International [NATO News] Putin: lifting Ukraine missile restrictions would "put NATO at war with Russia"

Sweden should hike military budget to 2.6% of GDP, defence committee says

By Reuters | April 26, 2024

6HSQUY5V7ZO2HB4TRBAJISPHZE.jpg


STOCKHOLM, April 26 (Reuters) - Sweden should raise its military spending to around 2.6% of GDP by 2030, a parliamentary committee said in a report on Friday, as the country rebuilds its defence capabilities after joining NATO in March.

Russia's invasion of Ukraine has forced a rethink of security policy in Sweden. The Nordic country's defence spending has roughly doubled since 2020 to around 120 billion crowns ($11 billion) in 2024, when the government says it will meet NATO's target of a military budget equivalent to 2% of gross domestic product (GDP).

The committee proposed speeding up an expansion of the army, investment in defence against air attack, and an expansion of the navy. It said conscription should be increased to 12,000 recruits from 2032 and there should also be more money for civil defence.

"If you put all these ... together with the plans the military has put forward, we are going to add around 200 billion (crowns) ($18.5 billion) during this period," Hans Wallmark, defence spokesperson for the Moderate Party and one of the authors of the report, told a press conference.

The committee is made up of representatives of all the parties in Sweden's parliament and, as such, many of its recommendations are very likely to be adopted.

There was no agreement on how to finance the additional spending, however.

Like most Western states, Sweden gradually scaled down its defence spending after the end of the Cold War three decades ago but started to ramp that up again from around 1% of GDP following Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014.

Most other NATO members have also reversed course, after years during which spending did not meet NATO's 2% target, causing irritation in the United States, the alliance's de facto leader.

During his term in office President Donald Trump frequently complained that the United States was paying more than its fair share.

His suggestion in February that he would not protect countries that fail to meet the alliance's defense spending targets, and would even encourage Russia to attack them, caused consternation in Europe.

Of NATO's 32 members, Poland spends the highest percentage of GDP on defence at about 3.9%. Britain said on Tuesday it would hike military spending.

 

Donald Trump has saved NATO – and the West

Alliance members are increasing defence spending precisely because they fear he will pull out
By Richard Kemp | 27 April 2024


It may sound counter-intuitive, but Donald Trump has probably done more to strengthen Nato than any other political leader in recent years. While he was president, he berated European members of the alliance for failing to pay what he called their “dues”, accusing them of freeloading on the US.

Earlier this year, he seemed to go even further by suggesting at an election rally, not only that he would not bring America to the defence of “delinquent” Nato members, but would encourage Russia to attack them. Cue a predictable international outcry, led by Nato secretary-general Jens Stoltenberg, who accused him of undermining “all of our security”. Joe Biden, of course, waded in, saying Trump’s remarks were “appalling and dangerous” and would give Putin “a green light for more war and violence”.

Both of them were wrong. Anyone who has the slightest understanding of Trump’s negotiating techniques knows that he is unlikely to have meant what he said literally; it was a rhetorical device to emphasise his entirely valid point about recalcitrant Nato members. As for a green light, it was Biden who flashed that at Putin with his disastrous retreat from Kabul in 2021, which can only have contributed to Moscow’s calculations on invading Ukraine the following year.

Trump’s presidency was in fact a red light against Putin’s aggression, largely because of his unpredictable nature. And that same unpredictability has now rattled many Nato leaders into recognising that they need to step up their defence efforts for fear that he might abandon Nato in a second term.

Poland, now with the largest defence spending by percentage of GDP in the whole of the alliance, has bolstered its military out of fear of Russian invasion. But do we really think that the likes of Germany would finally have started to get their act together without genuine concern over a second Trump presidency? It doesn’t seem to have been Putin’s invasion that spurred them into action. We’ve had two years of heel-dragging and inadequate military support to Kyiv on the part of France and Germany. Britain, meanwhile, has been inexplicably continuing to reduce the size of its Armed Forces.

But not any longer. And Rishi Sunak even implicitly linked his announcement of a significant boost in defence spending to Trump, when he said: “We can’t keep thinking America will pay any price or bear any burden if we are unwilling to make sacrifices for our own security”. Sunak’s long overdue uplift was not only intended to bring Britain’s defences closer to where they need to be, but also to encourage other Nato members to match our future spending of 2.5 per cent of GDP in anticipation of a potential Trump victory in November.

UK ministers are reportedly pushing actively for that ahead of the Nato summit in Washington this summer. Even 2.5 per cent will not be enough to meet Nato’s new capability targets, but at least it is a start. Eighteen Nato members will meet the current 2 per cent target this year, a significant rise compared to the start of Trump’s first presidency.

Remembering Trump’s mercurial character, it is of course possible that as president he might actually pull the US out of Nato, though that would require Congressional approval. His then National Security Adviser, John Bolton, said he came close to doing so back in 2018. But even if that does happen, Trump-driven increased spending in Europe will have already made the world a safer place. Combined with greater military capability, the political will demonstrated by making hard choices on defence expenditure in a tough economic climate will act as the most effective deterrent against aggression.

 

Donald Trump has saved NATO – and the West

Alliance members are increasing defence spending precisely because they fear he will pull out
By Richard Kemp | 27 April 2024


It may sound counter-intuitive, but Donald Trump has probably done more to strengthen Nato than any other political leader in recent years. While he was president, he berated European members of the alliance for failing to pay what he called their “dues”, accusing them of freeloading on the US.

Earlier this year, he seemed to go even further by suggesting at an election rally, not only that he would not bring America to the defence of “delinquent” Nato members, but would encourage Russia to attack them. Cue a predictable international outcry, led by Nato secretary-general Jens Stoltenberg, who accused him of undermining “all of our security”. Joe Biden, of course, waded in, saying Trump’s remarks were “appalling and dangerous” and would give Putin “a green light for more war and violence”.

Both of them were wrong. Anyone who has the slightest understanding of Trump’s negotiating techniques knows that he is unlikely to have meant what he said literally; it was a rhetorical device to emphasise his entirely valid point about recalcitrant Nato members. As for a green light, it was Biden who flashed that at Putin with his disastrous retreat from Kabul in 2021, which can only have contributed to Moscow’s calculations on invading Ukraine the following year.

Trump’s presidency was in fact a red light against Putin’s aggression, largely because of his unpredictable nature. And that same unpredictability has now rattled many Nato leaders into recognising that they need to step up their defence efforts for fear that he might abandon Nato in a second term.

Poland, now with the largest defence spending by percentage of GDP in the whole of the alliance, has bolstered its military out of fear of Russian invasion. But do we really think that the likes of Germany would finally have started to get their act together without genuine concern over a second Trump presidency? It doesn’t seem to have been Putin’s invasion that spurred them into action. We’ve had two years of heel-dragging and inadequate military support to Kyiv on the part of France and Germany. Britain, meanwhile, has been inexplicably continuing to reduce the size of its Armed Forces.

But not any longer. And Rishi Sunak even implicitly linked his announcement of a significant boost in defence spending to Trump, when he said: “We can’t keep thinking America will pay any price or bear any burden if we are unwilling to make sacrifices for our own security”. Sunak’s long overdue uplift was not only intended to bring Britain’s defences closer to where they need to be, but also to encourage other Nato members to match our future spending of 2.5 per cent of GDP in anticipation of a potential Trump victory in November.

UK ministers are reportedly pushing actively for that ahead of the Nato summit in Washington this summer. Even 2.5 per cent will not be enough to meet Nato’s new capability targets, but at least it is a start. Eighteen Nato members will meet the current 2 per cent target this year, a significant rise compared to the start of Trump’s first presidency.

Remembering Trump’s mercurial character, it is of course possible that as president he might actually pull the US out of Nato, though that would require Congressional approval. His then National Security Adviser, John Bolton, said he came close to doing so back in 2018. But even if that does happen, Trump-driven increased spending in Europe will have already made the world a safer place. Combined with greater military capability, the political will demonstrated by making hard choices on defence expenditure in a tough economic climate will act as the most effective deterrent against aggression.

- In the end Trump saved the world!
 

Putin: lifting Ukraine missile restrictions would put Nato ‘at war’ with Russia

By Luke Harding in Kyiv and agencies | Thu 12 Sep 2024



Vladimir Putin has said that a western move to let Kyiv use longer-range weapons against targets inside Russia would mean Nato would be “at war” with Moscow.

Putin spoke as US and UK top diplomats discussed easing rules on firing western weapons into Russia, which Kyiv has been pressing for, more than two and a half years into Moscow’s offensive.

“This would in a significant way change the very nature of the conflict,” Putin told a state television reporter.

“It would mean that Nato countries, the US, European countries, are at war with Russia,” he added. “If that’s the case, then taking into account the change of nature of the conflict, we will take the appropriate decisions based on the threats that we will face.”

Clearing Kyiv to strike deep into Russia “is a decision on whether Nato countries are directly involved in the military conflict or not”.

Putin’s comments came a day after the US secretary of state, Antony Blinken, gave his strongest hint yet that the White House is about to lift its restrictions on Ukraine using long-range weapons supplied by the west on key military targets inside Russia.

Speaking in Kyiv alongside the UK foreign secretary, David Lammy, Blinken said the US had “from day one” been willing to adapt its policy as the situation on the battlefield in Ukraine changed. “We will continue to do this,” he emphasised.

Blinken said he and Lammy would report back to their “bosses” – Joe Biden and Keir Starmer – after their talks on Wednesday with the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy.

The foreign secretary suggested that Iran’s dispatch of ballistic missiles to Moscow – revealed this week – had changed strategic thinking in London and Washington. It was a “significant and dangerous escalation”, he said.

He added: “The escalator here is Putin. Putin has escalated with the shipment of missiles from Iran. We see a new axis of Russia, Iran and North Korea.” Lammy urged China “not to throw in its lot” with what he called “a group of renegades”.

British government sources indicated that a decision had already been made to allow Ukraine to use Storm Shadow cruise missiles on targets inside Russia, although it is not expected to be publicly announced on Friday when Starmer meets Biden in Washington DC.

The two leaders are planning to discuss the war in Ukraine, and how it could be ended, as part of a wide-ranging foreign policy discussion, though they will avoid an intense focus on any individual weapons system, as the focus of the conversation is strategic.

 

NATO military committee chair, others back Ukraine’s use of long range weapons to hit Russia

By LOLITA C. BALDOR | September 14, 2024

WPLZWXMH55N75HURHIHUBDISMI.jpg



PRAGUE (AP) — The head of NATO’s military committee said Saturday that Ukraine has the solid legal and military right to strike deep inside Russia to gain combat advantage — reflecting the beliefs of a number of U.S. allies — even as the Biden administration balks at allowing Kyiv to do so using American-made weapons.

“Every nation that is attacked has the right to defend itself. And that right doesn’t stop at the border of your own nation,” said Adm. Rob Bauer, speaking at the close of the committee’s annual meeting, also attended by U.S. Gen. CQ Brown, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Bauer, of Netherlands, also added that nations have the sovereign right to put limits on the weapons they send to Ukraine. But, standing next to him at a press briefing, Lt. Gen. Karel Řehka, chief of the General Staff of the Czech Armed Forces, made it clear his nation places no such weapons restrictions on Kyiv.

“We believe that the Ukrainians should decide themselves how to use it,” Řehka said.

Their comments came as U.S. President Joe Biden is weighing whether to allow Ukraine to use American-provided long-range weapons to hit deep into Russia. And they hint at the divisions over the issue.

Biden met with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer on Friday, after this week’s visit to Kyiv by their top diplomats, who came under fresh pressure to loosen weapons restrictions. U.S. officials familiar with discussions said they believed Starmer was seeking Biden’s approval to allow Ukraine to use British Storm Shadow missiles for expanded strikes in Russia.

Biden’s approval may be needed because Storm Shadow components are made in the U.S. The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity to share the status of private conversations, said they believed Biden would be amenable, but there has been no decision announced yet.

Providing additional support and training for Ukraine was a key topic at the NATO chiefs’ meeting, but it wasn’t clear Saturday if the debate over the U.S. restrictions was discussed.

Many of the European nations have been vigorously supportive of Ukraine in part because they worry about being the next victim of an empowered Russia.

At the opening of the meeting, Czech Republic President Petr Pavel broadly urged the military chiefs gathered in the room to be ”bold and open in articulating your assessments and recommendations. The rounder and the softer they are, the less they will be understood by the political level.”

The allies, he said, must “take the right steps and the right decisions to protect our countries and our way of life.”

The military leaders routinely develop plans and recommendations that are then sent to the civilian NATO defense secretaries for discussion and then on to the nations’ leaders in the alliance.

The U.S. allows Ukraine to use American-provided weapons in cross-border strikes to counter attacks by Russian forces. But it doesn’t allow Kyiv to fire long-range missiles, such as the ATACMS, deep into Russia. The U.S. has argued that Ukraine has drones that can strike far and should use ATACMS judiciously because they only have a limited number.

Ukraine has increased its pleas with Washington to lift the restrictions, particularly as winter looms and Kyiv worries about Russian gains during the colder months.

“You want to weaken the enemy that attacks you in order to not only fight the arrows that come your way, but also attack the archer that is, as we see, very often operating from Russia proper into Ukraine,” said Bauer. “So militarily, there’s a good reason to do that, to weaken the enemy, to weaken its logistic lines, fuel, ammunition that comes to the front. That is what you want to stop, if at all possible.”

Brown, for his part, told reporters traveling with him to the meeting that the U.S. policy on long-range weapons remains in place.

But, he added, “by the same token, what we want to do is — regardless of that policy — we want to continue to make Ukraine successful with the capabilities that have been provided” by the U.S. and other nations in the coalition, as well as the weapons Kyiv has been able to build itself.

“They’ve proven themselves fairly effective in building out uncrewed aerial vehicles, in building out drones,” Brown told reporters traveling with him to meetings in Europe.

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin has made similar points, arguing that one weapons system won’t determine success in the war.

“There are a number of things that go into the overall equation as to whether or not you know you want to provide one capability or another,” Austin said Friday. “There is no silver bullet when it comes to things like this.”

He also noted that Ukraine has already been able to strike inside Russia with its own internally produced systems, including drones.

 
Why are Greece spending so much? Historic fear of the turks and nationalistic nature? Turkey's not gonna attack Greece, nor anyone else.
Probably because they have been invaded a lot in the past, so fear based spending.

Maybe some of that Alexander the Great fighting spirit. Historically been war based, even the city states in Greece fought a lot.
 
Do you really think that the Russian government survives a defeat in this war?

It's really not a defeat, so yes, I think Putin would survive a withdrawal.

He would just forge whatever narrative was necessary.
 
It's really not a defeat, so yes, I think Putin would survive a withdrawal.

He would just forge whatever narrative was necessary.
How would it not be a defeat if they left the territory they annexed?
 
All Putin is capable to do is to threat lazy pussies in west with nukes. West too does have nukes, if Putin doesn't knows.
Conventional war : NATO is capable to beat Russia relatively easily.

Ukraine had been suspected that will fold quickly.
Mainly because huge Russia's advantage in air force and tanks.
Despite touted as 2 nd largest army in europe etc, Ukraine is relatively obsolete military.
Ukraine's tanks mainly are 30-50 years old while Russia had considerably more and modern models.
Ukraine's aviation mainly are 30-50 years old airplanes and helicopters while Russia does have considerably more air force assets and also a lot of more modern airplanes than Ukr does have.
Russia's economy appeared stronger than had been expected while their military surprised with ...unpredictable inability to fold damn considerably weaker technically Ukraine....especially if to bear in mind that ukr aviation wasn't even top 10 in europe cos old airframes, majority of them not upgraded etc....
 
Probably because they have been invaded a lot in the past, so fear based spending.

Maybe some of that Alexander the Great fighting spirit. Historically been war based, even the city states in Greece fought a lot.
They had WW2 experience.
Also after Cold War 1949 had started their allies in west had advocated them to spend a lot from GDP for military because Turkey and Greece were considered as some kind of buffer and Turkey & Cyprus then had problems with money.
After this all this continues till today like some tradition.
 
Back
Top