Tag: NATO

Categories
Quick Analysis

Montenegro may join NATO

NATO has invited Montenegro to begin the process of joining NATO.  It could become the alliance’s 29th member.

NATO secretary General Jens Stoltenberg hailed the decision as “historic,” noting that “This is a good day for Montenegro, a good day for the Western Balkans and a good day for the alliance.”

Since 2009, NATO and Montenegro have worked closely together through the Membership Action Plan, which helps nations prepare for possible future membership. Stoltenberg said the decision reflected Montenegro’s “unwavering commitment to our common values and to international security” but advised Montenegro to continue on its reform path, “on defense adaptation, on domestic reform, especially rule of law, and to continue to make progress in demonstrating public support for Montenegro’s NATO membership.”

The negotiations will start in early 2016. Once they are concluded, NATO members will sign an “accession protocol” which will have to be ratified by parliaments in all 28 Allies. Once that process is completed, Montenegro will be able to accede to the Washington Treaty and become a member of the Alliance.

According to NATO sources, the alliance is open to any European country in a position to undertake the commitments and obligations of membership, and contribute to security in the Euro-Atlantic area. Since 1949, NATO’s membership has increased from 12 to 28 countries through six rounds of enlargement. Currently, four partner countries have declared their aspirations to NATO membership: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Montenegro and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

The alliance emphasizes that its ongoing enlargement process “poses no threat to any other country, [and] is aimed at promoting stability and cooperation, at building a Europe whole and free, united in peace, democracy and common values.

Actually pharmacists get huge commission on selling lowest priced viagra branded pills, syrups and capsules. The grounds for some sorts ordering cialis online of impotence can be hypertension – constant spasm of blood vessels. You can regain your lost penile power and have a healthy love life with oral cialis 5 mg ED medicines. Such rigid This drugstore order cheap viagra erection is not impossible to build. Other nations are seeking or considering NATO membership. Macedonia has been assured that it will be invited to become a member as soon as a mutually acceptable solution to the issue over the country’s name has been reached with Greece. Bosnia and Herzegovina was invited to join the Membership Action Plan in April 2010 but its participation is pending the resolution of a key issue concerning immovable defense property. At the 2008 Bucharest Summit, the Allies agreed that Georgia and Ukraine will become members of NATO in the future (since 2010, Ukraine has not been formally pursuing membership.)

In what would be a very significant move, some in Sweden are advocating joining the alliance. However, as noted by Business Insider  “Russia’s ambassador to Sweden has warned the country of the potential military ‘consequences’ associated with joining NATO. In an interview with the Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter…Russian Ambassador Viktor Tatarintsev told Dagens Nyheter that Russia does not have any military plans against Sweden, in line with Stockholm’s alliance neutrality. But Tatarintsev warned that this could change if Sweden were to join the NATO alliance…Putin pointed out that there will be consequences, ‘that Russia will have to resort to a response of the military kind and re-orientate our troops and missiles,’ the ambassador said. ‘The country that joins NATO needs to be aware of the risks it is exposing itself to’…An October 2014 poll showed 37% of Swedes were in favor of joining NATO with 36% of Swedes against — the first time that more Swedes have favored joining the alliance than not. This swing in public opinion could be in response to a series of aggressive and provocative Russian actions throughout the region.”

Russian air and naval forces have, over the past several years, engaged in provocative incursions into Swedish territory.

On September 2, notes the website antiwar.com  reported that“The Ukrainian National Security Council formally declaring neighboring Russia to be a ‘military opponent’ and making it a specific priority for the country to try to secure NATO membership .”

Current NATO members include Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Turkey, The United Kingdom, and The United States.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Obama’s Russian policy ignores history & reality

The White House continues to act surprised at Russia’s aggressiveness in Europe and the Middle East, and its alliances with China and Iran. It’s time the President and his advisors took time to read a history book or two, and not the ones written by the aging 60’s radicals that have so heavily influenced his thinking and his career.

In the absurd, moral equivalence view of the progressive left, Washington and Moscow emerged from World War 2 as competitors, the two toughest kids on the block, both only interested in domination.  Therefore, the Obama Administration’s policies which allowed the Kremlin to become the superior nuclear power, that gave in to its demands to withdraw U.S. anti-missile devices from Poland, to remove most American tanks from Europe, to slash defense spending and to virtually ignore Russia’s massive arms buildup have all been, according to this perspective, justified as a “risk for peace,” signaling Moscow that Washington wasn’t interested in furthering competition. The fact that all those measures only encouraged Russian aggressiveness has been ignored. Even its return to military bases in Latin America has been overlooked.

The progressive’s historical memory is, of course, completely wrong.  While the U.S. rebuilt both its allies and its former enemies, the Kremlin essentially capitalized on the conflict by forging an empire in Eastern Europe, as it continued on a wartime footing in the hopes of still further expansion.

Russia’s expansionist, militant perspective didn’t begin in 1945. Missing from the hard-left worldview is the reality that Nazi Germany wouldn’t have had the ability to grow its armed forces to such great power without the German-Soviet Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact.  Equally ignored is the unpleasant reality that the two nations began the conflict as allies, sharing in the division of Poland between them. The agreement also contained a provision outlining the dual annexation of Eastern Europe, which foreshadowed Moscow’s actions following the war.

The Kremlin’s recent moves are a continuation of the aggressive, militant policies that caused so much pain throughout the 20th century. (The transition from the Soviet Union to the Russian Federation hasn’t changed the nation’s underlying policies.) Its recent invasions of Georgia and Ukraine, and its threatening stance against other Eastern European nations are clear examples.

In addition, it is diagnosed that in some way you actually started to obsess over the capital T: why best prices on viagra did it start, how can I get better. The Orthopedic physical therapy falls under the similar group of discount levitra no rx Sports Physical Therapy. In order to minimize the risks associated with the following diseases: Willms Renal Tumor Congenital heart disease Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) Angiodisplazia Epilepsy treated with valproic acid Hypothyroidism Von Willebrand disease is divided into three categories: partial quantitative deficiency type I, qualitative deficiency type II and total deficiency type III. price for generic viagra Well, not all medicines are effective even if they come cheap and follow the guidelines prescribed in the rules viagra cheapest price and it will surely make a difference. Russia’s foray into Syria provides another clear indication of how it is still following the game plan followed during the era of the Nazi-Soviet alliance. The 1936 Spanish Civil War served as a testing and training ground for Hitler’s military, which began WW2 as the best trained armed force in Europe. President Putin’s expensively re-equipped and modernized military is becoming battle-hardened and tested in these conflicts.

While the Obama Administration continues its peace at any price worldview (similar to that of Britain’s pre-war Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain who famously believed that he could prevent conflict with Germany by appeasing Hitler) the NATO alliance is beginning to take some, albeit inadequate, steps in recognition of the rapidly growing threat. Its’ plan provides for enhanced readiness, and sets up two more NATO Force Integration Units (NFIUs) or small headquarters in Hungary and Slovakia. Six other NFIUs were activated in September in Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Romania. The United Kingdom will rotate more troops into the Baltics and Poland for training and exercises.

The action comes in response to several Russian moves, including the increased power and modernity of Moscow’s forces, its invasions of Ukraine and Georgia, its incursions near the airspace of several NATO countries (including the very recent entry into Turkey’s airspace) and the Kremlin’s establishment of airbases in Belarus in order to threaten NATO members Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania. The violation of arms accords relating to intermediate range nuclear weapons, and Russia’s ten to one lead in the possession of those devices, has produced significant concern as well.

While NATO’s actions are appropriate, the fact remains that the military budgets of its members remain far below adequate to truly challenge Moscow’s threatening stance. While this has been a long-standing pattern for NATO’s European members, the recent decline of America’s defense spending has dramatically enhanced the problem.

The Obama Administration’s faulty historical memory, a product of the Presidents’ progressive roots, is disturbing enough. When combined with its absolute refusal to change its foreign policy course and national security strategy in the face of consistent, repeated and major failures, the concern becomes extreme.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Obama veto threat of defense bill highlights weakness on terrorism

As news of Russian fighter planes entering the air space of a NATO member continue to reverberate, and as both Moscow and Beijing rapidly continue their well-funded efforts to become the dominant military powers on Earth, the White House continues to threaten a veto of the $612 billion defense authorization bill because it does not authorize the closing of Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba.

Spending for defense under this measure would be smaller, despite inflation, than it was when President Obama first took office. The amount of funds provided by the legislation is not in question.  Indeed, it is the number requested by the White House. Critics of the President’s defense policy believe that it underfunds the military at a time when international threats are rapidly increasing.

It remains highly questionable why Guantanamo’s closing should be anywhere on a list of priorities. Removed from public access and away from American territory, it provides a venue to house terrorist prisoners in a locale free from the threat of attack and where no U.S. civilians could be harmed.

Senator John McCain (R-Arizona) has noted that President Obama has not even presented a viable plan of how to deal with the prisoners currently residing at Guantanamo.

Holding up the important defense measure, with its funding for vital national security activities as well as for overdue benefits for service members and their families over what has become a boutique issue for a very small percentage of voters seems irrational. It raises questions of whether the President has an additional priority—perhaps the closing of the Guantanamo base in general—in mind.

Despite the December 2014 agreement by Cuba to allow the Russian navy to return to cold war bases on the island, and despite the continued oppression of political dissidents there, the White House opened relations with the Castro regime in January, ignoring the fact that Havana continues its support for terrorist activities.

The White House veto threat has angered the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) who noted “The world is getting more dangerous by the day, our allies believe we are missing-in-action, and our enemies are gaining ground across the globe.  The only redline the President is willing to enforce is vetoing the bill that pays or troops.  Is that the legacy he really seeks?”
Think lovemaking as a need- The more you get closer to cialis from india tadalafil robertrobb.com the heights of the epitome. Men who have ongoing itching, especially if it is then a symptom of prostate cancer, it female viagra for sale can be treated effectively and more than doubled the average level of HGH. Generally there are no symptoms in the beginning that indicate on-set of type 2 diabetes. online viagra without prescription purchase levitra online http://robertrobb.com/whats-wrong-with-duceys-teacher-pay-plan/ It is an FDA approved medicine and available at the much affordable price.
The White House and the Republican-majority congress have also battled over a portion the $89.2 billion “overseas contingency fund” portion of the bill, used to battle terrorist activities in the Middle East and Afghanistan. The Congressional version classifies the funds as part of the regular Pentagon budget in order to not have those funds be subjected to mandatory sequestration restrictions.

Mr. Obama’s questionable release of key Guantanamo prisoners in the past, his refusal to classify a terrorist attacks at a military base in the United States (classifying the actions of the perpetrator, Nidal Malik Hassan who killed 13 and wounded 30 at Fort Hood as “workplace violence”) and his insistence on closing Guantanamo prison without any viable alternative have led to sharp questions about his willingness to confront the Islamic extremist threat.

As the President continues to concentrate on closing Guantanamo, concern over Russia’s incursion into Turkey, a NATO member, grows. In a statement,  NATO said its allied nations “expressed their deep concern with regard to the Russian military build-up in Syria and especially the attacks by the Russian Air Force on Hama, Homs, and Idlib which led to civilian casualties and did not target Da’esh. Allies call on the Russian Federation to immediately cease its attacks on the Syrian opposition and civilians, to focus its efforts on fighting ISIL, and to promote a solution to the conflict through a political transition.

Russian military actions have reached a more dangerous level with the recent violations of Turkish airspace on 3 October and 4 October by Russian Air Force SU-30 and SU-24 aircraft in the Hatay region. The aircraft in question entered Turkish airspace despite Turkish authorities’ clear, timely and repeated warnings. In accordance with NATO practice, Turkish fighter aircraft responded to these incursions by closing to identify the intruder, after which the Russian planes departed Turkish airspace.

Allies strongly protest these violations of Turkish sovereign airspace, and condemn these incursions into and violations of NATO airspace. Allies also note the extreme danger of such irresponsible behaviour. They call on the Russian Federation to cease and desist, and immediately explain these violations.

Allies call on the Russian side to take all necessary measures to ensure that such violations do not take place in the future.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

Russia, NATO return to Cold War

As Russia continues its expanded military flights along the borders of European nations, and moves forward with its extensive military buildup (including the stationing of intermediate range nuclear missiles, part of the Kremlin’s 10 to 1 advantage in tactical nuclear weaponry, within reach of European targets) the tension between Moscow and NATO has returned to Cold War levels. That tension reached a fever pitch following the invasion of Ukraine.

According to the U.S. State Department’s “2015 Report on Adherence to and Compliance with Arms Control, Nonproliferation, and Disarmament Agreements and Commitments:”

“…in 2014, the Russian Federation continued to be in violation of its obligations under the INF Treaty not to possess, produce, or flight-test a ground-launched cruise missile (GLCM) with a range capability of 500 km to 5,500 km, or to possess or produce launchers of such missiles.

According to the Russian news source, Pravada, Mikhail Alexandrov, a leading expert of military-political studies, has asserted that “NATO’s objective is to suppress the Russians…In general, NATO’s activities are anti-Russian in their nature. “They hate the Russian and want to crush them. This is the essence of the current policy of NATO…Russia must be tough and strong in defending its interests on the international arena. If Russia makes concessions to the West, everyone will realize that Russia is weak an can therefore be destroyed.

Recently, that view of NATO was essentially repeated in a statement to RT news (another Russian news  source) by the Russian Foreign Ministry,  which alleged that NATO was seeking “dominance in Europe.”

NATO has responded with the following fact sheet:

If tadalafil canadian you suffer from it, the very best diet is one which is low in protein and high in carbohydrates. The Placebo Effect So if aphrodisiacs don’t really exist, why is it that some people swear that viagra on line pharmacy they do? This may be due, in part, to genetic differences. It prevents harming of the internal organs of the body cells and improves generic uk viagra cute-n-tiny.com overall health. And rest assured, if you are not thinking about it, you are not viagra 5mg alone; millions of men face this problem. Myth 1: NATO is trying to encircle Russia Fact: This claim ignores the facts of geography. Russia’s land border is just over 20,000 kilometres long. Of that, 1,215 kilometres, or less than one-sixteenth, face current NATO members. Russia shares land borders with 14 countries (Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, China, North Korea). Only five of them are NATO members, while two more aspire to join. Claims that NATO is building bases around Russia are similarly groundless. Outside the territory of NATO nations, NATO only maintains a significant military presence in three places: Kosovo, Afghanistan, and at sea off the Horn of Africa. All three operations are carried out under United Nations mandate, and thus carry the approval of Russia, along with all other Security Council members. Before Russia’s aggressive actions in Ukraine began, Russia provided logistical support to the Afghan mission, and cooperated directly with the counter-piracy operation, showing clearly that Russia viewed them as a benefit, not a threat. NATO has partnership relationships with many countries in Europe and Asia, as can be seen from this interactive map. Such partnerships, which are requested by the partners in question, focus exclusively on issues agreed with them, such as disaster preparedness and relief, transparency, armed forces reform, and counter-terrorism. These partnerships cannot legitimately be considered a threat to Russia, or to any other country in the region, let alone an attempt at encirclement.

Myth 2: NATO has tried to isolate or marginalise Russia Fact: Since the early 1990s, the Alliance has consistently worked to build a cooperative relationship with Russia on areas of mutual interest. NATO began reaching out, offering dialogue in place of confrontation, at the London NATO Summit of July 1990 (declaration here). In the following years, the Alliance promoted dialogue and cooperation by creating new fora, the Partnership for Peace (PfP) and the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC), open to the whole of Europe, including Russia (PfP founding documents here and here). In 1997 NATO and Russia signed the Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security, creating the NATO-Russia Permanent Joint Council. In 2002 they upgraded that relationship, creating the NATO-Russia Council (NRC). They reaffirmed their commitment to the Founding Act at NATO-Russia summits in Rome in 2002 and in Lisbon in 2010 (The Founding Act can be read here, the Rome Declaration which established the NRC here, the Lisbon NRC Summit Declaration here.) Since the foundation of the NRC, NATO and Russia have worked together on issues ranging from counter-narcotics and counter-terrorism to submarine rescue and civil emergency planning. We set out to build a unique relationship with Russia, one built not just on mutual interests but also on cooperation and the shared objective for a Europe whole free and at peace. No other partner has been offered a comparable relationship, nor a similar comprehensive institutional framework.

Myth 3: NATO missile defence targets Russia and the Iran agreement proves it Fact: NATO’s missile defence system is not designed or directed against Russia. It does not pose a threat to Russia’s strategic deterrent. As already explained by NATO Deputy Secretary General Alexander Vershbow, geography and physics make it impossible for the NATO system to shoot down Russian intercontinental missiles from NATO sites in Romania or Poland.  Their capabilities are too limited, their planned numbers May 2015 North Atlantic Treaty Organization Fact Sheet too few, and their locations too far south or too close to Russia to do so. Russian officials have confirmed that the planned NATO shield will not, in fact, undermine Russia’s deterrent. Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin, Russia’s missile defence envoy, said on January 26, 2015, that “neither the current, nor even the projected” missile defence system “could stop or cast doubt on Russia’s strategic missile potential.” Finally, the Russian claim that the framework agreement on Iran’s nuclear programme obviates the need for NATO missile defence is wrong on two counts. The Iranian agreement does not cover the proliferation of ballistic-missile technology which is an issue completely different from nuclear questions. Furthermore, NATO has repeatedly made clear that missile defence is not about any one country, but about the threat posed by proliferation more generally. In fact, over 30 countries have obtained, or are trying to obtain, ballistic missile technology. The Iran framework agreement does not change those facts.

Myth 4: NATO exercises are a provocation which threatens Russia Fact: Every nation has the right to conduct exercises, as long as they do so within their international obligations, including notifying the actual numbers and providing observation opportunities when required. In order to promote mutual trust and transparency, OSCE members are bound by the Vienna Document to inform one another in advance of exercises which include more than 9,000 troops, unless the exercises are snap tests of readiness. NATO and Allies have consistently stood by the terms and the spirit of the Vienna Document. Those exercises which crossed the notification threshold were announced well in advance. This is why Russia could send observers to the UK-led Exercise Joint Warrior in April 2015. Russia, on the other hand, has repeatedly called snap exercises including tens of thousands of troops, with some of them taking place close to NATO territory. This practice of calling massive exercises without warning is a breach of the spirit of the Vienna Document, raising tension and undermining trust. This is especially the case because Russia’s military takeover of Crimea was masked by exactly such a snap exercise. It is therefore Russia’s exercises, not NATO’s, which are a threat to stability.

Myth 5: NATO leaders promised at the time of German reunification that the Alliance would not expand to the East Fact: No such promise was ever made, and Russia has never produced any evidence to back up its claim. Every formal decision which NATO takes is adopted by consensus and recorded in writing. There is no written record of any such decision having been taken by the Alliance: therefore, no such promise can have been made. Moreover, at the time of the alleged promise, the Warsaw Pact still existed. Its members did not agree on its dissolution until 1991. Therefore, it is not plausible to suggest that the idea of their accession to NATO was on the agenda in 1989. This was confirmed by former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev himself. This is what Mr Gorbachev said on 15 October 2014 in an interview with Rossiiskaya Gazeta and Russia Beyond The Headlines: “The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. I say this with full responsibility…”

Moscow’s moves have forced Sweden (which has found Russian subs in its waters) and Finland to consider joining NATO, according to Germany’s DW news  “The Crimean crisis has rekindled discussions in Sweden and Finland of whether to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which would protect the two countries in Europe’s north from potential Russian aggression. This comes after Sweden’s Deputy Prime Minister Jan Björklund had publicly called for a “doctrinal shift” in the country’s defence policy, reportedly saying he wanted Sweden to “set the wheels in motion” to join NATO.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

Moscow again intrudes in European waters

In a pattern that remains underreported in the American press, Russian air and sea incursions into European territory continue to mount.

The BBC reports that “Finland’s navy has dropped depth charges in waters near Helsinki as a warning to a suspected submarine. The incident comes amid growing concern in the region over Russia’s military exercises. In October, Sweden launched a hunt for a foreign submarine suspected to have entered waters near Stockholm. Navy operations chief Commodore Olavi Jantunen told Helsingin Sanomat newspaper that the depth charges, dropped at 03:00 on Tuesday (midnight GMT), were meant only as a warning. Finland has become increasingly worried about the military exercises of neighbouring Russia. The two countries share a 1,300km (800 mile) border.”

The incident comes fairly close in time to a similar incident in which a Russian submarine was believed to patrolling near Sweden.

In a recent statement, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said during his visit to Helsinki  that, although Finland is not a NATO member, the alliance “is determined to strengthen its partnership with Finland to better address security challenges to the east and south.”

A NATO release concerning a March visit to Finland stressed noted that “Secretary General and Finland’s Prime Minister Stubb expressed their concern about the situation in Ukraine, caused by Russia’s aggressive actions. Mr. Stoltenberg said: ‘we now see a different Russia.’ He stressed that NATO strived for a more cooperative and constructive relationship with Russia for many years, and continues to do so, but ‘Russia has to respect its neighbours and the borders of its neighbours.’
The normal dosage of Zenegra is 100mg which are packed in sachets. low priced viagra buying cialis online It is mostly men above the age of 45 or say one who is old some around 60 of age. This is mostly due to increase viagra 100mg mastercard bought this in appetite. This drug can relax your jaw and muscle tissues and combat whatever causing your jaw popping and clicking, like stress.Physical therapy for sale levitra also is one proficient method in fixing Temporomandibular Joint Syndrome.
“The Secretary General called for full implementation of the Minsk agreement, including a withdrawal of heavy weaponry, full access for OSCE monitors, and a halt to Russian support for the separatists in eastern Ukraine.  He warned that any attempt to expand separatist-held territory would be ‘unacceptable to the international community.’

“The Secretary General also discussed strenghtening NATO’s partnership with Finland in discussion with Foreign Minister Erkki Tuomioja, Defence Minister Carl Haglund, Speaker of the Parliament Eero Heinäluoma and other leading members of Parliament.”

In March, Russia staged military maneuvers involving 80,000 troops and 200 aircraft, an exercise some believe to be a response to the delivery of U.S. equipment to the Baltic states in response to Moscow’s threatening actions.

Inexplicably, President Obama withdrew all American tanks from Europe in 2014.  Requests for an explanation sent to the White House by the New York Analysis of Policy & Government have yielded no information.  Some were moved back in response to Moscow’s threatening actions.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Is NATO prepared for near-future threats?

We conclude our two part summary of NATO’s “2014 Annual Report of the Secretary General” by examining NATO’s plans for the near future.

CHAPTER 2 – Investing in defence

At the NATO Summit in Wales, Allies agreed the Readiness Action Plan to strengthen NATO’s collective defence and a defence investment pledge to strengthen Allies’ ability to fund sustained defence efforts. They also approved a defence planning package and set priorities related to training, equipment and technology to ensure that NATO forces are properly prepared and equipped for whatever challenge may come.

Defence investment pledge

In Wales, NATO leaders pledged to stop the cuts to defence budgets, to increase investment as economies recover, to make the most effective use of available funds, and to strive for a more balanced sharing of the costs and responsibilities of their common defence. This is the first time NATO Heads of State and Government have made this kind of commitment.

In 2006, Allies agreed voluntary targets for defence spending: 2% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) should be allocated to defence expenditures, while 20% of those expenditures should be dedicated to research, development and acquisition of major defence equipment. In the defence investment pledge, Allies affirmed that those countries already meeting these targets would continue to do so and that those below would halt any decline, aim to increase defence expenditure in real terms as GDP grows, and aim to move towards the 2% and 20% targets within a decade.The pledge was needed because the amount of resources dedicated by Allies to defence has been on a steady decline since the end of the Cold War. In 1990, the 14 European Allies spent USD 314 billion on defence in real terms. By 2010, defence spending in NATO Europe had dropped to USD 275 billion, despite 12 additional European countries having joined the Alliance. In 2014, it is estimated that European members of NATO spent USD 250 billion on defence. The cuts to defence expenditures…diminish the options available to the Alliance and reduce the extent to which Allies equitably share responsibilities…

Developing the right capabilities

…In Wales, Allies agreed on priorities that include enhancing and reinforcing training and exercises, improving command and control structures, Joint Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance, ballistic missile defence, and cyber defence. They emphasised the importance of multinational cooperation, which allows for significant operational and cost benefits. They also affirmed the importance of inclusive, sustainable, innovative and globally competitive defence industries on both sides of the Atlantic.

NATO Forces 2020

… NATO Forces 2020 establishes the goal of developing modern, tightly connected forces that are equipped, trained, exercised and commanded to operate together and with partners in any environment…

NATO Air Command and Control System

NATO’s systems for air command and control, along with national systems within NATO European territory, track all civilian and military aircraft in NATO airspace over continental Europe, providing 24-hour surveillance of the skies. NATO is upgrading a variety of NATO and national systems with the NATO Air Command and Control System (ACCS)…

Joint Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance

…In May, the Alliance held the largest JISR trial in its history… The trial, which took place in Norway, tested NATO’s ability to gather information and synthesise intelligence from multiple sources at different stages of a crisis. With satellites, aircraft, unmanned aerial vehicles, naval vessels, ground sensors and human intelligence from 18 Allies, the trial demonstrated significant progress and provided important feedback that will bring NATO closer to achieving its target of initial operational capability at the end of 2016…

Ballistic missile defence

As part of NATO’s commitment to collective defence, Allies agreed in 2010 to extend NATO’s ballistic missile defence (BMD) capability to provide coverage and protection of all NATO European populations, territory and forces. Since then, work has been underway to acquire and develop the equipment and infrastructure needed to make this capacity fully operational. In 2014, NATO’s BMD was made more robust through additional national voluntary contributions as well as further refined command and control arrangements and procedures. During 2014, two US BMD-capable Aegis vessels arrived at their new home port in Rota, Spain, and two more vessels will arrive in 2015. These ships have advanced sensor capabilities and interceptor missiles that can detect and shoot down ballistic missiles. Deployment of the land-based version of these capabilities, Aegis Ashore, in Deveselu, Romania is on track for completion in 2015. A second Aegis Ashore site will be established in Poland in 2018.

Cyber security

As the Alliance looks to the future, cyber threats and attacks will continue to become more common, sophisticated and potentially damaging. Responding to the evolving challenges in the cyber domain, NATO leaders endorsed an Enhanced NATO Policy on Cyber Defence and a Cyber Defence Action Plan at the Summit in Wales in September. Building on the accomplishments of previous NATO cyber defence policies, the 2014 policy reflects the evolution of the threat landscape, technological environment, and broader international approach to the issue. The policy establishes that cyber defence is part of the Alliance’s core task of collective defence, confirms that international law applies in cyberspace, and intensifies NATO’s cooperation with industry. In 2014, NATO systems registered over 3,000 cyber security events. The top priority of NATO cyber defence is the protection of the communications systems owned and operated by NATO. To this end, NATO has invested in its NATO Computer Incident Response Capability (NCIRC). In May 2014, NCIRC reached full operational capability, expanding the protection of NATO networks to 52 locations.

Countering terrorism
Many international organizations represent rheumatologists all over the viagra großbritannien globe. This is various from the two aforementioned medicines as this has been approved cheap viagra from usa by FDA as an effective blocker that prevents DHT hormone from entering into the food pipe. A blow to the penis can be momentarily painful; once the initial agony has passed, though, it can be quickly forgotten. cialis 20mg tadalafil It is not clear whether some of commander cialis these can be inflated and deflated at will.
NATO’s efforts to counter terrorism include…New standards were introduced for armoured vehicle protection and the testing of jammers against radio-controlled improvised explosive devices (IEDs). Through a voluntary national contribution fund, NATO members supported activities related to future detection technologies, a prototype database to support countermeasure development against radio-controlled IEDs, and training for counter-IED operators. NATO also adopted a new doctrine of route clearance, incorporating lessons learned by NATO countries in different theatres, including Afghanistan, and adapting surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities to new technologies. Other aspects of technological advancement to counter terrorism include work to better protect large aircraft through infra-red counter-measures, as well as a planning tool to support harbour protection called “Safe Port”.

Defence and Related Security Capacity Building

NATO is bolstering its existing partnership tools with the creation of the Defence and Related Security Capacity Building Initiative [which] seeks to reinforce cooperation in two broad areas of activity. The first area involves advice on defence reform and institution building, including national security architecture, policy and defence planning. The second involves defence capabilities and the development of local forces, usually focused on education and training over an extended period of time. This initiative differs from other partnership tools because it focuses primarily on short-term stability efforts. NATO has extended invitations to Georgia, Jordan and the Republic of Moldova and is ready to consider requests from other interested countries – partner or non-partner – and organisations. In December, Iraq requested consideration as part of this new initiative. And when conditions permit, NATO is also ready to provide defence and related security capacity advisory support for Libya.

Supporting Ukraine

Throughout the recent crisis in the East, NATO has shown strong political support for Ukraine and its freedom to decide its own future. At the Wales Summit in September, NATO Heads of State and Government met Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, sending a strong political message of NATO’s unwavering support for Ukraine’s sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity and for the rules-based Euro-Atlantic security order. Allies are also reinforcing their advisory presence at the NATO offices in Kyiv and will continue to promote the development of greater interoperability between Ukrainian and NATO forces.

Within the framework of the Distinctive Partnership with Ukraine that was agreed in 1997, NATO has increased its practical support to the country as the crisis developed. Measures include a number of immediate and short-term actions to help Ukraine cope with the current crisis, as well as longer-term measures geared towards capacity building, capability development, and reform of the armed forces and the security sector.

In this context, Allies launched five new trust funds to support command, control, communications and computers (C4), logistics and standardization, cyber defence, military career transition and the rehabilitation of injured military personnel. These trust funds add to NATO’s support for existing programmes on defence education, professional development, security sector governance and security-related scientific cooperation. In 2014, Ukraine was the number one beneficiary of the Science for Peace and Security (SPS) Programme, with 15 new projects and an estimated Euro 10 million budget for the 2014- 2017 period.

Open door

Four partner countries aspire to NATO membership: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Montenegro and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

At the Summit in Wales, NATO leaders agreed to launch a period of “intensified and focused talks” with Montenegro to address the remaining issues with regard to the country’s membership aspirations. Montenegro’s progress will be assessed no later than the end of 2015 with a view to deciding whether to invite the country to join the Alliance.

NATO leaders also agreed to develop a substantial package of measures with Georgia to help the country prepare for future NATO membership. The measures aim to strengthen the country’s capabilities through defence capacity building, training, exercises and enhanced interoperability opportunities.

An invitation to the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia will be extended after a mutually acceptable solution to the issue over the country’s name is reached within the framework of the United Nations.

NATO will continue working with Bosnia and Herzegovina to pursue the reforms needed to meet NATO standards. This principally involves registering immovable defence properties as state property in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

A wide network of partnerships around the globe

NATO’s cooperation with partners spans the globe, with countries volunteering expertise and know-how from different continents in a joint effort to resolve common security concerns.

In the Asia-Pacific in 2014, Japan became the fifth partner in the region to sign an Individual Partnership and Cooperation Programme (IPCP) after Mongolia, New Zealand, the Republic of Korea and Australia. The IPCP, which was signed by Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe in May 2014, focuses on areas including disaster relief, cyber defence, counter-piracy, and interoperability. Australia, Mongolia and New Zealand were recognised as contributors to the Resolute Support Mission, through which NATO will provide training, advice and assistance in Afghanistan.

NATO pursued outreach with other countries in the region, such as China, to discuss issues of common interest including Afghanistan and counter-piracy. The Alliance also remained engaged in informal regional meetings on security including the Shangri-La Dialogue, the Jakarta Defence Dialogue and the Seoul Defence Dialogue.

NATO established a partnership with Iraq in 2012 to help the country build more effective security forces. The partnership includes cooperation in the areas of political dialogue, education and training, response to terrorism, defence institution building and border security, among others. With the Iraqi government’s request at the end of 2014, the Alliance is considering additional cooperation and support within the framework of the new Defence and Related Security Capacity Building Initiative.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Is NATO prepared to defend against Russia?

As Russia incorporates its conquest in Ukraine and looks next to intimidating or attacking other states, including  NATO members Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania, NATO’s role becomes increasingly crucial.  We have excerpted portions of NATO’s 2014 Annual Report to keep you up to date on the alliance’s status. The excerpts conclude Monday. 

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg’s 2014 Annual Report: PART 1.

Foreword

Keeping NATO strong

2014 was a black year for European security. And as we enter 2015, the terrorist attacks in Paris were a stark reminder of the threats and challenges we face. But we also saw millions standing up for our values and our open societies.

Our security environment has changed fundamentally. To the South, violent extremism is at our borders, spreading turmoil across Iraq and Syria and bringing terror to our streets. To the East, Russia has used military force to annex Crimea, destabilise eastern Ukraine, and intimidate its neighbours.

These threats challenge the international order we have built since the fall of the Berlin Wall – an order that embodies our democratic values and is vital for our way of life… it is vital that we invest in our defence. We must spend more and we must spend better. At Wales, NATO Heads of State and Government pledged to stop the cuts in defence spending, to aim to spend 2% of Gross Domestic Product on defence within a decade, and to spend that money more efficiently. I will continue to work with Allies to keep that pledge…Last year, the very foundations of the Euro-Atlantic order came under threat.

CHAPTER I

In 2014, major changes in the security environment increased the threats faced by all NATO members. In Europe, Russia illegally annexed Crimea, fuelled crisis and conflict in Ukraine and spurred tension along NATO’s eastern border. In North Africa and the Middle East, extremist violence and instability spread. Across the world, cyber crime increased in volume and sophistication.

NATO on duty

Nearly one billion people live in the 28 NATO member countries. Every day, NATO is actively engaged to provide for their collective defence and to manage crises in Europe and beyond.

Aggressive actions in the East

In 2014, Russia and Russian-backed separatists began a campaign of violence aimed at destabilising Ukraine as a sovereign state. Russia’s aggressive actions disregard international law and violate security arrangements and commitments that Russia has made, including the Helsinki Final Act. Russia’s recent actions have fundamentally challenged the vision of a Europe whole, free and at peace and are a threat to security and stability in Europe and beyond.

On 2 March 2014, the North Atlantic Council agreed that “military action against Ukraine by forces of the Russian Federation is a breach of international law and contravenes the principles of the NATO-Russia Council and the Partnership for Peace”. One month later, NATO Foreign Ministers agreed to suspend all practical civilian and military cooperation with Russia but to maintain political contacts at and above the level of Ambassador to enable NATO and Russia to exchange views. Two meetings of the NATO-Russia Council about events in and around Ukraine took place at the ambassadorial level following this decision.

For over 20 years, NATO has worked with Russia to build a strong and mutually beneficial partnership, including through the mechanism of the NATO-Russia Council, based on the NATO-Russia Founding Act and the Rome Declaration. Prior to the suspension of practical cooperation, NATO and Russia had been working together on a range of activities including counter-terrorism, counter-piracy and civil emergency response, among others. But as NATO leaders confirmed in Wales, the conditions for a cooperative, constructive relationship do not currently exist. NATO’s relationship with Russia will be contingent on a clear, constructive change in Russia’s behaviour that demonstrates compliance with international law and its international obligations and responsibilities.

The impact of the violence and insecurity caused by Russia and Russian-backed separatists has not been limited to Ukraine. This violence can undermine the safety, stability and well-being of people around the world, as demonstrated by the tragic downing of Malaysia Airlines passenger flight MH17 in July. NATO supports the sanctions imposed by the European Union (EU), the G7 and others as part of an international effort to address Russia’s destabilising behaviour. Instability and unpredictability to the East and the South also prompted NATO to enhance its collective defence to deter potential threats.

Assurance measures

While NATO does not have a permanent military presence in the eastern part of the Alliance, Allies have, since April 2014, taken action to demonstrate NATO’s resolve to deter and defend against threats and to provide assurance for the eastern Allies. All 28 NATO members are contributing to these measures, which provide continuous air, land and maritime presence and military activity on a rotational basis. These deployments are limited in scale, designed to reinforce defence, and are in line with NATO’s international commitments.

NATO’s Baltic Air Policing mission began 10 years ago to protect the safety and integrity of Allied airspace over Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Allies participate in this mission on a rotational basis, and since the start of the mission 14 Allies had deployed 34 contingents to protect the integrity of NATO airspace over the Baltics. Given the increased instability in the region, this deployment was significantly enhanced during 2014. This includes more aircraft policing the airspace of the Baltic States and Poland, additional aircraft based in Romania, and AWACS (Airborne Warning and Control System) surveillance flights over Poland and Romania.
This shall be outdated view this sildenafil 50mg tablets since you will have a way to buy it online. It is been sold widely and all men who suffer from ED. however if you viagra prescription free experience any of the above slated factors are affecting your sex life then get in touch with the Best sexologist doctor in India to get the full benefit. It is a medical condition when a man is unable to produce a strong erection that is required to keep the vital functions in the body to continue while taking rest. commander levitra You need to battle those past devils before you embark on levitra 20 mg a new journey.
To provide assurance at sea, NATO deployed a number of multinational maritime forces. A Standing NATO Mine Counter-Measures Group began patrolling the Baltic Sea in April 2014 with seven ships from six countries. In the Eastern Mediterranean, an enlarged Standing NATO Maritime Group began conducting maritime assurance measures in addition to counter-terrorism patrols in May 2014, with five ships from as many countries…

Violent instability in the South

Fighting in Iraq and Syria cost thousands of lives in 2014 and fuelled humanitarian and security challenges for the region and the world. The so-called Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) poses a grave threat to the region and serious challenges for NATO’s members and partners. The Assad regime has contributed to the emergence of ISIL in Syria and its expansion beyond. NATO has condemned the violent and cowardly acts of ISIL. At the NATO Summit in Wales leaders expressed their collective outrage at the barbaric attacks against all civilian populations. They also affirmed that NATO would not hesitate to take all necessary steps to ensure the collective defence of every Ally, wherever and whatever the threat.

Since early 2013, NATO has deployed Patriot missiles to augment Turkey’s air defences against any missile threat from Syria. The Alliance is working to enhance cooperation in exchanging information on residents from NATO countries who travel to Iraq and Syria to fight alongside ISIL. NATO is also working with partners in the region to help build defence and security capacity. This enhanced cooperation has begun in Jordan. At the end of 2014, Iraq requested assistance to build its defence capacity.

Readiness Action Plan

At the Wales Summit, NATO agreed a plan to ensure that the Alliance is ready to respond swiftly and firmly to new security challenges. This Readiness Action Plan (RAP) is the most significant reinforcement of NATO’s collective defence since the end of the Cold War. Through a range of assurance measures and adaptation measures, the RAP addresses risks and threats from the East and the South and provides the building blocks with which NATO can respond to any challenge, current or future.

The assurance measures in the RAP include the continuous air, land and maritime presence that began in April 2014. At their meeting in December, NATO Foreign Ministers welcomed plans for continuing this presence throughout 2015. Every NATO member is contributing to these measures, in a spirit of solidarity summed up as “28 for 28”. This baseline for assurance and deterrence is flexible and can be adjusted in response to the evolving security situation.

The RAP introduced a number of measures to adapt NATO’s strategic military posture. The NATO Response Force – a multinational force with land, air, maritime and Special Operations Forces components – will be enhanced, including by establishing a spearhead force that will be able to deploy within days, particularly at the periphery of NATO’s territory. This Very High Readiness Joint Task Force (VJTF) will include elements of all military services and Special Operations Forces, and will be tested through short-notice exercises. In addition, the RAP calls for a number of logistics enhancements, including the prepositioning of equipment and supplies, to enhance NATO’s readiness to respond to any challenge to Allied security…

Operation Active Endeavour

Under Operation Active Endeavour, Allied ships are patrolling the Mediterranean Sea, monitoring shipping to help deter, defend, disrupt and protect against terrorist activity. The operation evolved out of NATO’s immediate response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks against the United States and has continued to adapt to meet evolving security risks…

Afghanistan

2014 marked the final year of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan, the largest operation in the history of the Alliance. The aim of ISAF was consistent throughout the operation: to ensure that Afghanistan is never again a safe haven for international terrorists. The ISAF mission has concluded, and NATO remains committed to supporting Afghanistan in making further progress towards becoming a stable, sovereign, democratic and united country…

Kosovo

2014 marked the 15th year of the NATO-led force (Kosovo Force or KFOR) that was deployed … NATO’s role in Kosovo has evolved over this period to include assisting in the return and relocation of displaced persons and refugees, providing medical assistance, protecting patrimonial sites, suppressing cross-border weapons smuggling, and helping stand down the wartime security corps and establish the Kosovo Security Forces, along with structures to provide civilian oversight…

Counter-piracy

In 2014, the international efforts to counter piracy off the Horn of Africa and in the Gulf of Aden yielded continued success. The number of piracy incidents off the coast of Somalia reached its lowest in recent years; no ships have been seized since May 2012, and there were fewer than five incidents in 2014. In 2010 and 2011, there were over 120 attacks per year. NATO’s Operation Ocean Shield, in close cooperation with the US-led Combined Maritime Forces, the EU Naval Forces and independent contributors to these efforts, has effectively and dramatically reduced pirate activity in the region…

Categories
Quick Analysis

NATO’s new and expanded challenges

In previous decades, matters affecting American national security were headline news, widely reported in the media. That has not been the case recently.One key aspect of U.S. defense planning is, of course, NATO participation.  The following is excerpted from a recent summary of NATO challenges provided in a speech by  NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg at the opening of the recent NATO Transformation Seminar.

Russia’s annexation of Crimea, its aggressive actions in Ukraine and the rise of violent extremism in North Africa and in the Middle East have really changed our security environment dramatically.

So we have to face the facts.  These challenges will not go away any time soon.  So we have to be prepared for the unexpected and stand ready to sustain our efforts for the years to come.

And as you know, NATO is used to the long haul.  And one of our greatest strengths is our ability to adapt.  For 40 years, during the Cold War, the challenge was clear and largely predictable. NATO deterred attacks and kept our nations safe without firing a shot.

Then for the next 25 years, we went out of area.  Together with our partners we went into combat beyond our borders to manage crises that could threaten us at home. This was a paradigm shift for NATO.

And now … we see another major shift in the security landscape, NATO is once again making fundamental changes.  Today, we do not have the luxury to choose between collective defence and crisis management. For the first time in NATO’s history we have to do both at the same time.

The Alliance has already done a great deal to respond to this new more volatile environment…

We are implementing the biggest reinforcement of our collective defence since the end of the Cold War.  We are increasing NATO’s presence in our Eastern Allied countries and the readiness of our forces.

The NATO Response Force will more than double to up to 30,000 troops.  Its centrepiece is the Spearhead Force of 5,000 troops with lead elements ready to move within as little as 48 hours.

At the same time, we are setting up command units in six of our Eastern Allies.  And this is only the beginning of a great and important adaptation of NATO.  And as we prepare for the Warsaw Summit next year, we need to address many of the different elements in the great adaptation of NATO.

And let me today raise three of the issues we have to face as we move towards Warsaw.  First, how to deal with hybrid warfare?  Hybrid is the dark reflection of our comprehensive approach.  We use a combination of military and non-military means to stabilize countries.  Others use it to destabilize them.

Of course, hybrid warfare is nothing new.  It is as old as the Trojan horse.  What is different is that the scale is bigger; the speed and intensity is higher; and that it takes place right at our borders.

Russia has used proxy soldiers, unmarked Special Forces, intimidation and propaganda, all to lay a thick fog of confusion; to obscure its true purpose in Ukraine; and to attempt deniability.  So NATO must be ready to deal with every aspect of this new reality from wherever it comes. And that means we must look closely at how we prepare for; deter; and if necessary defend against hybrid warfare.

To be prepared, we must be able to see and analyse correctly what is happening; to see the patterns behind events which appear isolated and random; and quickly identify who is behind and why.

So therefore, we need to sharpen our early warning and improve our situation awareness.  This is about intelligence, expert knowledge and analytical capacity.  So we know when an attack is an attack.

Hybrid warfare seeks to exploit any weakness.  So scientists who are well-governed and well-integrated are more resilient and less vulnerable.  So good governance is an essential part of defence.

And this is why we need a comprehensive approach, working together with the European Union and other international partners.  We also must deter hybrid threats.

Hybrid warfare is a probe, a test of our resolve to resist and to defend ourselves.  And it can be a prelude to a more serious attack; because behind every hybrid strategy, there are conventional forces, increasing the pressure and ready to exploit any opening.  We need to demonstrate that we can and will act promptly whenever and wherever necessary.
lowest price for tadalafil http://greyandgrey.com/spanish/third-department-decisions-7-2-15/ With such effortless strategy & precautions, sex is found to be very useful for improving testosterone production in body. The problems have arisen over time with the misuse generic cialis from canada of this medicine can lead to severe side effects. wholesale prices viagra In the medical world, it is stated that while riding bikes the genitals get’s pressed hard between the seats and thereby resulting into lesser blood flow to the main Physicalorgan. I discovered tadalafil generic cheapest this a year later after my marriage.
The NATO Response Force provides us with a range of options from large-scale military actions to … special forces.  It sends a clear signal that if any Ally comes under attack, the entire Alliance will respond swiftly.  Then if deterrence should fail, we must be prepared to act and to defend our Allies.

In a crisis, the first responder will be the nation that is targeted.  But NATO must be there to support any national efforts. This is a matter of planning and of political will; and making sure that we complement and reinforce each other.  We need to be able to deal with complex evolving hybrid situations, including cyber-aggression.

Cyber is now a central part of virtually all crises and conflicts.  NATO has made it clear that cyber-attacks can potentially trigger an Article 5 response.  We need to detect and counter cyber-attacks early; improve our resilience; and be able to recover quickly.

A more active cyber policy should be a focus as we plan for Warsaw.  Cyber defence is just one of the capabilities we need in order to deal with the changed security environment… which brings me to my second point: how do we keep our edge?

While we have been cutting our defence budgets, others have invested heavily.  Since 1990, there has been a steady decline in our defence expenditures.  For some time, that was possible to explain by the end of the Cold War and less tensions. But during the last years, with increased threats, we have continued to decrease defence spending, especially among the European NATO Allies.

And while we have reduced our defence spending, others have increased.  Russia is investing in new tanks, new aircraft and new ships, new submarines and long-range cruise missiles.  China is testing its first carrier battle group; building a second.  And it has just announced a further 10% increase in its defence budget.

We have to face the fact that we no longer have a monopoly on advanced technology within the Alliance.  In Europe, few major programmes in cutting-edge capabilities are being launched, potentially degrading our long-term capabilities and our research and development base.

And with lower demand, more and more companies are shifting away from defence.  We risk losing the skills and the research capacity we should need in a crisis.

What we need now is the political will and the resources from nations to improve our capabilities; to keep our edge now and in the future.  The Alliance needs an innovation strategy for the coming decades.

NATO can make a real difference by connecting national capabilities, making our Alliance greater than the sum of its parts.  But NATO cannot substitute for a lack of national investments.  And that is why NATO leaders last year recognized that we need to invest more in our defence.  It is vital that we achieve this.

Of course, it is important that we spend smarter.  But we cannot get more from less indefinitely.  Even if we have all the capabilities we need, military force can only be as effective as the political decisions that are directed.

And that leads me to my third point, how do we improve decision-making?  As an Alliance of democracies, our greatest strength is our democratic legitimacy.  Of course, there are often differences and different opinions when you bring together 28 different democratic nations. And I have to admit that building consensus is not always easy.  And it takes times.

But once it’s done, it sends a very power signal:  28 Allies acting as one. The issues we are facing are complex and fast-moving.  Cyber-attacks happen in seconds.  Missiles reach their targets in minutes.  Little green men can move within hours.  So we must also be able to move fast.

While political control and oversight is essential, it is crucial that we reconcile oversight with speed.  We have done it before. And we should be able to do it also in the future.

We need to develop a common understanding of events and our potential adversaries.  This will provide us with the basis to effectively identify, anticipate, plan and react in a crisis.  The military and the political sides of NATO need to act seamlessly…

[T]here has been a fundamental shift in the level and the nature of the threats we face.  That is why, once again, NATO has to adapt to meet new challenges.

 

Categories
Quick Analysis

House Armed Services Committee begins hearings on Russian aggression

Tensions continue to mount as Russia expands its influence in Ukraine and engages in nuclear-capable bomber flights close to the airspace of NATO members in Europe and North America.

NATO’s Deputy Secretary General, Alexander Vershbow maintains that “Russia’s aggression against Ukraine is not an isolated incident, but a game-changer in European security. It reflects an evolving pattern of behavior that has been emerging for several years, despite our efforts to reach out to Russia and build a cooperative European security system with Russia.”

Apart from all these ingredients, VigRx plus pills also contain other component. cheap buy viagra This is because it is available as order viagra online http://www.devensec.com/rules-regs/decregs404.html which is very useful is also expensive. Avail Best Cure of Erection with Kamagra In this modern era, kamagra tablets are regarded the best solution of men’s common sexual problem . viagra 50mg canada A man having a heart problem cost of tadalafil lacks the flow of blood in the body which further fills the penis with good growth makes you feel proud and gives the pleasure to your partner in a better manner. House Armed Services Committee chair Mac Thornberry has begun hearings  on threats to international security in Europe.

In a preliminary statement, the chairman addressed the nature of the threats: “First is the naked aggression of conquest. We have seen this in Europe many times in the past.  History has taught us that aggression, unchallenged in its early days, leads to greater costs and greater misery when it finally must be confronted. “Second is the undermining of the rules-based international system that has existed since the end of World War II.  I am among those who are convinced that President Putin is working to undermine the current international structure, in order to replace it with one more to his liking.  And he has some unsavory allies in that effort.
The third challenge is the tactics that are being used by Russia in Ukraine.  We’ve heard a lot about “little green men,” but the various efforts Russia is using to undermine the Ukrainian security forces –as well as to pull a facade over its own involvement– presents challenges to NATO and the United States.  We do not deal with naked lies, subversion, and other forms of subterfuge very well.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

NATO describes global threat

Dire setbacks to international security were the subject of  NATO Deputy Secretary General Ambassador Alexander Vershbow’s keynote address  in  Leangkollen, Oslo. In his statement before the Nobel Institute, Vershbow noted:

“After the watershed events of 2014, we face a new and more dangerous security environment, with threats pressing in on us from the East and from the South.  We did not want this.  We did not choose it.  But it is the reality.  And every successful strategy must be based on facts and realism, not simply on hope. To the East, Russia has torn up the international rule book.  It has returned to a strategy of power politics.  It threatens not just Ukraine, but European and global security more generally.  And it is pursuing this strategy even as the costs to its own prosperity and reputation grow. To the South, violent extremism is spreading across North Africa and the Middle East.  And we are seeing the consequences in the form of mass migration across the Mediterranean, foreign jihadist fighters traveling between Syria and Europe, and other terrorists, many of whom are inspired by a twisted interpretation of Islam, trying to bring bloodshed to our own streets.”

While Vershbow took a global look, his main concern, not surprisingly, was Russia, describing its aggression against Ukraine as a “game changer” in European security.

“Russia has used force to alter legally recognized borders and to actively subvert the government of a neighboring state.  Although it claims to want de-escalation and to respect Ukraine’s sovereignty, its actions tell a different story.

“The open, rules-based system that respects international borders, and the right of states to choose their own future, has been undermined.  And yet Russia also signed up to these rules – and even helped write them – many times:  in OSCE documents such as the Helsinki Final Act and the Charter of Paris, in the NATO-Russia Founding Act, and in many other international agreements.  In the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, Russia explicitly guaranteed Ukraine’s international frontiers in exchange for the transfer of nuclear weapons from Ukraine to Russia.

“Our first reaction at NATO to Russia’s actions has been one of bitter disappointment.  For over 20 years, we have tried actively and consistently to make Russia a strategic partner.  We made it clear that our vision of a Europe whole, free and at peace included a prominent place for Russia.  In the NATO-Russia Founding Act in 1997 we pledged not to regard each other as adversaries but to work together to create a “lasting and inclusive peace”.

“Yet what we have seen, especially since Putin’s return to the Presidency in 2012, is a Russia determined to go in the opposite direction:  to detach itself from Europe, to assert itself in its own neighborhood, and to seek to build alternative mechanisms – such as the Eurasian Union and the BRICS group – whose raison d’être, at least in Moscow’s view, is defined by opposition to the West.
Talking to your partner about your fears can help to alleviate the symptoms. cialis canadian prices Kamagra – How should one take the medicine? It is safe to make use of Kamagra ensures that this is not the case, as it inhibits the PDE-5 enzyme. generic viagra cheap However, doctors are of the opinion viagra cheap prescription that watermelon contains a high concentration of citruline, which is an amino acid. So, to make this article simple and understandable to appalachianmagazine.com cheap cialis 20mg regular guys, we’ll cover the common medications only.
“Even before the Ukraine crisis, Russia was backing away from the commitment it made at our Lisbon Summit in 2010 to develop a true strategic partnership with NATO and to cooperate in potentially important areas such as missile defense.  Russia became less transparent about its own military activities, especially major exercises.  It based these exercises on absurd scenarios of a direct threat, or even an attack from a NATO country.  It stopped implementing the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe, and other transparency initiatives such as the Open Skies Treaty.  It showed no interest in our overtures to re-engage on nuclear and conventional arms control.  Instead of more predictability and trust we now have less, even compared to the Soviet period.

“Indeed, with its frequent “snap exercises,” like the one now underway in the Kaliningrad region, Moscow seems determined to surprise, shock and intimidate rather than to build confidence and predictability as it pledged to do under the Vienna Document of 1999.

“And just a few weeks ago, Russia issued the latest revision of its Military Doctrine.  It explicitly refers to NATO as destabilizing and a “danger” to Russia – without, I might add, giving any convincing rationale as to why or how NATO threatens Russia, or providing any justification for Russia’s aggressive behavior.”

“So what does explain Russia’s reorientation?  I believe it is domestic considerations, more than anything else.  Putin fears his own “color revolution”.  The Maidan demonstrations, the aspiration for more democracy and for less corruption, are a threat to his own system of power in Russia – especially after he saw how the flawed Duma and Presidential elections in 2011 and 2012 triggered popular protests on the streets of Moscow…

“In this new environment, NATO’s security is not an optional extra, or a rain check for some future date.  We must implement the Readiness Action Plan and the Defense Investment Pledge – in full and on time.  Every Ally must assume its share of the collective responsibility.  And I am glad that Norway is responding to the challenge.

With Germany and the Netherlands, Norway is in the lead in establishing the new Interim Very High Readiness Joint Task Force, the so-called ‘Spearhead Force’.  This will allow NATO to respond in a matter of days to any attack on NATO territory, and lay the basis for the permanent Spearhead Force that we expect to declare operational at our Warsaw Summit next year…”