Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan presented an unusual farewell gift to leaders attending Wednesday's NATO summit in Ankara. Each leader received a vintage revolver engraved with their name, along with live ammunition, making it clear that the firearm was not intended as a display piece.&nbsp;British Prime Minister Keir Starmer was the first to reveal the gift. He said he and several other leaders were presented with a revolver bearing their names.&nbsp;The firearm was placed inside a red box lined with black fabric. The package also included six live rounds and a note stating that the weapon was exempt from export controls.<h2>NATO summit gift catches leaders off guard</h2>The gift left several officials from NATO member states surprised and created what some described as "insane" situations for security teams responsible for transporting the weapons.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/social-media-ban-for-teens-on-the-cards-pm-modi-praises-australia-s-under-16-social-media-ban-says-we-re-taking-lessons-from-you-1783614717670">Social media ban for teens on the cards? PM Modi praises Australia's under-16 ban, says 'we're taking lessons from you'</a>&nbsp;"An unusual gift from President Erdogan at the NATO summit: a Magnum revolver with ammunition, engraved with my name," Hungarian Prime Minister Peter Magyar said on X.&nbsp;Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever said he only became aware of the exact nature of the gift after arriving back in Belgium.&nbsp;"The prime minister was surprised and immediately handed it over to airport police so it could be placed in a secure safe, and the matter was handled in accordance with relevant procedures," &nbsp;AFP reported, citing an official.&nbsp;De Wever's security team also took charge of the revolvers given to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and European Council President Antonio Costa, creating additional security and protocol challenges.&nbsp;Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni's revolver has already been placed at the Palazzo Chigi, the seat of the Italian government, along with other official state gifts.&nbsp;Images released by the office of Lithuanian President Gitanas Nauseda showed the firearm to be a Gumusay .357 Magnum, a rare revolver produced by Turkish state-owned arms manufacturer MKE during the 1990s.&nbsp;According to reports, Turkey wanted to showcase its defence industry, which has become a major export sector and an important part of Ankara's foreign policy.&nbsp;As per the Geneva-based Small Arms Survey, Turkey was the world's third-largest exporter of small arms between 2019 and 2024. The country exported about USD 3 billion worth of small arms during the period, behind only the United States and Italy.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan gifted engraved vintage revolvers with live ammunition to NATO leaders at the Ankara summit, surprising recipients and creating security and protocol challenges.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan presented an unusual farewell gift to leaders attending Wednesday's NATO summit in Ankara. Each leader received a vintage revolver engraved with their name, along with live ammunition, making it clear that the firearm was not intended as a display piece. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer was the first to reveal the gift. He said he and several other leaders were presented with a revolver bearing their names. The firearm was placed inside a red box lined with black fabric. The package also included six live rounds and a note stating that the weapon was exempt from export controls. NATO summit gift catches leaders off guard The gift left several officials from NATO member states surprised and created what some described as "insane" situations for security teams responsible for transporting the weapons. Also Read: Social media ban for teens on the cards? PM Modi praises Australia's under-16 ban, says 'we're taking lessons from you' "An unusual gift from President Erdogan at the NATO summit: a Magnum revolver with ammunition, engraved with my name," Hungarian Prime Minister Peter Magyar said on X. Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever said he only became aware of the exact nature of the gift after arriving back in Belgium. "The prime minister was surprised and immediately handed it over to airport police so it could be placed in a secure safe, and the matter was handled in accordance with relevant procedures," AFP reported, citing an official. De Wever's security team also took charge of the revolvers given to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and European Council President Antonio Costa, creating additional security and protocol challenges. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni's revolver has already been placed at the Palazzo Chigi, the seat of the Italian government, along with other official state gifts. Images released by the office of Lithuanian President Gitanas Nauseda showed the firearm to be a Gumusay .357 Magnum, a rare revolver produced by Turkish state-owned arms manufacturer MKE during the 1990s. According to reports, Turkey wanted to showcase its defence industry, which has become a major export sector and an important part of Ankara's foreign policy. As per the Geneva-based Small Arms Survey, Turkey was the world's third-largest exporter of small arms between 2019 and 2024. The country exported about USD 3 billion worth of small arms during the period, behind only the United States and Italy.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan gifted engraved vintage revolvers with live ammunition to NATO leaders at the Ankara summit, surprising recipients and creating security and protocol challenges.

Vintage gun, live ammo: Erdogan's 'unusual' gift to NATO leaders creates security headache

US President Donald Trump said on Wednesday that several NATO allies had failed to support Washington during its war against Iran, telling NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte that he was disappointed by their stance.&nbsp;Speaking during a meeting with Rutte in the Oval Office, Trump said, "We were let down. We didn't need help on this at all. We demolished (Iran) literally in the first week, but it would have been nice if they had said, 'We'd like to help.'"&nbsp;The US president singled out a number of alliance members for criticism, arguing that they were unwilling to contribute enough to collective security efforts.&nbsp;“Spain is a horror show. Spain is terrible. I was disappointed with Italy. I was disappointed with the UK. We were disappointed with Germany and France. We’re disappointed with most of them. They don’t want to pay anything. They think they’re in for a free ride."&nbsp;When asked what he expected from NATO partners, Trump replied, “I just want the loyalty. We don’t need their money, we don’t need anything. We have the most powerful military in the world by far."&nbsp;“But I just want loyalty. You know, we’re so loyal to them. We’re always fighting for them! We have thousands of troops all over Europe."&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/powerful-7-1-magnitude-earthquake-strikes-venezuela-tremors-felt-in-colombia-1782340254687">7.1 magnitude earthquake strikes Venezuela, tremors felt in Colombia</a><h2>Rutte defends NATO allies</h2>Rutte rejected the suggestion that European allies had failed to support the United States, pointing to the role of American military assets operating from bases across Europe during the conflict.&nbsp;“First of all, about the nuclear capability Iran was getting its hands on…it would have been a threat to the region and the whole world. They were very close to getting their hands on the nuclear capability. You have seen all the leaders in the G7 applauding the fact that this nuclear capability has been degraded… 4,000 to 5,000 US planes taking off from bases in Europe in the six weeks this war took place," Rutte said.&nbsp;Following the meeting, the NATO chief told reporters that Trump remains "completely committed to the NATO alliance" and said the United States would "absolutely" defend Europe if it came under attack.&nbsp;Trump's remarks come less than two weeks before leaders from NATO's 32 member states gather for a summit in Ankara on July 7 and 8.&nbsp;The United States and Israel launched military strikes against Iran on February 28. Trump did not consult NATO before the operation, and several European allies questioned the need for military action.<h2>Trump hints at possible F-35 breakthrough for Turkey</h2>Trump also hinted at a possible move on Turkey's access to F-35 fighter jets. The US president said his Turkish counterpart, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, would be "very happy" during his visit to Ankara for next month's NATO summit, suggesting a potentially favourable decision on the issue.&nbsp;"I'm going to probably do something that's going to make him very happy," Trump said when asked whether he planned to grant Erdogan's request for the advanced fighter aircraft.&nbsp;The F-35 is a stealth combat jet developed by the United States in partnership with several NATO allies under the Joint Strike Fighter programme, which originally included Turkey.&nbsp;However, Washington removed Turkey from the F-35 programme in 2019 after Ankara proceeded with the purchase of a Russian missile defence system despite US objections.

Trump said the United States expects greater loyalty from its NATO allies, arguing that Washington already provides extensive military support and maintains a large troop presence across Europe.

US President Donald Trump said on Wednesday that several NATO allies had failed to support Washington during its war against Iran, telling NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte that he was disappointed by their stance. Speaking during a meeting with Rutte in the Oval Office, Trump said, "We were let down. We didn't need help on this at all. We demolished (Iran) literally in the first week, but it would have been nice if they had said, 'We'd like to help.'" The US president singled out a number of alliance members for criticism, arguing that they were unwilling to contribute enough to collective security efforts. “Spain is a horror show. Spain is terrible. I was disappointed with Italy. I was disappointed with the UK. We were disappointed with Germany and France. We’re disappointed with most of them. They don’t want to pay anything. They think they’re in for a free ride." When asked what he expected from NATO partners, Trump replied, “I just want the loyalty. We don’t need their money, we don’t need anything. We have the most powerful military in the world by far." “But I just want loyalty. You know, we’re so loyal to them. We’re always fighting for them! We have thousands of troops all over Europe." Also Read: 7.1 magnitude earthquake strikes Venezuela, tremors felt in Colombia Rutte defends NATO allies Rutte rejected the suggestion that European allies had failed to support the United States, pointing to the role of American military assets operating from bases across Europe during the conflict. “First of all, about the nuclear capability Iran was getting its hands on…it would have been a threat to the region and the whole world. They were very close to getting their hands on the nuclear capability. You have seen all the leaders in the G7 applauding the fact that this nuclear capability has been degraded… 4,000 to 5,000 US planes taking off from bases in Europe in the six weeks this war took place," Rutte said. Following the meeting, the NATO chief told reporters that Trump remains "completely committed to the NATO alliance" and said the United States would "absolutely" defend Europe if it came under attack. Trump's remarks come less than two weeks before leaders from NATO's 32 member states gather for a summit in Ankara on July 7 and 8. The United States and Israel launched military strikes against Iran on February 28. Trump did not consult NATO before the operation, and several European allies questioned the need for military action. Trump hints at possible F-35 breakthrough for Turkey Trump also hinted at a possible move on Turkey's access to F-35 fighter jets. The US president said his Turkish counterpart, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, would be "very happy" during his visit to Ankara for next month's NATO summit, suggesting a potentially favourable decision on the issue. "I'm going to probably do something that's going to make him very happy," Trump said when asked whether he planned to grant Erdogan's request for the advanced fighter aircraft. The F-35 is a stealth combat jet developed by the United States in partnership with several NATO allies under the Joint Strike Fighter programme, which originally included Turkey. However, Washington removed Turkey from the F-35 programme in 2019 after Ankara proceeded with the purchase of a Russian missile defence system despite US objections.

Trump said the United States expects greater loyalty from its NATO allies, arguing that Washington already provides extensive military support and maintains a large troop presence across Europe.

'I was disappointed': Trump tells Rutte NATO allies 'let down' US during Iran war

The United States is considering the possibility of deploying nuclear weapons in additional European member states of the alliance NATO, according to the ‌Financial Times. US officials have indicated a willingness to explore additional deployments beyond the six countries that host nuclear-capable ​bombers. The report said the proposal would involve expanding the number of countries hosting US dual-capable aircraft (DCA), which are designed to carry out both conventional and nuclear missions. However, it noted that any decision to broaden the existing nuclear-sharing arrangement is not expected in the immediate future.&nbsp;Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/at-least-9-killed-as-russia-launches-major-missile-drone-assault-on-ukraine-1780375918249">At least 9 killed as Russia launches major missile, drone assault on Ukraine</a><h3>Poland and the Baltic states' interest in DCA bases</h3>Countries along NATO's eastern flank, including Poland and the Baltic states, have reportedly expressed interest in hosting DCA bases. The discussions are said to be continuing within NATO channels. Meanwhile, the US Department of Defence, and NATO had not immediately responded to requests for comment. Elbridge ​Colby, Pentagon policy ​chief, has previously stated publicly that the US will continuously use its nuclear weapons ​in order to protect NATO members. Meanwhile, US President Donald Trump and many of his supporters have heavily criticised European allies for ⁠not ​spending enough on their militaries ​and completely depending on the US for conventional defence.

The US is considering deploying nuclear-capable aircraft to more European NATO allies, particularly along the eastern flank like Poland and the Baltic. No immediate decision is expected, and NATO has not yet commented.

The United States is considering the possibility of deploying nuclear weapons in additional European member states of the alliance NATO, according to the ‌Financial Times. US officials have indicated a willingness to explore additional deployments beyond the six countries that host nuclear-capable bombers. The report said the proposal would involve expanding the number of countries hosting US dual-capable aircraft (DCA), which are designed to carry out both conventional and nuclear missions. However, it noted that any decision to broaden the existing nuclear-sharing arrangement is not expected in the immediate future. Also read: At least 9 killed as Russia launches major missile, drone assault on Ukraine Poland and the Baltic states' interest in DCA bases Countries along NATO's eastern flank, including Poland and the Baltic states, have reportedly expressed interest in hosting DCA bases. The discussions are said to be continuing within NATO channels. Meanwhile, the US Department of Defence, and NATO had not immediately responded to requests for comment. Elbridge Colby, Pentagon policy chief, has previously stated publicly that the US will continuously use its nuclear weapons in order to protect NATO members. Meanwhile, US President Donald Trump and many of his supporters have heavily criticised European allies for ⁠not spending enough on their militaries and completely depending on the US for conventional defence.

The US is considering deploying nuclear-capable aircraft to more European NATO allies, particularly along the eastern flank like Poland and the Baltic. No immediate decision is expected, and NATO has not yet commented.

US weighs deploying nuclear weapons in more NATO states: Report

A missile struck a village in Poland that is close to the Ukrainian border, killing two people. While the government of Poland and US President Joe Biden exercised prudence and carefully considered the evidence, several responses swiftly emphasised that Russia had escalated the war with Ukraine by attacking a North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) member. One of them was Latvia's Artis Pabriks, a fellow NATO member who serves as both the country's deputy foreign minister and minister of defence.&nbsp;This is the first confirmed instance of the conflict in Ukraine directly contributing to deaths in another nation.

Pabriks referred to the missile strike on NATO territory as a strike by the "criminal Russian regime" shortly after the first reports of it surfaced.

"My condolences to our Polish brothers in arms. The criminal Russian regime fired missiles that target not only Ukrainian civilians but also landed on NATO territory in Poland. Latvia fully stands with Polish friends and condemns this crime," said Pabriks in a tweet.

Pabriks later referenced Article 4 of the NATO Treaty, which requires talks when a nation believes&nbsp;"territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties [NATO-member] is threatened."

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
My first reaction would be that after Russians hit Polish territory, 4. Article is in place, just like air defence of Ukrainian air.
— Artis Pabriks (@Pabriks) <a href="https://twitter.com/Pabriks/status/1592596694704992257?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 15, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

We explain to you in-depth what NATO is, how its collective security mechanism&nbsp;pans out, and how it has so far reacted to the missile strike on Poland.

<h2>NATO in a nutshell. What does it stand for?</h2>

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO, was established in 1949 with the primary goal of thwarting the prospect of Soviet expansion in Europe following World War II. Beyond that, the United States regarded it as an instrument to promote political unification on the continent and thwart the return of nationalist movements in Europe.

The Treaty of Dunkirk, which the United Kingdom and France signed in 1947 as part of an alliance to stave off a potential German invasion in the wake of the war, is where it truly has its roots.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
16 Dec 1957: very first <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/NATOSummit?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#NATOSummit</a> (Paris Summit) took place. It reaffirmed principal purposes &amp; unity of <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/NATO?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#NATO</a> <a href="https://t.co/vHdMdSd7OS">https://t.co/vHdMdSd7OS</a> <a href="https://t.co/49cfshJyQH">pic.twitter.com/49cfshJyQH</a>
— Oana Lungescu (@NATOpress) <a href="https://twitter.com/NATOpress/status/809760122813747200?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 16, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The United States, the United Kingdom, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and Portugal are the alliance's original 12 founding members.

NATO created and adhered to the "Massive Retaliation" policy throughout the Cold War.

The focus of NATO shifted to territorial integration, political stability, and establishing a stable&nbsp;security network&nbsp;in the area with the fall of the Soviet Union, and to some extent even before that.

Since then, NATO has intervened in ethnic disputes in the former Yugoslavia and taken part in the US-led War on Terror following the 11 September attacks in the US.

The "collective defence" concept of NATO, which states that an assault on one member nation will be treated as an attack on all member members, is its defining characteristic. This principle enables the alliance to mobilise a collective defence against any aggression. This gives smaller nations the certainty of security that larger nations like the United States,&nbsp;France, and the United Kingdom will come to their defence when needed.

<h2>The concept of 'collective security'</h2>

The organisation's primary function is to operate as a collective security alliance to provide mutual protection by military and political methods if one member state is threatened by another nation.

Article 5 of the charter, which deals with collective defence, lays down this tenet:

<blockquote>
"The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in the exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area."
</blockquote>

Article 5 has been invoked once, by the United States,&nbsp;In response to the 9/11 events in 2001.&nbsp;

<h2>How has NATO responded to the missile strike in Poland?</h2>

There is no evidence, according to NATO, that the missile strike in Poland was a <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/uk-mi5-chief-says-expulsion-of-russian-spies-from-europe-is-a-significant-strategic-blow-to-moscow-534881">Russian attack</a>. Additionally, it stated that NATO's opinion of the danger has not changed and emphasised that inquiries into the missile strike in Poland are ongoing.

Additionally, according to the Guardian, on Wednesday, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said that Russia was still to blame for the incident.

<img alt="poland attack" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="bcbd18d3-884c-4610-87ae-1779f27399d0" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/b130i58o_poland_625x300_16_November_22.jpg" />

The site of the possible strike in Przewodów in Poland where two people died.&nbsp;Photograph: Wolski o Wojnie/Facebook

"Russia bears responsibility for what happened in Poland yesterday because this is a direct result of the ongoing war and the wave of attacks from Russia against Ukraine yesterday...Nato is preparing for accidents like this to prevent them from happening, and if they happen to ensure that they don’t spiral out of control," said Stoltenberg.

Also WATCH |&nbsp;NATO briefing on Missile strike in Poland: 'Will remain calm and vigilant'

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/nato-briefing-on-missile-strike-in-poland-will-remain-calm-and-vigilant-534809/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

<h2>NATO's response to the Russian war on Ukraine</h2>

The NATO members, led by the US, have given Ukraine cutting-edge weaponry and information that have been crucial to Ukrainian military operations thus far. Ukraine has received weaponry worth billions of dollars, including air defence systems, artillery, rocket launchers, and ammunition.&nbsp;The United States has already promised and sent Ukraine assistance totalling $19.3 billion as of 10 November.

While individual NATO countries are supplying military hardware, NATO as a whole focuses on non-lethal assistance.

"NATO is helping to coordinate Ukraine’s requests for assistance and is supporting Allies in the delivery of humanitarian and non-lethal aid...At the Madrid Summit in June 2022, Allied leaders agreed a strengthened package of support for Ukraine, which includes support in secure communications, fuel, medical supplies, body armour, winter clothing, equipment to counter mines and chemical and biological threats, and portable anti-drone systems," says NATO on its official website.

It adds,&nbsp;"More broadly, NATO’s Article 5 security guarantee and its ironclad promise of collective defence provides Allies with the confidence that they can send weapons to Ukraine without diminishing their own security."

(With inputs from agencies)

WATCH WION LIVE HERE:

<iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe>

A missile struck a village in Poland that is close to the Ukrainian border, killing two people. While the government of Poland and US President Joe Biden exercised prudence and carefully considered the evidence, several responses swiftly emphasised that Russia had escalated the war with Ukraine by attacking a North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) member.

A missile struck a village in Poland that is close to the Ukrainian border, killing two people. While the government of Poland and US President Joe Biden exercised prudence and carefully considered the evidence, several responses swiftly emphasised that Russia had escalated the war with Ukraine by attacking a North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) member. One of them was Latvia's Artis Pabriks, a fellow NATO member who serves as both the country's deputy foreign minister and minister of defence. This is the first confirmed instance of the conflict in Ukraine directly contributing to deaths in another nation. Pabriks referred to the missile strike on NATO territory as a strike by the "criminal Russian regime" shortly after the first reports of it surfaced. "My condolences to our Polish brothers in arms. The criminal Russian regime fired missiles that target not only Ukrainian civilians but also landed on NATO territory in Poland. Latvia fully stands with Polish friends and condemns this crime," said Pabriks in a tweet. Pabriks later referenced Article 4 of the NATO Treaty, which requires talks when a nation believes "territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties [NATO-member] is threatened." My first reaction would be that after Russians hit Polish territory, 4. Article is in place, just like air defence of Ukrainian air. — Artis Pabriks (@Pabriks) November 15, 2022 × We explain to you in-depth what NATO is, how its collective security mechanism pans out, and how it has so far reacted to the missile strike on Poland. NATO in a nutshell. What does it stand for? The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO, was established in 1949 with the primary goal of thwarting the prospect of Soviet expansion in Europe following World War II. Beyond that, the United States regarded it as an instrument to promote political unification on the continent and thwart the return of nationalist movements in Europe. The Treaty of Dunkirk, which the United Kingdom and France signed in 1947 as part of an alliance to stave off a potential German invasion in the wake of the war, is where it truly has its roots. 16 Dec 1957: very first #NATOSummit (Paris Summit) took place. It reaffirmed principal purposes & unity of #NATO https://t.co/vHdMdSd7OS pic.twitter.com/49cfshJyQH — Oana Lungescu (@NATOpress) December 16, 2016 × The United States, the United Kingdom, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and Portugal are the alliance's original 12 founding members. NATO created and adhered to the "Massive Retaliation" policy throughout the Cold War. The focus of NATO shifted to territorial integration, political stability, and establishing a stable security network in the area with the fall of the Soviet Union, and to some extent even before that. Since then, NATO has intervened in ethnic disputes in the former Yugoslavia and taken part in the US-led War on Terror following the 11 September attacks in the US. The "collective defence" concept of NATO, which states that an assault on one member nation will be treated as an attack on all member members, is its defining characteristic. This principle enables the alliance to mobilise a collective defence against any aggression. This gives smaller nations the certainty of security that larger nations like the United States, France, and the United Kingdom will come to their defence when needed. The concept of 'collective security' The organisation's primary function is to operate as a collective security alliance to provide mutual protection by military and political methods if one member state is threatened by another nation. Article 5 of the charter, which deals with collective defence, lays down this tenet: "The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in the exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area." Article 5 has been invoked once, by the United States, In response to the 9/11 events in 2001. How has NATO responded to the missile strike in Poland? There is no evidence, according to NATO, that the missile strike in Poland was a Russian attack. Additionally, it stated that NATO's opinion of the danger has not changed and emphasised that inquiries into the missile strike in Poland are ongoing. Additionally, according to the Guardian, on Wednesday, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said that Russia was still to blame for the incident. The site of the possible strike in Przewodów in Poland where two people died. Photograph: Wolski o Wojnie/Facebook "Russia bears responsibility for what happened in Poland yesterday because this is a direct result of the ongoing war and the wave of attacks from Russia against Ukraine yesterday...Nato is preparing for accidents like this to prevent them from happening, and if they happen to ensure that they don’t spiral out of control," said Stoltenberg. Also WATCH | NATO briefing on Missile strike in Poland: 'Will remain calm and vigilant' NATO's response to the Russian war on Ukraine The NATO members, led by the US, have given Ukraine cutting-edge weaponry and information that have been crucial to Ukrainian military operations thus far. Ukraine has received weaponry worth billions of dollars, including air defence systems, artillery, rocket launchers, and ammunition. The United States has already promised and sent Ukraine assistance totalling $19.3 billion as of 10 November. While individual NATO countries are supplying military hardware, NATO as a whole focuses on non-lethal assistance. "NATO is helping to coordinate Ukraine’s requests for assistance and is supporting Allies in the delivery of humanitarian and non-lethal aid...At the Madrid Summit in June 2022, Allied leaders agreed a strengthened package of support for Ukraine, which includes support in secure communications, fuel, medical supplies, body armour, winter clothing, equipment to counter mines and chemical and biological threats, and portable anti-drone systems," says NATO on its official website. It adds, "More broadly, NATO’s Article 5 security guarantee and its ironclad promise of collective defence provides Allies with the confidence that they can send weapons to Ukraine without diminishing their own security." (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE:

Poland missile strike EXPLAINED: What is NATO and its tenet of 'collective security'?

Finland's leaders have agreed to seek NATO membership 'without delay'. Russia has vowed to retaliate if Finland's membership bid is accepted. Will Putin invade Finland next? Why is NATO teasing Putin's red lines? Palki Sharma tells you.

Gravitas: Will Russia invade Finland next?

Finland is expected to announce its bid to join NATO on Thursday with Sweden likely to follow soon after, as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine reshapes European security and the Atlantic military alliance.

Finland may soon announce bid to join NATO

The reports suggest that Finland will be announcing its bid to join the NATO military alliance practically as early as today while Sweden is likely to make the announcement by the end of this week.

Finland, Sweden likely to announce decision on NATO soon

After numerous weeks of stiff relationship with the US, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said he wants to establish a "win-win" relationship with Washington.

The Turkish President is hoping to diminish the fractious ties between the two NATO allies that have been ongoing for years.

He stressed that while the two countries have their differences, "the common interests of Turkey and the United States outweigh the differences".

His statement with a warmer tone has come days after the leader had hesitantly welcomed Biden in his new role of the US President. However, despite Biden's hardened approach towards Turkey and its policies, Erdogan said he hopes "to reinforce our cooperation with the new American administration on a win-win basis".

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-joe-biden-faces-his-first-foreign-policy-challenge-364131">WATCH|</a>

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-joe-biden-faces-his-first-foreign-policy-challenge-364131/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

Biden's administration, upon taking office, quickly rebuked Turkey on its homophobic stance in the country that had led to several incidents of student demonstrations.

The US also urged the release of the prominent civil society leader Osman Kavala.

For now, the US is hesitant about the first possible handshake as the issue of S-400 still persists. Erdogan had bought Russia's S-400 missile system despite warnings that the purchase can jeopardise its role in the NATO alliance. This had led to sanctions from the US on the Turkish defence industry.

Recently, too, Turkey had accused Washington of supporting "terrorists" and had summoned its ambassador as the US had declined to back Ankara's claim that PKK Kurdish "terrorists" were responsible for the execution of 13 Turks in Iraq. However, Washington had later accepted Ankara's claim.&nbsp;

"We expect a clear attitude from all our allies after the cowardly terrorist attack which claimed the lives of our 13 nationals," Erdogan said.

After numerous weeks of stiff relationship with the US, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said he wants to establish a "win-win" relationship with Washington.

After numerous weeks of stiff relationship with the US, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said he wants to establish a "win-win" relationship with Washington. The Turkish President is hoping to diminish the fractious ties between the two NATO allies that have been ongoing for years. He stressed that while the two countries have their differences, "the common interests of Turkey and the United States outweigh the differences". His statement with a warmer tone has come days after the leader had hesitantly welcomed Biden in his new role of the US President. However, despite Biden's hardened approach towards Turkey and its policies, Erdogan said he hopes "to reinforce our cooperation with the new American administration on a win-win basis". WATCH| Biden's administration, upon taking office, quickly rebuked Turkey on its homophobic stance in the country that had led to several incidents of student demonstrations. The US also urged the release of the prominent civil society leader Osman Kavala. For now, the US is hesitant about the first possible handshake as the issue of S-400 still persists. Erdogan had bought Russia's S-400 missile system despite warnings that the purchase can jeopardise its role in the NATO alliance. This had led to sanctions from the US on the Turkish defence industry. Recently, too, Turkey had accused Washington of supporting "terrorists" and had summoned its ambassador as the US had declined to back Ankara's claim that PKK Kurdish "terrorists" were responsible for the execution of 13 Turks in Iraq. However, Washington had later accepted Ankara's claim. "We expect a clear attitude from all our allies after the cowardly terrorist attack which claimed the lives of our 13 nationals," Erdogan said.

Turkey's Erdogan aims for 'win-win' relationship with Biden administration

Russia has defied all threats of Western sanctions on Friday regarding the ongoing controversy over the&nbsp;poisoning of the Kremlin critic, Alexei Navalny.

After Germany declared that it has&nbsp;"unequivocal evidence" that Navalny was poisoned, western leaders expressed shock and asked for Kremlin to come clean upon the matter.

Vladimir Putin-led Russia, however, has denied all accusations. So much so, a Russian toxicologist said Navalny's health could have deteriorated due to dieting or stress.&nbsp;

"The patient used diets to lose weight," chief regional toxicologist Alexander Sabayev told local media.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/eu-urges-russia-to-cooperate-in-navalny-probe-threatens-restrictive-measures-325084">Also read:&nbsp;EU urges Russia to cooperate in Navalny probe; threatens 'restrictive measures'</a>

"This situation could have been provoked not only by diets, it could have also been provoked by possible instances of drinking to excess which we don't know about. It could have been provoked by stress and fatigue," he added.

"Any external factors could have triggered a sudden deterioration. Even a simple lack of breakfast."

However, NATO is now pressing for an urgent international probe into this matter, and has asked Kremlin&nbsp;to reveal its Novichok nerve agent programme to the global chemical weapons watchdog.

NATO called an emergency meeting on this matter and&nbsp;alliance chief Jens Stoltenberg said all countries were united in&nbsp;condemning this "horrific" attack on the&nbsp;44-year-old opposition politician.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/head-of-world-chemical-arms-watchdog-expresses-concern-over-navalnys-poisoning-case-325029">Also Read:&nbsp;Head of world chemical arms watchdog expresses 'concern' over Navalny's poisoning case</a>

"The Russian government must fully cooperate with the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons on an impartial international investigation," Stoltenberg said.

"We also call on Russia to provide complete disclosure of the Novichok programme to the OPCW."

Russia has further declined all accusations saying,&nbsp;"A whole number of theories including poisoning were considered from the very first days," Dmitry Peskov,&nbsp;Kremlin Press Secretary said. "According to our doctors, this theory has not been proved."

Russia has defied all threats of Western sanctions on Friday regarding the ongoing controversy over the poisoning of the Kremlin critic, Alexei Navalny. After Germany declared that it has "unequivocal evidence" that Navalny was poisoned, western leaders expressed shock and asked for Kremlin to come clean upon the matter.

Russia has defied all threats of Western sanctions on Friday regarding the ongoing controversy over the poisoning of the Kremlin critic, Alexei Navalny. After Germany declared that it has "unequivocal evidence" that Navalny was poisoned, western leaders expressed shock and asked for Kremlin to come clean upon the matter. Vladimir Putin-led Russia, however, has denied all accusations. So much so, a Russian toxicologist said Navalny's health could have deteriorated due to dieting or stress. "The patient used diets to lose weight," chief regional toxicologist Alexander Sabayev told local media. Also read: EU urges Russia to cooperate in Navalny probe; threatens 'restrictive measures' "This situation could have been provoked not only by diets, it could have also been provoked by possible instances of drinking to excess which we don't know about. It could have been provoked by stress and fatigue," he added. "Any external factors could have triggered a sudden deterioration. Even a simple lack of breakfast." However, NATO is now pressing for an urgent international probe into this matter, and has asked Kremlin to reveal its Novichok nerve agent programme to the global chemical weapons watchdog. NATO called an emergency meeting on this matter and alliance chief Jens Stoltenberg said all countries were united in condemning this "horrific" attack on the 44-year-old opposition politician. Also Read: Head of world chemical arms watchdog expresses 'concern' over Navalny's poisoning case "The Russian government must fully cooperate with the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons on an impartial international investigation," Stoltenberg said. "We also call on Russia to provide complete disclosure of the Novichok programme to the OPCW." Russia has further declined all accusations saying, "A whole number of theories including poisoning were considered from the very first days," Dmitry Peskov, Kremlin Press Secretary said. "According to our doctors, this theory has not been proved."

Russia defies West sanctions after NATO's emergency meeting over Navalny

The training will allow the U.S. forces to integrate with their Polish-NATO Allies.

WION Fineprint: 'Defender Europe-20' kicks off in Poland | US-Polish troops | World

The White House national security advisor has said the US is "very sympathetic" toward France in its dispute with Turkey over a naval standoff in the Mediterranean Sea.

The row has also, in a way, exposed NATO's struggle to keep order among its ranks, demeaning US leadership under President Donald Trump.

"NATO allies shouldn't be turning fire control radars on each other. That's not good," national security adviser Robert O'Brien told reporters in Paris on Wednesday.

"We are very sympathetic to the French concerns," O'Brien said, while acknowledging differing accounts of what happened. "We're taking it very seriously."

He added Trump was available to help defuse tensions, thanks to his personal relationships with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and French President Emmanuel Macron.

According to French accounts of the June 10 incident, the frigate Courbet was illuminated by the targetting radar of a Turkish warship that was escorting a cargo ship.

France said it was acting on intelligence from NATO that the civilian ship could be involved in trafficking arms to Libya. The Courbet was part of the alliance's operation Sea Guardian, which helps provide maritime security in the Mediterranean.

Turkey's foreign minister accused France of lying, and Turkey's ambassador to France said the French navy was harassing the Turkish convoy.

Macron has also accused Turkey of flouting its commitments by ramping up its military presence in Libya and bringing in jihadi fighters from Syria.

The White House national security advisor has said the US is "very sympathetic" toward France in its dispute with Turkey over a naval standoff in the Mediterranean Sea.

The White House national security advisor has said the US is "very sympathetic" toward France in its dispute with Turkey over a naval standoff in the Mediterranean Sea. The row has also, in a way, exposed NATO's struggle to keep order among its ranks, demeaning US leadership under President Donald Trump. "NATO allies shouldn't be turning fire control radars on each other. That's not good," national security adviser Robert O'Brien told reporters in Paris on Wednesday. "We are very sympathetic to the French concerns," O'Brien said, while acknowledging differing accounts of what happened. "We're taking it very seriously." He added Trump was available to help defuse tensions, thanks to his personal relationships with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and French President Emmanuel Macron. According to French accounts of the June 10 incident, the frigate Courbet was illuminated by the targetting radar of a Turkish warship that was escorting a cargo ship. France said it was acting on intelligence from NATO that the civilian ship could be involved in trafficking arms to Libya. The Courbet was part of the alliance's operation Sea Guardian, which helps provide maritime security in the Mediterranean. Turkey's foreign minister accused France of lying, and Turkey's ambassador to France said the French navy was harassing the Turkish convoy. Macron has also accused Turkey of flouting its commitments by ramping up its military presence in Libya and bringing in jihadi fighters from Syria.

US backs France in stand-off with Turkey over warships

France said Wednesday it was pulling out of a NATO Mediterranean maritime security operation until it gets a response to its concerns over the behaviour of fellow member Turkey.

"We have decided to temporarily withdraw our assets from the operation Sea Guardian" until France's concerns are addressed, a French defence official, who asked not to be named, told reporters.&nbsp;

The decision follows an escalation in tensions with Turkey over the Libya conflict which has seen both sides exchange accusations with increasing bitterness in recent days.

Earlier this month, France denounced an "extremely aggressive" intervention by Turkish ships against a French navy vessel participating in the NATO mission in the Mediterranean, a claim Ankara dismissed as "groundless".

Ankara supports the UN-recognised Government of National Accord (GNA) in the Libya conflict against rebel strongman Khalifa Haftar.

France is suspected by analysts of backing Haftar alongside Egypt, Russia and the United Arab Emirates, but insists it is neutral in the conflict.

Paris accuses Ankara of shipping arms to Libya in defiance of a UN embargo as well sending in pro-Turkey Syrian militia fighters fresh from the conflict there.

"It does not seem to us healthy to maintain our assets in an operation supposed, among its various tasks, to control an embargo alongside allies who do not respect it", said the official in apparent reference to Turkey.

Paris demands in particular "that allies solemnly reaffirm their attachment and their commitment to the respect of the embargo" on weapons to Libya.&nbsp;

France also wants a better conflict-resolution mechanism within the military alliance, the official added.

Macron said last week that he believed the naval incident between France and Turkey was worrying proof of his belief that NATO is in the throes of "brain death".

According to NATO, the Sea Guardian operation was launched in November 2016 and is aimed at "carrying out maritime security capacity building, and providing support to maritime situational awareness and to maritime counter-terrorism".

France said Wednesday it was pulling out of a NATO Mediterranean maritime security operation until it gets a response to its concerns over the behaviour of fellow member Turkey.

France said Wednesday it was pulling out of a NATO Mediterranean maritime security operation until it gets a response to its concerns over the behaviour of fellow member Turkey. "We have decided to temporarily withdraw our assets from the operation Sea Guardian" until France's concerns are addressed, a French defence official, who asked not to be named, told reporters. The decision follows an escalation in tensions with Turkey over the Libya conflict which has seen both sides exchange accusations with increasing bitterness in recent days. Earlier this month, France denounced an "extremely aggressive" intervention by Turkish ships against a French navy vessel participating in the NATO mission in the Mediterranean, a claim Ankara dismissed as "groundless". Ankara supports the UN-recognised Government of National Accord (GNA) in the Libya conflict against rebel strongman Khalifa Haftar. France is suspected by analysts of backing Haftar alongside Egypt, Russia and the United Arab Emirates, but insists it is neutral in the conflict. Paris accuses Ankara of shipping arms to Libya in defiance of a UN embargo as well sending in pro-Turkey Syrian militia fighters fresh from the conflict there. "It does not seem to us healthy to maintain our assets in an operation supposed, among its various tasks, to control an embargo alongside allies who do not respect it", said the official in apparent reference to Turkey. Paris demands in particular "that allies solemnly reaffirm their attachment and their commitment to the respect of the embargo" on weapons to Libya. France also wants a better conflict-resolution mechanism within the military alliance, the official added. Macron said last week that he believed the naval incident between France and Turkey was worrying proof of his belief that NATO is in the throes of "brain death". According to NATO, the Sea Guardian operation was launched in November 2016 and is aimed at "carrying out maritime security capacity building, and providing support to maritime situational awareness and to maritime counter-terrorism".

France pulls out of NATO Med operation over Turkey tensions

By Megan Dee

Anniversaries are meant to be a celebration. They represent a moment of reflection – a marker, a milestone, a time to look back. And therein lies their biggest problem. For anniversaries have that unfortunate effect of turning any subject – be it a past event, a married couple, or indeed an international institution – into an object of intense scrutiny. For the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) celebrating its 70th anniversary in London on December 3-4, that scrutiny has come at an unfortunate time.

Founded in 1949 with the signing of the Washington Treaty, NATO at 70 represents one the longest-standing and arguably most successful political and military alliances in history. Yet NATO’s evolution, longevity and very survival continues to draw debate for academics, practitioners and world leaders alike. Since the end of the Cold War, NATO’s raison d’etre has been constantly criticised, with many seeing it as a dinosaur of a bygone era.

Yet Russia’s resurgent efforts to disturb and disrupt the North Atlantic region since the 2014 annexation of Crimea has also seen a renewed impetus for NATO as a security alliance. And new threats are looming, as my own research and teaching on international negotiation has examined.

NATO in 2019 in fact faces an unenviable agenda and a political environment increasingly unconducive to building a consensus. NATO’s core geopolitical challenges not only include a resurgent Russia amid claims of a “New Cold War”, but an increasingly influential and encroaching China. China was on the agenda of this leaders’ meeting for the first time.

The alliance must also address new hybrid threats ranging from cyber-attacks on critical infrastructure, to public disinformation. Arms control is again a top agenda item for the alliance, not only over nuclear and chemical weapons, but now also addressing space as a new operational domain. Climate change and migration have also become hot topics for NATO.

NATO’s security environment has therefore become something of a multi-headed hydra, with each head representing a new challenge that only a strong and united NATO can ultimately meet.

Fraying solidarity a NATO hallmark

Fraying solidarity has nevertheless become a hallmark for the alliance. The Syrian crisis has involved the US and Turkey both undertaking unilateral action without consulting with NATO allies. That action has been further exacerbated by Turkey’s growing ties with Russia, including the purchase of the S-400 missile system.

The French president, Emmanuel Macron, has also challenged the cohesion of the 29-nation alliance by emphasising his own preference for a strong European security architecture, independent of the US and citing NATO’s “brain-death”. Macron’s comments were sharply challenged by both Germany’s chancellor, Angela Merkel and US president, Donald Trump.

Amid it all, political contentions continue to fester within NATO over burden-sharing, and the US push for all 29 nations to meet their spending obligations to spend 2% of GDP on defence.

All this would seem to suggest that NATO’s anniversary really has come at the worst possible juncture for an ageing, somewhat challenged, alliance. As the London NATO leader’s meeting has highlighted, forced family gatherings can be fuelled by squabbling and the airing of past and current grievances rather than affection and unity. While anniversary gatherings are intended to celebrate, they also shine a spotlight on the cracks that fester.

Introverted, yet successful

For a naturally introverted NATO that operates most effectively as a military alliance away from the political spotlight, the London anniversary meeting must have been gruelling. It is only when you remove the spotlight and political grandstanding of this 70th anniversary that NATO’s truest successes come to the fore.

For the success of NATO is its longevity, its adaptation, its ability to look out and seek to address the risks of an ever-changing security environment and its ability to maintain the ties that bind among its growing family. As NATO secretary general Jens Stoltenberg remarked at a conference the day before the leaders met, in contrast to most politicians who are criticised for being good on rhetoric but bad on substance, NATO is the opposite – it is “bad on rhetoric but good on substance”.

For all of the cracks that this 70th anniversary has revealed, it has provided a moment for reflection. As the declaration published after the three-hour meeting of leaders identifies, what is now needed is a “forward-looking reflection process.”

NATO’s 70-year history is itself testimony of the organisation’s ongoing self-reflection, coupled with a willingness to adapt. But this meeting has provided just such a time for deep reflection on the alliance’s future as both a political and military organisation.

In tackling the challenges facing NATO today, that reflective process must consider NATO’s institutional procedures, decision-making and political structures under a soon-to-be 30-nation alliance, with North Macedonia set to join in 2020. A focus on consultation will also be critical in ensuring the cohesion of the alliance and maintaining solidarity.

Moving beyond this anniversary, NATO has much to do and hard questions to answer. But take away the spotlight and NATO will continue to work away quietly on the substance over the rhetoric … at least until its 80th.

 
(Megan Dee is Lecturer in International Politics, <a href="https://theconversation.com/nato-meeting-solidarity-reinforced-despite-uncomfortable-time-for-alliance-to-be-in-the-spotlight-128143">University of Stirling</a>)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL) &nbsp;

By Megan Dee Anniversaries are meant to be a celebration. They represent a moment of reflection – a marker, a milestone, a time to look back. And therein lies their biggest problem.

By Megan Dee Anniversaries are meant to be a celebration. They represent a moment of reflection – a marker, a milestone, a time to look back. And therein lies their biggest problem. For anniversaries have that unfortunate effect of turning any subject – be it a past event, a married couple, or indeed an international institution – into an object of intense scrutiny. For the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) celebrating its 70th anniversary in London on December 3-4, that scrutiny has come at an unfortunate time. Founded in 1949 with the signing of the Washington Treaty, NATO at 70 represents one the longest-standing and arguably most successful political and military alliances in history. Yet NATO’s evolution, longevity and very survival continues to draw debate for academics, practitioners and world leaders alike. Since the end of the Cold War, NATO’s raison d’etre has been constantly criticised, with many seeing it as a dinosaur of a bygone era. Yet Russia’s resurgent efforts to disturb and disrupt the North Atlantic region since the 2014 annexation of Crimea has also seen a renewed impetus for NATO as a security alliance. And new threats are looming, as my own research and teaching on international negotiation has examined. NATO in 2019 in fact faces an unenviable agenda and a political environment increasingly unconducive to building a consensus. NATO’s core geopolitical challenges not only include a resurgent Russia amid claims of a “New Cold War”, but an increasingly influential and encroaching China. China was on the agenda of this leaders’ meeting for the first time. The alliance must also address new hybrid threats ranging from cyber-attacks on critical infrastructure, to public disinformation. Arms control is again a top agenda item for the alliance, not only over nuclear and chemical weapons, but now also addressing space as a new operational domain. Climate change and migration have also become hot topics for NATO. NATO’s security environment has therefore become something of a multi-headed hydra, with each head representing a new challenge that only a strong and united NATO can ultimately meet. Fraying solidarity a NATO hallmark Fraying solidarity has nevertheless become a hallmark for the alliance. The Syrian crisis has involved the US and Turkey both undertaking unilateral action without consulting with NATO allies. That action has been further exacerbated by Turkey’s growing ties with Russia, including the purchase of the S-400 missile system. The French president, Emmanuel Macron, has also challenged the cohesion of the 29-nation alliance by emphasising his own preference for a strong European security architecture, independent of the US and citing NATO’s “brain-death”. Macron’s comments were sharply challenged by both Germany’s chancellor, Angela Merkel and US president, Donald Trump. Amid it all, political contentions continue to fester within NATO over burden-sharing, and the US push for all 29 nations to meet their spending obligations to spend 2% of GDP on defence. All this would seem to suggest that NATO’s anniversary really has come at the worst possible juncture for an ageing, somewhat challenged, alliance. As the London NATO leader’s meeting has highlighted, forced family gatherings can be fuelled by squabbling and the airing of past and current grievances rather than affection and unity. While anniversary gatherings are intended to celebrate, they also shine a spotlight on the cracks that fester. Introverted, yet successful For a naturally introverted NATO that operates most effectively as a military alliance away from the political spotlight, the London anniversary meeting must have been gruelling. It is only when you remove the spotlight and political grandstanding of this 70th anniversary that NATO’s truest successes come to the fore. For the success of NATO is its longevity, its adaptation, its ability to look out and seek to address the risks of an ever-changing security environment and its ability to maintain the ties that bind among its growing family. As NATO secretary general Jens Stoltenberg remarked at a conference the day before the leaders met, in contrast to most politicians who are criticised for being good on rhetoric but bad on substance, NATO is the opposite – it is “bad on rhetoric but good on substance”. For all of the cracks that this 70th anniversary has revealed, it has provided a moment for reflection. As the declaration published after the three-hour meeting of leaders identifies, what is now needed is a “forward-looking reflection process.” NATO’s 70-year history is itself testimony of the organisation’s ongoing self-reflection, coupled with a willingness to adapt. But this meeting has provided just such a time for deep reflection on the alliance’s future as both a political and military organisation. In tackling the challenges facing NATO today, that reflective process must consider NATO’s institutional procedures, decision-making and political structures under a soon-to-be 30-nation alliance, with North Macedonia set to join in 2020. A focus on consultation will also be critical in ensuring the cohesion of the alliance and maintaining solidarity. Moving beyond this anniversary, NATO has much to do and hard questions to answer. But take away the spotlight and NATO will continue to work away quietly on the substance over the rhetoric … at least until its 80th. (Megan Dee is Lecturer in International Politics, University of Stirling) (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

NATO meeting: Solidarity reinforced despite uncomfortable time for alliance to be in the spotlight

Last month marked the 70th anniversary of the formation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Formed post-World War II, it is a political, military and a diplomatic alliance between the United States and its allies — primarily European nations.&nbsp;

The need for such a grouping arose in the backdrop of the Cold War, where the US and its allies wanted to protect their interests from aggression and expansionism of the Soviet bloc.

The NATO treaty was signed on April 4, 1949 by the US, Canada, Belgium, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal and the United Kingdom, wherein Article 5 outlined the NATO’s motto — ‘Collective Defense’. It stated that an attack on any one of its members would be considered an attack on all the NATO members.&nbsp;

That, effectively, puts West Europe under the US’s ‘nuclear umbrella’. The collective strength of NATO has been unmatched by any other military grouping in the last seven decades, including the Warsaw Pact, which was created by the Soviet bloc as a response to NATO.

NATO’s deterrence has also been formidable as no country or group of countries possess the wherewithal and capability to challenge its collective might.&nbsp;

However, NATO has faced serious challenges while fighting non-state actors, especially post-Cold War. After the break-up of the Soviet Union in 1991, NATO had to redefine its aims and goals since there was no Soviet Union left to contain. Therefore, the NATO alliance shifted its focus towards countering terrorism.

In this context, the 9/11 terror attacks became a watershed moment in NATO’s seven-decade history, as it was the only time when Article 5 of the treaty was invoked. The US and its allies decided to retaliate collectively in the US-led military campaign (2001) in Afghanistan.&nbsp;

While the fight against terrorism has got NATO much praise, it has also been seriously criticised by human rights groups after the NATO bombings of Yugoslavia where hundreds of civilians were killed due to air strikes.&nbsp;

The collective, however, justified its actions by hiding behind Article 4 of the NATO charter, under which its member countries can bring any issue of concern to the North Atlantic Council for discussion, particularly those related to their security. &nbsp;

Over the last seven decades, NATO has been instrumental in its commitment to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law. This makes NATO a key cog in the trans-Atlantic security dynamics in particular, and international security in general.&nbsp;

At present, NATO’s relevance in international security dynamics is still intact. However, the resurgence of Russia and a rising China is posing serious challenges to it once again.&nbsp;

The steep decline in US-Russia relations over the last couple of years have reached alarming levels, which is comparable to Cold War years, thereby making NATO’s role in safeguarding the interests of US and its allies even more paramount.&nbsp;

However, the US — especially under the Trump administration — has been extremely critical of NATO in the context of sharing the financial burden of its operation, making it an existential threat to NATO’s functioning. &nbsp;

Trump’s stand on funding NATO has made it a headache for US allies, as well the opponents of Trump within the US, who find this problematic for the smooth functioning of this group.&nbsp;

The other big trouble is Trump’s reluctance to criticise President Vladimir Putin, under whom a resurgent Russia is posing a serious challenge to NATO’s supremacy. The Kremlin already considers NATO as a security threat in Eastern Europe and is therefore regarded as a hostile military bloc by Russia.

In this context, the US presidential elections scheduled for next year becomes even more important as it could well decide NATO’s future. US allies will therefore keep a close eye on these elections as the stakes are much higher for them this time.

While NATO began as a political and military alliance designed to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area, it has grown as an institution in itself whose future seems very enduring and robust. 
&nbsp;

&nbsp;(This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the <a href="https://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-russia-s-resurgence-and-china-s-rise-will-test-nato-2749888">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

Last month marked the 70th anniversary of the formation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Formed post-World War II, it is a political, military and a diplomatic alliance between the United States and its allies — primarily European nations.

Last month marked the 70th anniversary of the formation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Formed post-World War II, it is a political, military and a diplomatic alliance between the United States and its allies — primarily European nations. The need for such a grouping arose in the backdrop of the Cold War, where the US and its allies wanted to protect their interests from aggression and expansionism of the Soviet bloc. The NATO treaty was signed on April 4, 1949 by the US, Canada, Belgium, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal and the United Kingdom, wherein Article 5 outlined the NATO’s motto — ‘Collective Defense’. It stated that an attack on any one of its members would be considered an attack on all the NATO members. That, effectively, puts West Europe under the US’s ‘nuclear umbrella’. The collective strength of NATO has been unmatched by any other military grouping in the last seven decades, including the Warsaw Pact, which was created by the Soviet bloc as a response to NATO. NATO’s deterrence has also been formidable as no country or group of countries possess the wherewithal and capability to challenge its collective might. However, NATO has faced serious challenges while fighting non-state actors, especially post-Cold War. After the break-up of the Soviet Union in 1991, NATO had to redefine its aims and goals since there was no Soviet Union left to contain. Therefore, the NATO alliance shifted its focus towards countering terrorism. In this context, the 9/11 terror attacks became a watershed moment in NATO’s seven-decade history, as it was the only time when Article 5 of the treaty was invoked. The US and its allies decided to retaliate collectively in the US-led military campaign (2001) in Afghanistan. While the fight against terrorism has got NATO much praise, it has also been seriously criticised by human rights groups after the NATO bombings of Yugoslavia where hundreds of civilians were killed due to air strikes. The collective, however, justified its actions by hiding behind Article 4 of the NATO charter, under which its member countries can bring any issue of concern to the North Atlantic Council for discussion, particularly those related to their security. Over the last seven decades, NATO has been instrumental in its commitment to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law. This makes NATO a key cog in the trans-Atlantic security dynamics in particular, and international security in general. At present, NATO’s relevance in international security dynamics is still intact. However, the resurgence of Russia and a rising China is posing serious challenges to it once again. The steep decline in US-Russia relations over the last couple of years have reached alarming levels, which is comparable to Cold War years, thereby making NATO’s role in safeguarding the interests of US and its allies even more paramount. However, the US — especially under the Trump administration — has been extremely critical of NATO in the context of sharing the financial burden of its operation, making it an existential threat to NATO’s functioning. Trump’s stand on funding NATO has made it a headache for US allies, as well the opponents of Trump within the US, who find this problematic for the smooth functioning of this group. The other big trouble is Trump’s reluctance to criticise President Vladimir Putin, under whom a resurgent Russia is posing a serious challenge to NATO’s supremacy. The Kremlin already considers NATO as a security threat in Eastern Europe and is therefore regarded as a hostile military bloc by Russia. In this context, the US presidential elections scheduled for next year becomes even more important as it could well decide NATO’s future. US allies will therefore keep a close eye on these elections as the stakes are much higher for them this time. While NATO began as a political and military alliance designed to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area, it has grown as an institution in itself whose future seems very enduring and robust. (This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

Russia’s resurgence and China’s rise will test NATO

Turkey is not distancing itself from the NATO alliance by buying Russian S-400 missile defence systems, Turkish Defence Minister Hulusi Akar said on Friday, adding that Ankara should not be excluded from the F-35 jet project over the purchases.

Turkey and the United States, NATO allies, have been at odds over Ankara`s move to buy the Russian S-400s, which Washington says are not compatible with NATO systems and may threaten the Lockheed Martin F-35 fighter jets, of which Turkey is a prospective buyer and partner in production.

In an interview with broadcaster NTV, Akar said that excluding Turkey from the F-35 project would put "very serious" burdens on the other partners in the project.

"There is no clause saying `you will be excluded if you buy S-400s` in this partnership. Excluding us just because anyone country wants so would not be in line with justice, laws or rights. This should not happen," Akar said.

He said <a href="https://www.google.com/url?client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;q=https://www.wionews.com/world/turkeys-erdogan-vows-to-confront-opponents-inside-party-after-vote-loss-213918&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=2ahUKEwid4MGWuP_hAhULso8KHcz7C8IQFjAFegQIBBAC&amp;usg=AOvVaw1T4VLT-uU5SUnscjOYFyWx">Turkey </a>was trying to explain to the United States and other partners in the F-35 project that the S-400s would not pose a threat to the jets and added that Ankara had taken measures to prevent that.

In his strongest challenge yet to warnings that Turkey may be removed from the F-35 project, <a href="https://www.google.com/url?client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;q=https://www.wionews.com/world/turkeys-erdogan-vows-to-confront-opponents-inside-party-after-vote-loss-213918&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=2ahUKEwieu_2nuP_hAhUimuYKHfETC8kQFjABegQIDxAC&amp;usg=AOvVaw0MOGe6omXQ__c3VSuY3hDC">President Tayyip Erdogan </a>said on Tuesday that the project would collapse if Turkey did not participate.

While Washington has warned of potential US&nbsp;sanctions if Ankara pushed on with the S-400 agreement, Turkey has said it would not back down from the deal.

Instead, Turkey has proposed to form a working group with the United States to assess the impact of the S-400s but says it has not yet received a response from US officials.&nbsp;

Akar said on Friday Turkey was still evaluating the latest US offer to sell Raytheon Co. Patriot systems, which he said was more positive than Washington`s previous offers.&nbsp;

Turkey said two weeks ago it expected US&nbsp;President Donald Trump to use a waiver to protect it against penalties over the S-400s, after US&nbsp;Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Ankara could face retribution for the deal under the US&nbsp;Countering America`s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA).&nbsp;

Turkey is not distancing itself from the NATO alliance by buying Russian S-400 missile defence systems, Turkish Defence Minister Hulusi Akar said on Friday, adding that Ankara should not be excluded from the F-35 jet project over the purchases.

Turkey is not distancing itself from the NATO alliance by buying Russian S-400 missile defence systems, Turkish Defence Minister Hulusi Akar said on Friday, adding that Ankara should not be excluded from the F-35 jet project over the purchases. Turkey and the United States, NATO allies, have been at odds over Ankara`s move to buy the Russian S-400s, which Washington says are not compatible with NATO systems and may threaten the Lockheed Martin F-35 fighter jets, of which Turkey is a prospective buyer and partner in production. In an interview with broadcaster NTV, Akar said that excluding Turkey from the F-35 project would put "very serious" burdens on the other partners in the project. "There is no clause saying `you will be excluded if you buy S-400s` in this partnership. Excluding us just because anyone country wants so would not be in line with justice, laws or rights. This should not happen," Akar said. He said Turkey was trying to explain to the United States and other partners in the F-35 project that the S-400s would not pose a threat to the jets and added that Ankara had taken measures to prevent that. In his strongest challenge yet to warnings that Turkey may be removed from the F-35 project, President Tayyip Erdogan said on Tuesday that the project would collapse if Turkey did not participate. While Washington has warned of potential US sanctions if Ankara pushed on with the S-400 agreement, Turkey has said it would not back down from the deal. Instead, Turkey has proposed to form a working group with the United States to assess the impact of the S-400s but says it has not yet received a response from US officials. Akar said on Friday Turkey was still evaluating the latest US offer to sell Raytheon Co. Patriot systems, which he said was more positive than Washington`s previous offers. Turkey said two weeks ago it expected US President Donald Trump to use a waiver to protect it against penalties over the S-400s, after US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Ankara could face retribution for the deal under the US Countering America`s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA).

Turkey not distancing itself from NATO with Russian missiles deal: Minister

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/putin-says-west-trying-to-hold-back-powerful-russia-185542">Russian President Vladimir Putin</a> remains a formidable force in world politics. He started as a low-level KGB spy and rose to the upper echelon of power winning the top office of his country a record four times.

Putin, a black belt in judo, relishes his macho image. His swift military interventions in Ukraine, annexing Crimea in 2014, the bombing of rebels in Syria, and allegations of interference in the US elections have stunned many observers. 
 
At 65, Putin has made no secret of his determination to reassert Russian power against US and Nato allies. 
 
Despite the long rule, Putin's approval ratings have remained high his brand of patriotism dominates Russian media, skews coverage in favour of him and puts opposition leaders in jail, and silences dissenters. 
 
In his first two terms as President, Putin was buoyed by oil and gas profits but that has changed the world is now looking at an uncertain future for the oil market. 
 
His third term was marked by more controversies - allegations of absolutism, religious orthodoxy under the powerful church, protesters marginalised including the most prominent opposition leader Alexei Navalny who was jailed under corruptions charges. 
 
The Church under Putin has supported a ban on groups spreading gay "propaganda" among teenagers.

The Church is back in focus over the Ukraine war and the breaking away of a faction of the Orthodox Church in favour of Ukraine as the seat of religious conservatives.

International concern about human rights in Russia has grown with the jailing of oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky, once one of the world's richest billionaires, and of anti-Putin activists from the punk group Pussy Riot. 
 
World leaders are conscious of&nbsp;Putin's rising clout, but&nbsp;US President Donald Trump admires the Russian President for his style. However, he&nbsp;has been wary of the headlines around his ties with Russian businesses and Russian interference in US elections in favour of Trump himself. 
 
US prosecutors accuse a longstanding Putin ally oligarch Yevgeny Prigozhin of orchestrating Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. 
 
The alleged meddling&nbsp;has prompted the US to impose more sanctions on officials close to Putin, a controversy that has surrounded Trump's presidency.

There are also worries of a growing arms race between the US and Russia after Washington publicly discussed quitting a landmark nuclear arms control pact with Russia that has been in place since 1987.

Putin has warned Washington it will be forced to respond in kind to restore the military balance if Trump carries through with his threat to quit the INF treaty. 
 
Russia is no longer a strategic partner of the European Union as well. The West accuses Putin of helping the pro-Russian rebels in Eastern Ukraine with heavy weapons and troops. The West also accuses him of meddling in Syria in favour of Bashar al-Assad. 
 
Putin's relations with the UK have soured too&nbsp;over the 2006 radioactive poisoning of anti-Putin campaigner Alexander Litvinenko in London. Agents of the Russian state were accused of murdering him and more recently the nerve agent attack on a former Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter. 
 
Controversially, he has also backed Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman a man now being accused of ordering the brutal murder of dissident Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi.&nbsp; 
 
But Putin is also playing peacemaker. He has been part of talks with the Taliban and the Afghan government to initiate a peace process and to bring the Taliban to the talking table. 
 
Significantly, India, China and Russia are also advancing the cause of liberalisation and promotion of free trade as the&nbsp;three countries held a trilateral meeting recently to take on the US administrations to move towards protectionism and unilateralism. 
 
Putin's rise has been spectacular - from being a spy to four-time President.

Born in 1952 in Leningrad, he studied law and then joined the Russian spy agency, the KGB, after university.

Putin served as a spy in Communist East Germany and in the&nbsp;1990s, became a top aide to Saint Petersburg Mayor Anatoly Sobchak. Later, he entered Boris Yeltsin's Kremlin in 1997, was first made chief of federal security service, and&nbsp;then the&nbsp;prime minister. 
 
Putin’s moment came in 1999 when Yeltsin quit and named him acting President. Since then, he has won four times.

Russian President Vladimir Putin remains a formidable force in world politics. He started as a low-level KGB spy and rose to the upper echelon of power winning the top office of his country a record four times.

Russian President Vladimir Putin remains a formidable force in world politics. He started as a low-level KGB spy and rose to the upper echelon of power winning the top office of his country a record four times. Putin, a black belt in judo, relishes his macho image. His swift military interventions in Ukraine, annexing Crimea in 2014, the bombing of rebels in Syria, and allegations of interference in the US elections have stunned many observers. At 65, Putin has made no secret of his determination to reassert Russian power against US and Nato allies. Despite the long rule, Putin's approval ratings have remained high his brand of patriotism dominates Russian media, skews coverage in favour of him and puts opposition leaders in jail, and silences dissenters. In his first two terms as President, Putin was buoyed by oil and gas profits but that has changed the world is now looking at an uncertain future for the oil market. His third term was marked by more controversies - allegations of absolutism, religious orthodoxy under the powerful church, protesters marginalised including the most prominent opposition leader Alexei Navalny who was jailed under corruptions charges. The Church under Putin has supported a ban on groups spreading gay "propaganda" among teenagers. The Church is back in focus over the Ukraine war and the breaking away of a faction of the Orthodox Church in favour of Ukraine as the seat of religious conservatives. International concern about human rights in Russia has grown with the jailing of oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky, once one of the world's richest billionaires, and of anti-Putin activists from the punk group Pussy Riot. World leaders are conscious of Putin's rising clout, but US President Donald Trump admires the Russian President for his style. However, he has been wary of the headlines around his ties with Russian businesses and Russian interference in US elections in favour of Trump himself. US prosecutors accuse a longstanding Putin ally oligarch Yevgeny Prigozhin of orchestrating Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. The alleged meddling has prompted the US to impose more sanctions on officials close to Putin, a controversy that has surrounded Trump's presidency. There are also worries of a growing arms race between the US and Russia after Washington publicly discussed quitting a landmark nuclear arms control pact with Russia that has been in place since 1987. Putin has warned Washington it will be forced to respond in kind to restore the military balance if Trump carries through with his threat to quit the INF treaty. Russia is no longer a strategic partner of the European Union as well. The West accuses Putin of helping the pro-Russian rebels in Eastern Ukraine with heavy weapons and troops. The West also accuses him of meddling in Syria in favour of Bashar al-Assad. Putin's relations with the UK have soured too over the 2006 radioactive poisoning of anti-Putin campaigner Alexander Litvinenko in London. Agents of the Russian state were accused of murdering him and more recently the nerve agent attack on a former Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter. Controversially, he has also backed Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman a man now being accused of ordering the brutal murder of dissident Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi. But Putin is also playing peacemaker. He has been part of talks with the Taliban and the Afghan government to initiate a peace process and to bring the Taliban to the talking table. Significantly, India, China and Russia are also advancing the cause of liberalisation and promotion of free trade as the three countries held a trilateral meeting recently to take on the US administrations to move towards protectionism and unilateralism. Putin's rise has been spectacular - from being a spy to four-time President. Born in 1952 in Leningrad, he studied law and then joined the Russian spy agency, the KGB, after university. Putin served as a spy in Communist East Germany and in the 1990s, became a top aide to Saint Petersburg Mayor Anatoly Sobchak. Later, he entered Boris Yeltsin's Kremlin in 1997, was first made chief of federal security service, and then the prime minister. Putin’s moment came in 1999 when Yeltsin quit and named him acting President. Since then, he has won four times.

Vladimir Putin: Four-time President and global influencer

When the Berlin Wall came down and the Soviet Union dissolved and the Warsaw Pact disappeared, a few of us argued that the appropriate response would be to close down NATO and develop a new all-European peace system and policy for conflict-handling to replace the predominantly military security thinking that had dominated during the First Cold War.

I had a particular reason for arguing that at the time. As part of the research I did for my PhD (1981) on Denmark’s defence and security policy in a global perspective, I had interviewed a small number of middle-level civilian and military personnel at NATO’s HQ in Brussels. They all basically told me three things — remember this was the late 1970s, or about 10 years before the Cold War ended:

— My parents belong to a generation that knows what war is, we are here at NATO to prevent a repetition.

— NATO is for the maintenance of peace, not for war, and the most important thing is Art 5 in our treaty: If one member is attacked, all shall come to its rescue — “all for one and one for all” (the defensive principle, the musketeer pledge).

— The only reason NATO exists today is the presence and nature of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact.

Western leaders — that is, until one of the worst, Bill Clinton, took over in 1994 — showed statesmanship and told Gorbachev that they would not expand NATO an inch and that divided Germany would be neutral if unified. There was no talk of closing NATO in those circles, however. Nobody took Gorbachev’s intellectually sound and visionary idea about a new European House seriously.

The Soviet Union had lost and became militarily a dwarf in comparison to what it had been. And that wasn’t that strong either: The Warsaw Pact’s military expenditures varied between 60 and 80 per cent of those of NATO and it was vastly inferior in terms of technical quality, innovation capacity and discipline, but stronger in quantities, eg. the number of tanks.

We’re in Cold War 2; of course not a repetition because of all the differences between that world and today’s. Ten of the former Warsaw Pact countries are now full NATO members, neutral states back then, like Sweden and Austria, have abolished that wise policy.

Eight per cent of NATOs military expenditures is in spite of all the propaganda about Russia and Putin representing an existential threat to Europe and the US if not the whole world. Who said disinformation was used only by Russia?

The Clinton Administration decided to not give a damn about the promises made, and started the expansion of NATO in 1994, the new (humanitarian!!) interventionism in Yugoslavia — devoid of knowledge about its complexities, of common sense and without a UN Security Council mandate and one gross violation of international law after the other, including the bombing of Serbia to carve out a forever-failed state, Kosovo state — the second Albanian state in Europe. Oh Crimea, what a crime in comparison!

And then came, one-by-one, incrementally — the new NATO members right up under the skirts of Russia in total defiance of its history psychology and legitimate near-abroad security perceptions.

The wisdom of softer borders and neutrals, of dialogue and confidence-building — like Finland that started the OSCE, like Sweden under Palme that started common security and Germany under Brandt that started rapproachment and Ostpolitik etc — are all gone today.

Imagine a Russia-led alliance with 12 times more military than the US, making Mexico and Canada new members. Sure, Washington would love it.

Facts, analyses, intellectual understanding went out of the window long ago — in Western mainstream media and politics, from Right to Left too, the latter believing in humanitarian intervention and human rights advocates flying F-16.

We’re living in dangerous times because facts, knowledge, science and common sense play virtually no role anymore. And because the peace discourse has disappeared decades ago.

Today’s Western security policy managers are anti-intellectuals, seemingly unaware of their moral responsibilities and under much less control than when Dwight D. Eisenhower in his farewell speech in 1961 warned the world and the US itself about the MIC – the Military-Industrial Complex. (Bless him for doing so and curse those who never listened but made it cancer on Western civilisation).

Nearly 99 per cent of these security managers would not be able to offer an intellectually decent definition of concepts such as deterrence, defensive/offensive, conflict-resolution, or peace. They don’t write books.

But — at least some of them have a button close to them, with which they can kill millions. 
 
(This article was originally published on DNA. Read the <a href="https://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-irrelevance-of-nato-trans-atlantic-conflict-peace-discourse-2676487">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

When the Berlin Wall came down and the Soviet Union dissolved and the Warsaw Pact disappeared, a few of us argued that the appropriate response would be to close down NATO and develop a new all-European peace system and policy for conflict-handling to replace the predominantly military security thinking that had dominated during the First Cold War.

When the Berlin Wall came down and the Soviet Union dissolved and the Warsaw Pact disappeared, a few of us argued that the appropriate response would be to close down NATO and develop a new all-European peace system and policy for conflict-handling to replace the predominantly military security thinking that had dominated during the First Cold War. I had a particular reason for arguing that at the time. As part of the research I did for my PhD (1981) on Denmark’s defence and security policy in a global perspective, I had interviewed a small number of middle-level civilian and military personnel at NATO’s HQ in Brussels. They all basically told me three things — remember this was the late 1970s, or about 10 years before the Cold War ended: — My parents belong to a generation that knows what war is, we are here at NATO to prevent a repetition. — NATO is for the maintenance of peace, not for war, and the most important thing is Art 5 in our treaty: If one member is attacked, all shall come to its rescue — “all for one and one for all” (the defensive principle, the musketeer pledge). — The only reason NATO exists today is the presence and nature of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. Western leaders — that is, until one of the worst, Bill Clinton, took over in 1994 — showed statesmanship and told Gorbachev that they would not expand NATO an inch and that divided Germany would be neutral if unified. There was no talk of closing NATO in those circles, however. Nobody took Gorbachev’s intellectually sound and visionary idea about a new European House seriously. The Soviet Union had lost and became militarily a dwarf in comparison to what it had been. And that wasn’t that strong either: The Warsaw Pact’s military expenditures varied between 60 and 80 per cent of those of NATO and it was vastly inferior in terms of technical quality, innovation capacity and discipline, but stronger in quantities, eg. the number of tanks. We’re in Cold War 2; of course not a repetition because of all the differences between that world and today’s. Ten of the former Warsaw Pact countries are now full NATO members, neutral states back then, like Sweden and Austria, have abolished that wise policy. Eight per cent of NATOs military expenditures is in spite of all the propaganda about Russia and Putin representing an existential threat to Europe and the US if not the whole world. Who said disinformation was used only by Russia? The Clinton Administration decided to not give a damn about the promises made, and started the expansion of NATO in 1994, the new (humanitarian!!) interventionism in Yugoslavia — devoid of knowledge about its complexities, of common sense and without a UN Security Council mandate and one gross violation of international law after the other, including the bombing of Serbia to carve out a forever-failed state, Kosovo state — the second Albanian state in Europe. Oh Crimea, what a crime in comparison! And then came, one-by-one, incrementally — the new NATO members right up under the skirts of Russia in total defiance of its history psychology and legitimate near-abroad security perceptions. The wisdom of softer borders and neutrals, of dialogue and confidence-building — like Finland that started the OSCE, like Sweden under Palme that started common security and Germany under Brandt that started rapproachment and Ostpolitik etc — are all gone today. Imagine a Russia-led alliance with 12 times more military than the US, making Mexico and Canada new members. Sure, Washington would love it. Facts, analyses, intellectual understanding went out of the window long ago — in Western mainstream media and politics, from Right to Left too, the latter believing in humanitarian intervention and human rights advocates flying F-16. We’re living in dangerous times because facts, knowledge, science and common sense play virtually no role anymore. And because the peace discourse has disappeared decades ago. Today’s Western security policy managers are anti-intellectuals, seemingly unaware of their moral responsibilities and under much less control than when Dwight D. Eisenhower in his farewell speech in 1961 warned the world and the US itself about the MIC – the Military-Industrial Complex. (Bless him for doing so and curse those who never listened but made it cancer on Western civilisation). Nearly 99 per cent of these security managers would not be able to offer an intellectually decent definition of concepts such as deterrence, defensive/offensive, conflict-resolution, or peace. They don’t write books. But — at least some of them have a button close to them, with which they can kill millions. (This article was originally published on DNA. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Blog: Irrelevance of NATO, trans-Atlantic conflict and peace discourse

nato-alliance

Nato Alliance, News on Nato Alliance, stories on Nato Alliance, articles on Nato Alliance, Nato Alliance stories at Wion, Nato Alliance news, Nato Alliance latest news

nato alliance