If managed properly, joining NATO would enhance Finland’s and Sweden’s defensive capabilities, strengthen European collective security, and improve the prospects of a liberal world order struggling against a host of relentless illiberal adversaries. {mosads}NATO arguably is the most successful politico-military alliance in history.
This war is transforming the entire modus operandi of humanity. Since the dawn of time, we have been accustomed to living by the motto, “survival of the fittest.” By and large, the rule was that the strong determined the rules, and the rules were often abusive toward the weak. Now, it seems like a new mindset has set in: Wanting something and being strong enough to take it does not mean that the world will accept it.
The war, therefore, is being fought on the inside no less, and perhaps more than on the outside. Our very makeup is changing from abusive to cooperative, from narcissistic to altruistic. It hurts, and it will not happen without a struggle, but it is irreversible. This is the path of our evolution toward the purpose of our creation—to encompass within us all of creation. To do that, we must come to care for it, just as a mother encompasses her child through her maternal love. The struggle to transition from our current uncaring and mean approach to all creations but ourselves, into wise and compassionate beings is called “the war of Gog and Magog” or Armageddon. Since the war is about our inner makeup, we can fight it within us. If we object to struggling with ourselves over who will rule—the ego or love—the physical reality will force us to choose love nonetheless. However, it will do so by hurting us in a very physical way. The war in Eastern Europe is nothing compared to what we might have to endure if we resist the process. The horrific descriptions of our sages and prophets hint at it, and we would not want to live through it. Alternatively, we can fight this war within us without firing a single bullet. The choice is in our hands. All we need is to continue in the same direction that nature is already leading us: toward connection. If we make an effort to care for one another, even though initially we don’t, then we are moving in the right direction. If we try to resolve conflicts not with guns or even legal battles, but by strengthening the care and friendship between us, then we are saving lives and sparing torments from countless people. In conclusion, let us try to rise above the hatred and see the human on the other side, who suffers too. Let us think that this war was given to us so we would think about each other more than we have so far. After all, were it not for this war, we would not notice one another. Now that it is here, we are no longer indifferent. Although our feelings our currently negative, now that we are aware of them, we can work on them together and turn them around. These are the wars of the Messiah who moshech [Hebrew: pulls] us out of the ego, and into mutual love.
Will Nato go to war with Russia? How many troops it’s sending as a deterrent and what it means for Ukraine
The plan being discussed at this Madrid summit ‘constitutes the biggest overhaul of our collective deterrence and defence since the Cold War’, according to secretary general Jens Stoltenberg
Fighter jets over northern Norway during an exercise with Norwegian, Finnish, French, and German aircraft on June 2.Royal Norwegian Air Force
The two countries already have a close relationship with the military alliance.
NATO leaders see the two countries as bringing immediate benefit — especially their fighter jets.
As Finland's and Sweden's accession to NATO moves ahead quickly, the alliance's already tight partnership with the Nordic countries was on display in the skies over Northern Europe in early June.
On June 2, the Swedish and Finnish air forces drilled with their British, French, German, Norwegian, and Belgian counterparts along Norway's western coast.
Some 45 aircraft participated in the exercise, which was meant to demonstrate the ability to conduct complex air operations over long distances.
A German Eurofighter Typhoon refueling from a US KC-135 over the Baltic Sea during BaltOps 22 on June 9.US Air Force/Senior Airman Nicholas Swift
The chief of the Norwegian air force said it was "the first time we are conducting such an advanced exercise with NATO and partner nations, which also includes Sweden and Finland."
From June 5 to June 17, Finnish and Swedish forces joined the militaries of 14 NATO members, including the US, for Baltic Operations 2022. The 51st iteration of the maritime-focused exercise involved more than 45 ships, more than 75 aircraft, and 7,500 personnel.
During one drill, a US Air Force KC-135 tanker refueled US, Finnish, Swedish, and German jets, allowing them to keep operating over the Baltic.
Scandinavian skies
A Finnish F/A-18 Hornet and three Swedish JAS 39 Gripens.Finnish Air Force
The June exercises demonstrated not only the strong relationship Finland and Sweden have with their NATO neighbors but also their own considerable military capabilities, which are poised to significantly strengthen NATO's air component and deterrence in the north.
Finland operates a fleet of 55 McDonnell Douglas F/A-18C Hornets, which it acquired in the 1990s. Despite its age, the single-seat F/A-18C is capable aircraft and can quickly switch between fighter and attack configurations. It is also operated by the US Navy and Marine Corps and numerous US allies, and it has seen combat in North Africa, the Middle East, and the Balkans.
Finland's Ministry of Defense has said its Hornets will be decommissioned by 2030, making way for the 64 F-35As that Helsinki ordered in December in the country's biggest military procurement on record. Its first F-35 is scheduled for delivery by 2026.
Finland's government in December authorized the purchase of the F-35 to be its next multirole fighter.Finnish Air Force
The fifth-generation F-35A is increasingly popular among US allies. The stealth jet can act as a fighter or attack platform and use its intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities to enhance the effectiveness of friendly air and ground forces.
Sweden's only fighter jet is the Saab JAS 39 Gripen, a domestically designed and built aircraft that is less advanced but highly effective.
"The Gripen doesn't have the stealth of an F-35 or the brain-mashing performance of an F-15, but it's a reliable and cost-effective aircraft that brings a number of important capabilities into the fight," the aviation analyst and Sandboxx editor in chief Alex Hollings told Insider.
The Gripen is also versatile. Its small size allows it to "take off and land on austere airstrips or even highways while carrying extremely effective air-to-air weapons" like the Meteor and AMRAAM missiles, Hollings said.
The Swedish jet is one of the few fighters in service that can supercruise, maintaining supersonic speeds without dumping fuel into its afterburner. That increases an aircraft's endurance at supersonic speeds by lowering its fuel consumption, allowing it to fly faster and carry less fuel.
A Swedish Air Force Saab JAS 39 Gripen over England in 2019.US Air Force/Tech Sgt. Aaron Thomasson
The US-made F-22, the French-built Dassault Rafale, and the multinational Eurofighter Typhoon are the only other jets that can supercruise. None of Russia's jets have the capability.
The Gripen program has had controversy, Hollings said, referring to allegations of fraud in some of its foreign sales, but it was designed to be "easy to fly, inexpensive to maintain, and quick to adopt upgrades and that all makes for a handy jet to have around in a fight," he added.
Though it has never seen combat, the Swedish jet has proved its worth in exercises. Notably, during the first day of a major US-led exercise in Alaska in 2016, it scored 10 kills against peer aircraft, including a 4.5-generation Eurofighter Typhoon, without suffering a casualty.
Sweden's air force operates 71 Gripen Cs and has ordered 70 Gripen Es, an upgrade over the C model, to be delivered by 2027.
Building the best team
A US B-52 with two Polish F-16s, two German Eurofighter Typhoons, four US F-16s, and four Swedish Gripens over the Baltic Sea in 2016.US Air Force
Despite their capabilities, integrating two air forces with a combined fighter fleet of 126 aircraft into NATO operations won't be simple.
Though both the F/A-18C and the Gripen are used by other NATO members, tactical integration is achieved through frequent joint exercises, like the ones conducted in June.
"There are always challenges inherent to mixing national air forces and the platforms they operate," Hollings told Insider. "Once you work through interoperability (in terms of both technology and tactics), a mix of aircraft becomes a potent tool in a large-scale fight."
Increasing the variety of aircraft in NATO will give the alliance a tactical advantage.
Jets refueling from a German air-force tanker during a Norwegian-led exercise with Finnish, French, and German aircraft on June 2.Royal Norwegian Air Force
"Fighters operate a bit like cage fighters, in that pilots want to play to the strengths of their own aircraft and the weaknesses of the opponent's," Hollings said. "When you head into a fight with a variety of fighters at your disposal, each playing to their respective strengths, you really complicate the combat calculus for your opponent."
F-35As and Gripen Es are set to make Finland's and Sweden's air forces more capable, but even without those advanced jets, NATO leaders are eager to have Finnish and Swedish forces in the alliance.
Gen. Christopher Cavoli, who is set to take over as head of US European Command and as supreme allied commander Europe in July, said during his nomination hearing in May that the Finnish and Swedish militaries would bring "quite a bit of capability and capacity to the alliance from day one."
He added that he looked "forward to the accession of Finland and Sweden to the alliance from a military perspective."
Troops attend a ceremony of the Nato-enhanced forward presence battle group in Latvia, the numbers of which could be increased under new plans (Photo: Ints Kalnins/Reuters)
Nato has announced its intention to expand its high-readiness forces from 40,000 troops to more than 300,000 in response to Russia’s ongoing war with Ukraine.
The plan being discussed at this week’s Madrid summit “constitutes the biggest overhaul of our collective deterrence and defence since the Cold War”, according to secretary general Jens Stoltenberg.
Russia’s February invasion has sparked a geopolitical shift, prompting once neutral countries Finland and Sweden to apply to join Nato and Ukraine to secure the status of candidate to join the European Union.
Will Nato go to war with Russia?
Nato uses a system of collective security, whereby its independent member states agree to mutual defence in response to an attack by any external party.
Ukraine is not a part of Nato, so the Western response to Russia’s invasion has so far focused on sanctions and the provision of military resources.
If Russia’s President, Vladimir Putin, decides to extend his attacks beyond Russia and into a neighbouring Nato state, such as Latvia, Lithuania or Estonia, then Nato members would collectively enter the conflict directly.
Jens Stoltenberg said Nato in future would have “well over 300,000” troops on high alert, compared to 40,000 troops that currently make up the alliance’s existing quick reaction force, the Nato Response Force (NRF).
The new force model is meant to replace the NRF and “provide a larger pool of high readiness forces across domains, land, sea, air and cyber, which will be pre-assigned to specific plans for the defence of allies,” a Nato official said.
From intelligence-gathering to training civilians in guerrilla tactics, here’s what the U.S. and NATO might do to push back against the Russian invasion while avoiding escalation.
Biden has already declared that neither U.S. nor NATO military forces will be deployed to the conflict sparked by Russian forces pouring across Ukraine’s borders. The dangers of escalation are simply too great, especially given the threats that volatile Russian President Vladimir Putin has made regarding the use of nuclear weapons. Direct involvement, the thinking goes, is just too risky.
But that doesn’t mean the U.S. won’t be indirectly involved. From gathering intelligence on the ground to training potential civilian partisans in guerrilla warfare, it’s extremely likely the U.S. and NATO will seek to influence events on the battlefield. Here’s how that might work.
According to former U.S. Army Ranger Tom Amenta, there are advantages to having on-site, operational intelligence gathering in Ukraine that can’t be equaled by remote technologies like satellite imagery or radio signal interceptions.
A Ukrainian serviceman gives a thumb up before an attack in Lugansk region on Feb. 26, 2022, the day Russia ordered its troops to advance in Ukraine “from all directions.”
“The value of boots on the ground [in intelligence] is that you get a ‘finger tip feel’ of what is going on,” said Amenta, co-author of the book The Twenty-Year War, in an interview with The Daily Beast. Such intel gives U.S. military observers “a feel of the people and of the battle space and allows for the ability to gauge the situation, almost in real time, and see what is going on with the Russians and Ukrainians to assist commanders in planning.”
Amenta’s co-author, Dan Blakely, another former Ranger, agreed that having local operators for sourcing information would be invaluable in the Ukraine conflict.
“Not only do you get the real-time HUMINT (human intelligence) of what the Russians are doing, but you can have a real pulse of the continued capabilities of the Ukraine military [and] learn the weaknesses and capabilities of our enemies,” including “what weapons, vehicles, aircraft, tactics, and troop units they are using.”
Blakely added that such intel was vital for developing “future strategic plans should the U.S. and NATO allies get involved.”
When it comes to gathering HUMINT, one option for elite U.S. forces is the use of Special Operation Groups (SOGs). Amenta described the typical SOG as a small, covert, reconnaissance task force, often made up of intelligence agents from the NSA or CIA, paired with Special Forces soldiers like Green Berets or Delta Force commandos. In order to avoid detection, the SOGs are able to work undercover within local populations.
“They’ve essentially mobilized the entire nation.”
“These men and women are extremely skilled in blending into environments, gathering intelligence and also being able to work with and help guide [and] assist local military forces,” Amenta said.
Because secrecy is of paramount importance, SOGs working in Ukraine would likely be limited to just a few officers in each unit. But Amenta framed it as an issue of quality over quantity, saying that the “training, raw intelligence, and ability to rapidly ideate and think strategically is what wins the day here.”
But not everyone is in favor of using SOGs in Ukraine.
Dr. Robert J. Bunker, the research director at the security consultancy ℅ Futures LLC, said the risk that an SOG team or a NATO equivalent could be killed or captured, and linked back to their countries of origin, means that the risk far outweighs the reward.
Putting U.S. intelligence gatherers on the ground in any capacity is just not a “viable option,” Bunker said. “In my opinion it is too escalatory given the fact that both the Putin regime and the U.S. are nuclear armed powers… We simply do not want NATO or U.S. forces and Russian forces getting into direct contact with one another.”
Lieutenant Colonel (retired) Hal Kempfer, who served as a U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence Officer, said that it’s “very possible” that the U.S. has spies on the ground in Ukraine. But Kempfer also said a safer option to avoid escalation would be to utilize Ukrainian nationals to gather vital HUMINT information and pass it on to their counterparts in the U.S. and NATO.
Ukrainian soldiers look out from a broken window inside a military facility, after an explosion in Kyiv, Ukraine, Feb. 26, 2022.
Emilio Morenatti
“We don’t really need to have [U.S. or NATO spies on the ground] because we can deal directly with Ukraine forces, many of whom we’ve trained, and trained to a standard where they can provide tremendous intelligence capability,” Kempfer said.
“They’ve essentially mobilized the entire nation. You have federal law enforcement [mobilized]. They’re really good at observing and reporting. And good at avoiding detection while they do that. So a lot of them might be wearing civilian clothes and collecting intelligence,” he added.
Even if U.S. special forces did not enter Ukrainian territory, that does not mean they won’t be playing a vital role. One of their most important functions might well be training Ukrainian soldiers or ordinary citizens in the tactics of guerrilla warfare they would need to resist the occupation of their homeland. Just such tactics were employed by Mujahideen fighters during the Soviet-Afghan war of the late 20th century—tactics that eventually forced the Soviets to withdraw.
On Friday, the BBC reported that at least 18,000 assault rifles had been handed out to the citizens of Kyiv, and the international community is rife with speculation that the conflict could devolve into a prolonged anti-Russian insurgency.
That’s partly because Ukraine is almost the size of Texas, with a population of about 43 million people. About 70 percent of the population is concentrated in urban areas, meaning that: “We could be looking at house-to-house fighting in which tens of thousands of armed defenders face the invading forces,” said research director Bunker.
In the event that the major cities were pacified by the Russian forces, an occupation phase would then begin during which “Ukrainian civilians and the relatives of the insurgent fighters” would be targeted, Bunker said. “Along with the brutality of such an occupation this would begin to strain the Russian economy to logistically support the deployed force.”
Former Ranger Amenta agreed with Bunker that Russian forces could get bogged down in a potential quagmire. “Once you take the territory you are no longer the aggressor. [Then] you are in static positions that restrict your freedom of movement, and you’re an easier target,” Amenta said. “And 200,000 Russian soldiers against 43 million people who don’t like you—that’s a really hard thing to accomplish.”
In the event of a prolonged insurgency that might turn into a war of attrition, the U.S. and NATO would likely see it in their own interests to provide training and munitions to partisan fighters, in similar fashion to what the U.S. did in Europe during the Nazi occupation.
“It’s all fun and games until someone throws a nuke.”
When asked, a senior U.S. defense official told The Daily Beast that the U.S. would not rule out training Ukrainians. “We’re going to continue to look for ways to support the Ukrainian armed forces, and to help them defend their country,” they said.
Former Marine Colonel Kempfer, who cited similar efforts conducted by the U.S. in Iraq and Afghanistan, described training host-nation personnel as “a traditional Army Special Forces mission.” Amenta agreed, calling such training the Special Forces’ “bread and butter.”
“They’d be teaching [Ukrainian partisans] how to use things like Stinger anti-air missiles and javelin anti-tank weapons to slow down Russian tanks and helicopters. They’ll also teach ambush and guerrilla warfare techniques, especially things that can destabilize or slow down the Russian movement, and, if they were attempting to hold territory, to make it very difficult for them to keep it.”
One major question might be where would such training take place. If U.S. forces are barred from entering an occupied Ukraine, nearby NATO allies like Poland and Romania would seem like potential candidates. American troops arrived in both of those nations this week to help them defend against potential Russian incursions, meaning that the personnel needed for setting up guerrilla warfare schools may already be in place.
A Ukrainian soldier smokes a cigarette outside Kharkiv, Ukraine, Feb. 26, 2022.
AP Photo/Andrew Marienko
The trouble with basing training camps in NATO countries, said Kempfer, is that the Kremlin might see that as aggressive interference within its sphere of influence.
“If you train partisans in Romania or Poland and then they return to Ukraine [to engage Russian forces]—how would Putin view that? You have to look at the political volatility of that.”
Kempfer also pointed to Putin's KGB background and his penchant for being ruthlessly vindictive against any perceived threat.
“This is someone who used a nerve agent to assassinate dissidents on British soil… My concern would be that if we brought [the partisans] to a NATO country Putin could take some sort of overt military action against that NATO country and that would cause a massive escalation. The other concern is that he would use covert means against that country to destabilize the situation in and around where we’re doing the training. That’s very much in his kit bag.”
Kempfer said that one solution might be the use of virtual or online training. “From an operational risk perspective, that’s the safest thing we can do,” he said.
Kempfer also discussed the possibility that many members of the Ukrainian diaspora in the U.S. and Western Europe might see themselves as beholden to return to their homeland to take up arms.
“I fully believe that’s going to happen,” Kempfer said, and also mentioned that such an influx of voluntary foreign fighters could provoke Putin into unfairly claiming deliberate interference by the U.S. or NATO.
“There’s reality and then there’s whatever Russia wants to say,” Kempfer said. “It’s all fun and games until someone throws a nuke.”
There is a lot of talk in the West about Russian President Vladimir Putin being mentally unhinged. How could he not have known that his invasion of Ukraine would have serious consequences for his country? Or is he so obsessed with maintaining an image of greatness—especially ahead of Russia’s upcoming 2024 presidential elections—that he doesn’t care?
Either way, Putin risks losing the confidence of his people, whose economic suffering will increase as the conflict continues.
Desperate Russians Race to Withdraw Cash as Sanctions Send Currency Into Free-FallPerhaps the question of Putin’s sanity is beside the point, because there is little the West can do about it. Although both Hitler and Stalin were crazy by any psychiatric standard, they were still able to inflict horrific damage and death on millions of people. But Hitler did not have nuclear weapons, and Stalin’s hydrogen bomb was still being tested when he died. Putin’s nuclear arsenal, on the other hand, could destroy parts of the West in minutes.
In a nationally televised address last Thursday, Putin offered a menacing warning of Russia’s nuclear capability: “No matter who tries to stand in our way or all the more so create threats for our country and our people, they must know that Russia will respond immediately, and the consequences will be such as you have never seen in your entire history.” On Sunday, Putin went even further by announcing that Russia’s nuclear forces have been put on high alert, an order that NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg called “dangerous rhetoric” and “irresponsible behavior,” which “adds to the seriousness of the situation.”
The more casualties Russia suffers, the more unpopular the war in Ukraine will become back home.
The only other time that the Kremlin’s nuclear threat reached this height was during the Cuban missile crisis in 1962. But Khrushchev—though volatile and impulsive—was apparently a rational actor, not consumed by the historical grudges and the need to show off his masculine credentials that seem to obsess Putin. Khrushchev also had to consider the views of fellow Politburo members. Although Putin purports to consult with advisers, he seems to make key decisions on his own. Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu and Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Military Valery Gerasimov looked uncomfortable as they sat with Putin when he made Sunday’s announcement, but if they had reservations, they were ignored.
If Putin is indeed so detached from reality in the pursuit of his reckless confrontation with the West, what are his motivations?
First of all, like any dictator, Putin does not feel confident of his hold on power. He knows that he was not democratically elected to the presidency in 2018, or even in 2012, because serious contenders were barred from participating. Using his powerful security services, Putin has suppressed the media and arrested democratic oppositionists, including Alexei Navalny, who has been in jail for over a year after being poisoned. Ultimately, the Russian leader cannot be sure what his people really think of him.
Putin’s approval ratings were around 65 percent at the end of 2021, which may seem impressive by Western standards, but Russians are conditioned to say they approve of their leader when there is no alternative. Adding to that, as Putin knows, the continued decline in incomes and living standards is a potential trigger for serious dissatisfaction with his leadership.
Because of this insecurity, Putin hates having democratic states on his country’s border, especially Ukraine. He doesn’t want his people to get ideas. All Putin’s talk about the West destroying Russian values and NATO threatening Russia with nuclear weapons camouflages his intense fear of democratic aspirations in his own country.
Putin admitted as much on Thursday: “Of course, the question is not about NATO itself. It merely serves as a tool of U.S. foreign policy. The problem is that in territories adjacent to Russia, which I have to note is our historical land, a hostile ‘anti-Russia’ is taking shape.” And later: “Russia cannot feel safe, develop, and exist while facing a permanent threat from the territory of today’s Ukraine.”
Putin is all the more alarmed about NATO support for states along Russia’s border because of his growing concerns over how much longer he is going to stay in power. Although the Russian presidential election is two years away, there is reportedly considerable disquiet in the Kremlin about what will happen in 2024. Putin himself said last October that he would not say what his plans are because “it would make the [political] situation unstable.”
Protesters in cities across Russia have come out to show the Kremlin how little respect they have for this war.
Leadership succession in countries where the autocratic leader and his cronies have amassed great wealth at the expense of their people, as in Russia’s case, is fraught with danger. Once out of power, they could be called to account by the new government, and ensuring that a designated successor will protect their interests can be problematic, especially if members of the elite know one another’s secrets and there is infighting. Accusations of corruption are potent political weapons in Russia.
Putin needs to be in a strong position, with high support from Russians, when he decides what happens in 2024. Either he runs again or his loyal, hand-picked successor does, and he can retire happily to his sumptuous palace in Gelendzhik. He is staking his claim on Russia’s future by invading Ukraine and demonstrating to his patriotic citizenry that he can stand up to NATO.
Putin may have been inspired by memories of the Chechen war, which catapulted him to the presidency in 2000. He was a virtual unknown when Yeltsin appointed him prime minister—and his designated successor—in August 1999. As with Ukraine today, Putin used a false flag as an excuse to invade Chechnya, claiming that Chechen terrorists were responsible for September 1999 bombings in Russia. As a result of his determined pursuit of the ruthless Chechen war, Putin’s approval ratings skyrocketed.
Significantly, in Thursday’s address, Putin mentioned this war and brought up the old, false accusation that the West had actively supported the terrorists there. Putin’s goal in Ukraine is the same as it was in Chechnya—installing a Kremlin-sponsored regime to take the place of one that won’t march to Moscow’s tune. He also hopes that his bold aggression will bring him the affirmation at home that he got with the Chechen war.
But all is not going according to Putin’s plan, with Ukrainian resistance stronger than expected and Western sanctions crippling. This is probably why Putin resorted to the insanity of his nuclear threat.
If Putin seems both narcissistic and deranged to the West, his own people may be getting the same impression, especially now that he has started talking about using nukes. And feelings of patriotism can only go so far when pocketbooks are empty. As political commentator Anton Orekh noted: “The effect of the current patriotic enthusiasm will be even shorter than after the Crimea. The economic situation is getting worse, so after some time even a victory over the Kyiv junta and the Anglo-Saxons will arouse people less than prices in stores and half-empty shelves.”
Unlike those who lived under Stalin and Hitler, Russian people today do not face death if they protest on the street, though they can be thrown into jail, as we have seen with the thousands of arrests in the past few days. Nor would Putin’s subordinates be shot if they refused to go along with Putin’s further acts of aggression. So, hopefully, Russians themselves will take action and stop their leader before “the consequences we have never seen in our entire history” are allowed to occur.
No comments:
Post a Comment