Category Archives: NATO

Key Point:If war broke out, seizing Iceland would have been one of the Soviet's first initiatives.

Tom Clancys 1986 novel Red Storm Rising depicts a conventional war between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. Its one of Clancys best books and, interesting for a story about a Third World War, doesnt involve a nuclear apocalypse.

It does describe a ground war in Germany, naval and air battles in the North Atlantic andcentral to the plotan invasion of Iceland by a regiment of Soviet troops. Clancy, who died in 2013, was known for his realism and extreme attention to technical detail.

In Red Storm Rising, the Soviet troops overwhelm a U.S. Marine company in the Nordic island country after sneaking to shore inside the MV Yulius Fuchik, a civilian barge carrier loaded with hovercraft. Before the amphibious assault, Soviet missile target and destroy NATOs F-15 fighters based at Naval Air Station Keflavik.

Iceland was an overlooked by highly strategic location in the Cold War. Were the Soviet Unions attack submarines to break out into the Atlantic and threaten NATO shipping, neutralizing Iceland and penetrating the GIUK gap would be of vital importance.

But that doesnt mean the Soviets really couldve invaded Iceland right?

For a possible answer, lets consult The Northwestern TVD in Soviet Operational-Strategic Planning, a 2014 report by Phillip Petersenan expert on the Soviet and now Russian militaries for the Potomac Foundation.

In December, the Pentagons Office of Net Assessment made the report public and available on its website.

Petersens analysis is a revealing blueprint for how to defend Scandinavia from a Russian attack. Much of the report is comprised of military-oriented descriptions of remote rivers and sparsely-inhabited valleyspictures includedwhich the word obscure can barely describe. Obscure, except in case of World War III.

Faced with a predominantly sea-oriented NATO coalition dependent on control of the [sea lines of communication], there can be no question but that the Soviets would have liked to capture or at least neutralize Iceland, Petersen wrote.

Soviet operations against Iceland could have theoretically covered a wide spectrum of means, ranging from air and missile attacks to troop assaults.

Supporting the theory that the USSR could have pulled off a Clancy-style surprise attack, the Soviet Union possessed the exact equipment in Red Storm Risingreflecting Clancys attention to all-things hardwaresuitable for landing troops in Iceland without the need for a major port.

In fact, the Soviets trained to use such repurposed roll-on/roll-off vessels like Yulius Fuchik for precisely those kinds of missions. Meanwhile, NATO kept its military presence in Iceland minimal because of the countrys heated political divisions over its participation in the alliance.

Iceland has not had a military since 1869.

Thus, in the event of a war breaking out, NATO would have to rush troops to the island and shore up its defenses to raise the costs of, and hopefully deter, a Soviet attack.

Icelands remote location and ruggednessand the Soviet Navys comparative weaknessmeant that a surprise attack by a small and relatively light force before the Western alliance could respond was Moscows only feasible strategy.

The Soviet military had experience with similar operations in World War II, including deploying small teams to Norway to spy on German troops. In 2014, Russia carried out an almost-bloodless surprise attack on Crimea which occurred too quickly for Ukraine to respond.

Iceland wouldve been a far more difficult target. For one, there was the problem of distance. The country is also windy and rough, making an airborne drop an exceedingly hazardous proposition. Paratroopers might have been swept away by winds and dashed into rocks, or broken their legs upon landing.

And any Soviet operation would have faced challenges at sea. The Kremlin would have to bet on basically perfect weather and skilled navigators to make it through Icelands narrow fjords and around its numerous reefs.

However, even if the Soviets had attempted a lower-risk effort such as inserting a naval infantry company by submarine, Petersen wrote, such a force might have been sufficient to attack the Kevlavik airbase, while special-purpose (spetsnaz) forces, in teams of five to twelve men each, attacked outlying facilities like that at Hofn.

Hofn was the site of a Cold War-era NATO radar station which tracked Soviet bombers heading south.

So the Soviets couldve taken Iceland. Or at least caused a lot of chaos and disruption if the United States did not bolster the defenses beforehand.

But that would just be the beginning. A Soviet occupation force would probably face a NATO counter-attack, likely supported by at least one U.S. carrier battle group, without having Soviet warplanes backing them in comparable numbersand little cover from NATO aircraft flying overhead.

Which is pretty much what happened in the fictional battle for Iceland in Red Storm Rising. NATO won.

This piece was originally featured in January 2017 and is being republished due to readerinterest.

Originally posted here:
NATO Nightmare: A Russian Invasion of Iceland? - The National Interest Online

]]> Nato AWACS aircraft at Melsbroek Air Base last month to mark the signing of the modernisation contract. Credit: Nato.

Spanish firm Indra will support the Natos E-3A Airborne Warning & Control System (AWACS) aircraft fleet upgrade programme.

The company will work with Boeing and other firms on the AWACS Final Lifetime Extension Programme (FLEP) to extend the service life of the early warning, surveillance and command and control aircraft.

The modernisation will equip the strategic aircraft with the capability to maintain advantage in future digitised scenarios.

Nato uses the AWACS aircraft to support an array of missions including command and control, aerial surveillance, battlespace management and communications.

The organisation has 14 Boeing E-3 AWACS aircraft that operate from Nato Air Base (NAB) Geilenkirchen in Germany.

Equipped with radar and passive sensors, the surveillance aircraft is capable of detecting air and ground targets over large areas.

The AWACS is derived from Boeing 707 platform and can detect low-flying aircraft that seek to avoid detection from air defence systems, Indra said.

The company also stated that the aircraft provides improved command and control capability for land, air and sea operations.

Last month, Nato signed a $1bn contract with Boeing for the AWACS FLEP programme, which will be funded by 16 Nato allies.

The upgrade is intended to keep the aircraft in operational service until 2035. Enhancements will include improved networking and communications.

The project will also include other companies from Europe and North America.

Nato Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg revealed that the alliance is planning to introduce another aircraft to replace the E-3A AWACS aircraft fleet.

Excerpt from:
Indra to work with Boeing on Nato AWACS aircraft upgrade - Airforce Technology

That said, simply closing the OHR in the absence any compensatory institutional replacement would be a catastrophic strategic mistake which would likely leading to Bosnias dissolution driven by malign actors opposed to its survival as a unified and functional state in the Western Balkans.

For this reason, the closure of the OHR can only occur in tandem with its replacement by a stable institution capable of providing genuine stability and security for Bosnia and thus the necessary domestic conditions for political progress and reform; a task which only NATO can perform and this despite the many policy challenges currently facing the alliance.

Before going further, we must acknowledge that there is presently no political consensus within Bosnia to join the Atlantic alliance, and that NATO would not welcome a new candidate less than fully committed to its values, responsibilities, and commitments. A Bosnia ambivalent about its commitment inside NATO would pose a substantial security and operational risk to the alliances in-country mission.

Surmounting this political and diplomatic hurdle involves, a priori, addressing the more fundamental question: why would NATO membership advance political unity and reform in Bosnia any more effectively than the long-standing but now waning Dayton intervention?

In contrast to the OHR, the presence of the Atlantic alliance in Bosnia would function as a credible and permanent post-Dayton safeguard against the threat of renewed violence, secession, and war. Even for those in Bosnia who ostensibly or otherwise oppose it, NATO would create the much needed cover for Bosnian political leaders to undertake something which they must inevitably do sooner or later: take full responsibility for the future of the country without either depending on or resisting the OHR.

Looking further into the future, NATOs presence in Bosnias security would also serve as an institutional bridge for the EU which the OHR could not to articulate and implement a new enlargement strategy for Bosnia and the Western Balkans.

There are those who argue, not unreasonably, that it would be unwise to pursue NATO membership for Bosnia without including Serbia and Kosovo in the mix. A regional approach to NATO membership would certainly be efficacious for a number of reasons, not least because it would eliminate unwelcome interstate competition over the timing of future entry into membership. However, NATO accession process has historically been conducted on a state-by-state basis, reflecting the different needs and requirements of each aspirant. This is unlikely to change. Pursuing Bosnian membership in NATO should therefore not be delayed or put on hold for the laudable but more difficult objective of simultaneous entry into NATO of all three Western Balkan states.

So, how and in what way would a shift from OHR to NATO be achieved, and over what time frame? The first and most obvious step would be the completion of the Bosnian Membership Action Plan, the MAP. However, concurrent with this process, there would also be a need for a negotiated agreement between the OHR (and potentially the PIC Steering Board) and representatives of the government of Bosnia on the final status of decisions, legislation and other actions taken by the OHR since 1996. I take the view that the clock cannot be turned back and that many, if not almost all, OHR actions since Dayton under review should remain in place. Ideally, the entire process should take place within a timetable of no more than five years after the 2020 elections in Bosnia.

Dwight Eisenhower, the first Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, believed that, for every obstacle there is a solution. Persistence is the key. The greatest mistake is giving up! Almost a quarter-century after Dayton, the time has come for the leaders and people of Bosnia and the International Community, led by the United States and European Union, to undertake a robust, new process to close the Dayton chapter and set Bosnia, once and for all, on a new post-Dayton path toward political stability, security, and prosperity. The simultaneous negotiated closure of the OHR and entry into NATO membership for Bosnia would provide, I believe, the most important first step to that end.

R. Bruce Hitchner was a member of the negotiating team that assisted the Bosnian political parties in negotiating the April Package of Constitutional Reforms in 2005-6. He is currently Professor of Classical Studies and International Relations at Tufts University in Massachusetts (USA) and the former Chairman of the Dayton Peace Accords Project.

The opinions expressed in the Comment section are those of the authors only and do not necessarily reflect the views of BIRN.

View original post here:
NATO Should Replace OHR as Guarantor of Bosnias Stability ...

International diplomat who serves as the chief civil servant of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization

The secretary general of NATO is an international diplomat who serves as the chief civil servant of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). The officeholder is responsible for coordinating the workings of the alliance, leading NATO's international staff, chairing the meetings of the North Atlantic Council and most major committees of the alliance, with the notable exception of the NATO Military Committee, as well as acting as NATO's spokesperson.[1] The secretary general does however not have any military command role; political, military and strategic decisions ultimately rest with the member states. Together with the chairman of the NATO Military Committee and the supreme Allied commander, the secretary general is one of the foremost officials of NATO.

The current secretary general of NATO is former Norwegian prime minister Jens Stoltenberg, who took office on 1 October 2014.[2] Stoltenberg's mission as secretary general was extended for another four-year term, meaning that he will lead NATO until September 30, 2022.[3]

Article 9 of the North Atlantic Treaty requires NATO members to "establish a Council, on which each of them shall be represented."[4] Accordingly, the North Atlantic Council was formed. Initially the Council consisted of NATO members' foreign ministers and met annually.[5] In May 1950, the desire for closer coordination on a day-to-day basis led to the appointment of Council deputies, permanently based in London and overseeing the workings of the organization. Deputies were given full decision-making authority within the North Atlantic Council, but their work was supplemented by occasional meetings of the NATO foreign ministers.[6] The chairman of the deputies was given responsibility "for directing the organization and its work," including all of its civilian agencies.[7]

The Council deputies met for the first time on July 25, 1950, and selected Charles Spofford, the United States deputy, as their chairman.[8] Several important organisational changes quickly followed the establishment of Council deputies, most notably the establishment of a unified military command under a single supreme Allied commander.[9] This unification and the growing challenges facing NATO led to rapid growth in the institutions of the organisation and in 1951, NATO was reorganized to streamline and centralize its bureaucracy. As part of the organization, the Council deputies were delegated with the authority to represent their governments in all matters, including those related to defense and finance, not just foreign affairs, greatly increasing their power and importance.[10]

As the authority of the deputies increased, and the size of the organization grew, NATO established the Temporary Council Committee, chaired by W. Averell Harriman. This group established an official secretariat in Paris to command NATO's bureaucracy.[11] The committee also recommended that "the agencies of NATO needed to be strengthened and co-ordinate", and emphasized the need for someone other than the Chairman of the North Atlantic Council to become the senior leader of the alliance.[12] In February 1952, North Atlantic Council accordingly established the position of secretary general to manage all civilian agencies of the organization, control its civilian staff, and serve the North Atlantic Council.[13]

After the Lisbon Conference, the NATO states began looking for a person who could fill the role of secretary general. The position was first offered to Oliver Franks, the British ambassador to the United States, but he declined. Then, on March 12, 1952, the North Atlantic Council selected Hastings Ismay, a general from World War II, and Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations in the British cabinet as secretary general.[14] Unlike later secretaries general who served as Chairman of the North Atlantic Council, Ismay was made the vice chairman of the council, with Spofford continuing to serve as chairman. Ismay was selected because of his high rank in the war, and his role "at the side of Churchill ... in the highest Allied Councils." As both a soldier and a diplomat, he was considered uniquely qualified for the position, and enjoyed the full support of all the NATO states.[15]

Several months later, after Spofford retired from the NATO, the structure of the North Atlantic Council was changed slightly. One member of the council was selected annually as the president of the North Atlantic Council (a largely ceremonial role), and the secretary general officially became the Deputy President of the Council, as well as the chair of its meetings.[16] Ismay served as secretary general until retiring in May, 1957.[17]

After Ismay, Paul-Henri Spaak, an international diplomat and former prime minister of Belgium was selected as the second secretary general. Unlike Ismay, Spaak had no military experience, so his appointment represented a "deemphasis of the strictly military side of the Atlantic Alliance."[18] When confirming Spaak's appointment in December 1956 during a session of the NATO foreign ministers, the North Atlantic Council also expanded the role of the secretary general in the organization. Largely as a result of the Suez Crisis, which had strained intra-alliance relations, the council issued a resolution to allow the secretary general "to offer his good officers informally at any time to member governments involved in a dispute and with their consent to initiate or facilitate procedures of inquiry, mediation, conciliation, or arbitration."[19]

The NATO countries selected the first secretary general on April 4, 1952. Since that time, twelve different diplomats have served officially as secretary general. Eight countries have been represented, with three secretaries general hailing from the United Kingdom, three from the Netherlands, two from Belgium, one from Italy, one from Germany, one from Spain, one from Denmark, and one from Norway. The position has also been occupied temporarily on three occasions by an acting secretary general between appointments.

As of 2018, there are five living former NATO secretaries general. The most recent secretary general to die was Peter Carington, 6th Baron Carrington (1919-2018)

The NATO secretary general chairs several of the senior decision-making bodies of NATO. In addition to the North Atlantic Council, he chairs the Defence Planning Committee and the Nuclear Planning Committee, two of NATO's important military organizations. The secretary general also leads the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council, the Mediterranean Cooperation Group, and serves as Join Chairman of the Permanent Joint Council and the NATO-Ukraine Commission.

In a second role, the secretary general leads the staff of NATO. He directs the International Staff of the organization, and the Office of the Secretary General. The secretary general also directs his or her own Private Office. All of these bodies draw personnel from all members of NATO, so the secretary general must carefully coordinate.[29] For assistance in his responsibilities, the secretary general also has a deputy appointed by the organization.The NATO Command Structure (NCS), consisting of two strategic commands directed by the North Atlantic Council (NAC):[30]

Read more:
Secretary General of NATO - Wikipedia

Recentstatements by NATO leaders have cast a pall over the globalist elite. Macron recalled how Erdogan armed and supported terrorist groups in Syria linked to Daesh, who were fighting against ethnic groups like the Kurds with whom France hascooperated. Erdogan in turn threatened to veto NATOs efforts to strengthen its military posture in the Baltic countries to face off against alleged Russian aggression.

The most serious statement made by a NATO leader came from Macron claiming that NATO was experiencing a brain death, prompting Trump to claim that the French economy is in ruins and describing Macrons words as very nasty. Erdogan, not to be outdone, offered his own assessment of Macrons own brain death.

The often incoherent and incomprehensible behavior of Erdogan, Macron and Trump stems from being compelled to dialogue with Putin in virtue of Russias role in regard to international treaties on nuclear weapons as well as its role in Syria, Libya and Iran together with its relations with the EU and the Franco-German axis.

NATO members schizophrenia lies in the inability of countries like the United States, Turkey and France to advance a truly multipolar foreign policy, where the pragmatic realism of some leaders obliges them to engage with Moscow even as they simultaneously make belligerent declarations against it in support of Eastern European countries.

Russia is central to the Middle East thanks to the triple role played in Syria. It carries out peace-keeping operations in the north-east of the country, effectively cooperating with Erdogans Turkey; the anti-terrorist operations continue in Idlib, alongside the legitimate government of Damascus, with the airspace well guarded against French, Israeli or American efforts to hobble the movements of the Syrian Arab Army. The leaders of France, Turkey and the US, in spite of having differing aims and objectives from those of Moscow, have no choice but to enter into dialogue with Putin in order to avoid any dangerous confrontations in an already complex and volatile region.

NATO has no chance of playing a leading role in this context, which is why the US and Israel dreamed of creating a Middle Eastern NATO consisting of Washingtons closest allies in the region, to be used use cannon fodder against Iran and her allies in the region. Once this goal failed, the original NATO continued to lose importance and significance in the region and beyond.

NATOs official statements therefore increasingly carry less and less weight and significance, as the leaders of the alliances main members then proceed to advance diverging or opposing policies and actions.

The last, desperate attempt by Brussels to try and revitalize NATO was to propose to wield the alliance against the Peoples Republic of China and its Belt and Road Initiative, even making an awkward attempt to involve Russia, in the hopes of driving a wedge between the two Eurasian giants, just as the Power of Siberia pipeline, one of the most important energy projects in the world, guaranteeing Chinas LNG supply from Russia, comes into operation.

Western elites are well aware that the unification of the military, economic and political aspirations of Moscow and Beijing, with the possible future addition of the Franco-German axis, would spell the end of Washingtons hegemonic aspirations.

NATO is now old hat, having become of no strategic significance and no longer able to affect the global geopolitical balance. The real reason why NATO continues to exist is so that the Euro-Atlantic military-industrial complexes can continue to feed off the teat of the public purse; that and the need to keep European countries under Washingtons political and military tutelage.

The Franco-German proposal to create a European army can therefore be seen as an attempt to come out from under Washingtons heel in order to advance an independent, clearly defined military role that recognizes the multipolar era win which we live.

Moreover, Moscow and Beijing have been able to surpass NATO in such areas as hypersonic weapons, air defense, and new weapons systems for nuclear deterrence precisely because they do not suffer from the same types of corruption in their procurement and manufacturing processes as well as from the need to constantly feed an insatiable military-industrial complex, including the pressure to award contracts to American over European manufacturers.

NATOs loss of credibility is symbolic of the change in the world order, where the West no longer has any option other than to acknowledge todays multipolar reality.

NATO will only continue to further delegitimize its global role as long as it continues to try to undermine Moscow and Beijings expansion, inadvertently pushing allies like Turkey to question their own future within the Atlantic alliance.

Read the original:
NATO Becomes Schizophrenic as It Loses Credibility ...

Cynthia Chung

Strategic Culture Foundation

What are these challenges? That China now has the second largest defense budget in the world and has modern capabilities such as long-range missiles that can reach the whole of Europe and the U.S. This alone is apparently enough cause for Stoltenberg to announce publicly that NATO must address this as a challenge to western security rather than actually engaging in diplomatic talks with China in order to resolve their concern in the matter like civilised people do. Lets not forget that the American navy has been actively expanding their presence around China for several years now, yet despite this transparent hostility, it is China who is deemed a security threat for having a competent defense budget.

But we know this is not the whole story.

Of course no bully likes it when their victim suddenly learns the art of self-defense, and who would be more paranoid of aggression than those who have been practising it for years on others only to increasingly find the tables turned.

This western paranoia of the communist boogeyman has its roots in Churchills Iron Curtain speech which ushered in the Cold War.

Last month was the 30th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and along with its celebration the continuation of a false narrative, not only as to what had instigated the Cold War, but more importantly what the world was promised and ultimately denied when they were told that the Cold War was supposedly finally over.

In a recently published paper, On Churchills Sinews of Peace, I went over the drastic shift in geopolitics that occurred with the passing of Franklin D. Roosevelt who had upheld, along with his vice-president Henry Wallace, an anti-colonial post-WW II vision known as The Century of the Common Man. Churchill was very much dependant on American support to destroy the Frankenstein monster that the Bank of England had helped fund into significance and though Churchill loathed FDRs vision, he was not in a position where he could outright resist it and instead found himself needing to make large compromises and often, most likely with the thought that this would all be temporaryand so it was.

Upon the death of FDR in 1945, the Iron Curtain speech shortly after created an oppressive division throughout the world, the effects of which we are still reeling from.

The Cold War division

Germany was officially divided according to this map by the Soviet Union, the UK, USA and France from 1945 to 1949. This was done to ensure that Germany would not attempt any further military action after WWII. It was Churchills Iron Curtain announcement in 1946 that turned the USSR into the free worlds public enemy #1, without any specific reason as to what the Soviets had done to warrant this declaration of the Cold War division. This split with the Soviets was formalised in May 1949 when the British, French and American zones were joined to form the Federal Republic of Germany. The Soviets had no choice but to form a separate German republic in October 1949; the German Democratic Republic.

Despite these two German republics being set up, the British, French and American militaries would remain in West Germany until May 5, 1955, and ended their nearly 10 year occupation only after West Germany had joined NATO in 1954. Under these terms, West Germany would be allowed to establish a military force of up to half-million men and resume the manufacture of arms. The end of the Allied occupation of West Germany meant a full recognition of the republic as a member of the western alliance against the Soviet Union.

It should be evident that such manoeuvres were a clear show towards the USSR of not only a hostile stance but an ever increasing aggressive military doctrine that was preparing for a war.

Although West Germany was given independence on a short leash, Allied presence never left West Berlin up until at least 1990. Berlin, as the capitol of Germany, held great strategic significance and became a form of battleground in intelligence gathering and espionage. Berlin had been split in two after WWII, and the Allied occupied West Berlin not only became a symbol of freedom in response to the tyranny of the Soviets, but was an important stronghold to keep in the Cold War, since it was in the middle of Soviet-held territory.

The blockade of roads and rail lines into West Germany by the Soviets in 1948-1949 and the later building of the Berlin Wall in 1961 were terrible decisions made by the USSR but should be measured in the context that such reactions were primarily instigated by an escalating western military aggression against them.

West Berlin would be surrounded by a wall that stretched out to 140 km, was 11.8 ft high, was for the most part electrified and had over 116 watchtowers and over 14, 000 guards and dogs. It would divide Berlin for 28 years.

This was indeed a very terrible period not only for those in Berlin but for much of the world. The Cold War thinking had allowed for the justification of the Spanish Inquisition-like Red Scare that occurred in the United States and elsewhere, where Americans who refused to follow the very narrow line of what was deemed acceptable thoughts and opinions in the free world newspeak could at any point in time face a judicial inquisition on them, akin to having committed a thoughtcrime.

Schools and workplaces were put through drills on a regular basis of how to react if the Soviets were to launch a nuclear bomb against America. Such tactics were used to put the American people in an ongoing fear state and thus quickly, the former allies who had by far the largest death toll in WWII in their essential role in combating fascism, were turned into a terrifying race of boogeymen with seemingly no sense of humanity or morality.

As a quick side note, I want to bring attention to Elbe Day April 25, 1945, which marked the day when the American and Soviet forces met for the first time near the end of the war. There was a very strong comradery that occurred, and these men would become forever united since they experienced together the brutality and hardship of a hard won war.

It is also important to note that the Russians and Americans never had any historical conflict with each other at this point. In fact, Russias navy would place itself along both east and west coastlines of the United States during its Civil War to protect Lincolns Union from foreign intervention- that is, from Britain and France. The Russian navy were treated as heroes during their seven month stay in the US

Therefore, American and Russian soldiers had always been comrades in arms up until the point of the Iron Curtain speech by Churchill, upon which a division would be forcefully imposed between the two.

Chinas invisible role

Chinas involvement in both WWI and WWII is too often forgotten today. What is also forgotten is that the Iron Curtain was also directed against their country, and the level of extreme betrayal that occurred against them was on par with that suffered by the Soviet Union. Recall that under FDRs post-war vision, both Russia and China were intended to be equal partners alongside the USA and Britain in shaping a multi-polar world order.

When WWI had started, China offered their support militarily to the cause of the Allies. Japan had already become a member of the Allied force and it was recognised that their relationship with China was not on friendly terms, especially since the First Sino-Japanese War in 1895. Chinas loss in this war allowed for a series of treatises that divided chunks of China amongst several nations. One particular region that China very much wanted back was Shandong, which was considered sacred land for the Chinese people since it was not only Confucius birthplace but also home to the ancient state of Qin, the last kingdom conquered by Qin Shi Huang, who proclaimed himself Chinas first emperor in 219 B.C. Japan was at the time in possession of this region.

Japan was asked whether China could be permitted to contribute military support for the Allied cause, to which Japan refused since this would give China a more equal footing with its relations to the West. Despite this refusal, China offered to support the Allies as laborers. Starting in 1916, China began shipping thousands of men to Britain, France and Russia who would work to repair tanks, assemble shells, transport supplies and munitions. Since China was officially neutral, commercial businesses were formed to provide the labor.

After a year of supplying labor, the Chinese contribution remained largely unrecognised diplomatically. By the end of the war, Chinese workers would rank as the largest and longest-serving non-European contingent in WWI.

By the end of the war, western powers ultimately awarded the Shandong territory to Japan in the Treaty of Versailles. China was understandably upset and refused to sign the treaty. The Versailles Treaty became a clear sign to the Chinese that they could not trust the European nations to support Chinas welfare and that China would have to look elsewhere for support moving forward. [America did eventually intervene on this decision and awarded the territory to China in 1922.]

Another blow would be Chinas earning of only two seats at the Paris Peace Conference, relative to Japans five seats, the reason why China had fewer seats was because they did not play a military role in the war- a role they were forbidden to play.

When WWII started and Japan had taken the side of fascism, China contributed its military forces on the side of the Allies. China had the second highest death toll in WWII after the Soviet Union. However, if you look more closely at the graph depicted above, the number of civilian deaths is much higher than military deaths (by about 12 million). This is because the Japanese fascists committed genocide on the Chinese people. The most notorious being the Nanking massacre which not only had a gruesomely large death toll but became infamous for its horrific torture and mass rape on the Chinese people. During this ethnic cleanse by the Japanese fascists throughout the entire WWII (which overlapped the second Sino-Japanese war), mass graves were dug out and millions of Chinese people would be told to step inside before they were shot to death. The Jewish holocaust is recognised as one of the worst crimes against humanity in recent history. However, not much is given to the memory of the mass genocide that was committed on the Chinese people during the same period.

Despite their great sacrifices, both the USSR and China would be labeled less than a year after the war as the new face of anarchy and barbarism, not by their actions but simply because Churchill and the British Empire had decided it so.

The empty promises of a post-Cold War world

On November 9th, 1989 the Berlin Wall fell and the end of the Cold War quickly followed or at least this is what we are told.

The USSR agreed to the destruction of the Berlin Wall specifically on the basis that the western powers would agree to dismantle the war drive and that NATO would cease to expand its military bases any further. Many of the terms of these agreements were outlined in the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe. However, this treaty that promised the dissolution of the Cold War paradigm was ultimately breached by NATO, with Russia suspending its participation in 2007 and in 2015 ultimately removing its participation in the treaty since NATO had no intention to honor it. Since the supposed end of the Cold War, NATO has only continued its expansion, increasing tension towards an ultimate conflict with Russia.

In 2007, President Putin gave a now famous speech at the Munich Security Conference. In this speech he discussed the fallacy of a unipolar world order envisioned by NATO and that there can only exist a multipolar world at this stage in history:

This universal, indivisible character of security is expressed as the basic principle that security for one is security for all. As Franklin D. Roosevelt said during the first few days that the Second World War was breaking out: When peace has been broken anywhere, the peace of all countries everywhere is in danger.

I consider that the unipolar model is not only unacceptable but also impossible in todays world. And this is not only because if there was individual leadership in todays and precisely in todays world, then the military, political and economic resources would not suffice. What is even more important is that the model itself is flawed because at its basis there is and can be no moral foundations for modern civilisation.

Where are we now?

We need to grow up, and grow up fast. We cannot afford to be led by childish stories of the boogeyman and be governed by fear so easily any longer.

It is time we, the West, recognise our faults and hypocrisy. The western hegemony over the world is coming to an end and we should be happy for our brothers and sisters who have a renewed hope for a better life, largely from the New Silk Road. We have no place to condemn their rise as a threat to western stability. Western powers have been guilty of breaching trust with the Russians and Chinese time after time. We need to correct this monstrous inability to be able to trust and love those outside the western sphere. These cultures, some which may have been considered by us backwards not that long ago, have grown and cultivated themselves such that we today look very small next to them. We have become the backwards culture. We have become the barbaric culture that only knows war and is a disbeliever in peace. We who are privileged enough to never have experienced war in our homelands for almost a century, are the ones who condone it as necessary on others. What an ugly belief this is. It is time the West, and its people, have the humility to admit that they have something to learn from the rest of the world. Only then can there be a true dialogue amongst civilisations towards the common goal of peace.

Read the original here:
NATO Secretary General Targets Rising China: Why Cold ...

BELGRADE Peace and stability in the Western Balkans will continue to be maintained through cooperation with NATO, said NATO Joint Force Commander James Foggo during a visit to Serbia, where he is staying at the invitation of Serbian Army Chief of Staff Milan Mojsilovi.

Admiral Foggo talked with General Milan Mojsilovi about the cooperation of the Serbian Armed Forces and KFOR, as well as joint activities implemented under the Partnership for Peace program and training activities.

Speaking about the security situation, Mojsilovi said that he expects that KFOR, as the only legitimate armed formation in Kosovo, stays neutral and contribute to the overall stability of the province and, in particular, the security of the non-Albanian population in the North.

During his visit, Admiral Foggo had separate meetings with Secretary of State in the Ministry of Defense, Aleksandar ivkovi, and Acting Assistant Foreign Minister for Security Policy, Ambassador Branimir Filipovi.

During a meeting with State Secretary at the Ministry of Defense, Aleksandar ivkovi, Foggo said that the lines between the Army of Serbia and NATO were constantly opened in order to achieve constant communication and cooperation on the ground.

Secretary of State ivkovi emphasized that Serbia is a military-neutral country and that cooperation with NATO under the auspices of the Partnership for Peace (PfP) program is the optimal framework.

Foggo also commented on the role of KFOR in Kosovo and praised the work of this military mission.

I think KFOR has done a pretty good job in the last 20 years, Fogo said in an interview with RTS.

He recalled that 213 NATO soldiers had given their lives to maintain peace in Kosovo, but added that current cooperation with the Serbian Army was close and positive. Foggo added that KFOR is only the third in the response chain after Kosovo police and the EULEX mission.

The NATO Joint Force Commander in Naples also met with the new ambassador to Serbia, AnthonyF.Godfrey, as well as with the Marines at the US Embassy in Belgrade.

This visit will confirm and enhance the partnership between Serbia and NATO, the US Embassy tweeted.

James Foggo is a US Admiral and current commander of the US Naval Forces Africa and commander of the NATO Joint Force Command in Naples. Foggo is currently visiting the region and his next destination is Sarajevo.

Excerpt from:
NATO Commander Foggo confirmed the continuation of ...

Nato Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg praised Bulgarias contributions to collective security in a meeting with Prime Minister Boiko Borissov at the alliances headquarters on December 12, a Nato statement said.

This year we celebrate the 15th anniversary of Bulgaria joining this alliance; and we are so grateful for your support to different Nato missions and operations, Stoltenberg said.

The Secretary General welcomed Bulgarias troop deployments in Afghanistan and Kosovo, as well as the countrys strong support for Black Sea security, and for enhancing peace and stability in the Western Balkans.

Including in Afghanistan, where Bulgarian troops are helping local forces to fight international terrorism. Closer to home, you also help us in our peacekeeping mission in Kosovo. Helping to stabilise the Western Balkans, which is important for all of us, Stoltenberg said.

You also make essential contributions to Black Sea security, providing ships to Nato patrols in the region, he said.

The security environment has changed, and Nato is responding, Stoltenberg said.

We have strengthened our presence in the Black Sea region on land, at sea and in the air. With a multinational battlegroup in Craiova, air policing, and a strong naval presence.

We are also increasing our support to partners in the region. With training for maritime forces and coast guards, and more port visits and exercises. Natos standing naval groups are training regularly with Georgian and Ukrainian ships, improving our ability to work together with them in the Black Sea region.

In 2019 alone, the allies have held five major exercises in the Black Sea region, he said.

To keep our people safe in a more unpredictable world, we need to invest in defence. So I really welcome that Bulgaria is now stepping up and has increased its defence spending, to more than two per cent of GDP in 2019. Actually, the number is 3.25 per cent which is significant and which demonstrates that Bulgaria is now among the nine allies meeting the two per cent guideline, spending more than two per cent of GDP on defence.

And by doing that you are also able to invest in major and modern equipment. Modern capabilities and contributions to our missions and operations make Nato stronger. And they make Bulgaria safer, Stoltenberg said.

(Photo: Nato)

comments

Originally posted here:
Nato Secretary General praises Bulgarias contributions to ...

President Donald Trump returned early from the London NATO summit. Staged to satisfy British Prime Minister Boris Johnsonthe official 70th-anniversarymeeting was held in Aprilthe latest gathering featured only one, mercifully short, session, to reduce the likelihood of a Trump eruption. Even so, before arriving he improbably chided French President Emmanuel Macron for being nasty, insulting, and disrespectful in suggesting that the alliance suffered from brain death. Then the sessions minimal substance was overshadowed by the presidents personal spat with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

Of course, the assembled leaders filled their limited time together with happy talk. The greatest alliance ever is more necessary than ever as Europe faces the greatest security challenges ever. The Europeans are spending more and cutting Washingtons burden. NATO is preparing plans both to defend its members from conventional attacks and confront new threats. The Europeans even are ready to tackle the huge new challenge posed by increasingly aggressive China. All in all, the alliance is prospering greatly.

This is fantasy. A very pleasant one. But fantasy nonetheless.

NATO was formed in 1949 to shield European states from Soviet aggression as they recovered from World War II. The U.S. was only supposed to assist European governments in their defense efforts. For instance, Secretary of State Dean Acheson promised Congress that it would not need to send substantial numbers of troops over there as a more or less permanent contribution. Dwight D. Eisenhower, past wartime allied leader, first NATO commander, and future Cold War president opposed providing a permanent U.S. garrison which, he predicted, would discourage the development of the necessary military strength Western European countries should provide themselves.

Alas, these sentiments were ignored as the U.S.S.R. tightened its control over Central and Eastern Europe. The Europeans recovered economically but failed to increase their defense outlays accordingly. Washington maintained its dominant military presence while constantly urging its allies to do more. They routinely said yes but did little.

Read more at National Interest

Post Views: 295

Visit link:
NATO No Longer Serves American Interests The DEFCON ...

Good morning, Im Tim Walker with todays essential stories.

British voters are heading to the ballot box on Thursday in what both main parties have described as the most important general election for a generation. The principal choice is between Boris Johnsons Conservatives, whose key promise is a swift, hard Brexit, and Jeremy Corbyns Labour, which is offering a second Brexit referendum, the nationalisation of key public services and increased spending on health and education. You can follow developments throughout the day on our live blog.

The House judiciary committee held a rare evening session on Wednesday as its members began considering the impeachment case against Donald Trump by editing the two articles of impeachment published by the Democrats on Tuesday. The committee will meet again on Thursday morning to debate amendments and then vote on the articles, which accuse the president with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. If the votes pass, the next step would be a vote of the whole House, possibly next week.

Im inevitable. In response to the articles of impeachment, the official Trump war room re-election campaign tweeted a video depicting him as the Marvel villain Thanos, a genocidal warlord bent on destroying half of all living organisms in the entire universe.

The Senate foreign relations committee has voted unanimously in favour of a bipartisan bill that would prevent Trump from unilaterally withdrawing the US from Nato. The isolationist-inclined president is a noted sceptic of the transatlantic military alliance, and last week left the Nato summit in London early after the emergence of a hot mic video in which other world leaders appeared to be mocking him. The bill will now await a slot for a full vote in the Senate.

Police in the New York metropolitan area remained on high alert in Jewish neighbourhoods on Wednesday following an attack on a kosher supermarket in nearby Jersey City, in which six people lost their lives. The two suspects, who were linked to an antisemitic hate group called the Black Hebrew Israelite movement, shot dead a police detective at a local cemetery before driving to the store, where they killed three civilians and engaged in a four-hour shootout with police, at the end of which they too were dead.

Attackers motives. Law enforcement officials are still investigating the attackers motives but Jewish leaders and the mayors of Jersey City and New York City have all described the killings as a hate crime.

Previous killing. The suspects, 50-year-old Francine Graham and 47-year-old David Anderson, are also thought to be responsible for the death of a Jersey City Uber driver whose body was found in the trunk of a car last Saturday.

Scientists have called on the worlds governments to set a date for peak meat when livestock production will reach its upper limit in order to mitigate the environmental effects of animal agriculture, which is a significant factor in the climate crisis.

Harvey Weinstein has reached a $25m settlement with more than 30 women whom he is alleged to have subjected to sexual misconduct. If approved, the deal would end most of the civil lawsuits against the disgraced film mogul, without him having to admit wrongdoing or pay a penny from his own pocket. He maintains that any sexual activity was consensual.

The Saudi state-backed oil company Saudi Aramco has briefly touched a staggering valuation of $2bn the target set by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman on its second day of trade on Riyadhs Tadawul stock exchange.

Chris Wallace, one of the few Fox News anchors known for breaking ranks by asking tough questions of the Trump administration, has said the president is engaged in the most direct sustained assault on freedom of the press in our history.

Where in the world is the notorious Ghislaine Maxwell?

Lawyers for Jeffrey Epsteins accusers claim Ghislaine Maxwell, his partner and former right-hand woman, was integral to his sex trafficking operation. But in the months since the disgraced financiers death in prison, Maxwell has gone to ground. Emine Saner asks where she is, and whether she should face justice.

How ancient cave art puts us in our place

A cave painting discovered in Indonesia in 2017 has been dated to be almost 44,000 years old, making it the earliest known example of humans making art. As Barbara Ehrenreich writes, in a world corrupted by personal and political narcissism, such anonymous, ancient images are a reminder of our true place in nature.

Trump food stamp rules threaten to cut a lifeline for millions

The Trump administration is rolling out new rules reducing food stamp benefits, making millions ineligible to receive them. Many vulnerable Americans already struggle to get by on current benefits, reports Michael Sainato and the strict new requirements could make their situations even worse.

Is Clint Eastwoods new movie built on a lie?

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution is taking legal action over the portrayal of its reporter Kathy Scruggs in Clint Eastwoods new movie, Richard Jewell. Benjamin Lee ask why the film-maker includes such controversial fiction in a story about the importance of facts.

Republican attempts to turn the impeachment process into a circus may work as a short-term strategy, says Geoffrey Kabaservice. But in the long run, it could alienate the very voters the party needs to retain power in 2020.

When those of us who want the Republican party to appeal to a wider demographic called for it to become a big tent party, this wasnt what we had in mind.

Gabriel Jesus racked up a hat-trick as Manchester City strolled past Dinamo Zagreb and into the Champions League knockout stages with a 4-1 win at Stadion Maksimir on Wednesday night. Tottenham also progressed to the last 16, but not before another definitive defeat to Bayern Munich.

Major League Baseball has widened its investigation into allegations of cheating by the Houston Astros, interviewing almost 60 witnesses and obtaining tens of thousands of emails and instant messages to assess whether the team broke rules by using a TV camera to steal signs.

The US morning briefing is delivered to thousands of inboxes every weekday. If youre not already signed up, subscribe now.

Here is the original post:
US briefing: Britain's crunch election, Nato membership ...