Latest news with #Article5
Miami Herald
4 days ago
- Politics
- Miami Herald
Pubic highway becomes runway so fighter jets can practice landing
NATO Allies also conducted highway operating exercises in Sweden, showcasing Agile Combat Employment (ACE) tactics that enhance operational flexibility and resilience in contested environments. "ACE is a key capability, which we would employ to defend Europe in any Article 5 confrontation," Air Marshal Johnny Stringer, Deputy Commander of NATO Allied Air Command, emphasised on the importance of ACE in modern warfare. "ACE brings together Air Forces from across the Alliance and has them operate from many different air bases, ensuring the credibility and capabilities that underpin our deterrence posture." An Article 5 confrontation is a situation where an armed attack against one NATO member is treated as an attack against all members, obligating the entire alliance to respond collectively in defense. NATO added: "The Finnish and Swedish exercises in May demonstrate NATO's collective ability to adapt and respond quickly to emerging threats." The post Pubic highway becomes runway so fighter jets can practice landing appeared first on Talker. Copyright Talker News. All Rights Reserved.
Business Insider
26-05-2025
- Politics
- Business Insider
Top 10 strongest NATO countries
NATO is more than just a military alliance; it provides an important framework for international cooperation, strategic coordination, and collective defense. While unity is its guiding concept, the balance of power within NATO is unequal. Business Insider Africa presents the top 10 strongest NATO countries. This list is courtesy of Global Firepower. The United States ranks number 1 on the list. Larger states, particularly the United States, hold tremendous power, yet smaller nations contribute in unique but valuable ways. NATO was founded in 1949 as a response to Europe's security deficit following World War II and the mounting prospect of Soviet expansion. The alliance began with twelve founding members, including the United States, the United Kingdom, and France, who saw collaboration as critical to preserving peace in a divided globe. NATO has emphasized the notion of mutual defense since its inception, with Article 5 stating that an assault on one ally is considered an attack on all. However, the level of influence amongst members varies. While all countries sit at the same table, their military capabilities, financial contributions, and geopolitical weight vary greatly. For example, the United States contributes the majority of NATO's military resources and strategic leadership, giving it significant influence over alliance choices. Despite these inequalities, NATO promotes critical defense coordination and interoperability, allowing troops from many states to work together effortlessly in joint missions. It also acts as a diplomatic platform where smaller members can express their concerns and help shape security policies. NATO also invests in cybersecurity, innovation, and information sharing, giving member countries, particularly those with limited resources, access to essential capabilities. Importantly, membership in NATO raises a country's international profile. While nations like Germany and France wield considerable power, smaller members like Latvia and Albania benefit from increased security and a say in regional stability efforts. In essence, NATO combines unequal power with shared accountability, guaranteeing that some countries lead while others are protected. Its sustained significance stems from its ability to adapt, unite, and respond collectively to global dangers. With that said, here are the 10 strongest NATO countries, according to data from Global Firepower. Top 10 strongest NATO countries Rank Country Power index 1. United States 0.0744 2. United Kingdom 0.1785 3. France 0.1878 4. Turkey 0.1902 5. Italy 0.2164 6. Germany 0.2601 7. Spain 0.3242 8. Poland 0.3776 9. Sweden 0.4835 10. Canada 0.5179
Asia Times
23-05-2025
- Politics
- Asia Times
Trump risks igniting an East Asian nuclear arms race
For the past 75 years, America's nuclear umbrella has been the keystone that has kept East Asia's great‑power rivalries from turning atomic. President Donald Trump's second‑term 'strategic reset' now threatens to crack that arch. By pressuring allies to shoulder more of the defence burden, hinting that US forces might walk if the cheques do not clear and flirting with a return to nuclear testing, Washington is signalling that its once‑ironclad nuclear guarantee is, at best, negotiable. In Seoul, Tokyo and even Taipei, a once-unthinkable idea — building nuclear weapons — has begun to look disturbingly pragmatic. Extended deterrence is the promise that the United States will use its own nuclear weapons, if necessary, to repel an attack on an ally. The logic is brutally simple: if North Korea contemplates a strike on South Korea, it must fear an American retaliatory strike, as well. The pledge allows allies to forgo their own bombs, curbing nuclear proliferation while reinforcing US influence. The idea dates to Dwight Eisenhower's 'New Look' military strategy, which relied on the threat of 'massive retaliation' against the Soviet Union to defend Europe and Asia at a discount: fewer troops, more warheads. John Kennedy replaced that hair‑trigger doctrine with a 'flexible response' defence strategy. This widened the spectrum of options to respond to potential Soviet attacks, but kept the nuclear backstop in place. By the 1990s, the umbrella seemed almost ornamental. Russia's nuclear arsenal had rusted, China was keeping to a 'minimal deterrent' strategy (maintaining a small stockpile of weapons), and US supremacy looked overwhelming. In 2020, then-President Barack Obama's Nuclear Posture Review reaffirmed the umbrella guarantee, though Obama had voiced aspirations for the long‑term abolition of nuclear weapons. Barack Obama's 2009 speech advocating nuclear disarmament in Prague. The Biden administration then embraced a new term – 'integrated deterrence', which fused cyber, space and economic tools with nuclear forces to deter potential foes. In recent years, however, North Korea's sprint towards intercontinental ballistic missiles and the modernisation and expansion of China's nuclear arsenal began testing the faith of US allies. Trump has now turbo‑charged those doubts. He has mused that his 'strategic reset' ties protection to payment. If NATO's Article 5 (which obliges members to come to each other's defence) is 'conditional' on US allies paying their fair share, why would Asia be different? Reports the White House has weighed a resumption of underground nuclear tests – and, under the Biden administration, even a more extensive arsenal – have rattled non‑proliferation diplomats. A Politico analysis bluntly warns that sustaining global 'extended deterrence' in two parts of the world (Europe and Asia) may be beyond Trump's patience — or pocketbook. Allies are taking note. Last month, an Institute for Strategic Studies survey found officials in Europe and Asia openly questioning whether an American president would risk San Francisco to save Seoul. In South Korea, public backing for a bomb now tops 70%. Japan's ruling Liberal Democratic Party is, for the first time since 1945, considering a 'nuclear sharing' arrangement with the US. Some former defence officials have even called for a debate on nuclear weapons themselves. Taiwan's legislators — long muzzled on the subject — whisper about a 'porcupine' deterrent based on asymmetrical warfare and a modest nuclear capability. If one domino tips, several could follow. A South Korean nuclear weapon program would almost certainly spur Japan to act. That, in turn, would harden China's strategic outlook, inviting a regional arms race and shredding the fragile Nuclear Non‑Proliferation Treaty. The respected international relations journal Foreign Policy has already dubbed Trump's approach 'a nuclear Pandora's box.' The danger is not just about more warheads, but also the shorter decision times to use them. Three or four nuclear actors crammed into the world's busiest sea lanes — with hypersonic missiles and AI‑driven, early‑warning systems — create hair‑trigger instability. One misread radar blip over the East China Sea could end in catastrophe. North Korean leader Kim Jong Un visits the Nuclear Weapons Institute in Pyongyang, North Korea, in 2023. Photo: KCNA/EPA Australia, too, has long relied on the US umbrella without demanding an explicit nuclear clause in the ANZUS treaty. The AUKUS submarine pact with the US and UK deepens technological knowledge sharing, but does not deliver an Australian bomb. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese insists the deal is about 'deterrence, not offence,' yet the debate over funding nuclear-powered submarines exposes how tightly Australian strategy is lashed to American political will. A regional cascade of nuclear proliferation would confront Australia with agonising choices. Should it cling to the shrinking US umbrella, invest in a missile defence shield, or contemplate its own nuclear deterrent? Any such move towards its own weapon would collide with decades of proud non‑proliferation diplomacy and risk alienating Southeast Asian neighbours. More likely, Canberra will double down on alliance management — lobbying Washington to clarify its commitments, urging Seoul and Tokyo to stay the non‑nuclear course, and expanding regional defence exercises that make American resolve visible. In a neighbourhood bristling with new warheads, middle powers that remain non‑nuclear will need thicker conventional shields and sharper diplomatic tools. This means hardening Australia's northern bases against a potential attack, accelerating its long‑range strike programs, and funding diplomatic initiatives that keep the Non-Proliferation Treaty alive. The Trump administration's transactional posture risks broadcasting a deficit of will precisely when East Asian security hangs in the balance. If Washington allows confidence in extended deterrence to erode, history will not stand still; it will split the atom again, this time in Seoul, Tokyo or beyond. Australia has every incentive to prod its great power ally back toward strategic steadiness. The alternative is a region where the umbrellas proliferate — and, sooner or later, fail. Ian Langford is executive director, Security & Defence PLuS and professor, UNSW Sydney This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Miami Herald
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Miami Herald
Ukraine's NATO Ally Can Shoot Down Russian Drones Under New Law
A law has come into effect in Romania that allows its armed forces to down unmanned aerial vehicles unlawfully breaching its airspace, as the NATO member acts to tackle a growing number of Russian drones landing on its shores. Ilie Bolojan, Romania's acting president, signed the law, which the Romanian parliament passed in February in response to the threat posed by the devices landing in its territory, often in spillover incidents from the war in Ukraine. Newsweek has contacted the Romanian Foreign Ministry for comment. Romania shares a 380-mile border with Ukraine, and because of its proximity to the war zone, it has seen drones repeatedly land in its territory, although there is no evidence that Moscow has deliberately targeted the country. Romania's new law allows it to shoot down such drones and could lead other neighboring NATO countries to follow suit, with the potential for escalation and increased questions over the alliance's Article 5 mutual defense clause. The law to shoot down drones violating Romanian airspace was initially drafted in October following a spate of Russian drones landing in the NATO member. Their target had been southern Ukraine's Odesa Oblast. The incidents prompted legislation that the Romanian parliament passed on February 26. Far-right parties challenged the law but lost the case. On Monday, Bolojan signed the legislation, which stipulates that any aircraft without a pilot that illegally crosses the border and flies in Romania's national airspace without authorization may be destroyed or neutralized. He also signed a law on the peaceful conduct of military missions and operations on Romanian territory. Romania must establish the aircraft's position and identity, attempt contact, intercept and fire warning shots. Piloted vehicles can only be destroyed if they conduct an attack or respond aggressively to interception, the law states. Roger Hilton, a research fellow at the GLOBSEC think tank in Slovakia, told Newsweek in February that Romania's move was a significant but measured escalation by a NATO member to Russian drones strafing its border. He said that while there might be the risk of escalation, Bucharest was left with little alternative as it issued a signal to Moscow and NATO that it would not tolerate unchecked airspace violations. Roger Hilton, a research fellow at GLOBSEC, said: "Romania's decision to approve neutralizing drones encroaching its airspace marks a significant but measured escalation by a NATO ally." In March, Romania confirmed another case of a Russian drone crashing in its territory, in the border area near the Ukrainian settlement of Reni. Romania has a new president following elections on Sunday, and there is anticipation over how the NATO country will react if another drone breaches its airspace or whether Russia will be more careful. Related Articles Europe's 'MEGA' Stutter: Far-Right Bid for Power Falters Despite GainsWho Is Nicușor Dan? Romania's Liberal Centrist Mayor Sweeps to VictoryRomanian Exit Polls Show Clear Winner as Rival Declares VictoryFar-Right Parties Bid for Power in Europe's Election 'Super Sunday' 2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
Newsweek
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Newsweek
Ukraine's NATO Ally Can Shoot Down Russian Drones Under New Law
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A law has come into effect in Romania that allows its armed forces to down unmanned aerial vehicles unlawfully breaching its airspace, as the NATO member acts to tackle a growing number of Russian drones landing on its shores. Ilie Bolojan, Romania's acting president, signed the law, which the Romanian parliament passed in February in response to the threat posed by the devices landing in its territory, often in spillover incidents from the war in Ukraine. Newsweek has contacted the Romanian Foreign Ministry for comment. Why It Matters Romania shares a 380-mile border with Ukraine, and because of its proximity to the war zone, it has seen drones repeatedly land in its territory, although there is no evidence that Moscow has deliberately targeted the country. Romania's new law allows it to shoot down such drones and could lead other neighboring NATO countries to follow suit, with the potential for escalation and increased questions over the alliance's Article 5 mutual defense clause. A PAC-2 ATM missile launched from a Patriot rocket launcher of the Romanian army flying through the sky during an army drill at the Capu Midia military shooting range next to the Black Sea on... A PAC-2 ATM missile launched from a Patriot rocket launcher of the Romanian army flying through the sky during an army drill at the Capu Midia military shooting range next to the Black Sea on November 15, 2023. More DANIEL MIHAILESCU//Getty Images What To Know The law to shoot down drones violating Romanian airspace was initially drafted in October following a spate of Russian drones landing in the NATO member. Their target had been southern Ukraine's Odesa Oblast. The incidents prompted legislation that the Romanian parliament passed on February 26. Far-right parties challenged the law but lost the case. On Monday, Bolojan signed the legislation, which stipulates that any aircraft without a pilot that illegally crosses the border and flies in Romania's national airspace without authorization may be destroyed or neutralized. He also signed a law on the peaceful conduct of military missions and operations on Romanian territory. Romania must establish the aircraft's position and identity, attempt contact, intercept and fire warning shots. Piloted vehicles can only be destroyed if they conduct an attack or respond aggressively to interception, the law states. Roger Hilton, a research fellow at the GLOBSEC think tank in Slovakia, told Newsweek in February that Romania's move was a significant but measured escalation by a NATO member to Russian drones strafing its border. He said that while there might be the risk of escalation, Bucharest was left with little alternative as it issued a signal to Moscow and NATO that it would not tolerate unchecked airspace violations. What People Are Saying Roger Hilton, a research fellow at GLOBSEC, said: "Romania's decision to approve neutralizing drones encroaching its airspace marks a significant but measured escalation by a NATO ally." What Happens Next In March, Romania confirmed another case of a Russian drone crashing in its territory, in the border area near the Ukrainian settlement of Reni. Romania has a new president following elections on Sunday, and there is anticipation over how the NATO country will react if another drone breaches its airspace or whether Russia will be more careful.
