Post 1 of 2: The next 500 days of war in Europe
1. Time waits for no man. I congratulate NATO’s 31 members for doing the logical after all the delays (introduced by Erdoğan), to admit Sweden as 32nd member, after 500 days of war in Europe.
2. If NATO wants Japanese money and materials in the arming and reconstruction of Ukraine, they need to open a 2 to 5 person liaison office (LO) in Japan, no matter what silly objections French President Emmanuel Macron might raise, to appease China.
3. The FT editorial board wrote: “US caution over Kyiv’s Nato membership hints, too, at the limits of America’s readiness to continue to underwrite Europe’s security, nearly 75 years after the alliance’s foundation.” This quote correctly understood means American priority cannot be endlessly devoted to an European problem — a war in Europe.
4. "The IISS estimates that, if all promises are kept, the average level of defence expenditure among nato’s European members will be 1.8-1.9% of GDP by 2032, compared with 1.6% in 2022 and 1.3% in 2014." It is not just underspending on defence alone, incompetence made Europe’s largest economy dependent on Putin and enabled the worst war in Europe. Lack of German military readiness would mean that if Russia had attacked Germany and others who are equally unprepared, they would not have lasted 500 days, as Ukraine has done.
5. NATO officials have been discussing plans to open a 2 to 5 person LO in Japan, which would represent the allies’ first outpost in the Indo-Pacific region at a time of growing tension between the West and China. The past history on NATO’s LOs taken altogether tells us a few things:
1. Time waits for no man. I congratulate NATO’s 31 members for doing the logical after all the delays (introduced by Erdoğan), to admit Sweden as 32nd member, after 500 days of war in Europe.
(a) With Sweden’s admission later this year, the Northern flank is more secure. While political leaders in Europe pat themselves on the back for maintaining unity, their fear of escalation have caused fighting in Ukraine to extend by another 500 days (to at least a 1,000 days, when it can end faster). The longer it drags, the more harm it does to Ukraine & its people.
(b) Last week, French President Emmanuel Macron informed NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg that his country was opposed to the idea of the alliance opening a liaison office in Tokyo. NATO officials have been talking about opening such an office for some time.
(c) If NATO’s past is of any guidance, the liaison office to African Union is a good starting point to grasp the idea. Given that NATO has removed Tokyo office mention from joint communique in a rather anti-climatic petty French drama, I feel the need to explain what is wrong with the position taken by France.
(d) Most don’t understand the role of France in NATO. The country is in NATO to weaken it. President Emmanuel Macron famously called the alliance brain dead & tried to pull European states into a European security project to the sound of crickets. The dysfunction on both sides of the French political divide is the story of why their soft power under performs in the Indo-Pacific. From a foreign policy lens, I would not trust the actions & thoughts of Marcon, when it relates to NATO.
2. If NATO wants Japanese money and materials in the arming and reconstruction of Ukraine, they need to open a 2 to 5 person liaison office (LO) in Japan, no matter what silly objections French President Emmanuel Macron might raise, to appease China.
(a) The fact that any NATO member official would suggest an LO may antagonise China is an astonishing and silly point. NATO is the most powerful military organisation on the planet.
(b) NATO as a 31 to 32 member organisation should not fear offending China (over a fake Chinese disinformation point) and moreover, it should not risk offending a real partner like Japan.
3. The FT editorial board wrote: “US caution over Kyiv’s Nato membership hints, too, at the limits of America’s readiness to continue to underwrite Europe’s security, nearly 75 years after the alliance’s foundation.” This quote correctly understood means American priority cannot be endlessly devoted to an European problem — a war in Europe.
(a) Years of defence cuts has made the collective European war stockpile so small and its military industrial base so weak, it can’t supply the war needs of Ukraine in its 2023 offensive without drawing on American cluster munitions. American priority must be and should be devoted to its pacing threat, the PLA.
(b) There are also articles that claim that the Convention on Cluster Munitions "had until now created an important pause in the use of cluster munitions by non-states parties". That is plainly false. And information to the contrary is easy to find. In most high-intensity conflicts after the Convention was signed did see the use of these weapons by non-signatories.
(c) The claim of a "weight of international condemnation of the weapons" that might show an emerging norm of customary international law is therefore false. In 2015, Saudi-Arabia, also not a party to the convention, used cluster bombs against civilian targets in Yemen. This report by @snhr reports in detail about the use of cluster munitions by Syrian regime and Russian forces to murder thousands of civilians in Syria.
(d) If Ukraine as a non-signatory uses cluster weapons to attack Russian fortifications or formations, it is therefore well within the bounds of international humanitarian law, which governs the behavior of states in armed conflict. In short, non-signatories may use cluster weapons against targets where civilians are unlikely to be present.
4. "The IISS estimates that, if all promises are kept, the average level of defence expenditure among nato’s European members will be 1.8-1.9% of GDP by 2032, compared with 1.6% in 2022 and 1.3% in 2014." It is not just underspending on defence alone, incompetence made Europe’s largest economy dependent on Putin and enabled the worst war in Europe. Lack of German military readiness would mean that if Russia had attacked Germany and others who are equally unprepared, they would not have lasted 500 days, as Ukraine has done.
5. NATO officials have been discussing plans to open a 2 to 5 person LO in Japan, which would represent the allies’ first outpost in the Indo-Pacific region at a time of growing tension between the West and China. The past history on NATO’s LOs taken altogether tells us a few things:
(a) One in the Indo-Pacific region is consistent with NATO own practices;
(b) LOs are not established just in AORs; &
(c) LOs are meant to facilitate cooperation.
Last edited: