New Administration and NATO Challenges in 2021 with Former SACEUR Gen. (ret.) Philip Breedlove - Jamestown - The Jamestown...

ISLAMABAD, PAKISTAN - NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said Monday Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan need to do more to meet the terms of a 2020 peace deal with the United States to allow for all international forces to leave the country by a May deadline.

Stoltenberg spoke to reporters in Brussels ahead of a meeting later this week of allied defense ministers where the future of a NATO presence in Afghanistan will be discussed in line with the February 29 U.S.-Taliban agreement.

The NATO chief, however, cautioned against staging an abrupt foreign troop withdrawal, saying it could again turn Afghanistan into a haven for international terrorists.

There is still a need for the Taliban to do more when it comes to delivering on their commitments, including the commitment to break ties to not provide any support for terrorist organizations, Stoltenberg argued.

So, our presence is conditions-based. While no ally wants to stay in Afghanistan longer than necessary, we will not leave before the time is right, he stressed. We need to find the right balance between making sure that we not stay longer than necessary, but at the same time, that we don't leave too early.

The deal signed under former U.S. President Donald Trump helped launch the first direct peace talks between the Taliban and the Afghan government last September. It has allowed Washington to reduce the number of U.S. forces in the country to 2,500 from nearly 13,000 a year ago.

But Afghanistan has lately experienced a spike in violence, prompting U.S. President Joe Biden to review the deal to examine whether the insurgents are complying with their commitments and whether to close what has been the longest overseas U.S. military intervention.

The U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan has claimed the lives of more than 2,400 U.S. soldiers and cost Washington nearly $1 trillion.

Stoltenberg echoed the U.S.s skepticism about the Talibans intentions to end hostilities.

Peace talks remain fragile, and the level of violence remains unacceptably high, including Taliban attacks on civilians," Stoltenberg said. The Taliban must reduce violence, negotiate in good faith and live up to their commitment to stop cooperating with international terrorist groups.

Afghan leaders have alleged the Taliban are dragging their feet in the peace talks because the insurgents plan to seize power through military means once all U.S.-led foreign forces withdraw from the country.

The Taliban have repeatedly rejected allegations they are not complying with their obligations outlined in the agreement with the U.S. They have warned against abandoning the February 29 accord, saying it would lead to a dangerous escalation in the nearly 20-year-old war.

In a statement issued ahead of the NATO ministerial conference, the Islamist group insisted their fighters were not launching new offensives and instead were taking only defensive" actions to guard Taliban-held territory against attacks from U.S.-backed Afghan security forces.

Our message to the upcoming NATO ministerial meeting is that the continuation of occupation and war is neither in your interest nor in the interest of your and our people. Anyone seeking extension of wars and occupation will be held liable for it just like the previous two decades, the Taliban said.

Read the rest here:
NATO Chief: No Troop Withdrawal from Afghanistan Before the Time Is Right - Voice of America

Soviet fighter jets, forward-based in what was then East Germany, were loaded with nuclear bombs and prepared for immediate use, as Moscow readied its forces for a potential full-scale war with NATO in 1983. These are among the latest details to have emerged about the war scare that year, which saw the two sides on the brink of a major conflict, all due to very serious misunderstanding.

The catalyst for the Soviets going onto a war footing in November 1983 was NATOs upcoming annual Able Archer command post and communications exercise, which tested the ability of the alliance's forces across Europe and beyond to conduct nuclear warfighting in a highly realistic fashion. Combined with other global tensions at that point in the Cold War, the Able Archer 83 maneuvers were misconstrued by the Soviets as genuine preparations for an all-out assault.

Rob Schleiffert/Wikimedia Commons

A MiG-27D Flogger departs Grossenhain Air Base in former East Germany for the last time, as part of the withdrawal of Russian forces, in 1993.

While the broad scope of this Cold War flashpoint has become much better known since the declassification in 2015 of a U.S. government report into the incident, details that reveal the seriousness of the situation, and how the Soviet side geared up for a nuclear war continue to emerge.

The new revelations come from a new batch of intelligence documents on these events released by the U.S. State Department and they paint an alarming picture, as Soviet forces prepared for the Armageddon that their leaders seem to have sincerely expected was about to come.

In the past, it was known that Able Archers warfighting simulations caused serious alarm among Moscows leadership. Since these drills used a scenario based on a nuclear attack on the Warsaw Pact, its easy to perceive how, if the intentions were misunderstood, that the situation could very quickly become extremely hazardous.

The exercise scenario for Able Archer 83 itself began with the hypothetical enemy forces opening hostilities in Europe on November 4, after which NATO went on general alert. The virtual enemy initiated the use of chemical weapons on November 6. While this was all scripted, the exercise itself began on November 7 and ran over five days. It was based around a simulated transition from conventional and chemical warfare to a nuclear exchange. Above all, the drills were designed to give NATO command posts and communications networks training in this kind of escalation. The realism was such that among those involved were British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl.

National Security Archive

A U.S. Air Force after-action report from Able Archer 83.

In 1983, a subsequent investigation by the Presidents Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board stated, we may have inadvertently placed our relations with the Soviet Union on a hair-trigger.

What we can now understand, too, are some of the precise mechanisms that put the two superpowers onto a potential nuclear collision course.

Derived from signals intelligence collected at the time, the documents describe how the Soviet military command posts across East Germany were ordered to be manned by augmented teams around the clock. In particular, we now know how the Soviet 16th Air Army, with its dozens of airbases scattered across East German territory, responded when the alarm was raised, being placed on a heightened state of alert on the evening of November 2.

National Security Archive

Rob Schleiffert/Wikimedia Commons

An impressive line-up of MiG-27s at Lrz Air Base, former East Germany, ahead of their withdrawal in 1993.

As the spearhead of the 16th Air Army, the fighter-bomber divisions, which primarily flew MiG-27 Flogger and Su-17 Fitter combat jets, plus smaller numbers of swing-wing Su-24 Fencers, were the focus of much of the activity. Its not surprising, too, that NATO was keeping a close eye on these units, as they would have been tasked with nuclear strikes against the alliances airfields, missile bases, and other key targets.

It wasnt just the 16th Air Army that was preparing for war, either. Further to the east, the Soviet 4th Air Army in Poland was also put on alert, on the orders of Marshal Pavel Kutakhov, the chief of the Soviet Air Forces.

National Security Archive

Among the fighter-bomber divisions, one squadron within each regiment was ordered to arm its aircraft with nuclear bombs. Typically, each regiment had three squadrons, of which one was a specialist in nuclear strike missions, regularly practicing loading and unloading weapons, and flying appropriate attack profiles.

The now-declassified documents state that the nuclear-armed jets were put on 30-minute alert, with their crews briefed to destroy first-line enemy targets. Providing the intelligence is accurate, and one squadron from each of the eight Soviet fighter-bomber regiments in East Germany was armed with at least one nuclear bomb. That would have provided around 96 aircraft ready for a nuclear strike, depending on serviceability, based on a nominal squadron strength of 12.

Rob Schleiffert/Wikimedia Commons

A Su-17M4 Fitter-K taxis at Gross DllnAir Base, former East Germany.

Its a little-known fact that within the Soviet Air Forces tactical aviation branch, known as Frontal Aviation, almost all combat aircraft included a variant tailored for the carriage of freefall nuclear bombs. Even today, however, few details are available about the weapons themselves. As of 1983, the standard tactical nuclear bombs included the RN-40 and RN-41, carried by the MiG-23, MiG-27, MiG-29, Su-17, and Su-24. Western sources give the RN-40 an approximate yield of 30 kilotons twice that of the Little Boy bomb that the United States dropped on the Japanese city of Hiroshima near the end of World War II.

As well as the nuclear weapons themselves, NATO intelligence confirmed that at least one of the Su-17M4 Fitter-Ks at Neuruppin Air Base home of the 730th Fighter-Bomber Aviation Regiment was fitted with an electronic jamming pod for self-protection, more evidence that offensive missions were being planned. Intelligence gathered from the National Security Agency then revealed that the squadron encountered an unexpected weight and balance problem and was told to continue without the electronics gear.

PUBLIC DOMAIN

An original Western intelligence photo of one of the earlier Su-17M2 Fitter-D fighter-bombers, dated 1985 and almost certainly taken in East Germany.

This message meant that at least this particular squadron was loading a munitions configuration that they had never actually loaded before, i.e., a warload, U.S. military intelligence analysts concluded at the time.

The hazards of the 1983 war scare are still all too clear to see, almost four decades later. After all, as mentioned before, this was a critical point in the Cold War. Before Able Archer, tensions had already been heightened by a variety of factors, including an escalating arms race, increasingly belligerent statements from leaders on both sides, leadership crises in the Soviet Union, and a previous scare in which a serious malfunction led to a Soviet satellite control center to alert officials to an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) attack from the United States. In September 1983, just months before the annual Able Archer exercise, Korean Air Lines Flight 007 (KAL007) had been shot down by a Soviet Su-15 Flagon interceptor over the Sea of Japan, killing all 269 passengers and crew on board.

U.S. Navy

After-action report map for the joint American, Japanese, and South Koreas search operations in international waters after the shootdown of KAL007.

While the regular Able Archer maneuvers were known to the Soviets, they still considered it most likely that World War III would begin with a surprise NATO attack under the cover of just such an exercise. When all these elements came together in late 1983, there was a terrifying sense of inevitability in how the Soviets began preparing for nuclear war.

This, of course, is with the benefit of hindsight and it is fortunate that critical decision-makers at the time were not necessarily aware of how the Soviets had responded to the exercise. The recently released documents also include the testimony of Air Force Lieutenant General Leonard H. Perroots, who was, at the time, Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence within U.S. Air Forces Europe (USAFE), headquartered at Ramstein Air Base in then-West Germany. Perroots recalled contacting his superiors at the time of the war scare, including the USAFE commander-in-chief, General Billy Minter.

U.S. Air Force

Lieutenant General Leonard H. Perroots, who later became Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency.

Minter asked Perroots for his assessment of what was happening in East Germany and was told that there was insufficient evidence to justify increasing our real alert posture. But Perroots admitted later that, as more details became available about the status of the Soviet forces across the border, he became ever more concerned. If I had known then what I later found out I am uncertain what advice I would have given, he later admitted.

Perroots maintained that he had made the right call in not recommended an escalation on the NATO side. However, he was aware that he lacked a complete picture of the preparations that the Soviets were making. It was only after the exercise that he began to realize just how serious the situation appeared, including what was happening across Soviet airbases in East Germany.

On this occasion, we should probably all be thankful that Perroots was not a party to the details of Soviet preparations for a nuclear war that we now have to hand. All in all, the 1983 war scare continues to provide sobering reminders of the dangers of nuclear brinkmanship and how suspicions between foes can rapidly escalate into something altogether much more perilous.

Contact the author: thomas@thedrive.com

Read more from the original source:
New Docs Show 1983 NATO Exercise Led To The Soviets Arming 100 Jets For Nuclear War - The Drive

Lee Berthiaume, The Canadian Press Published Wednesday, February 17, 2021 5:45AM EST

OTTAWA -- Canada is expected to face pressure this week to reverse a recent drawdown of troops from Iraq as the NATO military alliance prepares to expand its presence in the country.

The alliance has persistent concerns about Islamic State extremists and Iranian-backed militias.

NATO secretary-general Jens Stoltenberg predicted this week that defence ministers from across the alliance would approve the deployment of more trainers and advisers to help Iraqi security forces fight the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan will be among those participating in the discussion during a two-day, closed-door meeting where he and counterparts from across the alliance will also discuss Afghanistan and the threats posed by China and Russia.

I expect ministers will agree to launch an expanded mission with more allied personnel training and advising in more security institutions across the country, Stoltenberg said during a news conference on Monday.

The mission will expand gradually in response to that situation. This follows requests from the Iraqi government, in close co-ordination with the global coalition. So that together, we can ensure that (ISIL) does not return.

The proposed expansion would see a dramatic increase in the number of troops assigned to NATO's current training mission - and likely result in pressure on Canada to start sending troops back into Iraq after having withdrawn nearly 200 over the past year.

The current NATO mission was launched in 2018 and involved around 500 troops with the aim of building up Iraq's military so it could better combat extremist groups like ISIL. Canada contributed 200 of those initial troops and the mission was led by a Canadian general.

The Department of National Defence says only 17 Canadian troops are now working with the NATO mission, command of which was passed to Denmark in the fall.

The NATO mission isn't the only area where Canada has started to withdraw troops from the war against ISIL, with the military saying it had fewer than 400 troops in the region in January - down from a high of more than 850 several years ago.

(In addition to the NATO training mission, Canada's war against ISIL has meant deploying special-forces troops to northern Iraq, transport aircraft and intelligence units to Kuwait and training teams to Jordan and Lebanon.)

Canadian military commanders have previously linked the drawdown to a decreased need for trainers as the Iraqi military has increasingly been able to conduct operations against ISIL and other extremists on its own.

A report published last week by the U.S. Defense Department's inspector general appears to back up that assessment, even though it added that Iraqi security forces continued to rely on coalition air power, surveillance and intelligence.

The report also described ISIL as an ongoing menace, with estimates of between 8,000 and 16,000 extremist fighters in Iraq and neighbouring Syria, and also warning that Iranian-backed militia posed some of the greatest threats.

That threat was underscored on Monday when a military base in northern Iraq housing western soldiers - including Canadian special forces - was targeted by a rocket attack. One person was killed and several others were injured, including a U.S. service member.

Defence Department spokeswoman Jessica Lamirande said all Canadian military personnel at the base located next to the Irbil International Airport in Iraq's Kurdistan region were safe and accounted for.

One of the many Iranian-backed militias in Iraq claimed responsibility for the attack, the latest attributed to such groups, which many observers see as proxies in the broader, slow-burn conflict between the U.S. and Iran.

Sajjan declined in December to say whether Canada's mission against ISIL would even be extended beyond its current end-date of March 31, instead emphasizing in an interview with The Canadian Press that Canada would continue to be a reliable partner.

However, the defence minister did say the government would base any decision on ensuring the hard-fought gains made in previous years are not lost - particularly in Iraq.

Bessma Momani, a Middle East expert at the University of Waterloo, notes the Canadian military is heavily involved in several other missions, especially at home, where it has been helping with the COVID-19 pandemic.

But she believes Canada can and should contribute more troops to Iraq to ensure the country can continue to stand not only against ISIL, but also Iran and its militias.

It's a small force, in my humble view, she said. The ask is so low, and the potential upside of that is really high.

See the rest here:
Canada to face pressure to reverse withdrawal of troops from NATO mission in Iraq - CP24 Toronto's Breaking News

WASHINGTON Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin will meet with members of the world's most powerful military alliance on Wednesday for the first time since joining the Biden administration.

NATO meets Wednesday and Thursday to discuss an array of challenges facing the 30-member group. The virtual meetings will be a glimpse into President Joe Biden's foreign policy agenda and comes on the heels of his calls to stand "shoulder to shoulder" with America's closest allies.

"When we strengthen our alliances we amplify our power as well as our ability to disrupt threats before they reach our shores," Biden said during a speech at the State Department. "America cannot afford to be absent any longer on the world stage," he added.

Biden's message broke sharply from his predecessor's "America First" policy, which on occasion seemed to vex NATO members.

Under former President Donald Trump, Kay Bailey Hutchison served as the connective tissue between Washington and the alliance in her role as the U.S. Ambassador to NATO.

"There was never a rift or tension among the ambassadors and me," she told CNBC when asked if the alliance was impacted by Trump's approach.

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg greets NATO's US Ambassador Kay Bailey Hutchison on the second day of the NATO summit, in Brussels, on July 12, 2018.

Geoffroy Van Der Hasselt | AFP | Getty Images

"Now, that's not to say that some of the allies weren't upset with what the president had said or done on a given day. But overall we had a great relationship and always kept everyone informed," Hutchison explained, elaborating on the wider policy goals shared by NATO members.

"I think the alliance is strong and unified and I think everyone knows that the U.S. is essential in NATO," the former Senator from Texas said, adding that the United States will continue to take a prominent leadership role within the group.

Ahead of the virtual meetings this week, Hutchison shared what she expects will be high on the alliance's agenda.

Russian President Vladimir Putin, left, and Chinese President Xi Jinping, right, attend the Tsinghua Universitys ceremony, at Friendship Palace on April 26, 2019 in Beijing, China.

Kenzaburo Fukuhara | Getty Images

The tension between Beijing and Washington soared under the Trump administration, which escalated a trade war and worked to ban Chinese technology companies from doing business in the United States.

Over the past four years, the Trump administration blamed China for a wide range of grievances, including intellectual property theft, unfair trade practices and recently, thecoronavirus pandemic.

Biden previously said thathis approach to China would be different from his predecessor's in that hewould work more closely with alliesin order to mount pushback against Beijing.

"We will confront China's economic abuses," Biden explained in a speech at the State Department, describing Beijing as America's "most serious competitor."

"But we're also ready to work with Beijing when it's in America's interest to do so. We'll compete from a position of strength by building back better at home and working with our allies and partners."

Hutchison said that many of the issues the Biden administration looks to address with China also fall into shared interests held by the NATO alliance.

"We have been really focusing on China much more in the last two years," Hutchison said. "When the Belt and Road initiative came out and then, of course, the crackdown on Hong Kong, Covid-19 and the lack of transparency on that, all really brought China into the NATO radar."

If all of us speak with one voice, we can have more influence on China."

Kay Bailey Hutchison

Former U.S. Ambassador to NATO

Hutchison explained that the members will discuss the great power competition, which is used to describe the friction between the United States and China in shaping security practices and setting trade norms worldwide. Russia is sometimes included as an element in the power struggle.

She also said that as the Pentagon began to stand up a new military branch dedicated to space, the United States Space Force, the NATO alliance also expanded its mission and declared space a security domain.

"That was because China is doing a lot up there with satellites and artificial intelligence, and we are now having to focus on that and begin to build deterrence as best we can," Hutchison said of the move by NATO leaders to include space in its security portfolio.

"Cyber and hybrid, of course, is another big area where both China and Russia are active," she added.

Russian President Vladimir Putin enters the St. George Hall at the Grand Kremlin Palace in Moscow.

Mikhail Klimentyev | AFP | Getty Images

Like China, Biden has also said that the United States will have a different approach in dealing with Russian PresidentVladimir Putin.

"I made it very clear to President Putin in a manner very different from my predecessor that the days of the United States rolling over in the face of Russian aggressive actions, interfering with our elections, cyberattacks, poisoning its citizens, are over," Biden said earlier this month.

"We will be more effective in dealing with Russia when we work in coalition and coordination with other like-minded partners," he added.

The White House is currently reviewing other maligned Russian actions including the SolarWinds hack, reports of Russian bounties on American troops in Afghanistan and potential election interference.

"There was never any let-up in NATO regarding Russia," Hutchison told CNBC when asked about the alliance's approach. "And I don't think there'll be a change in course because I think we've been tough about Russia," she added.

Hutchison said that in the wake of the poisoning of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny, the NATO alliance was swift to condemn Moscow's actions.

"There was a unanimous vote of our allies calling out Russia on the Navalny issue when it was first, of course, clear that Russia had poisoned this man," Hutchison said.

Last summer, Navalny was medically evacuated to Germany from a Russian hospital after he became ill following reports that something was added to his tea. Russian doctors treating Navalny denied that the Kremlin critic had been poisoned and blamed his comatose state on low blood sugar levels.

A still image taken from video footage shows Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny, who is accused of flouting the terms of a suspended sentence for embezzlement, during the announcement of a court verdict in Moscow, Russia February 2, 2021.

Simonovsky District Court | via Reuters

In September, the German government said that the 44-year-old Russian dissident was poisoned by a chemical nerve agent, describing the toxicology report as providing "unequivocal evidence." The nerve agent was in the family of Novichok,which was developed by the Soviet Union.

The Kremlin has repeatedly denied having a role in Navalny's poisoning.

Last month, Navalny flew to Russia from Berlin, Germanywhere he spent nearly half a year recovering. He was arrested at passport control and latersentencedto more than two years in prison.

Hutchison also explained that the alliance will need to discuss the messy, multibillion-dollar deal between Russia and Turkey, which led to unprecedented U.S. sanctions on the NATO member.

In 2017, Turkish President Recep Erdogan brokered a deal reportedly worth $2.5 billion with Putin for the S-400 missile system.

The S-400, a mobile surface-to-air missile system, is said to pose a risk to the NATO alliance as well as the F-35, America's most expensive weapons platform.

In short, these two big-ticket weapons systems that Turkey hoped to add to its budding arsenal could be used against each other.

You can't work out a Russian missile defense system in the NATO alliance and have business as usual."

Kay Bailey Hutchison

Former U.S. Ambassador to NATO

A Russian S-400 surface-to-air missile system.

Sergei Malgavko | TASS via Getty Images

In October, the Pentagon and State Department issued strong rebukes following reports that Turkey's military tested the Russia-made missile system.

In December, Washington slapped sanctions on the country.

"It's a huge problem and it's one that Turkey kept thinking, apparently, that this could all be worked out. But you can't work out a Russian missile defense system in the NATO alliance and have business as usual," Hutchison explained to CNBC.

"Everyone in NATO knows it's a problem and Turkey needs to find an off-ramp for this," she added.

U.S. Marines and Georgian Army soldiers run to the extraction point during Operation Northern Lion II in Helmand province, Afghanistan, July 3, 2013.

U.S. Marine Corps photo

The wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria have cost U.S. taxpayers more than $1.57 trillion since Sept. 11, 2001, according to aDefense Department report.

The war in Afghanistan, which is now America's longest conflict, began 19 years ago and has cost U.S. taxpayers $193 billion, according tothe Pentagon.

Last February theUnited States brokered a deal with the Talibanthat would usher in a permanent cease-fire and reduce the U.S. military's footprint from approximately 13,000 troops to 8,600 by mid-July last year. By May 2021, all foreign forces would leave the war-weary country, according to the deal.

There are about 2,500 U.S. troops in the country. Currently, the U.S. is slated to withdraw American service members from Afghanistan by May 1, 2021.

"I told all the Biden people when we were in transition that they were really going to have to make the decision about whether they want to draw down by the first of May or draw down over a different time period or not draw down and keep troops there," Hutchison explained to CNBC.

"All the vibes I'm getting, without talking to anyone specifically, is that they are going to leave troops there and not draw down further," she added.

Read more: Pentagon uncertain on pullback date for U.S. troops in Afghanistan

Last month, the Pentagon said the U.S. troop drawdown in Afghanistan would be contingent on the Taliban's commitments to uphold a peace deal brokered last year.

"The Taliban have not met their commitments," Pentagon press secretary John Kirby told reporters during a Jan. 28 press briefing.

Pentagon Press Secretary John Kirby speaks at press conference at the Pentagon January 28, 2021 in Arlington,Virginia.

Yasin Ozturk | Anadolu Agency | Getty Images

He added that Austin was reviewing the matter and had discussed the path forward in the war-torn country with NATO allies and partners.

"It is under discussion with our partners and allies to make the best decisions going forward on our force presence in Afghanistan," Kirby said, adding that the Biden administration has not yet made a determination.

NATO Secretary-General JensStoltenberg previously warned that leaving Afghanistan too soonor in an uncoordinated effort could present unintended consequences for the world's largest military organization.

"Afghanistan risks becoming once again a platform for international terrorists to plan and organize attacks on our homelands. And ISIS could rebuild in Afghanistan the terror caliphate it lost in Syria and Iraq," the NATO chief said, referring to Islamic State militants.

In February, theAfghanistan Study Group, a bipartisan congressionally mandated panel under the United States Institute of Peace, recommended keeping U.S. troops in the war-torn country "in order to give the peace process sufficient time to produce an acceptable result."

The group wrote, in a report released on February 3, that the United States has a significant interest in safeguarding Afghanistan from "becoming again a safe haven for terrorists."

"We believe that a U.S. withdrawal will provide the terrorists an opportunity to reconstitute and our judgment is that reconstitution will take place within about 18 to 36 months," former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Joseph Dunford told a virtual United States Institute of Peace audience. Dunford, a retired four-star Marine general, co-chairs the study group.

1st Battalion, 501st Infantry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division, watch as CH-47 Chinook helicopters circle above during a dust storm at Forward Operating Base Kushamond, Afghanistan, July 17, during preparation for an air assault mission.

U.S. Army photo

"We also conclude and there will be no surprise to those who follow Afghanistan, that the Afghan forces are highly dependent on U.S. funding in operational support and they'll continue to be for some time to come," Dunford said.

NATO joined the international security effort in Afghanistan in 2003 and currently has more than 7,000 troops in the country. The NATO mission in Afghanistan was launched after the alliance activated its mutual defense clause known as Article 5 for the first time in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.

"I think there's a lot that will be decided and it will be pivotal what the administration and Secretary Austin say," Hutchison told CNBC. "The allies are going to be looking for what the U.S. is intending because of course, we provide the enablers for the train-and-advise mission of NATO there," she added.

Hutchison also added that the alliance may discuss the possibility of expanding the training-and-advising mission in Iraq.

Correction: An earlier version of this story misstated the days that the NATO alliance is meeting.

The rest is here:
U.S. enters NATO meetings: China and Russia threats ...

Feb. 17 (UPI) -- The Biden administration and new U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin made their first introduction to NATO on Wednesday at a two-day summit that's expected to focus heavily on Afghanistan.

Austin and other NATO defense ministers convened remotely for the first major European event since President Joe Biden took office last month, and was the alliance's introduction to the new administration.

For four years, NATO often found itself on the receiving end of criticisms from former President Donald Trump, particularly over the defense funding of the other 29 member states. Trump also expressed an interest in withdrawing the United States from NATO, which was created after World War II as a collective defense coalition.

During the two sessions on the first day of the summit, Austin reaffirmed Biden's intention to revitalize the U.S.-NATO relationship and that its commitment to the collective defense article under the alliance's founding treaty is "ironclad," John F. Kirby, the Pentagon press secretary, said during a press briefing on Wednesday.

A Defense Department readout of the ministerial also said Austin called NATO "the bedrock" of enduring security in the trans-Atlantic, calling it "the bulwark of our shared values of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law."

The Trump administration signed a peace deal with the Taliban last year that called for the total withdrawal of U.S. troops, in exchange for a pledge from the Afghan government not to work with terrorist organizations.

American forces are scheduled to leave Afghanistan by May 1, per its Taliban peace deal. Biden's administration has said it will review that withdrawal date before deciding whether to stick with it.

U.S. troops have had a continuous presence in Afghanistan since they overthrew the Taliban in late 2001 as part of the war on terror.

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said while NATO supports peace in Afghanistan, the level of violence remains unacceptably high.

"While no ally wants to stay in Afghanistan longer than necessary, we will not leave before the time is right," Stoltenberg said in a statement this week.

"So ministers will continue to assess the situation on the ground and monitor developments very closely."

Following the first day of the summit, Stoltenberg, who was in Kabul when the deal was signed, told reporters during a press conference that there is a May 1 deadline but the promise to leave Afghanistan is based on conditions being met.

"And Taliban has to meet their commitments," he said. "And what NATO does now is that we, first of all, do whatever we can to support the peace process and the full implementation of the deal. We will only leave when the time is right."

He said NATO allies invaded Afghanistan following the 9/11 terrorist attack on the United States but they have adjusted their presence together, and he welcomes the commitment Austin made toward the alliance.

"That demonstrates the value of NATO also for the United States, because the United States, when they went into Afghanistan, they didn't go alone," he said. "They have been supported by NATO allies with tens of thousands of troops for now close to two decades."

Concerning the issues of burden sharing, Stoltenberg said the message has been consistent under both Republican and Democratic leadership in the United States: That it needs to be fairer, which he agrees with.

"I tell the Europeans that -- and they agree -- that we need to invest more in defense, not to please the United States, but because it is in our security interest to invest more," he said. "Because we face a more dangerous world, with a more brutal form of terrorism."

Another matter expected to be raised at the summit is rising violence in Iraq by militias aligned with Iran. A civilian contractor was killed and six others were injured in a rocket attack there on Monday.

Biden, who previously worked with NATO at the executive level while former President Barack Obama's vice president, has sounded a more cooperative tone with NATO than did his predecessor -- but is expected to continue Trump's push for member states to contribute more financially.

Member nations are expected to spend 2% of their gross domestic product on defense.

Read more from the original source:
NATO gets 1st glimpse of Biden administration at virtual ...

Updated 2/16/21 at 5:00 pm EST with comment from NATO spokesperson.

WASHINGTON As Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin attends his first NATO ministerial this week, he will carry a message seeking a revitalized relationship between America and its European allies but will not back down on pushing for greater military spending, two senior defense officials said Monday.

Virtual though it may be, the ministerial is the first true international event for Austin since he took office. The defense officials, speaking to media ahead of the event, made it clear they he plans to use that opportunity to convey a different tone than the Trump administration, which was famously combative with the NATO nations over a 2 percent GDP spending target on defense.

I do think that youre going to see at this ministerial a real focus on revitalizing the U.S. relationship with the alliance, a change in our tone and approach, and a desire to work with our allies and partners, the first official said.

Several times during the press call, the officials stressed the focus on consulting with allies, particularly when it comes to any changes in force posture. The phrasing represents a clear signal from the Biden administration after the Trump administration announced plans to shift 9,500 troops out of Germany with what European officials described as little or no consultation with regional leaders.

Those troop withdrawals have now been frozen as Austin and his team review Americas force posture globally. Asked whether troops that were planned to shift to Poland would be changed, the first official said our posture in Europe is critical to us national security interests. And I would in no way expect to see anything that would look like a withdrawal from Poland.

While Austin may be carrying a different tone than Trump officials did when visiting NATO, the focus on getting allies to keep defense spending up will continue.

Sign up for our Early Bird Brief Get the defense industry's most comprehensive news and information straight to your inbox

Subscribe

Enter a valid email address (please select a country) United States United Kingdom Afghanistan Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, The Democratic Republic of The Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote D'ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guinea Guinea-bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Micronesia, Federated States of Moldova, Republic of Monaco Mongolia Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory, Occupied Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and The Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia and Montenegro Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and The South Sandwich Islands Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan, Province of China Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand Timor-leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States United States Minor Outlying Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Viet Nam Virgin Islands, British Virgin Islands, U.S. Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe

Thanks for signing up!

By giving us your email, you are opting in to the Early Bird Brief.

I think what youre going to hear is that we expect all allies to live up to this commitment. Its a commitment we have all made. Were appreciative of those who have moved in this direction, and we applaud that, but we all know that theres more work to be done, the first official said.

That may set up an early stress point with some NATO nations, who have long argued that the 2 percent figure is flawed and that countries who take more direct action, such as deploying forces abroad to support NATO missions, should receive more credit in that regard.

NATO secretary general Jens Stoltenberg on Monday stated that burden-sharing is about spending 2 percent, but burden-sharing is also about contributions and capabilities. However, a NATO spokesperson stressed that those comments were in line with previous statements from Stoltenberg, noting there is absolutely no weakening of the commitment to 2 percent.

Stoltenberg, who plans to use the ministerial to discuss several proposals as part of his NATO 2030 plan, also stated that Americas allies have contributed a cumulative $190 billion to the alliance since 2014, and that nine members are now expected to spend 2 percent or more of their GDP on defense.

Noted the first senior defense official: Youve probably heard the secretary-general say, hes got these three Cs he talks about: cash, contributions and capabilities. At the end of the day, cash is inextricably linked to those other two. And if we dont invest enough cash today, were just not going to be ready for tomorrows challenges.

Aside from big-picture NATO issues, expect significant discussion between military leaders on the future of forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. While the Trump administration lowered troop levels in both countries to 2,500 shortly before leaving office, NATO leaders are watching carefully for any signs that America may look to increase those force levels going forward.

As you know, of course, the department is participating in an administration-wide review. And there have not been any decisions on Afghanistan troop levels, the first official said. The United States and NATO went into Afghanistan together, we will adjust together, and if the time is right, we will leave together.

During the meeting, there will be a session focused on emerging and disruptive technology, including cyber issues. That issue, already a major focus for the alliance, has received a boost following the recent SolarWinds hack of U.S. government institutions, widely attributed to Russia.

To try and get a handle on the broader cyber concerns, the second official said that they would be bringing in representatives from Sweden, Finland and the European Union partners, but not formal members of the alliance for part of that discussion.

Read more:
Biden admin wants new tone with NATO, but the old ...

After former President Donald Trump repeatedly disparaged NATO and threatened to pull the United States out of the alliance, President Joe Biden has signaled he intends to reset the relationship.

Austin "wants to revitalize to the alliance and again I think you will see that overall that will be the message that he sends, that we're better when we act together," Kirby said.

Context: The news signals that Austin will not markedly depart from Trump's policy, itself a continuation of former President Barack Obama's, to pressure NATO allies to put more resources toward defense.

Trump focused almost obsessively on increasing NATO defense spending, even going so far as to order the withdrawal of thousands of U.S. troops from Germany while accusing the government of not spending enough on defense.

Just weeks after taking office, Biden ordered the military to freeze any withdrawals from Germany pending a review of U.S. forces worldwide.

NATO spending on defense is increasing: Trump took credit for increased NATO defense spending over his term, an effort that began in the Obama administration.

Over the last six years, NATO allies have upped their defense spending by $130 billion, according to U.S. envoy to NATO Kay Bailey Hutchison.

France and Norway last year became the latest NATO countries to reach the 2 percent threshold, joining eight other nations: Britain, Estonia, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and the United States. However, the 20 other allies did not make the cut.

Excerpt from:
Austin to press NATO allies on defense spending - Politico