With Echoes of the ’30s, Trump Resurrects a Hard-Line Vision of ‘America First’

WASHINGTON — America, and the world, just found out what “America First” means.

President Trump could have used his inaugural address to define one of the touchstone phrases of his campaign in the most inclusive way, arguing, as did many of his predecessors, that as the world’s greatest superpower rises, its partners will also prosper.

Instead, he chose a dark, hard-line alternative, one that appeared to herald the end of a 70-year American experiment to shape a world that would be eager to follow its lead. In Mr. Trump’s vision, America’s new strategy is to win every transaction and confrontation. Gone are the days, he said, when America extended its defensive umbrella without compensation, or spent billions to try to lift the fortune of foreign nations, with no easy-to-measure strategic benefits for the United States.

“From this day forward, it’s going to be only America first,” he said, in a line that resonated around the world as soon as he uttered it from the steps of the Capitol. “We must protect our borders from the ravages of other countries making our products, stealing our companies and destroying our jobs.”

The United States, he said, will no longer subsidize “the armies of other countries while allowing for the very sad depletion of our military.”

While all American presidents pledge to defend America’s interests first — that is the core of the presidential oath — presidents of both parties since the end of World War II have wrapped that effort in an expansion of the liberal democratic order. Until today, American policy has been a complete rejection of the America First rallying cry that the famed flier Charles Lindbergh championed when, in the late 1930s, he became one of the most prominent voices to keep the United States out of Europe’s wars, even if it meant abandoning the country’s closest allies.

Mr. Trump has rejected comparisons with the earlier movement, with its taint of Nazism and anti-Semitism.

After World War II, the United States buried the Lindbergh vision of America First. The United Nations was born in San Francisco and raised on the East River of Manhattan, an ambitious, if still unfulfilled, experiment in shaping a liberal order. Lifting the vanquished nations of World War II into democratic allies was the idea behind the Marshall Plan, the creation of the World Bank and institutions to spread American aid, technology and expertise around the world. And NATO was created to instill a commitment to common defense, though Mr. Trump has accurately observed that nearly seven decades later, many of its member nations do not pull their weight.

Mr. Trump’s defiant address made abundantly clear that his threat to pull out of those institutions, if they continue to take advantage of the United States’ willingness to subsidize them, could soon be translated into policy. All those decades of generosity, he said, punching the air for emphasis, had turned America into a loser.

“We’ve made other countries rich,” he said, “while the wealth, strength and confidence of our country has disappeared over the horizon.” The American middle class has suffered the most, he said, finding its slice of the American dream “redistributed across the entire world.”

To those who helped build that global order, Mr. Trump’s vow was at best shortsighted. “Truman and Acheson, and everyone who followed, based our policy on a ‘world-first,’ not an ‘America-first,’ basis,” said Richard N. Haass, whose new book, “A World in Disarray,” argues that a more granular, short-term view of American interests will ultimately fail.

“A narrow America First posture will prompt other countries to pursue an equally narrow, independent foreign policy,” he said after Mr. Trump’s speech, “which will diminish U.S. influence and detract from global prosperity.”

To Mr. Trump and his supporters, it is just that view that put America on the slippery slope to obsolescence. As a builder of buildings, Mr. Trump’s return on investment has been easily measurable. So it is unsurprising that he would grade America’s performance on a scorecard in which he totals up wins and losses.

Curiously, among the skeptics are his own appointees. His nominee for defense secretary, Gen. James N. Mattis, strongly defended the importance of NATO during his confirmation hearing. Both Rex W. Tillerson, the nominee for secretary of state, and Nikki R. Haley, the choice for ambassador to the United Nations, offered up paeans to the need for robust American alliances, though Mr. Tillerson periodically tacked back to concepts echoing Mr. Trump’s.

And there is a question about whether the exact meaning of America First will continue to evolve in Mr. Trump’s mind.

He first talked about it in a March interview with The New York Times, when asked whether that phrase was a good summation of his foreign-policy views.

He thought for a moment. Then he agreed with this reporter’s summation of Mr. Trump’s message that the world had been “freeloading off of us for many years” and that he fundamentally mistrusted many foreigners, both adversaries and some allies.

“Correct,” he responded. Then he added, in his staccato style: “Not isolationist. I’m not isolationist, but I am ‘America First.’ So I like the expression.” He soon began using it at almost every rally.

In another interview with The Times, on the eve of the Republican National Convention, he offered a refinement. He said he did not mean for the slogan to be taken the way Lindbergh meant it. “It was used as a brand-new, very modern term,” he said. “Meaning we are going to take care of this country first before we worry about everybody else in the world.”

As Walter Russell Mead, a professor at Bard College and a scholar at the conservative Hudson Institute, put it the other day, “The fact that he doesn’t have a grounding in the prior use of the term is liberating.”

“If you said to the average American voter, ‘Do you think it’s the job of the president to put America first,’ they say, ‘Yes, that’s the job.’”

But Mr. Mead said that formulation disregarded the reality that “sometimes to achieve American interests, you have to work cooperatively with other countries.” And any such acknowledgment was missing from Mr. Trump’s speech on Friday.

Mr. Trump cast America’s new role in the world as one of an aggrieved superpower, not a power intent on changing the globe. There was no condemnation of authoritarianism or fascism, no clarion call to defend human rights around the world — one of the commitments that John F. Kennedy made in his famed address, delivered 56 years ago to the day, to protect human rights “at home and around the world.”

That was, of course, the prelude to Kennedy’s most famous line: that America would “bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”

But the America that elected Mr. Trump had concluded that it was no longer willing to bear that burden — or even to make the spread of democracy the mission of the nation, as George W. Bush, who was sitting behind Mr. Trump, vowed 12 years ago. Mr. Trump views American democracy as a fine import for those who like it.

“We do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone,” he said, “but rather to let it shine as an example for everyone to follow.”

La OTAN está preocupada por la opinión de Trump de que está “obsoleta”, según Steinmeier

Imagen: https://www.deutschland.de/sites/default/files/styles/stage/public/article_images/pimg_239772_Foreign-Policy-Common-Foreign-and-Security-Policy-Frank-Walter-Steinmeier-European-Union-International-Politics_A.jpg?itok=w-6FPv8g
Imagen: https://www.deutschland.de/sites/default/files/styles/stage/public/article_images/pimg_239772_Foreign-Policy-Common-Foreign-and-Security-Policy-Frank-Walter-Steinmeier-European-Union-International-Politics_A.jpg?itok=w-6FPv8g

El titular de Asuntos Exteriores alemán, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, señaló hoy que la OTAN ha recibido “con preocupación” las palabras del presidente electo estadounidense, Donald Trump, que en una entrevista al diario alemán “Bild” y al británico “The Times” califica la Alianza de “obsoleta”.

Steinmeier, que hizo estas declaraciones tras reunirse con el secretario general de la OTAN, Jens Stoltenberg, dijo que dichos comentarios respecto a la Alianza se contradicen con las palabras pronunciadas por el designado secretario de Defensa de EEUU, James Mattis, en su audiencia ante el Congreso.

“Tenemos que ver qué consecuencias tendrá para la política estadounidense”, indicó el jefe de la diplomacia alemana.

El ministro aclaró además que los comentarios vertidos por Trump en su entrevista “influirán, si no definirán” la agenda de hoy en Bruselas.

Steinmeier, que se encuentra en la capital belga en la que será su última reunión como ministro de Exteriores antes de someterse el próximo día 12 como candidato consensuado por la gran coalición que lidera la canciller alemana, Angela Merkel, a su elección como presidente de Alemania, señaló que las declaraciones de Trump han causado “sorpresa y revuelo” no sólo en Bruselas.

Por otra parte, el ministro se mostró preocupado respecto al anuncio de Trump de introducir gravámenes del 35 % a las importaciones de coches alemanes si sus fabricantes no instalan sus plantas en Estados Unidos.

“Partimos de la base de que nuestro socio estadounidense continuará respetando las obligaciones internacionales y las reglas de la OMC”, la Organización Mundial del Comercio, que en principio debe aprobar antes de su imposición cualquier tipo de gravamen, dijo.

En: eldiario.es

Encuentran muerto a un agente de la OTAN que investigaba la financiación del Estado Islámico

El auditor general de la Organización del Tratado del Atlántico Norte (OTAN), Yves Chandelon, fue hallado sin vida en Bélgica. Varios medios señalan que se trató de un suicidio, versión que la familia no admite.

Yves Chandelon, auditor general de la Organización del Tratado del Atlántico Norte, OTAN. Imagen: Sputnik Türkiye
Yves Chandelon, auditor general de la Organización del Tratado del Atlántico Norte, OTAN. Imagen: Sputnik Türkiye

El cadáver de Yves Chandelon, auditor general de la OTAN, fue encontrado hace unos días en la ciudad de Andenne, Bélgica, a 140 kilómetros de su oficina, con un disparo en la cabeza.

El alto cargo de la OTAN investigaba las redes de financiamiento a los grupos terroristas, entre ellos, el Estado Islámico (EI), refiere el portal de Luxemburger Wort. Aunque la hipótesis de las autoridades, difundida a la prensa, fue que se trató de un suicidio, los familiares de Chandelon discrepan.

Según el portal belga Sudinfo, las circunstancias de la muerte han generado todo tipo de suspicacias, ya que aunque el agente tenía tres armas registradas, el disparo mortal en la cabeza provino de una cuarta que se encontró en la guantera de su auto y no aparecía entre las que estaban a su nombre.

Por otra parte, otros medios como La Gaceta, en España, destacan que el alto cargo de la OTAN “había recibido extrañas llamadas telefónicas”, lo que extiende un manto de duda sobre la versión del suicidio.

El parte oficial de la Fiscalía, citado por el diario Tageblatt no ha dado crédito a esas suposiciones, mientras se esperan los resultados de la autopsia, que se conocerán este martes. Chandelon vivía en la localidad de Lens, situada a unos 100 kilómetros del lugar donde fue encontrado su cuerpo.

Aunque el cadáver fue hallado el pasado 16 de diciembre, el hecho no fue reseñado inmediatamente por los grandes medios occidentales, lo que ha sido objeto de críticas encendidas por los internautas en las redes sociales.

En: RT

Mas en: Russian Ambassador, Senior NATO Staff and Russian Diplomat – All Dead Same Week

Explosions at Airport and Subway Leave ‘Numerous’ Dead in Brussels

Image: http://expert.ru/data/public/507351/507362/04.jpg
Image: http://expert.ru/data/public/507351/507362/04.jpg

BRUSSELS — A series of deadly terrorist attacks struck Brussels on Tuesday, with two explosions at the city’s main international airport, and a third in a subway station at the heart of the city.

According to news agencies, 13 people were killed at the airport, and 15 in the subway bombing, while 30 others were wounded. Prime Minister Charles Michel of Belgium said there were “numerous” dead. “We were fearing terrorist attacks, and that has now happened,” he said. At least one of the two explosions at the airport appeared to have been set off by a suicide bomber, officials said.

The attacks, a vivid illustration of the continued threat to Europe, occurred four days after the capture on Friday of Europe’s most wanted man, Salah Abdeslam. Mr. Abdeslam is believed to be the sole survivor of the 10 men who were directly involved in the attacks that killed 130 people in and around Paris on Nov. 13.

Mr. Michel issued an extraordinary appeal to the population to “avoid all movement,” as the authorities braced for possible further attacks.

The French government ordered 1,600 extra police officers to patrol the nation’s borders, including at train stations, airports and ports. Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain called an emergency meeting of ministers.

The attacks put the Belgian capital in a state of virtual lockdown. All flights were canceled for the day. All subway, tram and bus travel was shut down. Eurostar canceled its trains connecting Brussels with Paris and London. Thalys, which runs high-speed trains linking dozens of cities in Belgium, France, Germany and the Netherlands, suspended service. Cellphone lines were jammed as panicked travelers and Belgians tried to make calls.

The events on Tuesday began with a pair of explosions at a departure hall at Brussels Airport, in the town of Zaventem, about seven miles northeast of the city center, just before 8 a.m.

“We were going to check in around 7:30 a.m.,” said one traveler, Ilaria Ruggiano. “There were seven of us. We were a bit late. We heard a big noise and saw a big flash. My mother went to the floor — she was hit. I just dropped my luggage and went to the floor. A kid came out, bleeding a lot. I tried to help him with a tissue, but it was not enough. There were two bombs.”

Another passenger, Jérôme Delanois, said he was at an Internet cafe near the Delta Air Lines counter when he heard a thunderous noise. “There were two explosions — one big one and one little one,” he said. “The first one blew all the walls and everything. There were burning flames. The first one was bigger. It blew out all the windows.”

Belinda How, a traveler from Malaysia who was in Brussels for a vacation, said she had been lining up to check in for an Etihad Airways flight when she heard the blast. “I was the last passenger queuing up,” she said. “I was very close to the first blast. Everybody was screaming.”

She added: “I said to my son — he is a Down’s syndrome special-needs child — ‘You have to run.’ He said, ‘My leg hurts.’ I think he was panicked. I left my luggage, dragged him and ran. Before I ran out, there was another bomb.”

Alan Merbaum, who had flown in from Washington, said he had narrowly avoided the blast.

“I heard what sounded like a thud a minute or so before 8 a.m.,” he said. “It sounded like it could have been something dropped off the back of a truck. Ten to 20 seconds later, I heard a loud explosion and I immediately knew what it was. I saw smoke coming out of the front entrance of the airport.”

Photographs posted online showed passengers covered in blood and soot, looking stunned but conscious. Some passengers were seen being taken away on luggage carts.

Other images posted on social media showed smoke rising from a departure hall, where the windows had been blown out, and people running away from the building. Hundreds were herded outside.

https://youtu.be/-GXZw4gbU-c

Around 9:10 a.m., another blast shook the Maelbeek subway station in downtown Brussels, not far from the area that houses most of the European Union’s core institutions, according to the Belgian broadcaster RTBF. The Brussels transport authority said on Twitter that all subway stations were closing.

“We felt a boom, we felt the building tremble,” said Henk Stuten, 50, who works for the European Commission in an office above the station. “We saw through the windows that people were rushing out of the metro exit.”

About 10 to 15 minutes later, the office was evacuated, Mr. Stuten said. Some people were “very calm,” others were “very emotional,” he added.

He said most of the wounded were on Rue de la Loi, outside the station.

“There were colleagues who just five minutes before were in the metro,” he said. “You realize how close these things can come to you.”

Christian De Coninck, a spokesman for the Brussels police, told reporters near the Maelbeek subway station that several people had been killed, but he did not have a number.

Mr. De Coninck was unable to say how many blasts had taken place at the station. He appealed to everyone in the area to stay indoors to avoid getting in the way of the emergency services.

Earlier in the morning, police officers taped off the numerous streets leading to the subway station as emergency vehicles raced to the blast sites.

Ambulances were clustered around the entrance, next to the normally busy Rue de la Loi, which runs through the heart of the so-called European quarter.

A police helicopter patrolled above the station.

“For the moment, what we know is that there was at least one, possibly two explosions; we are still investigating,” said Sandra Eyschen, a spokeswoman for the Belgian federal police. “There are several injured, we don’t have any exact numbers, and, unfortunately, it appears there are some dead, at least one person.”

Belgium quickly raised its threat status to the maximum level, The Associated Press reported, citing the interior minister, Jan Jambon.

A number of flights destined for Brussels that were in the air at the time of the blasts were being diverted to other airports, said Kyla Evans, a spokeswoman for Eurocontrol, the agency that coordinates air traffic for the region.

Belgium has emerged as a focus of counterterrorism investigators after theattacks in Paris in November that left 130 people dead.

On Monday, the Belgian authorities asked for the public’s help in findingNajim Laachraoui, 24, who they identified as an accomplice of Mr. Abdeslam. The authorities are also searching for Mohamed Abrini, 31, who was filmed with Mr. Abdeslam at a gas station on a highway to Paris two days before the Nov. 13 attacks.

In: nytimes

OTAN, preocupada por mayor presencia militar rusa en Siria

El secretario general de la alianza, Jens Stoltenberg, dijo que las acciones de Moscú no ayudan a solucionar el conflicto desatado en 2011.

Un tanque ruso secuestrado por los rebeldes a las fuerzas de Al Assad.
Un tanque ruso secuestrado por los rebeldes a las fuerzas de Al Assad.

Los reportes de inteligencia que hablan de una mayor presencia militar de Rusia en Siria tienen preocupada a la OTAN. Al menos así lo señaló este miércoles (09.09.2015) el secretario general de la alianza, el noruego Jens Stoltenberg, durante una visita a Praga. “Estoy preocupado por las informaciones sobre un aumento de la presencia militar rusa en Siria. “Eso no va a contribuir a la solución del conflicto”, dijo en la capital checa, en su primera visita al país desde que asumió el cargo.

Rusia ha negado esta semana cambios en la cooperación militar con Siria, sea en el estatus de la base naval de Tartus o en el suministro de armamento, en medio de los rumores occidentales sobre una intervención militar rusa en el país árabe. Según Moscú, esa colaboración militar se limita al suministro de equipos militares y a que especialistas militares adiestren en su manejo a los militares sirios.

Sin embargo, tres fuentes libanesas citadas por la agencia de noticias Reuters aseguran que fuerzas de combate rusas comenzaron a participar en operaciones militares en Siria, apoyando a las tropas del presidente Bashar al Assad. A eso se sumaría el reciente envío de barcos con tanques y aviones, además de desplegar un pequeño número de efectivos de infantería naval. Las fuentes de inteligencia estadounidenses no tienen clara la intención de estos movimientos militares, aunque el objetivo sería preparar una pista aérea en Latakia, bastión de Al Assad.

No solo asesoran

“Los rusos ya no son solo asesores. Los rusos decidieron unirse a la guerra contra el terrorismo”, dijo una de las fuentes libanesas citadas por Reuters. “Empezaron con números pequeños, pero la fuerza mayor no ha participado aún. (…) Hay algunos rusos combatiendo en Siria, pero todavía no se unieron con fuerza a la lucha contra el terrorismo”, destacó otra fuente, mientras un funcionario sirio señaló que “los expertos rusos siempre han estado presentes, pero en el último año han estado presentes en mayor grado”.

Luego de que Bulgaria negara el uso de su espacio aéreo a aviones de carga rusos (una medida que Moscú calificó como “grosería internacional”), el diplomático ruso Maxim Suslov, de la embajada en Irán, dijo que el gobierno de Teherán no impedirá los traslados, así como tampoco pondrá objeciones el gobierno de Grecia. El Ministerio de Exteriores ruso subrayó nuevamente que Rusia jamás ocultó su ayuda militar al gobierno sirio.

En tanto, el ministro de Exteriores, Sergei Lavrov, conversó con su par estadounidense, John Kerry, al que llamó a trabajar en conjunto para combatir al Estado Islámico. “Lavrov recalcó la necesidad de responder conjuntamente a los grupos terroristas que han capturado una parte importante de territorio sirio y amenazan la seguridad internacional”, informó la cancillería rusa en un comunicado.

DZC (EFE, dpa, Reuters)

En: DW

Potential Russian troop deployment in Syria draws U.S. concerns

President Vladimir Putin has been coy on the subject, saying Russia is weighing various options, a statement that has fuelled suspicions about the Kremlin’s intentions.

In a photo provided by the state-run Syrian Arab News Agency, President Bashar Assad of Syria meets with Mikhail Bogdanov, left, a Russian deputy foreign minister, in Damascus, Dec. 10, 2014. Russia has sent an advance military team to Syria and taken other steps that some fear could presage a vast expansion of Russian support for Assad. Photo: SANA / NYT
In a photo provided by the state-run Syrian Arab News Agency, President Bashar Assad of Syria meets with Mikhail Bogdanov, left, a Russian deputy foreign minister, in Damascus, Dec. 10, 2014. Russia has sent an advance military team to Syria and taken other steps that some fear could presage a vast expansion of Russian support for Assad. Photo: SANA / NYT

By: Vladimir Isachenkov The Associated Press, Published on Mon Sep 07 2015

MOSCOW— Signs of an ongoing Russian military buildup in Syria have drawn U.S. concerns and raised questions of whether Moscow plans to enter the civil war raging in that country.

President Vladimir Putin has been coy on the subject, saying Russia is weighing various options, a statement that has fuelled suspicions about the Kremlin’s intentions.

Observers in Moscow say the Russian manoeuvring could be part of a plan to send troops to Syria to fight the Islamic State group in the hope of fixing fractured ties with the West. They warn, however, that Putin would likely find it hard to sell his idea to a skeptical U.S. and he risks potentially catastrophic repercussions if he opts for unilateral military action in Syria.

By playing with the possibility of joining the anti-ISIS coalition, Putin may hope to win a few key concessions. His main goal: the lifting of Western sanctions and the normalization of relations with the United States and the European Union, which have sunk to their lowest point since the Cold War amid the Ukrainian crisis.

In addition, the Russian leader may be angling to make the West more receptive to Moscow’s involvement in Ukraine, while retaining influence in Syria.

Early this summer, the Kremlin put forward a peace plan for Syria that envisions enlisting Syrian government forces and Iran in the anti-ISIS coalition. A few rounds of negotiations with the Americans and Saudis have brought no visible results, and now Moscow appears to be testing the water for a next move: beefing up its military presence in Syria.

While Putin said Friday there is no talk “just yet” about Russian troops joining the fight against the Islamic State, he seemed to keep the door open for the possibility, saying “we are looking at various options.”

The Russian leader is set to attend the United Nations General Assembly later this month, and some analysts say a proposal to deploy troops to Syria could be the focal point of his visit.

Since the Soviet times, Russia has had close political and military ties with Syria, which hosts a Russian navy facility in the Mediterranean port of Tartus intended to service and supply visiting ships. While the Soviet-era facility has just a couple of floating piers along with a few rusting repair shops and depots, it has symbolic importance as the last remaining Russian military outpost outside the former Soviet Union.

Moscow has staunchly backed Syrian President Bashar Assad throughout the 4½-year civil war, providing his regime with weapons and keeping military advisers in Syria. Putin said again Friday that Russia is providing the Syrian military with weapons and training.

Rami Abdurrahman, the head of the Britain-based monitoring group Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, said there have been reports since mid-August of Russian troops in the capital’s airport and another airport in the coastal city of Latakia.

“We don’t know if they are troops or transporters of weapons and ammunition,” he said, noting an increase in the flow of Russian weapons arriving in Syria since July.

“The fact that (military co-operation) is not new is one thing, but there is a noticeable increase,” said Abdurrahman, who has a large network of activists on the ground in Syria helping him monitor the situation.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry signalled Washington’s concern in a phone call with his Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov over the weekend.

The State Department said that Kerry made it clear that if reports of an imminent Russian military buildup in Syria were accurate, “these actions could further escalate the conflict.”

According to U.S. defence officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, the U.S. has seen an increasing number of Russian transport planes seeking diplomatic approval for flights into Syria. They said it’s not clear what is in the aircraft or what their purpose is.

Greek Foreign Ministry spokesman Constantinos Koutras said the U.S. has asked Greece to cancel overflight permission given to Russia Sept. 1-24, for flights headed to Syria. He said they are examining the request.

If Russia ends up sending its military contingent to Syria, it will likely include a few combat jets along with support personnel and some troops to guard them, Felgenhauer said. Staying away from ground action would allow Russia to avoid any significant losses.

Alexei Malashenko, a Middle East expert with the Carnegie Endowment’s Moscow office, was skeptical, saying that Putin’s apparent plan to use Syria to improve ties with the West will be unlikely to succeed.

He warned that if Russia fails to strike a deal with the U.S. and tries to do it alone alongside Assad’s forces, it would further damage its relations not just with the U.S. but regional powers. It will also likely trigger a negative public response, providing a painful reminder of the botched Soviet war in Afghanistan.

“It will not be received with joy here in Russia; everyone will compare it to Afghanistan,” he said. “If they do it, it would be a very stupid thing. It’s very simple to get in, but it could be quite difficult to get out.”

Malashenko also warned that deploying Russian soldiers to fight the ISIS would draw risks of jihadist retaliation and raise the terror threat for Russia.

While launching unilateral action would be extremely risky, it’s difficult to predict how Putin will act if his offer of joint action against ISIS is rejected by Washington, Malashenko said.

“Putin is unpredictable, and he is very emotional,” he said.

In: thestar.com

Estados Unidos desplegará cazas invisibles F-22 en Europa

El envío de los aviones de guerra busca reforzar a sus aliados de la OTAN, especialmente en Europa Oriental

Washington. El Gobierno de Estados Unidos anunció hoy que desplegará cazas invisibles a radares F-22 en Europa, como parte de su plan de apoyo a la Alianza Atlántica anunciado el año pasado por el intervencionismo ruso en Ucrania.

La secretaria de la Fuerza Aérea, Deborah James, informó hoy en rueda de prensa que el Pentágono desplegará hasta cuatro de estos cazas de última generación.

James no especificó dónde y cuándo serán desplegados estos F-22 por motivos de seguridad.

El despliegue es un paso más en el mayor compromiso de Estados Unidos para reforzar a sus aliados de la OTAN, especialmente en Europa Oriental, tras el apoyo militar de Rusia a los separatistas en Ucrania y la anexión de la península de Crimea.

Estados Unidos anunció en junio del año pasado un aumento del número de soldados y material militar, así como más maniobras conjuntas, para demostrar su compromiso con sus socios en las fronteras orientales de la OTAN.

El pasado mes de junio, Estados Unidos anunció también el despliegue de tanques y piezas de artillería en las repúblicas bálticas, uno de los movimientos más importantes frente a Rusia desde la Guerra Fría.

Los cazas F-22, con la última tecnología antirradar, han sido utilizados por primera vez en combate real durante los bombardeos contra posiciones del grupo yihadista Estado Islámico en Siria e Iraq.

Fuente: EFE

En: elcomercio

Ver además: EEUU enviará 12 nuevos aviones de guerra al este de Europa

USA wollen F-22-Bomber in Europa stationieren

La salida de Rusia del Tratado de Fuerzas Armadas Convencionales en Europa es una señal a Occidente

El FACE, que establece una serie de limitaciones al equipamiento militar de los Estados, fue firmado en 1990 por los países de la OTAN y los miembros del Pacto de Varsovia. En 1999, se aprobó un texto adaptado que, teniendo en cuenta la ampliación de la OTAN, rebajaba los límites de equipamiento militar para los países de la alianza y permitía a Rusia poseer más equipamiento en el Cáucaso y al noroeste del país. Moscú ratificó el tratado adaptado (en 2004), pero de los 30 países que firmaron el documento solo tres siguieron su ejemplo: Bielorrusia, Kazajistán y Ucrania. En 2007, Rusia suspendió el cumplimiento de sus obligaciones dentro del tratado, aunque solo ahora Moscú lo ha abandonado definitivamente.

Rusia ha anunciado su salida del Tratado de las Fuerzas Armadas Convencionales en Europa (FACE, por sus siglas en inglés) por considerar que este “ha dejado de tener sentido”. Los expertos rusos consultados creen que, con este paso, Moscú pretende poner de manifiesto su desagrado ante las medidas desplegadas en el marco de la aún vigente crisis de Ucrania.

20150312-bombas-de-racimo.jpg

Moscú ha anunciado que el 11 de marzo abandona el FACE y alega que el tratado “ha dejado de tener sentido desde el punto de vista político y práctico”. Al enterarse de la noticia, el secretario general de la OTAN, Jens Stoltenberg, ha declarado que la alianza está decepcionada con la decisión de Rusia.

Los expertos atribuyen la decisión de Moscú a los acontecimientos derivados de la crisis de ucrania. Alexéi Arbátov, director del Centro de Seguridad Internacional del Instituto de Economía Global, ha calificado el paso de “gesto demostrativo en respuesta al incremento de fuerzas de la OTAN junto a las fronteras de Rusia”.

Según el experto, ante el reciente traslado a Letonia de una brigada de tanques norteamericana (despliegue que tuvo lugar hace unas semanas), Rusia ha querido recordar una vez más que no seguirá participando en este tratado.

Asimismo, el experto opina que “el traslado de esta brigada solo puede entenderse como una violación, si no de sus términos, sí al menos del espíritu del tratado”. Según aclara Arbátov, se suponía que con el tiempo se fijarían unos límites admisibles al equipamiento militar de los países bálticos adheridos a la OTAN en 2004 (los países bálticos no se mencionan ni en el FACE original ni en su versión adaptada).

El jefe del Consejo de Asuntos Exteriores ruso, Andréi Kortunov, ha interpretado la salida de Rusia del tratado como una señal, con la que el país eslavo desea informar a sus socios occidentales de que no está conforme con la actual actividad militar de la OTAN junto a sus fronteras.

“Un grave error”

Rusia ratificó la versión adaptada del FACE a pesar de que los países bálticos no se mencionaban en ella y de que las limitaciones fijadas al equipamiento militar en los países de la OTAN triplicaban las restricciones impuestas al ejército de la Federación de Rusia. Los miembros de la OTAN, sin embargo, no quisieron ratificarlo.

20150312-tanque_militar_ruso.jpg

La OTAN supeditó la ratificación del tratado al cumplimiento, por parte de Rusia, del Protocolo de Estambul de 1999, el cual preveía la retirada de las tropas rusas de Georgia, Abjasia, Osetia del Sur y Transdniéster. Moscú consideró esta condición improcedente, ya que los acuerdos para la retirada de tropas firmados con Georgia y Moldavia tenían carácter bilateral y no guardaban ninguna relación con la FACE.

“Los países de la OTAN no tenían ninguna prisa por ratificar la adaptación del tratado. Aunque Rusia retiró prácticamente todos sus contingentes e instalaciones de esos territorios, Occidente se empeñó en seguir exigiendo a Rusia la retirada de todas sus tropas respaldándose en el Protocolo de Estambul. Creo que la OTAN no estuvo muy acertada en este caso, cometió un gran error”, comenta Arbátov, a lo que añade que la alianza ha acabado con el régimen de control del equipamiento militar convencional en Europa.

Al mismo tiempo, los expertos señalan que la salida de Rusia de la FACE no ha venido acompañada de iniciativas concretas para el restablecimiento de un nivel adecuado de estabilidad y seguridad.

“Cuando se renuncia a algo, lo justo sería proponer nuevas soluciones al problema”, señala Kortunov, quien opina que la forma en que Rusia ha abandonado el tratado avivará el ánimo antirruso y despertará la desconfianza por parte de los países occidentales.

En: es.rbth.com

Ver: Comité Internacional de la Cruz Roja – Armas Convencionales

Continúa leyendo “La salida de Rusia del Tratado de Fuerzas Armadas Convencionales en Europa es una señal a Occidente”

Ucrania y el Estado Islámico copan la agenda de la cumbre más decisiva de la OTAN

20140904-cumbre_otan_inglaterra_gales_2014.jpg

El “reforzamiento” militar de Ucrania y la coalición internacional para hacer frente a la amenaza del Estado Islámico (IS) serán los puntos álgidos en la 26 cumbre de la OTAN, posiblemente la más decisiva en la última década, que comienza este jueves en la localidad galesa de Newport.

El presidente Obama hará un llamamiento a los aliados para armar no sólo a Ucrania, sino a Georgia y Moldavia y a otras ex repúblicas soviéticas, con la intención de contrarrestar el poder de Moscú y responder a la “agresión” del presidente ruso Vladimir Putin.

Obama no pedirá la intervención directa de la OTAN en el conflicto, pero dará su apoyo a la creación de una fuerza de respuesta rápida, integrada por 4.000 soldados y fuerzas especiales de los 28 países miembros, anunciada hace dos días por el secretario general de la organización, Anders Fogh Rasmussen.

El presidente norteamericano insistirá en la necesidad de redefinir la estrategia regional de la OTAN y “reafirmar el principio que siempre ha guiado a nuestra alianza”. Obama se mostró recalcará también la necesidad de dejar “la puerta abierta” a la pertenencia a la organización de nuevos países en el área de influencia de Rusia.

‘Coalición de voluntarios’ contra el IS

La apertura de la cumbre estará también consagrada a la formación de una “coalición de voluntarios” para librar una ofensiva contra el Estado Islámico (IS) en Irak. Aunque el debate se realice en el marco de la OTAN, Obama dejará claro que su intención es forjar una alianza país a país, abierta también a los países árabes en la zona.

El primer ministro británico y afitrión, David Cameron, será previsiblemente el pimero en ofrecerse como “voluntario” y expresar su disposición a ceder aviones de la Royal Air Force (RAF) como apoyo en las incursiones y bombardeos contra las bases del IS en Irak.

En: elmundo.es

Continúa leyendo “Ucrania y el Estado Islámico copan la agenda de la cumbre más decisiva de la OTAN”

La OTAN ve en Rusia una amenaza para la alianza

20140902-boma_tzar_la_mas_grande.jpg

La Organización del Tratado del Atlántico Norte en su cumbre que tendrá lugar en Gales los días 4 y 5 de septiembre podrá reconocer a Rusia como una amenaza para la alianza. La OTAN planea además emplazar cinco bases militares en Europa del Este, escribe Kommersant.

El documento de 20 folios preparado para la próxima cita, por primera vez desde el término de la Guerra Fría, dice que Rusia representa “amenaza para la seguridad euroatlántica”.

Tal afirmación contradice el Acta Fundamental Rusia-OTAN de 1997 en el que se destaca que Moscú y la alianza “no se consideran como enemigos” y procurarán “superar los vestigios de la confrontación antigua”, fomentando la confianza mutua.

En relación a la actitud del Kremlin ante los sucesos en Ucrania, según el documento, la OTAN creará cinco nuevas bases militares en Europa del Este: en el territorio de Letonia, Lituania, Estonia, Rumania y Polonia.

Cada base acogerá a 300-600 militares que cumplirán misiones de reconocimiento y planeamiento. Será formado además el nuevo cuerpo expedicionario que contará con 4.000-10.000 efectivos lo que aumentará el potencial combativo del bloque, concluye el diario.

En: RIA novosti

Ver: Evolución de la OTAN

Continúa leyendo “La OTAN ve en Rusia una amenaza para la alianza”