U.S. Paying 68% Percent of NATO, Increased 6 Percent Since 2021

 

Why has the U.S. increased our spending 6 percent to NATO since 2021? What is Europe doing to protect itself? The joy ride is coming to an end for NATO.

Alarm Grows Over Weakened Militaries and Empty Arsenals in Europe

~ The Wall Street Journal, December 11, 2023

“The British military—the leading U.S. military ally and Europe’s biggest defense spender—has only around 150 deployable tanks and perhaps a dozen serviceable long-range artillery pieces. So bare was the cupboard that last year the British military considered sourcing multiple rocket launchers from museums to upgrade and donate to Ukraine….”

“France, the next biggest spender, has fewer than 90 heavy artillery units….”

“The German army only has enough ammunition for two days of intense fighting…..”

 

The U.S. is paying for their Socialist Utopia by paying for their defense.

How much do Nato members spend on defence?

The graphic that follows, via Visual Capitalist’s Marcus Lu, breaks down the expected defense expenditures of NATO members in 2023, using data from NATO and based on current prices and exchange rates.

The U.S. is broke. The joy ride is coming to an end for NATO.  Here it is from Zero Hedge:

NATO defines defense expenditure as payments made by a national government, excluding regional, local, and municipal authorities, specifically to fulfill the requirements of its armed forces. It requires members to spend at least 2% of its GDP on defense.

A major component of defense expenditure includes payments for active armed forces personnel as well as retired pensioners. Expenditures for stockpiling war reserves of military equipment or supplies are also included. Additionally, it encompasses expenditures for peacekeeping and humanitarian operations, as well as the destruction of weapons.

The U.S. is by far the largest contributor to NATO’s budget. In 2023, the country accounted for $860 billion spent by the organization, representing 68% of the total expenditure. This amount is over 10 times more than that of the second-placed country, Germany.

Country2023 Defense Spending (USD, Millions)*
🇺🇸 United States$860,000
🇩🇪 Germany$68,080
🇬🇧 United Kingdom$65,763
🇫🇷 France$56,649
🇮🇹 Italy$31,585
🇵🇱 Poland$29,105
🇨🇦 Canada$28,950
🇪🇸 Spain$19,179
🇳🇱 Netherlands$16,741
🇹🇷 Türkiye$15,842
🇳🇴 Norway$8,814
🇷🇴 Romania$8,481
🇫🇮 Finland$7,325
🇬🇷 Greece$7,125
🇧🇪 Belgium$7,076
🇩🇰 Denmark$6,775
🇭🇺 Hungary$5,036
🇨🇿 Czechia$5,033
🇵🇹 Portugal$4,167
🌐 Other$12,400

*Expected spending in 2023, based on July 2023 data from NATO.

U.S. defense spending, within the context of NATO, aims to support European allies, deter adversaries like Russia, and gain access to additional military resources, among other objectives.

In 2018, then-President Trump sent letters to NATO allies demanding that they spend more on defense to meet the 2% minimum target. In recent years, however, the U.S. has increased its spending, experiencing a 6% jump compared to 2021.

Keep reading

It has had the desired results of the author of a paper in 1993 on how to keep NATO relevant since the fall of the USSR.  – author – George Soros

Toward A New World Order: The Future of NATO : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

 

To constitute a closed society, you need to mobilize society 
behind the state. Since communism is dead and universal ideolo- 
gies are generally discredited, a closed society needs to be based 
on a national or ethnic principle. To establish such a principle, 
you need an enemy; if you don't have one, you need to invent it. 
In the post-communist world, you don't need to go very far to 
find an enemy because communism generally neglected or 
oppressed national aspirations. 


...
It is very tempting to appeal to nationalist emotions in 
order to divert attention from economic failure. Meciar is doing it 
right now in Slovakia. Iliescu in Romania relies on extreme 
nationalists for his parliamentary majority, and Antall in Hungary 
flirted with doing so. But, paradoxically, when economic disinte- 
gration is too advanced, it may be too late to mobilize society 
behind a national cause. That was certainly the case in Ukraine, 
where Kravchuk tried to play the nationalist card in connection 
with the Black Sea Fleet but failed, and it may also be true of 
Russia. If that is so, the danger of a nationalist dictatorship 
emerging in Russia -- which is, after all, the most important coun- 
try from a security point of view -- will be the greatest after the 
economy has stabilized. 

...
The United Nations might have become an effective orga- 
nization if it were under the leadership of two superpowers coop- 
erating with each other. As it is, the United Nations has already 
failed as an institution which could be put in charge of U.S. 
troops. This leaves NATO as the only institution of collective 
security that has not failed, because it has not been tried. NATO 
has the potential of serving as the basis of a new world order in 
that part of the world which is most in need of order and stability. 
But it can do so only if its mission is redefined. There is an urgent 
need for some profound new thinking with regard to NATO. 

...
THE FUTURE OF NATO The original mission was to defend the free world against the Soviet empire. That mission is obsolete; but the collapse of the Soviet empire has left a security vacuum which has the potential of turning into a "black hole." This presents a different kind of threat than the Soviet empire did. There is no direct threat from the region to the NATO countries; the danger is within the region, and it concerns conditions within states as much as relationships between states. Therefore, if NATO has any mission at all, it is to
project its power and influence into the region, and the mission is best defined in terms of open and closed societies. Closed societies based on nationalist principles constitute a threat to security because they need an enemy, either outside or within. But the threat is very different in character from the one NATO was constructed to confront, and a very different approach is required to combat this threat. It involves the building of democratic states and open societies and embedding them in a structure which precludes certain kinds of behavior. Only in case of failure does the prospect of military intervention arise. The constructive, open society building part of the mission is all the more important because the prospect of NATO members inter- vening militarily in this troubled part of the world is very remote. Bosnia is ample proof.
* George Soros, PROSPECT FOR EUROPEAN DISINTEGRATION, The Soros Foundations, New York, 29 September 1993. eee ese 11




The best of the swamp.

NATO Breaks – Poland Will No Longer Arm Ukraine

Is this the beginning of the end of the support for Ukraine? Apparently Zelensky is running out of willing participants ready to accept Ukraine’s cheap wheat that is flooding their countries. Add a couple of elections coming up for these countries, Zelensky holding out his cup, has found unwilling participants.

Here we go:

The dam is breaking on unified Western support for Ukraine, and the timing couldn’t be worse for Zelensky, given tomorrow he’s expected to meet with President Biden at the White House. On Wednesday evening there is monumental news out of Poland which could potentially change the entire course of the war.

“Poland will no longer arm Ukraine to focus on its own defense,” Polish prime minister Mateusz Morawiecki announced just hours after Warsaw summoned Ukraine’s ambassador related to a fresh war of words and spat over blocked grain, according to the AFP. Warsaw has throughout more than a year-and-a-half of the Ukraine-Russia war been Kiev’s staunchest and most outspoken supporter.

Will this massive and hugely significant about-face mark the beginning of the end? Are peace negotiations and ceding of territory in the Donbas inevitable at this point? 

Within the last 48 hours relations between Poland and Ukraine quickly spiraled to their lowest point since the Russian invasion, and it is directly related to Warsaw leading a handful of EU countries to extend a grain export ban on Ukraine, amid continuing anger and outrage from Polish farmers who are suffering due to their country being flooded with cheap Ukrainian wheat.

Crucially, Poland will hold parliamentary elections on Oct.15. The prior atmosphere of enthusiastic pro-Kiev rhetoric has drastically changed, now with comparisons likening Ukraine to a “drowning man”. As The Associated Press explains:

Polish leaders have compared Ukraine to a drowning person hurting his helper and threatened to expand a ban on food products from the war-torn country. Meanwhile, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy suggested that EU allies that are prohibiting imports of his nation’s grain are helping Russia.

Now, Polish officials, who are trying to win parliamentary elections next month with help from farmers’ votes, are expressing dismay over some of Ukraine’s latest moves, including a World Trade Organization complaint over bans on Ukrainian grain from Poland and two other EU countries.

GENEVA (AP) — Ukraine is filing a complaint at the World Trade Organization against Hungary, Poland and Slovakia after they banned grain and other food products coming from the war-torn country, Ukrainian Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal said Tuesday.

It heightens a political showdown pitting farmer against farmer and widens a rift between Ukraine, a major global food supplier, and three members of the European Union, which has been a pivotal backer of Kyiv as it works to fight off Russia’s invasion.

In a break with the wider EU, Poland, Hungary and Slovakia last week announced bans on imports of Ukrainian food to their local markets. They were joined Tuesday by Croatia. But all four will keep allowing those products to move through their borders to parts of the world where people are going hungry.

Read more

And what has Zelensky been doing with our money?

Image

Then add to grifters who are circling …ready to do a Haiti 2.0

Haiti has been a honey pot of gold for the Clinton machine and their friends. Beginning with her brother and ending with one in prison.  Now they look toward Ukraine.

and the last straw for Bunk here?

Yes, time for an exit.

The best of the swamp.

‘Shuffles’ Biden Not Sure if he is in Lithuania or Ukraine

 

President Joe Biden is in Lithuania for the 74th NATO Summit, where concerns about his age and mental acuity are fully on display, with Nick Arama of RedState highlighting some particularly alarming examples. 

He first visited the U.K., where he had a lot of moments of confusion with King Charles.

Then he continued to have issues in Lithuania, where he went next, for the NATO summit. He also showed a ton of hypocrisy. After pushing climate change and having his climate czar say what a terrifying emergency it was during a meeting in the U.K., Biden then showed how much he cared about it with a 30+ car gas-guzzling motorcade tooling around Lithuania.

For starters:

Then the big one: Does Shuffles even know where he is?

Regardless of who he thought he was talking to, or what about, it’s a pretty big promise to make to another country “that you’re gonna have all that you need,” even more so if he thought he was talking about Ukraine, given that it’s not part of NATO. His words could very well have consequences, considering he’s the leader of the free world. 

“I’m confused. What is he talking about here? I think it’s Ukraine (does he know where he is?), but then is he admitting we had “thousands of troops” in Ukraine? Or is he talking about Lithuania? Lithuania has only been a NATO member since 2004. Then did he offer them our secretary of defense? Since it’s Joe, it’s always an exercise to try to figure out exactly what he’s talking about. That’s a big problem on the world stage where a careless word can have big consequences, as we saw when he talked about essentially being cool with a “minor incursion” in Ukraine. Biden’s errors have already cost a lot.

At least he didn’t start to talk to one of the Military Honor Guard as he did in Britain.


Biden After Being Shown Lithuanian Presidential Award By Pres Gitanas Nausėda: “I’m Gonna Wear That”

How about a bit of the surreal??

I will conclude the post. So far, Shuffles has not had to adjust his depends. One thing to be thankful for.

The very best of the swamp.

U.S. In Talks To Set Up Military Installations In Finland

 

When is the U.S military footprint going to be enough? When is Europe going to step up and take care of their own defense? Why are U.S. citizens on the hook for all of this? Oh but let’s not stop with Finland, let’s add Sweden and who knows where else? Just where are we getting all these men and women to staff these bases? I am sure the new ads attracting Trannies will fill out the ranks.  We already have 750 bases outside the U.S. it is claimed.

Here it is:

The US and Finland are working out a deal that would allow the US to establish a military presence in the Nordic country, as Helsinki is now a member of NATO.

The U.S. is currently also pursuing DCAs with Sweden and Denmark. State Department spokesperson Ned Price said in January that such agreements would “deepen our close security partnership, enhance our cooperation in multilateral security operations, and, together, strengthen transatlantic security.”

Antell said the proposed U.S.-Finnish DCA “enables troops to enter the country, stay on the ground, the pre-storage of material and possible infrastructure investments through the funds granted by the U.S. Congress to the Pentagon.”

 

“Will Finland become a new front in the Ukraine war? US and Finland are reportedly negotiating an agreement that allows America to use Finnish military bases. Molly Gambhir tells you more.”

 

 

According to Newsweek, Finnish Foreign Ministry official Mikael Antell confirmed the two nations are negotiating a Defense Cooperation Agreement that may allow for the construction of significant military infrastructure on Finnish soil.

….
 
“The agreement also defines the facilities and areas where the cooperation would be focused,” Antell said. “They are basically military areas and garrisons. In principle, there can be more than one, but the discussions are still open in this regard.”

Finland shares an over 800-mile border with Russia, and its ascension into NATO means the region will become further militarized. Moscow has plans to beef up its military presence near the border in western Russia and has said it will take more steps to respond to the expansion of NATO infrastructure in Finland.

H/T: Zero Hedge

Russian authorities on Wednesday threatened to ”respond” to the possible establishment of U.S. military bases in Finland in the midst of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has indicated that Moscow will be forced to take retaliatory measures, whether ”military, technical or of another nature” to stop what it considers ”threats to national security”, according to information gathered by the Interfax news agency.

 
 

Here is another point of view – this one on China. What say you?

 

The best of the swamp.

Biden’s Road to Perdition

Ever wonder how we got to this point with our joker Joe? Trump managed to shut it down. Biden, as soon as he got into office, pushed to open it up. Some body then blew it up.

Let’s go down memory lane.

President Joe Biden said in 2016 that “Nord Stream 2 … I know will fundamentally destabilize Ukraine,” during remarks he made on 8/24/2016. Amazing he could string sentences together.

Looks like Biden blew the fuse.

Former Vice President Joe Biden downplayed the Chinese threat to the American economy during a campaign event in Iowa City, Iowa on 5/1/19. 

Of course let us not forget Biden in February before announcing his candidacy did the bend over thing in Europe.

Joe Biden goes to Europe and blasts America – Calls the U.S. an ’embarrassment’

Speaking to European allies, Biden trashed America with an open hostility.

“The America I see values basic human decency, not snatching children from their parents or turning our back on refugees at our border. Americans know that’s not right,” Biden asserted.

“The American people understand plainly that this makes us an embarrassment. The American people know, overwhelmingly, that it is not right. That it is not who we are.”

Jill Biden: We’re Bringing Love From America’

Good to set the tone for Biden’s European debut on the world’s stage for the first time as President. Letting the NATO folks slide on their “fair share” dues because we feel the love again, as well as pushing the Climate change nonsense will be on the docket. But if we wondered who was wearing the pants and pulling Joe’s strings wonder no more.

The first lady said she wanted people to “feel a sense of unity for all the countries and feel a sense of hope after this year of the pandemic.” So she went for the classy look with the oh so chichi look. Rock on Jill. That’s Dr. Jill to us.

Prepping for the G7.

Image

It’s the love

Bonus time: Wednesday’s Memes

Best of the swamp…. 

German FM: I will put Ukraine first “no matter what my German voters think” or how hard their life gets

 

EU Planning Sanctions In Support Of Ukraine For At Least 2 Years – German Foreign Minister

“Every sanction package, we have to prepare that it holds also for the next maybe two years if you do not need it, two years long, well this is great, but if we would need it, it has to hold as long as Ukraine needs us,” Baerbock said at the 26th annual Forum 2000 Conference, devoted to assistance to Ukraine.

The official emphasized that sanctions will be in place during the upcoming winter, even if people go on the streets to express their dissatisfaction with high energy prices.

The Forum 2000 conference is taking place in Prague from Wednesday to Friday.

“We will stand with Ukraine and this means the sanctions will stay also in winter time even if it gets really tough for politicians and we have to find good solutions all over Europe to balance the social effects because this is a part of this war, it is a hybrid war,” Baerbock added.

Annalena Charlotte Alma Baerbock is a German politician of the Alliance 90/The Greens party serving as Germany’s minister for foreign affairs since 2021.

 

 

Earlier this month in one of the most absurd conversations,  Canada and Germany foreign ministers talk about how 

“Foreign ministers of Canada and Germany say return of turbine calls Putin’s bluff” goes the headline.

You surely did guys. You called their bluff.  In truth the two “greenies” that are more than happy to let their folks freeze and go hungry for the sake of their agenda regardless of the price paid.

Pretty gutsy considering Germany fought Russia in two world wars. Russia remembers.

MONTREAL – 

The fact that part of a Russian gas pipeline remains in Germany after it was returned to Europe by Canada reveals the dishonesty of President Vladimir Putin, the Canadian and German foreign ministers said Wednesday.

“We called his bluff,” Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Melanie Joly told reporters in Montreal about the Russian president, at a joint press conference with her German counterpart, Annalena Baerbock. “It is now clear that Putin is weaponizing energy flows to Europe.”

Since Canada allowed the return of a turbine used in the Nord Stream 1 natural gas pipeline, which runs under the Baltic Sea from Russia to Germany, Russia reduced natural gas supplies to Germany to 20 per cent. The ministers say that shows Putin is using energy as a weapon of war.

You think that might be?? You guys might get over your snit…. you will be fortunate if Putin doesn’t just pull the plug completely.

What does Russia say?

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz inspected the turbine Wednesday in Germany and said “there are no problems” blocking the part’s return to Russia, apart from missing information from Russia’s state-controlled gas company, Gazprom.

Gazprom last week blamed the cut in gas supplies to Germany on delays to the turbine’s delivery due to western sanctions. The company specifically wants documents from Siemens Energy proving that the turbine isn’t subject to western sanctions, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said.

Baerbock said the paperwork is being fixed and accused Putin of attempting to use the turbine issue to divide countries that support Ukraine.

“(Putin) tried to split us,” she said. “He tried to play games with us and now the whole world can see crystal clear that he’s just using energy as a game play.”

(Hold that thought… game play???) We are talking about your people freezing and suffering huge price increases in energy.

Read more

There is a thought shared by many “If only Germany/NATO would have kept their promise to Russia not to expand NATO eastwards in exchange for giving up East Germany.”

 

Just before his army invaded Ukraine, Russian President Vladimir Putin outlined his motivations in a speech. His main argument: NATO’s eastward expansion. He blamed the extension of the military alliance ever closer to Russia’s borders and accused Western leaders of breaking alleged promises to never do so.

An earlier post that may be of interest that lays out the game plan of Europe.

Europe: Are They Committing Economic Suicide?

The best of the swamp today.

Our Next Worse Enemy – NATO Allies

by Mustang

In 1980, the People’s Republic of China had no sophisticated navy, no hypersonic aircraft, no space satellites, no ICBM missiles, and no sophisticated communications capability.  All they had in 1980 was a very large army incapable of standing up to the People’s Army of Vietnam.  China’s military apparatus, the People’s Liberation Army-Navy (PLAN), now challenges the sophisticated lethality of the Armed Forces of the United States.

How China did it 

From around 1972, when President Richard M. Nixon resumed U.S. relations with the PRC, China’s state security apparatus (including the Ministry of State Security, the United Front Work Department, and the People’s Liberation Army-Navy (and numerous front organizations and state-owned enterprises) has systematically gained access to the inner-workings of foreign industries, science, and technology.

China’s effort has involved spy craft, but most of their information acquisitions have been as simple as asking for collaborative relationships with foreign universities and research facilities.  European journalists tell us that most of China’s gains result from the willingness of European scientists and technologists to share what they know with their Chinese associates — all of whom work for the Chinese military.

European journalists cooperating within what they term the China Science Investigations have determined that European scientists and academics have collaborated with Chinese counterparts on more than 350,000 separate projects.  Of those, nearly 3,000 have taken place with members of the Chinese military.  To clarify, European journalists explain that such collaborations include “studies where scientists from Western European universities have collaborated with Chinese colleagues who are officially part of the Chinese military.”

The amount of “cooperation” with the Chinese military has more than doubled since around 2012; news reports claim that half of those nearly 3,000 contacts were affiliated with the National University of Defense Technology (NUDT) at universities in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and (of course), Germany.

Journalists report that NUDT’s explicit purpose is to strengthen the armed forces and the Chinese nation.  They further certify that NUDT is the top institute of the People’s Liberation Army and is known for its success in researching supercomputers and hypersonic missiles.  We know this from Rebecca Arcesati, a German researcher at the Mercator Institute for China Studies (MERICS) in Germany.

We also learned that in Germany alone, at least 230 research articles were published between 2000 through 2022. Chinese military scientists and researchers have collaborated with German research institutions in drone studies, artificial intelligence, space travel, logistics, radar, and underwater communications.  There were also collaborations with the Chinese military in engineering, physics, and nuclear and conventional weapons.

In the Netherlands (even after Dutch intelligence services warned of the threat of China’s intelligence network in that country), Chinese agents brazenly sought out high-quality technology and scientific advancements.  In that country, ninety (90) military scientists from China gathered information from Dutch universities and other research facilities.  The report tells us that these Chinese “military scientists” were keen on discovering detailed information about hypersonic aircraft and reinforced concrete.

Is this working?  Apparently, the Chinese have obtained details of the United States’ submarine propulsion system from the Clinton administration, and they’ve produced a nearly exact copy of the F-22/F-35 super-secret aircraft (China’s FC-31) from the Obama Administration.

Of possible interest to you, I found a European platform Follow the Money . The site tells us that FTM is an organization that holds the powerful accountable by providing radically independent investigative journalism. FTM and several other media outlets have discovered how the People’s Republic of China (PRC) could have made its magnificent leap from a backwater country to a superpower within a short span of only 40 years.

FBI Director Christopher Wray has warned the United States and its allies of China’s threat, claiming the Chinese government was “set on stealing your technology”.

The Question 

NOW might be a good time to ask a two-part question: (1) How much information has the United States Department of Defense shared with its NATO allies (which includes Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom). (2) How much of that information did our NATO allies share with their Chinese research fellows?

Individual and Collective Interests 

Mutual security alliances are similar to trade relations.  To make this point, I will use Germany as my example.  The only reason Germany would establish trade relations with any other country is that Germany expects to benefit from such an agreement.  Similarly, there is no reason for Germany to join NATO if Germany would not profit from the alliance.

If the preceding paragraph is true, one should wonder why Germany would share NATO secrets (and technologies) with a potential adversary (China, Russia, Iran, Syria, Iraq).  One might also wonder how Germany could maintain its NATO membership if it is not committed to the NATO alliance.

European countries face increased security challenges: antagonistic Russia and Ukraine, political instability in the Middle East, cyberwar, terrorism, unrestrained migration, and rejection of EU policies by the civilian population.  It is mind-numbing to realize that many European countries seem not to understand that China is behind more than a few of these threats and challenges.

Today’s world is very dangerous — as scary as at any time in the past.  In the past, the danger came from Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, and Japan.  Today the threat comes from demographic shifts in Europe, a European Council and justice court that imposes draconian policies and mandates on unstable populations, world health challenges, and threats to energy security and food distribution.  In the United States, the American people are struggling under a government that spends more time creating problems than solving them.

No one in Europe or the United States is paying attention to China’s robust efforts to undermine western democracies.  Worse, European academics are aiding and abetting China’s military.  The politicians are turning a blind eye to China’s rape of western science and technology — that is to say, science and technology that China intends to use against Europe and the United States.  Worst of all, America is asleep at the switch with absolutely no concern at all that our “trusted allies” are providing U.S. science and technology to our most likely next worse enemy.

Something else to think about come Election Day.

Mustang also blogs at Fix Bayonets and Thoughts From Afar

Russia-Ukraine: Ready…… Set……Go


by Mustang

Currently, Russia has between 130,000 – 150,000 ground troops at pre-launch locations in Belarus, along Ukraine’s eastern border with Russia, and on the Crimean Peninsula.  The entire Russian naval fleet is deployed in the Mediterranean, Atlantic, North Sea, and the Black Sea.  Russian aircraft and tactical air controllers have set up an air bubble over Ukraine in anticipation of blowing NATO and Ukrainian aircraft out of the sky.  

Missile brigades have brought out their tactical nuclear weapons … as a signal of Russia’s intent to the U.S. and NATO.  Russian military commanders have moved their logistical stores forward: ammo, medical supplies, engineer support.  Unknown at this time: the number of reserve forces available to Putin’s initial invasion force, the number of troops and air assets available from Belarus.  The bottom line: Russia is poised for a massive, mechanized assault with integrated air support.

Ukraine forces include around 200,000 active duty and 250,000 reserve ground forces and 50,000 territorial troops.  Apparently, at this late stage, Ukrainian President Zelensky realizes that his armed forces are inadequate to the task of defending the homeland.  

Zelensky recently announced plans for a substantial increase in the size of Ukrainian military forces (a forty percent increase) from its present 450,000 troop strength (active and reserve strength).  Such an increase will likely involve additional demands for U.S. and NATO military/security cooperation, training, and material support (weapons and munitions).

As of 21 February, the United States has earmarked 5,000 ground troops to NATO positions in Germany, Poland, and Romania.  One source indicates that the primary mission assigned to these troops will be the emergency evacuation and protection of U.S. civilian personnel in NATO-aligned countries in northern and eastern Europe — rather than as combat forces deployed against Russian aggressors. 

So far, this is the extent of President Biden’s commitment to NATO.  The United States has also dispatched ten fighters and bomber aircraft to forward bases in the U.K. and Germany.

The Back Story

In March and April 2021, Russia started to mass thousands of military personnel and equipment near its border with Ukraine and annexed Crimea, which represents the largest mobilization of armed forces since the annexation of Crimea in 2014.  

The massing of these armed forces precipitated an international crisis and concerns over a potential Russian invasion of Ukraine.  In June 2021, Russia withdrew some of these troops but reintroduced them in October and November.  The current number of Russian troops is estimated at between 130,000 and 150,000.  By December, Russia concentrated these forces at three strategic locations around Ukraine.

The ongoing crisis stems from the protracted Russo-Ukrainian War that began in early 2014.  In December 2021, Russia advanced two draft treaties that contained requests for what is referred to as “security guarantees,” including a legally binding promise that Ukraine would not join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), as well as a reduction in NATO troops and military hardware stationed in Eastern Europe.  

The drafts referenced unspecified military responses by Russia if NATO failed to meet their demands.  NATO promptly rejected Russian demands and countered with warnings of “swift and severe” economic sanctions should Russia attempt an invasion of Ukraine.

On 21 February 2022, the Russian government officially recognized the two “breakaway” regions of Ukraine (Donetsk People’s Republic and Luhansk People’s Republic) as independent states and deployed military forces to Donbas in a move interpreted by NATO as Russia’s formal withdrawal from the Minsk Protocol.

Much earlier

Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, Ukraine and Russia retained their close political and cultural relationship.  In 1994, Ukraine agreed to abandon its nuclear arsenal and signed the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances — on the condition that Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States would issue an assurance against threats or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine.  

Was Ukraine’s nuclear disarmament a blunder?

The SS-24 (“Scalpel”) Intercontinental ballistic missile produced in the Pivdenne Bureau in Dnipropetrovsk. Now part of the museum of strategic rocket forces of Ukraine. Photo: Tetyana Tkachenko  

In 1999, Russia was one of the signatories of the Charter for European Security, where it reaffirmed the inherent right of every participating state to be free to choose or change its security arrangements, including treaties of alliances.  Yet, despite being a recognized independent country since 1991, as a former USSR constituent republic, Russia continued to view Ukraine as part of its “sphere of influence.”

The problem here is that people who fancy themselves as experts in international relations aren’t quite sure how Russian history best relates to its modern state.  Russia is no longer the central authority of the Soviet Union — the U.S.S.R. no longer exists.  But while the form of Russia’s government may have changed, Russian thinking has not.  Russian thinking about the security of the motherland has long been defense-oriented, and there are historical reasons for this.  Foreigners have invaded Russia on more than a few occasions.  

Every nation has the right of self-defense.  In Russia-think, the right to self-defense means creating defensive zones around Russia where, should war become necessary, most of the fighting will occur.  Russian President Vladimir Putin made this point clear in 2008 when he spoke out against Ukraine’s expressed interest in joining the NATO alliance.

Following weeks of protests as part of the Euromaidan (lit. European Square) movement — that is, demonstrations engineered to protest the Ukrainian government’s decision to suspend the European Union-Ukraine Association Agreement, pro-Russian Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych was forced to flee Ukraine for his own safety, and the government collapsed.  

Ukraine’s parliament later impeached Yanukovych, but this triggered Russia’s annexation of Crimea and precipitated the war in Donbas … the so-called pro-Russian “break away” states.  From within the Donbas Oblast, Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 was destroyed by a surface-to-air missile fired by pro-Russian forces.

On 14 September 2020, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky approved Ukraine’s new National Security Strategy, which provides for the development of a partnership with NATO to eventual membership in NATO.  On 24 March 2021, President Zelensky “upped the ante” by approving a strategy of de-occupying Russia from Crimea and reintegrating the area as part of Ukraine.

In July 2021, Vladimir Putin published an essay titled On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians.  In this essay, Putin argued that Russians and Ukrainians (along with Belarussians) are people.  To support this claim, Putin describes their shared history, proclaims their shared destiny, and denies the existence of Ukraine as an independent country.  Putin concluded his essay by asserting Russia’s right to “intervene” in the affairs of the Ukrainian people.  Putin’s essay did not meet with overwhelming support from the Ukrainian people.

Projections

The Russo-Ukraine War has been ongoing since 2014. The buildup of Russian forces has been steady since October 2021. Right now, Mr. Putin has the entire western world responding to his initiatives. 

What will he do in the long term?  My guess is that Vladimir Putin will use the same strategy he used earlier in Georgia — which is to recognize the breakaway states. He has moved forces into the Donbas, and now will slowly and steadily strangle Ukraine, cause the NATO alliance to wet themselves daily, and demonstrate to the former Warsaw Pact countries that they​ would be better off aligned with Russia — all of which proves (if Putin is successful) that Russia retains considerable influence in the post-Soviet period. 

Note: Mustang wrote this prior to the bombing.

Mustang also blogs at Fix Bayonets and Thoughts From Afar

For the best in conservative news push the button.

Is NATO the New Bully in Town?

by Mustang

My argument (for quite some time now) is that the U.S. State Department is not only inept, but it has also been so for a long time — and is only getting more so over time.  I’m not sure I understand it — other than to suggest that our universities have so embraced the leftist ideology that they no longer produce anyone destined for the foreign service capable of independent thought.  Does it matter?  In light of the current situation in Ukraine, I think the answer is yes.

New Nato Headquarters

NATO Headquarters

In early July 1997, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) admitted three former Soviet satellite states: the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland.  I can understand why these countries would want to join NATO; I’m not sure why our past presidents and cabinet secretaries would wish to increase Russia’s natural paranoia by actively recruiting NATO members from former Soviet states.

It is as if President Clinton and Secretary of State Albright, neither of which was exceptionally bright in the performance of their duties, wanted to recreate post-World War II (Cold War) instability.  If that was their goal in 1997, it’s worked 25 years later — but to no one’s advantage.  Nor can we credit Franklin Roosevelt or Harry Truman as particularly gifted diplomats.  Since then, no President or Secretary of State, and I include Ronald Reagan, seems to know how to answer the question, “What is power and how should we use it?”

Did anyone after 1992 stop to consider that the Russian Federation lost half of its human population, that its economy was in shambles, and that every Russian leader after Gorbachev would have to spend a great deal of their time addressing these and related issues?  Should the “free world” have welcomed Russia to their new era rather than blame them for the 72 or so years of communism?  Isn’t that much like living in the past at the expense of the present and future?

In 1945, the power club consisted of London, Moscow, and Washington.  That later changed to London, Moscow, and New York (the UN).  Now the power club includes Brussels, Berlin, and Washington … and only Washington because that’s where the money comes from to sustain the UN and NATO.  At a time when NATO was keeping its eye on a post-communist Russia, the Russian Federation had to keep its eye on NATO and China.

One criticism of the U.S. military between 1960 and 2001 was that it had lost sight that Russia was no longer the global threat that it once was under the Soviet Union.  One may understand why the military lost its focus when they realized that the State Department and Depart of Defense, the two senior-most cabinet officials, continually provided lousy advice to the chief executive (among whom few have an adequate understanding of global power politics).

Let’s review: The Soviet Union (Reagan’s Evil Empire) collapsed in 1991.  Why, then, has NATO continued to treat Russia as if it were still a massive communist juggernaut?  Why has the U.S. State Department pushed NATO into ignoring its primary mission statement: to foster an alliance of democracies?

Can we say that the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland were democracies in 1997?  No.  They were working in that direction, but democracy takes time.  It took Spain 40 years to achieve that status, yet NATO put these three former Soviet client states on the fast track.  Why?  And can we see an effect of this today as we mull the Ukraine vs. Russia?  Has NATO migrated from an advocate of collective security to a gang of bullies?

Let’s not confuse ourselves.  Several former Soviet states have achieved capitalism; few have achieved democracy.  Has NATO’s focus on the Balkan states reduced stress in that region or created more of it?  Did NATO learn any lessons at all from the Bosnian Civil War?  Where is Ukraine just now?  It may not be pure capitalism, but it’s working on it.  It has corruption down well enough.  But is Ukraine a democracy?

We may need to stop swimming and tread water for a while … to get our strength back.  NATO today is not too far off the mark from Otto von Bismarck’s Austro-Hungarian apparatus that led us into World War I … with the tables turned.  Rather than NATO, it has become the European Treaty Organization and a damnable bully.  Is this what we Americans are happily paying for?  If the answer is yes, then none of us should be surprised by the perilous situation in Ukraine.  Russia has legitimate concerns — and we ought to at least listen to what they are.

Photo credit: “New Nato Headquarters” by NATO is licensed under (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

Mustang also blogs at Fix Bayonets and Thoughts From Afar

Jill Biden: We’re Bringing Love From America’

 

This should cheer the cockles of Putin’s heart. Good to set the tone for Biden’s European debut on the world’s stage for the first time as President. Letting the NATO folks slide on their “fair share” dues because we feel the love again, as well as pushing the Climate change nonsense will be on the docket. But if we wondered who was wearing the pants and pulling Joe’s strings wonder no more.

The first lady said she wanted people to “feel a sense of unity for all the countries and feel a sense of hope after this year of the pandemic.” So she went for the classy look with the oh so chichi look. Rock on Jill. That’s Dr. Jill to us.

 

 

Setting the stage for the priorities for the big meeting. No kidding!! The Pentagon told him.

Biden: “global warming” is the greatest threat to America

Image

Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., asked Milley about Biden’s comments about global warming being America’s greatest threat.

Milley replied that climate change has had a significant effect on military operations that must be considered.

“Climate change is going to impact natural resources, for example,” he said. “It’s going to impact increased instability in various parts of the world. It’s going to impact migrations, and so on.”

He said there is no difference of opinion between himself and Biden when it comes to taking climate change as a serious threat.

“The president is looking at [potential threats] at a much broader angle than I am,” Milley said. “I’m looking at it from a strictly military standpoint and, from a strictly military standpoint, I’m putting China and Russia up there. That is not, however, in conflict with the acknowledgment that climate change, or infrastructure, or education systems — national security has a broad angle to it.”  Read more

Milley just trying to clean up a bit of Joe’s mess. Why yes, China and Russia are up there. Whew!

How about our VP? Still trying to figure out that visit the Mexico border thingy-

The best of the swamp today.