Category Archives: defense policy

“Collective Defense Guarantee”

Posted on by
Reply

That’s the hype in a Fox News article centered on Russia’s flying armed drones through NATO member Lithuania’s airspace.

In recent days, drones launched from the Russian-aligned state of Belarus have pierced Lithuanian airspace, drawing alarms from the region’s political and military leaders. One drone traversed approximately 100 kilometers, loitered ominously over Vilnius carrying two kilograms of explosives and ultimately crashed inside a military training zone. Earlier in July, another drone forced the evacuation of high-level officials when it crashed near the Šumskas border crossing.

Lithuania’s Defense Minister, Dovilė Šakalienė, has responded [paraphrased by Fox News].

while stressing that there is no evidence suggesting the latest drone breached intentionally, said “this is an unprecedented and alarming incident,” especially given that the drone flew just one kilometer from the president’s residence.
Describing the behavior as “reckless drone incursions,” she warned they amount to “a direct test of NATO’s resolve.” In response, Lithuania has pledged to review its defensive protocols and urged NATO to bolster its air defenses as a clear message that the alliance stands ready to safeguard every inch of its territory.

And this, from an outside “expert:”

Andrew D’Anieri, associate director of the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center, told Fox News Digital that while it isn’t crystal clear whether Putin is openly testing Article 5, his apparent lack of caution about these actions is telling.
“The kind of alarming thing is, we haven’t seen any real response from NATO to any of these,” D’Anieri said.

Here’s the text of Article 5 of the NATO treaty [emphasis added]:

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.

Bruno Kahl, Germany’s chief spy…cautioned that Russia’s growing employment of hybrid tactics—ranging from sabotage and cyberattacks to disinformation—raises the likelihood that NATO may ultimately feel compelled to invoke Article 5.

For good or ill (I suggest for ill), Lithuania’s and other member nations’ responses meet the letter of that mutual defense requirement and that nothing, of necessity, would change were Article 5 formally invoked.

A mutual, collective defense arrangement is crucial for defending against invasions or other attacks, but such arrangements are practically executable only when what’s included in “collective self-defense” is understood rather than distorted. Beyond this simple thing, only when what’s included is clearly understood can necessary improvements—which Article 5 so desperately needs—be made.

In furtherance of that last, here is Article 3:

In order more effectively to achieve the objectives of this Treaty, the Parties, separately and jointly, by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid, will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.

This Article is dishonored—other member nations betrayed—by nearly a third of the current member nations as those deplorables steadfastly refuse to fund their own defense establishments much less honor their commitments to fund NATO directly to a percentage of their GDPs.

Article 12 organically provides for review of the treaty’s functioning:

After the Treaty has been in force for ten years, or at any time thereafter, the Parties shall, if any of them so requests, consult together for the purpose of reviewing the Treaty, having regard for the factors then affecting peace and security in the North Atlantic area, including the development of universal as well as regional arrangements under the Charter of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security.

If such a review is not carried out in any serious manner (see the shortcomings above), then it’s time for serious nations to leave NATO (as Article 13 provides, or without it) and form a new, actually serious mutual defense arrangement.

I Have another Question

Posted on by
2

FBI Director Kash Patel has uncovered burn bags/room filled with hidden Russia Gate files, including the Durham annex.

Regardless of the current disposition of those bags’ contents (Patel is declassifying them and intends to release them), my question is this: what level of negligence has it been that those burn bags have not been burned and still exist after all these years?

While it’s presently convenient that those burn bags remain unburned so their contents can be released after suitable (limited) redacting, the negligence is a threat to our nation’s security. The individuals responsible for that security negligence need to be identified and fired for cause.

The Peel is Double-Sided

Posted on by
Reply

President Donald Trump (R) seems to be looking to peel the People’s Republic of China away from supporting Russia in the barbarian’s war on Ukraine.

[Trump] has also come to believe that the key to putting more pressure on Russia is to peel China away from its economic and other support for Moscow.
We hear that was part of the message that Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent brought to Sweden this week. Mr Trump wants the big trade deal with China that eluded him in the first term. But Mr Bessent is pitching a larger detente if President Xi Jinping is willing to stop supporting Mr Putin’s war.

This is against the backdrop of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s and PRC President Xi Xinping’s declaration of their no limits partnership and unbreakable friendship, their trade deal that lets the PRC develop—with PRC laborers and their families—Siberian resources and import into the PRC a significant fraction of those resources, and the PRC’s current large purchases of Russia’s existing oil and natural gas production and the PRC’s shipment to Russia of arms and logistical support for those arms.

Stipulate Trump succeeds in separating, at least somewhat, the PRC from Russia, in getting Xi to walk back, or just to water down, his commitments to Putin. With that demonstration of Xi’s reliability, for how long does Trump, or any of us, think Xi would maintain any commitment to us, or even simply to maintain any damping down of his support for Putin or the barbarian’s war effort? Long enough for Ukraine to succeed in driving Russia back out would be sufficient, but that can’t be relied on.

The effort (and, potentially, the ensuing success) may well be worth the risk, but that risk needs to be well understood before the effort goes too far. That’s especially so regarding these risks:

[Xi’s] abiding goal is to bring Taiwan under Mainland control, and his military is practicing maneuvers that would be part of an attempted blockade of the island. Would Mr Trump be willing to weaken US support for Taiwan?

The Wall Street Journal‘s editors cast Trump’s effort as a potential Nixonian move, a potential (re)opening of the PRC. While Nixon’s move seemed like a good idea at the time, though, in retrospect, it was a huge and expensive (along a number of dimensions) mistake.

Wrong Answer

Posted on by
Reply

William Galston is correct, and he’s dangerously wrong, in his Tuesday op-ed in The Wall Street Journal.

He acknowledges that Hamas will never surrender. This is where he’s correct. He then concluded that Israel should

declare victory and accept a cease-fire that returns all the remaining hostages and withdraws the IDF from Gaza.

He based that on the risible thesis that Israel has ended Hamas’s ability to threaten its security.

Hamas will never release all of its remaining hostages. That would eliminate far too much non-shooting leverage that Hamas has. The IDF is going to have to go get them, and that requires the complete destruction of Hamas.

Regarding Hamas’ threat to Israel’s security, formal cease fire or not, Hamas’ firing at Israel, Hamas’ terroristic assaults on Israel, will never cease until Hamas is utterly destroyed and cannot (not chooses not to) keep up its terrorism. Israel is absolutely correct on this, and its existence as a nation, as a society, depends on it. Leaving Gaza before that’s done would only let Hamas re-expand into the areas currently held by the IDF, refit, regrow, and carry on with its anti-Israeli terrorism.

Galston goes on at length, too, about how long it would take Israel to destroy Hamas. However, he shies away from the other side of this: that the destruction of Israel, were Hamas left extant and so potentially to succeed, would be forever.

That’s the long and the short of it.

There’s a Fix for This

Posted on by
Reply

It’s a straightforward fix, too, even if perhaps politically difficult. “This” is the retention of security clearances by those who leave Federal employ, and the problem that would be fixed by this “this” is this:

The chairman of the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board says he believes crimes were committed by intelligence and law enforcement officials who relentlessly pursued President Donald Trump over the last decade, and he also wants to make sure that spies who abused their powers are stripped of their security clearances and their jobs.

Devin Nunes, the PIAB chairman in question, added this:

I just continue to be fascinated by the people who are still carrying a security clearance. It’s amazing who are still in these agencies. And I’m just shaking my head like every time I turn around, like, wait, wait, wait, wasn’t that person in that position a Russia hoax person.

The fix is this: everyone leaving Federal employ should have his security clearance revoked automatically. Having left the government, that person no longer needs a security clearance; he no longer has any need to know, which is a Critical Item for having a clearance. Persons getting (not just seeking) civilian employment that requires a security clearance should be required to go through an entirely new and current—de novo—security background check. Persons changing jobs within the Federal government should have their clearances suspended pending successful completion of an entirely new and current—also de novo—background check, and any renewed clearance adjusted down (or up) commensurate with the new job.

None of this would prevent those who committed crimes from being prosecuted and, if convicted, jailed. They should be. Nor would any of this prevent the President from firing those who’ve failed to carry out their duty fully and enthusiastically, whether or not they’ve done anything illegal. He should fire them.