Category Archives: NATO

Pristina (29 April 2020) Today, Brigadier General Frank BEST (German Air Force) assumed his duties as new Director of the NATO Advisory and Liaison Team (NALT) from Brigadier General Michael G. OBERNEYER (German Army), at a transfer of authority ceremony held at Camp Film City, headquarters of the NATO-led Kosovo Force (KFOR).

During the ceremony, Brigadier General Oberneyer remarked: We have continued to build on the excellent working relationship developed over the course of the years with our colleagues in the Ministry of Defence and the Kosovo Security Force, in an environment of mutual respect, trust and transparency. Within our respective mandates, we have worked together for a common goal: a professional Kosovo Security Force, with representation from all communities, working together for the benefit of all citizens in Kosovo. Brigadier General Oberneyer leaves the NALT in the capable hands of his colleague Brigadier General Best, who has built an impressive career in the German Air Force since joining in 1983. Most recently, he served as the Branch Head for Forces Policy in the German Ministry of Defence in Bonn.

The NATO Advisory and Liaison Team was set up in August 2016. Its mission is to support the further development of the security organisations in Kosovo which includes providing advice and support with a focus on capacity-building, education and training coordination.

The rest is here:
New Director of NATO Advisory and Liaison Team starts his tenure - NATO HQ

COLOGNE, Germany As NATO members respond to the coronavirus, individually and collectively, officials in Brussels have begun cataloging lessons learned for the next pandemic.

The goal is to find ways of turning the current crisis into something of a teachable moment, fusing COVID-19 improvisation with Cold War-era plans that have largely laid dormant for decades.

For now, there are still more questions than answers after NATO defense ministers commissioned the review in mid-April, as announced by Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg. Since then, the key term kicked around in alliance circles is resilience a reference to the ability to absorb major shocks while upholding the promise of collective security.

The military has been tasked with quite a lot in the past weeks, Camille Grand, NATOs assistant secretary general for defense investment, told Defense News in an interview. What does that tell us in terms of defense planning, in terms of capabilities? Is it useful to put more focus on capabilities that can be useful in a pandemic? Do we need some sort of planning associated with that, collectively as an alliance?

NATO was built on the premise of being able to outlast the Soviet Union in the aftermath of a catastrophic war, with detailed plans for the military to prop civil societies recovering from the brink of destruction. The novel coronavirus has, in some ways, reinvigorated the alliances interest in such scenarios.

Resilience is an important part of what NATO is doing, Stoltenberg said on the eve of the April 15 defense ministers' online meeting. It's actually enshrined in Article 3 of our treaty, that national resilience is a NATO responsibility. We have baseline requirements, guidelines for national resilience, including health and dealing with mass casualties.

On the table are questions ranging from the ability of decision-makers to work under the types of social distancing restrictions in place now, to incentivizing members nations to stockpile vital equipment, said Grand.

We're in a health crisis, not in a military one. But it gives NATO a chance to check how well it can operate under degraded conditions, for example in Iraq, the Baltic region, Afghanistan or the Middle East, he said.

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.

While the alliances past may hold ideas for improved contingency planning, the direction of military funding seems to be the greater unknown.

Member states are expected to take economic hits as a lot of business activity has remained frozen for months. The effect of such a downturn on defense spending has been the topic of several studies by European national security-minded think tanks in recent weeks.

While some have speculated that states with gross domestic product in free fall would more easily be able to hit the alliances spending target of 2 percent, for better or for worse, the actual effect may be less severe.

Torben Schtz, an analyst with the Berlin-based German Council on Foreign Relations, argues the projected decrease in economic activity, coupled with the lag time for military spending to adjust, wont be significant enough to make much of a difference in relative spending anytime soon.

Even economically grave decreases in GDPs have only limited impact on defense spending as a share of GDP, he wrote on Twitter, predicting that only a handful of additional member states would reach the 2 percent target in 2020.

At NATO, some might see the much-criticized relative spending objective vindicated in times like this.

The 2 percent target remains, and I dont see any reason for challenging that, Grand told Defense News. We are of course fully aware that nations will face tough fiscal choices. But at the end of the day, moving 0.5 percent of GDP in favor or against defense spending is not going to dramatically change the fiscal situation.

With defense spending cuts expected to vary considerably among nations, NATO officials have argued that threats to the alliance have remained the same, prompted primarily by Russias annexation of Crimea from Ukraine in 2014.

That is a major factor expected to work against the reflex to cut the military, as compared with the 2008 financial crisis that saw defense spending decimated because it was considered more expendable, said Grand.

I dont want to sound too optimistic, but I neither foresee nor take for granted that we will see a dramatic shift in the priorities against defense spending, he added.

Read the original here:
NATO checks its Cold War playbook in bid to fight pandemic - DefenseNews.com

In a strategic conversation today (27 April 2020) with Friends of Europe senior fellow Jamie Shea, the NATO Deputy Secretary General, Mircea Geoan, argued that now is not the time to cut investments in defence. This pandemic has not made the security risks to our nearly 1 billion citizens disappear, said Geoan.

He added that we live in a world that is even more unpredictable. He underscored the important role of the military both in helping save lives and in keeping our citizens safe, and stressed the importance that we continue to invest in our armed forces.

The Deputy Secretary General also mentioned that in these very difficult months and weeks of this pandemic, Allies have shown solidarity. NATO has flown more than 100 missions and strategic airlifts providing essential medical and healthcare assistance to Allies and partners. NATO has also helped construct field hospitals and deployed thousands of military medical personnel in support of civilian efforts. The Deputy Secretary General indicated that we are an Alliance which is based on the culture of solidarity, and this is is one of those times when solidarity has been proven and to this day, our solidarity remains intact.

Mircea Geoan spoke about the deliberate and continuous efforts by some actors to use this difficult moment to seed discord and mistrust, to undermine our resilience and to weaken our political democratic system. We are pushing back because this is not OK, said Geoan. Together with the European Union and others, NATO will continue to push back energetically and professionally against those abusing the situation.

Read this article:
NATO Deputy Secretary General conversation with Friends of Europe on NATO's response to COVID-19 - NATO HQ

The NATO-led KFOR mission continues its daily activities, ensuring a safe and secure environment for all communities in Kosovo, according to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 of 1999.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, KFOR has been fully implementing all preventive measures recommended by the World Health Organization. It has also provided assistance to local institutions in Kosovo. In the past days, it has donated personal protection equipment worth 70,000 Euro to the hospitals of Pristina and Gracanica. This included gloves, masks, goggles, isolation clothing, as well as infrared contactless thermometers and antiseptic hand cleansing. The project was funded by NATO and implemented by the KFOR Civil-Military Cooperation team, and is part of the overall commitment of the Alliance in support of its operations and of its member countries and partners. The donation is an act of solidarity that reflects the close cooperation developed between KFOR and the Ministry of Public Health, Major General Michele Risi, the Commander of KFOR said.

Recently, the Italian-led Multinational Specialized Unit deployed with KFOR has also delivered more than 50 donations of food and clothing worth 70,000 to 14 Kosovo municipalities, in coordination with local charities and the Red Cross of Kosovo. The Multinational Specialized Unit consists of police forces with military status from Allied and partner countries contributing personnel to KFOR. They are tasked to support security operations, including through criminal intelligence control, mass and riot control, and information collection and evaluation. The Unit can advise, train and support local police forces on a wide range of policing issues.

Read the original here:
Coronavirus response: KFOR carries on with its activities and continues to provide assistance to local communities in Kosovo - NATO HQ

Some are born wise, some achieve wisdom, and some, I fear, have wisdom thrust upon them; we three seem to be in the last and most dangerous category, observed Canadian Foreign Minister Lester Pearson, commenting on the committee of three foreign ministers Pearson, Norways Halvard Lange and Italys Gaetano Martino formed in 1956 to advise the North Atlantic Council on how to develop greater cooperation and unity among the allies.

Three weeks ago, 10 wise women and men set out to resuscitate NATO from what French President Emmanuel Macron called its political and strategic brain death. This is not going to be an easy task, as the 70-year-old alliance has been recently suffering from a double crisis of democracy and leadership not to mention its old burden-sharing problem, the foundation of everything NATO does, which has seriously challenged NATOs cohesion to an unprecedented level. The current narrative that frames burden-sharing as a budgetary issue will eventually become unsustainable, because the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic will certainly not spare NATO burden-sharing. Shrunk national budgets and the new post-crisis social, economic, and political realities will undermine the idea that burden-sharing is about financial sharing. NATO allies need to abandon the obsession with defense accounting the idea that all members should spend 2 percent of their gross domestic product on defense and instead boost the cooperative development of interoperable capabilities and force readiness.

As both the European and North American continents have been hard-hit by COVID-19, the governments will be busy restoring their national economies and improving public health systems, which will negatively affect their ability to increase national defense spending to 2 percent in the next four years as NATO members agreed to do in 2014. This inability to meet the 2014 Wales defense investment pledge may further endanger already shaky trans-Atlantic solidarity. Rethinking NATO burden-sharing along the lines of Article III of the North Atlantic Treaty can emphasize the mutual-aid and sharing dimension of burden-sharing, moving it away from quantitative defense accounting.

Burden-Sharing Is More than Budget Sharing

On March 31, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg appointed the group of 10 experts the new wise men and women to reflect on NATOs political dimension. This group is expected to come up with recommendations to reinforce Alliance unity, increase political consultation and coordination between allies, and strengthen NATOs political role, as agreed at the NATO leaders meeting in London last December. Chaired by an American and a German, the expert group is gender balanced, though from a geographical perspective only Poland represents the former Eastern bloc that joined the alliance after 1989. The secretary-general will present the groups recommendations during the next NATO summit in 2021.

The expert group resembles a 21st-century version of the Three Wise Men, a committee of three biblical Magi from Canada, Italy, and Norway, which was convened in 1956 to improve cooperation among the allies and develop greater internal solidarity within the Atlantic community. Back in the mid-1950s, NATO was primarily a military alliance focused on building its integrated command structure and drafting ambitious defense plans, in reaction to the outbreak of the Korean War. The 1956 report resulted in the adoption of political consultation among the alliance members, which eventually transformed NATO into the political and military collective defense alliance we know today.

Political and Strategic Dissonance in NATO

Setting up a reflection process that seeks expert advice on NATOs future is a welcome development. NATO needs to improve its cohesion, which has been eroded by the dissonance among the allies over both the political and strategic priorities of NATO. The alliance should also resolve the clash between liberal internationalists (represented for instance by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in Canada, Chancellor Angela Merkel in Germany, or Macron in France) and illiberal nationalists (Prime Minister Viktor Orbns Hungary, President Recep Tayyip Erdogans Turkey, or Prime Minister Jarosaw Kaczyskis populist Law and Justice party in Poland), which poses a challenge to the alliances identity, as democracy is one of NATOs core values, along with individual liberty and the rule of law.

What directly prompted the creation of the expert group was a controversial interview in the Economist last November, in which Macron declared that NATO was brain-dead. Although he received backlash for this blunt comment which arrived after uncoordinated unilateral actions by the United States and Turkey in Syria NATO was already suffering from a strategic schism between Eastern and Southern member countries. This divide concerns the different perceptions of the security environment among the allies, which creates a dilemma over how to allocate resources to address the diverging threat priorities of the alliance: improving the traditional deterrence and defense posture on NATOs Eastern flank on the one hand, and addressing Southern challenges of instability and terrorism in the Middle East and North Africa on the other. The 360-degree approach put in place to address these diverging concerns has not managed to fully mitigate this strategic split.

This lack of coherent geopolitical thinking has been compounded by a major dispute over fair burden-sharing at NATO. Burden-sharing, usually understood as the distribution of costs, risks, and responsibilities among the alliance members, has been NATOs recurrent problem. Yet since the adoption of the defense investment pledge at the NATO summit in Wales in 2014 projecting an increase in national defense spending to 2 percent of GDP by 2024, including 20 percent of annual defense expenditure on equipment the debates have fallen out of balance, focusing almost exclusively on financial sharing.

The Politics of NATO Burden-Sharing

The new Secretary Generals Annual Report shows that in 2019 only nine countries (one-third of NATO members) have reached the 2 percent guideline so far and 16 have invested 20 percent into equipment, procurement, and modernization. While the sharpest percentage increases are observed in Central European countries, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom represent together more than half of the non-U.S. defense spending (which accounts for 30 percent of alliance-wide national defense expenditures).

However, despite the increase in defense spending, this pledge has turned out to be a public relations disaster for NATO. Burden-sharing has become not only a politicized but also a very polarizing issue. Even though the plotline of this old debate has been the same for 70 years European allies free ride on the United States it seriously escalated with the arrival of U.S. President Donald Trump in 2016. Although the president has stopped calling NATO obsolete, he has been regularly and loudly criticizing the low level of defense spending of NATO European allies, up to the point of questioning Washingtons commitment to Article V, the core principle upon which the alliance is founded: that an attack on one is an attack on all. Even though NATO has been through several crises in the past, like the Suez Canal crisis in 1956 or the Iraq War in 2003, the United States was always interested in keeping the alliance united. The current NATO burden-sharing crisis is quite different in this respect, as it is Washington causing internal divisions.

In order to appease the United States, which is by far the greatest military spender in the world, the allies have agreed to adjust their direct contributions to NATO common budgets to reach fairer burden-sharing. NATO common funding has its own contribution mechanism based on the individual countries gross national income. Under the new cost-share formula for 2021-2024, Americas contribution will be reduced from around 22 percent to 16 percent, thus increasing the cost shares of European allies and Canada. However, NATO common funding fell short of 2.5 billion euros ($2.7 billion) last year and thus represents only a minor portion of the expenditures of NATO members, which together spent around $1 trillion on defense.

What Is Wrong with the 2 Percent Target?

Much ink has been spilled about the irrationality and ineffectiveness of the 2 percent defense spending measure. Even though it is a politically salient issue and all the allies have committed to it, the 2 percent pledge made in Wales is but a first step toward an honest discussion about how burden-sharing arrangements should play out in practice.

Imposing a one-dimensional quantitative measure of national defense spending is a rather technical depiction of burden-sharing that does not reflect the background process of political deliberations, nor qualitative differences among countries. National leaders in NATO countries have to navigate between national security interests and needs and their wider commitments to trans-Atlantic security. Rather than applying a one-number-fits-all approach, looking at the question through the prism of a normative dilemma of distributive justice, purchasing power parity estimates, and a progressive proportional scheme would provide a fairer burden-sharing measure (at least in statistical terms). Importantly, although the level of defense spending is a powerful predictor of future military capabilities and capacity, the translation of more resources into better capabilities is not straightforward.

The disconnection between alliance needs and the excessive focus on formal sharing of defense costs has created a strategic vacuum that damages the cohesion and reputation of the alliance. NATO is now caught up in meaningless burden-sharing exercises that do not serve its security interests, and that are mathematically and functionally ridiculous. Burden-sharing processes need to address explicitly the urgent need for substantial collective force planning. And they need to follow the interoperability imperative (do forces, units, and systems speak the common NATO language?) in pursuing the integration and modernization of European military capabilities. Measuring the level of national defense spending is a lazy shortcut for domestic political gains.

The expert group the new wise men and women should therefore reexamine the alliances philosophy of burden-sharing. For instance, they should rethink burden-sharing conceptually along the lines of Article III of the Washington Treaty. This article stipulates that the allies will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid. Yet it does not specify the ratio between self-help and mutual help: that is, how much a member country must spend on its own defense before allies pitch in.

Reintroducing the mutual-aid dimension into the debate can emphasise the cooperative and sharing aspects of burden-sharing. This could point to what member countries have in common and what they can do together, such as stepping up integrated air and missile defense or sharing military expertise, rather than what divides them, and reflect the increasing number of high-visibility multinational capability cooperation projects at NATO. This approach would go beyond quantitative output and defense accounting and instead pay attention to the quality and effectiveness of burden-sharing.

You Cant Buy Interoperability

In contrast to statistical engineering that aims to adjust numbers to fit the desired fair share, true burden-sharing would put emphasis on defense capabilities and operational readiness. Shifting the emphasis away from abstract macroeconomic numbers to practical cooperation based on strategic needs should inform the content (which capabilities to buy), not only the form (defense spending levels), of burden-sharing debates. This highlights the problem that allies cannot just buy interoperability, as it requires enhanced cooperation and coordination. Although interoperability is considered the alliances core business, it has not been systematically treated in the burden-sharing debate. In addition, burden-sharing that includes the mutual-aid dimension would further refine the cash, capabilities, contributions or three Cs framework regularly mentioned by the current NATO secretary-general.

The current defense spending narrative is thus a symptom of empty formalism in NATO that reflects a lack of clarity about the alliances purpose, and favors statistical deceptions over effectively implementing the mutual commitment to defend each other. A February 2020 poll by the Pew Research Center revealed a worrying trend: While NATO is generally seen in a positive light across publics within the alliance (a median of 53 percent view NATO positively, though with double-digit percentage point declines in Germany and France over the past 10 years), many in 16 surveyed NATO countries seem reluctant to fulfill Article V collective defense obligations. A median of 50 percent across 16 NATO member countries is against their country defending an ally, while only 38 percent express willingness to come to help a fellow ally.

Future Defense Spending in Peril

NATO needs to get its burden-sharing right, especially in the context of the short- and long-term consequences of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. While the scope of the economic impact is still unclear, it is likely to reshuffle financial priorities in NATO countries. Defense ministries will find it more difficult to reach the 2 percent spending level by 2024 or even to maintain the current defense expenditures programs. Moreover, with economies put to halt and eventual drops in national GDP, even if countries fulfill the 2 percent pledge, they could end up spending less in real terms. If NATO members continue to frame fairness in terms of the 2 percent defense spending target, it will further aggravate the burden-sharing problem, seriously test NATO solidarity, and ultimately endanger the alliances ability to adapt to the increasingly unpredictable security environment and the changing nature of security threats.

Improving NATOs cohesion and its political role will not happen overnight or through high-level political declarations. If there are any lessons to be learned from the Three Wise Mens effort back in 1956, it is that perseverance, personal relationships and reputation, pragmatism, and humility matter a great deal.

Dr. Dominika Kunertova is a postdoctoral research fellow at the Center for War Studies in Denmark. With a Ph.D. in Political Science from Universit de Montral, she researches trans-Atlantic security and defense cooperation, NATO-EU relations, and military technology. Her previous work experience includes strategic foresight analysis at NATO Allied Command Transformation in Norfolk, Virginia, and capability development and armaments cooperation at NATO Headquarters in Brussels. She has published her research in the Journal of Transatlantic Studies, European Security, Military Review, and Ethics Forum.

Image: NATO

Continued here:
Can the New 'Magi' Save NATO? - War on the Rocks

ommander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Colonel-General Ruslan Khomchak held a phone conversation with Chairman of the NATO Military Committee Air Chief Marshal Stuart Peach.

In particular, Colonel-General Ruslan Khomchak and Air Chief Marshal Sir Stuart Peach discussed the postponement of a NATO Military Committee meeting in Ukraine within the global epidemic of acute respiratory disease COVID-19, the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine posted on Facebook.

As noted, Colonel-General Ruslan Khomchak expressed the strong interest of the Ukrainian side in the visit of the NATO Military Committee to Ukraine and emphasized that this visit would be a great opportunity for the Allies to get updated information about the reforms in the Armed Forces of Ukraine and the security situation in Ukraine and to observe the work of foreign training missions with Ukrainian servicemen and servicewomen.

In turn, NATO Military Committee Chairman Sir Stuart Peach, while discussing topical issues of deepening cooperation with Ukraine by finding new ways of mutual military dialogue at the strategic level, emphasized the priority of the actions at the level of both the heads of General Staff and the military representatives.

The Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine expressed his gratitude for the support, underscored the importance of assistance from partners in the fight against the coronavirus pandemic and informed about the beginning of work with the NATO member states on obtaining the necessary medical supplies.

Khomchak also stressed that the Armed Forces of Ukraine continued to repel the armed aggression of the Russian Federation.

ol

Originally posted here:
Khomchak holds phone conversation with Chairman of NATO Military Committee - Ukrinform. Ukraine and world news

MWR closes, food is takeout only as US bases in Afghanistan respond to pandemic

Stars and Stripes is making stories on the coronavirus pandemic available free of charge. See other free reports here. Sign up for our daily coronavirus newsletter here. Please support our journalism with a subscription.

KABUL, Afghanistan U.S. bases in Afghanistan have closed some facilities and limited gatherings under a public health emergency declared in late March to control the spread of the coronavirus, military officials said Friday.

The emergency order from Gen. Scott Miller also allows commanders to impose quarantine or isolation, close buildings and restrict movement, NATO Resolute Support said in a statement. The order issued March 28 includes service members and others under U.S. and NATO authority.

Under the (public health emergency), a civilian or contractor who refuses to comply with the rules or follow instructions from medical professionals could be sent home, NATO Resolute Support spokesman Col. Sonny Leggett said in a statement.

Measures by NATO Resolute Support to limit the spread of the virus resemble those announced in recent weeks at military bases worldwide.

U.S. and NATO dining facilities in Afghanistan are takeout only, with shortened hours for stores and restaurants run by the Army and Air Force Exchange Service. Morale, Welfare and Recreation facilities, where troops could play video games or call their families, have been closed.

All indoor gyms at U.S. bases are closed, although personnel are encouraged to exercise at outdoor gyms, the Resolute Support statement said.

The U.S.-led mission to advise Afghanistan security forces is continuing using remote means, Resolute Support said.

Troops must maintain six feet of distance from each other and wear a face mask if that distance is not possible, in line with Pentagon guidelines. No more than 10 people are to gather in a room at one time, and meetings are to take place remotely when possible, a Resolute Support statement said.

The public health emergency declaration will continue at least through late April, military officials said.

Enforcing measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19 across the force is not only a command focus but an individual responsibility, Leggett said in the statement.

U.S. and NATO medical personnel have formed a COVID-19 prevention task force and some deployed commanders are holding virtual meetings to answer questions from troops, Leggett said.

U.S. officials declined Friday to discuss how many troops in Afghanistan have since tested positive for coronavirus, citing a Pentagon directive to stop announcing local case figures.

Four NATO service members had tested positive for coronavirus after arriving in Afghanistan, military officials said in late March.

Afghanistan had 444 confirmed coronavirus cases and 15 deaths, the World Health Organization website said Friday.

Thousands of Afghans have recently returned to the country from Iran, which has been among the nations hardest hit by coronavirus, with 64,586 cases and 3,993 deaths, the WHO said.

lawrence.jp@stripes.comTwitter: @jplawrence3

NATO Resolute Support service members and civilians wait for lunch at a dining facility in Kabul, Afghanistan, April 10, 2020. Personnel at RS must wear face coverings and stay six feet apart while waiting in line to receive a to-go meal as part of COVID-19 prevention measures.NATO RESOLUTE SUPPORT

Go here to see the original:
MWR closes, food is takeout only as US bases in Afghanistan respond to pandemic - Stars and Stripes

In the first edition of our LIVE Sessions webinars, Boxoffice Pro hosted National Association of Theatre Owners (NATO) president & CEO John Fithian and chief communications officer Patrick Corcoran. On April 3, Boxoffice Pro executive director Daniel Lora and deputy editor Rebecca Pahle moderated the live webinar, with over 600 attendees tuning in from 30 different countries, in a conversation that covered the state of theatrical exhibition during the COVID-19 crisis.

The discussion opened with NATO providing insights on its three top priorities during the crisis: providing economic assistance to affected cinema workers through government and private funds, keeping exhibitors afloat and viable by lobbying for liquidity sources during this pause, and keeping the public safe by following the guidelines and recommendations of local agencies in regards to business operations.

Of those three priorities, Fithian highlighted the importance of protecting cinema workers through public and private fundraising efforts. We are encouraging governments to help the workers by compensating for their lost wages, he says. We live in a business that is mainly hourly employees. Unlike big businesses with salaried employees, were a place where first workers come to get their first job. First and foremost, we are trying to help cover our workers so that they can pay their rent and can have groceries during the interim.

Fithian notes that liquidity is crucial for companies to stay afloat during this crisis and to welcome their workers back as quickly as possible. We have to have liquidity for our members to weather the storm, he says. They have ongoing fixed costs and no income coming in. The various loan programs being established in the United States, the various government subsidies and tax breaks that are happening around the world, are intended to get our members to the other side of this storm.

The president and CEO of NATO stressed the importance of the industry working together during this difficult period, noting the voluntary closure of many cinemas before they were legally mandated to suspend operations. Were trying to do our part to keep everybody safe, says Fithian. We shut down all of our cinemas very, very quickly. Were working with all of our governments as they support the healthcare efforts, because the faster we can get through this crisis, the faster we can get back up and running.

NATO is hoping for theaters to begin reopening in June. That would mean a two to two-and-a-half month shutdown of the theatrical exhibition industry in the United States, depending on how effective current containment measures are in slowing down the spread of the virus. NATOs chief communications officer, Patrick Corcoran, notes that timeframe could change. It depends on how the situation changes and if the curve bends downward on this pandemic. Were looking at possibly being open at the end of May, early June, in a limited way. Then ramping up to major releases, if thats possible, in July.

The reopening strategy will be inspired by efforts from different countries around the world, as each country is at a different stage in dealing with the crisis. The lessons are very similar, the timelines are very different, says Fithian. China shut down in January and Western Europe and North America didnt shut down until mid-March, so were learning from each other. Were comparing notes on how long the virus takes, on what you do to ramp back up once the virus has gone, what kind of film programming we can have when we get back up and running.

What that reopening campaign could look like depends largely on the guidance of health officials. NATO is consulting with the Center for Disease Control as well as local health departments in the United States on issues like social distancing, cleanliness, and sick employees staying home. Whether we open back up location-by-location, region-by-region, nation-by-nation remains to be seen, depending on what the health officials say is the cessation of the threat, says Fithian.

Everyone should stay in touch with their local health officials first and foremost about their recommendations and then prepare to ramp back up in steps. We anticipate that when we first open cinemas anywhere in the world well have social distancing elements involved. The 50 percent seating capacity issue is one way to address that so that people have a chance to come to the cinema but have some space between themselves. Obviously, well return to very intense cleaning procedures and anything else that health officials recommend, so that when were opening back up people know that we are careful with their health as they come to our cinemas.

In an audience poll conducted during the webinar, a majority of attendees highlighted the importance of a coordinated, industry-wide marketing campaign to encourage a return to cinemas as their most desired initiative in the coming months.

B&B Theatres executive vice president Bobbie Bagby Ford joined the conversation by emphasizing the importance of an industry-wide recovery effort to get audiences comfortable to return to cinemas. Its important that we all get our heads around that messaging so we have a united front, she says, suggesting incorporating a social media hashtag once cinemas are ready to reopen. All of us are in this industry for a reason, and if we can find a way to be united and jump forward with that messaging, its vitally important. It can be that sweet spot in American and in worldwide culture about how its time to be together. Youve been alone, youve been quarantined: now lets get out and enjoy our communities and our movie theaters.

Another major concern is content availability, particularly when it comes to the theatrical exclusivity window. With some studios moving titles whose theatrical runs were curtailed by the onset of the crisis to digital outlets, exhibitors are worried more titles might forgo a theatrical release entirely in favor of a straight-to-streaming launch. Fithian, however, believes most studios and distributors will abide by their original theatrical commitments for future films. The model is not broken. The model is simply on hold, he says.

A related problem is the availability of release dates as titles get pushed further down the schedule. This could potentially create a bottleneck for titles and crowd the marketplace. Fithian doesnt believe this will be the case, as the impact of COVID-19 is also affecting production schedules: titles originally slated for release in 2021 will likely get bumped to later dates until production can resume. Im very confident that for most distributors, almost all their movies are going to be postponed for a later theatrical release where theyll have an adequate and robust theatrical window, says Fithian.

Ultimately, once cinemas are deemed safe to reopen, NATO is confident audience demand will be there to welcome the return to business. My family is watching a lot of content at home right now, just like everybody elses. Thats the only place where you can get entertainment as people are following the right steps to stay home, stay safe, and to reduce the spread of the virus, says Fithian. All that means is they still love movies and they still love content. Its good to keep people connected to that content while theyre stuck in their homes, because once theyre out they will want to come back [to cinemas]. We strongly believe there will be a rush to cinemas to see all kinds of movies, just as people will want to reconnect with their friends and family through social experiences.

Read more here:
Boxoffice Pro LIVE Sessions: NATO's John Fithian on the State of the Cinema Industry During the COVID-19 Crisis - Boxoffice Pro

The global fight against COVID-19 has devastating economic consequences which might soon be felt in the defense sector. First estimates by OECD and national institutions conclude that the initial economic impact of the measures to fight the virus will by far exceed that of the 2008 financial crisis. The severe socio-economic consequences may tempt European governments to prioritize immediate economic relief over long-term strategic security and defense considerations. The good news is: there is no automatism it remains fundamentally a political decision.

If European governments do decide to slash defense spending as a result of the current crisis, it would be the second major hit within a decade. Defense budgets have only just begun to recover towards pre-2008 crisis levels, though capabilities have not. Nationally, as well as on an EU and NATO level, significant gaps still exist. European armies have lost roughly one-third of their capabilities over the last two decades. At the same time, the threat environment has intensified with an openly hostile Russia and a rising China.

With European defense budgets under pressure, the United States might see any effort to balance burden-sharing among allies fall apart. A militarily weak Europe would be no help against competitors either. The US should work with allies now to maintain NATOs capabilities.

Improve coordination to avoid past mistakes

Europes cardinal mistake from the last crisis was uncoordinated national defense cuts instead of harmonized European decisions. In light of the looming budget crisis, governments could be tempted to react the same way. This would be the second round of cuts within a decade, leaving not many capabilities to pool within NATO. If domestic priorities trump considerations about procurement of equipment for the maintenance and generation of military capabilities the system-wide repercussions would be severe. NATO defense, as well as the tightly knit industrial network in Europe, will suffer. Capabilities that can only be generated or sustained multinationally like effective air defense, strategic air transport or naval strike groups - could become even more fragile; some critical ones may even disappear.

If Europeans cut back on capabilities like anti-submarine warfare, armored vehicles of all sorts and mine-warfare equipment again, they could endanger the military capacity of nearly all allies. Ten years ago, such capabilities for large-scale and conventional warfare seemed rather superfluous, but today NATO needs them more than ever. This outcome should be avoided at all costs, because rebuilding those critical forces would be a considerable resource investment and could take years. Europe would become an even less effective military actor and partner to the US, resulting in more discord about burden-sharing.

Uncoordinated cuts would also affect the defense industry, as development and procurement programs would be delayed or cancelled altogether hitting both European and American companies. Moreover, their ability to increase efficiency through transnational mergers and acquisitions and economies of scale is limited due to continued national sentiments in Europe. Companies might decide to either aggressively internationalize, including massive increase of defense exports, or leave the market as national armed forces as otherwise reliable clients drop out. Technological innovation would suffer from a shrinking defense industrial ecosystem and duplicated national research and development efforts, risking the foundation of security for the next generation of defense solutions.

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.

To safeguard NATOs strategic autonomy, lean on lead nations

In order to prevent the loss of critical capabilities and infrastructure within NATO, the US should immediately start working with its European partners to preemptively plan for increasingly tight budgets. NATO should take stock of existing capabilities and offer alternatives for consolidation. Based on a coordinated effort to redefine NATOs level of ambition and priorities, it should offer plans for maintaining the military capacity to act while retiring unnecessary and outdated resources. Such a coordinated effort should include close cooperation with the European Union.

Building on the NATO Framework Nations Concept, the United States should work with a network of larger member states, better equipped to weather the economic shock of the current crisis, to act as lead nations. These countries could safeguard critical defense capabilities and provide a foundation of essential forces, enabling smaller partners to attach their specialized capabilities. Such an arrangement allows for a comparatively good balance of financial strain and retention of military capacity. Additionally, NATO should look beyond the conventional military domain and build on lessons learned from hybrid warfare and foreign influence operations against Europe.

The way ahead is clear: As ambitions for European strategic autonomy become wishful thinking in light of the current crisis, allies should focus on retaining NATOs strategic autonomy as a whole. For the foreseeable future, both sides of the Atlantic have to live by one motto: NATO first!

The authors are analysts at the Berlin-based German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP).

Read more:
The coronavirus threatens NATO. Let's move to protect the alliance. - DefenseNews.com

Critics claim Hungary has turned into an elective dictatorship, with parliament voting to give Prime Minister Viktor Orban power to rule by decree. This follows Turkeys President Recep Tayyip Erdogan who effectively rules by decreeas well as manipulates elections and arrests critics. What is NATO, an alliance focused on supposedly democratic Europe, going to do?

A better question would be, why should the U.S. continue to underwrite the transatlantic alliance?

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization began in 1949 with 12 members. A more accurate name would be North America and the Others. Now up to 30 membersthe comedic Duchy of Grand Fenwick became a member in late March, in the guise of North Macedoniathe alliance long has been notable for enabling military free-loading by a continent whose wealth matches and population exceeds that of America.

By a vast margin the biggest spender with the largest military and greatest combat capabilities is the U.S. Only eight other governments meet NATOs official objective of military outlays reaching 2 percent of GDP. Four of them barely hit the line. Only Bulgaria is significantly above that level. Greece makes this elite group because it is arming against fellow alliance member Turkey, not Russia or any other outside threat.

The 2 percent goal is not new: it was set in 2006, when seven members total met that level. Most significant, even now only one of the continents major powers, the United Kingdom, makes it across the line, staggers really, with a bit of fiscal legerdemain (expanding the definition of military outlays). France comes close. Expenditures by Germany, Italy, and Spain fall abysmally short.

Admittedly, the 2 percent standard is arbitrary, merely indicating military effort. Nevertheless, it represents important evidence of a countrys commitment to defend itself and its region. Apparently most Europeans cant be bothered to do so.

Particularly noteworthy is the fact that the states viewed as most at risk seemingly view the floor as a ceiling. Poland spends 2.0 percent, Latvia 2.01 percent, Lithuania 2.03 percent, and Estonia 2.14 percent. All claim to feel frightened by possible Russian aggression, yet is that all they believe their independence and freedom are worth? Even the very nations that proclaim themselves to be most at risk prefer to rely on Washington than devote their own resources to their defense.

Of the other 29 members only two have genuinely capable militaries, France and the United Kingdom. Germany, despite a storied past, when its prodigious battle skills were put to ill ends, has been embarrassed for years by reports of minimal readiness. Small nations such as Denmark and the Netherlands have contributed forces to allied endeavors (losing lives in the process) but would be marginal players in any continental conflagration. And mini-states, such as North Macedonia, Montenegro, Albania, and Croatia, are merely geopolitical ornaments, increasing allied defense responsibilities but not capabilities.

The basic problem is two-fold. Most European nations, certainly those constituting old Europe, as Donald Rumsfeld referred to it, have little fear of Russia. Vladimir PutinVladimir Vladimirovich PutinWhat way for NATO? Hungary follows Turkey down the authoritarian path Belarus's risky coronavirus strategy New START is not NAFTA MORE is a nasty authoritarian, not a foolish megalomaniac. Martians are more likely than Russians to invade the continent. European peoples know that and offer little support for a military build-up to satisfy Washingtons threat conceptions.

Equally important, NATO members assume Washington would deal with any crisis, so ask, why spend more money on the military? Moscows assault on Ukraine has spurred a small but steady spending increase by some members. However, despite constant whining by Washington, expressed more vociferously by President Donald TrumpDonald John TrumpSenators demand more details from Trump on intel watchdog firing Overnight Health Care: Trump steps up attack on WHO | Fauci says deaths could be lower than first projected | House panel warns federal stockpile of medical supplies depleted | Mnuchin, Schumer in talks over relief deal Trump says he'll look into small business loan program restricting casinos MORE, the substantive impact is and will remain small. After all, even as U.S. officials insisted that Europe must do more, they repeated reassurances of Americas commitment to the continent and increased funding for and placement of men and materiel in Europe. Congress even approved more military subsidies as part of The European Reassurance Initiative (since renamed The European Deterrence Initiative).

What incentive does any European government have to do anything more than the minimum necessary to reduce Washingtons complaining?

Now even alliance advocates are appalled by Hungarys authoritarian move. Yet Turkey has gone much further down this path, wrecking a democratic order, crushing dissent, threatening fellow NATO member Greece as well as Cyprus, aiding the Islamic State and other Islamic radicals in Syria, and moving close to Russia, even purchasing weapons from Moscow. Who seriously believes that Turkey would go to war with Russia over a threat to, say, Estonia?

Still, the more fundamental issue is whether the transatlantic alliance serves Americas interests. Orbans power play should trigger a review of Americas, not Hungarys, membership in NATO. The U.S. should turn responsibility for Europes security over to Europe, which could take over NATOs leadership or create an organization tied to the European Union. Washington still should cooperate with the Europeans but need not guarantee the security of nations well able to defend themselves.

The EU has 10 times the economic strength and three times the population of Russia. With America so busy elsewhere in the worldfighting endless wars in the Middle East and confronting a rising China in AsiaEuropean governments should do what all governments normally are supposed to do, defend their peoples. It is time for burden-shedding, not just burden-sharing.

Alliances should be a means to an end, enhancing U.S. security. In Washington, NATO has become an end, even as it undermines U.S. security. Hungarys transformation is forcing an alliance rethink, which is long overdue. In the midst of a viral pandemic and debt explosion, Americans cannot afford to provide military welfare for the rest of the world, especially populous and prosperous Europe. The Europeans should take over that responsibility.

Doug Bandow is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute. A former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan, he is author of Foreign Follies: Americas New Global Empire.

Read more:
What way for NATO? Hungary follows Turkey down the authoritarian path | TheHill - The Hill