World
NATO did not ‘create incentive’ for Putin to stop Ukraine war
When Lithuanian President Gitanas Nausėda outlined his expectations ahead of this year’s NATO summit, he said he wanted the event to be remembered as the “summit of decisions – not just declarations”.
After two days of intense discussions and bilateral negotiations in the Lithuanian capital, Vilnius, leaders of the world’s largest military alliance made some big decisions, ranging from backing Sweden’s NATO membership to pledging security guarantees for war-torn Ukraine.
But when it came to the question of Ukraine’s NATO membership, the alliance decided it was not the right moment to invite Ukraine to join.
“We will be in a position to extend an invitation to Ukraine to join the Alliance when Allies agree and conditions are met,” NATO leaders said in a declaration.
“We reaffirm the commitment we made at the 2008 Summit in Bucharest that Ukraine will become a member of NATO, and today we recognise that Ukraine’s path to full Euro-Atlantic integration has moved beyond the need for the Membership Action Plan,” the NATO leaders said.
According to Bruno Lete, security and defence expert at the German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMF) in Brussels, while the declaration expresses strong and continued support for Ukraine, “NATO remains vague about the issue.”
“NATO is clearly deepening its relations with Kyiv, but regarding membership, the Vilnius Declaration gives little more reason for enthusiasm than the 2008 Bucharest Declaration did,” he told Al Jazeera.
“It positions NATO in such a way where in the future the alliance can choose to give Ukraine membership, or if necessary use Ukraine’s membership as a bargaining chip vis-à-vis Russia,” he said, noting that this would leave Kyiv disappointed.
While there has been broad consensus among NATO members about supporting Ukraine militarily at the NATO summit, the issue of setting a timeline for Kyiv’s membership remains divisive.
Some nations, including the US and Germany, have been wary that allowing Kyiv into the military alliance amid a war would also drag NATO into the battlefield with Russia — an outcome they want to avoid.
Meanwhile, eastern European nations and Poland, which have been among Ukraine’s most vocal supporters, continued to push for Kyiv’s membership.
Before he arrived at the summit on Tuesday, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said NATO’s stance on Kyiv’s membership was “absurd” in a rare public show of anger towards the alliance.
But after meeting with NATO leaders in Lithuania, the Ukrainian leader softened his tone and said in a tweet that Ukraine understood it “cannot become a member of NATO while the war is ongoing. But then it will be our common strength when Ukraine joins the Alliance.”
In a press briefing in Vilnius alongside NATO’s Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg, Zelenskyy said that “getting an invitation” at the summit would still have been “ideal” and acted as “a technical signal” in the face of Russian aggression.
‘Security victory’ for Ukraine
Meanwhile, NATO chief Stoltenberg continued to reaffirm to Zelenskyy that the country would become a member of the alliance in the future and told the Ukrainian president that he was looking forward to the day they “meet as allies”.
Stoltenberg also highlighted that it was important for Ukraine to receive strong security guarantees as it continues to fight against the Russian invasion.
After the summit, NATO members and the Group of Seven (G7) bloc of nations pledged to send new defence packages and missiles to Ukraine, which they said were part of long-term security assistance.
Zelenskyy hailed the new defence packages and said “The Ukrainian delegation is bringing home a security victory for Ukraine.”
He also welcomed the opening of the NATO-Ukraine Council and said it would give Ukraine the “necessary institutional certainty” on Kyiv’s NATO membership pathway.
According to Stoltenberg, the council would act like a consultation mechanism between NATO members and Ukraine, whereby if Kyiv feels threatened, specific issues could be instantly discussed and decided by the council, bringing Ukraine closer to the alliance.
“This council will be a place where allies in Ukraine will jointly advance Ukraine’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO,” said Harry Nedelcu, geopolitics director at Rasmussen Global and leader of its Ukraine Advisory Service, told Al Jazeera.
“But what would have been really a step forward, would be if this NATO-Ukraine Council was the body which could actually clearly set out the steps and assess the conditions that Ukraine would have to fulfil to become a member,”
“Basically all these questions are being left for another day and are being kicked down the road for the NATO summit in Washington next year,” Nedelcu said.
“The security guarantees for Ukraine are an interim solution to help Ukraine defend itself against Russia. But if this NATO summit was supposed to send a strong message to Russia’s [President Vladimir] Putin that the alliance is here to support Ukraine for as long as it takes, the glass is still half empty with no clear timeline for Kyiv’s membership.
“This does not create an incentive for Putin to stop the war,” Nedelcu said.
How has the Kremlin reacted?
In an interview with Al Jazeera on Tuesday, Russia’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova suggested that NATO was not extending an invite to Ukraine since some NATO nations like Poland considered western Ukraine part of its territory and intended to invade the region. She provided no evidence for the claim, which has been promoted without evidence by other Russian officials in the past.
She also said NATO was already at war with Russia because of its support for Ukraine militarily.
Lete rejected the claim and said NATO had not joined the war.
“Russia is falsely claiming it is fighting a war against all of NATO to justify to its own citizens the disastrous military campaign in Ukraine,” Lete said.
“Clearly, NATO has not violated Russian territory, nor has any ally fired a single shot at Russia. It’s therefore false to argue that the alliance is engaging in war,” he added.
After NATO and the G7 announced new defence packages for Ukraine, the Kremlin also warned that more security guarantees to Ukraine would be “dangerous” and infringe on Russia’s security.
Meanwhile, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov told reporters it was an ideal time for Moscow to maintain good relations with Beijing and said that “a visit to China” was on the Russian president’s agenda.
China has not condemned Russia’s actions in Ukraine, and it also downplayed the recent, short-lived Wagner Group rebellion.
At their meeting in Lithuania, NATO leaders said, “The deepening strategic partnership between the People’s Republic of China and Russia and their mutually reinforcing attempts to undercut the rules-based international order run counter to our values and interests.”
They also called on China to condemn Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine and abstain from supporting Russia’s war effort in any way.
China’s European Affairs Director-General Wang Lutong said in a tweet that NATO’s accusations about China were “false”.
“They are purely driven by the Cold War mentality and ideological bias,” he said.
Turkey and Sweden secure wins
In addition to bolstering support for Ukraine, NATO members also fortified the alliance’s Baltic borders by giving Sweden the green light to join NATO.
Turkey and Hungary, which held up Sweden’s NATO accession for more than a year, agreed to let Sweden join.
Stoltenberg hailed the agreement on Sweden’s accession as “a historic step”.
But for Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, backing Sweden’s NATO membership has appeared transactional.
Erdoğan had repeatedly said that he would approve Sweden’s NATO membership only if Stockholm dealt with Ankara’s “security concerns”, which included demands to expel members of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which Turkey has declared a “terrorist” organisation, and members of the Syrian Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD).
But on the eve of the military alliance’s summit, the Turkish president added another condition for Sweden’s NATO membership, saying he would approve Sweden’s accession if the European Union relaunched the long-stalled talks of Ankara’s EU membership.
After holding bilateral talks with Turkey in Lithuania on the eve of the NATO summit, European Council President Charles Michel said the 27-member bloc would cooperate with Ankara to discuss its EU membership. Sweden also said it would support Turkey’s EU membership.
“As a master of brinkmanship, Erdoğan dropped his veto when he assessed that the risks associated with continuing the veto had begun to outweigh the potential additional benefits,” Ozgur Unluhisarcikli, director of GMF’s office in Ankara, Turkey, told Al Jazeera.
Meanwhile, Turkey also expressed support for Ukraine’s NATO membership in the long run.
Unluhisarcikli said that these actions “won’t go unnoticed by Russia”.
“Turkey always had a pro-Kyiv, but not anti-Russia approach. But Erdoğan’s measured approach to the Wagner mutiny in Russia, returning Azov Battalion commanders to Ukraine, and reasserting support to Ukraine’s NATO membership against Sweden’s accession to NATO within three weeks will not go unnoticed by Russia,” he said.
“Because of these developments, Moscow may come to see Turkey as a less reliable facilitator and mediator,” Unluhisarcikli noted. “On the other hand, Russia does not have too many other alternatives to its relationship with Turkey.”
World
Jon Hamm’s Your Friends & Neighbors Renewed at Apple TV+ Ahead of Series Premiere — Get Release Date
ad
World
Israel keeping its ‘eyes open’ for Iranian attacks during Trump transition period, ambassador says
Israel’s U.N. Ambassador Danny Danon tells Fox News Digital that his country is keeping its “eyes open” for any potential aggression from Iran during the Trump transition period, adding it would be a “mistake” for the Islamic Republic to carry out an attack.
The comments come after Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi vowed earlier this week that Iran would retaliate against Israel for the strategic airstrikes it carried out against Tehran on Oct. 26. Araghchi was quoted in Iranian media saying “we have not given up our right to react, and we will react in our time and in the way we see fit.”
“I would advise him not to challenge us. We have already shown our capabilities. We have proved that they are vulnerable. We can actually target any location in Iran. They know that,” Danon told Fox News Digital.
“So I would advise them not to make that mistake. If they think that now, because of the transition period, they can take advantage of it, they are wrong,” he added. “We are keeping our eyes open and we are ready for all scenarios.”
ICC REJECTS ISRAELI APPEALS, ISSUES ARREST WARRANTS FOR BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, YOAV GALLANT
Danon says he believes one of the most important challenges for the incoming Trump administration will be the way the U.S. deals with Iran.
“Regarding the new administration, I think the most important challenge will be the way you challenge Iran, the aggression, the threat of the Iranian regime. I believe that the U.S. will have to go back to a leading position on this issue,” he told Fox News Digital.
“We are fighting the same enemies, the enemies of the United States of America. When you look at the Iranians, the Houthis, Hezbollah, Hamas, all those bad actors that are coming against Israel… that is the enemy of the United States. So I think every American should support us and understand what we are doing now,” Danon also said.
IRAN HIDING MISSILE, DRONE PROGRAMS UNDER GUISE OF COMMERCIAL FRONT TO EVADE SANCTIONS
Danon spoke as the U.S. vetoed a draft resolution against Israel at the U.N. Security Council on Wednesday.
The resolution, which was overseen by Algeria, sought an “immediate, unconditional and permanent cease-fire” to be imposed on Israel. The resolution did not guarantee the release of the hostages still being held by Hamas within Gaza.
“It was a shameful resolution because… it didn’t have the linkage between the cease-fire and the call [for] the release of the hostages. And I want to thank the United States for taking a strong position and vetoing this resolution,” Danon said. “I think it sent a very clear message that the U.S. stands with its strongest ally with Israel. And, you know, it was shameful, too, to hear the voices of so many ambassadors speaking about a cease-fire but abandoning the 101 hostages. We will not forget them. We will never abandon them. We will continue to fight until we bring all of them back home.”
Fox News’ Benjamin Weinthal contributed to this report.
World
Fact-check: What do we know about Russia’s nuclear arsenal?
Moscow has lowered the bar for using nuclear weapons and fired a missile capable of carrying a nuclear warhead into Ukraine, heightening tensions with the West.
Russia’s nuclear arsenal is under fresh scrutiny after an intermediate-range ballistic missile capable of carrying an atomic warhead was fired into Ukrainian territory.
President Vladimir Putin says the unprecedented attack using the so-called “Oreshnik” missile is a direct response to Ukraine’s use of US and UK-made missiles to strike targets deep in Russian territory.
He has also warned that the military facilities of Western countries allowing Ukraine to use their weapons to strike Russia could become targets.
The escalation comes days after the Russian President approved small but significant changes to his country’s nuclear doctrine, which would allow a nuclear response to a conventional, non-nuclear attack on Russian territory.
While Western officials, including US defence secretary Lloyd Austin, have dismissed the notion that Moscow’s use of nuclear weapons is imminent, experts warn that recent developments could increase the possibility of nuclear weapons use.
Here’s what we know about Russia’s inventory of atomic weapons.
How big is Russia’s nuclear arsenal?
Russia holds more nuclear warheads than any other nation at an estimated 5,580, which amounts to 47% of global stockpiles, according to data from the Federation of American Scientists (FAS).
But only an estimated 1,710 of those weapons are deployed, a fraction more than the 1,670 deployed by the US.
Both nations have the necessary nuclear might to destroy each other several times over, and considerably more atomic warheads than the world’s seven other nuclear nations: China, France, India, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan and the United Kingdom.
Of Moscow’s deployed weapons, an estimated 870 are on land-based ballistic missiles, 640 on submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and potentially 200 at heavy bomber bases.
According to FAS, there are no signs Russia is significantly scaling up its nuclear arsenal, but the federation does warn of a potential surge in the future as the country replaces single-warhead missiles with those capable of carrying multiple warheads.
Russia is also steadily modernising its nuclear arsenal.
What could trigger a Russian nuclear response?
Moscow’s previous 2020 doctrine stated that its nuclear weapons could be used in response to an attack using nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction “when the very existence of the state is put under threat.”
Now, the conditions under which a nuclear response could be launched have changed in three crucial ways:
- Russia will consider using nuclear weapons in the case of a strike on its territory using conventional weapons, such as cruise missiles, drones and tactical aircraft.
- It could launch a nuclear attack in response to an aggression by a non-nuclear state acting “with the participation or support of a nuclear state”, as is the case for Ukraine.
- Moscow will also apply the same conditions to an attack on Belarus’ territory, in agreement with President Lukashenko.
Is there a rising nuclear threat?
The size of the world’s nuclear stockpiles has rapidly decreased amid the post-Cold War détente. The Soviet Union had some 40,000 warheads, and the US around 30,000, when stockpiles peaked during the 1960s and 70s.
But FAS warns that while the overall number is still in decline, operational warheads are on the rise once again. More countries are also upgrading their missiles to deploy multiple warheads.
“In nearly all of the nuclear-armed states there are either plans or a significant push to increase nuclear forces,” Hans M. Kristensen, Director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), said in June this year.
Is the West reacting?
When Putin approved the updated nuclear protocol last week, many Western leaders dismissed it as sabre rattling.
German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock said Germany and its partners would “not be intimidated” and accused Putin of “playing with our fear.”
But since Russia used a hypersonic ballistic missile capable of carrying a nuclear warhead in an attack on Dnipro, European leaders have raised the alarm.
“The last few dozen hours have shown that the threat is serious and real when it comes to global conflict,” Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said on Friday.
According to Dutch media reports, NATO’s secretary-general Mark Rutte is in Florida to urgently meet President-elect Donald Trump, potentially to discuss the recent escalation.
NATO and Ukraine will hold an extraordinary meeting in Brussels next Tuesday to discuss the situation and the possible allied reaction, according to Euronews sources.
-
Business1 week ago
Column: OpenAI just scored a huge victory in a copyright case … or did it?
-
Health1 week ago
Bird flu leaves teen in critical condition after country's first reported case
-
Business6 days ago
Column: Molly White's message for journalists going freelance — be ready for the pitfalls
-
World1 week ago
Sarah Palin, NY Times Have Explored Settlement, as Judge Sets Defamation Retrial
-
Science3 days ago
Trump nominates Dr. Oz to head Medicare and Medicaid and help take on 'illness industrial complex'
-
Politics5 days ago
Trump taps FCC member Brendan Carr to lead agency: 'Warrior for Free Speech'
-
Technology4 days ago
Inside Elon Musk’s messy breakup with OpenAI
-
Lifestyle5 days ago
Some in the U.S. farm industry are alarmed by Trump's embrace of RFK Jr. and tariffs