During the 2024 Summit of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in Washington DC, the alliance announced the establishment of a liaison office in Jordan’s capital Amman.

NATO, considered by many to be a tool to assert and consolidate US military dominance across the world, stated that the Amman office will be its first-ever liaison office in the so-called “Middle East and North Africa” region. The announcement comes as Israel’s genocidal war in Gaza, backed and enabled by the US and NATO allies, completes nine months. […]

Dr. Issam Khawaja: The establishment of a NATO liaison office is not the first step for Jordan to build or consolidate the relations with the Western alliance in general and the United States, in particular. Jordan had already made its decision to be part of this alliance that seeks to maintain its strategic interests in the region, above all the security of the Israeli occupation entity. This step was preceded by signing the Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty (also known as Wadi Araba Treaty) and the Defense Cooperation Agreement which the United States and Jordan signed on January 31, 2021, and entered into force on March 17, 2021, without the approval of the Jordanian parliament.

The agreement authorizes US troops, aircrafts and vehicles to have unimpeded access and use of agreed areas and facilities in Jordan. It also authorizes the US to control the entry to agreed upon facilities and areas that have been provided for exclusive use by US forces, in a way that may undermine Jordan’s sovereignty. Moreover, the United States moved many military bases and weaponry warehouses from Qatar to Jordan in the last couple of years. This means that Jordan is becoming a hub for the United States military presence in the region. Läs artikel

[…] The genesis for Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand to participate in the NATO summit meetings for the third consecutive year in the row is of course a direct result of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, rather than deep-rooted concerns about the China challenge. Since the war in Ukraine, all four countries have stood together with NATO in their opposition against Russian aggression and have made sizable contributions in defense of Ukraine. Each of the IP4 countries have also signed Individually Tailored Partnership Programs (ITPP) with NATO to identify areas of mutual bilateral interest for potential cooperation. For Japan, which has developed strong working relations with NATO since the early 1990s, shared future interests include maritime security as well as cyber defense. At the same time, Tokyo has committed nearly $12 billion in financial assistance to Ukraine’s war effort and has also adapted its export control legislation to provide support. For South Korea, areas for cooperation with NATO focus on arms control, non-proliferation, and counter-terrorism as well as cyber defense with an eye towards addressing the threat posed by the DPRK. […]

In short, the IP4 nations have been critical partners in collective efforts to support Ukraine, and are united in their commitment to push back against Russian aggression. Moreover, as NATO publicly declared that China is “a decisive enabler of Russia’s war against Ukraine,” the alliance has made clear that Beijing’s actions threaten not only the Indo-Pacific, but global order more broadly. But whilst the Indo-Pacific’s security risks are no longer seen as being contained within the region, just how and whether NATO has the capability or indeed the political will to press ahead with decisive actions.

Certainly, NATO’s own mandate not only prevents the alliance from engaging in the Indo-Pacific, but Article 6 states that an attack on land, forces, vessels, or aircraft north of the Tropic of Cancer would trigger collective defensive action. That means not even Hawaii comes under the auspices of protection from Article 5, even though it is a US state. Meanwhile, there is opposition amongst NATO member countries to take on a decisive political stance against China as seen by France’s opposition to the establishment of a liaison office in Tokyo last year even though such a move could have been an effective deterrence mechanism against Beijing taking hostile actions in the region.  Läs artikel

[…] During the 1990s Sweden sporadically employed road-based operations but in the 2010s they came back into vogue, and today once again serve as a routine element of air force training. The operations have evolved to take advantage of advances in communications technology, and today permit a very fluid form of warfare that is difficult to detect and disrupt.

That fluidity is the key to survivability. “If you operate from anywhere for long enough, a bomb will eventually find you,” said Adam Nelson, chief of the Swedish air force’s F7 wing at Såtenäs. “You have to keep on the move.”

Each “base” consists of numerous highway strips of a nominal 800-meter length and 17-meter width (around 2,624 feet by 56 feet). The strips serve as everyday roads but with some treatment to the surface applied to prevent them breaking up and causing foreign object damage. Discreet hard standings have emerged alongside the roads in the general vicinity, not only to provide parking stands for aircraft but to accommodate trucks and fuel bowsers when not required for combat.

Everything is kept small to minimize detectability and enhance survivability. A single strip might only be activated for a short time, the support personnel retreating to the safety of the woods some way away when they are not needed. Local police shut down the highway for only as long as required. Typically a Swedish Gripen will stay on the ground for around 15 minutes between sorties—time for it to be serviced, refueled, and rearmed by a team of just three trained conscripts and one full-timer. Läs artikel

The 2024 Washington Summit neatly laid bare NATO’s problem: it has forgotten its purpose and lost sight of its central mission. NATO’s 1978 Washington Summit was held in a similarly fraught geopolitical era in which the Soviet threat loomed larger than ever. The 1978 communiqué reiterated the two aims of the alliance—to maintain security and pursue détente. Détente as a concept was not as emotionally charged as it is today. Rationality reigned. Even so, this was not a nod to “appeasement” or weakness—even in 1978, the alliance reiterated the significance of maintaining “vigilance” and keeping “defences at the level rendered necessary.” […]

NATO’s 2024 Washington Summit was performative and miles away from the summits of decades ago. External threats are listed, like a shopping list, from China to Russia to Iran. Missing is the alliance’s plan to compete and secure itself. Nor is there an articulation of what the “rules-based international order” actually is and how it is a “vital” interest.

If NATO had not already signaled its unseriousness, the deeper fostering of Asia at the 2024 Summit surely did. If NATO’s strategic aim today is to “modernise NATO for a new era of collective defence,” then by the basic definition of the Washington Treaty, this does not include states like Australia or New Zealand. Both are well south of the Tropic of Cancer—the limits of NATO’s geographical zoning for collective defense. Läs artikel

NATO’s secretary general has rejected Poland’s proposal that it could shoot down Russian missiles that are over Ukraine but heading towards Polish territory. This would risk NATO “becoming part of the conflict”, says Jens Stoltenberg.

The idea was included last week in a security agreement between Poland and Ukraine signed by Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in Warsaw.

The two countries pledged to bilaterally and with other allies “examine the rationale and feasibility of possible intercepting in Ukraine’s airspace missiles and UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles] fired in the direction of the territory of Poland”. […]

Tusk emphasised that such a policy would only be introduced with “the stamp of approval of the international community, preferably NATO”. However, when asked about the idea by Ukrainian media outlets on Sunday, Stoltenberg responded negatively.

“NATO’s policy is unchanged: we will not be involved in this conflict. We will not become part of the conflict,” he said. “We support Ukraine in the destruction of Russian aircraft, but NATO will not be directly involved.” Läs artikel

Mycket tidigt denna morgon bär det nu tillbaka till Europa efter tre dagar i ett Indien i mycket snabb och imponerande utveckling.

Ambitionen är det inget fel på. Man talar ständigt om att gå från världens femte största ekonomi i dag till dess tredje största om ett par decenniet, och lyckas man hålla nuvarande tillväxt är det en fullt realistisk ambition. […]

Nato-toppmötet i Washington avlöpte utan nämnvärda överraskningar. Men två formuleringar i den avslutande kommunikén avvek lite från det normala.

En var att man sade att Kina var en ”decisive enabler” av den ryska aggressionen mot Ukraina.

Det kan sägas, men det skall då samtidigt noteras att medan det förvisso är den ryska exporten av olja som håller upp den ryska ekonomin och därmed finansierar kriget går kring 80% av denna till Kina och Indien med liten skillnad mellan de två.

Den indiska importen av olja från Ryssland har mer än tiodubblats sedan kriget inleddes.

Och ser man på de nytillverkade kryssningsrobotar som anfaller Ukraina visar det sig att nyckelkomponemterna fortfarande till större delen kommer från USA. Dessas vägar in i Ryssland har dock sannolikt varit komplicerade. Läs artikel

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s joint declaration issued Wednesday in Washington signaled a change from the Western military alliance’s traditional focus on Russia with its rare open rebuke of China, calling it a “decisive enabler” of Russia’s war in Ukraine.

The rhetoric comes at a time when NATO declared its bid to bolster cooperation with its so-called “Indo-Pacific 4” partners — namely South Korea, Japan, Australia and New Zealand — in their latest summit, inviting these four countries’ heads of state to the summit for a third consecutive year and institutionalizing its cooperation with these countries to support Ukraine. NATO and its Indo-Pacific partners also collected their voices against military ties between Russia and North Korea.

But there are doubts whether NATO’s like-minded Indo-Pacific partner countries neighboring China, like South Korea, could keep pace with NATO’s pressure campaign against China given the geopolitical complexities that often left them mired in strategic dilemmas between the world’s two superpowers of the United States and China.

Experts caution that South Korea could face increasing pressure from China, given its trade dependence on the Asian superpower, which accounts for roughly 20 percent of its total exports. This pressure is particularly concerning as Seoul seeks to mend relations with Beijing, strained since 2016. South Korea’s decision to allow the deployment of the US anti-missile system, Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, damaged bilateral ties, with China imposing economic coercion on Korean businesses. This made it also challenging for Seoul to manage Pyongyang with its previous strategy of boasting strengthened ties with Beijing. Läs artikel

[…] The real absurdity of the present NATO summit in Washington, however, is that a strategy aimed at Russia, which according to Kennan would guarantee direct military confrontation and increase the risk of world war dramatically, is now being globalized and turned against China. NATO is to become a global power formally, and, at least from Beijing’s perspective, aims to advance on China. For the time being, NATO will operate on the basis of bilateral treaties in the Pacific, but the goal appears to be an expansion of the military pact throughout the region, so that it will exist as a “North Atlantic” alliance in name alone. […]

A sane foreign policy is imperative now, perhaps more than ever; even a return to a Kennedy or a Kennan would be an improvement. One thing is quite clear: through their strategy of escalation and expansion, the US and NATO are forcing an increasing number of states together as an opposition, in a development stemming from a reversal of American policy dating from the 1970s, which had recognized Beijing’s own security interests. Arresting the escalating global confrontation requires at the very least an immediate end to the war in Ukraine, a freeze on NATO expansion, and finally negotiations among the major powers to guarantee the security of all parties.Läs artikel

The Ukrainian government continues negotiations with Sweden about the prospects of the Ukrainian Air Force eventually receiving the Gripen, a multirole fighter awaited since 2023.[…]

Ukraine remains interested in acquiring Swedish JAS 39 Gripen 4+ generation multirole fighters, as reiterated by Ihor Zhovkva, the Deputy Head of the Ukrainian President’s Office. This statement comes despite recent claims from the Swedish side that the transfer of these fighters had been paused at Ukraine’s request. […]

That said, regardless of which side decided to pause the transfer of Gripen, the important part is that Kyiv and Stockholm remain in discussions on this matter, with both sides expressing readiness to advance this plan. Given Ukraine’s stated need for 128 fighter jets to reach minimum parity with russia, it is clear that F-16s alone will not suffice. Läs artikel

[…] Alarmingly, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has described Nato as playing a “bridge” between the Euro-Atlantic and the Indo-Pacific theatres.

That’s the new mandate Washington has handed to Nato. But why? The US already has more naval power in the Pacific than anywhere else. Well, Nato and a handful of Asian allies will help save appearance and legitimise plain old American neo-imperialism.

That’s why Western pundits and politicians are claiming Vladimir Putin has set his sights on Nato countries like Poland and beyond, while China wants to take over the Indo-Pacific.

When there is no demand for your service, you have to create it; hence Nato’s constant threat inflation and threat creation. But has it crossed Blinken’s mind that most of Asia, including the Indian subcontinent, don’t want Nato militarism to infect their parts of the world like the plague? Läs artikel

[…] And in terms of Russian sabotage attacks?

There are reports that Sweden has also been mentioned in these plannings. We have confirmed that we have seen it. No activities have been conducted. But we are well aware that Sweden is a potential target for that kind of sabotage activity.

Could something like that rise to the level of invoking Article 5 of the NATO treaty, asking allies to come to your defense?

Could something like that rise to the level of invoking Article 5 of the NATO treaty, asking allies to come to your defense?

I don’t think anybody knows yet. There are interesting discussions going on. Article 5 was created for a situation where you really know it: Now it’s war, now it’s not war. I think this is an ongoing discussion in NATO right now: How to handle these grey zones between real peace and real conflict.

You have no clear understanding of where to draw that line?

I don’t think any country really has that any longer.[…]

Like China.

Yes, China. We need to realize the global security situation is much broader today. You simply can’t say the Pacific does not concern us [in Europe]. For reasons of principles, and for U.S. reasons, Europe needs to be more committed to the Pacific. That’s at least been my preaching. Läs intervjun