Small Wars Journal

NATO Chiefs Outline Plan for Dangerous World

Mon, 08/18/2014 - 11:57am

NATO Chiefs Outline Plan for Dangerous World by Adam O'Neal, Real Clear Defense

In a joint Wall Street Journal op-ed  published ahead of a NATO summit in Wales next month, top NATO officials called for a “fitter, faster and more flexible” alliance “to address future challenges, from wherever they come.”

“Instability rages to the south, with an arc of crises spreading from North Africa to the Middle East,” according to NATO Secretary General Andrews Rasmussen and U.S. European Command chief Philip Breedlove. “And Russia is resorting to a hybrid war, with snap exercises, secret commandos and smuggled missiles.” 

The two military commanders wrote that they would “take the steps needed” to address the changing geopolitical landscape.  In particular, they outlined three components of a “Readiness Action Plan.” …

Read on.


Madhu (not verified)

Wed, 08/20/2014 - 2:11pm

In reply to by davidbfpo

I know that's right, lots of people have resigned in protest or spoken out, it just never seems to penetrate the Borg, and never seems to make a difference. Or, maybe, slowly, it has, as public opinion has become more difficult to rally because of so many fictions.

Is the UK really trying to disengage?. It seems as an outsider, that governing elites are having a hard time not wanting to wade into crises, but always on the cheap. Big rhetoric, no means.

At one time, I had tried to collect different articles on all the different British military officers that had resigned, etc. It wasn't a small amount of articles, either.


Tue, 08/19/2014 - 7:54am


I note your plea 'I just want someone official somewhere to say something approximating the truth'.

Try the recent statements by British General Sir Richard Shirreff, until March 2014 was Deputy SACEUR. Here he comments on Iraq on the 12th August 2014: 'UK government had "politicians who want to posture" but "do not have any stick". "What we have got is this commitment-phobic government that is terrified of being seen to be putting boots on the ground at a time when they are trying to extract from everything."


His statements have certainly unnerved some in Whitehall-Westminster, after he gave evidence to a parliamentary committee the then Defence Minister contemptously dismissed him as a "has been".

Madhu (not verified)

Tue, 08/19/2014 - 1:10am

In reply to by Madhu (not verified)

This by Pundita is even more classic:

<blockquote>What do Washington's war hawks have in common with Britney Spears, Lindsay Lohan, and Justin Bieber?

Like teeny bopper idols who find themselves washed up at the ancient age of 22, the war hawks are desperate to get back in the limelight.

Next we'll be hearing that Russia causes solar flares and China is set to invade Beverly Hills. ('China adding Bangladesh to its string of pearls?' blared a recent headline at a uh, "geopolitical" website.)

To which the American majority yawns.

<strong>See, this is the problem with running propaganda so many times everybody knows the script backward and forward. But the danger, then, is that the provocations skyrocket. By gad if Russia and China don't want war they'll just have to be provoked into wanting one.

To add insult to injury, the new kid on the block, the Hot Blonde of the Year, is -- Nature. The hawks are being upstaged by the weather. Viruses. Drought. Water. Toxic algae. You can't give away tickets to a defense briefing but if NOAA sold tickets to a briefing, the line to buy would be a mile long.

Now the hawks are ready for their close-up, Mr DeMille. Show a nipple, raise the hem to the crotch, get drunk in public, smash stuff, shoplift, just keep acting out because there's no such thing as bad publicity.

This is what happens when war becomes an industry. It acts like the teeny bopper industry. Except that Britney Spears never had a nuke in her purse.</strong> </blockquote>…

See, I can't take the, er, messaging anymore. I don't care about making connections, networking, making friends, what people think about me, I just want someone official somewhere to say <em>something </em> approximating the truth.

Madhu (not verified)

Tue, 08/19/2014 - 1:02am

It's such a dangerous world, Ukraine is still selling military equipment to Russia (From Pat Lang's site, the comments section):

<blockquote>Ukraine’s new leaders have vowed to stop the flow of these defense products, which include key parts for ship engines, advanced targeting technology for tanks and upkeep for Russia’s heaviest nuclear missiles. New laws passed this week bolster their powers to do so. Kiev says helping to arm Russia is tantamount to equipping an enemy during wartime when Moscow is sending support to separatist rebels, a charge the Kremlin has denied.

But Kiev’s pleas for an end to trade ties have run into strong resistance from workers at companies like Motor Sich, here in Ukraine’s industrial heartland, where 27,000 employees build engines tailor-made for Russian military helicopters and planes. Most senior executives here grew up as part of the same Soviet military-industrial club as their Russian peers.</blockquote>…

That's almost as good as the following:

<blockquote>Top Dutch auditors, backed by the government, have called on NATO to be more transparent about its finances, asserting that hundreds of millions of euros in annual spending at the military alliance cannot be properly accounted for.

The Netherlands Court of Audit, an independent organisation which reviews government spending, said on a website launched Tuesday that NATO's financial management "is not in order" and it wanted a wider debate about its spending.</blockquote>

Classic. Aw, it's okay. The American public seems to be buying it. Guess they miss the caffeine-MAD buzz of the Cold War.