40 Burst results for "Nato"

Fresh update on "nato" discussed on Monocle 24: The Foreign Desk

Monocle 24: The Foreign Desk

00:34 min | 3 hrs ago

Fresh update on "nato" discussed on Monocle 24: The Foreign Desk

"<Speech_Male> I think if you <Speech_Male> go broader <Speech_Male> than that, you're into <Speech_Male> a different form of alliance. <Speech_Male> So the beauty of <Speech_Male> NATO is that that <Speech_Male> task is very <Speech_Male> straightforward <Speech_Male> very simple <Speech_Male> and underpinned <Speech_Male> by again that very <Speech_Male> simple doctrine <Speech_Male> of <Speech_Male> collective defense article <Speech_Male> 5. <Speech_Male> Where I think NATO <Speech_Male> certainly <Speech_Male> should <Speech_Male> can and probably <Speech_Male> must expand <Speech_Male> is into the <Speech_Male> post Soviet space. <Speech_Male> Those post <Speech_Male> Soviet republics <Speech_Male> like Ukraine <Speech_Male> like Moldova <Speech_Male> like Georgia, <Speech_Male> given <Speech_Male> where this thing with Russia <Speech_Male> is likely to go <Speech_Male> and the long-term <Speech_Male> challenge <Speech_Male> of being faced <Speech_Male> with deterring <Speech_Male> and containing <Speech_Male> an angry <Speech_Male> probably defeated <Speech_Male> vengeful <Speech_Male> Russia <Speech_Male> probably led by <Speech_Male> a leader still determined <Speech_Male> to reestablish <Speech_Male> a Russian Empire, <Speech_Male> <Advertisement> probably still <Speech_Male> determined to swallow <Speech_Male> up Ukraine. <Speech_Male> <Advertisement> NATO <Speech_Male> has to think very <Speech_Male> carefully long and hard <Speech_Male> about bringing <Speech_Male> certainly Ukraine <Speech_Male> and probably Georgia <Speech_Male> and Moldova <Speech_Male> as well. <Speech_Male> Philip, that is, of <Speech_Male> course, a bracing <Speech_Male> reminder that this conflict <Speech_Male> which NATO <Speech_Male> is waging <Speech_Male> at sort of one remove <Speech_Male> with Russia <Speech_Male> is probably a <Speech_Male> very long way from <Speech_Male> over. As you <Speech_Male> look ahead to the <Speech_Male> coming months, <Speech_Male> although it would be <Speech_Male> nicer to think of it <Speech_Male> in terms of <Speech_Male> weeks. But what <Speech_Male> strike you as <Speech_Male> the military hazards <Speech_Male> that NATO needs <Speech_Male> to watch <Speech_Male> for <Speech_Male> in the next phase <Speech_Male> of this <SpeakerChange> conflict? <Silence> I think the <Speech_Male> first and most simple <Speech_Male> is that <Speech_Music_Male> this is <Speech_Male> all bigger than <Speech_Male> Ukraine. <Speech_Male> If you remember <Speech_Male> the two documents <Speech_Male> that mister Putin <Speech_Male> sort of <Speech_Male> hand it to the United <Speech_Male> States, but he really <Speech_Male> gave it to the west <Speech_Male> about <Speech_Male> 12 days <Speech_Male> before this war and <Speech_Male> he said <Speech_Male> sign these <Speech_Male> or there will <Speech_Male> be other <SpeakerChange> means <Speech_Male> we know now <Speech_Male> what he meant by that. <Silence> <SpeakerChange> And <Speech_Male> in those documents, <Speech_Male> we see <Speech_Male> that, yes, <Speech_Male> we are <Speech_Male> now fighting <Speech_Male> and <SpeakerChange> helping <Speech_Male> Ukraine <Speech_Male> to <Speech_Male> manage this invasion, <Speech_Male> but <Speech_Male> this is just <Speech_Male> step one for Russia. <Speech_Male> They are <Speech_Male> really about <Speech_Male> reorganizing <SpeakerChange> <Speech_Male> the defense <Speech_Male> architecture of <Speech_Male> Europe. <Speech_Male> And reestablishing <Speech_Male> that sort of <Speech_Male> Warsaw <Speech_Male> Pact, Soviet Union <Speech_Male> field with <Speech_Male> border nations, <Speech_Male> bad <Speech_Male> paraphrasing, <Speech_Male> but weapons <Speech_Male> out less <Speech_Male> NATO and <Speech_Male> no America <Speech_Male> in these border <Speech_Male> states and things. <Speech_Male> And so <Speech_Male> we need to <Speech_Male> realize that <Speech_Male> mister Putin <Speech_Male> is about a <Speech_Male> bigger <SpeakerChange> problem. <Speech_Male> And that is <Speech_Male> going to be <Silence> something <Speech_Male> that will continue. <Speech_Male> As long as <Speech_Male> we capitulate <Speech_Male> and reward <Speech_Male> bad behavior <Speech_Male> like we did in O <Speech_Male> 8 and in 14, <Speech_Male> and <Speech_Male> if we do it again now <Speech_Male> in 22, <Speech_Male> we will see <Speech_Male> more of this <Speech_Male> in our future. And <Speech_Male> so I believe <Speech_Male> that NATO <Speech_Male> and <Speech_Male> the west, <Speech_Male> the larger <Speech_Male> west, <Speech_Male> need to look at <Silence> diffusing <Speech_Male> the situation <Speech_Male> in a more permanent <Speech_Male> way <SpeakerChange> now. <Speech_Male> General Philip breedlove <Speech_Male> <Advertisement> and general <Speech_Male> <Advertisement> sir Richard sheriff, thank <Speech_Male> <Advertisement> you both very much <Speech_Male> for joining us here <Speech_Male> on the foreign desk. That's it for this <Speech_Male> <Advertisement> episode of the foreign desk <Speech_Male> <Advertisement> we'll be back next <Speech_Male> <Advertisement> week and look out for the <Speech_Male> foreign desk explainer <Speech_Male> available every Wednesday. <Speech_Male> The foreign <Speech_Male> desk

Nato Ukraine Russia Moldova Georgia United Europe Philip Breedlove Sir Richard America
"nato" Discussed on Monocle 24: The Foreign Desk

Monocle 24: The Foreign Desk

03:06 min | 4 hrs ago

"nato" Discussed on Monocle 24: The Foreign Desk

"There is just one more question. I did want to ask you as an American Philip about the civil military relationship, especially where it pertains to NATO because of course, in reasonably recent memory, the United States has had a president who was not noticeably keen on NATO or went way out of his way to disparage it and undermine it and who might yet again be president is NATO something that could potentially be threatened by just one unusual leader deciding to bring the whole thing down or do you think it is more solid than that? I just remind people that the American government was designed with three different branches, of course, judiciary, legislative and executive. And they all have counterbalancing contributions to leading our country. One can make big decisions. But the other one controls the power of the purse. And another one can oversee them both as to the legality of their decisions. So certainly one person at the very top can be very impactful, but that one person at the top can not, in my opinion, totally run off with what's going on. And the sad news is that in NATO as others will say, a lot is done on relationships and reputations. And that's where damage could be made. Richard, what do you think? If in extremists, the United States, if not necessarily withdrawing from the alliance entirely, but noticeably declining to pick up its usual end of it could NATO survive that in the long term. I don't think NATO could. I think America remains the foundation stone of NATO and very much the leadership of the alliance. And also, of course, it translates into real strategic capability. And even if, say the sake of argument, Germany became the defense superpower of Europe, which arguably if the so called zitan vendor came to anything, it would do. Because of the advantages of scale that you get from one single superpower, investing in capabilities like strategic airlift or other enablers. That makes American capability fundamental to the alliance. Try to do that across the board with different nations smaller nations would be very difficult. So I think without America, NATO would become a shadow of itself. And I don't think the alliance would survive in its present form. I did wonder ask a slightly more upbeat and optimistic question about the future of NATO. I'll ask you first, Richard, the NATO summit in Madrid this year, of course, we saw the leaders for the first time attending over Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, China incorporated in NATO strategic concept for the first time, is there any reason absent the difficulty of, I guess, ordering news stationary to accommodate a new acronym, why NATO could not be expanded to the Pacific? I think the task of NATO is very clear to protect the land borders, the airspace and the sea lines of communication of the transatlantic region and the nations who sign up to it.

NATO United States American government Richard Germany Europe Madrid South Korea New Zealand Japan Australia China Pacific
"nato" Discussed on Monocle 24: The Foreign Desk

Monocle 24: The Foreign Desk

03:03 min | 4 hrs ago

"nato" Discussed on Monocle 24: The Foreign Desk

"In your local burger Meister or you could choose the military and serve a shorter tour if you chose the military. And I must tell you, I'm a huge fan of that. And part of it goes to what Richard said. I believe that the youth of our nation's need to be vested in our country. Right now we have so many. And some of them great young men and women, but we have so many that have no concept that they owe this nation anything. Only that the nation owes them. And I think that's confusion that some form of national service might help. Richard related to that is the tension that I think that does probably inevitably end up existing between militaries and their civilian or the civilian governments they serve. And of course, every NATO members military serves an elected civilian government, NATO's secretary general is almost always a former politician, the current one being, of course, the former prime minister of Norway, a recent guest on this program. Is it your view that those two things understand each other any better than they did when you join the military or is there always going to be conflict there because politicians and soldiers think about different things for different reasons. That's not always going to be conflict. There's almost certainly going to be different perspectives. And you will find that history is full of very good examples. That there's differences of opinion, which if managed properly and with the right individuals become creative. I mean, the obvious example, I suppose, is Alan brook and Churchill. But I think it's very easy for the military to be black and white, and the military will tend to be black and white, and paint a picture about a particular requirement, but at the end of the day quite rightly it is for the democratically elected leadership to make the political judgments based on military recommendations. Where I think things can go wrong is if the military start to think like politicians. And my view is that military leadership is about understanding the military consequences of political judgment and being able to lay out the pros and cons to allow politicians to make the political calls, or be it based on military recommendations. Philip. I just love the way Richard said that. I would add a couple of things and that is the next thing that is dangerous is when military men and women fail to give their best military advice because they're worried about the political ramifications of that military advice. Our job, in my words, is to give our boss the best military advice we can no matter whether we think they're going to like it or not. We're to advise them on what our expertise is and what our expertise would suggest, not on what we think is going to play well on the front page of The Washington Post.

burger Meister Richard NATO Alan brook confusion Norway Churchill Philip The Washington Post
Fresh update on "nato" discussed on Monocle 24: The Foreign Desk

Monocle 24: The Foreign Desk

00:49 min | 4 hrs ago

Fresh update on "nato" discussed on Monocle 24: The Foreign Desk

"Richard, we did do an episode of the foreign desk as recently as last week talking about what efforts can or should be made to get more women involved in politics. The military, of course, historically is an even more male dominated space than politics. Do you think there are things that European military could be making more of an effort with in order to encourage more women to serve? Well, it's a self evident truth that, frankly, any modern military has got to include all aspects of society. And frankly, the more women who can serve as well as men the better. A couple of points. One, it's got to be made consistent and easier for women as they perhaps become married and have families and I'm sure militaries will be looking at that. And the second issue is that today's militaries have got to deal with any bad behavior, very, very strongly, where women are concerned, and they've been a couple of egregious examples of that, which frankly must be eliminated. And Philip, so my daughter serves. She's a major and she leads a pretty large unit. And my other daughter is a scientist supporting our special operations command. So I have a personal connection to women serving in our military and for our military. I must tell you that one of the best fighter pilots I ever flew with. One of the most and I'll say this in a positive way, one of the most deadly fighter pilots I've ever flown with was a young woman. She did not miss her target very often. And so I believe there is a place for women who are service and I see it getting better every day. I believe that that's an important part of our societal contribution as opposed to that political contribution we talked about earlier. It is probably traditional, certainly among men of a certain age to start speculating idly on the morally bracing effect that a stint in uniform might have on the feckless youth. There are, of course, some NATO countries, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Lithuania, Norway, Sweden, turkey, which do maintain some sort of national service. I know that professional career soldiers tend to be a bit leery of the idea. Are you an enthusiast? I'm not an enthusiast of bringing back military conscription because I think the challenge of the professional military makes it very difficult to tie that together with a brief stint in uniform. However, in the context of the UK, I think there's a real case for some form of wider national service. Not least to break down social barriers to put all young men and women together. And to give them a chance to serve their country in whatever region, whether it's social, medical, national health service, perhaps the military as well. And Philip, that goes, I think, a bit to what you were saying about the U.S. Military is an engine of inclusion at various points in its history. What do you think about that same question? Well, when I was a young man serving in Germany, Germany had national service, whereby you either came in and worked in the medical field or

Richard Philip Estonia Lithuania Nato Finland Denmark Norway Sweden Greece Turkey UK U.S. Germany
"nato" Discussed on Monocle 24: The Foreign Desk

Monocle 24: The Foreign Desk

03:04 min | 4 hrs ago

"nato" Discussed on Monocle 24: The Foreign Desk

"That depended and relied and was able to call upon really deep experience of lengthy long-term training exercises, both in Canada and in Germany, all of which inculcated commanders right down from general to tank commander in real experience of putting together that complex orchestra. Okay, not a lot of bullets were fired. No, but we were able to turn that to very good use in the desert in 1991. And I think that ability, that depth of experience was now been lost. And I think it's got to be regenerated. Just to follow that up, Richard, what do you attribute that to? Is it just a dwindling of manpower and resources? I think it's a different focus. Certainly, dwindling of manpower and resources. It's a cutting cost in terms of sustainability, a hollowing out as well. I'm afraid it's also down to the training opportunities, for example, the British Army have just got rid of getting rid of the principal training era in Alberta. There's great prairies of Alberto where the British Army was able to put together and really build up that experience of high end combined arms warfare. You've got a train. You've got to practice and you've got to practice at a higher level with as many moving parts as possible. And you can do an awful lot synthetically. Yes, of course you can on computers on the like. But unless you have the real friction of putting together heavy metal in large quantities and bring in the new combined arms capabilities that fell on I've just been discussing. You're going to find it much more difficult to put it together for real when the time comes. Philip, there's another aspect of military culture I wanted to put to you as a former American serviceman in particular, you will have heard criticisms of the U.S. Military I'm sure from some of the more excitable fringes of American conservatism and American conservative media that the U.S. Military is now too politically correct or as the current preferred pejorative has it woke. Do you actually buy that? Or do you think there is an argument that a more inclusive military is actually a better one? Well, we need to be intellectually honest here. There are concerns on both sides of this argument. Our military has long been a agent of change in our society. The incorporation of our African American soldiers was not perfect. But we had African American NCOs and officers leading in the U.S. Military wrong before this was accepted in larger society. And we were giving people the capability to do the things that they were able to do. Great African American leaders made a difference in our society. So there are times when the U.S. Military is an agent of change and it is good. There are appropriate things that need to be done and our military has led the way. The question is degree and when is it a political tool an important societal tool?

British Army Alberto Germany Canada Alberta Richard U.S. Philip
Fresh update on "nato" discussed on Monocle 24: The Foreign Desk

Monocle 24: The Foreign Desk

01:03 min | 4 hrs ago

Fresh update on "nato" discussed on Monocle 24: The Foreign Desk

"All that is completely transformed the battlefield. I think now commanders really can in the duke of Wellington's words, you know, you can see there are other side of the hill in a way you couldn't see before. But at the same time, however capable, however brave, you're not going to seize ground and recapture ground with brave men and women carrying light anti tank weapons or anti aircraft missiles and the like. You have got to get on there with your infantry and you've got to kill the enemy that's on there. Or make them surrender. And the only way you can do that is to put your people there in harm's way, and the way to get them there is Under Armour, supported by as part of a overall combined arms battle, combined arms capability in which the orchestra of tanks armored infantry armored engineers, air defense artillery, long-range missiles, et cetera, supported, of course, from the air, allows you to move forward to generate that sort of offensive maneuver capability. What makes it so much more complex, of course, is having to do it in an environment where you've got the all seeing eye of the drone, cyber and all the other stuff. So this makes it an exceptionally difficult task for commanders nowadays. And Philip as you watch events unfold in Ukraine and think about what it portends, do you think there will always be a place for manned aerial platforms when we met in Warsaw a few months ago at the security forum we did discuss the more or less total no show of the Russian air force over Ukraine is it possible do you think that we are evolving past the need to put pilots in aircraft? No, we're never going to get to that point. I think we're going to have a lot of what we see now, we call mandan man teaming as the next great step where you use unmanned aircraft teeming

Orchestra Of Tanks Armored Inf Wellington Ukraine Philip Russian Air Force Warsaw Mandan
"nato" Discussed on Monocle 24: The Foreign Desk

Monocle 24: The Foreign Desk

04:41 min | 4 hrs ago

"nato" Discussed on Monocle 24: The Foreign Desk

"Philippa asks you first, if you think back to 2014, did you imagine that that was the beginning of a trajectory that was going to lead to some sort of larger conflict or was there a thinking at NATO at the time as there was across European politics that Russia only wanted Crimea and a bit of the Donbass and this will be another conflict that freezes forever. Well, it's a little about actually. So we quickly remembered 2008 where Russia invaded and occupied and still holds 20% of Georgia. And then we were recognizing what was happening in Crimea and then soon thereafter, the invasion of Donbass as well. And there were those in Europe that wanted to say, this is just another aberration. We need to get refocused on bringing Russia into the west. And then there were a group in most of my headquarters fell in this group, frankly, that said, this is the beginning of much more. And we saw in Putin then what he made more obvious in this most REITs and invasion. And that is, it was going to be and it was way bigger than Ukraine. We began to understand that mister Putin was trying to rearrange the security landscape of Europe to get back to his buffer nations and get back to the Warsaw Pact and Soviet Union lay down. Richard, are you surprised by how this latest phase of the war from February 24th has persuaded there were obviously a lot of people Russia's high command clearly among them, who thought this would be something of a cakewalk for Russia. Did you think that was what was going to happen? I always knew the Ukrainians were going to fight like tigers. Of course, the Ukrainians have been fighting for 8 years. But they've made good use of that time. To answer your question directly, I, like many others, overestimated the Russian ability to put together a half coherent military force. And I underestimated the sheer skill bravery agility and cleverness and total determination with which the Ukrainians have responded. I think I also underestimated the ability of the west and NATO to pull together as it has done. Philip, what do you think? Do you think there was a tendency for NATO? Perhaps building up over decades to massively overestimate Russia as a conventional force at least.

Russia Crimea Philippa mister Putin NATO Europe Putin Georgia Soviet Union Richard Philip
Fresh update on "nato" discussed on Monocle 24: The Foreign Desk

Monocle 24: The Foreign Desk

00:43 min | 4 hrs ago

Fresh update on "nato" discussed on Monocle 24: The Foreign Desk

"Philippa asks you first, if you think back to 2014, did you imagine that that was the beginning of a trajectory that was going to lead to some sort of larger conflict or was there a thinking at NATO at the time as there was across European politics that Russia only wanted Crimea and a bit of the Donbass and this will be another conflict that freezes forever. Well, it's a little about actually. So we quickly remembered 2008 where Russia invaded and occupied and still holds 20% of Georgia. And then we were recognizing what was happening in Crimea and then soon thereafter, the invasion of Donbass as well. And there were those in Europe that wanted to say, this is just another aberration. We need to get refocused on bringing Russia into the west. And then there were a group in most of my headquarters fell in this group, frankly, that said, this is the beginning of much more. And we saw in Putin then what he made more obvious in this most REITs and invasion. And that is, it was going to be and it was way bigger than Ukraine. We began to understand that mister Putin was trying to rearrange the security landscape of Europe to get back to his buffer nations and get back to the Warsaw Pact and Soviet Union lay down. Richard, are you surprised by how this latest phase of the war from February 24th has persuaded there were obviously a lot of people Russia's high command clearly among them, who thought this would be something of a cakewalk for Russia. Did you think that was what was going to happen? I always knew the Ukrainians were going to fight like tigers. Of course, the Ukrainians have been fighting for 8 years. But they've made good use of that time. To answer your question directly, I, like many others, overestimated the Russian ability to put together a half coherent military force. And I underestimated the sheer skill bravery agility and cleverness and total determination with which the Ukrainians have responded. I think I also underestimated the ability of the west and NATO to pull together as it has done. Philip, what do you think? Do you think there was a tendency for NATO? Perhaps building up over decades to massively overestimate Russia as a conventional force at least.

Russia Crimea Philippa Mister Putin Nato Europe Putin Georgia Soviet Union Richard Philip
"nato" Discussed on Monocle 24: The Foreign Desk

Monocle 24: The Foreign Desk

04:56 min | 4 hrs ago

"nato" Discussed on Monocle 24: The Foreign Desk

"For NATO, 2022 has been arguably the most demanding and consequential year in the history of the alliance. Russia's full scale invasion of Ukraine on February 24th certainly compelled NATO to demonstrate its resolve like no other event since the end of the Cold War, a period which included NATO interventions in the former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and Libya. NATO finds itself at barely one remove from conflict with its oldest adversary and is preparing to welcome two new members, Sweden, and Finland. A few weeks ago on the foreign desk, our guest was NATO's current most senior civilian official, secretary general Jens Stoltenberg. Our guests this week were a little less than a decade ago, NATO's two most senior military officers. General Philip breedlove of the U.S. Air Force was NATO's supreme allied commander Europe from 2013 to 2016. General sir Richard sheriff of the British army was NATO's deputy supreme allied commander Europe from 2011 to 2014. In this special episode, we ask the two generals for their assessments of how well the alliance has risen to its current challenge. Has NATO conclusively disproved the infamous 2019 judgment of French president Emmanuel Macron that the alliance was brain dead. Did NATO massively overestimate the conventional military capacity of Russia. And how has warfare evolved in recent decades. This is the foreign desk. Today,

NATO secretary general Jens Stolten General Philip breedlove General sir Richard Ukraine Yugoslavia Russia Libya Afghanistan Finland Sweden U.S. Air Force Europe British army Emmanuel Macron
Fresh update on "nato" discussed on Monocle 24: The Foreign Desk

Monocle 24: The Foreign Desk

01:05 min | 4 hrs ago

Fresh update on "nato" discussed on Monocle 24: The Foreign Desk

"For NATO, 2022 has been arguably the most demanding and consequential year in the history of the alliance. Russia's full scale invasion of Ukraine on February 24th certainly compelled NATO to demonstrate its resolve like no other event since the end of the Cold War, a period which included NATO interventions in the former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and Libya. NATO finds itself at barely one remove from conflict with its oldest adversary and is preparing to welcome two new members, Sweden, and Finland. A few weeks ago on the foreign desk, our guest was NATO's current most senior civilian official, secretary general Jens Stoltenberg. Our guests this week were a little less than a decade ago, NATO's two most senior military officers. General Philip breedlove of the U.S. Air Force was NATO's supreme allied commander Europe from 2013 to 2016. General sir Richard sheriff of the British army was NATO's deputy supreme allied commander Europe from 2011 to 2014. In this special episode, we ask the two generals for their assessments of how well the alliance has risen to its current challenge. Has NATO conclusively disproved the infamous 2019 judgment of French president Emmanuel Macron that the alliance was brain dead. Did NATO massively overestimate the conventional military capacity of Russia. And how has warfare evolved in recent decades. This is the foreign desk. Today,

Nato Secretary General Jens Stolten General Philip Breedlove General Sir Richard Ukraine Yugoslavia Russia Libya Afghanistan Finland Sweden U.S. Air Force Europe British Army Emmanuel Macron
NATO vows to aid Ukraine 'for as long as it takes'

AP News Radio

00:48 sec | 1 d ago

NATO vows to aid Ukraine 'for as long as it takes'

"The head of NATO has expressed the alliance's unwavering dedication to helping Ukraine defend itself against Russia. NATO will continue to stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes. NATO secretary general Jens Stoltenberg was resolute in his support for the war battered country, adding. We will not back down. Speaking to reporters ahead of a meeting of NATO foreign ministers and Romania next week, Stoltenberg urged member countries to continue providing air defense systems to Ukraine. As Ukraine's foreign minister is due to join them in Bucharest, Stoltenberg expressed the need to prepare Ukraine for the winter and the longer term. Over the longer term, we will help Ukraine transition from Soviet era equipment to more than NATO standards to train and training. I am Karen Chavez

Nato Ukraine Stoltenberg Jens Stoltenberg Alliance Russia Romania Bucharest Karen Chavez
NATO and Poland say deadly blast was likely unintentional

AP News Radio

00:35 sec | Last week

NATO and Poland say deadly blast was likely unintentional

"Both NATO's chief and Poland's president say a deadly missile strike in Polish farmland yesterday likely was not a Russian attack The preliminary finding The incident was likely caused by the Ukrainian air defense missile NATO secretary general Jens Stoltenberg echoed by Polish leader on che duda Says the strike appeared unintentional as Ukraine tried to defend itself against a Russian bombardment At The Pentagon We have seen nothing that contradicts president

Nato Ukrainian Air Defense Poland Che Duda Jens Stoltenberg Ukraine Pentagon
NATO Says Poland Probably Hit by Ukrainian Missile

Mike Gallagher Podcast

00:50 sec | Last week

NATO Says Poland Probably Hit by Ukrainian Missile

"Ukraine, apparently killing two Polish farmers, but that's good, huh? Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia sent missiles into Poland, they kept saying last night in the media, turns out it was Ukraine. Which reminds us that this conflict is a heck of a lot more complicated than the neocons wanted to be. Before you go running off into new nuclear war with Russia, let's make sure we don't blame them for killing a couple of Polish farmers when Ukraine did it. It was an accident. Their missile defense went awry and somehow missiles wound up striking a farm in Poland and killing two farmers. Huh, nice. That's great. That's going real well over there.

Russia Ukraine Poland
Malcolm Nance Discusses the Wayward Ukraninan Missle Hit on Poland

Stephanie Miller's Happy Hour Podcast

02:38 min | Last week

Malcolm Nance Discusses the Wayward Ukraninan Missle Hit on Poland

"This was obviously a huge relief this morning. The missile that hit Poland was probably a stray fired by Ukraine's air defense and not a Russian strike according to Poland and NATO. Yesterday, obviously easing concerns of an escalation. Just give us your thoughts. Well, first, you know, I've been in that relatively immediate area of where that strike. Where that missile exploded. A lot of activities were along the Polish Ukrainian border. And I did training out in that area, and we were under constant air raid alert. Constant air raid alert. And you know, these missiles take hours to fly to their targets. And they have to fly through several air defense zones. And each air defense zone, you know, has its own air control radars, air detection radars, and its batteries of surface to air missiles. And when you come into an area like where this hit, which is northwest of the city of lviv, those missiles had to have flown hundreds of miles to get there, right? To FYI you when they shoot those hypersonic missiles off of these bombers over western Russia, it's a 17 hour car drive from one end of Ukraine to the other. So it's a very long missile flight, even at three, 400 mph. It takes some time. So the air defense systems are waiting for you, right? And they try to engage you as far away as possible. In a 360° protective circle. And sometimes like this one, I suspect the missile went up, went to the east, tracked on the cruise missile, and one of them may even have destroyed the cruise missile, but they launch in Paris generally. Yeah. And the other one was tracking it as it went west and it just went stupid as we call it. And crashed into Poland. I'm glad that they're, you know, Russia didn't lose its mind and didn't try to do anything deliberately. I'm glad that it wasn't an accident. Because we need to tone down this whole, let's go to World War three stuff. Yeah. Because Ukraine, you know, was attacked by Russia. We all know that. But there's no need to really want to escalate. And then Ukraine is. I mean, when I heard this yesterday, I was like, ah, Putin's invaded Poland. Where does that sound familiar? I mean, because at first, you know, you didn't know what it was. So yeah, you're right. It's a relief,

Poland Ukraine Nato Lviv Russia Paris Putin
NATO: "No indication" Russia attacked Poland after blast near Ukraine

AP News Radio

00:38 sec | Last week

NATO: "No indication" Russia attacked Poland after blast near Ukraine

"NATO secretary general Jens Stoltenberg says a missile blast in Poland that killed two people near the border with Ukraine was probably not an attack by Russia Our preliminary suggest that the incident was likely caused by the Ukrainian air defense missile fired to defend Ukraine and territory against Russian cruise missile attacks At a briefing Stoltenberg added NATO has no indication the Russia is preparing action against any member of the 30 nation military alliance but he said the incident happened because

Ukraine Jens Stoltenberg Nato Ukrainian Air Defense Poland Stoltenberg Nation Military Alliance
Poland calls missile that killed 2 'Russian-made,' Biden says it's 'unlikely' it was fired from Russia

AP News Radio

00:51 sec | Last week

Poland calls missile that killed 2 'Russian-made,' Biden says it's 'unlikely' it was fired from Russia

"President Joe Biden and G 7 leaders meet after a missile explodes on eastern Poland Polish leaders say a Russian made missile fell in their country and killed two people near the border with Ukraine President Biden after meeting with G 7 leaders taking part in the G 20 summit in Indonesia says it's unlikely the missile came from Russia itself I don't want to say that until we completely investigate but it is Unlikely in the minds of the trajectory that it was fired from Russia It's not clear if Biden was suggesting that the missile hadn't been fired by Russia at all NATO ministers have met in Brussels and on Wednesday the United Nations Security Council is quite likely to discuss the strike in Poland during a previously scheduled briefing on Ukraine

President Joe Biden President Biden Russia Poland Ukraine Indonesia Biden Nato Brussels United Nations Security Counci
Mark Levin: No, We're Not Going to WWIII

Mark Levin

00:53 sec | Last week

Mark Levin: No, We're Not Going to WWIII

"I want to tell some of my young friends in the media No we're not going to have World War three right now In no article 5 under the NATO agreement is not going to be triggered Read it The missile that landed in Poland and killed two pole citizens As much as I despise Putin and what he's doing it's obviously a missed shot It's a misfire Because he hit nothing basically I mean he killed two people but it didn't hit anything In any significance it went slightly over the border Because he was missile happy today Putin was fired him off Left and right I think he fired 90th So you're hearing people say World War three it's not going to happen

Putin Nato Poland
Poland: Russian-Made Missile Fell on Our Country, Killing 2

The Dan Bongino Show

01:10 min | Last week

Poland: Russian-Made Missile Fell on Our Country, Killing 2

"It broke just in the last few minutes that a Russian missile crossed into Poland and killed two people Now some of you may be saying well I was to be expected at some point Yeah it was but Poland's a NATO country And this is the This is the conversation I was dreading having for a long time That you know Jim and Mike and I and my podcast crew when we put together our shows had warned about where this is where you get into this cascade of horribles that happens afterwards if certain things happen And you know you get to the point with these things that have Poland and I honestly sincerely doubt they would even attempt to invoke NATO's article 5 If you you know which would require a military response from NATO but wouldn't require it That's actually not accurate Would require military assistance rather better way to save from NATO countries This is the kind of thing that had us worried the entire time

Poland Nato JIM Mike
White House Monitors Russian Nuclear Activity After Poland Strike

The Dan Bongino Show

01:41 min | Last week

White House Monitors Russian Nuclear Activity After Poland Strike

"I know I'm not kidding Like in lifetime Fox White House colon they're monitoring Russian nuclear activity Again I don't think they mean that a hysterical way but this is kind of a big deal And attack on a NATO country they've had two people die now in a missile strike in Poland Poland is now convening defense apparatus As Reagan who is my political lode star said often Nuclear war is not an option It's just not an option Because once you go there that's it There's no options after that It's not an option So we have to find any possible way to avoid this This is what concerned me from the start About a lot of the kind of I don't know what to call it fo bravado coming out of elected leaders even in this country We have this country to take care of first This landmass we called the United States and its 330 plus million citizens That's our job We can sympathize and empathize with citizens around the world and other countries Ukraine as well Dealing with unprovoked attack from Vladimir Putin who's a lunatic we can do that but we have to take care of our country first We're not much good to anyone else around the world without a stable functioning constitutional republic here And we're certainly not good to anyone if a global thermonuclear war starts at annihilates everyone

Fox White House Poland Nato Reagan Vladimir Putin Ukraine United States
 NATO announces next leaders' summit will be in Lithuania

AP News Radio

00:41 sec | 2 weeks ago

NATO announces next leaders' summit will be in Lithuania

"President Joe Biden and his NATO counterparts will hold their next scheduled summit in Lithuania in July The military alliance's top civilian official announced the key meeting in the Lithuanian capital Vilnius for July 1112 as Russia's war on Ukraine fuels security tensions in Europe and the North Atlantic region Leaders are expected to discuss ways to boost the defenses of NATO member countries near Russia and Ukraine and continue their support to the war ravaged country Secretary general Jens Stoltenberg says we face the most complex and unpredictable security environment since

President Joe Biden Nato Military Alliance Lithuania Ukraine Vilnius Russia North Atlantic Europe Secretary General Jens Stolten
Weapons shortages could mean hard calls for Ukraine's allies

AP News Radio

01:52 min | Last month

Weapons shortages could mean hard calls for Ukraine's allies

"The U.S. and other NATO members have sent billions of dollars worth of weapons and equipment to Ukraine to help in its fight against Russia's invasion But that's now presenting a dilemma for European countries facing weapons shortages as they weigh the risk that Russia could target them next I'm Ben Thomas with a closer look Our enemy have many many weapons and artillery We don't have a lot of art of editing After 8 months of intense fighting the allies expect the war will continue Maybe years with both sides rapidly using up weapons supplies Victory may come down to who can last longer This Ukrainian commander asked to be identified just as Yuri most of the times we have problems with tanks and artillery We're standing up for Ukraine's right to defend itself Defense secretary Lloyd Austin has urged NATO members to dig deep and provide Ukraine more Thanking his Estonian counterpart at The Pentagon this week We can all see the differences that these efforts are making on the ground And the progress that the Ukrainians have made in their counteroffensive Estonian defense minister Hanukkah We will stand united with all of our allies today to make sure that the future we will not look back and think that we could have done The pepcorn notes the strain on countries own defense stockpiles comes up all the time especially among smaller NATO countries Estonia shares a 183 mile border with Russia and he says the question is how much risk are you ready to take Still with U.S. support he says That will substantially reinforce the Estonian defense forces Ben Thomas Washington

Nato Russia Ben Thomas Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin Yuri U.S. Pentagon Estonia Ben Thomas Washington
Jim Carafano on the Heritage Foundation's Military Strength Index

America First with Sebastian Gorka Podcast

02:17 min | Last month

Jim Carafano on the Heritage Foundation's Military Strength Index

"Why did the FBI at 5 a.m. in the morning raid James Gordon meeks home? Does it have anything to do with the book he was writing about the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan? Well, let's give you the truth about the state of the military every year our buddies at the heritage foundation, the conservative mothership, launch published an incredible book. It is a ranking of the militaries of the state of the U.S. Military. It has newly been released this year's edition and it has a shocking finding about America and we are delighted. I saw the news had to get him on by phone, the vice president of heritage colonel, doctor Jim carafano, welcome back. Hey, it's great. Great to be with you. You know, this is our 9th edition of the index. And the reason why we started this was because as somebody who's been worked with DoD forever, you know this. Every time DoD would do an assessment, a quadrennial defense review, whatever. Whatever administration is Republican Democrat, they would just redo the baseline so everything came out fine. Yeah. And so you could not go from one and we can go back to things for decades. The bottom up review, the base, whatever. You could not go from one to the other and say, are we better or worse? Because they all adapted standards of measure to accommodate their politics. The game was rigged. So what we did was we established a baseline of looking at the U.S. Military in the same way every year. And as you know, just, it doesn't matter just what you bring to the fight. It also matters what your enemy has and where you're fighting. Let's go back in time. You and I are of a certain vintage. The big publication during the Cold War was the military balance. Do you remember out of London a double I double S that ranked the Warsaw Pact forces by country against the NATO, you had to compare apples to apples. That's the key. Right. And to be honest with them, they still do this. The it's useless. Because it gives you a bunch of statistics with no context.

James Gordon Meeks Jim Carafano DOD U.S. Heritage Foundation FBI Afghanistan Warsaw Nato London
Ukraine's Kyiv area hit by Iranian-made kamikaze drones

AP News Radio

01:06 min | Last month

Ukraine's Kyiv area hit by Iranian-made kamikaze drones

"Ukraine's capital region was struck by kamikaze drones as the southern city of nikolaev also fell victim to shelling overnight Rescuers rushed to a building partially destroyed by Russian shelling in the southern city of nikolayev A young boy just 11 years old is pulled out of the rubble after being stuck there for over 6 hours as he's carried away in a stretcher he points in disbelief at the state of the building he was just in The strike on the key of region also sent rescue workers rushing to the scene as residents woke to air raid sirens for the fourth consecutive morning Ukrainian president volodymyr zelensky pleaded for more air defense weapons Helping Ukraine to protect the sky is one of the most important humanitarian tasks for Europe of our time Meanwhile NATO secretary general Jens Stoltenberg promised NATO will help We will stand by Ukraine for as long as it takes We will step up our support and in particular we will provide more air defense systems to Ukraine I'm Karen Chammas

Nikolayev Ukraine Nikolaev Volodymyr Zelensky Nato Jens Stoltenberg Europe Karen Chammas
NATO holds nuclear talks amid war tensions, Putin threats

AP News Radio

00:58 sec | Last month

NATO holds nuclear talks amid war tensions, Putin threats

"NATO's secretive planning group met in Brussels to organize a nuclear exercise as concerns increase over Russia's actions 14 NATO member countries will be involved in the exercise which was planned before Russia invaded Ukraine on February 24th UK defense minister Ben Wallace stressed the importance of not being provocative What we don't want is to do things out of routine This is a routine exercise and it's all about readiness Today the NATO meeting is all about making sure we are ready for anything The main part of the maneuvers will be held over 600 miles from Russia U.S. defense secretary Lloyd Austin said the U.S. will do whatever it takes to protect NATO allies We are committed to defending every inch of NATO's territory if and when it comes to that NATO's exercise dubbed steadfast noon is held around the same time every year and runs for about one week Russia is also expected to conduct its own exercise not long after the NATO one I'm Karen Chammas

Nato Russia Ben Wallace Brussels Lloyd Austin Ukraine U.S. UK Karen Chammas
remlin war hawks demand more devastating strikes on Ukraine

AP News Radio

00:46 sec | Last month

remlin war hawks demand more devastating strikes on Ukraine

"A senior Russian diplomat has issued a new warning to the U.S. and its allies that their support for Ukraine could draw them into an open conflict with Russia Deputy foreign minister Sergei ryabkov says western military assistance to give the training of Ukrainian personnel in NATO countries and the provision of real-time satellite data allowing the Ukrainian military to designate targets for artillery strikes have increasingly drawn western nations into the conflict on the part of the Kyiv regime in remarks carried by a state news agency He warns Russia will be forced to take relevant countermeasures including asymmetrical ones adding Moscow isn't interested in a direct clash with the U.S. and NATO I'm Charles De Ledesma

Sergei Ryabkov Ukraine Nato U.S. Moscow Charles De Ledesma
Lord Conrad Black Shares His Prognosis for Russia

America First with Sebastian Gorka Podcast

02:25 min | Last month

Lord Conrad Black Shares His Prognosis for Russia

"We have the mass mobilization first. I mean, since 1945, for Russia, we have the impending winter approaching and then of course the explosion of the Nord stream pipeline. There are those who think that there is a negotiated settlement. There is an off ramp that we can provide Putin. I know you've been discussing this issue closely with your fellow podcast colleagues Victor Davis Hanson and Bill Bennett. So what is your analysis of what could be done in the realms of the possible? Yeah, my analysis is a little more optimistic than victors. I agree with him that neither protagonist wants to end where it is right now. But on the other hand, they both wanted to end. And it's terribly onerous for both of them. I mean, Ukraine is suffering casualties and terrible damage to the country. And it's being supplied weapons all right. But you know when wants a war going on in their own country for very long. And in the case of the Russians, and it's obvious there are terrible problems in the Russian armed forces. There's a very high desertion rate. There's great public discontent that have heavy casualties. It's over a 100,000, which would be more than 200,000 in the United States. And they're not getting anywhere. And I think Putin is sort of set out his stall what he would settle at if he could take the four provinces to the purports completely spuriously to a bad next with their approval. But I think you could get something there if there was a real referendum and you redesigned the borders of congressional redistricting. You managed to carve out something around the areas of people who actually voted that they would rather be rushed and then Ukrainian. And you give him that and that's all he gets. And you tell zelensky that you're not you, in this case, being NATO is not prepared to pay for more, but you get an absolute guarantee of Ukraine in its revised borders. And this for the first of several times, all of the people guaranteeing Ukraine's borders, including Russia and all of NATO have to honor their word.

Putin Victor Davis Hanson Bill Bennett Russia United States Nato
What Should We Be Doing With Putin? Jim Carafano Weighs In

America First with Sebastian Gorka Podcast

02:22 min | Last month

What Should We Be Doing With Putin? Jim Carafano Weighs In

"In the meantime, let's ask the trench in question. What should we be doing in the beginning? I wrote a piece where I said the big three things are providing equipment that they know how to use. That's why the MiG 29 offer would have been so perfect. Don't give them stuff. They have no background in using give them the Soviet staff that's in new NATO nations like Hungary like Poland like the Baltic states. Secondly, ammunition because the amount of ammunition the Russians are expanding has to be matched. And thirdly, target paths. So intelligence based target packs to really bleed the Russians. If this lasts for another 6 months another year, what is the good advice that we should be doing? We had lots of conversations. And remember, with that demand, I'm curious. Don't talk about the details. We're their demands realistic. Oh, yeah. So yeah, and that was what was really interesting. And I want this. But it's more important here, well, why do you want that? Yeah. And so when we say going to a frozen conflict, we're heading into winter. That's actually getting very cold and very quickly in Ukraine. I don't know if you saw the story with the Russians lost 1.2 million winter uniforms. No. Yes. Which I ended up in North Korea. Honestly, I think they went on eBay because if you go on eBay, you could buy a Russian winter uniform. You have the name of that uniform is? No, the gorka. Of course that is. So all those 300,000 guys are sending to Ukraine. They're not going to have any winter clothing. But the point is, is it's very difficult to do military operations in the world. So the first thing that Ukrainians asked for is air and missile defense systems. And the reason for that is when you've lost half your GDP, you want people to come back and go back to work. To provide the economy. And if you look, people have to go Israel. The reason why Israel is such a state is you have Iron Dome. So okay, we may have a bad day tomorrow. This is but we'll protect most people. So that makes a lot of sense. The second thing they asked for is long-range artillery and missile systems. And the reason for that is the one thing the Russians still do have an enormous advantage of is firepower. Long-range firepower. And you want to take that off the table. Yes. And the third thing is armored vehicles. So tanks and mechanized vehicles because you need that to take back and hold terrain.

Baltic States Ukraine Nato Hungary Poland Ebay North Korea Israel Iron Dome
Kash Patel: Either Russia or China Sabotaged the Nord Stream

The Dan Bongino Show

01:55 min | Last month

Kash Patel: Either Russia or China Sabotaged the Nord Stream

"The brookings institution cash which is the pee pee hoax place They are freaking out that me and me personally they wrote a whole piece on it today because I've been honestly covering the explosion at the Nord stream pipeline I'm very careful I do not know who did it I chalk it up to its probably either Russia or the United States Russia would do it because I believe Putin may be looking for a reason to escalate So they could say look we were sitting in meanwhile sabotaging his own pipeline U.S. we would do it because one it appeals to the greens and second it kind of creates more of a crisis to get NATO involved If we were looking for it I don't know which one of those things is true But brookings seems really concerned with me talking about it Why do you think that is Well we should take everything the brookings Institutes for a 100% truth value Let's just rewind the clock a little bit Brookings institute the employer Fiona hill the lady in between Christopher Steele eager Dante COFF and the total russiagate hoax Both of whom broke the law and she hired those people at brookings Now that they're personally attacking you Dan is because you're doing the job of reporting the truth and burying their donor class And you've got it right Dan I don't know I don't have access to the classified Intel anymore but former deputy director of national intelligence I have an idea of what these guys do My money's on the Russians or the Chinese I think the Russians did it or the Chinese did it to make it look like America did it Either way circling back to our conversation about nuclear warhead talk Vladimir Putin now has the ultimate justification from his perspective he thought he had it by the growth of NATO on the iron curtain in the country in the 80s We said would never join I'm not saying he's right I'm just saying from his perspective Right Now he has the ultimate And we're never going to be able to prove it What are we going to go deep dive into North Sea to 2000 feet down Exactly It's the perfect crime It's perfect And unfortunately the tragic for our national security

Russia Brookings Institute Fiona Hill Christopher Steele Dante Coff America Putin Nato DAN Intel Vladimir Putin North Sea
"nato" Discussed on Fresh Air

Fresh Air

04:02 min | 9 months ago

"nato" Discussed on Fresh Air

"Partly because Boris Yeltsin starts shedding the blood of his political opponents in Moscow and in Chechnya and that rightly causes people to be worried and think, oh, we need to enlarge NATO more assertively. Partly because of the midterm congressional elections in the United States in November 1994, where Republicans win a stunning victory based on a contract with America calling for more assertive NATO enlargement. And partially because of Ukraine, which is as Clinton says a linchpin in this whole process. It starts to denuclearize having originally been the third biggest nuclear power in the world. And then that makes it less important. So it makes it less important that you have some kind of a solution that includes Ukraine and post Soviet states. And if I could just add one more thing, president Clinton, when he initially came into office, said, you know, why should I draw a new line across Europe, having just erased the Cold War line? If I give countries article 5, that'll draw a new line across Europe between the countries that are article 5 in the countries that don't have it. And that will leave the post Soviet states in the lurch, especially Ukraine, which is the linchpin of Europe. And when I read that as a researcher, I was just shocked at how prescient that was. But then because of all of these factors coming together, yeltsin shedding blood, the Republican victory, Ukraine to nuclearize and Clinton changes his mind. And he ends up drawing that new article 5 line after all. And that then creates a new source of friction with Moscow and it does leave Ukraine on the wrong side of that line as we're seeing today. Your book is titled not one inch, America, Russia, and the making of post Cold War stalemate. Are we still in stalemate? Between NATO and Russia, yes. And that is why it is so painful for us right now because we are stalemated. We see the horrors happening in Ukraine. We see the maternity wards being bombed. We see that woman and her two kids dying on as they tried to flee, not just one family, but there were particularly striking images. We see, as you and I record this on Wednesday, zelensky showed a video to Congress of very moving scenes of destruction. We see all this, and yet we can't do anything to help. That is a stalemate. We are stuck. And the tragedy is that we were in a much better place with Russia at the end of the Cold War. Put differently, cold wars are not short lived affairs. So thaws are precious. And neither Washington nor Moscow made the best use of the thaw in the 1990s. And we lost that deliverance that we had in the 1990s. And my book is an effort to explain how that happened. It's not a simple story. There's agency on both sides. It's not just the United States did everything wrong or Russia did everything wrong. But it is an important story because the United States and Russia we are the two countries that can devastate life on earth. And now we are back at daggers drawn. So I believe it is an essential story of our time. Well, I want to thank you for using your knowledge of history to help us better understand what's happening now in Ukraine and with NATO. So thank you so much for talking with us. No, thank you for bringing attention to this important issue..

Ukraine NATO America Moscow Europe Boris Yeltsin Chechnya Russia Clinton president Clinton zelensky yeltsin Congress Washington
"nato" Discussed on Fresh Air

Fresh Air

03:30 min | 9 months ago

"nato" Discussed on Fresh Air

"What's left of our nuclear treaties with Russia? Almost nothing, sadly. That is something that worries me greatly as I mentioned in a New York Times op-ed a couple of weeks ago. Those arms control treaties were in a sense guardrails on the Cold War. And those are largely gone. For example, the intermediate range nuclear forces treaty of 1987, negotiated by president Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev, that was unfortunately abrogated by Donald Trump in 2019. And that is deeply worrisome. In fact, there's only one treaty left between Washington and Moscow. That's the new start treaty, and it runs out in 2026. It could be renewed, but something tells me the chances of renewal are slim. And then we have no constraints on the world's two biggest nuclear powers. More than 30 years after the end of the Cold War, Washington and Moscow still control 90% of the world's nuclear warheads. And after 2026, they will be unconstrained. And that I find deeply, deeply worrisome. When Trump was president, he complained a lot about NATO about how other countries weren't paying their share of their dues and they'd better shape up. How close did Trump come to pulling out of NATO? That's exactly what Trump said that was, however, a misunderstanding of how NATO finances work. So that was showed Trump's lack of understanding of NATO. Countries, in essence, fund their own militaries. They don't fund NATO directly. So that was a sign that Trump didn't understand how NATO worked. My understanding, I only know what I read from Maggie haberman and others in The New York Times. So my understanding is that Trump did consider very seriously pulling the United States out of NATO. And it is, in my opinion, very fortunate that that did not happen. After the breakup of the Soviet Union were there things the U.S. could have done differently. Including in nuclear talks and including in the expansion of NATO, so as to not have antagonized Putin. Sure, so I argue in my book that NATO enlargement itself was a perfectly justifiable policy. The problem was how it happened. In other words, it happened in a way that maximized friction with Moscow at a time when Moscow was most in need of Friends. For the first time in its history, Moscow was democratizing, and it was turning into a market economy. And that was a very fraught, very difficult process, and the 90s were just a horrific time period in the post Soviet states and particularly in Ukraine and in Russia. And as this was happening, as Washington is interacting with Moscow, there is a lot of self serving advice, economic advice coming from outside advisers about shock therapy and about privatization, that doesn't help. And then of course, there's internal Russian problems. So the way privatization is carried out is hugely corrupt and then there is also a huge financial collapse. So in this context of enormous difficulties, the United States decides to lead NATO to expand in a way that maximizes friction with Moscow. I talk in my book about alternatives that were known at the time to decrease that friction, such as via an alternative known as the partnership for peace. And the Clinton administration initially adopts that strategy, which I think was very wise. But then pushes it aside..

NATO Trump Moscow president Ronald Reagan The New York Times Washington Maggie haberman Mikhail Gorbachev Donald Trump Russia Cold War ed United States Soviet Union Putin Ukraine Clinton administration
"nato" Discussed on Rear Vision

Rear Vision

06:51 min | 9 months ago

"nato" Discussed on Rear Vision

"This is rare vision I'm annabelle queens. And we're tracing the story of the relationship between the Russian republic and NATO. To better understand the current crisis on the Russia, Ukraine border. Despite this first enlargement, Russia, NATO and the United States did make efforts to cooperate. Especially after the 9 11 terrorist attacks on America. Yes, I mean, I think if you look at president Putin's language immediately after 9 11 in the months and to some extent, even the first few years after 9 11, president Putin viewed that as an opportunity potentially to form a common front with the west against Islamic terrorism. And so for instance, Russia argued that it itself faced a similar threat from Islamic terrorism in Chechnya and you saw elements of cooperation between NATO and Russia in relation to Afghanistan. So for example, U.S. and NATO forces going to Afghanistan, part of those transited through what was supplied through the territory of the Russian Federation. So there was a short lived period of cooperation where in a sense, both Russia and the west and to some extent NATO viewed themselves as facing a common enemy. Why that didn't last, I think, can be debated. One factor, I think, is the increasingly authoritarian character of the Russian regime under president boost in that alone made it perhaps difficult for the west to cooperate with Russia. 7 Eastern European nations have joined NATO in the largest single expansion in the organization's 55 year history. The former communist countries Bulgaria, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Romania are the new additions. Today marks a great achievement for each of the nation's joining our alliance. All member nations of NATO must be free. The other thing of course is that NATO continued with its eastern enlargement and in the early 2000s you had this so called Big Bang in large amount of NATO, which took in in particular the three Baltic states Estonia Latvia and Lithuania, but also a range of other central east European states Romania Bulgaria and so on. And obviously the Baltic issue was particularly sensitive for the Russians, the Baltic states had been part of the former Soviet Union. They directly boarded Russia. So from a Russian perspective, this just suggested that NATO once again wasn't considering Russia's concerns and that NATO was willing to enlarge not only into central Eastern Europe, but actually into the territory of what had once been the former Soviet Union. If you look at the expansion, the different ways of expansion up to the present, it really does make an impression and I always suggest that if you are a great power and you see what's a potentially hostile military alliance coming closer and closer to your borders, would you just simply dismiss that threat and say that it's nothing to worry about from the Russian perspective, they look like they're surrounded. If you look at a map of the NATO members from turkey around through the southern European states that have been admitted in Bulgaria, Romania and then up through Hungary, Paul won in the Baltic states. It does look like they're surrounded. Through the first decade of this century, Russia's gas and oil industries started to transform its economy. I think that's right in terms of Russia's relative power. If you think about what was going on at Russia at different points during this whole NATO enlargement debate, we could perhaps go back to 1998 in 1998. There was a major major financial meltdown in Russia, Russia needed assistance from the west and the IMF. So Russia was really in a very weak position economically in the late 1990s and that perhaps explains why it was in a weak position Vis-à-vis the first rounds of NATO enlargement in the late 1990s and in the early and mid 2000s. And if you look at the way in which the rhetoric of president Putin and perhaps the way he thinks about what he's done for Russia, his view would be that he's taken Russia from being in a position of weakness in the late 1990s to a position of strength by the mid to late 2000s and a major part of this was oil and in particular gas exports and rising oil and gas prices so all of this meant that Russia was in a much stronger economic position by the mid to late 2000s and Russia began to invest more and more of that newfound economic wealth in rebuilding its military capabilities and perhaps that might take us to the next point, which I wonder might be the Georgia war of 2008. He gave multiple warnings and it was not just him even before Putin primakov who was second 40 minister was quite hawkish on leader as well, also gave this warning when Putin delivered his now well-known Munich speech in the 2007. He said that the United States overstepped its boundaries. And this is the world of one hegemon, this is the world of a one tall and we can not accept it, and even before him Sergei Lavrov, who was foreign minister continues to be for the minister said that if NATO will continue to expand by trying to incorporate some of the countries over the former Soviet Union, this would be a shift of enormous geopolitical signatures. So you can take this warning seriously because they took place before the Russia Georgia conflict. And the United States did not take those warnings seriously because it pushed from 8 expansion for Georgia and Ukraine. Even in the year 2008, during the Bucharest summit. Tomorrow, NATO will make an historic decision on the admission of three Balkan nations. Croatia. Albania and Macedonia, here in Bucharest, we must make clear that NATO welcomes the aspirations of Georgia. And Ukraine for their membership in NATO. And offers them a clear path forward to meet that goal. George W. Bush and Condoleezza Rice pushed for Georgia and Ukraine membership and soon after this, Georgia attacked a south to which Russia immediately responded because it was ready. It was weed and on the other side of The Rock tunnel. And it was 5 or 6 years conflict with devastating consequences for Georgia. But for the west, this was a very clear sign. That there are.

NATO Russia president Putin annabelle queens United States Baltic Bulgaria Romania Eastern European nations Latvia Estonia Russian republic Lithuania Afghanistan Soviet Union Ukraine Chechnya Baltic states Slovakia Slovenia
"nato" Discussed on Rear Vision

Rear Vision

09:21 min | 9 months ago

"nato" Discussed on Rear Vision

"If communism was done in the Soviet Union, then was NATO still needed. And some people argued, for instance, that you might instead set up a plan European Europe wide security structure. But in the end, NATO's members decided that they preferred to keep NATO. They felt that NATO was a success story and that it provided an element of stability in an uncertain Europe. So the mainstream view amongst NATO's members was to maintain NATO despite the fact that the Soviet threat was gone. And there is a lot of soul searching going on at that point. What are we going to do now? Because if the Soviet Union was no longer a threat, then there was really no reason to continue NATO. My name is Charles ziegler. I am Professor of political science and also a university scholar at the university of Louisville in Louisville, Kentucky. And it did look for a while that NATO and Russia would be on the best of terms. In the early 90s, new leaders Boris Yeltsin and Russia's first foreign minister Andrei kosher, they just wanted to join the west as soon as possible, including NATO, but also international economic organizations, IMF, World Bank, and they thought of themselves as being a part of the west. My name is Andre segundo. I'm a Professor of international relations in political science at San Francisco state university. And they wanted to join the rest as soon as possible. So initially, they thought that the west would welcome them, but then soon enough they discovered two problems. One was that the west was not actually welcoming. And the other problem was that Russia itself was really in a state of major disarray. That question of extending NATO membership right the way to Russia was on the agenda. Here we could even go back to Mikhail Gorbachev, the last leader of the Soviet Union. He never raised the issue of the Soviet Union joining NATO, but he spoke in terms of there being a common European home, exactly what that meant was somewhat unclear, but the idea was that in a sense, all European states might be brought in. And then in the early to mid 1990s, a couple of times, Russian president Boris Yeltsin did actually raise the possibility that Russia might join NATO. Yeltsin, I think, wasn't particularly serious with that, and it wasn't really taken seriously the signing of a NATO Russia accord in Paris, brought together Russian president Boris Yeltsin, U.S. president Bill Clinton, and the leaders of France, Germany and Britain in an unprecedented move towards military and political cooperation. But that's not to say the Russians are completely won over. President yeltsin restated his objections to NATO's enlargement. By giving Russia a formal role at NATO, they could reassure Moscow that enlargement of the alliance to bring in new members would not leave it isolated and threatened. European security is not a zero sum game where NATO has gained as Russia's loss and Russia's strength is our alliance's weakness. The west didn't see it as a real possibility. And in a way, they made the right noises. They said things like, oh yes, at some point, you might be a contender for membership in NATO. But they were never really serious about it. I think the Clinton administration Bill Clinton had a very good relationship with Paris yeltsin. And promised him a lot of things, but at the same time, they were responding to demands from these Europeans in particular, say the polls who are have always been afraid of the Russians and then later from the Baltic states, slappy, Lithuania Estonia, who wanted NATO membership for two reasons. One so that they would have a protector in the event that Russia became resurgent, which it has. And secondly, I think because they saw NATO membership as going hand in hand with membership in the European Union, which they also very much wanted. But the point is that I don't think the U.S. ever really took Russia seriously at that time. And that was something that I think has rankled more than anything. The fact that Russia wasn't taken seriously. Mister Putin has famously said, in that 2018 speech, where he trotted out all the new missiles they had and so on. He said no one wanted to listen to us. Well, listen to us now. Through the 1990s, while rushes inclusion into NATO was not taken seriously. The idea of expanding NATO eastwards became increasingly popular. First, in Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia and eventually in the United States. My argument would be really that it was driven by the central and east European states. So if you look to Poland Czechoslovakia Hungary in a sense they were the three leading reformers if you like in the early and mid 1990s and their leaders, people like Valencia, in Poland, vaslav Harvard and Czechoslovakia and then the Czech Republic, they argued for what they called the return to Europe. So they said their countries had been artificially separated from Europe by the imposition of Soviet communism and by the Cold War. So they argued that their countries were just as entitled to join NATO and to join the European Union as the west European countries. So in particular, Poland Czechoslovakia and Hungary in the early and mid 1990s were really driving this debate pressing to join NATO. In addition, then that perhaps caught up in particular with the Clinton administration where there was a big debate really in the early and mid 1990s about NATO and large and eventually president Clinton came down in favor of NATO enlargement, and that's really how the process began. It wasn't primarily driven by any sense of Russian threat at the time. Even though NATO was established on the premise that the Soviet Union would need to be contained. So this was essentially the became the key mission of NATO. But at the time, the perception was not that Russia was a threat anymore. So the threat perceptions it was still alive and well not so much in the official policy historical certainly not in the vehicle in terms of administration, but it was a life and well in Eastern Europe. Shortly in Poland and in those countries elites who became candidates for the first wave of expansion. And that's Poland. Check the public and Hungary. NATO's decision to invite Hungary the Czech Republic and Poland into its ranks has been hailed as a day of great historical importance by all the late involved, and the invitation list is not yet complete. This a very great day. For not only for Europe United States, not simply for NATO, but indeed for the cause of freedom in the aftermath of the Cold War. Once that's something Russia at the time objected to or in a sense even had the capacity to object to. Yes, Russia clearly objected to this right from the mid 1990s Russia made very clear that it was opposed to NATO's eastward enlargement of Russians argued that it was unnecessary and they argued that it was potentially threatening for themselves. So Russia was clear that it was opposed to NATO enlargement. This was initially obviously under president Boris Yeltsin and then subsequently under president Putin, Russia posts this process immediately after it was announced and even before it was clear that overwhelming majority of Russian publications, including liberal politicians, did not like the idea. But Russia was not really consulted. It was not really taken into consideration for various reasons that we can discuss, but the main one being the Russia simply was too weak and too much of a disarray. You're right in one sense there was rather little that Russia could do about this. Russia was in a week position. It wasn't really in a position to halt. There is and it didn't really have political leverage over NATO or over the central European states. The other thing I think, which is important to note is that NATO always tried to pursue a twin track strategy. So NATO's argument was that it would enlarge into central Eastern Europe, Poland Czech Republic and Hungary in the first place, but at the same time, it would build cooperation with Russia. So something called the permanent joint council between Russia was established and then a NATO Russia council a bit later. So NATO tried to build an institutionalized cooperative relationship with Russia at the same time as enlarging into central Eastern Europe, but some observers describe this as trying to square a circle,.

NATO Russia Soviet Union Boris Yeltsin Charles ziegler Europe Andrei kosher Andre segundo Czech president Clinton Hungary yeltsin U.S. Mister Putin university of Louisville Clinton administration San Francisco state university Mikhail Gorbachev Paris vaslav Harvard
"nato" Discussed on WSJ What's News

WSJ What's News

06:36 min | 11 months ago

"nato" Discussed on WSJ What's News

"The U.S. and NATO have deployed thousands of troops to rebuild the alliance's front line amid growing tensions with Russia in response, president Vladimir Putin is exerting pressure on surrounding countries such as Ukraine, with Kremlin officials coming to NATO headquarters in Brussels today. The question remains, how will this 30 country alliance address Russia's increasing assertiveness? For more, we're pleased to be joined by our NATO reporter James marson. Hi, James. Hi there. James how often do Russia and NATO meet like this? How big of a deal is what we're seeing this week? So this is the first time that the NATO Russia council will have Matt since 2019, so it's important. Russia says it feels threatened by NATO NATO's enlarged since the fall of the Soviet Union by adding as members countries that used to be part of the Warsaw Pact, Russia says it feels threatened by how the U.S. and its allies are providing aid and training the military in Ukraine, which has been fighting a war against Russian led separatists in its eastern 2014. So Russia has gathered tens of thousands of troops on Ukraine's border and says it may look for a military solution if the west doesn't give it binding security guarantees. Among those guarantees right is a demand that NATO agreed to never accept Ukraine or Georgia, I believe as members. How does that demand fit in with NATO's own policy and could the alliance ever agree to those terms? NATO has what's called an open door policy. That means that any country can apply for membership and then it's up to the current members to decide whether to let them in. Now Ukraine and Georgia have long rather wanted membership and in 2008 NATO came up with a fudge because Germany and France didn't want to go along with U.S. plan to offer membership. So the fudge says that Ukraine and Georgia will eventually become members of NATO, but doesn't give a timeline for that membership. So Russia just thinks they can drag out that gradual progression towards NATO membership or stop it altogether. Right, that's exactly what Russia wants to do Russia has said quite clearly that it does not want Ukraine and Georgia to become members of NATO. It sees these former Soviet republics as part of its sphere of influence. Also, it's not very happier about the aid that NATO countries have been giving to Ukraine to build up Ukraine's military. So James turning to NATO here, what can they do to possibly counter the Kremlin in Ukraine? So there's not actually a lot that NATO itself can do. The alliance has made clear that it's mutual defense doesn't extend to Ukraine. So if Russia invades again, then no troops would ride to the rescue from NATO. Now, NATO members have provided military aid and training to Ukraine, but there's also been some disagreement about that. For example, Germany has been blocking the sale of sniper rifles to Ukraine via a NATO process, saying that NATO should only be providing defensive weapons. The U.S. and Europe are also considering what measures such as economic sanctions they could levy on Russia if it invades again. But in terms of immediate military help in the form of troops, that's not going to happen. All right, so beyond threatening countries that are in NATO's periphery as opposed to attacking NATO countries directly, what are some other possible NATO weak points that Russia is trying to capitalize on? Another one of NATO's weak points really is disunity, and that's something Russia has always looking to exploit. NATO is divided over what to do. There are countries like Germany and France who urge caution and they want negotiations with Russia, Germany, for example, has a very strong economic ties with Russia. And then on the other hand, you have eastern countries like Poland and the Baltic states who are very worried that if you give Putin any concessions, he'll simply come back for more. Turning to the situation at the Russia Ukraine border is the military buildup that we'd heard so much about over the last few weeks. Continuing or has that given way to a type of diplomatic brinkmanship? So NATO secretary general Jens Stoltenberg said that the military buildup is continuing the Dara tens of thousands of troops around Ukraine and they are equipped with heavy weaponry, but diplomats said isn't currently at a level that would suggest imminent invasion. Russia itself says it has no plans to invade, but mister Stoltenberg says that Russia has done it before. Russia did this in 2014 when it sees Crimea then launched a cohort operation in Ukraine's east. It's done it in 2008 in Georgia. So the west is largely saying nothing imminent but Russia is gathering the forces in place to do it and it has done it before. James Russian troops are also present in Kazakhstan at the moment, but we understand they may be due to leave the country pretty soon, fill us in on that. Right, that's what officials are saying that the situation in Kazakhstan is now stabilizing that the government has managed to reestablish control and that the troops should be able to leave within a few days. But there's something more important there's also happen here, the intervention is going to have a long-lasting effect on the region because it showed that Moscow is really the security provider in the region. So the Kazakh president was reliant on Russia to bail him out in a situation where his government was wobbling. And that just makes him more dependent on Russia now and in the future. Right, so that's military power, but what about maybe soft power? Could the U.S. and NATO play a hearts and minds campaign and some of these former Soviet countries to try and combat Russian influence? In certain places, yes, I mean, in Kazakhstan, there were hopes that democracy would flourish after the end of the Soviet Union, but it didn't really happen. You had an authoritarian leader in power who sidelined opposition to control of the economy and the whole political scene. So the space for the U.S. to encourage democracy that is quite narrow. But then in other countries, like Ukraine, the situation is somewhat brighter for the west. There was a revolution there in 2014 that kicked out a corrupt pro Russian president, and now in the midst of all with the Russian led separatists, the country is firmly in favor of integrating with NATO and the European Union, but the problem is that these organizations don't have a unified position on whether to grant membership. So we come back to something that we were speaking about earlier. The answer for now on membership in those organizations is no. And that leaves Ukraine more vulnerable to Russia. It's fascinating, James marson is the journal's NATO reporter, James, thank you.

NATO Ukraine Georgia James marson U.S. NATO Russia council James Germany Warsaw Pact Vladimir Putin Soviet Union Brussels France mister Stoltenberg Kazakhstan Matt Jens Stoltenberg alliance Putin Baltic
"nato" Discussed on Target USA Podcast by WTOP

Target USA Podcast by WTOP

04:41 min | 1 year ago

"nato" Discussed on Target USA Podcast by WTOP

"We leave that to the very last question so that will be your concluding sentence to finish the sentence. What will be in the future. We park this saturday. My question actually rhymes with the question of not on the more concrete level. Philip araj raja's medicine the french involvement in soccer head and the french responsibility there but it looks like that. The french operation the barcon. It is also heading towards defeat by the end of this year. So most people say that africa's not native business but is it like forever to remain this way. My question on that is twofold first to philip era. Did you feel like you didn't have sufficient support from the allies. Or maybe nato mechanisms assets that you could have used that could have made the operation most successful. Did you feel this gap that that wasn't the nato mission there unto by baraza udu at all have any discussion africa in nature. Is it like the discussion. Is there but there is no consensus or there is no discussion. It'll thank you take one more. I would love to take a woman actually test some sort of about us. There's no woman so gentlemen in the third wrote thank you. I i want to say thank you to general j. Chuck fora these yourself us on tundra mortgage head of ukrainians of national remembrance about this vision in east europe because fire in our home in ukraine in georgia in belarus. And we have smoke. Litwin my question a to buy by to enter to. Jj when we're looking because the stories about afghanistan geds impressions that different countries are coming out from afghanistan. Not coalition is these media effect or our east european vision lack of communication or some new challenge of coordination in nato. Thank you do you want to answer. All shall i take one more. You think you can deal with one more question. Yeah so still no native sorry ladies. We're other women over the gentlemen over there and then cast and i come to you and then Hello i'm sure from baltic defense college and georgia listening to this panel. I consider this crazy question about the open door polish nato. You know nobody mentioned it. As mentioned sort of cooperative security as the as the wind up these three main pillars of nato but what about the open door policy because when biden was elected before nations at different hopes and expectations and in georgia and in ukraine. We definitely had some expectations that our urine integration process somehow could move forward with the new administration but now with everything happening and with all these fires around us is is open door policy still a policy or it's a mythic very much and cast the freeze. I thank you thank you Usage of coniston changes everything. I will pull do. Gunstone changes nothing. It's a bump in.

nato Philip araj raja philip era baraza udu Chuck fora Litwin africa afghanistan georgia soccer east europe baltic defense college ukraine belarus biden
"nato" Discussed on Target USA Podcast by WTOP

Target USA Podcast by WTOP

02:58 min | 1 year ago

"nato" Discussed on Target USA Podcast by WTOP

"I don't want to say you know counter that Stategic autonomies choice of words. And what is the meaning we can again instead something else but the reality is we were very closely together but coming back to the hybrid warfare question if i may call it as such. Do you think that particular case is a case for nato. Nato has just deployed contra hybrid support. Lithuania actually so there was a very quick decision. By thirty allies. It was literally you know short discussion and it was done so again. It will be very practical. Practical work done on the ground in lithuania. It's disgust within the article. Five notions that is not done because there hasn't been bequest for single exit with is just the early response options has asked for. So thank you general. Maybe you're the least possible. Person who would advocate for cooperating with russia. Assume but coming back. Because i'm general but also because i'm polish but coming back to the question on russia and afghanistan more precisely. Isn't there a rationale behind. What set is there room for cooperation because we join act we share actually an interest a human being say just just to discuss always nice so it is not a problem just discuss was a question about the will and our agenda. Of course i think right now in afghanistan will be observed. Is russia trying to to put some footprint and looking for some place for opportunity so the russian embassies to work and in denver short-term they playing game it's success goes is still staying and an pretending to influence situation and also which is interesting links. Does my private perspective is is a situation and afghanistan. then we have immigration illegal immigration with some kind of a aeroflot airplane support flying those people transporting to belarus and then finally to lithuania latvia. Polish border ends up on exercise but in the long-term russians. They know very well. That is a huge challenge and problem for russia because the situation canisters is destabilized. Those people on on the road going to the certain bonders of russia so is very short term. Success success like evangi tried to explore about the long-term. There'll be a huge problem. So that would be a reason from some certain identity. Like a nato or european union or coalitions to to talk to discuss but Direct discussion beyond between poland and russia..

lithuania russia afghanistan nato Nato denver belarus latvia evangi european union poland
"nato" Discussed on Target USA Podcast by WTOP

Target USA Podcast by WTOP

03:54 min | 1 year ago

"nato" Discussed on Target USA Podcast by WTOP

"So let's not focus too much on china within nato phillip coming to you there. Was this press statement from president. Michael right after a the nato summit in june where mccoll said something like nato. I have the quote here like nato is an organization that concerns the north atlantic china has little to do with the north atlantic. And we shouldn't confuse our goals more or less. That's what he said. So what listening. To what the general said. Do you think that we run into a problem here. That we focused too much on all sorts of things and that we now get distracted focusing on china too much. So i do think that nato should focus and your organization should focus on. What are the most salient challenges and threats and in terms of action. those has the strongest value added. So if we reduce the discussion to nato. I do think as i said that china as a direct military threat to the euro-atlantic area. If this is the prison under which we look at it we're missing a big part of the picture. We do need to have that awareness. China is beginning to operate conventionally arvidsson itty. There's the issue of chinese russian military cooperation including in our vicinity. But the key issue for us as americans as europeans as canadians is is is at least in the euro-atlantic area the way in which china uses other tools whether it's economic coercion whether it's attempts to divide us whether it's attempts to undermine our solidarity our our cohesion by calling into question our solidarity look at the way it's acting with lithuania and are the strongest reaction. The strongest way to react in the most effective way to react has not been through. Nato it has been through use soliderity with lithuania for example an economic terms and in terms of the issues the domains. If you wish If you look at commerce and technology we have an eu us dialogue on commerce and technology. It was a us proposal. This does not mean that the us cares less about nato. It means that it knows and sees the use natural competencies in this in this domain. So i do not think that china should be at the forefront of what nato's doing or that nato should be at the forefront of our response to chinese actions. I do think that we need to work together. whether this is us nato with a nato where it's the most relevant and within the you because what we have been doing over the last year year and a half has been extremely illustrative of what we're able to do at twenty seven even when we have divisions among member states whether it'd be in terms of responding to chinese a vaccine or diplomacy diplomacy is a plight word in terms of the way they put it in terms of responding together to to human rights violations in terms of dealing with some of the issues like five g. or or or others and looking forward integrating all of this into an e you into pacific strategy that of course has to do with china but that has to do even more with all of our partnerships in the region and everything that you can offer as an alternative in terms of connectivity and other elements so i think it would be a great mistake to put this in terms of the eu versus nato. I think it's much more. What what we see. And what we do as europeans americans and canadians regardless of the institution. Thank you. I see baiba nodding but i i want to go today. I think a lot of europeans. These days tried to figure out what the united states really want from europe within nato. I've heard a spanish official speculating that basically the united states want nato to become an alliance also focused on the pacific. So you mean all europeans here in the room and you would advise us..

nato china north atlantic mccoll lithuania atlantic phillip Michael united states eu China baiba europe pacific
"nato" Discussed on Target USA Podcast by WTOP

Target USA Podcast by WTOP

03:57 min | 1 year ago

"nato" Discussed on Target USA Podcast by WTOP

"How thank you. maybe i come to you. By because you have been witnessing discussions also inside. Nato amongst. Elliot's may be mumbling in the corridors. About what the american stood right or wrong. So what is your perception. What is basically nato's main. Take away from this afghanistan mission past twenty years but especially also this withdrawal and how it was mate. Is there a lasting damage. I mean there will. There is already. We have started lessons learned process and will be things that worked. That didn't work and that we can fix or maybe not so in that respect it really does not make sense to put blame on those the other or third party We do have to draw lessons nationally. Nfc alliance which we will do then. The next step of course is to remember. The alliance has three quarters. The turns defense rice management cooperative security and those tasks remain relevant as philip. radley said. Of course then you domains of contentions and you maine's that also nato has recognized operational domains beat cyberspace introduced and the tech introduces entirely new. Meaning into what defense attorneys in the future is. And we'll be an general can can come in with his haute about that and the challenge again whether it's a certain perception of china and what china is doing in terms of not only at tech and development. And it's it's treatment of people's data or privacy but also the actual military capabilities that is developing from from missile from yourself from nuclear to to conventional to see capabilities navy. Everything is there and we need to understand. What does it mean for the thirty dollars. And that's why we have also invited china to dialogue today. There is a weapons of mass destruction conference ongoing in copenhagen china's not there and we need china to engage. We need china to be also part of sets sort of if not dialogues and at least exchange of information to to understand because otherwise without that of course we will conclude certain things that we concludes and if that brings most ability securities. That's you know the extent but again afghanistan. Yes we are all reeling from it is there has to be a rational listens lenses and we will do that. We all had scenarios in place. Why didn't we. That's an exhibition. So it's a rational boss. Military political process bought the alliance as a three quarter asks their deterrence defense as its first one as we also see from Nato's presence in estonia latvia and poland in the in the south. It's there it's efficient. Can i connect come back to the three core. Task enshrined in the twenty ten strategic concept. I'm wondering about the future of crisis management. Honestly i mean you said the end of afghanistan after two thousand fifteen not crisis management operation better training operation. But still i mean. Is there not intervention for tc with a nato deeply widespread amongst european and american allies. And is maybe. I ask you just straightforward. Do you think that nato will engage in any swordfish afghanistan style military mission in the near distant future. Is there any appetite. You wouldn't want to speculate you..

china Nfc alliance nato afghanistan Nato Elliot radley philip maine copenhagen navy estonia latvia poland
"nato" Discussed on Target USA Podcast by WTOP

Target USA Podcast by WTOP

03:24 min | 1 year ago

"nato" Discussed on Target USA Podcast by WTOP

"Afghanistan happened few months after that the world community nato was there for the us. Nato was there on nine eleven because shortly after it happened there was a very clear understanding made to the. Us that article five would apply. Nato was there being embedded in afghanistan with the military over a period of years for three times. I've seen the polish of seeing the the british. I've seen the germans. I've seen the entire nato family at work in afghanistan. And i can say to you being again. That witness to history there was no greater form of solidarity to me than that coming to the aid of a member. In that way the us was on its knees on nine eleven it was nato that extended the hand to help the us stand up never in my lifetime. That i think. I would again as this witness witness. What took place a couple of weeks ago. We thought the taliban were done. We thought that whole process was finished as it relates to afghanistan. We thought a government would be stood up. We thought afghanistan would stand on its own. Wasn't the case. Perhaps it was never meant to be but nato was there at the very end when the us left us troops left nato was still there. Nato is still there today. In my opinion afghanistan is going to change everything how things happen. How cooperation takes place the politics of it. The importance of it the threats as a result of afghanistan that were exposed some that we knew about some that we didn't expect as a journalist and as a witness to history. The way it's been handled has been something to behold from inside the united states. There's been a lot of concern about why certain steps taken and why certain steps were not taken again. Change is inevitable but the way it's handled is not and this is the thing from a journalistic point of view that i think is going to be with us for quite a while. Yeah interrupt you. We stay with afghanistan. We stay with the topic first topic. I wanted to dive a bit deeper in. But i want to ask you concretely. Because you made me think when you sat afghanistan changes everything so concrete question before you continue would be does it. Change american security and defence policy. Does it change america's engagement also with allies. Well i had this all scripted. And i had a dramatic finish so i will just put that aside and answer your question. Yes.

Nato afghanistan america Afghanistan taliban
"nato" Discussed on Target USA Podcast by WTOP

Target USA Podcast by WTOP

05:42 min | 1 year ago

"nato" Discussed on Target USA Podcast by WTOP

"To me is assistant secretary. General for public diplomacy of nato ambassador by about basha to be a my very leftist philippe. He's director general. For political and security affairs ministry for europe and foreign affairs of france and to my very right as jj green coming to us from the united states. He is a national security correspondent with wto radio station. So well come everybody and thank you very much for making it. We start this panel. With short introductory remarks. I would like to give every participant the opportunity to reflect on one of the questions that was outlined in the panel description. What kind of alliance do we need. The coming back hurt. Because i think is quite clear that since the last strategic concept was written in two thousand ten where russia was considered a partner and china wasn't even mentioned. We've moved on quite a bit. We are at the beginning of a process to write the new strategic concept for a new nato and i think since the last one was written a lot has happened not only china and russia netter. Nato was declared brain dead by some other stickier or others were i think. Sh- short of leaving nato. We have entered an era of great power competition and just ended a military intervention in afghanistan. With what i would call a pretty disastrous withdrawal with maybe a little coordination among allies. So looking at this overall picture. So what do you think are the big strategic decisions when it comes to nature's new strategic concept direction nato should take how nato adapt. How should it reinvent itself or is it even necessary to reinvent itself. What can we keep. And what fundamental trends do you see that one needs to respond to and i start with general and ask you to keep it concise and thank you very much. Indeed sharp and brief short sharp short and sharp lindsey. Because you're in order for me to be here because the timing and because location we are italian which is the most forward position of eastern flank facing eastern direction so we have a planned of discussion with the jerusalem which is my counterpart your defense forces about the military solutions for the problem and is very important location here. We are in eastern flank. So whatever we say whatever we we act it's is important and timing is also a very important. I was asking myself. What what does it mean once. We exercising pasta. Once we exercising today and in the future so pasta admits bi-polar easy black and white zero one word soviet union and the united states for a long time. Nato seventy years old institution..

Nato jj green basha philippe russia china france europe united states afghanistan lindsey jerusalem
"nato" Discussed on Probably Science

Probably Science

01:37 min | 1 year ago

"nato" Discussed on Probably Science

"Fifty miles from glacier bay as the sea plane flies during a typical tourist season when cruise ships into pools and disembark tens of thousands of passengers sizing helicopters crossing over her house make conversations in her own home. Difficult the lockdown. She said get people taste of what could be like the giant pause that we had because of the pandemic really gave an opportunity for people to rethink what we have what we need and want she said. Please tell me that. She's about to say that That she without the tourists she also was able to nap and spread for two hundred meters. Became more she. She's able to breach in an uninhibited fashion. So so she starts. She's got signatures for a ballot measure. That would limit the time days and sizes of cruise ships that could stop in juneau when the pandemic subsides though ming-kwai two times in the waltz. They called their f. You wanna take a guess at the name of their. I saw candidates. I can't i can't i can't cheat i'll give you. I'll give you a clue if you haven't seen nato. It's one of the titles of one of the speed movies. Don't take the bus. that's it. They cruise so cruise control efforts provoked a quick and full spill response from gino's business community which depends heavily on the money the tourist laden cruise ship bring to the town together a counter campaign protect united future urging.

glacier bay juneau nato gino united