Provider of in-depth & balanced analysis on hot issues around the world

With the possibility of a second Trump presidency looming, it is high time to Europeanise NATO’s defence plans Lest anyone had missed the point, Donald Trump has now provided helpful clarification of his attitude towards America’s NATO allies – and specifically those that fail to spend the benchmark 2 per cent of their GDP on defence. If elected he would, he declared at a campaign rally, “encourage” Russia “to do whatever the hell they want” to underspending NATO allies. Reacting to a storm of protest from European leaders, he was happy to repeat himself: “Look, if they’re not going to pay, we’re not going to protect. OK?”. Nowadays, it is less easy for complacent Europeans to shrug off such observations as typical Trumpisms. They have evidence that Trump redux would be likely to apply his malevolent instincts much more efficiently than he did in his chaotic first term as president. And the chances of him having the opportunity to do so are increasingly likely: he has now steamrollered the opposition in the early Republican primaries, and is ahead of Joe Biden in the polls. No one can any longer ignore the real possibility that in less than a year’s time the occupant of the White House could toss the whole responsibility for keeping Ukraine in the fight against Russia into European laps, whilst insisting that from here on in they see to their own defence. It would therefore hardly be premature if Europeans began to explore how each other views the situation; to make contingency plans; and even to take some precautionary steps. The two key challenges are obvious. The first is how to get more weapons, and especially ammunition and air-defence missiles, to Ukraine. Since Russia’s invasion, Europeans have done better at this than might have been expected – but they have not done as well as the need now demands, and not nearly enough to support Ukraine if the United States withdraws its aid. The EU, and especially the European Commission, have played a prominent role here, providing financial incentives for member states to donate from their own stocks and to expand production facilities. But talk of moving European defence industries onto a war footing has yet to be realised; and although the commission will shortly unveil proposals for an ambitious European defence industrial strategy, this can only succeed if member states evince more enthusiasm for collective action than they have so far shown. Only three months ago France, Germany, Italy, and Spain jointly warned the commission to stay off their turf and respect national “prerogatives” on defence. The second key challenge that Europeans should be facing up to is how they would defend themselves without US backing against a Russia that had – the possibility can no longer be discounted – imposed a humiliating ‘peace’ on Ukraine. The “dormant NATO” plans being proposed by right-wing US think-tanks foresee a wholesale withdrawal of US ground forces from Europe. But Europeans have huge psychological difficulties in bringing themselves to discuss the US as they would any other foreign power, even in situations where their own strategic interests are manifestly different from those of the superpower. NATO’s disastrous involvement in Afghanistan, for instance, would never have dragged on for so many fruitless years had not its European members studiously avoided any collective discussion of a campaign which each saw exclusively through the prism of its own bilateral relations with the US. Compounding these challenges is the fact that there is no institutional setting in which Europeans could confer. Their task is, in effect, to Europeanise NATO’s defence plans, but this can hardly be discussed in NATO. That organisation, after all, is where European militaries gather to be told what to do by Americans, but the current US administration can scarcely be expected to lead a discussion premised on its own defeat in the November presidential election. The EU has neither locus nor credibility in military operational matters. The reality is that, if a strategy for defending Europe without the Americans is to emerge, this can only be on an ‘intergovernmental’ basis – through bilateral and minilateral discussion amongst Europe’s main defence players. At the alliance’s 2022 Madrid summit, NATO doubled down on its strategy of forward defence. Russia’s war on Ukraine has demonstrated that we are in a technological era in which defensive systems have the advantage over the traditional means of attack. Destroying massed Russian armour turned out to be relatively easy; getting Russians out now that they have dug themselves in is the devil’s own job. So in Madrid allies resolved to reinforce NATO’s “enhanced forward presence” – boosting in-place forces in eastern and central Europe. But predictably, Europeans have been happy to leave this largely to the Americans, who reinforced their presence in Europe with an additional 20,000 troops. The challenge for European chiefs of staff and defence planners now is to work out how, if the need arises, to substitute for US in-place forces in the frontline states; what capabilities and defensive infrastructure will be needed to halt any assault at the borders; and how to organise the communications and data networks necessary to form an effective system that ties together disparate sensors and missile, drone, and artillery assets. Such planning is now an urgent requirement, not just as a matter of military preparedness, but for psychological reasons. Europe’s frontline states have long felt their western European allies lack not only US military credibility, but also a serious understanding of the scale of Putin’s threat. Europeans will only hang together under a second Trump presidency if they are ready to trust each other, and specifically if the most vulnerable states see a real prospect of western European states putting many more of their bodies on the line as in-place forces. The last couple of years, in which predominantly eastern European states have agreed to purchase an astonishing $120 billion of weapons from American contractors, suggests a fatal tendency to believe that maybe Trump can be propitiated by such largesse. Fortunately, the return of Donald Tusk as Poland’s prime minister has substantially increased the odds of Europeans hanging together even in a Trump 2.0 scenario. The foreign ministers of France, Germany, and Poland (the Weimar Triangle) have just met to discuss strengthening Europe’s efforts. If, as expected, the British Labour party returns to government later this year, then the United Kingdom would be an obvious addition to this group. Indeed, a necessary one: it is hard to envisage a credible European defence of the continent that did not clutch in Europe’s second nuclear power. Keir Starmer has made clear his ambition to restore defence ties severed by Brexit. There is no time to waste: the prime minister-in-waiting could usefully make an early trip to Paris to initiate conversations with the UK’s closest continental ally.

Watch on YouTube A drone attack that killed three American troops and wounded at least 34 more at a base in Jordan has increased fears of a widening conflict in the Middle East – and the possibility that the U.S. may be further drawn into the fighting. President Joe Biden vowed to respond to the assault, blaming Iran-backed militias for the first U.S. military casualties in months of such strikes in the region. But to what extent was Iran involved? And what happens next? The Conversation turned to Sara Harmouch, an expert on asymmetric warfare and militant groups in the Middle East, to answer these and other questions. What do we know about the group that claimed responsibility? Al-Muqawama al-Islamiyah fi al-Iraq, which translates as the Islamic Resistance in Iraq, has claimed responsibility for the drone attack. However, the Islamic Resistance in Iraq is not a single group per se. Rather, it is a term used to describe an umbrella organization, which, since around 2020, has included various Iran-backed militias in the region. Initially, the Islamic Resistance in Iraq emerged as a response to foreign military presence and political interventions, especially after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. The Islamic Resistance in Iraq acted as a collective term for pro-Tehran Iraqi militias, allowing them to launch attacks under a single banner. Over time, it evolved to become a front for Iran-backed militias operating beyond Iraq, including those in Syria and Lebanon. Today, the Islamic Resistance in Iraq operates as a cohesive force rather than as a singular entity – that is to say, as a network its objectives often align with Iran’s goal of preserving its influence across the region, but on a national level the groups have their distinct agendas. The collective is notorious for its staunch anti-U.S. posture and dynamic military campaigns, such as a recent two-day drone operation targeting American forces at an Iraqi airbase. Operating under this one banner of Islamic Resistance, these militias effectively conceal the identities of the actual perpetrators in their operations. This was seen in the deadly Jan. 28, 2024, attack on Tower 22, a U.S. military base in Jordan. Although it is evident that an Iranian-supported militia orchestrated the drone assault, pinpointing the specific faction within this broad coalition remains elusive. This deliberate strategy hinders direct attribution and poses challenges for countries attempting to identify and retaliate against the precise culprits. What do they hope to achieve in attacking a US target? Iranian-backed militias have been intensifying attacks on U.S. forces in recent months in response to American support for Israel in the Israel-Hamas conflict, and also to assert regional influence. Since the beginning of the conflict in October 2023, Iranian-backed militias have repeatedly struck American military bases in Iraq and Syria, recently expanding their attacks to include northeastern Jordan near the Syrian border. The deadly assault on Jan. 28 marks a significant escalation, though – it is the first instance during the Israel-Hamas war that American troops have been killed. Where is Tower 22 – the US base hit in drone attack? Three American troops were killed at a camp in Jordan near the Syrian border.   The attack in Jordan forms part of a strategy by Iranian-backed militias to counter Washington’s support for Israel in the Gaza conflict. But it is also aimed at advancing a wider goal of pushing U.S. forces out of the Middle East entirely. By coordinating attacks under the Islamic Resistance in Iraq, these groups are trying to display a unified stance against U.S. interests and policy, showcasing their collective strength and strategic alignment across the region. What role did Iran have in the attack? Iran has officially denied any involvement in the drone strike. But the Islamic Resistance in Iraq is known to be part of the networks of militia groups that Tehran supports. Iran, through the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ Quds Force, has provided such militias with money, weapons and training. However, the extent of Iran’s command and coordination in specific incidents like the Jordan attack remains unclear. At this stage, more concrete evidence is necessary to firmly implicate Iran. As Iran expert Nakissa Jahanbani and I recently explained in an article for The Conversation, Iran’s strategy in the region involves supporting and funding militia groups while granting them a degree of autonomy. By doing so, Iran maintains plausible deniability when it comes to attacks carried out by its proxies. So while Iran’s direct involvement in the attack has not been definitively established, Tehran’s long-standing support of groups like the Islamic Resistance in Iraq is well documented, playing a significant role in the regional conflict dynamics and geopolitical strategies. What options does the US have to respond? It isn’t clear how the U.S. intends to respond to the attack. The Biden administration faces complex dynamics when it comes to responding to attacks linked to Iranian-backed militias. While a forceful military strike is an option that the Biden administration appears to be looking at, targeting Iran directly on its own soil is fraught with risks and may be seen as a step too far. Even when targeting Iranian interests or personnel, such as the assassination of Quds Force General Qassem Soleimani, the U.S has conducted these actions outside Iranian territory. Iran’s denial of direct involvement in the attack further complicates the situation and makes it less likely that the U.S. attacks Iran in retaliatory strikes. But adopting a targeted approach, such as striking militia leaders outside of Iran, raises questions about the effectiveness of U.S. tactics in deterring Iran and its proxies. This strategy has been employed in the past, yet it has not significantly curbed Iran’s or its proxies’ aggressive actions. The concern is that while such strikes are precise, they may not be enough to deter ongoing or future attacks. The key to the strategy’s success may rest in identifying the most influential factors, or “centers of gravity,” that can effectively influence Iran’s behavior. This means determining key leaders, critical infrastructure or economic assets, which, if killed, destroyed or seized, could substantially alter Iran’s decision-making or operational capabilities. The Biden administration’s need to balance a strong response with the geopolitical consequences highlights the difficulties of navigating a tense and evolving situation. How might the attack affect the wider Middle East conflict? How the U.S. responds could reshape the Middle East’s geopolitical landscape and influence the dynamics of proxy warfare in the region. A strong military response from Washington might deter Iranian-backed militias from future attacks, but it could also provoke them into taking more aggressive actions. In the short term, any U.S. retaliation – especially if it targets Iranian interests directly – could escalate tensions in the region. It could also exacerbate the cycle of tit-for-tat strikes between the U.S. and Iranian-backed forces, increasing the risk of a broader regional conflict. And given that the attack’s pretext involves the Israel-Hamas war, any U.S. response could indirectly affect the course of that conflict, impacting future diplomatic efforts and the regional balance of power.

The attacks on shipping in the Red Sea is a test for the US’ Indo-Pacific strategy to deal with China In a House Armed Services Committee hearing in March 2023 on the US posture and security challenges in the Middle East and Africa, it was acknowledged that “…President Biden’s decision to unilaterally and unconditionally withdraw all US forces from Afghanistan has undermined our national security.” The developments of the past few weeks in the Red Sea have made this assertion seem prophetic. Yemen’s Houthi rebels have strategically positioned themselves to exploit less monitored zones in the Red Sea and the broader Arabian Sea. With numerous naval vessels navigating this critical route linking the Mediterranean and the Arabian Sea, countering the Houthi rebels and their assaults on global shipping has become exceedingly challenging for the US. The Houthi rebels have connected these attacks to the ongoing conflict in Gaza, tying the halt in hostilities along shipping lanes to a ceasefire negotiation between Israel and Hamas in Gaza. Their strategy involves increasing attacks on ships and holding them as leverage to prompt the US to pressure Israel for a ceasefire. The timing of the Houthi actions aligns with Israel’s focused operations in southern Gaza and a waning Congressional backing in the US for continuous financial support for overseas conflicts. Tactically, the Houthis see an opportunity to open a third front in the maritime domain, even as the Israeli air defence systems are overwhelmed by combined rocket attacks of Hamas and Hezbollah in the north and south. In an offensive barrage last week, the Hezbollah carried out six attacks in eight hours. In the maritime domain, the Houthis have carried out multiple UAV, rocket and missile attacks targeting a dozen merchant ships in the larger Indian Ocean. Iran has conducted attacks on US and Israeli vessels in the region as well. A recent attack on an Israeli vessel off the west cost of India near Veraval is a red flag for safety and security of the Sea Lines of Communication (SLOC) in the Indo-Pacific. With unmanned aerial vehicles and use of other technological capabilities, the attacks on ships could be rapid, discreet, damaging and, most of all, with little or no accountability. Often, the vulnerabilities associated with international strategic choke points have always been assessed from the perspective of State complicity, resting States’ conviction on limited capacities of non-State actors to exact huge costs. If anything, the Red Sea crisis shows that even with little but calculated external support, non-State actors could indeed significantly disturb the predictability of global supply chains and bring merchandise flow to a halt. The economic impact of increased attacks in the Red Sea is already being felt, as many ships have begun to avoid the route through the Red Sea and prefer the longer route around the Cape of Good Hope in Africa. This has caused worries of delay in the global freight markets and pricing concerns in energy dependent countries beside the security concerns for shipping companies such as Maersk. Since the Israel-Hamas war began, the US Central Command has been active in preventing a slew of UAV attacks by the Houthi rebels. For the US, the situation developing in the Red Sea presents a combination of political, economic and strategic challenges. The ongoing Israeli operation in Gaza has politically isolated the US at the global level as the only country to oppose a UNSC ceasefire resolution. The political heat from the Israel-Hamas war is being felt at home with dwindling youth support for President Biden as presidential elections near. The economic costs of the two wars – one in the Middle East and the other in Ukraine – is already tearing the US Congress apart. At the strategic level, coordinated attacks on international shipping threatens to force a rebalancing of the US force posture in the Indo-Pacific. The US currently has two aircraft carriers positioned in the Middle East since the Israel-Hamas war began. While a strong US military presence in the region may have prevented the war from spreading through the region, any additional and long-time concentration of force posture in the Gulf may be detrimental to Washington’s Indo-Pacific intent. Indeed, America’s Indo-Pacific strategy is being tested in the Middle East through five core ideas. Firstly, the recentring of US forces in the Middle East contradicts the intended pivot towards Asia. Secondly, the attacks orchestrated by the Houthis and Iran highlight the unpredictable threats that can disrupt supply chains in the region. Thirdly, the US faces challenges in executing counterterrorism and counterpiracy efforts in the Indo-Pacific, especially while collaborating with allies. Moreover, integrating the Middle East into an Indo-Pacific connectivity project appears increasingly challenging. Lastly, China’s refusal to join the US in protecting the Red Sea shipping lanes reveals Beijing’s divergent strategy for engaging with the Middle East from that of the US.

In the United States, there is a complex process of annual budget adoption for the next fiscal year, which begins on October 1. Budget adoption proceeds according to a certain schedule. Ultimately, by September 30, The House of Representatives and the Senate must introduce 12 appropriations bills of the main government activities for the next fiscal year, and then the president must sign them. In case if all 12 appropriation bills are not passed, an almost complete suspension of the government institutions activities occurs (shutdown). In case if a part of the bills is passed, only those federal agencies that did not receive appropriations will be shut down. Shutdown means that government employees have to take forced leave without pay. Only those institutions that are of critical importance to national security continue to operate. For instance, employees who are responsible for the safety of the US’s nuclear arsenals and monitoring of hydroelectric power plants and energy lines continue to work in the Department of Energy. Also, active military personnel continue to perform their duties. Institutions with special self-financing funds (such as post office, customs) continue to operate in a certain mode. In addition to adoption of annual discretionary spending, the US also has mandatory spending for basic social and several critically needed areas of government activity. This financing is carried out from special off-budget funds and does not depend on annual approval by US Congress, in this way society is protected from the consequences of political struggle to some extent. Social security and healthcare programs, such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, also continue to operate. The US Congress widely uses a tool called a continuing resolutions (CR) for a certain period in the amount that was included in the previous budget to avoid a shutdown. These resolutions become laws after they are signed by the President. Since this kind of resolutions extend appropriations from the previous fiscal year, it interferes with the activities of federal agencies because they have to freeze their spending levels, it also makes it difficult to plan future projects and creates risks for government contractors. A few comments on the history of the issue. Last time when Congress completed the budget approval process on time, before the start of the fiscal year, was in 1997. Since in 1976 Congress transitioned to the modern budget process, based on the 1974 Budget Act, there have been 20 "funding gaps," including cases when funding was not allocated even for a single day. The longest government shutdown in U.S. history lasted 35 days, from December 22, 2018, to January 25, 2019, during the Trump administration. On March 9, 2023, President Joe Biden submitted to Congress the budget proposal for fiscal year 2024, estimating expenses at $6,883 billion (25.3% of GDP) and a budget deficit at $1,846 billion (6.8% of GDP). This year, the budget process became more complicated because in June 2023, lawmakers passed the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (FRA) to avoid a technical default on the national debt. This law, by suspending the "debt ceiling," established caps on discretionary spending for fiscal years 2024 and 2025. When appropriations for fiscal year 2024 were being discussed in Congress, the provisions of the FRA sparked debates about spending levels. The White House requested an additional $20.6 billion for emergency aid to Ukraine and $12 billion for domestic disaster relief. In August 2023 Joe Biden's administration submitted to Congress a request for additional funding of $40 billion, which included $24 billion for military and humanitarian assistance to Ukraine and other international needs, and $12 billion for domestic disaster relief. The right-wing Republicans in the House of Representatives sought to secure budgetary powers for the administration well below FRA-agreed levels and to include new provisions on border security. The debates continued until Saturday, September 30, when the House of Representatives approved a temporary resolution (335 votes in favor, 91 against, including one Democrat), extending government funding until November 17. The resolution includes disaster relief (a concession to the Democrats) but does not include additional funding for Ukraine (a concession to the Conservatives). The Senate approved the bill on Saturday evening (88 in favor, 9 against). The bill passed through both chambers in just 12 hours, setting a speed record. Joe Biden signed it before midnight, preventing a government shutdown. "It's a total rollercoaster," - Guy Reschenthaler, the Deputy Chairman of the Republican Party in the House of Representatives, commented on the day's events. In the next month and a half, we can expect a new round of struggle over budget expenses. In particular, Senate leadership from both parties issued a joint statement committing to vote for continued funding for assistance to Ukraine in the "coming weeks." On October 3, the House of Representatives for the first time in history voted to remove Republican Kevin McCarthy from his position (initiated by the far-right Republican Matt Gaetz from Florida); members of his own party voted for his removal, accusing McCarthy of seeking support of Democrats to prevent a shutdown. According to official prognosis, the budget deficit is expected to grow relative to GDP. The increasing deficit will significantly increase the federal debt (which has already exceeded $33 trillion) over the next decade, and interest costs to service it will correspondingly increase. Interest payments will jump from $665 billion in 2023 to $1.393 trillion in 2033. The Biden administration and Congress are caught between Scylla and Charybdis: they need to address the problem of a massive budget deficit and national debt while continuing to make budgetary injections to support the economy, socio-economic and defense priorities. All this intensifies the struggle over budget expenditures. The threats of government shutdowns have become a bargaining chip in disputes over budget policy. The decision-making process in the US budgetary sphere is becoming increasingly politicized, undermining trust in the government and does not contribute to solving the problems really facing the country.

Canada's military and defense policy in the Indo-Pacific region (IPR) is centered around three key objectives: promoting peace, security, and stability, including efforts to deter aggression, respond to crises, and enhance defense capabilities; maintaining trade, investment, and supply chain stability; and promoting diversity and inclusivity, financing educational, cultural, and tourism projects. To achieve these goals, Canada has taken a series of steps to increase its presence in the region, expand its participation in exercises with allies and partners, invest in military capabilities, including long-range maritime patrol aircraft and anti-submarine defense systems, and strengthen its intelligence and surveillance capabilities in the region. Enhancing the country's position in the IPR contributes to protecting national interests and increasing the ability to counter regional threats, particularly: - The growing military presence of China, which is rapidly modernizing its armed forces and increasing its influence. - The proliferation of non-state actors (terrorist groups, piracy). - Climate change, leading to rising sea levels and extreme weather events that threaten coastal communities and infrastructure. For example, a significant event in the country's foreign policy and an expression of its efforts to strengthen security in the Indo-Pacific region was the arrival of three Canadian naval vessels in Yokosuka, Japan, on August 28, 2023. These ships, part of Canada's Pacific Fleet, were the first Canadian military vessels to visit Japan since 2019. The visit occurred against the backdrop of increased tension due to China's growing military influence (e.g., military exercises) and North Korea's series of missile tests, including an intercontinental ballistic missile. The primary goal of the Canadian ships' visit to Japan was to participate in joint exercises with regional partners (the United States, Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand) aimed at strengthening military alliances, expanding security cooperation, and enhancing regional preparedness. Coordination among the armed forces of allies contributes to improved communication, mutual understanding, and operational compatibility when working collectively. It also allows for knowledge sharing and the development of common strategies to address regional security challenges. Firstly, Canada has traditionally focused its foreign policy on the Atlantic and the Arctic. However, this visit signals Canada's growing interest in the Indo-Pacific region, recognizing its strategic importance, and the country's intention to actively contribute to regional stability. Canadian foreign policy is based on the principles of multilateralism and cooperation. Canada prioritizes building partnership relationships, encouraging dialogue, and participating in regional initiatives. It actively engages in regional and international forums (ASEAN, East Asian Summit). Canada also follows the same multilateral principle in defense and security. Deploying naval forces in the IPR aligns with these principles. Secondly, by joining forces with allies and partners in Southeast Asia, such as Japan, Canada strengthens existing security alliances and signals its readiness to cooperate with like-minded countries to maintain regional peace. Simultaneously, Ottawa sends a clear message to China that it intends to develop military cooperation to deter aggression in the region. Furthermore, the Canadian government places increasing importance on developing bilateral relations, promoting trade and investment growth, strengthening security cooperation on issues such as counter-terrorism and maritime security. The presence of Canadian naval vessels will enhance operational compatibility and coordination between allied fleets, bolstering the defense network in the Indo-Pacific region and deterring China from aggressive actions. Canada's Indo-Pacific strategy, approved in 2022, highlights two key regional factors of instability that increase tension and international concerns. Firstly, it is Beijing's ambition to assert its maritime claims in the South China Sea, including the construction of military facilities on disputed land features. Secondly, it is North Korea's missile tests and the development of nuclear weapons. In response to these threats, Canada is taking steps to strengthen cooperation and partnership relations in the IPR. This includes enhancing military presence, conducting joint exercises (for example, the "Malabar 2023" military exercise in August), and participating in diplomatic dialogues. By deploying naval forces, Canada follows in the footsteps of its key allies - the United States, Australia, and Japan, which are also actively bolstering their presence in the region. By combining diplomatic and defense efforts, these countries aim to ensure freedom of navigation and adherence to international law principles. Thus, Canada demonstrates that the government closely monitors the situation and will make efforts to maintain a regional order based on international legal rules and norms. Its presence serves as a signal to China, North Korea, and other potentially destabilizing actors that Canada is committed to regional security principles and is ready to support its allies and partners in countering any potential threats. Ottawa is not only developing and strengthening ties with allies and other regional players but also emphasizes a proactive, consistent approach in implementing its policy in the IPR, a commitment to maintaining peace and stability. The expansion of Canada's naval presence should serve as a deterrent to potential threats, demonstrate solidarity with like-minded countries, and show regional powers that Canada is a reliable ally. The intensification of regional policy is, in part, related to Canada's desire to balance between China and the United States since tension in their relations continues and influences global processes. The Canadian government's policy in the Indo-Pacific region is based on carefully building relationships with both countries, aiming to maintain a balance while advancing its own interests. Cooperation in security and defense, participation in regional initiatives, military exercises, and dialogues aimed at addressing common security issues are significant components of Canada's Indo-Pacific policy, as the country intends to play a more active role in the region. However, the development of this policy will be influenced by the following factors in the medium and long term, which are important for the national interests of the country and its allies: ● Ensuring maritime security: The Indo-Pacific region hosts some of the busiest maritime routes in the world, which are crucial for global trade. Canada is likely to increase its deployment of ships and aircraft, as well as participate in joint exercises with allies and partners to secure these sea lanes. ● Deepening military and political cooperation with allies and partners: Canada is a member of the "Five Eyes" intelligence alliance and has close security ties with the United States, Japan, Australia, and India. These countries, sharing a common interest in maintaining peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific, will expand their cooperation with Canada through joint exercises, intelligence sharing, and participation in joint military operations. Canada's military and defense policy will largely be shaped by the opportunities presented by its allies and partners. ● Investment in military capabilities and increased defense spending to enhance capabilities to address challenges in the Indo-Pacific. The Indo-Pacific region is becoming increasingly unstable, with a growing risk of conflict. Canada will need to adapt its military policy to changing security conditions.

Ukraine was the major topic discussed at the NATO summit in Vilnius, the Alliance capital closest to Kyiv. President Zelensky’s call for a clear timetable for his country’s membership dominated the political debate. Less attention was given to the topic with the biggest impact on the Allies: the radically changed requirements for NATO’s deterrence and defense posture. The Vilnius summit has blessed the new defense plans, for which the member states “commit the necessary forces, capabilities and resources”. What does this imply for the NATO countries? This article analyzes the consequences of the new NATO requirements, broken down into four themes: budgets, force structure and capability requirements, readiness, and military presence on the Eastern Flank.   In 2014, at its Wales summit, NATO Allies committed to spending 2% of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on defense no later than 2024. The forecast is that 19 of the 29 European NATO Allies will have realized the 2% target in 2024. As Iceland has no armed forces, the total number can be lowered to 28. It implies that approximately one third of the European Allies do not live up to the Wales commitment ten years on. Even worse, some Allies have already announced that they will not realize the target even by 2030. The Vilnius language – the 2% GDP target is “a minimum” from now on – stands in stark contrast to these facts. BUDGETS - MONEY SPENT ON DEFENSE The input issue – money spent on defense – continues to present a divided NATO, composed of three categories of Allies: First, the underspenders that will not spend 2% GDP on defense in 2024 and in the years immediately following. The list includes smaller countries such as Croatia, Slovenia and Luxembourg. However, on the minus 2% list one can also find – from North to South – Norway, Denmark, Belgium, Italy, Spain and Portugal. Denmark has set the aim of reaching the 2% target by 2030 and Belgium even later, by 2035. Second, the correct spenders: Allies that have taken measures to achieve the 2% target in 2024, thus fulfilling the Wales target. However, they will face the challenge of living up to a minimum of 2% after 2024. This applies to Germany, the Netherlands and others, who have not made firm commitments to live up to the Vilnius “minimum” target of 2% GDP. The third category is the overspenders, comprising Allies spending more than 2% now or in the future. This group includes the countries close to Russia – the Baltic states and Poland – but also major Allies such as the United Kingdom and the United States. The champion is no longer the US (3.49%) as Poland will spend 3.9% GDP on defense in 2023.  Due to the mix of underspenders, correct spenders and overspenders, the overall European average will rise to almost 2.05% in 2024, but it is clear that the burden within Europe is not equally divided among all Allies. This sends the wrong signal to Russia and it undermines the European aim to become self-reliant for its security and defense. Furthermore, there is the issue of ensuring sustained investment over the long term. For restructuring the armed forces and realizing defense equipment procurement plans, more time is needed than the duration of an average government Atlantisch perspectief 21 term (4-5 years). A change of government after elections may lead to redrafting the defense budget and defense plans, in particular when economic circumstances are deteriorating as was the case in 2010 and in the years that followed. For defense investment, predictability and continuity are required. The solution is to agree on a long-term national defense investment fund for a period of up to at least 10 years. Naturally, parliaments would have a final say in the annual approval of the budget within the overall financial framework of a long-term defense investment fund. From the perspective of adapting and modernizing the armed forces of the NATO Allies, such a long-term financial commitment – connected to the defense plans and acquisition programs – should be connected to the political debate on the 2% minimum spending target. Such sustained and guaranteed financial input is absolutely required to achieve the output, based on the NATO requirements. FORCE STRUCTURE AND CAPABILITY REQUIREMENTS Although NATO’s three core tasks of deterrence and defense, crisis prevention and management, and cooperative security remain in place, the Vilnius summit communiqué puts the first task “at the heart of the Alliance.” Based on SACEUR’s requirements, “the planning for our collective defense will be fully coherent with the planning for our forces, posture management, capabilities, and command and control.” The Allies will have to “deliver the full range of forces, capabilities, plans, resources, assets and infrastructure needed for deterrence and defense, including for high-intensity, multi-domain warfighting against nuclear-armed peer competitors.” Region-specific plans will be developed for three areas: Northern Europe (from the Arctic to the Gulf of Finland); Central Europe (from the Baltic states to the Alps) and Southern Europe (from the Black Sea to the whole of the Mediterranean). In terms of command & control (C2), Northern Europe will be covered by the Joint Forces Command (JFC) in Norfolk (Virginia, US), Central Europe by the JFC in Brunssum (the Netherlands), and Southern Europe by the JFC in Naples (Italy).  For the NATO countries bordering Russia, this might not entail a great deal of change. The Baltic states and Poland have consistently campaigned for strengthening the Alliance’s force posture for collective defense with an emphasis on high-end warfighting capacities. Their own defense planning and force structures have already been tailor-made for that purpose, and investment is mainly channeled towards modernizing heavy land forces. However, for Allies in Western Europe NATO’s new force structure and capability requirements may lead to amending their defense planning, including taking into account regional plans. For example, the UK-NL Landing Force that has been training for years in Northern Norway, might also be deployed to Finland or Sweden. The Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF), led by the UK, could become an earmarked early-entry force for the Northern Flank. In that case, it might require a more fixed composition of the JEF. In Central Europe, even more emphasis will be placed on strengthening land forces for high-intensity warfighting. Germany and Poland are two key European force providers. Other Allies – such as the Netherlands – will have to deliver dedicated contributions. From now on, NATO plans will ask for brigades, divisions, and army corps instead of the tailor-made task forces that were deployed to Afghanistan and elsewhere. Combined arms will be required instead of infantry-heavy forces for crisis management. More robustness and more firepower, less highly mobile and lightly armed troops are the new characteristics.  Jointness and networked operations in all domains (sea, land, air, cyber, and space) are 21st century necessities, requiring high-technology capacities in the digital area and in space, in particular to ensure redundant communications for information-steered, networked operations. The NATO Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) capacities need to be enhanced and modernized, encompassing all layers of air defense – the importance of which has been shown in the war in Ukraine. Long-range firing delivered by rocket artillery, cruise missiles and other systems will become the norm of the ‘need to have’ for armed forces. This capability also requires a better and more robust C2 architecture and a variety of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), electronic warfare (EW) systems, and other sensors for target acquisition. The Vilnius communiqué refers to continuing “to invest more in advanced and interoperable capabilities across all domains, placing particular emphasis on combat capable, predominantly heavy, high-end forces and capabilities.” This sounds like an evolution, but for many Allies it implies a revolution in defense planning and investment or, in the words of the Chairman of the NATO Military Committee, Admiral Rob Bauer, “unparalleled integration of NATO and national military planning”. READINESS The new NATO Force Model (NFM) was already agreed upon at the Madrid summit in July 2022. According to the NFM, Allies “are delivering a larger pool of dedicated combat-capable forces, including forces at high readiness, improving our military responsiveness, and harnessing regional expertise and geographic proximity.” In the past, the Alliance had the NATO Response Force (NRF) at high readiness (at 5-30-day notice-to-move (NTM)) with the first elements of the Very High Readiness Joint Task Force (VJTF) at very short NTM (within 48 hours). The 40,000-military-strong NRF will be replaced by the Allied Reaction Force (ARF), that can provide a quickly deployable NATO response option to threats or crises wherever they occur. Completely new are the tier 1-3 high readiness forces: over 100,000 in tier 1 with a NTM of up to 10 days; around 200,000 in tier 2 (NTM 10-30 days) and at least 500,000 in tier 3 (30-180 days NTM). With these new readiness requirements the number of forces that Allies will have at readiness levels up to 30 days has increased by almost a factor of 10. For the NRF, NATO Allies were making available, on rotation, companies, battalions, battle groups and comparable air and naval units. In the NFM, brigades and divisions, full squadrons and naval task groups will have to be ready to deploy within short timeframes depending on the allocation to tier 1 to 3. This will pose enormous challenges to Allies, not only in terms of personnel but equally in operationally ready-to-deploy equipment, enablers (such as transport capacities), and all necessary logistical support. Ammunition stocks will have to be built up to higher NATO norms. Military mobility requirements – all legal arrangements, infrastructure adjustments, transport means, available staging areas and so forth – need to be fulfilled. Naturally, all of this cannot be arranged overnight. It will take at least five to ten years to transform and modernize the Allied forces to fulfil these far-reaching military requirements. The NFM may look simple on paper, but it is the most challenging NATO demand since the end of the Cold War. PRESENCE ON THE EASTERN FLANK Decisions to reinforce NATO’s military enhanced Forward Presence were already taken at the Madrid summit with the following two most important elements: (i) the deployment of battlegroups in four additional Allied countries (Slovak Republic, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria), and (ii) scaling up the NATO battle groups to brigade-size formations where and when required. At the time, the UK, Canada and Germany announced that their battle groups in respectively Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania would be scaled up to brigades. The additional troops were not to be stationed permanently in the three Baltic states. Brigade headquarters would be established and the equipment for these brigades would be prepositioned in those countries. The model envisaged that troops would be transferred from their home bases in times of crisis or for exercises. Two weeks before the Vilnius summit, the German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius announced that his country would station a ‘robust brigade’ with 4,000 troops in Lithuania. Without openly saying so, Pistorius presented a change to the concept announced by Germany the year before. Not only will the brigade headquarters and the equipment be permanently present in Lithuania, the military personnel of a combat brigade are to be located forward as well. On the eve of the Vilnius summit, the Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced that his country’s military presence in Latvia would be increased to around 2,200 troops.  The Baltic states have pressed strongly for the permanent presence of brigade-sized NATO forces on their soil. NATO itself has met its need by replacing the concept of ‘deterrence by punishment’ by ‘deterrence by denial’ – meaning that every inch of NATO territory has to be defended. The Baltic states have argued that the existing multinational battle groups – suitable for acting as a ‘trip wire’ in case of a Russian attack, but not being able to defend their territory until reinforcements arrive – are no longer suitable for that purpose. Lacking strategic depth, ‘deterrence by denial’ requires the permanent presence of combat-ready NATO forces, at least of brigade size along with the national army units of the three Baltic states.  The same requirement would logically apply to the other five countries that house NATO battle groups. Infrastructure to house the troops and preposition the equipment of the NATO combat brigades will have to be built, which will take time and money. Training areas might have to be expanded. Transferring from ‘trip wire’ battle groups to combat brigades also raises the question of what to do with the smaller contributions – often of company size – from other NATO countries. For example, so far the Dutch contribution to the battle group in Lithuania has consisted of rotating companies – often of different compositions (air mobile, light infantry, mechanized). When Germany transforms its battle group to a combat brigade, Berlin might call on the Netherlands army to contribute a mechanized battalion or combat support (such as artillery). In that case, the issue of prepositioning equipment and permanently stationing troops in Lithuania also becomes a defense-planning topic for the Netherlands with financial and other consequences. THE WAY AHEAD NATO summits come and go. Next year, Heads of State and Government will meet in Washington, D.C. for the Alliance’s 75th anniversary. In November 2024, American citizens will elect a new president. The years of strong commitment by the US to supporting Ukraine and NATO may turn into years of retreat, should a Republican president enter the White House. European Allies will be even more pressed to step up their defense efforts than in the current situation. But even should the Democrats win the presidential election, the European NATO countries will face serious challenges in implementing the decisions of the Vilnius summit. In view of the primary focus of the US on the Pacific/East Asia, the pressure on Europe to become more self-reliant is here to stay. Defense budget growth has to be sustained over the long term. Investment in combat-ready forces and logistics including larger ammunition stocks needs to be stepped up, which also requires industrial production to be ramped up. More military personnel will have to be on stand-by readiness, and a larger number of troops have to be deployed to the Eastern Flank. Equipment needs to be prepositioned in the area. NATO’s regional plans will direct national defense planning, investment, training and exercises. They will also channel multinational cooperation, clustering countries located on the Northern, Central-Eastern and Southern European Flanks with those Allies earmarking their forces for the collective defense task in those respective regions.  The consequences of NATO’s Vilnius summit have yet to sink in within national political circles. The Alliance’s military authorities and diplomats have delivered an ambitious agenda for “modernising NATO for a new era of collective defence”. All presidents and prime ministers of the Allied countries have committed themselves to implementing the Vilnius decisions. History shows that words are not always followed by deeds, such as in the case of achieving the NATO 2% target. The Russian aggression against Ukraine – violating the principles and norms of the international order – should be more than a wake-up call. Europe now needs to stay awake and invest in its defense to fulfil NATO’s requirements as well as to become more self-reliant for its own security.

Putin’s rule over Russia will come to an end at some point, but when it will end as well as what the policy preferences of his successors might be are uncertain. It would be in the interests of the United States and Europe to signal on what terms they would be willing to cooperate with a post-Russian leadership. Vladimir Putin has been the ruler of Russia since the turn of the century. He may remain in power through 2036, as the 2020 revision of the Russian constitution allows him to, or perhaps even longer. Then again, he may be ousted suddenly and surprisingly any day now, as the recent Wagner mutiny and the apparent lack of effective opposition to it within the Russian security services and public suggest is possible. Maybe he will decide not to run for re-election in 2024, though this does not seem likely. Sooner or later, though, Putin’s rule over Russia will come to an end. What is not at all certain, of course, is who will replace him and what sort of foreign policy the new leader will pursue. It would appear, though, that there are only a few possibilities. One is that Putin will be succeeded by someone just like him who will continue Moscow’s hostile policies toward Ukraine and the West in general. Another is that Putin will be replaced by someone within his circle that decides Moscow needs to cut its losses in Ukraine and rebuild good relations with the West both to revive Russia’s economy and to hedge against an increasingly powerful China. While this might seem unlikely, Russian and Soviet history are replete with examples of new autocratic leaders dramatically reversing key aspects of their predecessor’s policies. Yet another post-Putin possibility is an authoritarian leader who wants to cut Moscow’s losses in Ukraine but who sees the survival of both autocratic rule and even Russia’s territorial integrity as best served through increasing reliance on Chinese support and guidance. It is also possible that Putin’s rule will end as a result of the rise of democratic forces which want Russia to become part of the West and cooperate or join the EU or even NATO. For this scenario to occur, there would have to be a dramatic change of heart within the Russian security services about what is in Russia’s and their own interests. While this seems highly unlikely, there have been examples in other where military-backed autocratic rule gave way to democracy. Finally, whether Putin’s successor is autocratic or democratic, he or (much less likely) she may simply be weak as a result of having to deal with a compounding internal crisis resulting from Putin’s policies, including popular discontent over Russian casualties in Ukraine, economic decline, and secessionism in non-Russian or even Russian regions of the Russian Federation. What Can Europe and the United States Do? Russia’s post-Putin leadership and its policy preferences, whatever they may be, will have an enormous impact on Europe and the United States as well as other countries and regions of the world. But while obviously they hope to see Putin succeeded by a new leader who will end the war, withdraw from Ukraine, and improve Moscow’s ties with the West, Europe and the United States will have very little ability, if any, to affect the post-Putin transition — especially if the person who succeeds  him comes from within his inner circle. Putin has sought to rally Russian public support for his war in Ukraine through claiming that the West wants to bring about the breakup of Russia. Whether Putin himself actually believes this, there appears to be no possibility of changing his mind about the West being his implacable enemy. The United States and Europe, though, would do well to signal to whoever might succeed Putin that this is not the case. Specifically, Washington and Brussels should make clear how they would like to relate to post-Putin Russia. Such messaging should include the following points: Just as the United States and Europe support the territorial integrity of Ukraine, they also support the territorial integrity of Russia. The West has no interest in seeing the breakup of Russia. The United States and Europe will lift their economic sanctions on Russia (including those on Moscow’s exports of oil and gas) in response to Russian withdrawals from Ukrainian territory. The more occupied territory that Russia returns to Ukraine, the more Western economic sanctions against Russia will be lifted. While Europe and the United States would like to see Russia become a Western-style democracy, they acknowledge that whether it does so or not is an internal matter which Russians alone will determine. The United States and Europe are prepared to have normal relations with any type of Russian government — democratic or autocratic — which is willing to behave non-threateningly toward the West, Ukraine, and other former Soviet republics. While they respect the Russian government’s desire to continue cooperating closely with China, Western governments want Moscow to know that the United States, NATO, and the members of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (US, Japan, India, Australia) are willing to discuss common security concerns about China (which many Russians besides Putin have had) if and when the new Russian leadership wishes to discuss them. The articulation of these messages by the United States, Europe, and, regarding the last point, Quad governments, will not magically lead the Russian people, much less Putin’s inner circle, to oust Putin and embrace the West. Indeed, it is possible that a Putin loyalist successor will spurn them. But if the United States and Europe do not signal under what terms they would be willing to cooperate with a post-Putin leadership, then Washington and Brussels may reduce the chances that a post-Putin leadership will be willing to cooperate with the West.

The Arab-Israeli settlement remains one of the important challenges in the foreign policy activities of the Joe Biden administration, whose strategy, following the logic of the continuity of the traditional course of supporting Israel, is aimed at overcoming the inconsistency in American policy in this direction and at finding approaches to neutralize threats from other actors, seeking to expand their influence in the region. In maintaining American leadership in the Middle East, the United States faces both internal and external challenges. Iran remains one of the main external challenges, which is perceived by Washington as the main threat in the Middle East and beyond, also occupying a central place in Israel's foreign policy strategy. Given the general priority importance of the Iranian topic for both countries, the positions of the current US administration and the Israeli government differ regarding the degree of trust in the statements of the Iranian leadership and readiness to return to the previous level of negotiations, violated by D. Trump's sharp demarche. At the same time, being a pivot point of mutual understanding, the Iranian agenda can “muffle” the differences between the parties on the Palestinian issue and move the direction of the Arab-Israeli settlement – Israel manages to use the topic of Iranian influence in the region, which is sensitive for the United States, to advance its interests, emphasizing the security issue in the Middle East region. The second external challenge for maintaining US leadership in the peace process is the growing role of China, the main strategic competitor of the US, as a peaceful mediator in international affairs (in Afghanistan, Iraq, Ukraine, in Iranian-Saudi relations) and in the context of increasing Sino-Israeli economic cooperation. China has a dominant position in Israel's imports in 2021-2022 and is Israel's third largest investor. Israel's diversification of partnerships will ultimately make it possible, if not to reduce the role of the United States in the Middle East as a whole, then to realize its foreign policy interests without the need to take undesirable compromise steps on the Palestinian issue. The main internal challenge for the United States remains the party split, which gives other participants in the Arab-Israeli resolution process a reason to question the exclusive role of Washington in it. The inconsistency of American policy in this area largely stems from the difference in the approaches of Democrats and Republicans to achieving the same goal - maintaining and strengthening security in the region. If the commitment to US-Israeli security cooperation remains the same regardless of which party is in power, then unconditional support for Israel remains a point of contention between the two parties. Traditionally, Democrats are more critical in assessing Israel's domestic policy, in particular in the issue of building new settlements in disputed territories. One of the most striking cases of manifestation of such inter-party contradictions occurred during B. Obama's trip to the Middle East in the spring of 2013. Then B. Obama proposed a formula for in-depth regional cooperation with equal consideration for the interests of both sides of the conflict, recognizing the right of the Palestinians to self-determination and the creation of their own national state while condemning the expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Meanwhile, despite inter-party disagreements, Israel retains its place as a unique and priority ally and partner of the United States, and the essence of their "special" relationship is not subject to systemic changes. Thus, at the end of B. Obama's presidency, the third Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was signed between the United States and Israel. The ten-year military-economic plan, first adopted by the B. Clinton administration and supported by B. Obama, provides allocation of $3.3 billion for military financing and $500 million for joint missile defense programs for the period of 2018–2028. During the presidency of D. Trump, the delicate balance of American policy in the region swung again towards exclusive support for Israel. The progressive political rhetoric of the Democratic President in support of the Palestinians was followed by an equally unexpected symbolic gesture of the Republican President towards Israel: in 2017, D. Trump did something that no other American president dared to do - announced the transfer of the American Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. The decision to move the embassy was criticized by the world community, and Hamas again declared an intifada against Israel. And although Secretary of State Mike Pompeo hastened to smooth over the effect of his president’s grand gesture, saying that the decision to move the embassy does not change the status of Jerusalem in any way, the new embassy was nevertheless opened in May 2018. Subsequently, this step was also supported by the Democratic Party. At the same time, the Trump administration continued the regional format for resolving Middle East conflicts by signing the Abraham Accords. At the same time, M. Pompeo announced that the approach, fixed by the United States in 1978, that the construction of Israeli settlements on the West Bank was inconsistent with international law, did not contribute to the development of negotiations. By doing this, he signaled Washington's support for Israel's new plans for the construction of settlements, which, in turn, did not hesitate to start implementing them. And the ultimatum plan “Peace to prosperity” presented by D. Trump completely ridiculed the Palestinians’ claims to build a state within the borders before 1967 and was regarded by the UN Human Rights Council as a violation of international law and the rights of Palestinians under occupation. This position of the Republican administration provoked criticism from the Democrats. As expected, after the change of party control over the federal government in 2021 in the House of Representatives, the progressive Democratic wing proposed a bill to resolve the conflict based on the principle of Two-State Solution Act, which reflected concerns about Israeli settlement policy in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip. The bill includes monitoring the funds allocated under the ten-year plan (MoU) and other financial assistance, so that they are not used by the Israeli authorities for further annexation of disputed territories. The document also pays special attention to the term "occupied territories", it is proposed to mention such a wording in all official communications and documents regarding the territory of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip. At the same time, changes in the US-Israeli security policy are not supported by the legislation. Unlike his predecessors, J. Biden, from the very beginning of his presidency, tried to avoid such steps that could further destabilize the situation between the conflicting parties. The administration returned to the traditional principles of the Democratic Party in the Middle East - the principle of the unacceptability of the expansion of settlements, the continuation of the policy of ensuring the security of Israel and involving this country in regional cooperation with Arab countries in the spirit of the "Abraham Accords", protecting the rights of both Israelis and Palestinians equally and the viability of a negotiated two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This position was repeatedly emphasized by the US President in September-October 2022, as well as by Secretary of State A. Blinken during meetings in 2023. As part of the efforts made, contacts between the US and UNRWA were restored, and funding for programs was resumed. The elections of the Prime Minister of Israel, held in the fall of 2022, led to ambiguous results, from the point of view of some American experts, and became a new problematic factor in the settlement issue. The victory of the Likud party under the leadership of B. Netanyahu and the coalition government formed by him with the right wing represented by Religious Zionism, Shas and Yahadut Ha Torah caused fears among representatives of both US parties and lobbyist organizations. First of all, the American leadership was alarmed by the connection of the current members of the coalition with an organization recognized as terrorist in the USA. Kahane Hai was officially designated a terrorist organization in Washington from October 1997 to May 2022, and has been a “specially designated global terrorist organization” since last year. It is also critically perceived that part of the new government called for a reduction in the powers of the Israeli Supreme Court, the return of the death penalty for those accused of terrorism, some supported the Russian policy towards Ukraine. Despite the fact that the results of the 2022 elections are perceived in Washington as a serious blow to Israeli democracy, they fully reflect public sentiment. Based on the polls, the vast majority of Israeli voters (62%) identify themselves as right-wing. This means that the Americans, one way or another, will have to reckon with this factor and start a sustainable dialogue with this political force. In general, the United States welcomed Netanyahu's victory in the elections, but emphasizing the special status of relations with Israel, common interests and values and the intention to cooperate with the new government, focusing on its policies, and not on individuals, clearly declares its readiness to prevent any attempts to undermine the efforts to stabilize the situation in vulnerable areas. In fact, despite the existing concerns and even rejection of certain positions of the new Israeli government, the US is ready to accept their right-wing conservative rhetoric as part of the Israeli democratic choice. The current formula of American policy in this area is that the United States will continue to promote its vision of a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict based on protecting the interests of both sides of the conflict, but Israel's security will remain an American priority and will determine a restrained reaction to Tel Aviv's policy regarding disputed territories. The reason for this duality, in addition to traditional inter-party disagreements, may also be a shift in the focus of the security dialogue from the Palestinian issue to the Iranian threat. The contours of the problems outlined signal that the very inconsistency of the American policy regarding the settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Iranian problem is becoming a factor that delays the prospect of Washington playing the role of the main regional mediator and peacemaker. In this regard, the emergence of new approaches on the part of other powers and a change in the alignment of forces in the region should be considered natural, which is the basis of the challenge for the Joe Biden administration. Nevertheless, the consistency of the White House in relation to ensuring Israeli security is the main stable link, which, firstly, guarantees the American presence in the Middle East, and, secondly, smooths out the corners of emerging contradictions in US-Israeli relations. Thus, the main task for Washington remains to restore the traditional Democratic balanced approach to Middle East politics and overcome the threats and problems posed by Iran, the new Israeli coalition government, and China as a new significant actor in the Middle East.

Ambassador, Admiral, Excellencies, friends, It is a great honour to welcome the USS Gerald R. Ford and its crew to Norway and to Oslo. This is a historical event, nothing less. – A show of force. But just as important: A show of friendship – and a show of trust. And it is great to be back on the Ford! – Because I have been here before. Actually, I landed on the Ford outside Norfolk, Virginia last September. I experienced how it was to land – but even more memorable was to take off, being catapulted off the ship – I am still recovering. Today, we came by boat. – It is more relaxed, if I may say so. It is very good to be back. I would like to thank you for this extraordinary U.S. hospitality, we can all feel it, thank you, Captain for the superb Friday evening entertainment. Stepping onto the ship once again, on the Norwegian side of the Atlantic Ocean, reminds me of the obvious fact: The ocean does not divide us. It unites us. And the ocean, as we can see, is a gateway, a waterway, that makes us to what we are – we are neighbours and close friends across the Atlantic.  The Ford flies a battle flag which shows the compass rose. – This is an important tool, for centuries, and a powerful symbol – for staying on the right course. Navigating the Oslo fjord is no easy thing, and on your very first overseas visit I believe it proves that you master the tool – the compass, although – probably, the pilots also helped. Your skilled sailors have anchored the ship on a spot which is significant in many ways in my country. Because the Oslo Fjord tells an important part of the history of Norway: Merchants and rulers came this way, landed near Akershus Castle, which defended the city for centuries from invasions from outside. The famous explorer Roald Amundsen – whose name is, as you know, on the frigate – started his South Pole expedition from exactly where we are now, just ashore here. The Nazi German occupants came this way in 1940 – however, they struggled a lot more to get through the narrow parts of the fjord. The Norwegian king returned from his exile in Great Britain in 1945 on HMS Norfolk by this waterway. – War and peace. Shortly after, NATO was founded. Our two nations – founding fathers of NATO – are close allies, and – as you reminded, Admiral – the U.S. Navy is particularly important to Norwegian security. The U.S. Marine Corps equipment, stored in Mid-Norway, is proof of that commitment. The Norwegian Armed Forces appreciates, in numerous contexts, the opportunity to train with U.S. women and men in uniform. – And that is what we will do in the coming days, and we look forward to it. Well planned, joint exercises are essential. This is not new. It is about continuity. We know. Our neighbours know. And our allies know.  The USS Gerald R. Ford is now anchored in the heart of the five Nordic countries – coastwise towards the Atlantic Ocean. This region will now form the new northern flank of NATO – with Finland, its newest member – and just pending the acceptance of Sweden. So – a new security policy map is in the making. For the first time in centuries the Nordic countries will belong to the same security alliance, being U.S. partners and partners of a strong alliance for stability and peace.  Admiral, You are not just navigating a large ship; you are navigating a significant political and diplomatic tool: the U.S. at sea. This ship has the ability to enhance stability and security wherever you sail, whatever waters you travel. You demonstrate the U.S. commitment to NATO and to transatlantic security. To our security. For that we are truly grateful. Against the backdrop of the ongoing war in Ukraine, this is – to put it short – more important than ever. So, dear friends, on this beautiful Friday afternoon, we should be reminded that there have been dire times, wars in Europe, and we should prepare to avoid dire times in the future. Immediately after the attack on Pearl Harbour in December 1941, President Roosevelt wired Prime Minister Churchill the following words: “Today we are all in the same boat (…) and it is a ship which will not and cannot be sunk.”  A truly transatlantic message – and from this our transatlantic alliance emerged. Democracies decided on standing together. Like then, we are in the same boat – and in a big one this time, and it feels safe. So, friends, Welcome to Norway, welcome to Oslo. Welcome to come training with us. I wish you and your fantastic crew of this ship an excellent stay. You have been well received in Oslo. You are our friends. I wish you a good onward voyage. Thank you very much for your attention.

Attention will now turn to scrutinizing how Ukraine deploys the US weapons.  On 7 July, days before the NATO summit in Vilnius, the US announced that it would supply Ukraine with cluster munitions – until it can ramp up production of other types of ammunition. It is a controversial decision which is at odds with the views of NATO allies that have foresworn the possession and use of the weapons under the 2008 Convention on Cluster Munitions. The Biden administration said it had received assurances from Ukraine that the munitions will not be used in areas populated by civilians, that Ukraine will keep records and maps of where they are used, and that it will conduct a post-war clean-up. However, there are significant humanitarian concerns with the use of cluster bombs, and the US–Ukraine decision sends the wrong message to the wider world – particularly to states that are not yet parties to the 2008 Convention. Humanitarian concernsEach cluster bomb can scatter tens or hundreds of explosive submunitions over a wide area. The submunitions frequently do not explode on delivery – this is called the failure rate – and are left in the environment, often sinking into soft ground or water. In recent conflicts, failure rates remain stubbornly high, estimated to range from 10%-40% – despite being much lower in the testing phase. The long-term implications of failed submunitions have been similar to – in some cases worse than – the long-term use of anti-personnel landmines. Munitions surface years or even decades after use, often picked up by children who mistake them for soda cans or toys and are maimed or killed when they explode. Whether the munitions have been fired by an enemy or by their own side, the effect is the same. The use of the weapons also risks breaking international humanitarian law, namely the principle of distinction (the need in an armed conflict to distinguish between combatants and civilians; and between military and civilian objectives). Concerns also relate to breaching the principle of proportionality, and the rule against indiscriminate attacks. The 2008 Convention on Cluster Munitions (CCM)The CCM is an important piece of international law intended to prohibit the use of cluster munitions in line with these principles of international humanitarian law, placing the long-term needs of civilians at the heart of security decision-making. To date, the CCM has 111 states parties, and 12 signatories. It prohibits the use, production, transfer, and stockpiling of cluster munitions. It requires countries that have joined the convention to destroy their stockpiles of the weapons, clear areas contaminated with unexploded submunitions, and provide assistance to victims. The US, Ukraine and Russia have not yet signed up to the convention. Neither has China or India. But most European states have joined the treaty, including NATO members such as the UK, Germany and France. The convention drew upon experience from the Mine Ban Treaty of 1997 which prohibited the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of anti-personnel mines. Following the treaty, deminers reported the equally large problem of other unexploded ordnance including cluster munitions. This empirical evidence, along with medical evidence from countries inundated with cluster munitions such as Cambodia, Kosovo, Iraq, Chechnya, Eritrea, Ethiopia and Afghanistan, led to discussions in the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons and then to a stand-alone process that negotiated the Convention on Cluster Munitions.  Indeed, the conclusion of the Convention on Cluster Munitions and its support by so many countries had until now created an important pause in the use of cluster munitions by some non-states parties, including the US – showing the weight of international condemnation of the weapons. (This has not been true for countries such as Russia which has used them with devastating effect against civilians in Ukraine). Cluster munitions are already being used in UkraineRussia has been using cluster munitions throughout its illegal war against Ukraine, along with landmines and thermobaric/vacuum weapons. It has also threatened the use of nuclear weapons. Ukraine has also used its own ex-Soviet stockpile of cluster bombs.   But up until now no NATO country has supplied Ukraine with cluster bombs – reports that Turkey had done so have been denied by both Turkey and Ukraine.Supporters of the US decision point out that the number of unexploded US cluster munitions will be far smaller than the equivalent number of unexploded Russian munitions and landmines already in Ukraine. They also argue that the numbers of Ukrainian civilians killed might well be far higher if Ukraine fails to pursue its counteroffensive, and that Ukraine could even lose the war if not supplied with adequate ammunition. Adhering to the rules of warRussia’s invasions of Ukraine in 2014 and in 2022 were illegal. Subsequent threats to use nuclear weapons, and the continuing situation over the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, have been reckless in the extreme. Russia’s actions reflect the fact that the war is not only about the integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine – although that is of course central. It is also about values, and the adherence to the rule of law. How a state conducts itself during a war is important. Irrespective of the aggression by Russia, and regardless of who has joined the Convention on Cluster Munitions, the rules of international humanitarian law must be respected by all parties to the armed conflict. These rules are designed to balance military necessity with humanitarian purpose – they seek to protect civilians and diminish unnecessary suffering. Ukraine is fighting not just for its territory but for the international rule of law; its own conduct of hostilities must comply with the rules of war.   Attention will now need to turn to scrutinizing how Ukraine deploys the US weapons and whether it can live up to its assurances on how they will be used, including preventing their deployment in or near civilian populated areas. States that are party to the CCM should continue to uphold it. The UK and other treaty members have invested significant diplomatic power to encourage other states to accede to the CCM and they should continue these efforts. The US move sends a poor message, but the fundamental importance and value of the CCM treaty remains.