Category Archives: NATO

Data science platform Dataiku is teaming up with military alliance NATO to create a system to help it build and "deploy" AI projects.

The deal with NATO's Allied Command Transformation (ACT) aims to use Dataiku's tech and data scientists to solve some of the most "challenging use cases in the field", NATO said, vaguely, without specifying the type of thing they were referring to.

"We were looking to expand our use of data science, machine learning, and AI in the organisation," said General Andr Lanata, NATO supreme allied commander for transformation. "We are invested in sharing ACT's progress with other member states, with the goal of expanding competencies and successful, deployed use cases of AI projects in the field."

Dataiku makes Data Science Studio - an advanced analytics and collaborative data science tool - which comes up against the likes of Teradata, Talend, and IBM. The seven-year-old startup has been valued at $1.4bn and inhaled $101m in its last funding round in December last year.

Dataiku CEO Florian Douetteau said of the military deal: "NATO ACT is in the unique position to leverage data science and machine learning to have global impact."

Earlier this week, the US Department of Defense adopted a set of "ethical principles" on the controversial topic of the deployment of AI technology for military use. Google dropped its association with computer-vision software Pentagon project, Maven, after internal and external backlash last year.

Dataiku got its introduction to NATO via an "innovation hub" competition in Paris, 2018. In an incredibly prescient imaginary scenario, participants were asked to assist in the control of a disease outbreak in a landlocked country.

The outbreak led to a public health crisis complicated by the emergence of rebel groups attacking medical supplies.

The Dataiku team won two of the three gongs up for grabs by applying object detection with deep learning on aerial imagery. Let's hope it does not need to put any of the lessons learned into practice any time soon.

Sponsored: Quit your addiction to storage

See more here:
Data science pusher Dataiku hooks arms with NATO on battlefield AI contract - The Register

This is a rush transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.

Greg Wolpert: Its the Real News Network. Im Greg Wolpert in Baltimore. The US military is about to send 7,500 combat troops to Norway for exercise Cold Response 2020 where they will join thousands of allied NATO troops in the Finnmark district along the border to Russia to participate in war games that will take place in mid-March.

These maneuvers have been held every other year since 2006, but their increased size and importance are raising credible fears that NATO and the United States are preparing to use the Arctic as a battleground for a possible conflict with Russia. Why have these NATO games in such a Northern latitude been gaining in importance? US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo openly explained the rationale when he visited Finland in May of last year.

Mike Pompeo: The Arctic is at the forefront of opportunity and abundance. It houses 13% of the worlds undiscovered oil, 30% of its undiscovered gas, and an abundance of uranium, rare earth minerals, gold, diamonds, and millions of square miles of untapped resources, fisheries galore. And its centerpiece, the Arctic Ocean, is rapidly taking on new strategic significance. Offshore resources, which are helping the respective coastal states are the subject of renewed competition.

Steady reductions in sea ice are opening new passageways and new opportunities for trade. This could potentially slash the time it takes to travel between Asia and the West by as much as 20 days. Arctic sea lanes could come before the could come to the 21st century Suez and Panama canals.

Under President Trump, were fortifying Americas security and diplomatic presence in the area. On the security side, partly in response to Russias destabilizing activities, we are hosting military exercises, strengthening our force presence, rebuilding our icebreaker fleet, expanding Coast Guard funding, and creating a new senior military post for Arctic Affairs inside of our own military.

Greg Wolpert: Pompeo also explained that in addition to the threat that Russia represents, so does China.

Joining me now to discuss the significance of NATOs exercise Cold Response are Michael Klare and [Erik Vold 00:02:20]. Michael is The Nations defense correspondent and professor emeritus of Peace and World Security Studies at Hampshire College. His latest book is, All Hell Breaking Loose: The Pentagons Perspective on Climate Change. Erik, who joins us from Oslo, is a Norwegian political analyst and author and is working as a foreign policy advisor to the parliamentary group of the leftist Red Party of Norway.

Thanks, Michael and Erik for joining us today. So lets start with the Arctic, why the Arctic has become of such great interest to the United States? We saw it earlier as Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo already explained it pretty well in that clip. But January, once again, the month of January, beat all climate records as the warmest January in recorded history. Michael, talk about how climate change is driving this scramble for the Arctic.

Michael Klare: Well, at one point you couldnt go there. You couldnt go near there because it was covered with ice. The region was impenetrable. But because of climate change and the rapidly rising temperatures in the Arctic, the ice cap is receding and thats making it possible to drill for oil and natural gas and other resources in the Arctic region. This has led to a scramble to extract those resources by giant energy firms from around the world. So this has made the region much more of importance from a geopolitical perspective.

Its especially true of Russia because Russia highly depends on the sale of oil and natural gas to prop up its economy. Something like 25% of its foreign income comes from the sale of oil and gas and at present most of that oil and natural gas that it sells to Europe and Asia comes from reserves below the Arctic Circle. But those are running out. So for Russia to continue to rely on oil and gas reserves to power its economy, it has to go above the Arctic Circle.

And so from Moscows perspective, the development of Arctic resources is absolutely crucial. This is something that President Vladimir Putin has said over and over again and has invested vast resources, economic inputs into developing the new oil and gas fields developed, discovered above the Arctic Circle in Russias territory.

But as well discuss, this creates problems for Russia because its very hard to deliver those new oil and gas reserves to the rest of the world because of the distance from markets. This has put a new emphasis on trade routes that pass by Northern Norway, which is where this exercise is being held.

Greg Wolpert: All right. Talk to us also about the US interest that is in the resources because you make an interesting point in one of your articles for The Nation where you point out also that even if we arent right away running out of natural resources in the Middle East, there is an issue that climate change in the Middle East is actually driving also whats happening in the Arctic. Explain that to us.

Michael Klare: Yes, indeed. If you look at the latest scientific literature on what we could expect from climate change in the future, the Middle East region, especially the Persian Gulf, which is where most of oil drilling is occurring at present, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran and so on, those areas are going to become unbearably hot in summer months. You can expect, in decades to come, that summertime temperatures during the day are likely to average above 110 degrees Fahrenheit and very possibly above 120 degrees Fahrenheit. Its almost impossible for humans to survive for very long in those temperatures.

A lot of equipment breaks down under those circumstances. So its very possible that itll become impossible to produce oil and gas in that region. That makes production in the Arctic much more attractive as those areas become impossible to operate in the Middle East. So the oil companies, American and British oil companies are increasingly looking towards the Arctic as a future source of production to ensure that they have adequate supplies.

Greg Wolpert: Erik, I want to turn to you now. Now, what has Norway done to facilitate the scramble for Arctic resources? I mean, Norway is usually seen as a peace loving country, the home of the Nobel Peace Prize after all. To what extent and why is Norway supporting US ambitions there via NATO?

Erik Vold: Well, Norway joined the NATO in 1949 and that was a very controversial decision. And because Norway is a country that is situated on the border with Russia, at that time the Soviet Union and the Soviet Union had just liberated a big chunk of Norwegian territory from Nazi occupation, so there was very little appetite in the Norwegian population to sort of antagonize the Russians by letting the US enter Norwegian territory with heavy military equipment. So we had this self-imposed restrictions on US military presence. For example, not permitting US military bases on Norwegian soil in peace time and not permitting the presence of US nukes on Norwegian territory.

Now, this policy, this very prudent policy that served us very well for about 70 years has been rolled back by this current government, which is more and more inclined to supporting the US and to supporting US militarization off the Arctic that is deemed to be threatening by the Russians. Now I can give you a very illustrative example.

In 2018, the Norwegian government introduced a proposal asking basically asking the parliament for a grant of about 1 billion kroners, about $1 million for satellite-based broadband connection in the Northern Norway. Now this was presented as a proposal to improve internet connection for business, for fishery, for maritime security, shipping and for the Norwegian defense. This grant was voted favorably, unanimously, by the parliament.

Now a couple of days later, it turned out that this grant was going to be used on something completely different. It turned out that these satellites were going to carry communication equipment for the US military directly connected to US nuclear armed submarines that were using the Arctic territories of Norwegian maritime territory getting close to Russia.

It also turned out that the reason why the Americans wanted to use civilian Norwegian satellites instead of US military satellites was because the US military considered that any satellites carrying communication equipment for nuclear, US nuclear capabilities would become possible targets for attacks from those countries that feel threatened by the presence of US nukes close to their borders. In this case, it would be Russia and China.

So what this goes to show is the way that the US is increasingly using Norwegian territory and Norwegian civilian infrastructure to move nuclear and conventional military, offensive military, capabilities closer and closer to the Russian border. And that the way that this is being done is through, to a large extent, through secrecy and deceptions, sometimes even undermining important principles of the Norwegian democracy.

Greg Wolpert: Michael, I want to get to that point that Erik is raising about increasing US military presence in Norway. Were not just talking about the NATO maneuvers that are happening in early March. So what has the US so far deployed there and what kinds of risks do these deployments represent?

Michael Klare: So step back for a minute. The US, over the past two years, has adopted a new military strategy. For the past 20 years or so, since 2001, since 9/11, the guiding strategy of the United States has been the global War on Terror. And thats led, of course to a focus on Iraq to Afghanistan and other countries where the US has been fighting the various ISIS and Al-Qaeda and so on.

Two years ago, the Department of Defense adopted a new national security strategy, which emphasizes what they call great power competition, meaning the rivalry between the US, Russia and China. And on this space is the US increasingly views Russia and China as its main adversary. In this shift in strategy emphasizes that while the US was focusing on the wars, the what we call the Forever Wars, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and so on, that Russia and China have built up their military capabilities and put NATO and the US at a disadvantage and that therefore, its essential that the US and NATO build up their capabilities again to deflect and to contain and push back Russian and then Chinese advances.

So now looking at Norway and Scandinavia, the US sees a big Russian build up in the Kola Peninsula. Thats the area that adjoins Norway in the far North, a huge buildup of Russian forces there. This is seen as a new or an expanded threat to NATO and to US forces in general because those forces that the Russians have deployed in Kola Peninsula, especially in Murmansk the big naval base there include nuclear forces. So in response, the US has undertaken a drive to beef up its forces in that region and that has included, as [inaudible 00:13:28] said earlier, the positioning of a permanent deployment of American forces that is, in this case, Marine deployments of several hundred Marines in North Central Norway.

But more importantly, under agreement with the Norwegian government, this is not well known in the United States at all, I dont even know if go regions know about it, the US has established large, large caves, I think in the area to the East of Trondheim in North Central Norway, which hold hundreds, thousands of tanks and artillery pieces and armored personnel carriers, ammunition, all the stocks you need to fight a major war. So there is an anticipation on the US side that we may have to fight a major war with Russia in the far North in the area adjoining the Kola Peninsula.

The exercise that were about to see, Cold Response 2020, US forces will fly to Norway and then go to those caves and extract all of those tanks that have been pre-positioned in Norway, move to the Northern part of Norway and engage in a mock war with Russia. So there is this, an assumption now in the Pentagon that Northern Norway will be a major battlefield in any war with Russia and in fact could be the starting place for World War III.

Greg Wolpert: Actually, Erik, this is exactly the next issue I want to touch on with you. I mean, just as Michael says, Norway would be in the middle of such a confrontation, whether its a nuclear or conventional. Now, whats been the reaction within Norway to this militarization?

Erik Vold: Thats true. I mean, Norway used to be a kind of a buffer zone between Russia or the USSR and the US. And through those Norwegian policies of limiting US presence in Northern Norway, that position was maintained until pretty recently because the current government has done a lot to tear down those limitations and basically scrap Norways role as a buffer, as a buffer zone.

So, while reactions are slow [inaudible 00:15:55]. I mean, defense policies, the whole security issue, big power competition, that issue has basically been marginalized since the end of the Cold War. The Norwegian people is slowly realizing the risks that this implies for Norway. I mean, we have enjoyed so many decades of peace and the risk of war has basically not been on the agenda.

But what we are seeing now is that by scrapping that prudent policy of maintaining a certain distance to the US even though being allies, by scrapping that policy, the risk of war is not being, is not reduced. Its increasing. Were seeing basically a security dilemma in which the increased military presence of the US in Norway makes Russia look at Norway with different eyes. I mean, well, the Russians never feared Norway, a small country of five million inhabitants with whom theyve maintained peace for almost a thousand years.

When US nuclear capabilities are connected to Norwegian civilian infrastructure, and when Norwegian territory is used to build up US military presence, then Russian guns are slowly being to more of an extent being pointed towards Norway because what the Russians do fear is that Norwegian territory is being used for aggressive purposes by the US against Russia. And so that increases the risk of Norway being drawn into this big power rivalry between Russia and the US.

It also increases the risks for the Russians. So theyre increasing their military spending. And unfortunately, this is also something that might stimulate increase defense spending in the US because to the extent that the US engages in Norway, probably in the case and increasing the risk of a conflict. Maybe the most probable scenario is a conflict arising from a misunderstanding when so much heavy military power is concentrated on such a small area. Thats the way it can happen.

So in case of a misunderstanding in which the Russians fear a US attack, they go to, they take some kind of preliminary action to protect their military capabilities in the Kola Peninsula. Then the U S will feel much more obliged to interfere, to intervene in order to maintain their credibility as a security guarantor towards other NATO States. So it also increases the risk of the US being drawn into a conflict unnecessarily based on a misunderstanding. So, what were going to see is three nations, everyone spending more on defense and getting less security in return from it.

Greg Wolpert: Michael, I was just wondering if you could add to that? I mean this was one of your points in your Nation article as well, that this could be the main area for World War III and why is that? I mean, what is it, why is Russia building up so much? After all, theyve got access to the entire, more access to the Arctic than any other country in the world, so why is it such a hotspot?

Michael Klare: Well, this partly is a matter of geography and I hope that you can put a map of this area to highlight this fact. That is to say that although Russia has a number of ports, the port at Murmansk is the only one that offers Russian submarines open access to the Atlantic Ocean and to the other oceans of the world. They cant on the Atlantic side. They also have ports on the Pacific.

One needs a minute to understand something about nuclear strategy. Russia relies on its nuclear submarines, nuclear missile armed submarines, as its secure deterrent to a US first strike. If the US were to strike first and destroy all Russian missile silos, they count on their submarines submerged as a final deterrent to such a strike because theyre supposedly more secure from detection and attack, but they have to get out into the water. Murmansk is therefore essential to them for that reason.

Hence, the United States, as it increasingly sees it, sees the possibility of a nuclear war with Russia sees that area where the submarines would exit from Murmansk to go out into the ocean as a crucial future nuclear war zone. Hence, the US has established with Norway a radar base at the very far North of Norway and Finnmark just 45 miles from the border with Russia and to track Russian submarines. This means in the event of a clash that had a nuclear potential, Northern Norway would be an immediate nuclear target for Russia. So you could see how this area is being caught up in the nuclear planning scenarios of both sides.

Its important to understand in this discussion that as we are shifting to this great power competition that weve been discussing, the US and I think the other great powers are also moving away from the strategy of mutual assured destruction, MAD as it was called, M-A-D, which said that any nuclear war would be so catastrophic that we are not even going to think about a first strike. Were only going to retain a secure second strike and not even think about nuclear war, but thats changing.

The US and Russia and China, it appears, are thinking more and more about the possibility of fighting and winning a nuclear war. I think this is utterly insane and immoral, highly immoral, but that is the case. And so nuclear battlefields are emerging places where nuclear strikes might occur. This area of Northern Norway and Murmansk would be at the very top of the list of possible targets in the event of a nuclear war. I could say more about this, but this is a matter of geography and you have to see Murmansk adjoining Northern Norway as a prime battlefield in any outset of a nuclear war.

Greg Wolpert: Well, I think its also important to reflect on how these two kind of apocalyptic scenarios, that is of climate change and of nuclear war, are coming together in this particular issue. Its really quite something. But were going to leave it there for now. Well certainly continue to follow this as we usually do.

I was speaking to Michael Klare, The Nations defense correspondent and professor emeritus of Peace and World Security Studies at Hampshire College and Erik Vold, foreign policy advisor for the parliamentary group of the Red Party of Norway. Thanks again, Michael and Erik for having joined us today.

Michael Klare: Thank you.

Erik Vold: Thank you.

Greg Wolpert: And thank you for joining the Real News Network.

See the article here:
NATO's Arctic War Exercise Unites Climate Change and WWIII - The Real News Network

The second volume of Winston Churchills The Second World War is titled Alone. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoan seems intent on preparing to apply that title to a volume in the series recording Turkeys position in the ongoing Syrian war, now several years longer than WWII.

Over the last few years, he struck out on an ambitious program to expand Turkeys and his influence to entanglements in foreign lands - Qatar, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, and Syria most of all. Now he finds his nation facing a vengeful Syrian leader undeterred in his drive to restore control over every square foot of Syrian land. Unlike his Syrian rival, Erdoan does not enjoy unrestricted support for his military endeavours from a powerful third state.

To his dismay, he is learning too late that Russias President Vladimir Putin was happy to encourage Turkeys distancing itself from the West and its accompanying increased dependency on Russia as it serves Putins interests, but not Turkeys. Both the distancing and dependency will prove difficult to undo.

Recent press accounts quote Turkish Defence Minister Hulusi Akar as suggesting Turkey will turn to the United States and other NATO countries to secure thedeployment of Patriotmissile defence batteries near its border with Syria. Some officials and pundits of western countries see in this suggestion an opportunity to foster a rapprochement between Turkey and the other NATO members and pull Erdoans Turkey away from Russia.

But, would Putin let Turkey simply walk away? Would members of the U.S. Congress back providing support for Ankara given thepresence of Islamist militantsin the Turkish-backed Syrian rebels? Recent Twitter comments by Senator Bob Menendezreveal a strong reluctance to re-engage with Turkey as if Erdoans anti-U.S. and anti-West rhetoric had never happened.

Which leaves the U.S. initiative to support Erdoan in the hands of President Donald Trump. Not likely - the Turkish President has disappointed Trump too many times.

Erdoan told Trump thatTurkey could handle the Islamic State (ISIS) in Syriaso U.S. troops could leave. Trump touted this guarantee when he announced the withdrawal of U.S. forces. Erdoan then attacked the Kurds, erstwhile U.S. battlefield allies, more than the remnants of the ISIS. In some cases, Turkey used irregular fighters under its control that many others considered being Islamist militants affiliated with al Qaeda or other radical Sunni terrorist groups. Though Trump is unlikely to admit it, he was forced to back-pedal on his decision to remove all U.S. forces from Syria. One wonders if any of Trumps advisors had the courage to tell him that Erdoan had misled him. Perhaps Trump remains convinced that he can still rely on Erdoan - more likely not.

One suspects from the brief non-committal Feb. 18readout from the tarmacof a recent conversation between the two leaders that Trump has little use for Erdoan and even less motivation to help him. In the past, the U.S. President could be expected to stand apart from the anti-Erdoan (and by extension anti-Turkey) rhetoric coming from pundits and politicians in Washington. But with Erdoan being at best unhelpful in Libya, contentious in the Eastern Mediterranean over rich hydrocarbon resources, strongly denouncing the U.S. Middle East peace plan for Israel and Palestine, and presuming incorrectly that the United States needs Turkey more than vice versa, its hard to see Trump set aside his America First stance to save Erdoan from the dilemma he has put himself in.

Might Erdoan be able to blackmail European countries in possession of Patriots to lend those to defend Turkey or provide other assistance to his forces in Syria? Would veiled threats of unleashing a tsunami of migrants from Turkey into Europe motivate the European leaders to help Erdoan in his Syria deployment? Not likely.

Theanti-immigrant sentimentsin European politics have increased dramatically in the last few years. Centrist politicians know their political careers would be ruined by allowing millions of migrants, regardless of humanitarian needs, into Europe. The more likely response among more sophisticated commentators would be a stiffening of the borders, and a hardening of attitudes against Turkey, or at least against Erdoan.

Thus, at least in Syria, Erdoan and Turkey are on their own. Putin will restrain Assad only as much as Putin deems it necessary to maintain the appearance of being an honest broker between Erdoan and Assad. Also, he will restrain Assad from attacking Turkish forces in Turkey, which could lead to a collective NATO response under Article 5 of theAlliance Treaty(Article 5 does not apply to a Syrian attack on Turkish forces operating in Syria, see Article 6 of the Treaty.)

This is another reason why the deployment of Patriots to Turkey is unnecessary. Theprevious deployments of Patriotswere needed to defend against an inadvertent or poorly aimed missile impacting Turkey. Very few considered it a serious possibility that Assad would deliberately target Turkey, for doing so would have called forth a collective NATO response. And now, Assads forces are using helicopters and aircraft to bomb the opposition in Syria, not launching SCUDs or similar rockets against those near the border with Turkey, further undermining the supposed need for Patriots. Turkey does not need U.S.-made batteries to defend itself from Syrian missiles - its soldiers need re-deployment out of the path of the Assads forces committed to conquering all Syrian territory regardless of who stands in their way.

In sum, Erdoan stands alone, but not as the leader of a nation united against threatened foreign invasion and fighting for its survival, but as the director of efforts to extend his influence while distracting the nation from its internal discord.

Ahval English

The views expressed in this column are the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Ahval.

See the article here:
Will U.S. and NATO deliver Patriot missiles to Turkey? - Ahval

The Turkish government released a video to celebrate the 68th anniversary of NATO membership, which includes a map of Cyprus marked in red.

Today we proudly celebrate the 68th anniversary of Turkeys accession to NATO. Throughout the 68 years, our country has protected NATOs borders and upheld the alliances values and principles, Osman Akn Bak, who is also a lawmaker of Turkeys ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party), said in a tweet.

This is another provocative tactic.

Last year, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan was photographedstanding in front of a map that depicts half of the Aegean Sea as well as the eastern coast of Crete belonging to Turkey.

*Credit: T.C. Mill Savunma Bakanl

Erdogan photographed in front of Turkey, Blue Homeland map

See the article here:
Turkey celebrates "the 68th anniversary of NATO membership" with a provocative message - Greek City Times

One of the four Norwegian Air Force F-35 touching down at Keflavik Air Base deploying its brake chute. (Image credit: Sigurd Tonning Olson).

On Feb. 19, 2020, four RoNAF F-35A aircraft arrived in Iceland, where they have deployed to support NATOs Airborne Surveillance and Interception Capabilities to meet Icelands Peacetime Preparedness Needs (ASIC IPPN) mission. The purpose of the NATO mission, initiated in 2008, after the withdrawal of US forces from the island, is to provide air surveillance and interception coverage over Iceland, in order to maintain the integrity of the NATO airspace.

The RNoAF F-35s will carry out a 3-week deployment with some 130 military and civilian personnel; Norwegian Control and Reporting Centre (CRC) personnel will be working alongside their Icelandic Coast Guard colleagues in the CRC at Keflavik Air Base.

RNoAF is the second F-35 operator to deploy the 5th generation aircraft in support of NATOs Icelandic Air Policing: the first one was the Italian Air Force, that deployed its Lightning II jets to Keflavik in October 2019.

Norwegian F-35As achieved the IOC (Initial Operational Capability) on November 6, 2019, becoming the third European country to reach IOC with the F-35 after Italy and the UK. The deployment to Iceland is a milestone towards full operational capability in 2025. The RNoAF plans to replace its F-16s, that are currently performing Quick Reaction Alert missions, by 2022, when there will be enough F-35s (out of 52 ordered), pilots and maintainers available to deploy to Evenes Air Station (Northern Norway).

Norwegian F-35s are unique compared to other nations F-35s as they are the only ones to use a drag chute during landing, housed in a special fairing on the upper rear fuselage between the vertical tails. It can be used to rapidly decelerate Norwegian F-35s after landing on icy runways under windy conditions.

See the rest here:
Norwegian F-35s Have Deployed To Iceland for NATO Air Policing Mission - The Aviationist

History 25/02/20 Photo: EPA PHOTO EPA/ELVIS BARUKCIC that the commander of NATO forces in the Yugoslav war drove the army

Early retirement in 2000, commander-in-chief of the United NATO forces in Europe, General Wesley Clark, at the time caused a lot of controversy and speculation. In the end it turned out that Clark is lost on their actions in the Yugoslav war, including and because of their attitude to the Russian peacekeepers paratroopers, seized in one night in June 1999 of the Pristina airport Slatina.

It is not considered a professional

General Wesley Clark to Kosovo war was considered in America as one of the most authoritative representatives of the generals of the US armed forces Vietnam veteran, holder of Bronze and Silver stars for participating in this campaign, was wounded in the battle, but continued to command his soldiers kontratakuje the Posts of commander-in-chief of the United NATO forces in Europe and acting commander of the European command of US armed forces, he served almost 3 years, from July 1997 to may 2000. As he wrote in 1999, the new York times, Clark has decided to release from these posts two months before the official term of office expires.

the Newspaper Kommersant, citing a source in the defense Ministry of Russia reported that Russian generals undisguised satisfied with information about the resignation of Clark: in the armed forces of the Russian Federation the General is not quoted as a high professional, and his radicalism in the Kosovo war were considered not justified. Clark ordered the bombing of Yugoslavia by NATO aircraft, they during the operation allied force lasted from late March to 10 June 1999, and according to Yugoslav estimates, killed more than 2 thousand civilians, more than 5 thousand people were injured.

Im not going for you to start a Third world war

the Confrontation with Wesley Clark, the commander of British peacekeepers in Kosovo, General Michael Jackson, who de jure had to obey a higher commander, but did not, called one of the most widely discussed reasons for the termination of his military career Clark. British diary The Daily Telegraph called this conflict staged confrontation.

This story actively commented on the publication of the Central USA and great Britain (and the British media clearly supported the act of a countryman), and the Pentagon in their official review was called a sticky situation with the insubordination of Jackson Clark disturbing.

on the night of 11 to 12 June 1999, the consolidated battalion airborne Russian armed forces, were part of the peacekeeping forces stationed in Bosnia and Herzegovina, occupied the airport near Pristina. Edition of the new York times reported that the Russian unexpectedly intercepted the NATO initiative: international airport Slatina NATO troops were going to capture themselves, to make their ground units in the direction of Macedonia after the end of operation allied force. Russia was against the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia and, on the basis of the official comment of the foreign Ministry, occupation airborne Slatina has become for our country a part of the process of strengthening its own geopolitical interests in the Balkan region.

Wesley Clark, wrote the new York times, ordered Jackson using armored vehicles to repel the Russian airfield. The Chairman of the joint chiefs of staff Henry Shelton said in comments the newspaper that Clark wanted to block the airport that the Russians are unable to use it. Jackson in response to the order uttered the phrase, publicized in 1999, dozens of the worlds media: Im not going for you to start a Third world war. And did not obey Clark.

the act of the British caused a stir at the Pentagon, officials didnt know how his right to comment. In the end decided that the airport is not worth the split among the military leadership of NATO. The British generals defended the position of his compatriotand, while General Henry Shelton actually allowed to cancel the orders of General Clark, commented, new York times this situation, Pentagon spokesman. And in the same publication one of the most respected American print media descended on Clark (in 1999 still held both posts) with sharp criticism: according to the newspaper, during the 10-week operation allied force he had resolutely insisted on a more active use of the Apache helicopters, and generally to regulate the relationship with the Pentagon, which General Wesley Clark in the Kosovo war clashed repeatedly.

has been Replaced with another

British guardian commented that in 1999, information on the early resignation of Wesley Clark spoke more specifically than the new York times: as reported by the newspaper, the decision on early resignation of Clark was made a few days before his conflict with Jackson commander of the shrew just wants to replace General Joseph Ralston, Vice Henry Shelton. Clark, according to the Pentagon, preferred the more aggressive tactics, insist on the use of attack helicopters Apache, but it rejected the proposal, fearing a large number of victims among the pilots (one Apache during the operation allied force was wrecked, two crew members were killed).

Laridian wrote that Clarks orders were ignored not only by Jackson: after the rebellion the British did not obey the American General and commander of NATO forces in southern Europe, James Ellis, whom Clark had asked to land the helicopters on the runway Slatina to prevent the landing of Russian transport aircraft Il. However, Admiral Ellis also refused to execute the order, stating that General Jackson will not like it.

After retirement in 2000, Wesley Clark was actively involved in politics, even ran for President of the United States. However, his political career did not. Clark is the author of two autobiographical books about his military past.

Nicholas Syromyatnikov

Source: Russian Seven

Featured articles Share: Comments Comments on the article why the commander of NATO forces in the Yugoslav war drove the army Please log in to leave a comment! br>Share on Tumblr

More:
What commander of NATO in the Yugoslav war, banished from the army - International Law Lawyer News

By Ms. Liliana Serban, ROU-CIV,Naval Postgraduate School (NPS) Course Director/ Liaison Officer

On 17 Oct 19, the NATO School Oberammergau (NSO), together with the Naval Postgraduate School (NPS), Monterey, USA, concluded the second cyber security course at the NATO-Istanbul Cooperation Initiative (ICI) Regional Centre in Kuwait.

The first course, Introduction to Network Security, held from 24 Mar to 04 Apr 19, was followed by an Introduction to Network Vulnerability Assessment & Risk Mitigation, from 06 to 17 Oct 19. The courses were organised under the auspices of the NATO Science for Peace and Security (SPS) Programme and brought together 40 IT specialists, network security administrators, technicians and engineers from different governmental agencies representing all the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries.

These tailor-made courses are aimed at strengthening the ties between the countries in the Gulf region and NATO and at developing local cyber expertise by addressing the bits-in-transit aspect of network security and potential vulnerabilities and their mitigation in networked systems.

"The security and stability of the region heavily depend on reliable cyber infrastructure, and these courses represent a significant added value to NATOs efforts on projecting stability to the South of the Alliance", underlined Colonel Brian Hill, USA-AF, the NSO Dean of Academics, in his closing remarks.

Inaugurated in Jan 17, the NATO-ICI Regional Centre is the hub for education, training, and other cooperation activities between NATO and its ICI partners in the Gulf, including Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

View original post here:
NSO > Home - NATO School

Ukraines Prime Minister announced earlier this week that NATO and the Ukrainian Armed Forces will hold joint military exercises in the Black Sea region, the latest in Kievs ongoing effort to secure membership in the Transatlantic Alliance through a strategy of consistent participation in NATO projects.

Operation Coherent Resilience 2020 will be held in Ukraines southern port city of Odesa on October 5-9, 2020, according to an agreement signed by Vice Prime Minister for European and Euro-Atlantic Integration of Ukraine Dmytro Kuleba and NATO Assistant Secretary-General for Political Affairs and Security Policy Bettina Cadenbach. Over the course of the exercises, over 200 experts will develop contingency plans for potential crisis situations in the Black Sea region: "The goal is to provide a smooth, timely, and competent response to cyber attacks, attacks on ports, seizure of transport routes and other threats," according to a Ukrainian press statement issued yesterday.

Coherent Resilience 2020 is far from the first of its kind; in 2019, Ukraine has participated in a flurry of NATO exercises and military planning sessions.

The upcoming joint exercise, and others like it, is part of what Kuleba sees as a concerted strategy to position Ukraine as an indispensable NATO partner: we integrate Ukraine in as many fields and markets when it comes to the EU, or fields of cooperation with NATO, as possible, so one day the guys in Brussels in NATO and EU look around and say: Oh, these Ukrainians are already everywhere, so why shouldnt we make this next step? And thats what weve been doing in the last three months, he said last month at the German Marshall Fund. NATO accession has been written into the Ukrainian constitution-- at least, pending an upcoming referendum promised by President Volodymyr Zelensky-- since February 2019, and continues to command the support of certain Washington D.C. foreign policy experts.

Still, the Zelensky administration continues to face major hurdles in its quest for NATO accession. In an article recently written forThe National Interest, Vice President and Director of Studies at the Center for the National Interest George Beebe compellingly highlights a lack of appetite for Ukraines NATO membership among west European partners who fear adding fuel to the fire of potential military escalation in the ongoing Donbass war. Whereas the assurance of Ukrainian NATO membership is sometimes framed as a deterrent against further conflict with Russia, Beebe cites the 2008 Russo-Georgian War to warn that it could have the exact opposite effect by sending dangerous military signals to Kiev amid the Ukrainian Armys ongoing effort to retake the Russian-backed separatist territories of Donetsk and Luhansk.

There are ongoing concerns that membership would allow Ukraine to immediately invoke Article 5 of the NATO treaty, the stipulation that an armed attack against one member state is an attack against them all. As it stands, the Atlantic Alliance can be said to enjoy the best of both worlds by cooperating with Ukraine on a wide variety of military matters, but without committing to the security guarantees associated with formal membership.

Popular support for NATO accession among Ukrainians has seen a steep decline, down from 69 percent at its peak in 2017 to around 51 percent in recent months. Though it remains to be seen if Ukraines political establishment will follow suit, there are early signs of a newfound pragmatism by some Kiev elites.

They are not waiting for us in NATO, head of the Ukrainian Parliaments Committee on State Security Irina Vereshchuk told reporters, urging the government to instead explore a neutrality doctrine on the example of Finland.

Mark Episkopos is a frequent contributorto The National Interest and serves as a research assistant at the Center for the National Interest. Mark is alsoa PhD student in History at American University.

Image: Reuters.

Read more from the original source:
Should Ukraine Join NATO? - The National Interest Online

Thosethree words have, for the past three decades, provided the rocks upon whichanti-NATO advocates have built their arguments. Naturally, those anti-NATO voices,pointing to Bakers quip, have gladly ignored any evidence contradicting thisinterpretation. Theyve ignored the fact that Gorbachev revealed in 2014 that Bakers commentsmadeto a country, and to a government, that no longer existswere directed solelytoward NATOs presence in eastern Germany,not eastern Europe writ large. The topic of NATO expansion was not discussedat all, and it wasnt brought up in those years, Gorbachev said, adding thatBakers comment was specifically made in [the] context of eastern Germany.(Gorbachev made clear there was no promise regarding broader enlargement, accordingto a Brookings Institute summary of Gorbachevscomments.)

Thesedetractors have also ignored the reality that Boris Yeltsin, wrangling in themid-1990s over NATOs growth into former Warsaw Pact countries, never bothered to cite Bakers pledgein trying to get the U.S. to slow the expansion. Most pertinently, they ignoredthe realities that Yeltsin and an early Vladimir Putin even made noise about potentiallyjoining NATO themselves, or that Putin hardly raised his hackles when NATOexpanded into, say, the Baltics in the mid-2000s. These arguments and debates typicallypop up whenever NATO expansion bubbles up: when NATO expanded into Croatia andAlbania in 2009, when Montenegro joined the alliance in 2017, when Georgia andUkraine drifted into NATOs orbitwith the Kremlin using the latter as anexcuse to feed its revanchist militarism.

Andyet, with the dawning of this decade, theres been a deafening silence greetingthe latest round of NATO expansion. Instead of public debate and the inflamedpassions of isolationists and integrationists, North Macedonias move towardincreasing NATOs ranks has been greeted with silence. Its falleninto something of a black hole in American politics.

Normally,backing the accession would be a political gimme for the White House: As theChicago Council recently found, the percentage ofAmericans favoring increasing U.S. commitments to NATO is as high as its everbeen. But Trump and his constellation of supporters are loath to highlight thefact that the U.S. is extending its security umbrella that much further, lestit upset his nominally isolationist base. Meanwhile, Democrats are hardly predisposedto credit Trump with enabling the expansion of NATO member stateseven though NorthMacedonia took drastic steps, well in keeping with liberal values, to completethe process. And so North Macedonias accession into NATO rolls onbut thekind of public debate around the wisdom of the move and implications for Americannational security seen in the past is nowhere to be found.

See the rest here:
NATO Is Expanding, and Everyone Is Curiously Silent - The New Republic

Joe Biden predicted at a Houston fundraiser North Atlantic Treaty Organization will collapse if President Trump wins reelection in November.

"If a Democrat, God forbid, doesn't win the next election, NATO will end in the next four years," the former vice president said Thursday evening in Texas, about NATO, which guarantees mutual military support for the 29 participating countries.

Biden, 78, later boasted about his relationships with foreign governments, claiming that he has "met every single world leader in the last 45 years."

"I have more world leaders contacting me since we got out of office than you can imagine," he said.

Biden also fretted about Trump's decision to kill Iranian Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani earlier this month, saying the two nations are now at risk of a full-blown conflict.

"We're at the brink of a war with Iran. I've said this before. What worries me most about Trump is, the more the walls close in on him, the more erratic he's going to become," he said. "And I predicted it. ... Folks, we got to turn this around quickly. He still has another nine or 10 months, God knows what can happen."

Biden has made restoring America's alliances a cornerstone of his third White House run, attacking the president over what he calls reckless foreign policy decisions that stir global instability.

"I truly believe that there will be no NATO. Our alliances will be completely fractured," Biden said at a fundraiser in November. "They're already being hurt."

Before Trump won his first term in November 2016, Biden claimed as vice president that he had to " reassure" NATO countries that the future president's rhetoric should not be taken seriously. Biden said that the leaders of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania asked him to address the citizens of their country and say the United States would support them in a war with Russia.

"Either he is actually devoid of any intellectual content when he's saying this, or he's completely dangerous," Biden said at the time.

The rest is here:
Biden predicts 'NATO will end in the next four years' if Trump reelected - Washington Examiner