NATO NATO

TR_123456

Experienced member
Staff member
Administrator
Messages
4,673
Reactions
11,325
Nation of residence
Nethelands
Nation of origin
Turkey

Survey suggests growing support for Swedish NATO membership​


1610373174229.png

A paratrooper waves the NATO flag during a jump. Photo: Pixabay.

Opposition among voters in Sweden to seek membership of the defence alliance NATO was almost level with those who favour membership, a survey published on Monday showed.


While 35% oppose NATO membership, 33% favour joining, while 32% were undecided, according to the survey commissioned by Stockholm daily Dagens Nyheter.


"This is the third consecutive survey where the proportion who oppose NATO membership has decreased," analyst Nicklas Kallebring of the polling institute Ipsos told the newspaper.


The result was a virtual tie between supporters and opponents of membership, he added of the survey that comprised 1,226 people and was conducted in early December.

Sweden is not a member of NATO, but has since 1994 cooperated with the alliance within the Partnership for Peace (PFP) framework and participated in NATO-led operations in Afghanistan, for instance.



The survey's publication coincided with the annual Society and Defence conference. Participants include the ministers of defence and foreign affairs, lawmakers, the supreme commander of the Swedish defence forces and others from the Swedish security and defence policy community.

Cooperation with Finland​


This year it was held online due to the coronavirus pandemic.


In a speech to the conference, Foreign Minister Ann Linde underlined that the government - comprising Social Democrats and Greens - had no plans to change its security policy despite recent moves by the centre-right opposition.


Sweden's "non-participation in military alliances serves [it] well and contributes to stability and security in northern Europe," she said.


"It requires an active, broad and responsible foreign and security policy combined with enhanced defence cooperation – particularly with Finland – and credible national defence capabilities," Linde added.

 

Test7

Experienced member
Staff member
Administrator
Messages
4,775
Reactions
16 19,850
Nation of residence
United States of America
Nation of origin
Turkey

NATO AGS Promises New Era Of Radar Reconnaissance For Alliance​

NATO_RQ-4D_IOC.jpg



n February 2021, NATO's Supreme Allied Commander, General Tod Wolters, declared the NATO Alliance Ground Surveillance (AGS) RQ-4D Phoenix remotely piloted aircraft initially operationally capable (IOC) to conduct missions.

The NATO-owned and operated aircraft enables the Alliance to perform persistent surveillance over wide areas from high-altitude long-endurance aircraft, operating at considerable distances and in any weather or light condition. Using advanced radar sensors, these systems will continuously detect and track moving objects and will provide radar imagery of areas of interest and stationary objects. All 30 NATO Allies will have access to the intelligence they generate.

In 2009, NATO announced that it expected to have a fleet of up to eight Global Hawks by 2012 to be equipped with MP-RTIP radar systems. NATO had budgeted USD 1.4 billion for the project and a letter of intent was signed. A contract for five Block 40 Global Hawks was signed in May 2012. The first RQ-4D arrived at Sigonella Air Base, Sicily (Italy) on 21 November 2019 and in November 2020, the final aircraft arrived.

Ekran görüntüsü 2021-02-15 200642.jpg




Photo: NATO

 

Kartal1

Experienced member
Lead Moderator
Messages
4,059
Reactions
52 15,144
Nation of residence
Bulgaria
Nation of origin
Turkey

NATO proposes new approach to shared cost of deterrence activities​

by Brooks Tigner



NATO should increase its common fund, or at least modify how it is currently used, to “incentivise” the allies to conduct more deterrence and defence activities to protect their collective home territory, argues NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, who put the idea to a 17-18 February virtual meeting of allied defence ministers.

NATO should increase common funding, or at least modify how it is currently used, Stoltenberg proposed to a 17-18 February virtual meeting of allied defence ministers. (NATO)

NATO should increase common funding, or at least modify how it is currently used, Stoltenberg proposed to a 17-18 February virtual meeting of allied defence ministers. (NATO)
Those allies who do the most for deterrence should receive some financial support from the fund, he said.

“My proposal is that NATO should cover some of those costs because that will demonstrate stronger commitment to our collective defence... continue reading below

 

TR_123456

Experienced member
Staff member
Administrator
Messages
4,673
Reactions
11,325
Nation of residence
Nethelands
Nation of origin
Turkey

NATO enlargement: Avoiding the next missteps​


Ukrainian President Zelensky said in a recent interview that if he had a chance to ask Biden a question, he would focus on Ukraine’s relationship with NATO. “I have a very simple question: Mr President, why are we still not in NATO?” Ukraine and Georgia were promised at NATO’s 2008 Bucharest Summit that they “will become members of NATO.” They are still waiting for something meaningful to happen. Biden’s election has given them renewed hope.


Among the hopes and expectations that the election of President Biden has triggered, further enlargement of NATO is, for security in Europe, at once one of the most significant and problematic.


In one sense, NATO’s door is permanently open to new members. Or at least not closed. Article 10 of the NATO Treaty states that the allies, by unanimous agreement, may invite to join “any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area”.


So, why are these unfulfilled NATO promises to Ukraine and Georgia problematic? The answer is simple. Because times and NATO have changed. The commitments were made in a different era. They were made at a time when the security situation in Europe was relatively benign and the relationship with Russia relatively manageable. Moreover, even in 2008, the question of membership to Georgia and Ukraine in 2008 split NATO into two camps. Germany and France openly resisted the Bush administration’s push for the granting of the Membership Action Plan (MAP) to Ukraine and Georgia, which would have put the two countries on a more unambiguous track.

If NATO is to fulfil its commitment to “Open Door”, future enlargements will not go as smoothly as the first post-Cold war enlargements in the late 1990s and early 2000s. These were driven on the NATO side not by any fear of Russia, but by ideals and values – a “Europe whole and free”. This vision was made clear in NATO’s 1995 “Study on Enlargement”, a policy document, agreed and made public by NATO, charting the optimistic way ahead. Implicitly, NATO would enlarge from a position of strength and Russia would acquiesce from a position of weakness.


The first post-Cold War NATO enlargements went according to plan. For the accession of the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland, the bar to membership was set deliberately low. NATO’s emphasis was on the achievement of democratic values and the commitment to resolve intranational disputes peacefully. A requirement to contribute measurably to collective defence was a low priority. As compensation and reassurance, Russia was granted an important, but not obstructive, relationship with NATO. The NATO-Russia Founding Act, signed in 1997, was an essential precursor to NATO enlargement. In it, NATO promised Russia that NATO would exercise military restraint and goodwill.


In the radically different security environment that NATO has faced since Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, with an assertive and potentially aggressive Russia, the bar to further NATO enlargement eastward should be set deliberately high. The balance should shift from a value-driven to an interest-driven process. In considering the eligibility of future NATO members, existing NATO members need to consider their own vital interests -in particular, safeguarding the credibility and effectiveness of Article 5, the commitment to come to the assistance of other allies in the event of armed attack.

Potential new NATO members, therefore, have to earn their place in the Alliance and add measurably to NATO’s primary function of collective defence. To match today’s realities, a more rigorous, updated and self-interest driven approach to enlargement needs to be developed. The focus should be more on the defence needs of NATO. Any aspirant member should have to develop in full its individual capacity to resist armed attack (article 3 of the Washington Treaty).


Above all, any new member has to be defendable. Ask not what NATO can do for you, but what you can do for NATO!


NATO has arrangements in place to prepare eventual new members. They do not need to be changed procedurally, but substantively. The Montenegrin accession of 2017 and that of North Macedonia in 2020 show that the membership action plan is an effective means for preparing easily absorbable new members. In particular, MAP procedures enable future members to effect reforms which, without external stimulus, they would be incapable of achieving. In the Montenegrin case, NATO, or accurately a group of allies acting through the MAP process, were instrumental in the reform of the Montenegrin intelligence services, which the Montenegrins could not have accomplished without NATO pressure and external advice.

Nevertheless, Ukraine and Georgia present a much higher order of difficulty than Montenegro or North Macedonia. However efficient the mechanisms for NATO enlargement have proven for relatively digestible enlargements, NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia, resisted by a hostile Russia, would require substantial and unsustainable levels of defence spending, significantly above 2% of GDP, for those countries and allies alike. There is therefore no value to NATO in further enlargement without a more rigorous preparation of aspirant members. Above all, aspirant members need to demonstrate their practical and visible alignment to the strategic goals and military posture of the Alliance.


NATO has yet to confront the consequences of its legacy promises and the expectations it has fostered. Ukraine and Georgia, as vulnerable democracies under threat from Russia, believe that they have a moral right to NATO membership. Moreover, Bosnia and Hercegovina, deeply divided as it is internally, was given the prospect of membership by being admitted into the Membership Action Plan in 2010. It too believes that it deserves membership.


Keeping NATO’s “Open Door” open is important for allies and partners alike. To close the door to further enlargement, or to procrastinate indecisively, would risk NATO’s credibility. It would reward Russia for its aggression in Ukraine and intimidation of Georgia. NATO’s door must therefore remain open – with the important proviso that further enlargements should wait until stricter conditions are defined and fulfilled. This should be one of the priorities in the revision of NATO’s Strategic Concept which is expected to be launched at the NATO Summit in June 2021, the first that Biden will attend.

It will be too early at the June Summit to expect Biden to answer Zelensky’s simple question on entry into NATO. But at the very least, having waited since 2008, Ukraine and Georgia are owed a greater degree of clarity – and, above all, a healthy dose of realism.


The opinions articulated above represent the views of the author(s), and do not necessarily reflect the position of the European Leadership Network or any of its members. The ELN’s aim is to encourage debates that will help develop Europe’s capacity to address the pressing foreign, defence, and security policy challenges of our time.

 

Fairon

Well-known member
Messages
362
Reactions
5 832
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
Man I never Turkish soldiers got martyred in Afghanistan.

I knew they were there but never knew they sustained casualties.

It was a shocking news for me at the time as well for more or less the same reasons. I know we were there but the news of our soldiers dying at Afghanistan was so surreal to me. May they rest in peace.

Btw, this was the second blackhawk we lost at Afghanistan but we didn't have any casualties at the first one.
 

Follow us on social media

Top Bottom