“The partnership does not make NATO a direct player in the Indo-Pacific but allows it to coordinate with the four partners on issues of mutual concern, said Mirna Galic, senior policy analyst on China and East Asia at the U.S. Institute of Peace. For example, she wrote in an analysis, they can share information and align on actions such as sanctions and aid delivery but do not intervene in military crises outside of their own regions.
The NATO summit will allow the United States and its European and Indo-Pacific allies to push back against China, Russia, North Korea and Iran, according to Luis Simon, director of the Centre for Security Diplomacy and Strategy at Vrije Universiteit Brussel.”
“there is a third possible way to satisfy the need for Ukrainian success and Russian failure, over which Putin would have no veto.
In this scenario, the United States would give the Ukrainian military whatever it needs to advance as far as possible in its counteroffensive. At an appropriate point next year, Ukraine would declare a pause in offensive military operations and shift its primary focus to defending and rebuilding liberated areas while integrating with Western institutions. Then, at its July, 2024 summit in Washington, NATO would invite Ukraine to join the Western alliance, guaranteeing the security of all territory controlled by the Ukrainian government at that point under Article 5 of the NATO treaty.”
“On July 7, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan agreed to “ensure ratification” of Sweden’s application to join NATO in Turkey’s parliament, according to NATO Chief Jens Stoltenberg.
This deal comes amid additional reports of acquiescence to Turkish demands, including Swedish support for the country’s European Union (E.U.) accession process and the U.S. working to provide Turkey with $20 billion worth of F-16s and 79 modernization kits for existing aircraft.
Joining NATO requires each of its 30 member states to vote in favor of Sweden’s accession, allowing Turkey to hold the process hostage.
“Turkey has a weak hand to play in all of this, but they’ve tried to play it to the point where they can extract the most out of this situation,” says James Ryan, director of research and Middle East programs at the Foreign Policy Research Institute. “I really think there’s an understanding between Biden and Erdogan that it’s a quid pro quo, and probably the Swedish accession will go through and the sale will go through shortly thereafter.”
Since confirming their intention to join NATO over a year ago, Sweden has had to conform to Turkey’s complaints—which include claims that Sweden harbors member of the Kurdistan Worker’s Party (PKK), issues with anti-Islam protests in Sweden, and the lack of arms exports—to gain its support for joining the alliance.
To accommodate these concerns, Sweden has passed a new stricter anti-terror law, extradited a supporter of the PKK, and reversed a ban on exporting military equipment to Turkey. “Sweden has amended its constitution, changed its laws, significantly expanded its counterterrorism cooperation against the PKK, and resumed arms exports to [Turkey],” said Stoltenberg in a press release.”
“Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine has prompted the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation to restore its own military capabilities to Cold War-era levels, as well as to reconsider its approach to deterrence on its eastern borders.
Source: The New York Times
Details: As The New York Times wrote, NATO is rapidly moving from what the military calls deterrence by retaliation to deterrence by denial.
Previously, in the event of a Russian invasion, member states had to hold out until allied forces, mainly the US, came to their aid and retaliated to push the Russians back.
But after the Russian atrocities in areas it occupied in Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic countries no longer want to risk any period of Russian occupation. As in the first days of the Ukrainian invasion, Russian troops took land larger than some Baltic nations.
“Deterrence by denial” means, on the contrary, the permanent location of allied troops near the border with the Russian Federation, more integration of American and allied war plans, more military spending and more detailed requirements for allies to have specific kinds of forces and equipment to fight, if necessary, in pre-assigned places.”