During a NATO exercise on Friday, an inciting incident occurred over the Baltic Sea. A Russian fighter jet chased a US bomber into Danish airspace. Only when the Danes sent their F-16 jets into the air did the Russian plane turn back.

Details of the Incursion

During a NATO exercise, a Russian fighter jet chased a US bomber into Danish airspace, triggering an alliance protest. The NATO statement said: “The incident on Friday is the first of its kind in several years and indicates a new level of provocative behavior by Russia.”

An American B-52 bomber took part in the “Allied Sky” exercise on Friday, during which six of these aircraft flew across all 30 NATO member countries in one day. Above the Baltic Sea, the Air Force plane was suddenly accompanied by a Russian SU-27 plane, which followed the US plane over the Danish island of Bornholm. Only when the Danes sent their F-16 jets into the air did the Russian plane turn back.

NATO: ‘Russia is Disregarding International Norms’

NATO’s Allied Air Command put out a statement on the incident on Monday. “This incident shows that Russia is disregarding international norms and the sovereign airspace of an allied nation.” The alliance said it will remain vigilant, prepared, and ready to keep NATO airspace secure “day and night.”

Denmark immediately launched its rapid reaction alarm aircraft to counter the violation. However, the aggressive Russian fighters returned before interception, NATO confirmed and stating that “the unauthorized entry into the sovereign airspace is a serious violation of international law.”

Denmark: Wants to Ensure Similar Incident Doesn’t Recur in Future

Denmark’s Defense Minister Trine Bramsen said on Tuesday regarding the incident that the intrusion into Danish airspace was utterly unacceptable. Denmark will now “as soon as possible” discuss this incident with the Russian authorities, “to avoid repetition.”

Russia has denied the incident. The Russian Su-27 fighter plane used to intercept the US Air Force’s B-52 bomber did not violate Danish airspace and flew over the Baltic Sea’s neutral waters, the Russian state media reported on Monday, citing Tass, a spokesperson for the Russian Defense Ministry. “The Ministry of Defense has denied the North Atlantic Alliance’s statement that the Russian Su-27 fighter violated the Danish border,” the official said, according to Tass.

US-Russian Tensions

The incident occurs amid heightened tensions between the US and Russia. Washington has accused the Russian military of several provocative actions in the past few days, including the unprofessional interception of a US B-52 bomber over the Black Sea and responsibility for a collision between Americans and Russian armored vehicles in Syria in which seven US troops were injured.

When asked about the apparent increase in incidents with the Russians, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo referred to the vehicle collision in Syria on Monday and said the incident was seen last week in which a Russian vehicle deliberately rammed an American vehicle. These were the types of issues that Washington has been monitoring closely while staying in contact with the Russians to say that was unacceptable behavior. Pompeo said that the US will respond to every single incident.

In terms of the incursion over Danish airspace, the Russian plan returned to Kaliningrad, a Russian exclave between Poland and Lithuania that has a significant Russian military presence. Bornholm Island is in the Baltic Sea, less than 90 miles east of Copenhagen. Denmark is one of the Nordic region’s states that has witnessed increased Russian belligerence over these last years, which has put NATO on increased alert.

L'articolo Russian Military Violates NATO Airspace proviene da InsideOver.

The United States will relocate one thousand US soldiers to Poland. Warsaw hopes the decision will create closer ties to Washington and protection against threats from the East.

The Polish-US Agreement

Last week US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo traveled to Europe and visited four nations. During his stint in Poland he sealed the new military agreement between both countries.

Pompeo chose a symbolic day, August 15, for two reasons: While Catholics – Poland’s majority confession –  celebrate an important holiday, the Assumption of Mary, politicians also celebrated the 100th anniversary of the Battle of Warsaw with military bands and parades. From August 12-25, in 1920, Poland defeated the Soviet army in the so-called “Miracle of the Vistula.” It was a decisive battle that would later secure the country’s independence.

Pompeo and his counterpart Mariusz Błaszczak sealed an agreement that could have significant implications for Poland. The Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement will provide for the transfer of 1,000 additional US soldiers to Poland, in addition to the 4,500 already stationed in Poland.

Strategically Key Decision

A statement by President Trump published by the White House said that the agreement would intensify military cooperation between the two countries and further strengthen NATO’s deterrent force. During his visit to Warsaw, Pompeo said that the treaty opened the way to a larger rotating US troop presence. The latter was strategically crucial for the US and its allies alike.

Poland will provide the US soldiers with free board and lodging, fuel, storage space, and infrastructure, similar to other host countries of the US troops.

However, since there is no permanent US military base in Poland, the soldiers will not be relocated permanently but will be replaced by others on a rotating basis. The troops for this also come from the contingent of 12,000 soldiers that President Trump wants to withdraw from Germany. More than half of them will return to the USA. In total, 5,600 are going to other European countries, including Poland.

Poland’s Perspective

Above all, Poland hopes that the US troops will provide additional protection against possible threats and better defense. Poland’s ruling Law and Justice (PiS) party had long expressed its wish to strengthen NATO’s eastern flank. The latter should act as a deterrent, especially towards Russia.

If it were up to Poland, the agreement would go even further than the additional 1,000 soldiers. The idea of ​​a permanent military facility called “Fort Trump” has been suggested. However, the latter is very likely not currently feasible. Not because President Trump is not impressed by the idea, but because this plan could violate a treaty between NATO and Russia.

The strategic weights will, therefore, not be changed significantly with the relocation. Instead, a trend of recent years has been confirmed, according to which US troops are withdrawing more to their continent or are being relocated, primarily in Asia and thus in the vicinity of China.

Poland’s President Andrzej Duda doesn’t just see the relocation as a guarantee for more protection against possible aggressors. He also hopes that more security in the country and the region can also encourage businesses to invest more.

It also makes sense that the Polish President can envisage even stronger economic cooperation with the USA, including on energy policy. The traditionally already close ties between Washington and Warsaw could thus be tied even closer in the future. In any case, both sides left no doubt about the immense importance they attach to the Washington-Warsaw axis.

While “Old Europe” — France and Germany — in particular, are at odds with the Americans on several issues, Poland seeks to prove that it can become not only a viable alternative to the latter but also a more reliable friend than Paris and Berlin.

L'articolo America’s Defense Agreement with Poland proviene da InsideOver.

According to a recent story from Bloomberg, Turkey has asked for US Patriot missiles to be deployed in the Turkish border with northern Syria. This request has been made on the grounds that several Turkish servicemen have been killed over the last weeks in the region, and Patriots could work as a deterrence measure to potential airstrikes from the Syrian or Russian Air force. Official US sources, on the base of anonymity, have allegedly confirmed the request.

What Is Ankara’s Strategy in This Case?

Hulusi Akar, the Turkish Defence Minister, stated on 20 February 2020, during an interview with CNN Turk that some of the threats posed in the region, by Syria — or Russia — could be efficiently dealt with after the deployment of the Patriot system. Akar clarified that there is no suggestion whatsoever for the assignment of US troops in the area, a rather obvious conclusion one could say, given the US policy towards Syria and the Turkey-US thorny relations, in the recent past. The Turkish Defense Minister also mentioned that talks between Ankara and Washington about the acquisition of the Patriot system were still ongoing, a highly unlikely scenario under the current circumstances, as will be further explained shortly.

The Patriot statements should not take us by surprise at all, as President Erdogan himself has brought up the issue at least three times after the S-400 agreement. This aligns with the typical — and productive — Turkish strategy of never excluding any of the big players from the table and always trying to achieve a modus vivendi even with diametrically opposing powers. Erdogan seems to be using the Patriot and S-400 cards interchangeably, in order to create the appropriate leverage towards US and Russia. The way the story has been presented by Bloomberg and reproduced by the Turkish state-run News Agency, Anadolu, indicates that Turkey is probably trying to create a context of unpredictability about Erdogan’s next moves and hint at the idea of a rapprochement with the US and the Western block. To this end, Akar in his interview has emphasized the idea that an allied country could provide the Patriot batteries to Turkey as a coordinated effort to protect a NATO member from an external threat.

The T‐LORAMIDS Program: a Long, Complex Story

Still the question must arise: how exactly did Turkey get itself in this current situation? The T-LORAMIDS or (Long-Range Air-and Missile-Defense System) program has been a key aspect of the Turkish strategic defense. Ankara has shifted sides several times since the program was launched. Chinese HQ‐9 SAM have been initially selected back in 2013, considering the efficiency, the cost and the engagement of the Turkish industry in the production and other phases of the project, a critical factor for Ankara. The plan had to be cancelled, though, in 2015, with official sources quoting technical difficulties; the US and European reaction to Turkey deploying such a sophisticated strategic weapon from China should be actually considered as the primary reason.

Another T-LORAMIDS program started in 2016 with the US Raytheon Patriot and Russian Almaz-Antey S-400, being among the bidders. A Turkey-Russia agreement had been signed by mid-2017, for the deployment of four S-400 batteries within the Turkish territory. This deal has provoked most of the NATO allies, and especially the US, who have vigorously opposed this deal since its very beginning. Defence Minister Hulusi Akar has confirmed that since May, 2019 Turkish personnel has been sent to Russia to receive training on the new missile system. Additionally, Erdogan stated in May, 2019 that a joint project for procurement and production of the enhanced S-500 system, was among the top priorities for Ankara and Moscow. The first two S-400 batteries have been delivered to Turkey in July and September 2019 respectively. According to Akar, the weapon will be fully operational by April 2020.

The Patriot system has been offered twice to Turkey, in the context of the T-LORAMIDS programme in 2013 and in 2017 respectively; both times it has been rejected. However, Ankara has been trying to keep open channels with Raytheon and the US defense industry and has suggested in several occasions that a revised offer regarding the Patriot system would be considered.

Talks about the potential sale to Turkey of 20 M903 Launching Stations and four Engagement Control Stations alongside AN/MPQ-65 radar sets have been taking place in December 2018 within the US State Department; however, such a deal did not move forward, due to the acquisition of the S-400 system from Russia. Since then, President Erdogan has repeated his intention to discuss an updated Patriot deal on February and November, 2019, but so far, the US side has made clear that the concurrent use of the S-400 and specific NATO strategic weapons is out of the question; therefore the planned S-400 deployment in April should be a no-go for any Turkish proposals from a US perspective.

Conclusion: Erdogan’s Gambit

The latest developments indicate that Turkey is not looking at these missile systems simply as a strategic weapon that could significantly affect the defense capabilities of the country; instead, Erdogan is using the attention drawn and the debate over these weapons as a geopolitical tool, a means to balance between the East and the West and to put pressure on each side according to the Turkish strategic interests. At this point, it would be interesting to wait for the US reaction, even though Ankara should not anticipate a very accommodating stance from Washington. The current circumstances seem far from ideal for the Turkish side, as the Turkish President has probably already played most of his cards and there is no room for further maneuvers in this power struggle with Russia.

L'articolo Ankara Requests Patriot Support On Syrian Border proviene da InsideOver.

As tensions intensified between Turkey and Russia over Idlib, defense ministers were in Brussels on Feb. 12 to discuss key issues that would shape the future of not just the treaty itself, but also the world at large. 

Criticism of NATO

The defense pact between Northern Atlantic members has lately come under criticism, first from the US President who has time and time again lashed out at European states for not meeting their military commitments, and then from French President Emmanuel Macron who has called it “brain dead”. 

But the allies, despite their infighting, have persisted for now in not only identifying new challenges as they arrive but also by evolving over time. Originating in response to the Cold War by bringing together all the Western allies and creating a military buffer against Russia, NATO has shifted its focus to new threats as they emerged. 

NATO’s Mandate Has Become Variable In The Post-9/11 World

First with the pivot towards the Middle East post 9/11 and then the War on Terror, the treaty has been rather fluid in its mandate. Even more recently, in December 2019, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg acknowledged the challenges emanating from China’s continuous rise. 

At the latest summit, defense ministers gave particular focus to the Middle East, and reached a consensus to enhance NATO’s training mission in Iraq by taking on some of the global coalition’s training activities there. 

Another topic in the agenda was Afghanistan, but nothing new was brought to the table, especially with regards to the ongoing peace process. All that was communicated was related to how NATO will extend its support to US forces and called on the Taliban to reduce its violent activities if they are interested in a truce. 

Regarding the challenge posed by Russia’s deployment of SSC-8 missiles, which led to the demise of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, allies took a unanimous stand and agreed to a “package of defensive measures while being committed to arms control”. 

The event was also attended by the European Union High Representative on Foreign Policy Josep Borrell for the first time since he took office. The allies further met with Ukrainian Defense Minister Andriy Zahorodnyiuk to review the country’s reforms and extended NATO’s support for the country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, a major criticism of the treaty ever since its failure to react strongly against Russia’s annexation of Crimea. 

As part of the Land Battle Decisive Munitions (LBDM), an initiative that provides a framework to acquire key munitions for land domain, the allies welcomed two new members — the Czech Republic and Sweden — bringing the total number of participating NATO states and partners to 23. 

The Growing NATO-US Split

While the summit saw western states gather and deliver a consensus on some key issues, one can’t help but notice the growing divergence between NATO and its most powerful member, the United States. Just a few weeks back, President Trump had urged the alliance to do more in the Middle East and even suggested that it be renamed NATOME — which includes the Middle East’s initials in its title.  

Even if one ignores the US President given his history of such outlandish suggestions and over-the-top remarks, a more serious crisis might be brewing within the EU involving France. Only days after the summit, Macron had proposed a strategic nuclear dialogue at a European level, thus hinting at his growing disillusionment with the alliance. Both Stoltenberg and the German Defense Minister quickly dismissed the suggestion, reaffirming their faith in NATO, but voices and perspectives such as Macron’s are only likely to grow with time. The alliance’s problems are only likely to continue. 

L'articolo NATO Perseveres Amid Its Internal Challenges And Struggles proviene da InsideOver.

The latest study from Pew Research Center shows that the North Alliance Treaty Organization (NATO) has started significantly losing trust in the U.S. and France, raising questions about the alliance’s relevance in dealing with complex global challenges.

The latest survey is a reminder of U.S. President Donald Trump’s criticism that NATO should spend more on the defense budget and French President Emmanuel Macron’s sharp remark that the alliance is braindead.

The image of the Brussels-based organization declined from 71 percent in 2009 and 60 percent in 2017 to 49 percent in France. Also, support from Germany (as one of the NATO members) dropped from 63 percent in 2018 to 57 percent, the Pew study revealed.

Which European Countries View NATO the Most Positively?

The study stated that 82 percent of Poles rated the alliance positively. Poland joined NATO in 1999 following the fall of the Communist regime in 1989. Sweden and Ukraine (both non-member nations) had positive views about NATO, with 63 percent and 53 percent, respectively.

A Brief History of NATO

NATO was established on April 4, 1949, aimed at maintaining security and peace among its members, politically and militarily. The alliance was a response to counter the influence of communism under then the Soviet Union (which was under the Eastern Bloc with the Warsaw Pact, set up six years later).

In World War II, countries adopting liberal democracy, such as the U.S, France, and the U.K., united with communist Soviets to contain fascism. However, they split again after the war ended, leading to the creation of the Western and the Eastern blocs.

NATO has grown significantly over the years. It once had 12 members: the U.S. Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, France, Italy, Holland, Luxemburg, Portugal, the U.K., and Norway. Now the alliance has 29 member states.

The Warsaw Pact was disbanded in 1991 following the German reunification and the collapse of the Berlin Wall. Now, non-Soviet states once the Warsaw Pact’s members have joined NATO.

Post-Cold War NATO

NATO has played a role in some military interventions after the fall of communism. The first involvement was in Bosnia-Herzegovina, the former part of now-defunct Yugoslavia (now Serbia) in 1992. The collapse of communism and the death of former Serbian leader Josef Broz Tito led to the breakup of Yugoslavia and the independence of its former states such as Croatia and Slovenia. The Bosnian conflict ended after the adoption of the Dayton Agreement in 1995.

In 2001, NATO resumed its first operation outside Europe by becoming a strategic commander of the coalition under the U.N. mandate sent to Afghanistan. NATO led the military service in Afghanistan in 2003.

NATO is Facing Various Challenges

When NATO was created, communism was considered a public enemy. After the Cold Was was over, the alliance’s members experienced more complicated challenges, from terrorism to nuclear proliferation.

Russia’s Foreign Ministry agreed with Macron’s brain dead diagnosis for the alliance. While German’s Chancellor Angela Merkel slammed Macron’s harsh words, reinforcing Berlin’s support for NATO.

“We are currently experiencing the brain death of Nato,” the young president said, adding that Europe is “on the edge of a precipice” and needs to start thinking of itself as a geopolitical power.

Merkel and Macron have differed over the ideas of creating the European Union (E.U.) military alliance. The former opposed it (even though once Berlin hailed Paris’ suggestion) while the latter supported it.

“The E.U. will never be a military alliance. The E.U. is completely different,” said one of the world’s most influential women, adding that the bloc’s strengths focus on trade, development, and humanitarian assistance.

Trump also questioned NATO members over a spending budget, calling all the member states to raise their spending. In 2018, the POTUS demanded all NATO member states increased their military expenses to 4 percent of their GDPs.

The NATO data showed that Washington accounted for 70 percent of the alliance spending in 2018 (with U$ 706 billion). In 2014, NATO members were committed to allocating 2 percent of their GDPs for defense budget in 2024. Yet, only a few countries have done so.

Is NATO Still Relevant?

Such a question always leads to various answers. NATO members should settle their differences first and put aside their interests. It is also important for NATO to build its partnership with non-European nations such Japan and Australia and recognize the most current challenges faced with each member, so the alliance’s vision remains relevant.

The former head of Belgium’s Parliament, Lode Vanoost, highlighted Macron’s braindead statement, arguing that such a word puts pressure on the E.U. as France has its own agenda. However, Vanoost agreed that Europe should break away from the U.S.

“What the EU could do is find another way of dealing with the geostrategic affairs—through diplomacy, economy etc. That is what Macron is not saying because he has his own agenda. Let’s not forget what the French Army is doing in West Africa,” the former lawmaker told RT.

L'articolo New Study Sparks Questions Of The NATO’s Relevance In Facing Today’s Challenges proviene da InsideOver.

British politician Malcolm Rifkind, who held critical ministerial posts under former British Prime Minister John Major, is said to have proposed the idea to make Russia an associated member of NATO during the early 1990s. The revelation emerged from a dossier that the British National Archives published earlier this month.

Why Give Russia NATO Membership?

Rifkind was said to have discussed his proposal in 1995 with the then British Prime Minister John Major and members of the Cabinet of Ministers. Rifkind argued at the time that Russia had to be included in NATO otherwise it could fall back into authoritarianism and the West would miss out on a “great historic opportunity.”

Rifkind’s proposal emerges from a dossier that he had drawn up in his time as Minister of Defense. This information has been confidential for 25 years before the British National Archives recently published the documents.

According to the documents, however, Rifkind had warned of a full NATO membership for Russia, as it could have “absurd consequences,” regarding the future support of Russia under the collective defense doctrine and particularly in light of any future border dispute with China.

Russia: A NATO Light Membership Plan

One of Rifkind’s possible solutions was thus a NATO light membership, a new category in which Russia would become an associated member state. The associated status would have provided Russia with formal status within the alliance and the benefits that come with it, such as the possibility of attending ministerial meetings and other assemblies amongst the member states. In Riefkind’s view, the associated status could thus have led to “unity and harmonization” in global politics, doctrine, and practice in a complicated environment,” the dossier states. However, the status did not envision collective security guarantees, Russian vetoes, or membership in NATO’s military staff, it added.

Nonetheless, according to Rifkind’s view at the time, such as associated status and quasi membership of NATO subsequently contribute to the expansion of the alliance and pave the way for former Soviet states to establish ties with NATO itself and without any fear of resentment or retaliation from Moscow.

Why Did Rifkind’s Plan Never Go Through?

What sounds like a potential win-win situation for both sides, failed to materialize for one reason in particular according to the documents: Russia’s President Boris Yeltsin, who had been leading the country into its new stage at the beginning of the 90s, with the Cold War being over and the Soviet Union dissolved. However, Yeltsin was seen by the West – and the British in particular – as an unpredictable partner to work together with on any future vision.Documents show that at a summit in Canada in the early 90s, Yeltsin requested Western leaders to postpone any NATO enlargement until after the Russian elections because “the public debate could cause trouble.”

However, it was not merely Yeltsin’s lack of global politics forte, that concerned the West. Yeltsin had a well-known alcohol problem and a continuously deteriorating health, which made it difficult for any western leader to rely on him, never mind trust him – or at this point, potential successor – with associated status in NATO. In the documents, Yeltsin’s persona is described as acting “strangely” at times, which would range from a “lovable fluffy bear” to a “drunken presidential puppet.” Yeltsin was thus not the man to cooperate with on a project of such magnitude.

Moreover, the political climate in Moscow and all over Russia also had indicated that Russian reformers opposed any NATO expansion plans at the time.

Most telling of it all, the Foreign Office had written a note called “emergency planning for Yeltsin’s death”. In it, the Foreign Office concluded that “Yeltsin is six years older than the average life expectancy of the Russian man and now had two heart attacks in three and a half months.”

A Noble Idea But The Risks Were Too High

While the light-membership for Russia was certainly a noble idea, the risk at the time had simply been too high. With an unpredictable president and a new system in Russia that had been far from stable at the time, handing the keys to Russia could have amounted to a security fiasco. Nonetheless, the documents impressively display that real diplomacy is being conducted behind closed doors, and the public will never see much of it.

NATO was founded in 1949 and consisted of twelve member states when it was first established. Currently, the alliance consists of 29 countries, including the post-Soviet states of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia.

L'articolo Back When The UK Proposed NATO Membership For Russia proviene da InsideOver.