Category Archives: NATO

In early July 2000, President Vladimir Putin and Russias naval brass paced nervously in front of ocean maps and war plans. An armada of unprecedented size had left port and was now headed toward the Barents Sea in preparation for the largest naval exercise since the end of the Cold War. Putin had been in office only a few months, and these war games represented more than just random tests of the latest technology and platforms. With the nation still suffering from a severe economic decline, success was paramount. Failure could tarnish Putins reputation and his ability to push agendas forward.

Thousands of miles away, the nuclear fast-attack submarines USS Memphis and USS Toledo sped toward the Russian armada amassing in the Barents. As Americas premier espionage platforms, the commanding officers on both subs had orders to inch in close to the Russian submarine Kursk and collect sonar acoustic and periscope photographic intelligence. The National Security Agency had determined that the Kursk was planning to test fire a new rocket torpedo called the Shkval. This new underwater weapon was reportedly four times faster than a U.S. MK 48 torpedo, and previous efforts to gain intel on its capabilities had failed.

On Aug. 12, 2000, the Kursk received orders from its command ship, the Peter the Great, to test fire the Shkval torpedo. Several thousand yards away, aboard the Toledo, Cmdr. James Nault studied the naval chart atop the quartermasters table in the control room. Nault knew the USS Memphis and HMS Splendid were also on station nearby, but the Toledo had been given the most important assignment: to capture critical intel on the Kursks firing of the new Shkval.

Sonar reported that the Kursk had just opened an outer torpedo tube door. Naults adrenaline surged. If the Russians were about to fire the Shkval, he wanted to be near enough to record every nuance of the event. At the risk of being heard, but motivated by scant time before the Kursk fired, Nault increased speed.

Sonar maintained a constant stream of reports from the shack. The tinted voice of a petty officer piped in every few seconds with bearing, range, and speed information. In the control room, Nault peered over the shoulder of a petty officer. A color monitor on a fire control system panel displayed the Toledos relative position to the Kursk, indicated by a small triangle inching its way toward the target. Nault had no intention of firing at the Oscar, but he knew there were digital recorders in the sonar shack that were collecting every noise the Russian submarine made. Still, he wasnt quite close enough to grab the important launch sounds.

An agitated voice from the sonar shack reported a sudden course change by Master Two. The Kursk was now headed right at the Toledo. Nault had seconds to react. He could not order a deep dive as the ocean was too shallow. All he could do was order a slight downward angle and a hard-right turn to avoid the impending collision. The diving officer quickly relayed the order. The helmsman and planesman struggled to obey. Their hands gripped two half-circle steering wheels. One cranked to the right and the other pushed slightly downward. The boat angled toward the bottom. A coffee cup crashed to the deck.

Commander Nault ordered all-ahead full and a course change away from Master Two. Once at a safe distance, he decided to bring the boat to periscope depth to assess the situation. The Toledo angled upward. Seconds before it reached periscope depth, a muffled clap rocked the boat from side to side. Nault called sonar for an explanation. A petty officer reported an explosion from the direction of the Kursk, now less than 1,000 yards away.

Two minutes after the initial explosion, a sonarman in the shack heard the Kursk slam into the ocean floor. He clicked his comm to inform Nault, but before he could speak, he was forced to rip off his headphones.

Get the military's most comprehensive news and information every morning

(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

Subscribe

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

An earsplitting explosion, hundreds of times louder than the first, shattered the silence in the control room. The Toledo rocked from side to side, like a bottle tossed about on a rough sea. Nault ordered a shallow dive and all-ahead full. As a trained submarine commander, he could not feel anything but shock and dismay. The strong smell of Navy coffee in the control room served as a morbid reminder that he was still alive, and the crew of the Kursk might not be.

Ten days later, British and Norwegian divers assisting Russian rescue forces confirmed that all 118 sailors aboard the Kursk had perished. To this day, submariners aboard the Toledo still have nightmares about the most terrifying incident in submarine naval history.

The Barents Sea is one of the most dangerous ocean areas in the world. It spans 540,000 square miles and skirts the coastlines of Russia and Norway. During the Middle Ages, the Russians called it the Murman Sea, but the formal name came from Dutch navigator Willem Barentsz. From a geopolitical standpoint, the Barents is also one of the most strategic ocean areas as it borders Murmansk, which is one of Russias most important naval bases. In recent years, with Arctic ice melting at a rapid pace, the Northern Sea Route (NSR) has become easier to navigate. This important route runs from northern Europe, past Russia, and down past the Bering Strait near Alaska.

A decade ago, only a few dozen cargo ships traversed the NSR. Today, given less ice, thousands of ships carry tons of goods along the route as its 40 percent faster and less costly than other sea routes. Putin clearly understands the importance of this region, and has spent billions in recent years to fortify a dozen NSR naval bases, build more ice breakers and nuclear submarines to patrol the area, and has ordered the construction of a new type of warship, appropriately called the Ice-class. These 374-foot-long polar Corvettes are a cross between an ice breaker and a back breaker frigate armed with deck guns and missile launchers. They can break through 5 feet of ice or break an enemy combatant in half with cannon fire. The U.S. Navy has no answer against these opponents, and having taken their eye off the ball in the Arctic, can only bring a knife to a gunfight.

The Russian navy boasts over 40 ice breakers, some nuclear powered, while the U.S. only has one medium-duty Coast Guard breaker. Russia has dozens of submarines patrolling the Barents and other Arctic waters while the U.S. has a small handful. Only three Seawolf-class subs are capable of surfacing through thick ice. Recently, several government officials voiced concerns about this imbalance and called for a freedom of navigation operation (FONOP) to show Putin that he does not have uncontested control of the NSR or the Arctic.

In early May 2020, NATO forces were called upon to implement the FONOP. Three U.S. destroyers from the Sixth Fleet and one UK warship ventured into the Barents Sea. Under the waves, a few U.S. submarines escorted the ships. Russia responded by sending forces to monitor the exercise, which some military experts believe played into their hands by allowing them to test surveillance and warning systems. This FONOP represents the first potential confrontation between the superpowers since the Kursk incident 20 years ago. Back then, the clash resulted in the loss of 118 lives, but it also almost resulted in a conflict that could have escalated into a war.

In August 2000, Russian naval forces claimed to have recovered evidence of a collision between the USS Toledo and the Kursk, which they believed caused the initial torpedo explosion. When military and government officials on Putins staff clamored for a response, up to an including an all-out war, Putin met with President Bill Clinton in New York in September 2000. According to inside sources, including Clintons Russian affairs adviser, Mark Medish, the two presidents discussed the Kursk incident in detail. These sources concur that Putin and Clinton agreed to squelch the Russian collision claims to avoid a potential conflict. Putin later fired or demoted a dozen of the most vociferous officials who had been calling for retaliation.

The FONOP in the Barents Sea represents the first time in 40 years that NATO warships have stepped into Russias front yard. Its also the first time in 20 years that U.S. spy subs have been given a mission of this importance in the region, with the potential to start a shooting war should anything go wrong. Hopefully history will not repeat, and no ships or submarines will be lost in this head to head challenge. More importantly, if another tragedy should occur, we can only hope that it will not escalate into World War III.

William Craig Reed is the New York Times bestselling author of the award-winning book RED NOVEMBER and the upcoming Spies of the Deep: The Untold Truth About the Most Terrifying Incident in Submarine Naval History and How Putin Used The Tragedy To Ignite a New Cold War. Reed is a former U.S. Navy submariner and diver and co-founder of Us4Warriors.org, an award-winning veterans non-profit.

Editors note: This is an Op-Ed and as such, the opinions expressed are those of the author. If you would like to respond, or have an editorial of your own you would like to submit, please contact Military Times managing editor Howard Altman, haltman@militarytimes.com.

Link:
Are NATO warships about to start World War III in the Arctic? - Military Times

NATO is launching a practical scientific project to develop new tools for a rapid and accurate diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

This multi-year project is launched within the framework of NATOs Science for Peace and Security (SPS) Programme, and is led by scientists on the frontline of COVID-19 research from Italys Istituto Superiore di Sanit (National Health Institute) and Tor Vergata University Hospital together with the University Hospital of Basel University in Switzerland. This 24-month initiative aims to enhance the speed and efficiency of COVID-19 diagnosis through a multidisciplinary approach, by bringing together experts in the field of immunology, virology and molecular biology.

This project supports NATOs efforts to enhance resilience and civil preparedness of Allied and partner nations, and highlights the Alliances commitment to further enhance research and development efforts to combat COVID-19. This SPS project is an excellent example of the research communitys global effort to fight against COVID-19. said Dr. Antonio Missiroli, NATOs Assistant Secretary General for Emerging Security Challenges. This project also stresses the dedication of Allies to support each other, as well as partners, in times of crisis; and while the expected results of this project are extremely relevant to the situation the world currently finds itself in, we look forward to the long-term impact it will have on the international response to naturally occurring and man-made viruses and pathogens, he added.

Italy has been actively engaged in the SPS Programme since the beginning; not only by laying its very foundations with the contribution of Gaetano Martino, one of the three wise men, but also by steadily contributing to streamlining its decision-making, and by promoting more sophisticated projects through the active involvement of Italys scientific and academic community, said Ambassador Francesco M. Tal, Italian Permanent Representative to NATO. The launch of this project is yet another brilliant example of the political nature of this Alliance, he highlighted.

The speed and the scale of the COVID-19 virus is unprecedented and all types of disruptions it has caused are unparalleled. As daunting as it may seem, we will get back to some sort of normality only when effective means to prevent the spread of COVID-19 will be identified, said Ambassador Philippe Brandt, Ambassador of Switzerland to the Kingdom of Belgium and Head of the Swiss Mission to NATO. For Switzerland, being associated to NATO Partnership for Peace means sharing capacities to improve security in a multilateral framework. With several top-ranked universities and programmes, scientific academies and moreover a strong relationship between private sector and scientific research, Switzerland is well positioned to join the international community efforts to combat COVID-19. Academics and researchers working within Swiss institutions have been associated to various projects conducted by NATO through the Science for Peace and Security programme (SPS), he pointed out.

Professor Silvio Brusaferro, President of the National Health Institute and Professor of General and Applied Hygiene at the University of Udine (Italy) remarked on the role played by the National Health Institute. "The National Health Institute is fully committed to dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic, he said. This project is very important, especially in the context of new indispensable tools that we will have to deal with the second phase of the health emergency, he added.

The results foreseen from this project are extremely relevant to the current pandemic, and they are expected to have a long-term impact on the international response to the spread of viruses on a large scale. The contributions to the improvement of risk management and public health measures will be significant. This project will also represent a model for quick measures to counteract epidemics.

The NATO SPS Programme supports security-relevant civil science and technology addressing a set of Allied-approved priorities. In addition to this innovative project, several other SPS activities are also supporting the development of new technologies and capabilities relevant to the fight against COVID-19. These are mainly in the fields of telemedicine, emergency response coordination, and the detection of biological threats.

Continued here:
Coronavirus response: NATO supports practical scientific cooperation with Allies and partners to enhance COVID-19 diagnosis - NATO HQ

Two B-1B Lancers arrived in the Baltics to work with NATO allies this week, marking the heavy bombers first flights to Europe in about 18 months.

After crossing the Atlantic, the Ellsworth Air Force Base, S.D.-based bombers flew with Danish F-16s over Bornholm Island, east of mainland Denmark, and worked with Estonian ground forces to provide close air support training, U.S. Air Forces in Europe Air Forces Africa said in a statement Wednesday.

The training also included overflights of Lithuania and Latvia.

Integrating bomber missions with our NATO allies and partners build enduring relationships that are capable of confronting a broad range of global challenges, said Gen. Jeff Harrigian, USAFE-AFAFRICA commander.

The strategic bombers participated in the Spring Storm military exercise, the Estonian Defense Ministry said in a statement.

It is important that our allies understand that security cannot be put on pause for the duration of the pandemic, Estonian Defense Minister Juri Luik said Tuesday, the Baltic Times newspaper reported.

The Lancers were last in Europe in November 2018 supporting NATOs Trident Juncture exercise.

Strategic bomber deployments to Europe have become more frequent in recent years, amid U.S. and European concerns about potential Russian aggression. In March, a flight of B-2 stealth bombers participated in a series of training operations on the Continent. And last August, the Air Force deployed a similar B-2 bomber task force to Europe.

The Air Force did not say how long the Lancers would remain in Europe.

The Europe mission for the variable-wing Rockwell jets came just after B-1B bombers from Texas flew to the Western Pacific region.

Four B-1Bs from Dyess Air Force Base arrived in Guam on Friday to conduct training and operations with allies and partners, the Air Force said.

svan.jennifer@stripes.comTwitter: @stripesktown

A B-1B Lancer from the 28th Bomb Wing out of Ellsworth Air Force Base, S.D., receives fuel from a KC-135 Stratotanker from the 100th Air Refueling Wing, RAF Mildenhall, England, May 5, 2020.KELLY O'CONNOR/U.S. AIR FORCE

The rest is here:
Air Force B-1B strategic bombers arrive in the Baltics for NATO training - Stars and Stripes

Greek General Konstantinos Floros held two teleconferences with NATO officials in which he made it clear that Turkeys provocations in the Aegean and at Evros on the Greek-Turkish land border, will lead with mathematical precision to an accident with unforeseen consequences.

Turkeys daily aggression against Greece are obviously well known in NATO, which systematically covers it up and protects them from international scrutiny.

The danger of an accident caused by the Turkish violations in the Aegean and more broadly by Ankaras attitude towards Greece, was pointed out by Floros when he said the risk of an accident and the serious consequences that such a thing will bring is real.

More specifically, Floros held two teleconferences on Thursday.

One was at the request of the Chairman of the NATO Military Committee, Sir Stuart Peach, as part of the forthcoming meeting of the NATO Military Committee to be held on May 14, 2020.

The other was with the Deputy Commander of the Allied Powers in Europe, General Tim Radford, at his request and in the context of his recent assumption of office.

A number of issues were raised, such as the coronavirus and military issues.

Floros referred to the recent escalation caused by the immigration crisis in Evros and in the Aegean, that was orchestrated by Turkey.

He also discussed with the two NATO heads about Turkeys delinquent behaviour in the Aegean and the Eastern Mediterranean, as seen by the daily air traffic violations of Greeces national airspace, including overflights at Evros and on the islands, as well as the illegal marine surveys and drilling in Greeces maritime space, and the violation of the UN-imposed arms embargo on Libya, in addition to other provocative actions.

Floros also referred to the harassment of a Greek helicopter by Turkey, which was transporting him and Minister of Defence, Nikos Panagiotopoulos, as reported by Greek City Times.

Read more here:
Greek General to NATO: "There will be an accident if Turkey continues its actions" - Greek City Times

Despite the ongoing COVID-19 coronaviruspandemic, SOF elements from across the Composite Special Operations Component Command (C-SOCC) have initiated joint training as they build up to support the NATO ResponseForce (NRF) in 2021.

Speaking to Shephard, service officialswithin Netherlands Special Operations Command (NLD SOCOM) confirmed SOFelements from across the organisation, which includes the armys KCT and navysNL-MARSOF, will continue to conduct national requirements in addition to C-SOCCtraining demands over the remainder of the year with the Belgian SpecialOperations Regiment and the Danish SOCOM.

However, NLD SOCOM sources confirmed to Shephardthat training and readiness exercises in support of NRF 2021 were likelyto be affected by the COVID-19 situation.

In Denmark, The Netherlands and Belgium, it iscurrently unknown what the extent of this influence [of COVID-19] is. Whenthere is more clarity an update will follow. It goes without saying that NLD SOCOM takes its national and NATOresponsibilities. We will participate in all training and exercise events thatare possible to enhance our readiness level, the NLS SOCOM spokespersonexplained.

In 2021, personnel will be dedicated for the standbyphase of NRF 2021 and ready to deploy for C-SOCC should it be necessary, thespokesperson added.

The C-SOCC dates back to June 2018 when an MoU was signedbetween the participating nations to develop the concept- something which hassince been mimicked with the Regional Special Operations Component Command(R-SOCC) in Central Europe.

The move, NLD SOCOM sources explained, has actedas a catalyst to enable Belgium, Denmark and the Netherlands to reach theirNATO special operations capability targets at the SOCC joint operations level.

'This catalyst generates a critical command andcontrol capability to NATO in the short to mid-term, in order for the threenations to reach higher levels of capability in the long term, the NLDspokesperson confirmed to Shephard.

All threenations reach higher levels of capabilities individually and as a collectivethat serve long term positive results extending beyond 2020 and 2021. Afterfinishing training as a C-SOCC in 2020, this special operations headquarters[will be] ready and deployable to meet NATO responsibilities as a NRF in 2021,it was added.

According to the spokesperson, the NLD SOCOM continues towitness an increased demand for SOF operations with special forces increasinglyworking in an international context.

These SOF operations are demanded in differenttype of conflicts with a common trait: operating effectively in conflictsrequires a SOF network through a SOF community. The tri-nation cooperation inthe C-SOCC serves as an example of how to achieve this.

Together they build their own and each otherscapacities during the C-SOCC period in 2020, the NRF standby period in 2021 andbeyond that. With the C-SOCC and NRF, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Belgium areextending needed NATOs capacities, the spokesperson concluded.

See the original post here:
PREMIUM: C-SOCC begins training to support NATO Response Force - Special Operations - Shephard Media

Key point:Moscow long had the advantage of proximity and of being a massive landpower. Here is how technological investments began to improve Washington's chances if the Cold War went hot.

Arecent RANDwargameon a potential Russian offensive into theBalticsbrought talk of a new Cold War into sharp focus. The game made clear that NATO would struggle to prevent Russian forces from occupying theBalticsif it relied on the conventional forces now available.

This first appeared earlier in 2017 and is being reposted due to reader interest.

Recommended:Russia'sBattlecruisersCould Be a Super Weapon

Thesewargameshave great value in demonstrating tactical and operational reality, which then informs broader strategic thinking. In this case, however,the headlines generatedby the game have obscured more about the NATO-Russian relationship than they have revealed. In short, the NATO deterrent promise has never revolved around a commitment to defeat Soviet/Russian forces on NATOs borders. Instead, NATO has backed its political commitment with the threat to broaden any conflict beyond the war that the Soviets wanted to fight. Today, as in 1949, NATO offers deterrence through the promise of escalation.

Recommended:A Hypersonic Arms Race is Coming.

The Early Years

Lets be utterly clear on this point; from the creation of NATO until the1970s, Western military planners expected the Warsaw Pact to easily win a conventional war in Europe. Conventionalwarfightingplans by the major NATO powers often amounted, almost literally, to efforts to reach the English Channel just ahead of the tanks of the Red Army. NATO expected to liberally use tactical nuclear weapons to slow the Soviet advance, an action which would inevitably invite Soviet response (the Soviets also prepared for this dynamic).

Recommended:Report - U.S. Army is Now "Weak"

The belief that NATO would lose a conventional conflict did nothing to contradict the notion that NATO could play a valuable role in deterring war. For one, NATO could certainly make things more difficult for the Soviet Union; overwhelming combined British-German-American forces would prove far more costly than defeating a West Germany that stood alone. Moreover, by triggering an expansion of the war NATO could create costs for the Soviets in other parts of the world. Overwhelming NATO superiority at sea and in long-rangeairpowerwould prove devastating for Soviet interests outside of Eurasia, even if the Soviets prevailed on the Central Front.

Most importantly, the threat that France, Britain and the United States would launch strategic nuclear strikes on the Soviet Union in response to a successful conventional assault was supposed to give Moscow pause. Even if an American President refused to exchange Berlin for New York, the Soviets would have to worry about the rest of NATOs nuclear deterrent.

Active Defense/AirLandBattle

Theexpectation that NATO could defeatthe Warsaw Pact in battle only emerged after the Yom Kippur War. In that conflict, precision-guided conventional munitions exacted such a toll on advancing forces (both in theGolanand in Sinai) that American military planners began to believe that they could stop a Soviet attack. Drawn up in defensive positions that would channel oncoming Red Army armor into large kill zones, NATO forces could sufficiently blunt and disrupt a Soviet advance, and prevent the collapse of positions within Germany. The defense would buy time for NATO to transit additional forces and equipment from the United States to Europe, to carry out in depth attacks against Warsaw Pact logistical and communications centers in Eastern Europe, and to attack Soviet interests in the rest of the world.

After 1982,AirLandBattle would return maneuver to the battlefield, as American commanders grew more confident of their ability to defeat the Red Army in a fluid engagement. Cooperation between the Army and the Air Force would allow attacks all along the depth of the Soviet position, turning the formidable Red Army (and its Eastern European allies) into a chaotic mess. At the same time, the U.S. Navy prepared to attack directly into the Soviet periphery withairstrikesand amphibious assaults, as well as into the cherished bastions of the Soviet boomer fleet. None of this depended on the protection of any given piece of NATO territory; planners accepted that the Soviets could make at least some gains at the beginning of any plausible war scenario.

In this context, news that Russia could win a localized conventional conflict against small NATO nations on its border becomes rather less alarming than it sounds at first blush. Apart from (perhaps) a brief window of vulnerability in the1990s, Russia has always had the capacity to threaten NATO with conventional force. Indeed, NATO did not even begin to plan for the conventional defense of theBalticsuntil well after their accession, on the belief that the faith and credit of the alliance, and in particular its ability to retaliate against Soviet interests in the rest of Europe, would prove a sufficient deterrent.

The RANDwargamesuggests that Russia could take theBaltics, and perhaps hold them, for a while. Moscow would begin to pay costs very early in any conflict, however, as NATO forces moved againstKaliningrad,Transnistriaand other Russian holdings. The Russian Navy would likely come under severe attack from NATO submarines and aircraft. Long range strikes would debilitate much of the rest of Russias air force and air defense network. In short, Russia could grab theBaltics, but only at a cost vastly in excess of the value of holding onto them. This is how NATO conducted deterrence in 1949, and its how NATO does deterrence today.

Robert Farley, a frequent contributor to theNational Interest, is author ofThe Battleship Book. He serves as a Senior Lecturer at the Patterson School of Diplomacy and International Commerce at the University of Kentucky.

This first appeared earlier in 2017 and is being reposted due to reader interest.

Image: Reuters

Go here to read the rest:
Yes, Russia Could Have Beaten NATO in a War (Until This Happened) - The National Interest

NATO begins preparations for an operation to respond to the second wave of Covid-19 coronavirus that is expected this fall. The respective decision was made by the Alliance ambassadors last week, as they convened for a secret conference with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg.

Spiegel wrote that, quoting the official.

"A most coordinated response to the second wave of coronavirus is a litmus paper for trust and unity in the Alliance", Stoltenberg said.

The operation plan is supposed to be developed under the supervision of Ted Walters, the US Air Force General and the NATO Supreme Allied Commander in Europe. It foresees improved personal protection for the Alliance staff, as well as more effective assistance for NATO partner countries. The Alliance is also supposed to develop the long-term Action Plan to respond to the pandemic.

The first document on the NATO response to a new spell of Covid-19 should be reealed during the next sessions of Defense Ministers of Alliance member states in late June.

Earlier, Stoltenberg claimed that the Alliance considered additional support for Ukraine within the comlpex assistance package.

See more here:
NATO prepares operation to respond to second wave of Covid-19, - Stoltenberg - 112 International

COVID-19 or otherwise known as the Coronavirus, continues to spread across the world at an alarming rate. The global pandemic, as it was declared by the World Health Organization (WHO), has caused a monumental shift in the world economy, national border controls, healthcare, and way of life. NATO responded to these challenges by immediately supporting the needs of member countries through the transport of resources and personal protective equipment (PPE), border crossings, disinfection of public areas, and logistics coordination. The organization has many agencies and tools in place to respond to crises, including a global pandemic.

NATO is utilizing its Euro-Atlantic Disaster Response Coordination Centre (EADRCC), the NATO Support and Procurement Agency (NSPA), and Strategic Airlift International Solutions (SALIS) programs to respond to the needs of member countries facing PPE shortages, logistics support for key supplies, reinforcement of medical teams, and overall coordination of national responses to the COVID-19 crises. NATOs response and the support shown by member countries will either highlight the cracks in the alliance or develop greater solidarity.

The EADRCC, NSPA, and SALIS response units have been responding to national shortages and other needs of NATO members and are seeing an unprecedented amount of bi-lateral support. In this last month, Turkey has provided medical supplies and PPE to the United Kingdom; Luxembourg donated over 1,400 kilos of PPE to health personnel in Spain; Hungary and Slovenia provided 300,000 masks and protective suits to North Macedonia; The Netherlands transported PPE and supplies to Montenegro following their request for assistance through EADRCC; and Poland sent a medical mission to the United States to provide additional assistance.

Lieutenant General Rittiman from NATO commented on the solidarity shown between countries, We are in this crisis together. By leveraging NATOs experience conducting strategic coordination with multiple partners, we are enhancing the ongoing combined actions of our Allied forces. In a further display of solidarity and force, NATO continues to conduct joint training exercises. Last week Belgian, German, Lithuanian, and Polish aircraft fighters and transport aircraft completed live training flights in international airspace over the Baltic Sea. Despite the amount of bilateral support, many experts have called into question the leadership issues and long term challenges NATO faces and will continue to face after the COVID-19 pandemic.

Like all countries and alliance structures alike, NATO is facing unprecedented pressure resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. NATO relies heavily upon leadership from the U.S. as the worlds largest military power, however, U.S. President Donald Trumps America first policies has led to a lack of leadership. Furthermore, the U.S. has been the hardest hit country by COVID-19 with nearly one million cases, which may further exacerbate nationalist sentiments.

Others worry smaller states will look to China rather than the U.S. for support, which may strengthen Chinas economy and overall global presence further threatening the NATO global hegemony. Longer term effects may also include significantly reduced defense budgets as many domestic governments have to divert spending to support the many unemployed citizens and struggling economy. Will the unprecedented challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic galvanize NATO allies and create greater solidarity and cooperation or will the pressures face create irreparable damage in the alliance?

Related

More:
Could COVID-19 Be A Galvanizing Force NATO Needs? - The Organization for World Peace

NATOs self-described mission as an expression of the Transatlantic communitys common democratic values has always provoked eye-rolling in Moscow. Now a former US ambassador to the alliance has confirmed Russian assumptions.

While Russia has always contended that the most important quality for European members is that they are willing to subjugate themselves to Washingtons control, NATO styles itself as a protector and promoter of democracy and freedom. An alliance of like-minded nations dedicated to upholding Western values on both sides of the Atlantic. Meanwhile, in Eastern Europe, membership has been seen as a prerequisite for inclusion in the Western family itself.

Alas, for NATO to exist, it needs an enemy, whether real or imagined, and Russia is the chosen adversary. This has created a bizarre situation where due to the desire to join the West a number of states have signed up for the club despite having no ax to grind with Moscow.

In Russia, to be blunt, NATO is viewed as a vehicle to serve American geopolitical interests and allow Washington to extend its armed forces ever closer to Russian borders. Experts and officials in Moscow also like to point out that its other function is as a money-spinner, as it ties most European countries to the US military-industrial complex.

To support NATOs narrative, various branches of the US state, and the US/UK arms industry, spend a lot of cash on various think tanks. Their primary mission is to cultivate ties with influential elites across Europe and push pro-NATO messaging, especially in newer member states.

The most (in)famous is probably the Atlantic Council, but Washington and Warsaw-based CEPA is its little brother. The pressure group is funded by the US State Department, regime-change specialists the National Endowment for Democracy, arms makers Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and Bell Helicopters, as well as NATO itself. Its also curiously supported by the Hungarian American Coalition and the Hungary Initiatives Foundation. Both of these receive financing from the government in Budapest.

This is where it gets interesting. CEPA claims its mission is to promote a politically free Europe with close and enduring ties to the United States. Its advisory councilincludes folks like Madeleine Albright, Anne Applebaum, Carl Bildt, and Toomas Hendrik Ilves, who have spent years jabbering on about liberal democracy.Meanwhile, some of its more prominent lobbyists such as Alina Polyakova, Edward Lucas, and Brian Whitmorehave built careers on attacking growing illiberalism in Europe. Of course, back when Russia was perceived to be at the vanguard of the drift.

However, now that Viktor Orbans Hungary has very deliberately positioned itself as the leader of the illiberal movement, CEPA appears to have made a stunning about-face. This week, it enlisted none other than Kurt Volker the former White House point man on Ukraine to defend Budapests policies.

Much of the criticism of Hungary and of Prime Minister Viktor Orban strikes me as shallow, he wrote, under the lede Western Allies Should Stop Carping and Focus on Shared Values and Interests. Volker then launched into a passionate defense of Orbans system, neglecting to mention that even Americas heavily politicized Freedom House NGO believes Hungary can no longer be considered to be a free country.

We need allies, Volker states, clearly admitting that Hungary being on Americas side is more important than NATOs usual high-minded rhetoric.

The cynicism is stunning, exposing CEPA for what it really is: A shoddy money racket, shouting about values while, in reality, offering pay-for-play to its funders. This, once again, exposes the rot at the heart of the think tank movement, a grubby industry that has both infiltrated and corrupted US/UK media.

CEPAs acquiescence to Budapests agenda is clearly fueled by the funding it takes from Hungarian government-funded bodies. Indeed, this cash infusion even saw Rka Szemerknyi, Hungarys former ambassador to Washington an Orbn appointee appointedexecutive vice-president of the pressure group.

Outfits like CEPA throw shade at Russia constantly over its refusal to follow Western norms, ignoring the fact Russia was expected to westernize without the prospect of Western integration. Yet, countries such as Poland and Hungary which have been allowed to join institutions like the European Union and NATO (and get huge amounts of money to boot) are backsliding but are handed free passes. Thats because this isnt about values, its about geopolitics and financial gain.

Hungarys political system is Hungarys own business. Indeed, much like in Russia (where the Communists are second to United Russia), the main opposition party (nationalist Jobbik) is even more anti-Western than the government (Fidesz). The hypocrisy here entirely belongs to CEPA.

Indeed, it may even be a welcome bit of honesty from the US foreign policy elite which Volker clearly represents as a career member of the swamp.

Like this story? Share it with a friend!

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

View post:
NATO-backed group admits it doesnt care about Orbans disregard for Western values, so long as Hungary helps oppose Russia - RT

Germanys participation in the NATO nuclear sharing initiative only increases the risk of catastrophic miscalculations, since Berlin has no real influence over Washingtons foreign policy decisions, a top Social Democrat argued.

The Pentagons latest Nuclear Posture Review and the development and deployment of low-yield tactical nukes makes it increasingly clear that the US administration no longer sees them as purely defensive weapons of deterrence, said Rolf Mutzenich, the chairman of the SPD parliamentary groupthat is allied with Chancellor Angela Merkels ruling conservatives.

Does anyone really think that if Donald Trump were planning a nuclear assault that he would be held back by Germany just because were transporting a few warheads?

Hisstrong opposition to the continued presence of American nukes on German soil was shared by both SPD co-leaders, Norbert Walter-Borjans and Saskia Esken, who reiterated their firm stance against any nuclear weapons deployment, sharing and use.

Senior coalition partners immediately accused the SPD of populism, with CDU lawmaker Patrick Sensburg expressing concern that statements like this undermine NATO solidarity and partners trust in Germanys ability to fulfil its future role within the Transatlantic security apparatus.

The SPD is in total nirvana about security policy the American nuclear weapons serve above all to protect us.

The opposition in the meantime accused the ruling CDU/CSUSPD coalition of damaging Germanys reputation with their ongoing quarrel, which, according to the Free Democratic Party (FDP) defense affairs spokeswoman, Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann, sends the wrong signal at the wrong time. She also reiterated the original justification for hosting the nukes, claiming that some control is better than nothing at all.

It is naive to believe that Germany would have the same influence on NATOs nuclear strategy if US nuclear weapons were withdrawn.

The US has had an estimated 100 nuclear weapons deployed in Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy, and at Buechel Air Base in Germany since the Cold War. The debate over the nuclear sharing arrangement heated up recently as Berlin seeks to replace its aging fleet of Tornado jets, capable of delivering American bombs, with either Eurofighter Typhoons or US-made Boeing F-18s.

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!

See the original post:
If Trump launched nukes, could we stop him? Germanys SPD clashes with coalition allies over NATO nuclear sharing - RT