35 Burst results for "NATO"

The 'Seductive Lure' of Authoritarianism

The Book Review

06:35 min | Last week

The 'Seductive Lure' of Authoritarianism

"And Applebaum joins us. Now from London, she is the author of the Pulitzer Prize Winning Gulag History and her new book is called twilight of democracy, the seductive lure of authoritarianism and thank you so much for being here. Thanks for having me, I want to start with a very basic language question because people are throwing around a lot of terms, these days, authoritarianism, dictatorship, demagoguery, autocracy, fascism, and sort of get to an understanding of what we exactly mean and what you need. Europe by authoritarianism. Book is about democracies really and it's about people and political movements in democracies who become dissatisfied with their own political systems and seek to change radically. And I. Agree with you that it's hard to sometimes describe what it is that they want to go towards whether it's a one party state or a liberal democracy or A. Not necessarily dictatorship. In which there's less openness and less competition, and so you know my book is about that. It's about the disappointment that some people feel with democracy and the draw towards more authoritarianism more centralized, less competitive, less open political systems. You're not so much concerned in this book with the specifics of the autocrats of our time, the Erdo ones and Putin's, and Orban's so much as you are with the people who vote for them side with them enable them. Why did you decide to look at it from that angle, but actually it's explicitly. None of book about voters I mean I think the reason why people vote for populist or authoritarian parties are various and I you know that sort of separate subject but you're right. It is a book about journalists spin doctors, intellectuals, and the people who sometimes help create these movements who create the ideas behind them, and then sometimes sell those ideas to the general public. Poorly I read about the because those are people I know not all of them are my close friends, but some of them are people have run into. The World I know and I thought it would be useful therefore for me to try and explain them in an an understand what happened to them over the last twenty years I wanted aired Juan because. About journalists and intellectuals he someone who and I think we could say this. About Putin von and others as well. These are people who have suppressed. The Press Ltd journalists closed down newspapers imprisoned writers who are the people on the other side who are the two of these other journalists and intellectuals who are supporting someone like Oregon. For example, in Turkey, will some of them are people who have become convinced. There's only one form of Turkish patriotism and that it's a nationalist form of patriotism and that anybody who has a different vision of Turkey vision of Turkey this integrated with Europe or a Turkey that secular those people are traders to. The country and their voices don't deserve to be heard. Some of the will have other motives. Some of them will be opportunists. Some of them will see the chance of if you get on the Government's bandwagon and you get on state media than its way to make a career, some of the will like the proximity to power. There's a range of reasons actually that's one of the themes of the book is, is the various different kinds of attractions that these kinds of movements have for people like that. So I'm probably betraying a little bit of my prejudice. As journalists and someone in the book world that the pamphleteer is the bloggers, the spin-doctors, the producer of TV programs in creators of memes. These are people that I can easily see supporting some of these autocrats I. Guess I'm interested in what circumstances in which countries it's writers intellectuals and and what's behind that I mean look they've always been nationalist intellectuals and intellectuals WHO and writers who supported dictatorships. well, into the twentieth century one of the themes of the book one of the kind of threads that I run through it is an analysis that was written in the first half of the twentieth century by French writer Julien Benda called it was called the clerks, the treason of the intellectuals, and it's a book about intellectuals who align themselves politically and who abandoned their search for truth or their object Tivi in order to be part of political movement. So this urge to do that and to be to play a political role or to be the voice sir to provide the ideas for movement is I mean I think it's as old as writing, public speaking itself. Talk about how you've seen that in Poland where you normally spend most of your time. So the book actually the idea for the book came from my reflections about the history of Poland. Over the last thirty years in especially some of the people who I felt aligned with in the nine hundred ninety s there was a kind of center right anticommunist movement that was I mean it wasn't ever cohesive, but it was the people within it certainly spoke to one another in the nineties who all had a similar vision of Poland and who all hoped for Poland it would be part of Europe and part of NATO and would be. Some kind of democracy. And connected world. Some of those people now have acquired a very different vision of Poland and they. Hope to pull, it becomes kind of Catholic nationalist one party state. They've been part of or supporters of a government that has cracked down on independent media and may be doing. So further that uses openly homophobic and anti Semitic slogans in its election campaigns and that I think worse of all really has sought to pack the courts in order to remove the independence of judges and the transformation of those people is one of the subjects of the. First part of the book, and again I think their motives are various I mean some of them are personal. They personally didn't like the political system that emerged in the nineties and two thousands and they they are. They didn't fight until they had a personal role in it. Some people felt police losing something they. They developed a stellar sometimes mythical nostalgia for some other version of the country that they preferred may have existed sometime in the past. Poland's cases to pre-communist past you know some of them felt that Poland was losing its identity as emergency urban there multiple reasons but the the overall impulse is one that I think Americans should be aware of too because the you know the attraction of authoritarianism, the attraction of the one party state or the attraction of liberalism I think can be felt in lots of countries including our own

Poland Europe Turkey Government Putin Pulitzer Prize Applebaum London Oregon Julien Benda Press Ltd Orban Juan Producer Writer Nato
US to withdraw 12,000 troops from Germany.

THE NEWS with Anthony Davis

01:53 min | Last week

US to withdraw 12,000 troops from Germany.

"America will bring around six, thousand, four, hundred forces home and shift about five, thousand, six, hundred to other countries in. Europe. US Defense leaders said on Wednesday, detailing a Pentagon plan that will cost billions of dollars and take years to complete the decision fulfills trump's announced desire to withdraw troops from Germany. A number of forces will go to Italy and a major move would shift U S European. Command headquarters and Special Operations Command Europe from stood got Germany to Belgium. The future of the plan is uncertain at best since it relies on support and funding from Congress and a number of members have voiced. there. It may not survive at all. If trump isn't reelected, lawmakers have condemned. The troop cuts as a gift to Russia fueled by trump's spite at Germany. But Defense, Secretary Mark, Aspe- defended the plan saying that while the decision was accelerated by trump's orders, the moves also promote launch a strategic goals to deter Russia reassure European allies and shift forces further east into the Black Sea and Baltic regions. Trump has repeatedly accused Germany of failing to pay bills, which is a misstatement of the issue. NATO nations have pledged to dedicate two percent of their gross domestic product to defense spending by twenty, twenty, four and Germany is still short of that goal at about one point, four, percent twenty, two Republicans on the House Armed Services Committee sent a letter to trump saying a reduced US commitment to Europe's defense would encourage Russian aggression and Senator Mitt. Romney of Utah on Wednesday called the plan a grave era saying it's a slap in Germany's face that will do lasting harm to American interests.

Donald Trump Germany United States Europe Special Operations Command Eur Russia Senator Mitt America Congress Nato Romney House Armed Services Committee Black Sea Pentagon Italy Secretary Mark Utah Aspe
Russia Bounty Reports, U.S. Troop Movements Put Trump-Putin Relationship in Spotlight

KNX Evening News

06:02 min | Last week

Russia Bounty Reports, U.S. Troop Movements Put Trump-Putin Relationship in Spotlight

"That he has never once broach the issue of Russia, placing bounties on the heads of American troops in Afghanistan with his counterpart Vladimir Putin. Then just hours later, he announces the complete withdrawal of U. S forces from Germany. And Hodges is a retired lieutenant general in the U. S Army and former commanding general for United States Army Europe based in Germany. Currently he is an analyst and scholar at the centre for European Policy Analysis. General. Thank you for joining us. Thanks for the privilege. So let's start with the last thing first. Which was the announcement from the White House about us troops out of Germany. Did that shock you? Well, it was a surprise when I heard it two months ago when it came out in a Wall Street Journal report that about 10,000 we're going to come out on days. Of course, it was also a shock to all of the U. S headquarters in Europe at the time, as well as our allies. On today. Of course, the number that we heard was closer to 12 hours. So they're apparently going to moves to other regions. What is the basis for having troops in these numbers in Germany in the first place? Once the original idea, and then how are the other countries there now reacting to this Well, keep in mind that the total number of Americans that are based in Germany's 34,000 That's about 12,000 Air Force in 22,000 army so That's probably about 1/3 of what could be seated in the Coliseum there in Los Angeles or some other major university stadium. It's not a lot of people, the primary function that they perform. Ah, commanding control, logistics, intelligence communications. Things that help the United States carry out our national security strategy in our defensive strategy in Europe, Africa in the Middle East, so anything, they're not. They're providing protection for Germany at all. They're there to give us Forward, basing that makes it easier for us to carry out our strategy. But am I correct general that the Russians were never exactly to put it mildly pleased that these air troops were in Germany and would be not at all disappointed that they're leaving. Well, no, This is just to the Kremlin because they've done nothing to change their behavior in a positive way. They still occupy Crimea illegally. They still are killing Ukrainian soldiers and done passed done Mass every week. Still occupied 20% of Georgia. They still support the Assad regime, which has generated millions of refugees and killed hundreds of thousands of their own people and their supporting general Haftar in Libya, which is going to generate another 1,000,000 refugees. Into Europe, so they've done nothing to change their behavior. And yet we reduce our capability and Germany by about 1/3 so to me that that again now We've had US troops in Germany since the end of World War two on some people have said. Well, why are they still there? The Cold War's over and I would say well because of US leadership and because of NATO. We've had no war in Europe for 71 years. I mean, that's actually since 1945. Don't do math in public 75 years. That's an incredible accomplishment. When you think of the history of Europe so Well, with the exception of the break up in Yugoslavia, all the nations of Europe that have found each other for centuries. Now, basically all of the same team in NATO What a huge benefit to the United States that are most important trading partner partner. The European Union is stable and secure, so this is for our benefit. Move on to the other part of this discussion. The time we have left the president not confronting Vladimir Putin about the bounties in the most recent phone call, they have, and then reportedly also other phone calls that they've had Knowing that everyone would be watching for this that people wanted something to be said. Yeah, I don't understand. Um, while the president is not more forceful and clear, because actually the acts of the department offense up until this terrible announcement today of the action Of this administration have actually increased in Europe. We have more troops in Germany today than we did under President Obama and everything that President Obama promised. Has been carried out by this administration. So there's a disconnect between what Is happening on the ground in Europe and in what the president says to be candid. I can't explain that when it comes to the reports of bounces, own troops head in Afghanistan. I was there for 15 months back in 2009 and 2010. As a brigadier general, I always assumed that the Russians wanted to see us fail to see us bleed because of our support for the mujahideen with the Soviet Union was in Afghanistan. But, um Wouldn't when the domain of Thailand from Pakistan into Afghanistan was cut off. The Russian's still allowed us to move supplies What we call the northern Supply line moving supply around. We were still able to move through Russia to get stuff in and out so they could have really hurt us if they want to. I suspect that this business about the bounty is probably at some local level some overeager person. I never thought the Taliban needed any motivation to kill Americans. The president could make this go away if he was much more clear about how he opposes the criminals. Technologists. Retired Lieutenant general US Army Former Commanding general for United States Army Europe Thanks the K Index in depth podcast you're going Get that for free

Europe Germany United States United States Army President Trump Vladimir Putin Afghanistan Russia Nato President Obama U. S Army Wall Street Journal U. S Analyst European Policy Analysis Taliban Hodges European Union
U.S. to withdraw 12,000 American troops from Germany

Mark Levin

00:37 sec | Last week

U.S. to withdraw 12,000 American troops from Germany

"12,000 U. S. Troops moving out of Germany. The 11,900 nearly 5600 servicemembers will be repositioned within NATO countries and possibly 6400 will return to the United States. Though many of these or similar units will begin conducting rotational deployments back to Europe. Defense Secretary Mark Esper President Trump has been pushing to decrease troop presence in Germany, accusing it of not paying its fair share into NATO. But Italy and Belgium also, don't meet those Guidelines where some of the soldiers will be moved. The move has been panned by some Republicans who say could lead to increased aggression from Russia

Nato Mark Esper President Trump Germany United States Europe Russia Italy Belgium
Defense Secretary Esper Says U.S. Plans To Cut Troops In Germany By A Third

On The Edge With Thayrone

00:27 sec | Last week

Defense Secretary Esper Says U.S. Plans To Cut Troops In Germany By A Third

"President Trump's plans to pull US troops from Germany has been put into action. Defense Secretary Marcus Per says About 12,000 troops currently deployed to Germany will be brought home or stationed in other European countries. It will take a several $1,000,000,000. I'd say single digits, but that that will be spread out over time. Obviously, President Trump has often taken Germany to task for not paying enough for its own defense. Critics say the move will weaken US relations with NATO

President Trump Germany Secretary Marcus Per United States Nato
U.S. To Withdraw Almost 12000 Troops From Germany

WTOP 24 Hour News

00:47 sec | Last week

U.S. To Withdraw Almost 12000 Troops From Germany

"Moving to fulfill the president's promise. It's starting to pull out American troops from Germany. Pentagon will withdraw about 12,000 of the 36,000 troops, they're now bringing roughly 6400 home and shifting the rest elsewhere in Europe. In a process that will cost billions and take years to finish defence sheep. Mark Esper bills it as promoting other strategic goals of enhancing US and NATO deterrence of Russia. But the president says his reason is very simple. We're reducing the force because they're not paying their bills, which misstates the issue, while Germany does not spend as much on defense as other NATO allies have pledged their are no bills due to the alliance. Republicans are bashing the move as a gift to Russia and threat to U. S. Security.

President Trump Germany Nato Russia United States Mark Esper Pentagon Europe U. S. Security
Coronavirus relief bill negotiations continue as benefits set to expire

Here & Now

03:30 min | Last week

Coronavirus relief bill negotiations continue as benefits set to expire

"Negotiations continue in Washington over the next pandemic relief bill, there appear to be not just major differences between Democrats and Republicans, but also disunity in the Republican Party on their proposal. Meanwhile, emergency unemployment benefits expire on Friday, Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland joins us now, Senator Welcome, Jeremy. Good to be with you. Well, before we get to the pandemic relief. I gotta ask you about some big news this morning. The president says he plans to withdraw nearly 12,000 troops from Germany. A move that our allies are concerned will weaken NATO. Trump has accused Germany of not spending enough on shared defense. What's your reaction to that? This is a terrible move. It undermines the credibility of the NATO alliance. It calls into question our commitment to our NATO allies. This is exactly the thing that will cause Vladimir Putin to pop champagne or vodka bottles in Moscow, and it's the exact wrong direction to go. Do you have any sense of why the president is doing it? Well, he is said from the beginning that he questions NATO and the utility of the Alliance and Sadly, we're now seeing that sentiment put into action. Some of his supporters keep trying to say Well, he didn't really mean it. He really does support NATO. But now we're seeing actions that indicate that, hey, is not a strong support of the alliance, and he is taking actions that Essentially bring smiles to the faces of our adversaries on and great here to our allies. Let me ask you about the relief bill. How much are you willing to compromise in other Democrats willing to compromise with Republicans to get something passed? Before some of these benefits run out. One of the critical issues is whether there should be an extra $600 of weekly unemployment benefits, which is what Democrats want or Republicans have been proposing to $100. Well, the loss of $400 per week for struggling families is going to be devastating. I mean, their bills have not stopped their rent payments have not stopped. Their mortgage payments are Not on hold, so we need to maintain a large level of support. Are we willing to sit down and talk with our Republican colleagues about this? Of course, But We've been waiting two months in two weeks now since the House passed its bill on now we get this proposal from Republicans that's totally inadequate does not extend the eviction moratorium has not a penny for state and local government. Does not create additional funds for the nutrition programs s O. This is totally inadequate to the needs that are out there in the country. Do you need all those things in a bill in order to support it? Well, we need the basic elements of a proposal of a response that meets the needs of the people who are hurting most around the country and we need to Address both the health aspect and make sure that we have adequate testing, which the Republican bill does not provide for because they don't have a mechanism to increase the supply. And we need a robot safety net for people who were Hurting through no fault of their own, and the Republican bill provides. Neither

Nato Vladimir Putin Senator Chris Van Hollen Republican Party Germany President Trump Jeremy Senator Welcome Maryland Washington Donald Trump Moscow
U.S. to Cut 12,000 Forces in Germany

Dennis Prager

00:34 sec | Last week

U.S. to Cut 12,000 Forces in Germany

"Is pulling some 12,000 troops out of Germany Get President Trump's request. White House correspondent Greg Clugston reports unhappy that Germany is delinquent in its NATO defense contributions. The president is demanding a withdrawal of US troops from Germany. Why would we keep all the troops there and now Germany's saying it's bad for their economy? Well, it's good for our defense officials say the U. S will bring 6400 forces home and shift more than 5000 troops to other countries in Europe. The plan will cost billions of dollars and take years to complete. Greg

Germany Greg Clugston President Trump White House Correspondent Donald Trump Nato United States Europe U. S
US to bring 6,400 troops home from Germany, move 5,600 more

AP News Radio

00:43 sec | Last week

US to bring 6,400 troops home from Germany, move 5,600 more

"The Pentagon will withdraw about twelve thousand of the thirty six thousand troops there now bringing roughly sixty four hundred home and shifting the rest elsewhere in Europe in a process that'll cost billions and take years to finish defense sheep mark esper bills it as promoting other strategic goals of enhancing US and NATO deterrence of Russia but the president says his reason is very simple we're reducing the force because they're not paying their bills which misstates the issue while Germany does not spend as much on defense as other NATO allies have pledged there are no bills due to the alliance Republicans are bashing the move as a gift to Russia and the threat to US security Sager mag ani Washington

Pentagon Europe United States Russia President Trump Germany Nato Sager Ani Washington
U.S. to withdraw almost 12,000 troops from Germany in sweeping reorganization

Morning Edition

00:45 sec | Last week

U.S. to withdraw almost 12,000 troops from Germany in sweeping reorganization

"Defense Secretary Mark Esper says about 12,000 U. S. Troops are going to be withdrawn from Germany. About half will return home while the rest will go to other European nations. President Trump has blasted Germany, claiming it fails to meet defense spending commitments for NATO. Esper says pulling US troops is not punishment. Moving forces out of central Europe, Germany, where they had been since the Cold War. Uh, since I first traveled during the early 19 eighties, and we're now moving, we're following in many ways. A boundary east where our newest allies are s O into the Black Sea region. We talked about additional forces into Poland and I think there are opportunities to put forces into the Baltics. However, some Republican lawmakers air condemning the U. S troop withdrawal and say it is a gift to

Germany Mark Esper President Trump Baltics Black Sea Nato Poland Europe United States U. S
Sandworm: A New Era of Cyberwar and the Hunt for the Kremlin's Most Dangerous Hackers

The Vergecast

46:42 min | Last week

Sandworm: A New Era of Cyberwar and the Hunt for the Kremlin's Most Dangerous Hackers

"Everybody from the British. Ask this week's interview. Episode has any Greenberg senior writer at wired. He just SORTA book called Sand Worm New Era of cyber war in the hunt for the Kremlin's Miss, dangerous hackers, it is all about hacking group inside of the Russian government called San Worm. They were responsible for the most damaging cyber warfare attacks over the past year there behind not PECI. The hackers took out in the mayor shipping line hospitals across the U. K San has totally escalated. What we think of Cyber War, and he's book gets all into how they were discovered how they were flushed out the. The intricacies of these various hacks. It's super interesting. The book is a thrill ride. If you're looking for something that isn't the virus. This is like a thriller, a highly recommended. It was really fun to talk to her about the stuff. one thing I. WanNa know we're all at home so during this in every might hear some kids in the background. I asked you just be a little forgiving that we're all. We're all dealing with it and he was a great interview. Check Out Sandy Greenberg of sand worm, a new era of cyber war and the hunt for the Kremlin's most dangerous hack. Any Greenberg your senior writer at wired you're also the author of Sand Worm, new era of cyber war in the hunt for the Kremlin's most dangerous. Welcome glad to be here so even writing about cybersecurity frontier I think you just said two thousand six and writing about Cybersecurity, but this book sand worm as I was reading it. It seems like it's called the new era of cyber war. It seems like there's been a huge turn in sort of state-sponsored. Particularly Russians sponsored cyber attacks. How did you come onto that notion? How did you begin reading this book I'm I'm very curious how you see. See that turn happening well. In late twenty sixteen, my former colleague Kim Zetter she had been the one who really covered state sponsored hacking in cyber war stuff, but she left wired, and this was also at the time. When you know Russian hackers were meddling in the US election, they'd hacked the democratic. National Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the Clinton Campaign, so my editors were really primes on face, mantra hacking all of a sudden, but what they? They really what they told me they wanted was a actually like a big takeover of the whole magazine. All about cyber war, but cyber war to me is different than those kinds of espionage election, meddling tactics so I went looking for no real cyber war story, which means to me like a actual disruptive cyber attacks, and as I looked around. It seemed like the place where that was really happening was in Ukraine not really in the US in fact maybe. Maybe what was happening in? Ukraine seemed to me like it was in some ways, the only real full blown cyber war that was actually occurring where Russian hackers were not just attacking the election which they had done, they tried this spoof the results of a presidential election, but they had also attacks media and destroyed their computers. They had attacked government agencies and tried to like destroy entire networks, and then they had turned off the power for the first time. In December of two thousand, fifteen, the the first actual blackout triggered by hackers, and just as I was look into this happened again the the effect, the seem hacker group caused a blackout this time in the capital of Kiev so I wince looking in Ukraine for this cyber war story that. Turned into a cover story for wired that kind of gave editors what they wanted, but then also kept unfolding This cyber war kept growing in scope and scale and. The original story written for wired was kind of about the fact that you could look to Ukraine to see the future of cyber war that will what was happening. There might soon spread to the rest of the world. And that is actually what happens to like just after we publish that cover story to same hackers released this climactic terrible cyber attack in Ukraine. Called Not Petiot that spread beyond Ukrainians became the worst cyberattack history cost ten billion dollars, so when that happened, that was when I saw that there was potential to do a book about this that it was not just a kind of case study about Ukraine or even kind of predictive story, but a an actual full story arc about this one group that had carried out the what I would say was not only the first. First Real Cyber War, but the worst cyberattack in history and the you know I wanted to capture the the Ark of that story in the effects, the real experience of cyber war. Yeah, so the group is called sand worm in this is just one of the the sort of opening arcs of the book is how they've come. They come to be named this because references and code walk people through just like it's so. relatable that like even these hackers are using using this language that leads them recalled Sandwich Tell people about it. So when I started to look into the origins of this group after that second blackout attack I I found that this this company called eyesight partners which have been acquired by fire I I, said partners was the first to find these hackers in twenty, fourteen, basically using fishing in kind of typical espionage tactics, plant malware in the networks of typical Russian hacking targets like groups across Eastern, Europe and NATO in a look like what they were doing was just kind of typical espionage. They were planning. This by wear calls lack energy buds will first of all they could see that they were rushing, because they had this server that they were using to administer some of these attacks and they. They left the server, so anybody could look at it in. There was a kind of Russian language to file for how to use black energy on the service, so these guys seem like they were rushing, but even more interesting in some ways. was that they to track each victim each instance of black energy? This malware has little campaign code in each campaign was a reference to the science fiction novel Dune and you know so like one of them was something about Iraq is, and then one of them is about the sutter cars, these like imperial soldiers in in that SCI FI universe so I said partners named this group sand worm, because well just because it's a cool. Name associated with doing, but it turned out to me. It became this very powerful because a sandwich miss this monster that lies beneath the surface, and occasionally arises from underground to do terribly destructive things. partners didn't know that at the time, they they soon afterward realized what sand. was doing was not just espionage, but they were actually doing reconnaissance for disruptive cyberattacks. They were also hacking power grids. They were planning black energy, not only in the European Eastern European targets in the US power grid networks as well. The Ultimately Syndrome was the first twenty fifteen to cross that line in use black energy as the first step in a multi step attack that led to a blackout. So this was not just espionage really was kind of like you know this monster that rises from under the ground to do terrible acts of mass destruction that came to pass so one of the things that comes up over in the book. Is this growing sense of dread from security researchers and analysts? Oh this is an imminent threat to the united. States just Ukraine, but like this is happening here and then there's a sense that the United States actually open the door to this kind of warfare with stuxnet. which was an attack on Iran? How how did those connect for you that it seemed like there's a new rule of engagement new set of rules of engagement for cyber warfare that actually the United States implicitly created with with stuxnet by attacking Iran. Yeah, I mean I tried to highlight. Clearly sand worm are the real bad guys in the story, they are the actual hacker group that did these terribly reckless destructive attacks that actually in some cases put people's lives at risk, the kind of in some parts of the story they actually shutdown medical record systems and I. Think may have cost people's lives with cyber attacks today they are the actual antagonist here, but I also want to highlight the ways that the US government is is partially responsible for the state of Cyber War, and there are a few ways that that's true. I The US! Open the Pandora's box of cyber war with stuxnet. This piece of now where that. That was used to destroy Iranian nuclear enrichment centrifuges that was the first piece of our that actually have caused that physical disruption destruction, and we now see Sandra doing the same thing in Ukraine. In in fact, in some ways around the world, also the the US hordes, these kind of zero day, secret hacking techniques, some of which were stolen and leaked and used by sand worm, but then I think the in fact, the biggest way that I tried to highlight that the US is responsible or complicit or negligent. Here is that we did not call allows what Santorum was doing in Ukraine and say to Russia. We know what you're doing. This is unacceptable. Nobody should be turning out the lights. Two civilians with cyber attacks. There wasn't a message like that I. mean the Obama White House sent a message to Russia over this kind of cyber hotline to say your election hacking is not okay. We see what you're doing and we want you to stop, but they said nothing about a tube blackout attacks in Ukraine, and that was kind of implicit signal to Russia. They could keep. Keep escalating, and even as all the cyber security, researchers and Ukrainians were warning that what was happening to Ukraine, would soon spread to the rest of the world, the US government ignore this both Obama, and then the trump administration until that prediction came to pass and a sand worm cyberattack did spread to the rest of the world, and it was too late, and we all suffered globally as a result, so let's talk about patch it. WAS CATASTROPHIC IN SCOPE, right? It took out the mayor shipping line, which is a massive business. It took out some hospitals in UK like it was huge in scope. I don't think people really put it all together. Talk about how it started and how big it grew. Yeah, so not too was kind of like big apotheosis sandwich, where all of these predictions of the terribly destructive things they were doing to the rest of the world came to pass but it did it started in Ukraine. They hijacked this. The the software updates of this accounting software called me doc that is basically used by everybody in Ukraine. The quicken turbo tax of Ukraine. If you do business in Ukraine, you have to have this installed, so sanborn hijack the updates of that news to push out this worm to thousands of victims mostly in Ukraine, but it was a worm, so it's spread the mmediately end quickly kind of carpet bombs. The entire Ukrainian Internet's every computer at spread to would encrypt permanently. You could not recover the computer, so it very quickly took down pretty much every. Every Ukrainian government agency twenty two banks multiple airports for hospitals in Ukraine that I. could count and in each of these cases. What is eight took them down. I mean it destroyed essentially all of their computers, which requires sometimes weeks or months to recover from, but then as you know, this is a worm that does not respect national borders. So even though it was, it seemed to be an attack intended to disrupt Ukraine. It immediately spread beyond Ukraine's borders. Borders to everybody who had this accounting software installed? That was doing business in Ukraine and some people who didn't so that includes Maersk. The world's largest shipping firm and Fedex and Mondelez, which owns cadbury, NABISCO and ranking manufacturing firm that makes tylenol in Merck. The Pharmaceutical Company in New Jersey on each of these companies lost hundreds of millions of dollars. The scale of this is kind of difficult to capture but I in the book I tried to. To I focused in part Maersk because it is just a good company to look at because you can. They had this gigantic global physical machine that is they have seventy six ports around the world that they own as well as these massive ships that have tens of thousands of shipping containers on them. And I told the story of how on this day seventeen of their terminals of were entirely paralyzed by this attack with ships arriving with just. Piles of containers on them. Nobody could unload. Nobody knew what was inside of nobody knew how to load or unload them with around the world of seventeen terminals, thousands of trucks, Semitrailers, carrying containers were lining up in Lyons miles long because the gates that were kind of checkpoints to check in the these trucks to drop something off or pick it up. They were paralyzed as well. This was a fiasco on a global scale is responsible for a fifth of the world's lable shipping capacity. They were truly just a rendered brain dead by this attack, but yeah displayed out at all of these different victims MERC had to borrow their own each vaccine from the Center for Disease Control because they're manufacturing. Manufacturing was disrupted by this, and it ultimately spread to a company called nuance, nate speech to text software. They have a service that does this for hospitals across the US to dozens of our possibly hundreds of American hospitals at this backlog of transcriptions to medical records that were lost because of this, and that resulted in patients, being do for surgeries or transfers, other hospitals in nobody knew their medical records were updated. I mean this was scale where hundreds of hospitals each of which has thousands of patients missing changes the medical records. We don't know what the effects of that work, but very well could've actually harmed people's health. Our lives I mean the scale of not petty is very difficult to. Get your mind around, but we do know that you know monetarily cost ten billion dollars, which is by far the biggest number we've ever seen, but it also had this this kind of harder to quantify toll on people's lives, so it it you know you read about it at length and wired. Obviously these companies go down of ripples in mainstream sort of general press, but I don't feel like people really not like Oh. This Russian group called San Worms sponsored by the Russian government. Unleash this attack in it caused this cascading effect of failure and disaster cost in that because we know what we can attribute it to the government, our government. I don't feel like that connection got made for people. What is the gap between other as a hack and Oh, this is actually a type of warfare engagement, because that that connection seems very tenuous. I think for a lot of people. Even as sort of the more general mainstream press covers this stuff. Yeah, you know. I don't think that that's is just like the nature of. Of Cyber War I think that was a failing that that lack of connection is a failing on our government's parts, and on you could say even on the part of some of these victims like these large companies I mean I at the time did not pitch it happened. I was fully on the trail of standard within days. I was talking to cyber security researchers who? Who had piece together? Some of the forensics to show the not petiot was Sandra that it was a Russian state-sponsored attack in yet none of those companies that I mentioned mercker Mondelez or Maersk or Fedex, or any of them wanted to say the Russia had done this to them and know governments were talking about either like the Ukrainian government was. They're always willing to point. Point the finger at Russia, but the US government was not, and you know that to me seemed to be just kind of I mean I felt like I was being gas. Let's at that point. I had watched Russia due to Ukraine for a long time at that point tonight. I sort of understood that NATO in the West. We had this kind of cruel logic that. Ukraine is not us. Russia can do what it likes to Ukraine because they're not NATO not e you. They are Russia's sphere of influence or something I think that that's very wrongheaded, but at least it made sense. You know to have that that viewpoints, but now this attack had spread from Ukraine to hit American soil American companies in many cases and yet still the US government was saying nothing I just thought this was bizarre and you know so i. For months I was like. Trying to get any of these companies to tell the story of of their experiences, not Peta I was trying to figure out why the US government wasn't talking about the fact that this was a Russian cyberattack and ultimately I. Think it was I. think it was kind of I know partly disorganization negligence. I think it may have something to do with the fact that the. The? Trump administration doesn't like talking about Russian hackers for obvious reasons, but eight months after it took eight months ultimately for the US government to finally say not that it was a was Russia it was the worst cyberattack in history, and then a month later. The White House impose consequences in put new sanctions on Russia and response, but it took nine months and more importantly it took. Multiple years this without was the first time this was twenty eighteen, and the Russian cyber war in Ukraine had started around the fall of Twenty fifteen, so that's just incredible span of negligence when the US government said nothing about these escalating unfolding. Acts, of Cyber Award that there should have been unacceptable from the very beginning I mean these are the kind of quintessential acts of state sponsored cyber attacks on civilians, trying out the lights. You know that's the kind of thing that I believe that the US government should have called out and drawn a red line across at the very beginning took ears, so I do think it was a big failing. Of of diplomacy, it just seemed like that part of the problem, and this is kind of an expression is it's so hard to describe like if the Russian government sent fighter jets to America and live their support. Okay, like everyone understood, you can see it. You can understand what happened there. In the you know, there's like a however many decades of movies about how to fight that war. This is a bunch of people in a room typing. Like it there's just an element of this where the dangerous Oh federal where the attack is invisible, and while the effects might be very very tangible, the causes are still sort of mysterious people so. My question is who is sandwich. What what do we know about them? Where do they work? What are they like? Do we have a sense of how this operation actually operates? In some ways the the biggest challenge of reporting this book, and I spent essentially the third act of the book, the last third of the reporting of the book, trying to answer the question of who is in worm, who are these people? Where are they located? What motivates them and I guess to partially spoil the ending here. They are a unit of the year you. They are a part of Russia's military intelligence agency, which is responsible for you know, this is not a coincidence. They are responsible for election meddling responsible for the attempted assassination of You. chemical weapons in the United Kingdom they're responsible for the downing of a seventeen as commercial passenger jet over Ukraine were three hundred innocent people died on the G. R.. You are this incredibly reckless callous out military intelligence agency, but they act like kind of almost just cut through mercenaries around the world. Doing Russia's bidding in ways that are very scary, so I threw essentially like a combination of excellent work of a bunch of security researchers who I was speaking to combined with some confirmation from US intelligence agencies, and then ultimately some other clues from the investigation of Robert Muller into meddling all these things combined created the trail that led to one group within the JERE. You that were you know I? Eventually had some names and faces even address of this this group, and all that was actually only finally fully confirms After the book came out Justin in recent months when the White House finally actually was the State Department's. End as well as the UK on Australian and other governments together finally said yes, sand worm is in fact that this unit of the year you so this theory that I developed in positive near the end of the book was finally basically confirmed by governments just in recent months. So one thing that strikes me at that is I, think of the Russian military things. Gru is being foreboding being obviously, they're very very good at this other a buttoned up in then they have like a incredible social media presence that kind of POPs up throughout the book that distracts from what doing. They set up Gucci for two point Oh when they were doing the DNC hacks that fed to wikileaks in the. That account insisted it was just guy. They set up the shadow brokers which was. I read. It is just like your some goof-balls like they wanted to seem a lot dumber and a lot smaller than they were. They were very effective at it to people I. Talk About those that strategy, and then I guess my question have is like a re better at seeing that strategy for what it is well. You make a really interesting point. The uses these false flags like throughout their recent history that we I should say we don't know that they were responsible for shadow brokers. In fact, nobody knows who shot a brokers. The shadow brokers truly are, and they are in some ways the biggest mystery in this whole story, this one group that hacked the NSA apparently and leaked a bunch of their zero day hacking techniques, or maybe they were even say insiders. We still don't know the answer to that question, but the other other incidents you mentioned. That are you are responsible for this Guja for two point zero fake hacktivists leaked a bunch of the Clinton documents. They're responsible for other false flags like they at one point to call themselves the Cyber Caliphate pretended to be Isis. They've a pretended to be like patriotic pro. Russian Ukrainians at some point they they're always like wearing different masks ends. They're very deceptive. in the a later chapter of the book, some of the biggest one of the biggest attacks they. They did was this attack on the twenty thousand Olympics where they not only wore a false mask, but they actually had layers of false flags where as cyber security researchers W. This melwert was used to destroy the entire back end of the two thousand eighteen winter Olympics. Just as the opening ceremony began, this was a catastrophic events. The aware had all of these fake clues made look like it was Chinese or North Korean or maybe Russian. Nobody could tell it was like. It was this kind of confusion bomb almost designed to to just make researchers throw up their hands. Give up on attributing mallards. Any particular actor was only through some amazing detective work by some of the analysts that I spoke to the able to cut through those false flags identify that sand was behind this essentially, but yeah, it's it is a one very real characteristic of the jury you that they are almost they seem to almost take pleasure or like be showing off their deception capabilities to and their evolving those capabilities they are getting more deceptive over time as fake gets more, destructive aggressive. Advertising content when I say Utopia what comes to mind? Birds Chirping lush natural beauty dialed up and vibrant technicolor. Is it within reach. Your world. World. explained. You are an essential part of the Pathak social body. Everybody in that place. Everybody happy now. While the peacock original series brave new world takes place in a scientific futuristic utopia. The concept is nothing new Sir Thomas more. I introduced the theory five hundred years ago, but we keep looking for that community identity stability of aldous. Huxley's Utopia and not finding it. Americans are the unhappiest they've been in decades and we're increasingly lonely. whereas in a utopia, everyone belongs to everyone else. In nineteen, forty-three, the psychologist Abraham Maslov developed a theory of Yoga. One that allows total self determination in basic terms. maslow's theory says that in a utopia we decide for ourselves what we need and how we're going to get it in Huxley's Utopia. Citizens always get what they want and don't want what they can't get. Sounds pretty good right then. Why can't we make it happen? For a Utopian Society, to work, we might need to disband some of the things we hold dearest marriage government privacy individualism, even family. See for yourself if a utopian world is as perfect as it seems watch, brave new world now streaming only on peacock. This is advertising content. Hey. This is bowes I'm a podcast or By, I, a Gamer Five G. is changing the gaming world in really unexpected exciting ways with the help of Samsung Five G. I'm getting a peek at how gaming is getting faster smoother and can even improve our lives well. Let's dish some secrets about the future gaming. Dr Jean Mechanical Direct Route Game Research and development at the Institute of the future. She's also a bestselling author game inventor. She's optimistic about gaming impact on us and our minds. The biggest thing that we've seen in research is that. We need to be able to game in the moment wherever we are. So, what happens when when you're playing when your favorite games is that it fires up than her logical pathways, it's kind of like having a of caffeine and a pet dog from your favorite coach, and you've just meditated for an hour. This emotional neurological power up is called the game transfer effect, and that effect is heightened when using five. Five G. The game transfer fact requires you to be totally immersed in the game, so you want to have the most amazing graphics and the most immersive audio and with five G. to do that anywhere anytime, be one of the first to harness the game transfer effect with Samsung Galaxy Five G. now available on Galaxy, S Twenty-five g and a seventy one five G. feels good to be I with Samsung. I love to play the game of like. Imagine the meeting and imagine that the one set of meeting which is like the actual hackers finding the vulnerabilities figuring out how to jump from Windows, eight computer to some sort of physical hardware controller that actually runs like that. That's a very hard problem in and of itself, and then the other meeting. They're like what we're GONNA do is claim to be a guy called Gucci for two point, Oh and like those are. Not Connected Right, but the way they throughout the book the way they execute East campaigns they're deeply connected, and that seems like not only just a new kind of warfare, and you kind of craft, but some just consistently seems to work in surprising ways like the tech press is GonNa. Be Like Gucci. I says this and we're. There's never that next step of also we think it's Russian government, and that seems like first of all I'm dying. I imagine the meeting right. I would love to be a fly on the wall of the meeting where they decide what their twitter name is going to be today. I'm very curious how they evolve those attacks in such a way that it just seems to be more and more effective time. Yeah, I mean. I also love to have been those meetings in. It's my one kind of regret in this book that I never actually got. Interviews, it's almost an impossible thing to do. They liked find defectors from the R., you or something. He will tell those stories at a knock it murdered I mean. It's kind of a possible, but but. In some cases? I think your earlier points. They almost seem kind of bumbling in these things they do them in a very improvisational way. for two point Oh seemed almost like it was a justice thing they invented on the spot, tried to cover up some of the the accidental ups like they had left russian-language formatting errors in the documents that they had leaked from the DNC, so they admitted this guy who appeared the next day and started. Talking about being a Romanian. Friends as motherboard Lorenza, Franceschi decry he started this conversation. Align with with Guja for two point, oh basically proved at the guy could not actually properly speak Romanian. BE Russian speaker. In fact, it was. It was almost comical at the same time. They're using very sophisticated hacking techniques doing destructive attacks on a massive scale, but they're also. They seem like they're kind of making it up as they go along. They do things that don't actually seem very kind of strategically smart. They kind of seem like they're trying to impress their boss for the day. Sometimes with just like some sometimes, it's just seems like the Jere. You wakes up in asks themselves. Like what can we blow up today? Rather than thinking like? How can we accomplish the greater strategic objectives of the Russian Federation? So they are fascinating in that way and very stringent colorful group. That's I think one of the biggest questions I have here is. We spend a lot of time trying to imagine what flat and Mirror Putin wants. You know when he grows up, but it. None of this seems targeted like what is the goal for Russia to disrupt the Winter Olympics right like. Is there a purpose to that? Is that just a strike fear? Is it just to? EXPAND THAT SUV influenced. Is it just to say we have the capability furious is there? has there ever really been the stated goal for this kind of cyber warfare? That one is particularly mystifying. I mean you can imagine why Russia would want to attack the Olympics. They were banned from the two thousand Eighteen Olympics doping, but then you would think that they might want to attack the Olympics and send a message maybe like eight deniable message a message that you know if you continue to ban us. We're GONNA. Continue to attack you like like any terrorists would do, but instead they attacked the winter. Olympics in this way, that really seemed like they were trying not to get caught, and instead like make it look like the was Russia North Korea? And then you have to like what is the point of that was? The could kind of. Sit there in Moscow and kind of like rub their hands together in gleefully. Watch this chaos unfolds. It almost really does seem like it was petty vindictive thing that they just for their own emotional needs wanted to make sure that nobody could enjoy the Olympics if they were not going to enjoy them I that was, but that one is i. think outlier in some ways for the most part you can kind of see. The Russia is advancing. The G. R. You that sand worm is advancing something that does generally make sense which is that. In Ukraine for instance, they're trying to make Ukraine look like a failed state. They're trying to make Ukrainians. Lose faith in their security. Services are trying to prevent investors globally from funneling money into Ukraine trying to create a kind of frozen conflict, as we say in Ukraine where there's this constant perpetual state of degradation. They're not trying to conquer the country, but they're trying to create a kind of permanent war in Ukraine and would cyber war. You can do that beyond the traditional front end. It is in some ways the same kind of tactic that they used in other places like the US which. which here we saw more than influence operation that they were hacking leaking organizations like democratic campaign organizations and anti doping organizations to kind of so confusion to embarrass on their targets. They're trying to influence like the international audiences opinion these people, but in Ukraine, it is in some ways, just a different kind of influence operation where they're trying to influence the world's view of Ukraine. Influence Ukrainians view of their themselves under government to make them feel like they are in a war zone even when their kid hundreds of miles from the actual fighting. That's happening on the eastern fronts in the eastern region of. Of Ukraine so in a book you you you go to Kiev. You spent time in Ukraine. Is there a sense in that country that while sometimes light goes out sometimes our TV stations. Their computers don't boot anymore. Because they got rewritten, the Hydros got Zeros like. Is there a sense that this is happening? Is there a sense the defy back is there does Microsoft deploy you know dozens of engineers to to help fight back. How does that play out on the ground there? Yeah, I mean to be fair. Ukrainians are very stoic about these things and regular. Ukrainian citizens were not bothered by you know. Know a short blackout. They didn't particularly care you know. This blackout was the first ever. Hacker induced blackout in history but Ukrainian cyber security. People were very unnerved by this end, people in these actual utilities were traumatized I mean these attacks were truly like relentless sins very kind of scary for the actual operators at the controls I mean in the first blackout attack. These poor operators Ukrainian control room in western Ukraine they were locked out of their computers, and they had to watch their own mouse cursor. Click through circuit breakers, turning off the power in front of them I. Mean They watched it happen? At these kind of Phantom hands to control of their mouse movements, so they took this very very seriously, but yet Ukrainians as a whole I mean they have seen a lot. They are going through an actual physical war. They've seen the seizure of Crimea and the invasion of the east of the country. You know the the date hits. A Ukrainian general was assassinated with a car bomb in the middle of Kiev, so they have a lot of problems, and I'm not sure that cyber war is one of the top of their minds, but not patio I. Did, actually reach Ukrainians normal. Ukrainian civilians to it. It shook them as well. I talked to two regular Ukrainians. who found that they couldn't swipe into the Kiev Metro. They couldn't use their credit card at the grocery store. All the ATM's were down The Postal Service was taken out for every computer that the postal service had was taken out for more than a month. I mean these things really did affect people's lives, but it kind of. A until that kind of climactic worm. Not Patio for I think for this to really reach home for Ukrainians. who have kind of seen so much. How do you fight back? I, mean I one of things that struck me as I was reading. The book is so many of the people you talked to people who are identifying the threat. They're actually private companies. Eyesight was the first even detect it. they are contractors to intelligence agencies the military in some cases, but they're not necessarily the government right like it's not necessarily Microsoft. Who has to issue the patches from the software not necessarily GE which makes simplicity, which is the big industrial controls talk about a lot. How does all that come together into a defense because that seems like harder problem of coordination? Yeah, I mean defense in Cyber. Security is in an eternal problem. It's incredibly complicated, and when you have a really sophisticated determined adversary, it know they will win eventually ends I. think that they're absolutely lessons for defense in this book about you know. Maybe you need to really really think about software updates for instance like the kind that were hijacked to a with this medoc accounting software. As a vector for terrible cyber-attacks. Imagine that like. Any of your insecure apps that have kind of updates can be become a a piece of Malware, really unique to signature networks need to think about patching on. There are just an endless kind of checklist of things to every organization needs to do to protect themselves so. In some ways that just like a Sisyphean task and I don't. I don't try to answer that question in the book because it's too big, and it's kind of boring as well, but what I do really hammer on is the thing that the government's really could've done here. which is to try to establish norms tried to control attackers through diplomacy through kind of disciplinary action through things like kind of Geneva Convention for Cyber War if. If you think about a kind of analogy to say like chemical weapons, we could just try to give everyone in the world a gas mask that they have to carry around with them at all times, or we could create a Geneva. Convention norm that chemical weapons should not be used in if they are than crime, and you get pulled in front of the Hague. Hague and we've done the ladder and I think that in some ways should be part of the the answer to cyber war as well we need to establish norms and make countries like Russia or like organizations like the G. Are you understand that there will be consequences for these kinds of attacks, even when the victim is not the US or NATO or the? The EU and I think we're only just starting to think about that. One of the questions I had as reading is it seems like a very clear red line for almost everyone you talk to is attacks on the power grid right? That is just unacceptable. You should not do it if you do it. You've crossed a line and there should be some consequence. Is, that clear to governments. Is that something that our government says? It's something that the says it has been established. It seems like it's it's the conventional wisdom wants to salvage, but I'm not unclear whether that is actually the line that exists. It definitely has not been established, and when I kind of did these I managed to get sort of interviews with the top cyber security officials in the Obama ends trump administration Jay Michael Daniel was the cyber. Cyber Coordinator for the administration was the kind of cyber coordinator boss in the The Homeland Security Adviser for trump and both of them when I asked him about like wiped. Why didn't you know to put it bluntly like? Why didn't you respond? When Russia caused blackouts in Ukraine? Both of them essentially said well. You know that's not actually the rule that we want to set. We want to be able to cause blackouts in our adversaries networks. In their power grids when we are in a war situation or when we believe it's in our national interest, so you know that's the thing about these cyber war capabilities. This is part of the problem that every country. Absolutely the US among them isn't really interested in controlling these weapons, because we in this kind of Lord of the rings fashion, we are drawn to them to like we want to maintain the ability to use those weapons ourselves and nobody wants to throw this ring in the fires, of Mount Doom. We all wanted maintain the ring and imagine that we can use it for good in out. So that's why neither administration called that Russia for doing this because they want that power to. Make the comparison to to nuclear weapons but Negotiated drawdown and treaties with Russia in the past we count warheads where aware that the United States stockpiles can destroy the world. Fifty Times over today maybe tomorrow one hundred hundred like what we have a sense of the the measure of force that we can. Put on the world when it comes to nuclear weapons, there's a sense that Oh, we should never use these right like we have them as a deterrent, but we've gained out that actually leads to his mutually assured destruction like there's an entire body of academics. There's entire body of researchers. Entire body is got scenario planning with that kind of weapon. Does that same thing exist for for cyber weapons. There are absolutely. Know community is of academics. Policymakers who are thinking about this stuff now, but I don't think it's kind of gotten through to actual government decision. that. There needs to be kind of cyber deterrence in how that would work. In in the comparison to nuclear weapons is like instructive, but not exactly helpful. In fact, it's kind of counter-productive because we cannot deter cyber-attacks with other cyber-attacks i. don't think that's GonNa work in part because we haven't even tried to establish it yet. There are no kind of rules or read lines, but then I think more importantly. Everybody thinks that they can get away with cyberattacks that they can. They're going to create a false flag. That's clever enough that that when they blow up a power grid, they can blame their neighbor instead, so they think they're. They're gonNA. Get Away with it, and that causes them to do it anyway. A not fear the kind of assured destruction so I think that the the right response, the way to to deter cyber attacks is not with the promise of a cyber attack in return. It's with all the other kind of tools we have, and they've been used sometimes, but but they were not in the case of Sand Werman. Those tools include like sanctions which came far too late in the story indictments of hackers. In some cases, we still haven't really seen syndrome. Hackers indicted for the things that they did in Ukraine or or even not petty. And then ultimately just kind of messaging like calling out naming and shaming bad actors, and that has happened to some degree with Sandra, but in some cases there have still been massive failures there there has still been no public attribution of the Sandwich attack on the twenty eighteen Olympics I mean. My Book has been out for months. I think show pretty clear evidence that syndrome is responsible for this attack. The very least it was Russia and yet the US and Korean War, These Olympics took place at UK, none of these governments have named Russia as having done that. That attack which almost just invites them to do it again whenever our next Olympics are going to be, I guess maybe not this year, but if you don't send that message than you're just essentially inviting Russia to try again so I think might my big question is what happens now? I mean right we you write about. The NSA has tailored access operations, which is their elite hacking group. We are obviously interested in maintaining some of these capabilities. We've come to a place where people are writing books about how it works. What is the next step? What is the next? does it just keep getting worse or does this kind of diplomacy you're talking about? Is that beginning to happen I? Think there is some little glimmers of hope about the diplomacy beginning to happen I mean this year in February I think it was the State Department's called out a sand worm attack on Georgia, where a worms hackers basically took down a ton of Georgian websites by attacking the hosting providers as well as a couple of TV's broadcasters in the US. State Department with a few other governments not. said this was sand. Worm named the unit of the GRU. That's is that was confirmation that I've been looking for for a long time, but they also made a point of saying that we're calling this out is unacceptable, even though Georgia. Georgia is not part of NATO or the U. so that's that's progress. That's essentially creating a new kind of rule. That's state-sponsored. Hackers can't do certain things, no matter who the victims and that's really important. Also, it was kind of interesting because federal officials like gave me a heads up about that announcement before happened, which they have very very rarely do and I think they were trying. To say was in we. We read your book and we. Got The message okay like Stop attacking us about this like we're trying. We're doing something different here I. Don't want flatter myself that I actually changed their policy, but it did seem interesting that they wanted to tell me personally about this so i. I think that like maybe our stance on this kind of diplomacy is evolving, and we're learning lessons, but at the same time we also see the attacks evolving to. To and their new innovations in these kinds of disruption happening, we've seen since some of these terrible Sandra attacks. You know other very scary things like this piece of our called Triton or crisis that was used to disabled safety systems in a oil refinery in Saudi Arabia on that was you know that could have caused an actual physical explosion of petrochemical facility? The the attacks are evolving to okay final last real question. Tell people where they can get your book. You can find all kinds of places by on indie Greenberg Dot net. Written another book as well previously, yes. That's right. I wrote a book about wikileaks. Cypher punks and things like that. That's right well. I'm a huge fan. It was an honor to talk to you. Thank you so much for coming on I know it's. It's a weird time to be talking about anything, but the coronavirus I was very happy to talk about something else, which is that it seems a little bit more in control Even if it is quite dangerous, a thank you for the time. I appreciate it. Yeah, I'm glad to provide people with a different kind of apocalypse as a distraction.

Ukraine United States Russian Government Nato Olympics Kiev United Kingdom Sandra Cyber Award State Department Kim Zetter Barack Obama Clinton Russia San Worm Sandy Greenberg NSA DNC
An Instagram account is exposing influencer inequality

Marketplace Tech with Molly Wood

05:36 min | 2 weeks ago

An Instagram account is exposing influencer inequality

"The. Hey. Inequality exists influences to from one instagram account is exposing it from American public media. This is marketplace tech. I'm Jack Stewart Info Molly would. How much you paid, it's always an awkward conversation to have but Edessa Ajayi is asking. Just that of social media influences they can have followings of tens or hundreds of thousands and companies will pay them for promotions, but a giant you started the instagram account influence a pay gap to highlight the fact that black influences routinely paid less than white influences, and that's even when they have similar numbers of followers or the same reach, the account lets people share stories anonymously and learn from other people's experiences about what is a fair payment for particular job or endorsements. JI- whose day job is managing influences at the talent agency AGM, so she's been collecting hundreds of stories. So, one of the most interesting ones actually was a campaign and influence of was participating in. This was a why influence. And she was approached lost minute. By a beauty brand with the expectation that she was going to replace a celebrity, so she was five K to be paid for that campaign. She turned up, but realized that the celebrity that apparently wasn't going to turn up. Actually did turn up, so there was no need for her. To be, and she was still paid that five k whereas a black. Who actually participated in the campaign with paid around one thousand, seven hundred, and it had nothing to do influence and following. It's one thing in a job where people get paid a salary, and you can be fairly transparent about it or at least four that transparency, but with influences where this kind of just not that overall body. There's not a union. There's really no way as there to dig in and figure out what these differences are really lets you hide things quite easily. One hundred percent especially as there are different parties involved you have the brands, but you have. Agencies and agencies are often given big budgets from brands or depending on the budget. Will be given the budget from abroad, and there's no level of transparency whereby you know if A. Brian gives an agency around ten K.. WHO's to save agency doesn't Call Five K for themselves and intentionally level influences. I think there were so many things at play here. There's so many people involved in different ways and each industry, each niche you know there are different behaviors that a lot more common within certain niches Bill for message. To Do? You work at a talent agency. Is there anything you can think of? The would help fix this problem? Is there a way to structure pay as their away for influences to work together a former union beyond what you're doing with? The implants pay gap instagram page I'm working hand in hand with a union that has actually been set up there working towards. Towards a opportunities for advocacy when it comes to influences in space and craters in general where people feel okay to discuss the ways in which they have been treated I think reinvigorating influences in the sense that where they feel a lot more confident and a lot more Hud you in the in the grand scheme of things is really important to me. Have you heard anything from brands either talking to you personally or speaking out publicly about the inequality issue? Yes, there are some black influences especially who kind of feel away about some of the Post that have been made by certain brands especially grinds that have a habit of picking and choosing what they like from black culture, completely ostracizing black influences from their campaigns and I think there is constantly right now. Accommodation around seeing black influences black creators as a worthy of a level of respect. You know it shouldn't be anything some shallow. Shallow because you're scared of any repercussions, what you hope changes as a result of this page and the work that you're doing I would really not for it to create a space whereby people feel like they can be on us and NATO behind and not only hard that that based upon the feedback brands will take steps to do what they should do so that's one thing I would also say just. The sense of community has been amazing, and just seeing influences help one another. I think you know sometimes they can be. An influence of with a million can feel so far fetched to maybe influence PUGH has five Cape on the page it. Brings people together an and gives them an understanding of what? Different spaces like and and the things that other people go through, and so I think from the page on that find. UGH, lovell, a kind of close knit way of people advocating for one enough it also required people to use that privilege and also use that insight to help one another, and I, and I think that is what has been really really amazing about the page and I think it will only continue to. Get even. In in that sense. Edessa Ajayi runs the instagram account. Influence a pay gap. She says there is actually a union in the UK now, and she's working with it to try and promote more

Instagram Edessa Ajayi Jack Stewart Pugh Lovell Nato A. Brian UK
What Susan Rice thinks she could bring to a Biden administration

Cape Up with Jonathan Capehart

05:41 min | 3 weeks ago

What Susan Rice thinks she could bring to a Biden administration

"I'm Jonathan. Kaye part, and this is Cape up in former President Barack. Obama's first term Susan Rice was the US ambassador to the United Nations. In the second term, she was Obama's National Security Advisor. Today Susan Rice as a private citizen author of tough love, my story of the things worth fighting for and under serious consideration to be Joe. Biden presidential, running name. Here what she has to say about that President Trump's handling of the coronavirus pandemic, and whether the president is a national security threat to the United States in the Special Cape Up Life episode right now. Welcome back for the third time to the Cape Up podcast embassador Susan Rice welcome. Thanks so much great to be with you. So leery about one minute before we came on air here, there was breaking news that trump administration drops plan to deport international students in online classes, and your reaction was to applaud explained chance. Well, it was such a misguided. Stupid. Decision that they took in the first place. International students are critical part of our university structure. Our college campuses they bring talent. They bring diversity. They bring resources and to lock them out, simply because their campuses have decided by virtue of the pandemic they need to. Conduct classes, online in the fall was just calloused an. Extraordinarily counterproductive I haven't had a chance to read in detail the reporting on it, but it looks like. The trump administration saw their effort to defend this policy in court was unlikely to succeed and they backed down. And it seems to be a victory for our colleges and universities are students across this country and across the world, because so much of our appeal, our competitiveness, our soft power depends on people around the world, wanting to come here and learn and study bring their skills and talents. So this is a good day. Ambassador. Let's keep talking about foreign policy. Originally, I was going to start this interview talking about the election in Poland and the news of the reelection of Poland's president. Duda and he's an ally of president. Trump's and a supporter of the right wing Law and Justice Party he's been condemned by the e, U and democratic watchdogs, and just wondering how if you think president trump's behavior in the farm policies space his support for leaders like Duda, as contributed to the rise of illiberal nationalist in autocratic regimes around the world. Well certainly legitimize the rise of elected autocrats, and we see that increasingly. Parts of the World Poland is the most recent example it's unfortunate because Poland is an important part of NATO an important part of the EU, but it is moving in a direction where it's values, and its approach are completely out of step with the other members of the alliance and it it suggested. Particularly, when it comes to the EU. Their position could be in jeopardy down the road if if there is a further move towards anti democratic policies and structures. Ambassador is it possible for the alliance to even survive if the super in the alliance, the United States doesn't even bother to champion those small D, democratic ideals that have been the cement for Alliance for more than seven decades. All the NATO alliance is under duress. Because of president trump's callous disregard for the purposes and the interest of this alliance, our alliance with NATO is built on common values, but it's also built on interest that we stand together as North American allies North Atlantic allies. And Atlantic. And Europe broadly to counter threats to our sovereignty and territorial integrity is in alliance at which come chiefly from Russian. And when the United States, Questions the value of our lines turns it into a transactional arrangement when president trump decides to unilaterally withdraw third of our horses from Germany without even consulting with the German government and calls our adversaries from Russia to China to North Korea while putting our allies in a very difficult position, it does great damage to the alliance in that's one of the many reasons why we need change I don't think NATO, and our leadership role in the world can withstand for more years of Donald Trump. And, that's why we need change, and we need leadership in the form of Joe Biden who comes out of the bipartisan American tradition of supporting our alliances of understanding who our friends are, and who are adversaries are, and that our leadership and our strength in the world is enhanced when we can bring partners and allies with us.

Donald Trump President Trump National Security Advisor Joe Biden President Barack Nato United States Poland Duda Cape Kaye World Poland United Nations Europe EU Russia Justice Party Germany
Former Trump doctor wins congressional runoff in Texas

America Tonight with Kate Delaney

00:07 sec | 3 weeks ago

Former Trump doctor wins congressional runoff in Texas

"NATO, the president tweeting his congratulations to former White House doctor Ronny Jackson was one of GOP congressional primary runoff in

Nato President Trump Ronny Jackson White House GOP
Muscling up to China and 25 years since Srebrenica

Between The Lines

28:17 min | Last month

Muscling up to China and 25 years since Srebrenica

"Tom Switzer, he and welcome to another episode off between the lines now today on the program will be commemorating the twenty fifth anniversary of Europe's worst massacre since the Holocaust in ninety, ninety, five more than eight thousand people died in Shrimp Nitsa. The town was supposed to be a U N protected safe haven in the vicious civil war that tore Yugoslav apart instead the civilians ended up being massacred by Bosnian Serbs. Were lightning fast with their superior weapons. They easily overran the lightly. I'm Bosnian government troops and the token full civilian peacekeepers. The UN's Valley to protect the civilians inspired Washington to launch unilateral action against Serbia and end the civil war. Would things be the same today now? That's later in the program, but first defense. Last week the Morrison. Government launched a defence strategy and force structure review now the move signals a major shift away from the strategy outlined in the last defence white paper. Remember that just four years ago in two thousand sixteen. It plotted out Australia's strategic costs for the next decade. But that White Paper has as we know been rapidly overtaken by Vince covert China or that now the new review has promised two hundred and seventy billion dollars over the next decade to enhance Australia's defence capabilities with renewed focus on areas like Saba and spice capabilities and the possible development of hop sonic weapons will be fitting aircraft with long-range anti-ship missiles, increasing underwater surveillance and boosting fuel ammunitions reserves. Now, underscoring the seriousness of the shift, the Prime Minister even drew comparisons to the nineteen thirties and the lead up to world. War Two that period of the nineteen thirties. Is Been Something I've been revisiting on a very regular basis and when you connect by the economic challenges and the global uncertainty. It can be very haunting, but is the money too much or not enough is going to all the right places, and we'll do enough to safeguard Australia from China's increasing assertiveness and is rapidly growing military capabilities. What's the role of Australia's diplomacy? And all of this will joining me to discuss this at three distinguished guests. By skill is professor of Asia Pacific Security Studies at Macquarie University Holiday Bites. Thank you good to be here Melissa Conley. Tar is a research fellow at the Asia Institute at the University of Melbourne. Hi There Melissa could to speak again Tom. And Pay. The Jennings is executive director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute. Tom No. Can you talk us through the top of scenarios and potential conflicts that the defense review is preparing us for the scenario that the review is focusing on is one involving a high end conventional conflict, so I've gone to the days of stabilization operations in t more Counterterrorism operations in Afghanistan This document is preparing foresight on onsite conflict. Involving countries that have sophisticated military forces. And, of course, the document doesn't say. I don't think it would be reasonable to expect it to say. That China is the problem. But let me tell you China is the problem that is the now neoplasia competitive that way of thinking about when we think about what's adequate in terms of the topic of military capability we need to have. and to does reflect to change. From past years Tom I recall when I started by defense career, we were thinking much more about the risks presented by Indonesia, and the so called low level in cushions in the northwest. Of course, that's no longer features in anyone's strategic thinking. Really it's about China and the risks that the People's Republic is presenting to all of its neighbors in abroad since in the Indo Pacific region and beyond I cabinet crudely putting it some sites laying the groundwork for fortress Australia US sign. This is preparing us to join a potential use LID. Containment slash war against China for example to protect Taiwan Peter Jennings. I think that is it covers a spectrum of possibilities. One possibility which I think is Epson you were in terms of language of the document is that we might conceivably end up having to face military conflict without being able to rely on the direct combat support of the United States, and that's what leads to discussions around extra stockpiling munitions and fuel insightful. But I think in general terms. Yes, the expectation is that Australia. Through its history has been a country that forms coalitions usually have like minded partners, the share the same types of objectives. And the the plan will design the Defense Force. Really gives us the capacity to do that with Rachel Ellis lecture, example, Japan but also with our traditional ally the United States okay bates skill. You've recently completed a review of China's defense capabilities and its recent military modernization, specifically looking at the implications for Australia Wind you expect the Peo- The People's Liberation Army and its navy. When do you expect them to have the capability to project power as far as Australia annual Pacific knives, well in many respects Tom, they already can I mean they have the long range missile capabilities to do that? Know as a from a standoff position launched from their own from their own homeland against hours. But what I think, the the new strategy is looking at is really the development of capability over the next ten fifteen twenty years, and that's by the Chinese own own acknowledged calendar that they would be able to by that time of mass, a large enough capability, both in terms of its long range strike, you know striking from their own homeland, but also bill to project. Project Power passed the so-called first and second island change and being a position to more directly threatened through those platforms Australian security. So you know we're talking ten or fifteen year window here and I think given the time it does take to try and respond to develop the the deterrent and defense capabilities for Australia. That's that's you know that's in some ways a short window. for Australia to be mobilizing in reaction Melissa Tali. What's the role of a strong diplomacy and all these well I think it needs to be growl. And one of the concerns when we look at the deteriorating strategic environment is we think all that's a defense problem? And so when the prime minister launches the strategic update with those comparisons with the nineteen thirties. It pushes US toward seeing in purely military terms but we don't just want to say things in that security lands, we want to think about all of the parts about national power projection, so that's diplomacy and development as well as defense I think if if people thought about it I think what we invest in all three strongly, but that's not where it is if you look at federal budget fifty. Fifty nine billion to defense and less than seven billion to diplomacy and development together the lowest point with ahead in our history and I think we missing that opportunity. If we don't take US seriously, the way that diplomacy and development can shape things in the world so I was struck. Today was a defendant looking at the latest poll on what are the major concerns that Australians have at the moment of the top threats in the world and the first five, a role nontraditional that drought, environment, disaster, climate change, pandemics, and downtown, global economy, and those places where you know military spending isn't going to help shape that environment. So we need to have an effect on those. We need to be thinking much more about what we can do in the diplomacy and development to mind Peter Jennings. What would you say in to Melissa's observations? Because they reflect a certain mindset that that perhaps we should be focused more on non state actors rather than say China for instance well, I think all of these you know threats that have to be taken seriously. I'm and simply because we're living in the middle of a pandemic for example, doesn't the climate change is gone away in this no longer going to present a problem to us. I guess what I'd say. Is that the you know the five things Melissa listed? That were in the featured in the low e Poland terms of popular concerns. Are also the things which could. In different ways late to the risks of conflict escalating in the Indo Pacific region generally so You know my my view, please while I would like to see spending on diplomacy increased. While I. Say Development Assistance is being something which is effectively the United soft in of Australian power, and the military is the hot end of Australian power. I think. The message against all of these areas is that we have just been underinvesting for decades underinvesting for decades, so we're we're all. High fiving ourselves at just reaching about two percent of gross national product, being spent on defense, but that is compared to what we spending in cold or years, which was sometimes between three and a half percent in four percent of rustic product. So what we have grown used to Tom I would say is. Free written on the United. States code tiles of security for for decades. We've dramatically under. Invested in the things that we need to do to strengthen Australia's position, not just militarily, but also diplomat. A now. We're rather surprised to hear the news that Gosh the bill is a lot more expensive than we really thought. It was only if you've got that confidence in the US. and. In fact, the whole trump stories, the story of the Americans really big being fed up with the rest of the world, thinking that the US can fund the bill for their security, so we're going to have to do more and I think we're going to have to do it against multiplicity of areas not. Justin sought the defense organization. We'll some scholars such as you want and James Current from the University of Sydney. They say that this document sounds a lot like an acknowledgement that the US might not always be there to help us out. By are we starting to plan for more independent Australian defense posture I think it would be a wise move to keep that option open when you think of the capabilities that the Chinese developing in which do have a direct pose a direct threat to Australia or could do so. In many respects, the I think the types of threats that you might not expect an immediate or even timely response on the part of the United States what I'm thinking here. Cyber capabilities is a huge priority for the Chinese. We already know what they see the sort of capability. They can wield against Australia and that's not the sort of thing you can expect a kind of cavalry to. Lead the charge from from Washington to come to Australia's defence slowly long range strike capability on the part of the Chinese capability. They already have in which are going to continue to develop. which could threaten Australia down the road now? These are capabilities that I think that Australia's going to have to develop their own defenses for. They can certainly do that with United States, but again it's not necessarily the sort of threat that we would expect some sort of traditional ally joint response not to make it well. Some of are in listeners will email me and they'll say that if Uncle Sam struggles to police. It's own CDs. Melissa. How on Earth Can Uncle Sam Police? The Asia Pacific region in the face of a rising China. What's your sense about us staying power in the next decade or two in look? It's difficult One of the things that strategic update looks at is more threats to the global rules order, and unfortunately the you know, the US is part of that. the US is not along with the strategies interest on things like global trading system, and a number of international issues like global health where we would say you need to be supporting. A Global Response that said I don't think the strategic update will be read negatively in. Washington, it's my guess. it very clearly couched in terms that I think the US will lock about Australia contributing more and having more self. that could be seen as a statement that we think that the US might not have outback, but can also be seen as something that the US has been for for a long time. I particularly liked a few elements of the update things like making sure that we have. You know material ammunition You know that aren't going to be disrupted. Buckle supply trying having more capability eight industrial cut suffering capability here antiques fuel reserves, which is not as long sane as an issue for us, so I mean those are things that are worth investing in. Regardless of US resolve because as we've seen from COVID, we know that supply chain can be disrupted very quickly and easily, and it's worth having eligibilities. Cepeda Jennings bite skill and Melissa Conley Toilet and Melissa. The Pacific step up last year. That realigned Australia's development budget to deal with some of the strategic challenges posed by China in the Pacific Do you think it goes far enough? The step up was followed recently by strategies new International Development Policy Partnerships for recovery, and that's made it very clear that strategies focus should be on the Pacific and also southeast. Asia including. Indonesia and team August. I think that has a very clear statement about what we want. In the region of being entrusted trusted development partner and influencing those societies that we think positive for four region. Again you're going to. You're going to say you. Hear this from me all the time, but again the problem is that we not really making much invasive lunch, so partnerships for recovery head no new money it talked about the massive challenges that covered as as creating for for the for the Pacific, and for for our region broadly, and the only funding announcement was that we're going to repurpose the money. We would have spent on sending Australian. Volunteers in scholarship holders. And we're GONNA use that so I I suppose I. Feel a little bit with all the areas, not actually include district update in that as well that what we've seen through the foreign policy, White Paper and International Development Policy through to to the defense. Strategic Updike is. We talk about how. how? What a time! These these frosty leaving a contested difficult awful environment that we've now got to leave in and the Dow L. Easy Times over, and then we say, and we're not gonNA. Give any new money so I mean the defense announcement is essentially just that we're going to continue to you know, extrapolate out the money that was planned to be spent in the twenty twenty six, and we're going to extrapolate that out to twenty thirty terabytes skill. Do we risk getting into a bidding war for influence in the Pacific? I don't know if it's a risk. If it is a risk worth worth taking. I mean obviously the Pacific region is so extremely important Australia's future. Both for for defense reasons for regional engagement for diplomatic reasons, developing reasons and the like. so It's quite possible that we're entering in a more competitive phase with China in this. SITES WRIST BYTES I'm talking about more the budgetary concerns he because in the wake of the Corona Virus Crosses. There'll be serious limits on how we can spend on these things scholley. Yes, there is and party left to be be developed for that, but you know when you're talking about your own backyard. I mean I I. I don't think it's the kind of country that can simply. Pretended it's by itself getting back pay to Jennings to the region, generally in the rise of what. Angus Campbell is of the Defence Force he's talked about the rise of political warfare, the idea of grey zone warfare things like cyber attacks, economic coercion influence operations that fall below the traditional threshold of war. He says we need a whole of government response to it. I, you seeing that whole of government approach happening in Campbell, or is this Manley focus on defense and the spy agency so far Peter Jennings. It probably is focused on the national security agency's Tom. That's not too surprising because you'd expect them to sort of pick up on the risks I. But General Campbell is right. It does need to be all government is. There's a whole lot of things happening there that simply cannot and should not be done by defense organizations. and. I think that realization is slowly dawning. Along as both of the speakers have said that actually ladyship comes with cost of infrastructure is going to play that role, but you know, give you a small example of this we. We have lost the ability to broadcast into the South Pacific and Southeast Asia. In a way that we used to very successfully over over decades to give us the capacity to do that. We're probably talking about you know that. He million a year forty million a year, which sounds a lot of defend. It's nothing if you're in the Defense Department. Let me tell you. But you need to be able to do things like that. To be the truth teller in the region to actually tell the region that there are alternatives to Chinese Communist Party authoritarianism I think that's what's needed with responding to this grey zone on threat. Is Actually to be the truth teller. In this part of the will and getting our system in Cambridge used to that reality to understanding what needs to be done. To starting at different type of conversation with our region. With our own people for that matter that that is a sort of a psychological change which I can see happening, but we're not quite yet. There's a bit of work still to be done to get to that point Melissa. Conley Tyler. Is, just responding on that. I agree entirely with what pitcher saying on on broadcasting. It's a small investment, such a an increasing influence. It should be Brian and I hope that did that's being seen. I think having defense voices. I will help a lot in a banks, seriously I'm but just went. When you ask Tom Balaton host government and what's happening there? There are some really good examples, so for example win. This Pacific step pop started an office of the Pacific was established in that apartment and tried and each job. He's to be that coordinating body, and it's bringing together the. The defense, the development and the diplomacy in a way that he's gone to maximize our influence. and I've noticed this a lot more discussion about that that three. How do you bring defense development diplomacy communities together? I'm involved in initiate the Pacific. Four Day and I think a lot of people not talking about what more we can do for that that joined up coordination to make the most about national instruments by skill. You're an expert on China. The elephant in the room of course is China doing need to be careful not to overestimate China's military strength. What about the weaknesses? Exactly right I mean you have to know your enemy's weakness as well as their strengths in the case of China, they are undertaking enormous reforming organization effort. They're pouring billions of dollars into new capabilities, but there's a lot of things we need to recognize I. Mean One is that the Chinese have not fought a shooting war and more than forty years. They are have no. They have zero experience in high end combat against a serious. Adversary, scenario, so that's not to downplay them, but to understand that they've got enormous obstacles to overcome that day. Themselves acknowledge that they themselves. No, they have to overcome, and that's why we had this window that we've been talking about. A fifteen to twenty years. to try and develop capabilities to get in front of the kinds of things that the Chinese want to bring to bear around. Around, twenty thirty or twenty, thirty, five, twenty, forty, paid-up Melissa to be continued. Thanks so much for being on our in. Thank you, tell my pleasure. Thank you, Tom. That was paid jennings. He's executive director of the Australian strategic pulsing suit by skill professor of Asia Pacific Security Studies at Macquarie University and Melissa Commonly Tyler. She's a research fellow at the Asia Institute at the University of Melbourne. These between the lines with Tom Switzer. Coming next, we're going to replay a version of a segment from between the lines. I 'cause commemorating the massacre of Bosnian Muslims at shredded Nitsa on the eleventh of July nodding ninety. Five twenty five years ago this week. More than eight thousand people were killed by Serb forces. It was the worst massacre. Europe had seen since the Holocaust. Serve softening up Trevor Nature for the army's final push into the town. Town of course was supposed to be a safe haven protected by the United Nations, but the civilians ended up being sitting ducks as I woke Larry. Hollingsworth Remembers I. Myself Feel Devastated and ashamed I was there with them? When we told them that it was a safe haven I watched. Many of these people walk in with the minimal possessions into shreds, knowing that it was a safe haven, and now they're fleeing out because we've let them down, let them down to the extent that within dies. About Twenty three thousand women and children were deported, and about eight thousand Muslim men and boys left behind where executed and buried in mass graves. Now, reports from the time described, frightening scenes stiffen overawed from medicines on frontier. Speaking he. Loading some of the children and women into buses, but there's no indication as to where it was buses, going with seen some horrifying streaming, going on women and children going into the buses being taken away from their family This was going on with a lot of crying a lot of panicking. The slaughter had been planned carefully and executed with precision. All the wall Dutch. Pace is literally stood by, and did nothing indeed even when the Serb assault on Srebrenica was imminent. in-command is still rejected Kohl's racetracks. Positions. Pope John Paul. The second declared ribbon Nitsa a defeat for civilization as media reports begins to reveal the scale of the unfolding tragedy. The UN says nine hundred thousand people are still unaccounted for. About some became clear as government soldiers emerging from the forest in central Bosnia, told of horrific massacres at the hands of the Serbs one young. People executing them on spot, but this didn't come out of the blue. By the time this massacre took place the civil war that tore the former Yugoslavia. Repot was heading into its fourth year. More than a million people have been displaced, and the world became familiar with a new term ethnic cleansing. So? Who is to blame for these well? Let's start with the United. Nations from ninety two to ninety, five shrivel Nitsa was the world's first union declared civilian syphon. It was supposed to to her aggression. It was supposed to aggression and set the scene for political negotiations to end hostilities between the Bosnian Serbs, and Muslims, but the UN soldiers in the SIPHONS. They were bedeviled by problems. If you declare an area safe haven in the name of the United Nations. Nations if you tell the people if they are safe in the name of the United Nations you have got to put the troops on the ground, and it's no good for politicians say yes, we go for safe havens, but we're not gonNA put the troops meanwhile the Europeans vacillated and equivocated failing miserably to cope with across at its own back door. America was also reluctant to get involved as then President George Bush senior explained in Nani Nani to. I? Something because I learned something from Vietnam. I am not going to commit US forces until I know what the mission is to the military. Tell me that it can be completed until I know how they can come out. You have ancient rivalries that have cropped up as as Yugoslavia's dissolved or getting dissolved, and it isn't going to be solved by sending in the eighty second airborne, and although on the campaign trail that Ye Bill Clinton pledged to reverse the appeasement of that bushes of Belgrade as President Clinton allowed the Balkans to bleed for three more years. French President Jacques Chirac was moved to declare quote, the position of the leader of the free world vacant. Trinite Sur changed all that having done nothing the before during the mass killings in Rwanda Clinton was galvanized into action, and crucially he cut the United Nations out of the Decision Chine on August thirty Washington led a night bombing campaign against the Serbs the NATO action began early this morning. The harsh light of fires and explosions coloring the night sky. Some people watched the bombardment from their houses, but after more than ten thousand deaths here in the last three years, most Sarajevans had given up any hope of outside intervention. Last night it came on a scale which could yet change the course of this war by the end of not ninety five sixty thousand nine hundred troops, including twenty thousand Americans were on the ground in Bosnia. Pace was declared. The BOEKEN's wars ended only because the US finally acted. He's President Clinton in November ninety five my fellow Americans in this new era there are still times when America and America alone can and should make the difference for peace. The terrible war in Bosnia is such a case nowhere. Today is the need for American leadership. More stark are more immediate than in. In Bosnia in the years since the Mexica Europe inaction was heavily criticised, and the US was held up for its global leadership in particular for its unilateral humanitarian intervention. This is when the US secretary. Of State. Madeleine Albright said America was the indispensable nation, and that idea would fade into the justification of the Iraq invasion in two thousand and three as a war of liberation, but he's a question with the US intervene. If the shrivel Nitsa massacre happened today from the standpoint of twenty twenty, we might ask if the era of US unilateral humanitarian intervention is well and truly over. Well, that's it for this week. Show remember if you'd like to hear the episode again or download segments since two thousand fourteen. Just go to ABC. Dot Net dot US slash aren and follow the prompts to between the lines, or you can listen via the ABC. Listen APP, or wherever you get your podcast. You can even subscribe, so you never miss an episode. I'm Tom Switzer continue next week.

Australia China United States Melissa Peter Jennings Pacific Tom Switzer Washington TOM Bosnia UN United Nations Prime Minister Europe Melissa Conley Professor Of Asia Pacific Secu Indonesia Asia Institute
2 cops charged with murder for alleged excessive use of stun guns

Rush Limbaugh

00:35 sec | Last month

2 cops charged with murder for alleged excessive use of stun guns

"Of police officers and Oklahoma are facing murder charges in the town of Wilson, south of Oklahoma City officers Joshua Taylor and Brandon Dingman charged with second degree murder in connection with the death of 28 year old Jared Lakey. Court documents said the officers use their stun guns on Lakey more than 50 times. And that was a substantial factor in his death, the court documents say that greatly exceeded what would have been necessary, Fox says jail NATO, According to police, The officers were responding to a report that Lakey was running down the street naked.

Jared Lakey Second Degree Murder Oklahoma Brandon Dingman Murder Joshua Taylor Oklahoma City Wilson FOX
Trump approves Pentagon plan to move 9,500 troops out of Germany

Newsradio 950 WWJ 24 Hour News

00:26 sec | Last month

Trump approves Pentagon plan to move 9,500 troops out of Germany

"Trump Administration plans to follow through on the threat to withdraw troops from Germany as president. Trump insists the ally isn't meeting NATO defense spending goals. The Pentagon says it plans to redeploy 9500 U. S troops stationed in Germany. Pentagon officials say they will brief congressional defense committees in the coming weeks, but lawmakers are reportedly preparing amendments in upcoming defense budget bills to block the

Pentagon Donald Trump Germany Nato President Trump
Inmates got relief payments by mistake, IRS wants money returned

Ron St. Pierre

00:50 sec | Last month

Inmates got relief payments by mistake, IRS wants money returned

"Hundreds of thousands of dollars in corona virus relief payments went to people incarcerated in jail or in prison and now the IRS says they want their money back is Jill NATO from fox after Congress passed the coronavirus rescue package back in March some people behind bars got stimulus checks of twelve hundred dollars the IRS says that was a mistake and has directed state prison department state intercept those payments and return them the agency doesn't have exact numbers yet but in one example the Kansas department of corrections intercepted more than two hundred thousand dollars however the legislation the produce those payments doesn't specifically exclude prisoners from getting money tax attorney Kelly herb says the IRS has no legal basis for trying to get those checks back till NATO fox news

IRS Jill Nato Congress Kelly Herb Kansas Department Of Correctio Attorney Nato
"nato" Discussed on The Economist: The Intelligence

The Economist: The Intelligence

08:58 min | 6 months ago

"nato" Discussed on The Economist: The Intelligence

"Today. Nato defense ministers will conclude their meetings in Brussels ahead of a security summit that starts in Eunuch tomorrow. The two day summit comes as the defense alliance is increasingly under the spotlight president. Donald Trump has long complained that European governments aren't pulling their weight. When it comes to spending and troop deployments they are really sort of letting down in that one respect and we don't want people taking advantage of the United States he wants NATO to take a more leading role in the Middle East and Response Ministers have agreed in principle to take over some of the training in Iraq. That's currently being carried out by a US led coalition against Islamic state. It's not clear whether more NATO troops will be deployed or whether more NATO partners will be drafted into Iraq. What is clear is that the alliance is bending to international pressure. Nato in the past two three years. It's pretty difficult time of it partly because of Donald Trump's pressures on us in the from the White House He's been pushing very hard harder than perhaps any previous president for NATO members to be spending more money to carry their fair share of the burden as he would put. Daniel Franklin is the economists diplomatic editor but also there have been other criticisms not recently president macro France and interview with the Economist. Talk to NATO experiencing brain death so there's been a lot of questions about NATO's future so NATO came in for this kind of criticism. Even before the trump era the before donald trump came to the White House. Nato was under pressure because of external reasons more than internal ones it was under pressure because of Russia's actions in Ukraine in particular so there was always a bit of a disconnect between the level of activity of NATO in response to the increased pressure felt from Russia and the criticism. It was getting from the White House in particular when Donald Trump came to power. Broadly the perception is of of a NATO. His struggling yes. I think that's right. But the have been changes of late which I think are more encouraging for NATO first of all Donald Trump himself has been changing his tone somewhat. He's been keen to trumpet. Nato's increase spending promises as a as a triumph for for his pressure saying that no other president has achieved what he's achieved he's turned into something of a NATO booster or booster Rodman the NATO Bashar and a new big survey of attitudes to NATO countries by Pew Research Center is reasonably encouraging. I think for the organization in in what way well The Pew survey suggests that support for NATO among populations in among the NATO members states is reasonably strong. Fifty three percent say they have a favorable attitude towards NATO only twenty seven percent. Have an unfavorable Ju- if it was an organization that was struggling with a perception problem. Now it doesn't seem to be what's different when I think there are still perception problems. If you delve deeper into the piece of there are some also some less good signs Vanessa. In certain countries support over a ten year horizon has dropped quite sharply and France for example. There's been a twenty one point a drop over that over that period in Germany to quite a sizeable drop even in the United States Although the level of support for NATO favorability rating of just over half is about the average over the period from two thousand and nine to two thousand sixteen. It's quite a sharp drop from the past couple of years where support had spite and there are a couple of NATO member states where unfavorable attitudes to the to the alliance remain very strong and that's Greece and Turkey. So it's it's very much of a mixed picture but I do think there has been a revival in NATO's fortunes partly because the political sense of pressures from America have eased somewhat in recent times. So how much do you think these troop deployment promises and spending changes are down to pressure from the likes of President Trump and macron? Well NATO was going to be increasing. Its spending anyway but the problem was that it was not living up to the promises that itself had made the pledge that a NATO members had had made back off to the Russian move into Ukraine and The annexation of Crimea was to spend the minimum two percent of GDP on defense and only a few countries. We're doing that. The promise was to do this by two thousand twenty four. Some countries in particular Germany were not going to achieve that America was complaining as indeed. American presidents have done repeatedly down the decades. But the difference this time was Donald. Trump did it with a vehemence assistance. And I think a sense of threat even to the point of threatening to pull out of NATO allies didn't shape that was a degree of pressure that NATO would not face before and I think perhaps to some extent has accounted for at least some of the increase spending. Mr Trump's complaints seems wholly focused on everyone paying their own fair. Share about about money concerns. If there are more than that yes I think there is more than this I think. President trump has also started to see that. Nato can be useful to him in a number of ways. One way is by spending more. It's something that he can chalk up as a success for him and he mentioned it in his State of the Union Address. We're also getting our allies. Finally to help pay their fair share. I have raised contributions from other NATO by more than four hundred billion dollars. So it's not. Just what's fair and equitable. He's looking for NATO members to relieve pressure on America's forces in the wake of the killing in January of Casino Damani talk rainy in general He actually asked. Nato said that he wanted NATO to do more in the Middle East. So far fron NATO being something that was the the the whose existence was under threat. He wanted to step up. And come and do more says Edison's then NATO itself has been busily looking at what it could do in Iraq in particular But now defense ministers are meeting this week and they're going to be looking at proposals to increase the NATO training operation In Iran pass quite substantially and as those defense ministers meet today. What else will they be trying to hammer out? Well there's a lot on the agenda for defense ministers as the question of Afghanistan the intention the trump administration's intention is to draw down America's presence in Afghanistan. President trump would like to get those those troops home and that affects NATO which also has a mission in Afghanistan. There's the broader question of how to respond to Russia's buildup of new weaponry ninety nine Putin has been busily investing in his arsenal and in particular with with the ending the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty the treaty There are lingering constraints about what he can put into place of really come off and NATO's having to think not just about the IMF implications but also the broader response to to the Russian buildup. So there's plenty for defense types to get their heads around not only at the meeting of ministers in Brussels now but also when the broader gathering at the Munich security conference starts on Friday. Daniel thank you very much for joining us. Thank you in Japan. Many forms of gambling are illegal. There are exceptions among them. The Arcade Game Kinko and in two thousand eighteen casinos were legalized. The decision hasn't gone down well with many Japanese people who worry about gambling addiction and the influence of organized crime that unease worsened in December. When a cabinet minister was arrested over allegations of taking bribes from companies. I in casino projects in the country in spite of growing public concern. The Japanese government still seems to think it's worth a roll.

NATO President trump donald trump president America United States Iraq Middle East Brussels White House Germany Daniel Franklin Russia president macro France Ukraine Vanessa France Japanese government Afghanistan
"nato" Discussed on Worldly

Worldly

05:55 min | 8 months ago

"nato" Discussed on Worldly

"The only time article five was ever invoked was in the United States is case after the nine eleven attacks. NATO allies came to America's defense. So it's kind of messed up for the even at this point right like waiver on that and this is why this kind of lack of faith that us that the US would defend fended. These countries part of that is why countries like Poland are actively trying to get more and more. US troops literally in the country. So you have Poland trying to basically basically entice trump to send even more. US troops by say we'll build you a base and we'll even call it for trump now. Most people I talked to think that this is never going to happen. That it's rhetoric on both besides but the point is that you know by having US troops physically in these countries that the US if they were attacked the US would therefore not only one beat. They're ready but would be on the front lines right. So if you accidentally hit Americans there now in the war regardless of whether NATO you know they're holding onto article five or not. So that's why you see you know this desire to have more NATO troops more. US troops in these countries. which again to me is fascinating going from the Middle East for like everyone's like Americans get the hell out? We don't want your troops. Everyone there is like please give us more American troops in. That's why because even if article five is fake and it fails then you know. At least we'll have troops still here. No it's it's a problem that is not just limits. The United States this issue of NATO credibility we talk about the US because it's the most important country the The largest contributor terms of military firepower but neto is also dealing with serious internal divisions starting with A contradiction with something. Something I said earlier actually about countries in NATO focusing on their democratic transitions from former authoritarian rule. Well now you actually have at least three member states going in the wrong counteraction. We're talking about Poland which we've been which has been discussed as this really friendly pro. US aid but also is GonNa need serious authoritarian direction. In the past few years with a major major democratic go Russians and then Hungary and Turkey both of which are now thoroughly described. I think most unbiased observers as Teheran states not Russia style authoritarian but but a kind of soft at least sliding towards authoritarianism pretty heavily. Yeah and when you have that that kind of change inside of alliance that's supposed to be founded on the defensive democracy and shared values then you have countries inside the alliances that start to have different interests stress different senses of what is important to preserve about their country and what they can do or should do as members of the alliance to protect protect themselves. Some of this geostrategic has nothing to do with democracy. Turkey is a special case because it's really a Middle Eastern country in its strategic orientation and so it cares cares a lot about Syria for example and that causes a type of different relationship with Russia than basically everybody else in NATO but hungry polander creating different kinds of challenges. Even even as Poland's tells every American who's listening we want NATO. We Love America. Please please please please. They're moving the direction opposite. From what every American except for maybe trump wants it. We should send you to Hungary's act in order to do some reporting on this and this is actually a problem with you. Know when we talked about NATO expansion. This is an issue that I'm I'm worried about out quite a bit. There are twenty nine members of NATO. Now and a lot of what you what NATO can accomplish as an alliance requires unanimity right unanimity in decision-making and the morale as as you're adding the harder it's going to make that happen like you're going to need you know the US and Poland and Hungary and Turkey and all these countries to agree on stuff and now they're hoping to add a thirtieth and thirty first the thirty second and with each expansion. Yes you can make the case that it's good for those individual countries it might strengthen the alliance in on the margins but you're also making the political critical aspect of this alliance much harder to manage and we've seen this already. The the more allies NATO brings in the heart of the decision making process has been which again goes back to my clearly love affair that I didn't know I had with Jens Stoltenberg which is like the fact that he's kept this alliance sort of running smoothly despite more allies despite trump's disturbance the that they're able leaving. Come up with these platitudes. I actually find to be quite remarkable. It's why he's GonNa. He seems to. He was probably going to be in the position for the longest amount of any secretary-general. I will say that I think just to wrap about that. It was pretty promising to see that trump. Even if it's mostly from flattery like you said we are again stands Stoltenberg stands. I don't know You know even if it is mostly flattery and even if you know these NATO countries did start spending more Before trump actually came into office he has a I think. Nobody can quibble with the fact that he has been very vocal and very clear about wanting these countries to spend more of their the defense budget and pushing very hard and so I think seeing him this week at this NATO summit actually saying like NATO's doing great NATO stronger like NATO's Oh you know what are the most important in the lions is is actually really positive in the sense of you know when he first came into office in the campaign trail like people were very concerned that this could be the end of NATO and I think you know we're now three plus I guess three years into his exactly three years into his term most and it seems like things are kind of going. Okay Okay like their challenges that we just enumerated but it seems like at least as of right now. Things are kind of going in a pretty positive direction which like all things considered at. That's pretty good sign. I'd say which you know this show. We don't tend to leave you with a lot of. Hey welcome everyone can destroy. I can't believe it. Enjoy the happiness wall. Okay for now. I want to thank our engineer or producer Jackson Beerfeltz. And I want to encourage all of you folks to rate and subscribe and review worldly wherever your podcasts.

NATO United States Poland trump Hungary Turkey America Middle East Teheran Russia Stoltenberg Jens Stoltenberg Syria neto Jackson Beerfeltz lions
"nato" Discussed on The Current

The Current

07:42 min | 8 months ago

"nato" Discussed on The Current

"I think it may be a number of things. I think. There's a sense that a lot of people have is that the world organizations and they're on political organizations haven't serve them well and that helped feel populism. I mean there are people who feel they've been marginalized or left out and it's not just economic. What I think seems to becoming increasingly clear is the people who support populist parties? Many of the people supported Brexit in a continuing to support Brexit in the. UK really felt that they won't listen to they felt there was. They lead snob somewhere doing in what they wanted and they were being told to shut up and do what they were told. And it's a question of dignity I think but I think what is also happening is the number of the multilateral institutions is an out quite old I mean the UN they show the World Bank the IMF International Monetary Fund. All of these organizations was set up at the end of the Second World War. And I think what's happening with the passage of time is we are forgetting why we needed them. You know we knew we needed them after. Nineteen forty-five because we could look around the world. People could look around the world and see the devastation that a major major state to state conflict had had created state to state conflicts and created. And I think we've forgotten just how important it is to have ways of working together multilaterally literally and I think that's dangerous because Florida's these organizations are and you know we can certainly all criticize them. We need them particularly now when we are facing not just strategic problems competition between states who are also facing the major challenge of climate change more than ever. We need to work together. So the let's bring it back to NATO. How does that alliance seem relevant? How does it make itself seem relevant? Well my own prescription. But I'm you know who knows I mean there's so many arguments about what NATO my own view is it should go back to focusing on what it does. It should stop trying to out of Europe out of North Atlantic ventures. I think I mean there are all sorts of arguments for that but I don't think the good ones and I think the Europeans and Canada the partners in NATO partner states are really going to have to step up and do more and that's very difficult in peace time because public don't I don't see the point in paying for expensive military equipment and expensive military's but I think we really need to think seriously and I think this question for our political leadership. Can they explain lane to the rest of his life. Tax Dollars need to go on this stuff and I think they've really got to make a start on that and it was a historian. You're you're more accustomed. I'm to looking backwards but allow me to put a crystal ball in front of you and say as these leaders meet now. Do you think ten years from now they will be meeting at something called the NATO. Oh I think they will A lot depends on what happens. I mean a lot depends on how permanent defective of president trump and his policies are going to be on American American politics. I mean what is interesting at the moment is it in Congress in the. US is still very strong. Support for NATO and whether that will outlast president trump whether he has has one or two terms is a big question I think for the European powers they really I think a beginning to realize what it would mean not to have a nasal not to have some form of military every corporation in some form of of military planning and so perhaps they will try and come together. I'M GONNA be an optimist and say ten years NATO will steal still be here. Maybe maybe we'll have it self and be refocused and really know what it's about you know one thing that's curious and just to shift gears here slightly when you look at the the photo of all of those leaders in that room. Of course Turkey's president is there and this comes at a time that Turkey has unilaterally Gone in to Syria And created created even more emotion in that region. What what are the challenges that Turkey's incursion into Syria its relationship with Russia? What are the challenges that that poses for the Alliance of course being a NATO combination? Yeah it's a major challenge to I mean if you look at the original NATO treaty it is about bringing together countries who have common values who care about democracy who care about a world in which people cooperate who actually want to make. According to treat. He wanted to make a world free from MM conflict. I mean NATO is very much a defensive alliance. It's not about going out and taking over other countries and I think the behavior of Turkey is extremely worrying and the question of the NATO is. How much can it let you get away with it? tacky is buying military equipment for Russia which NATO is going to compromise NATO security and I think this is a real problem. And how far Kentucky go and doing things like this. And how far can it go in an intervention though Syria. Now I think it's a huge problem for Asia and I think they're going they have to come to terms with it. But how do you do that. I mean Turkey keeps pushing the envelope in pushing the envelope and more and more and more and there has been no no apparent censure. Yeah Yeah No. I've been wondering about this. I mean in the Cold War Turkey was was very important for the NATO alliance and I think people tend to overlook some of some of the Lestat that democratic things Tokyo was doing because of Turkey's proximity across the Black Sea to the Soviet Union. But I think you could argue now that Russia's much weaker that Turkey is less important than I think. Perhaps this needs to be brought home to take that. It's not as important as it was that it's causing trouble for NATO and quite frankly NATO may reach a point where it says is it just doesn't need Turkey and Turkey may need to think about where it is in the world. It doesn't live in a good neighbourhood. That may not at the moment it's on friendly terms with Russia but Turkish Russian relations have gone up and down on over the last century and they've often been at odds with each other. It doesn't have a good relationship with Iran. There's a lot of resentment in in Middle Eastern countries about what Turkey's being doing. Toki doesn't have a good relationship with Greece. And so maybe maybe just took he needs to think about where it's going to be kicked out of NATO. What what are the odds of that happening? I don't know I think it will depend very much. On what sort of leadership. I think macron has been very critical and he's also very critical of the United States role role in suddenly pulling out of Syria so whether macron will be able to bring his NATO partners with partners along with him whether Toki we'll be censured and whether it will be given some sort of ultimatum. You don't know I mean it really depends on. The internal dynamics of trouble is of course at the moment the United States although it's concerned about Turkey buying Russian equipment President Putin president trump seems to think he has a good relationship with president. I hadn't really recently to the White House so very difficult to tell again. The United States is going to be so important because it is is the big partner in NATO to let me finish off with that thought then what does Donald Trump and his presence and his presidency mean for NATO right now I think ain't nothing much good. I mean the the tar was Donald Trump is. Sometimes I think he he hits on things that are important to American policy I think is confrontation with China. Probably was overdue. You in a way. I think I think the Chinese had been pushing the bounds of what was reasonable behavior in for example intellectual property theft. But I think he's a rash IQ and that's very worrying. I mean if you're trying to develop alliance fuel trying to do planning if you're trying to think of where the future is if you don't think you can count on the leader of the main power in that relationship. Then I think it makes you very uneasy and I and I think what I what strikes me most about president trump is it. His foreign policy is very erratic and worryingly. I think he has fewer advises around him whom he's prepared to listen to and that's concerning whereas the continuity in American foreign strategic policy. It's certainly not in the president's office Margaret McMillan. Thank you very much for sharing these thoughts with us. Thank you very nice conversation. Margaret Macmillan is professor of history at the University of Toronto and Professor America of International History at the University of Oxford. You may well know her from her books including Paris. Nineteen nineteen and the the uses and abuses of history we reached Margaret Macmillan in Oxford England..

NATO Turkey Russia Syria Donald Trump UK Margaret Macmillan Brexit UN Toki Florida President Putin Margaret McMillan Europe World Bank
"nato" Discussed on AP News

AP News

05:04 min | 9 months ago

"nato" Discussed on AP News

"The strength of NATO is that despite these differences we have always been able to unite the wrong court costs to protect and defend the shoulder and it is the responsibility of all of us to make sure that we do this also today because we live in the more unpredictable I'm uncertain rolled

NATO
"nato" Discussed on And Now The Hard Part

And Now The Hard Part

05:53 min | 10 months ago

"nato" Discussed on And Now The Hard Part

"But particularly after the Berlin Wall fell a lot of countries that have been maintaining two percent of their national budgets for defense began to cut down to one point seven one point five one point four one point three in the case of of Germany at one point and that just means that the US is carrying an outsized burden and you don't have that sense of family all contributing to the shared budget if you will so that gave President trump talking horse but frankly President Obama and all five presidents that I worked for also routinely beat the drum to get NATO allies to pay more they began paying more after the invasion of Crimea because all of a sudden there was a physical security threat coming towards NATO territory. the question I think when president trump comes in is whether you do better as the United States trying to encourage more spending with sugar or with vinegar and we I've had a lot of vinegar in this conversation so that's one set of issues the other set of issues is the value set where I think we began to see with Viktor ORB on in Hungary first and then in Poland and then in Turkey throughout the period from two thousand twelve onward increasing autocratic behaviour increasing populace behavior using democratic majority ladies to make judiciaries less independent to make media more state run and less truly the fourth estate watched logging checking and balancing government power to squeeze out opponents to harass them and this goes to the fundamental compact values among allies I think we were speaking out quite a strongly about these things in the Obama Administration we were working with the European Union Commission I don't think that president trump cares about this and in fact he holds up a mirror and sees a lot of similarities with a guy like or bonner guy like and Shannon has been very welcoming them Victoria has done a tremendous job in so many different ways highly respect that just else for further fraying of the fundamental platform on which this is built so that's what's happening within the Western community but what about the threat side the external threat side the dangers coming from Russia do you think that this current escalation if it's fair to call it that started with Ukraine or does it go even further back in and I should say by the way you were on the front lines as assistant secretary of State for European Eurasian Affairs from two thousand thirteen to twenty seventeen I think that Russia made its first serious military probes into new space with the Georgia in war in two thousand in new and scary that we haven't seen before you know I think in the in the Georgian context they stopped short of pudding oh military power the Russians did but I do think it was a learning experience for Putin and his military in terms of how they do it next time including with more deniability they were extremely well rehearsed when they went into Crimea so you get the feeling that they had been practicing and that's so we we're fast forwarding from two thousand eight to what in two thousand and fourteen in the winter is when they go into Crimea and then they go into the eastern parts of Ukraine the Donbas columns of suspected Russian Allah have been reported moving through east Ukraine mid phase of a new Russian Galatian unverified video you're seeing a much more sophisticated Russian operation this time sophisticated as a complicated word let's say deniable stealthy well rehearsed with these bizarre overlays of democratic veneer you know you remember that after the Russian forces supported the Crimean independence they felt the need to have a national referendum among the population tat about ten minutes to think about it and many of whom had left and the rest of whom owed their pensions and their livelihood to the aggressor and now you are arguably a victim of this newly subtle and we won't say sophisticated but more deniable but in some ways more Texas Louis and tactically adept Russian approach when in what has become I think we have to admit one of the most famous comments of your career has said the comments were totally unacceptable David Sanger the New York Times reporter has called you patient zero in this new era of weaponising surveillance information not disinformation in this case but actual information can you tell us about that experience and and what you learn from it so we were in the middle of the my don protests in Ukraine in the winter of two thousand thirteen two thousand fourteen.

Berlin Wall ten minutes two percent
"nato" Discussed on And Now The Hard Part

And Now The Hard Part

09:48 min | 10 months ago

"nato" Discussed on And Now The Hard Part

"From foreign policy and the Brookings Institution we bring you and now the hard part I'm Jonathan temperament on each episode we examined one vexing mm-hmm trace its origin and offer a way forward today what to do about the framing of the NATO alliance should never happen again and they will also determined to stand up to the expansion of the Soviet Union in the Cold War it was routine Russian means buzzing the airspace of NATO members in Western Europe the report details the extent to which Moscow has revived the tactic member ship in NATO obligates the members to defend any other member that's tacked why should my son go to Montenegro to defend it from attack in which you say I've asked the same question in his joint address to Congress on Tuesday president trump took credit for getting NATO allies spend more money on defense NATO's obsolete it's old it's fat it's loppy NATO has been good for Europe but NATO has also been good for the United States our guest is Victoria newland Tori the nonresident senior fellow at Brookings and former assistant secretary of state she's also served as US ambassador to NATO and a quick note this episode includes some explicitly winch Toria welcome let's start with the problem does it work to frame it this way the eight alliances fraying for variety of reasons at the very moment that the threat posed by outside forces especially Russia is surging how do you feel about that I would say in every generation of NATO's life and NATO now older than seventy there have been problems that challenged the resilience and applicability of the alliance but there's only one reason that the NATO alliance is in difficulty right now which is that the current president of the United States continues to cast into doubt whether our founding promise to each other mutual self defense will be honored you know the United States was the founding member of the NATO alliance we wrote and signed the treaty in in Washington so the problem is this underlying seed of doubt that's been sown and the fact that we could be reinventing NATO yet again for some of the challenges it's not yet dealing with and is it fair to say that the threat is growing because of course as you were pointing out with the possible exception of the period after the end of the Cold War NATO has always faced grave and existential threats and yet there does seem to be something particular about this moment in terms of the danger here's that are looming on virtually all sides you know having studied NATO I and then worked at NATO through various iterations I think when you're in it it always feels like the existential moment certainly felt existential when we invoked Article Five on September Twelfth Two Thousand and one of the mutual off defense language in NATO's article right correct the day after the twin towers went down in New York all NATO members committed to help the United States defend itself against whomever had hit us and at that time we didn't even know who it was that on attack against one or more of the allies in Europe or in North America shall be considered an attack against them all so that moment certainly felt existential particularly when we went to vote in NATO and if everybody had not agreed would have wrecked the alliance right there but to be back in the place of NATO's founding which is that we we have to worry about territorial incursions onto NATO landmasses in countries is a little bit back to the future and it does is feel scary I think that there are plenty of other threats that or also GonNa Challenge our kids and next generations at NATO format provides a great place for the great nations of the transatlantic space to talk about these things and to set some policies together and we're just not it using NATO for that and when we talk about NATO or the transatlantic alliance when we talk about it fraying what are you most worried about so I think that there are a number of things here the first thing is is our security commitment to each other still solid as we discussed the second thing was the economic commitment that we have to each other in the transatlantic space that begins to break down when the United States puts tariffs on its own allies and uses tariffs as as a weapon of coercion equally against its allies and its competitor still France did that I told them I said don't do it because if you do it I'm going to tax your wine we tarum in the third pieces all of this is based on commitment to free societies democracies that include elections alternation of power free media independent judiciaries transparency of public finance all these things and again you have a United States that is not only not preaching those values and extending and expanding them the way we always have were not necessarily always practicing in them at home either trump has raised a lot of questions and made people very anxious with some of the things that he said his reluctance to embrace article five for example before eventually doing it but beyond the rhetoric had things actually gotten worse in a more sort of concrete material way in NATO I think NATO is performing the fundamental security tasks said it needs to perform including keeping lots of forces of many nations out on the eastern edge to deter the Russians continuing to train in Afghanistan continuing to modernize the way the alliance works and frankly continuing to get more money in the Bank for defense from all these countries which by the way started in two thousand fourteen after the Crimea threat my concern is simply that if we ever had a catastrophic moment or a security crisis do the rest of the members of NATO feel secure enough in the way the United States supports them that they would support us if we needed them and what do you think the answer to that question is I think it depends on what the circumstances were ends on how long this seating of doubt about our own reliability continues is that really what you're most worried about the danger of a massive attack for example or is the real threat today from these forms of asymmetric warfare that Russia has gotten so good at waging all of these things it does short of actual major war whether it's election interference or air incursions through NATO airspace Britain's scrambled jets to except Russian aircraft on twenty one I don't think any of these threats posed by Russia right now are insurmountable or even the most dangerous security threats that we face my concern is that we're doing so little to coordinate our effort against them that we're providing an open greenfield for rush to run roughshod and in particular vis-a-vis Russia it's always been the case ever since the founding that the United States generally leads alliance policy towards Russia so when you have an America that with a president that has one view of Russia and the cabinet and Congressman have a different view it's very hard to provide coherent leadership particularly on New Challenges Congress pass legislation it believed that Russia should be sanctioned and the president signed it signed electon late last summer and then hasn't decided not to implement bright so we have an America that seems less committed to the alliance itself as well as to the shared values the core of the transatlantic community for so long that the same time that all of these old threats are raising their heads again and new threat Sir appearing. Now that we've we've talked about with the problem is let's step back and talk for a few minutes about how we got here is it twenty thirteen two thousand fourteen I think part of it if you WanNa look at the origins of president trump's prejudices about NATO Goto the fact that we all took too big a peace dividend after the Cold War ended the war once divided east from West now on its way to becoming an artifact of history you know we did pretty well although it was always an issue in NATO to ensure burden-sharing you know sufficient budgeting for security sufficient contributions military contributions to NATO a NATO mission.

NATO Brookings Institution president Jonathan trump
"nato" Discussed on On Point with Tom Ashbrook | Podcasts

On Point with Tom Ashbrook | Podcasts

03:20 min | 1 year ago

"nato" Discussed on On Point with Tom Ashbrook | Podcasts

"Netflix series, Russian doll and many more. Listen this Friday. This is on point. I Magnin Chuck Ricciardi NATO turns seventy this month in this hour. We're talking with Barry posing, he's the director of the security studies program at MIT, and he wrote a recent column in the New York Times, headlined, Trump aside, what is the US role in NATO. And he's asking the important question about whether or not the United States to rethink what its role is in the North Atlantic Treaty organization. And of course, the president President Donald Trump has been very vocal about this. Here's what the president or I should say. Then candidate Trump said in two thousand sixteen about his view of NATO. He was doing a phone interview with Jonathan Karl on ABC's this week. What I'm saying is NATO's obsolete. Nato is is at it's extremely expensive to the United States disproportionately so and we should readjust NATO, and it's going to have to be either readjusted to take care of terrorism. Or we're going to have to set up a new a new coalition. I knew group of of of. Countries to handle terrorism because terrorism is out of control that was then candidate Donald Trump in two thousand sixteen on the other hand, we have a comment here from NATO secretary. General yen's Stoltenberg's speaking with CNBC at the MU Munich security conference in February of this year. He says NATO remains relevant needs is a strategy to deal with uncertainty to be prepared for surprises because they will come on the woman portent elemental such subsidies to have strong international institutions like for instance, Nathan that's the NATO secretary. General yen's Stoltenberg, Barry Posen, let me ask you. I mean about this question of relevance versus the certainty that that Stoltenberg says NATO provides there are people who might who relevance was a low bar. Well, but but on, but I'm not point. There are people who might hear your argument and say, actually. Vladimir Putin has proven that NATO is has never been more relevant than it is today because he's already showing his willingness to project Russian power of to your point a shadow of Soviet power. But he's willing to project it in Ukraine in Georgia and not having NATO there or a strong NATO would only further embolden him. I'm not going to say that Russia wouldn't wouldn't think more carefully about coursing other countries or attacking them? Those countries are in the North Atlantic Treaty organization and the Americans are continuing their guaranteed within the North Atlantic Treaty organization. I'm asking how much this matters to the United States national security matter. That's the question. I'm asking a masking what the cost benefit calculation is for the United States in NATO. Now, the fact that the Russians have sharp elbows on their own periphery should not come. As a surprise to anyone who studies? Great powers. We have sharp Bill on our periphery..

Chuck Ricciardi NATO North Atlantic Treaty organiza President Donald Trump United States Stoltenberg Russia Netflix secretary president Barry Posen Vladimir Putin New York Times Jonathan Karl MIT ABC director Ukraine CNBC Nathan MU Munich
"nato" Discussed on The Brookings Cafeteria

The Brookings Cafeteria

04:08 min | 1 year ago

"nato" Discussed on The Brookings Cafeteria

"But because of the existence of red telephones between the Soviet Union and the United States because of arms control agreements because. Because of successive disarmament efforts in the seventies at least leading up to nineteen Eighty-nine and events of that year. There was a feeling in Europe. And indeed in Germany, the this might somehow be defined right now, we're looking at an environment that has become darker that has become more tense. And where if anything are something has to be the things are going the other way round you want to comment on that. And I have after that question for each you before we sort of broaden the periscope to the future. I think concerns is really put this. Well, my worry about the environment today with regard to NATO, isn't that we won't fighter can't fight. It is if you will the vertical connectivity between the liberal democracies. The North Atlantic Council the capacity for rapid decision making their that decision making being tied to. Relevant credible NATO nuclear deterrent, then to the conventional capability, I worry about firebreaks in their exactly. And as we find ourselves potentially more politically fragmented within the context of the members of NATO, which also the members of the EU in many respects, I worry once again as I said before the the capacity for an alliance to truly deter is its credibility and the demonstrated capacity to fight. But also, it's the appearance of its willingness to be determined to make the right decision with the rate speed to defend ourselves. And I worry that there has been as Constanza has properly said and used the right word a degradation in the continuity from the moment of the need to make the decision to our capacity to implement at the speeds necessary for those speeds in an. Of themselves to be the deterrent factor, not counting tanks, counting aircraft. But the speed of our capacity to react as an alliance is a deterring dimension in and of itself, and where we have become disconnected or where we have become a bit rusty because we haven't had to think in those terms we should put a lot of effort at the seventy th birthday of NATO into thinking about in every way possible. How we increase the connectivity between our democracies as a group our commitment to the alliance as a whole and our capacity to decide with the kinds of speed necessary to create the credibility and the deterrence necessary to defend NATO secretary general has said many times, many secretaries general have said this NATO isn't against anyone but NATO is for the defense of Europe. And we need to think in those terms, and when you think in those terms the absolute imperative and the necessity for interoperability. To sustain that. And every possible way we can but to create that vertical tempo of decision. Making and force commitment is absolutely essential to the future. We don't see the Russian the Soviet hordes lined up on the border again. But there are threats in the aggregate, which I think can break down the political unity of NATO, and 'cause the president of the United States to wonder whether NATO's even worth it anymore. And that I think is in some respects the existential threat to NATO, it's not a thermonuclear threat. It's the incapacity of the members to show sufficient unity to justify the reason for the alliance. And thank you, you set up a question, I'm gonna post to Constanza in just a minute about how NATO is doing halfway through this term of President Donald Trump in the United States, but I would ask to sort of more almost casual question, but you know, it's a serious topic. When you commanded NATO forces in the field. What was it like, what's the sort of striking takeaway at a personal level? Obviously..

NATO United States Europe Soviet Union Constanza Donald Trump North Atlantic Council EU Germany president
"nato" Discussed on The Brookings Cafeteria

The Brookings Cafeteria

02:09 min | 1 year ago

"nato" Discussed on The Brookings Cafeteria

"And hypersonic defense. But as a body that can work together at twenty nine members. How do you find strength today? Well, I think in some respects Constanza said what NATO has done for us as it's provided us a level of stability in an environment. Where ill liberalism is creeping into some of the democratic states of NATO. And at regard the commonality that we all enjoy when the ambassadors of NATO said at the North Atlantic Council, the commonality that we enjoy as result of the leadership of the supreme allied commander of Europe with all of our Twenty-nine partners. That is a stabilising factor in a world that has become very unstable in many respects NATO faces. I think the challenge that it has today NATO faces a challenge of app tation? And where before the threat was generally known to us, the threat was generally planned for and the resources were accumulated to deal with that threat, particularly. During Soviet era. The challenges that we face today is the challenge of a revanche just Russia with multiple capabilities both conventional modernized capabilities plus operations in the cyber domain not just targeted upon the edge of the NATO frontier. But of course, targeted in many respects through Strategic Influence campaign. Deep into the democracies of Dato it self NATO has to adapt to the challenge of modernized. Russia NATO has to adapt to climate change, for example, which is coming. I think with a real vengeance. And in particular, how NATO deals with the far north in conjunction with the potential for competition with Russia and China, actually as the northeast passage may. Well, in fact, the opening up within the generation NATO has to deal I think with a continued presence of unstable Middle East and the potential for a destabilized North Africa. Which can of course, produce the kinds of either. Economic or conflict migration into Europe that can fundamentally change not just the demographics of the European population..

NATO Europe Russia supreme allied commander Middle East Constanza North Africa North Atlantic Council China
"nato" Discussed on The CSIS Podcast

The CSIS Podcast

03:33 min | 2 years ago

"nato" Discussed on The CSIS Podcast

"Seventeen years that nato has been and the international community has been involved in afghanistan so which one of those is better one meets the two percent target the other one doesn't but if you look at the output the pictures quite different another good example is france france spends one point eight percent of its gdp on defense francis a nuclear power it is it has a global presence including in the asia pacific it is active in the suhel and in north africa and in the middle east and is a close partner of the united states it's pretty hard for washington to say france isn't pulling its weight for transatlantic security but that's the conclusion you have to reach if you if you adopt two percent as your as your principal criterion and so i think that part of it is that two percents a good metric like you said it's a good talking point so as nato kind of just failing to sell itself well there's there's a little bit more behind that two percent also because in two thousand fourteen when nato agreed on that guideline they also agreed that countries should be spending twenty percent of their defense budgets on a major and on research and development now that's a pretty that's that's a better measure of whether you're actually contributing military capabilities than just the raw two percent because you can spend two percent and have most of it go to personnel costs but if you're spending twenty percent on equipment then that is an indicator of the capabilities you'll have in the future that you can put at the service of of our shared security interests and so we also think that that twenty percent needs to get a whole lot more attention then then this this two percent and that would be a lot more constructive i wanna talk about something that i think maybe prenine eleven or or maybe even even more recent than that was a more common topic conversation but it was more about the future of nato like what does nato do or what should nato do are we closer on on a kind of a universal agreement on on what is well over the last few years the european members of nato and the members of the european union have come back to this idea of stronger european defense and and so what they've been doing lately is agreeing to to coordinate among themselves in the european union through what they call permanent struck cooperation mainly focused on acquiring capabilities and doing that jointly so that there's less duplication more efficiency europe spends about two hundred billion dollars on defense per year that's a lot of money they get less for it than than they should so so this is an effort to do that but there's a there's a deeper question that you started with a does does europe need to develop greater autonomy and and i think the conclusion many allies have been drawing in the last few months and especially this week is yes the question is whether they can they can put in place the political structures to create and use european forces and can they do that in a way that hedges against an uncertain future and uncertain future us orientation toward european security without rejecting the atlantic alliance because let's face it europe is dependent on.

nato afghanistan two percent twenty percent two hundred billion dollars Seventeen years eight percent
"nato" Discussed on MSNBC Morning Joe

MSNBC Morning Joe

05:09 min | 2 years ago

"nato" Discussed on MSNBC Morning Joe

"That i was worried about yesterday and he has a series of inaccurate or semi accurate comments but suddenly we got the best relationship with nato we've ever had they love me and our relationship with germany is terrific and it was it was absolutely a classic example of how he operates come in turn up all the furniture over and then both about has been in you know people picking up the mess that you created i do think that when he talks about going to meet with vladimir putin from a stamp a strengthened nato he is not listening to the voices of nato leaders they are genuinely anxious about america's one term commitment to their security no matter what he said this morning and i think that's the biggest takeaway from this very fractious summit that it's not the press conference at the end all the things he said along the way which which bird which people will will will remember as one german newspaper said this is not a crisis this is a catastrophe that was their reaction to to what was being being said yeah yesterday i think another important point in news was one sector state mike pompeo talked about the status of negotiations with the koreans who reporting the kim drug on any he said that they're on the road toward working out a denuclearization of formula language that the us was a little bit vague he said they intend to do nuclear rise they're going to accomplish it i didn't hear any specific time line i didn't hear the kind of hard commitments that we've been looking for and so it's obvious that pump peyot is in a process of exploring how overtime north korea's gonna meet this what sounded like such a firm commitment at the singapore summit yeah actually say firm commitment which this past week when it was repeated made the north koreans call us gangsters so david i think it's very interesting you underline the disunity there the president said quote we are more unified than ever before i know you make it your practice it is your job to talk to ambassadors leaders across not only europe but the globe give us give us their reactions to what they've seen over the past several days and whether this whether nato was as the president said quote more unified than ever before well i think the reactions to the initial drop the bomb phase yesterday reactions were very negative people used sharp language and responding to to president trump the reaction to the to the nato summit is a whole may be okay this is how he doesn't he is very disruptive beginning and then we pretty much go by the script and he claims credit for a win so what the sum total of this is is going to be as is hard to predict and i think it'll depend in large part on whether he does things in his summit meeting with putin that that european leaders find threatening to their security interests president president trump has to be very careful he's bargaining there securities he talks about ukraine he's bargaining the security of the whole of the middle east wing talks about syria so we'll we'll all be watching very carefully for the commitments he makes he he wants these things to be successes so he can claim a win brussels to be a success that he just told us how wonderful it was square the language with what he said before he'll want the helsinki summit with putin to be a win but we'll have to look very carefully what did he give up to get that aura of success the president also it's worth noting beka ignored to questions about the kurds who have done the marketable work in iraq and syria in helping us in our efforts to push back into feed isis he also noted question on whether georgia could a country that fled putin invaded back in two thousand eight whether georgia could expect to receive nato membership and also ignored a question on whether he would recognize the invasion of crimea and the annexation that definitely sidestep dad and brought mike pompeo to the microphone to talk about north korea and that was fascinating there were a few times also it was kind of clear the president really didn't know the answer to the question or didn't understand the terminology being us about hard brexit he says i just want everyone to be happy joining us now pulitzer prize winning author and presidential historian doris kearns goodwin she's the author of the.

nato
"nato" Discussed on The Daily

The Daily

04:53 min | 2 years ago

"nato" Discussed on The Daily

"To russian so we started by talking about these three countries the us russia and germany as being the three countries that explain the beginnings of nato and i'm struck that the news out of the nato summit today was that trump was going after germany saying that it was under the control of russia germany is totally controlled russian because they will get it from sixty to seventy percent of their energy from russia at a new pipeline even what was that about that seems like the ultimate insult to deliver at a nato summit it was the old insult and it may have had more to do with his differences with angela merkel the chancellor germany than it did with any true belief but the core of the argument was germany gets an overwhelming amount of its natural gas the fuel that keeps it warm in the winter from russia and it's now building a new pipeline that will bring it in directly from russia and his basic argument is how can you argue that you're standing up against russia when you are funding russia because russia's overly dependent on its energy exports and when you're vulnerable to the russians who can simply turn off the valve and what was the reaction from germany it led many to question whether or not president trump fundamentally believes in the nato mission and that's a big question and i was at a conference of europeans last weekend where i'd never before heard people question whether or not they should go full forward thinking that the united states would be the core of a future nato and for the first time i heard them debating could we continue with a nato that didn't have the us at the center and one in which the united states wasn't the dominant voice in defence policy putin and trump artem meet in helsinki finland on july sixteen just days after the president attends the nato summit with america's closest allies the president for dictum that meeting putin quote maybe the easiest of all the down he has scheduled on his trip david i want to ask you about what's happening right after this nato meeting ends which seems particularly curious given the history that you've just outlined for us right after this meeting ends in brussels president trump is going to russia to meet with putin what do you make of this timing the problem isn't the meeting michael the problem their mind is donald trump's message if he was leaving nato to stand up to putin and say we're not going to tolerate the meddling elections and we're not going to tolerate the continued occupation of crimea and the harassment of ukraine if that was his message i think they'd be fine with the meeting happening right entered nato their problem is they don't actually believe that donald trump is going to stand up to putin and they're somewhat horrified at the imagery of him beating up publicly on television against his allies and then embracing an autocrat who has put distances and reporters to death and is increasingly cracking down on his own country so it seems like we find ourselves in a really interesting place where the country that nato was formed to protect against is at its most aggressive in decades and the country that created nato is seemingly the least committed it's ever been it's a pretty rich ironing that at the moment that we weren't that the cold war may not be over that it may just be entering different kind of face that the united states is questioning the very premise on which it created nato and that the russians have been successful in sewing more and more discord throughout europe and helping exaggerate each of these schisms but no one's exaggerated those schisms more than president trump himself not by questioning whether the nato nations are contributing enough that's a perfectly legitimate question to raise but questioning whether or not he would even stick with the alliance and that's the central issue david thank you very much thank you.

us russia germany seventy percent
"nato" Discussed on The Daily

The Daily

04:16 min | 2 years ago

"nato" Discussed on The Daily

"To nato after the soviet union falls rather than disband michael it actually expanded many of the former soviet republics who were suddenly finding themselves independent poland hungary the czech republic all the countries that made up or many of the countries that made up the old warsaw pact or suddenly thinking themselves they didn't wanna be alone they wanted to be part of the west and so they applied for membership nato and the big question was should nato let them in even if that risked making russia paranoid and how does nato and the us it's lead sponsor respond to their desire to join there were debates about individual countries and there were some debates with basically said if the russians came and knocked off this tiny little country like estonia or lafayette or with the wanian would we really go to war would we really invoke article five to come to their defense but in the end people decided that the symbolism of having old members of the warsaw pact changed teams and come over to nato was worth it even if they're military contribution was pretty tiny and what does russia do in response to this expansion of nato a group that existed originally to rebuff the old sova at union will initially not much intil what putin became president and he viewed it as a humiliation he viewed it as an effort to go steal from russia the core of the old soviet union and he was looking for an opportunity to get even putin realized that article five was something that would get invoked if he did a full military attack but he's not the money or really the forces to sustain such an attack so he had to come up with a really targeted kind of disruption some way of harassing these countries some way of undercutting their institutions some way of making people no longer confident in their governments without actually bringing about an invocation of article five i he started rebuilding his nuclear forces and then he started in with the cyber attacks a very big one against estonia stony faced a major crisis in two thousand seven when it became the first country to experience a massive cyber attack which took down estonia's email bank and newspaper servers another very big one against georgia in two thousand eight paving the way for military action russia attack georgia's computer infrastructure crippling the country to countries that of course have been all part of the soviet union he did a series of attacks on ukraine not a nato member but he realized that the fact that they weren't in nato member meant that nato was not going to be tempted to come to their defense and he used it as his petri dish the place where he could test out a number of ways of disrupting society the russians are fully aware that microsoft products like all software can be used as weapons in cyber warfare he brought down the electric power grid in ukraine twice and of course he meddled a bit in their elections as well look at what russia has done so far there accused of having interfered or having tried to interfere in german french british and us elections there's some evidence that he tried to meddle in the brexit vote in britain he attempted and failed to medal in the last french election he's been trying this in germany and of course michael he made his strongest effort to meddle in elections here in the united states in twenty sixteen using many of the techniques that he had perfected against nato and other eastern european countries and former soviet states.

soviet union michael nato
"nato" Discussed on The Daily

The Daily

04:16 min | 2 years ago

"nato" Discussed on The Daily

"To nato after the soviet union falls rather than disband michael it actually expanded many of the former soviet republics who were suddenly finding themselves independent poland hungary the czech republic all the countries that made up or many of the countries that made up the old warsaw pact or suddenly thinking themselves they didn't wanna be alone they wanted to be part of the west and so they applied for membership nato and the big question was should nato let them in even if that risked making russia paranoid and how does nato and the us it's lead sponsor respond to their desire to join there were debates about individual countries and there were some debates with basically said if the russians came and knocked off this tiny little country like estonia or lafayette or with the wanian would we really go to war would we really invoke article five to come to their defense but in the end people decided that the symbolism of having old members of the warsaw pact changed teams and come over to nato was worth it even if they're military contribution was pretty tiny and what does russia do in response to this expansion of nato a group that existed originally to rebuff the old sova at union will initially not much intil what putin became president and he viewed it as a humiliation he viewed it as an effort to go steal from russia the core of the old soviet union and he was looking for an opportunity to get even putin realized that article five was something that would get invoked if he did a full military attack but he's not the money or really the forces to sustain such an attack so he had to come up with a really targeted kind of disruption some way of harassing these countries some way of undercutting their institutions some way of making people no longer confident in their governments without actually bringing about an invocation of article five i he started rebuilding his nuclear forces and then he started in with the cyber attacks a very big one against estonia stony faced a major crisis in two thousand seven when it became the first country to experience a massive cyber attack which took down estonia's email bank and newspaper servers another very big one against georgia in two thousand eight paving the way for military action russia attack georgia's computer infrastructure crippling the country to countries that of course have been all part of the soviet union he did a series of attacks on ukraine not a nato member but he realized that the fact that they weren't in nato member meant that nato was not going to be tempted to come to their defense and he used it as his petri dish the place where he could test out a number of ways of disrupting society the russians are fully aware that microsoft products like all software can be used as weapons in cyber warfare he brought down the electric power grid in ukraine twice and of course he meddled a bit in their elections as well look at what russia has done so far there accused of having interfered or having tried to interfere in german french british and us elections there's some evidence that he tried to meddle in the brexit vote in britain he attempted and failed to medal in the last french election he's been trying this in germany and of course michael he made his strongest effort to meddle in elections here in the united states in twenty sixteen using many of the techniques that he had perfected against nato and other eastern european countries and former soviet states.

soviet union michael nato
"nato" Discussed on Monocle 24: The Foreign Desk

Monocle 24: The Foreign Desk

04:58 min | 2 years ago

"nato" Discussed on Monocle 24: The Foreign Desk

"It is not like nato has struggled to find anything to do since the soviet union collapsed in the early nineteen ninety s and nato found itself absorbing almost all of the nations of the hitherto hostile warsaw pact in the mid to late nineteen ninety s nato intervened in the wars of the former yugoslavia three former parts of which are now members of the alliance in two thousand and one it invoked article five it's famous collective defense clause for the first time after al qaeda attacked the united states nato took charge of intervention forces in afghanistan in two thousand and three in two thousand and eleven nato oversaw an intervention in libya it has also run other operations around the world in response to piracy migration and natural disasters among many other things we'll joining me now to discuss the day to day management of a busy agenda is breeze puffier now chief strategic officer at rest modern global but before that between ten and twenty sixteen head of policy planning for to nato secretary general and as aggressive muslim and the incumbent jens stoltenberg first of all i just wanted to get a sense of what actually goes on at nato you ahead of policy planning in the office of the secretarygeneral added sort of day in day out level what did that actually involve well it involves thinking about what's next so thinking about the next big summit about where the alliance but especially the secretary on need to push the policy nido so it's kind of forward thinking work but it needs to be grounded in the day to the reality of an alliance of twenty nine nations well that lines up nicely the next question i wanted to ask which is how easy it is to maintain a consistency of strategy among those twentynine members of nato are there twenty nine different ideas of what nato supposed to be four yes i would say twenty nine different angles of what nato should be doing the key is whether all these species kind of adopt together and that he can form kind of consistent whole or as we see now as we have seen in the past you do have problems of the peace is not fitting together and having such tensions of visions between the different members of nato that it becomes hard to reconsider so i think that's the consent work of the secretary general is to try to find the the point of balance between all these views that's why often the secretarygeneral speeches can be pretty boring because they are about kind of trying to touch on everybody's interest but in terms of crisis i think the real question is what's the leadership inside the alliance and the leadership is not just secretary journal it's the main members by main members i say those were spending most on defense and on the nato's patrick's so it's what we call traditionally the quad so it's the uk us france and germany but among those members and among those different ideas that the secretarygeneral has cape on track is there a commonly understood hierarchy of importance based on relative power especially military power that individual members have menu mentioned there the quality who four of the key members of nato iset understood that what the us the uk and france in particular one two three nuclear armed powers is going to matter more than what say stonier or greece might want i would say yes for the us when the us does want something a one to take the alliance the certain direction this will become kind of at least central point of discussion among the alliance's members that doesn't mean the us is going to get its way but often it's what shapes the edge and the other is different because france is in a particular place with nato francis you know as we join nato military structure but francis never been fully into nato at least into the nato thinking i think france still has conflicted feelings towards the alliance that are historic and that are also part of the inertia of some of its diplomats and frontal so wants to see a stronger european capacity that is not always synonymous with a stronger nato germany is interesting because they are very committed to nato this is really in their constitutional is core to their security but germany's not prone to want to send troops abroad and to go into a difficult operations so germany's usually key but not necessarily leading from the front is there any concern within nights has got two big the twentynine members is too many especially to respond with what might be the.

nato soviet union
"nato" Discussed on Monocle 24: The Foreign Desk

Monocle 24: The Foreign Desk

04:36 min | 2 years ago

"nato" Discussed on Monocle 24: The Foreign Desk

"This week nato's heads of state and government will convene in brussels though this is supposed to be a meeting of twenty nine countries which all on the same side it may not be straightforwardly convivial the alliance's most powerful member the united states is now led by president unconvinced of the benefits of cooperation its second largest military turkeys is now commanded by a president who would be acting little differently if he were an adverse serie nato's original antagonised and still primary reason for being russia has evolved into an amorphous fo not merely playing by different rules but playing an entirely different game what in two thousand eighteen is nato four how might our postwar world have been different without it and would we miss it if it wasn't there this is the foreign desk every country has a certain amount of national pride become from small country like i do it's not such a huge deal because you know you're not important in the world but if you are important involved like the soviet union and now russia you do feel that you have to respond somehow whether that threats or active aggression is imagined or real that's what we're seeing now and have seen throughout post world war two european history the notion that because there are too many you allies than the allies becomes politically and militarily too complicated to manoeuver is actually not validated by facts it's the other way wrong is the big member states because they have big interest strong opinions who sometimes break consensus or want to take the direction with the other stall onto follow they did consider wrapping up nato and the reason why didn't it is the awful owed maximum why does naito exist to keep the germans style the russians and the american still in europe funny enough the wiki as part of that is keeping americans hello and welcome to the foreign desk i'm andrew mullet my guest today are elizabeth bro and robert fox elizabeth bra is a nonresident senior fellow at the atlantic council robert fox is defence editor at the evening standard both join me here in the studio in london welcome both in the first part of the discussion i wanted to talk about an imaginary world in which nato as we know it had not been constituted back when it was constituted and robert l ask you i if we go back to the late nineteen forties when nato was i put together was inevitable i think yes for two reasons the way the war ended in berlin and the paranoia about the soviet hoards it wasn't enormous ministry effort at nobody knew quite what they choose from very effective german propaganda that this was the real element had to be fought and it was known that particularly the european army such that they were but particularly the brits were exhausted also vents in the un as the budgeting european community struggled with the military arm that had to be a military arm and particularly given the posture of style and it would be a defensive hard pa military lights nato i mean elizabeth is it you'll sense that when it was founded they was the idea that it would gradually expand or or is that just being one of those things that there is that inevitable momentum of most bureaucracies very few organizations in human history of door point where someone in charges go and actually i think this will do that's right and that's what we've seen with the u it started something in that we have something completely different but going back to nato i think the expansion over the years shows the extraordinary agility of geopolitics started as as one thing then when the cold war ended it became something different and now it's going back to that initial mission the territorial defence of europe but when it started as robert pointed out earlier it was really just a very pragmatic response to realities on the ground and the fact that there was no way of emerging allies keeping together in an informal alliance which really will were to had been and so they needed proper framework to work together and especially to keep the german border safe rubber the soviet union of course begins collapsing in the late eighties finally does away with it self in the early nineteen nineties and there's a certain amount of conversation around that time as to what nato is now actually four because it had been constituted as elizabeth pointed out earlier for the territorial defensive europe and really there was only one entity from which it was seeking to defend europe's territory had nato plans at all.

nato brussels
"nato" Discussed on The CSIS Podcast

The CSIS Podcast

04:55 min | 2 years ago

"nato" Discussed on The CSIS Podcast

"Part of that mobility is to make sure that nato works very closely with the european union because this is using highways and civilian structure and getting parliament to approve when troops have to go across borders so i actually i know it sounds very very nitty gritty and detailed if you can't move forces rapidly to get to an emergency you can't adequately assure collective defense so they're working on that nato is also going to talk a bit about the east but also about the south so nato will offer an iraqi training mission seminar what it did actually about a decade ago but obviously with the when isis came out of you know out of nowhere then took such significant portions of iraq and syria how do we retrain those forces to be able to handle these types of counter insurgency efforts and there will be a focus on sort of thinking about the south you know the baltic states poland central europe they're very concerned about the russia challenge as northern europe for those nato countries in the south spain italy turkey they're worried about the threats that opposed from the south so it's making sure we have that balance so it's been very carefully to it is a successful summit clearly burdensharing which is nato nato members spending more money will be what the president we'll talk about non stop there is a lot of good news europe europe nato allies have substantially increased their defense spending but what's got into the president's mind is two percent is everything and now it's being turned into a battering ram against allies there was reportedly a letter sent by president trump to the nato leaders who are not at two percent only five members currently spend two percent or above of their gross domestic product on defense spending again you have to be a place where you're pushing because we need to push your to do more in europe needs to do more or you overdo it and then you start developing antibodies that now governments are resisting because of the way you are asking them to increase their spending so this is what's the most controversial about the president's behavior if he really goes off on a public and private rant on the two percent if he links that in some way which he has in his twitter feed to the tariff so if you want tariff relief you better give me two percent those start being linked this could be very difficult summit so we don't know it could be perfectly successful it's poised for success it just depends if at the president will take the victory lap and he should because some of this is at his urging of the direction of the agenda or if he'll just walk all over it on this two percent beat and then we'll have a nato summit that will look an awfully like the conclusion of the seven summit earlier this month and part of the nato someone is is to figure this this readiness ready for what i suppose the question what is the state of tensions with russia so you know right now i think nato has addressed certainly the land component with these four nato battalions making sure they're rotating and exercising but what we've seen over the last few days and i think this is in part grows from the uncertainty of the us russia summit we've seen a very big spike in deaths in ukraine on the line of contact in the done boss that is not a subdued conflict that is a hot conflict there are you know per week perhaps two to three killed in action and that problem hasn't been resolved so the tensions are there the hybrid challenges are still there influence operations against a nato member states we just saw snap exercise last week in the arctic that russia did not notify tell anybody about that leads to sort of misunderstandings potentially so we do need to talk we need to get better transparency and deconflict militarily but it's it's very uncertain as i said you will not know if the nato summit is successful until after the russia us summit in helsinki because nato the gender may be fine but if president trump suggests that you know ukraine that's yours russia or georgia or he makes these spear of influence he seeds that you have really destroyed or undercut.

european union nato two percent