On June 14, 2021, the NATO Leaders Summit will be held in Brussels, the capital of Belgium.Image source: Visual China

Reporter | An Jing Reporter | An Jing The establishment of NATO in 1949 coincided with the beginning of the Cold War. The target of the military alliance was the Soviet Union and Russia thereafter. The NATO Communiqué never mentioned China. For the first time, NATO mentioned in the summit document that China is the 2019 London summit. There was a sentence in the London Declaration at that time that simply mentioned China, saying that China’s increased influence provided NATO with opportunities and challenges. But after the summit on June 14 this year, NATO included China and Russia in the communiqué for the first time as a “security challenge”, saying that “China poses a systemic challenge to the international order.” In response to this, the “Reference News” published an article that history has proven and will continue to prove that China’s rise is conducive to the peace and stability of the international community and does not pose a threat to the international community at all. In fact, the world today faces many real threats and challenges. The new crown pneumonia epidemic is still raging around the world, the global economy is sluggish, the recovery is weak, and global challenges such as climate change are becoming increasingly prominent. All of them urgently need to be addressed by the international community. The NATO summit continued the tone of US President Biden’s European tour of advocating containment of China. The spokesperson of the Chinese mission to the European Union pointed out that the China-related content in the NATO Communiqué is a continuation of the Cold War mentality and the political psychology of the group. “Systemic Challenges”

On the 14th, Biden participated in the first NATO summit since becoming the US president in Brussels. On the same day, the leaders of 30 NATO member states signed the communiqué.

In this 14,000-word communiqué, the word “Russia” appeared 63 times and “China” appeared 10 times.

Communiqué of the Brussels Summit.Image source: NATO official website

The first two articles of the communiqué reiterated the meaning of NATO as usual, and the third article mentioned China.

Article 3 states that NATO member states are currently facing various threats, systemic competition and “security challenges”, and China and Russia appear together in the relevant expositions. Russia is characterized as a security “threat” to Europe and the Atlantic region; the term “threat” is not used against China, but China is regarded as a “challenge” that requires NATO member states to jointly address.

The latter part of the communiqué stated that China’s actions “posed a systemic challenge to the international order based on rules and areas related to alliance security”. NATO claims that China has expanded the number of nuclear weapons, is “opaque” in military modernization, has conducted military cooperation with Russia, and participated in Russia’s military exercises in Europe and the Atlantic.

At the same time, the communiqué stated that NATO will maintain a constructive dialogue with China in possible areas, including NATO-related matters and joint response to climate change.

NATO Secretary-General Stoltenberg emphasized in an interview with reporters after the summit that this is the first time that NATO has mentioned China in the communiqués and documents of the leaders’ summit. He said that China is not an “rival” of NATO, but it poses a challenge to NATO’s security.

Stoltenberg claimed that China’s defense budget ranks second in the world. NATO can see China in Africa and the Arctic Circle. China also invests in key infrastructure of NATO countries. He said that in view of this, NATO needs to respond to China’s challenges with greater resilience and higher technology.

He said that responding to challenges does not mean “moving NATO to Asia”, but to strengthen the member states’ own technology, cyber defense, and overall defense capabilities.

Regarding the NATO Communiqué and Stoltenberg’s speeches, the spokesperson of the Chinese mission to the European Union pointed out that NATO’s claim that China constitutes a so-called “systemic challenge” is a slander of China’s peaceful development and a misunderstanding of the international situation and its own role. The judgment is even more attributable to the continuation of the Cold War mentality and the political psychology of the group.

The spokesperson of the Chinese mission to the European Union said that in 2021, China’s defense budget will be 1.35 trillion yuan (approximately US$209 billion), with a GDP accounting for about 1.3%, which is less than NATO’s “pass line”. In contrast, the total military spending of the 30 NATO countries in 2021 is expected to be as high as 1.17 trillion US dollars, accounting for more than half of the total global military spending and 5.6 times that of China.

In addition, the number of nuclear weapons in China is not at the same level as that of NATO countries such as the United States. According to statistics from think tanks such as Sweden and the United States, the number of nuclear warheads in NATO member states is nearly 20 times that of China. China always scrupulously abides by not being the first to use nuclear weapons at any time and under any circumstances, and has made a clear commitment to unconditionally not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon states and nuclear-weapon-free zones.

The spokesperson pointed out that China has always been committed to peaceful development and will not pose “systematic challenges” to anyone, but if anyone wants to “systematic challenges” to us, we will not remain indifferent.

At the same time, within European countries, there are also different views on the relationship between China and NATO.

After the NATO summit on Monday, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said that China should not over-position the security risks posed by China and should find a “balance” because China is also a partner in many areas.

French President Macron stated that the most pressing issue facing NATO is combating terrorism and security issues related to Russia, and that China should not be distracted by China.

Before attending the NATO summit, British Prime Minister Johnson reiterated that NATO does not want to enter a new cold war with China.

Incorporate space into collective defense

The most important clause of the North Atlantic Treaty is Article 5, which is the collective defense clause. This article stipulates that an armed attack on one or more contracting states shall be regarded as an attack on NATO as a whole.

After the United States suffered the “September 11” attack in 2001, NATO used the collective defense clause for the first time. At the NATO summit in 2017, the then-U.S. President Trump refused to express support for the collective defense clause, which caused dissatisfaction among other NATO members.

At this summit, Biden, who is bent on repairing relations with allies, emphasized that NATO is of vital importance to the interests of the United States, and called the collective defense clause a “sacred obligation” of the United States.

In addition to emphasizing the principle of collective defense, the NATO Communiqué also included cyber attacks and space attacks into the scope of collective defense.

The communiqué pointed out that NATO will determine whether member states can use collective defense clauses in accordance with the principle of specific handling of specific situations. NATO claims that under certain circumstances, large-scale cyber attacks can constitute “armed attacks.”

At the same time, the communiqué pointed out for the first time that space attacks pose a “clear challenge” to NATO’s security and threaten national security, so similar attacks may trigger collective defense clauses.

However, whether to use collective defense clauses against such attacks will also be determined by NATO on a case-by-case basis. At present, about 2,000 orbiting satellites have been launched around the world, and more than half of them are operated by NATO member states.

Prior to this, both Ukraine and Georgia expressed their strong desire to join NATO, especially Ukraine.

When Russia increased its troops on the eastern border of Ukraine on a large scale, Ukrainian President Zelensky repeatedly stated that joining NATO is the only way to solve the problem.

As far as Russia is concerned, Ukraine’s accession to NATO will directly threaten Russia’s security, which is an absolute taboo. Last week, Russian President Vladimir Putin warned in a televised speech that Ukraine’s accession to NATO would enable NATO missiles to reach Moscow and other key areas of Russia within seven minutes.

Putin said that this situation is equivalent to deploying Russian missiles in Mexico or Canada. He threatened that at least half of the Ukrainian people did not want to join NATO because “they do not want to put themselves at the forefront of the war, and they do not want to be bargaining pawns or cannon fodder.”

Ukraine was not invited to participate in the NATO summit this week. On Monday, Zelensky called on Biden to make a clear statement on whether Ukraine can join NATO; Biden responded that whether Ukraine can join NATO “still needs to be observed.”

Biden will hold the first summit with Putin in Geneva on Wednesday, local time.

On June 14, 2021, the NATO Leaders Summit will be held in Brussels, the capital of Belgium.Image source: Visual China

Reporter | An Jing Reporter | An Jing The establishment of NATO in 1949 coincided with the beginning of the Cold War. The target of the military alliance was the Soviet Union and Russia thereafter. The NATO Communiqué never mentioned China. For the first time, NATO mentioned in the summit document that China is the 2019 London summit. There was a sentence in the London Declaration at that time that simply mentioned China, saying that China’s increased influence provided NATO with opportunities and challenges. But after the summit on June 14 this year, NATO included China and Russia in the communiqué for the first time as a “security challenge”, saying that “China poses a systemic challenge to the international order.” In response to this, the “Reference News” published an article that history has proven and will continue to prove that China’s rise is conducive to the peace and stability of the international community and does not pose a threat to the international community at all. In fact, the world today faces many real threats and challenges. The new crown pneumonia epidemic is still raging around the world, the global economy is sluggish, the recovery is weak, and global challenges such as climate change are becoming increasingly prominent. All of them urgently need to be addressed by the international community. The NATO summit continued the tone of US President Biden’s European tour of advocating containment of China. The spokesperson of the Chinese mission to the European Union pointed out that the China-related content in the NATO Communiqué is a continuation of the Cold War mentality and the political psychology of the group. “Systemic Challenges”

On the 14th, Biden participated in the first NATO summit since becoming the US president in Brussels. On the same day, the leaders of 30 NATO member states signed the communiqué.

In this 14,000-word communiqué, the word “Russia” appeared 63 times and “China” appeared 10 times.

Communiqué of the Brussels Summit.Image source: NATO official website

The first two articles of the communiqué reiterated the meaning of NATO as usual, and the third article mentioned China.

Article 3 states that NATO member states are currently facing various threats, systemic competition and “security challenges”, and China and Russia appear together in the relevant expositions. Russia is characterized as a security “threat” to Europe and the Atlantic region; the term “threat” is not used against China, but China is regarded as a “challenge” that requires NATO member states to jointly address.

The latter part of the communiqué stated that China’s actions “posed a systemic challenge to the international order based on rules and areas related to alliance security”. NATO claims that China has expanded the number of nuclear weapons, is “opaque” in military modernization, has conducted military cooperation with Russia, and participated in Russia’s military exercises in Europe and the Atlantic.

At the same time, the communiqué stated that NATO will maintain a constructive dialogue with China in possible areas, including NATO-related matters and joint response to climate change.

NATO Secretary-General Stoltenberg emphasized in an interview with reporters after the summit that this is the first time that NATO has mentioned China in the communiqués and documents of the leaders’ summit. He said that China is not an “rival” of NATO, but it poses a challenge to NATO’s security.

Stoltenberg claimed that China’s defense budget ranks second in the world. NATO can see China in Africa and the Arctic Circle. China also invests in key infrastructure of NATO countries. He said that in view of this, NATO needs to respond to China’s challenges with greater resilience and higher technology.

He said that responding to challenges does not mean “moving NATO to Asia”, but to strengthen the member states’ own technology, cyber defense, and overall defense capabilities.

Regarding the NATO Communiqué and Stoltenberg’s speeches, the spokesperson of the Chinese mission to the European Union pointed out that NATO’s claim that China constitutes a so-called “systemic challenge” is a slander of China’s peaceful development and a misunderstanding of the international situation and its own role. The judgment is even more attributable to the continuation of the Cold War mentality and the political psychology of the group.

The spokesperson of the Chinese mission to the European Union said that in 2021, China’s defense budget will be 1.35 trillion yuan (approximately US$209 billion), with a GDP accounting for about 1.3%, which is less than NATO’s “pass line”. In contrast, the total military spending of the 30 NATO countries in 2021 is expected to be as high as 1.17 trillion US dollars, accounting for more than half of the total global military spending and 5.6 times that of China.

In addition, the number of nuclear weapons in China is not at the same level as that of NATO countries such as the United States. According to statistics from think tanks such as Sweden and the United States, the number of nuclear warheads in NATO member states is nearly 20 times that of China. China always scrupulously abides by not being the first to use nuclear weapons at any time and under any circumstances, and has made a clear commitment to unconditionally not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon states and nuclear-weapon-free zones.

The spokesperson pointed out that China has always been committed to peaceful development and will not pose “systematic challenges” to anyone, but if anyone wants to “systematic challenges” to us, we will not remain indifferent.

At the same time, within European countries, there are also different views on the relationship between China and NATO.

After the NATO summit on Monday, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said that China should not over-position the security risks posed by China and should find a “balance” because China is also a partner in many areas.

French President Macron stated that the most pressing issue facing NATO is combating terrorism and security issues related to Russia, and that China should not be distracted by China.

Before attending the NATO summit, British Prime Minister Johnson reiterated that NATO does not want to enter a new cold war with China.

Incorporate space into collective defense

The most important clause of the North Atlantic Treaty is Article 5, which is the collective defense clause. This article stipulates that an armed attack on one or more contracting states shall be regarded as an attack on NATO as a whole.

After the United States suffered the “September 11” attack in 2001, NATO used the collective defense clause for the first time. At the NATO summit in 2017, the then-U.S. President Trump refused to express support for the collective defense clause, which caused dissatisfaction among other NATO members.

At this summit, Biden, who is bent on repairing relations with allies, emphasized that NATO is of vital importance to the interests of the United States, and called the collective defense clause a “sacred obligation” of the United States.

In addition to emphasizing the principle of collective defense, the NATO Communiqué also included cyber attacks and space attacks into the scope of collective defense.

The communiqué pointed out that NATO will determine whether member states can use collective defense clauses in accordance with the principle of specific handling of specific situations. NATO claims that under certain circumstances, large-scale cyber attacks can constitute “armed attacks.”

At the same time, the communiqué pointed out for the first time that space attacks pose a “clear challenge” to NATO’s security and threaten national security, so similar attacks may trigger collective defense clauses.

However, whether to use collective defense clauses against such attacks will also be determined by NATO on a case-by-case basis. At present, about 2,000 orbiting satellites have been launched around the world, and more than half of them are operated by NATO member states.

Prior to this, both Ukraine and Georgia expressed their strong desire to join NATO, especially Ukraine.

When Russia increased its troops on the eastern border of Ukraine on a large scale, Ukrainian President Zelensky repeatedly stated that joining NATO is the only way to solve the problem.

As far as Russia is concerned, Ukraine’s accession to NATO will directly threaten Russia’s security, which is an absolute taboo. Last week, Russian President Vladimir Putin warned in a televised speech that Ukraine’s accession to NATO would enable NATO missiles to reach Moscow and other key areas of Russia within seven minutes.

Putin said that this situation is equivalent to deploying Russian missiles in Mexico or Canada. He threatened that at least half of the Ukrainian people did not want to join NATO because “they do not want to put themselves at the forefront of the war, and they do not want to be bargaining pawns or cannon fodder.”

Ukraine was not invited to participate in the NATO summit this week. On Monday, Zelensky called on Biden to make a clear statement on whether Ukraine can join NATO; Biden responded that whether Ukraine can join NATO “still needs to be observed.”

Biden will hold the first summit with Putin in Geneva on Wednesday, local time.

According to overseas media reports, Ukraine hopes to join NATO and fight its long-time enemy Russia.

Ukrainian President Zelensky said that he welcomes Ukraine’s eventual joining of the military alliance, which is a landmark move for Kiev.

Ukraine will hope that joining NATO means they can call on the support of major powers such as the United States and the United Kingdom to defeat Russia’s bullying strategy under Putin.

But Biden warned that Kiev needs to eradicate corruption before it can be officially included in NATO.

After the NATO summit on Monday, the American president said: “In fact, they still need to fight corruption.”

“At the same time, we will make every effort to enable Ukraine to resist Russian aggression… to maintain their personal safety.”

Biden added that Russia’s annexation of Crimea and Moscow’s role in the east of the country does not mean that Kiev will never be accepted.

But Putin said in an interview with Russian state television that if Ukraine joins NATO, Russia will “unacceptable”.

He claimed that Ukraine’s joining the NATO military alliance will enable NATO to obtain missiles that can reach Moscow within seven minutes.

He said in an interview: “At least 50% of Ukrainian residents do not want to join NATO. They are smart people.”

“They understand that they don’t want to be victims on the line of fire, they don’t want to be bargaining chips or cannon fodder.”

Earlier, Zelensky urged NATO to speed up Ukraine’s accession to NATO through a member action plan.

Earlier Monday, he told reporters that he hoped that Biden would give a clear “yes” or “no” answer to Ukraine’s plan.

Earlier this month, Biden reiterated his support for the territorial integrity of Ukraine and invited Zelensky to the White House in July.

But Zelensky said: “It is better to hold this meeting before the summit.”

He added that he did not want Putin and Biden to propose a solution to the conflict in Ukraine at the summit.

“It is impossible to make a decision for Ukraine,” he said. “So there will be no concrete results.”

Zelensky sought support from Washington for the Seven Years War between Ukraine and Russia-backed separatists.

On Friday, the Pentagon announced a new $150 million military aid to Kiev.

The conflict escalated in early 2021. In April of this year, Russia assembled 100,000 troops near the Ukrainian border and Crimea, prompting NATO to issue a warning.

Russia subsequently announced its withdrawal, but both Washington and Kiev stated that the withdrawal was limited.

Zelensky estimates that there are more than 90,000 Russian troops stationed on the Ukrainian border, and said that tensions are still likely to escalate.

“Any escalation can lead to conflicts,” he said. “If the number of troops near our border increases, it may lead to a large-scale war.”

The conflict in eastern Ukraine, including the escalation of tensions in the past few months, is expected to be discussed in Geneva.

Zelensky said that his country is ready to join NATO. He explained: “We are fighting a war. This is proof that we are ready to join.”

“We prove every day that we are more willing to join NATO than most NATO countries.”

In April, Zelensky invited Putin to meet in eastern Ukraine, but Putin seemed to have rejected the invitation, saying that Moscow would welcome the Ukrainian leader “at any time.”

Putin also emphasized that Zelensky should directly discuss the conflict in eastern Ukraine with the separatists.

Since Moscow annexed the Crimean Peninsula in 2014, Kiev has been fighting pro-Russian separatists in the eastern Donetsk and Luhansk regions. This war claimed the lives of more than 13,000 people.

Kiev and its Western allies accuse Russia of sending troops and weapons to support the separatists. Moscow denies this.

“We are negotiating to establish a military base in Qatar, thereby creating a training ground for the elite members of Afghanistan,” a Western security official said. NATO troops ready to support training for Afghan special forces An integral part of NATO’s military operation is helping to train Afghan security forces to fight Afghan insurgents. Each NATO training session for Afghan troops in Qatar is expected to last four to six weeks. Fears that the Taliban will overwhelm the Afghan army have been heightened in recent times as the insurgent group has carried out many major attacks and captured many military bases. Qatar has been known as the seat of the Taliban’s political office since 2013. In recent years, it has also mediated peace talks between US officials, NATO representatives, the Afghan government and the government. Taliban. According to two sources, the US, UK and Turkey are ready to deploy experts to train Afghan forces in Qatar.

This statement makes what President Zelensky said earlier that NATO supports the path of membership of Kiev, still quite far. “NATO leaders have confirmed that Ukraine will become a member of the alliance and that the Member Action Plan (MAP) is an integral part. Ukraine deserves to be appreciated for its role in ensuring Euro-Atlantic security,” Zelensky wrote on Twitter. US President stressed that it is not possible to confirm Ukraine’s accession to NATO At the summit on June 14, NATO also focused all of its attention on China and climate change. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg only mentioned Ukraine twice in his speech, but both times were unrelated to the issue of the country joining the alliance. In addition to objections on security reasons from Moscow, the fact that Ukraine still has a dispute over the Crimea peninsula with Russia is also what makes it difficult for this country to join NATO. Under Article 5 of the NATO charter, member states will have the right to collective self-defence, so a territorial dispute could drag the military bloc into a potential conflict with Russia.

Speaking at a regular press conference on the afternoon of June 15, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian affirmed that the comprehensive strategic cooperative partnership between China and Russia in the new era is the relationship between China and Russia. comprehensive, regardless of any changes. Cooperation between the two parties has no limits. He also stressed that any attempt to sabotage Sino-Russian relations would be doomed to failure. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian. (Photo: Reuters) The Chinese side’s statement came after Russian President Putin’s speech to the US media, affirming satisfaction at Russia-China relations “reaching an unprecedented height”, as well as appreciation for the fact that the two sides have reached an unprecedented height. The party maintains a high level of trust and cooperation in the fields of politics, economics, science and technology, military technology, etc., while recognizing that the Russia-US relationship is currently at a low level. the most in many years. In the words of a Chinese foreign ministry spokesman, Beijing and Moscow are “really united as mountains, the friendship is unbreakable”. The two countries have overcome the challenge of unexpected changes in the international situation and established a model model of a new type of relationship between great powers. Mr. Trieu Lap Kien said that in just 1 month, the two countries will celebrate the 20th anniversary of the signing of the “Treaty of friendship and cooperation between China and Russia”. This is an event of special significance in the relations between the two countries and will promote Sino-Russian cooperation on a higher starting point, broader scope and deeper level. He emphasized: “Real gold is not afraid of fire, we also advise those who are looking for ways to divide China-Russia relations that any attempt to destroy Sino-Russian relations will not be realized. . Hopefully these people won’t go too far down the road of zero-sum games and group political confrontation.” Immediately before these statements of the Chinese side, the G7 and NATO Summit simultaneously issued statements criticizing China and for the first time naming Beijing as a security threat and a serious challenge. system. Recently, Russian Ambassador to China Andrey Denisov, when responding to Chinese media, once affirmed that “it will not happen” that Russia separates from China and approaches the US when the Biden administration applies the strategy ” somewhat soften relations with Russia” to focus on dealing with China, according to him, “this view is too short-sighted”.

Russian Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova. Photo: TASS In this regard, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova expressed: “If I understand their message correctly, does that mean that NATO has in fact expressed a desire to be friends? “It’s time for them to decide: either they stop coming up with spy stories, which they use as an excuse to impose sanctions, or it’s no surprise that they find themselves on the list. Russia’s list of unfriendly countries,” Zakharova said. Reportedly, in May, Russia announced that Moscow had officially considered the United States and the Czech Republic as “unfriendly” countries. With this decision, the US diplomatic missions in Russia will no longer be able to hire local staff, while the Czech missions can only hire up to 19 people. Earlier, on April 23, Russian President Putin also signed a decree on measures to deal with the “unfriendly actions” of some countries, in the context of increasing tensions between Russia and Western countries. . In an interview with Sputnik news agency, Russian Deputy Minister Sergey Ryabkov said that the Russian government never included any country on the unfriendly list arbitrarily, but on the basis of careful analysis of all side. However, Mr. Ryabkov said, Moscow is open to the possibility of reviewing this list. Also according to Russian Deputy Minister Sergey Ryabkov, especially for the US, in order to be removed from the list of unfriendly countries, Washington must immediately stop its hostile policy towards Russia and not interfere in Moscow’s internal affairs.

What’s after these two great events? G7 leaders on their way to a party attended by Queen Elizabeth II on the afternoon of June 11. (Source: New York Times) Back to the top First, both show President Joe Biden’s effort to bring America “back”. A key message of the G7 Summit in Cornwall is “rebuilding the world for the better”. It’s not hard to see that this slogan was inspired by Joe Biden’s presidential campaign theme – “rebuilding America for the better”. But not only inspiring, Washington also plays a pioneering role in proposing and implementing initiatives at the G7 Summit. It is a commitment to contribute 500 million doses of the Covid-19 vaccine Pfizer/bioNTech without any strings attached, the promise of patent suspension with the Covid-19 vaccine to lead the world through the pandemic. . In addition, the G7’s criticism of China’s “human rights violations” in Xinjiang was proposed by President Joe Biden during the second discussion session on June 12. The assessment of Beijing as a “rival” or a “systemic challenge” has appeared many times in Washington’s foreign policy documents over the past time. Allegations of trade fraud and China’s role in the Covid-19 pandemic have also been frequently mentioned under the administration of President Joe Biden. Similar is the story with Russia. Building a “stable and predictable” relationship with Russia is what Joe Biden mentioned in the article above. The Washington Post June 5, before the trip to Europe. The G7 urges Russia to verify, prevent and handle individuals and organizations conducting cyberattacks can be seen as a US call to find the perpetrators behind the cyber attack on the Colonial Pipeline oil pipeline. country in early May. The content on efforts to combat climate change, promote gender equality and human rights also reflects the more comprehensive interest of the US under Joe Biden than his predecessor. Therefore, the appearance of these contents in the joint statement of G7 and NATO can be considered as a clear proof of the return of the US in the international arena. US President Joe Biden at a press conference after the G7 Summit in Cornwall, England on June 13. (Source: AP) More importantly, Washington is well aware of the importance of multilateralism in realizing its vision in an increasingly volatile world. Joe Biden’s approach is clearly different from his predecessor Donald Trump when he actively builds relationships with partners and allies from Asia to Europe, taking advantage of the network of relationships to implement policy. . Not so, the leaders of these countries are full of praise for the White House boss. The host country’s Prime Minister Boris Johnson called Biden “a breath of fresh air”, German Chancellor Angela Merkel saw him as the embodiment of multilateralism, and French President Emmanuel Macron chatted on the shores of the Gulf of Carbis. with his American counterpart in English, repeatedly emphasizing “America is back!”. On the sidelines of the NATO Summit, despite the divergent stance on Turkey’s purchase of the S-400 missile system and the US recognition of the so-called “Armenian genocide”, President Tayyip Erdogan still evaluated the meeting with his counterpart. US level Joe Biden is “sincere and effective”. “There is no problem that cannot be solved in Turkish-American relations,” he stressed. Russia-China shadow Another highlight of this year’s G7 and NATO summits lies in the dense presence of Russia and China in discussions and joint statements, although these two countries are not represented. There is much talk in the international media about China being seen by NATO as a “systemic challenge”. G7 leaders also expressed concern about Beijing’s trade policies, the situation in the East Sea, East China Sea, and Taiwan Strait, even the “Green Network” infrastructure plan worth 40,000 billion VND. USD to counterbalance China’s Belt and Road Initiative. However, both NATO and the G7 are optimistic about the prospect of cooperation with China in areas of mutual interest such as combating climate change and improving biodiversity. Words about Beijing’s behavior are also used with caution, avoiding excessive provocation. More importantly, Russia, not China, is the country most mentioned in the final text. “China” appears 4 and 10 times in the two joint statements of G7 and NATO, respectively, while this number of “Russia” is 7 and 61 times, respectively. The wording used to refer to Russia is also much harsher than that of China. The G7 demanded that Moscow stop its “sabotage and destabilization… interference in the democratic process” or cyberattacks, and promote the peace process in Eastern Ukraine as a party to the conflict. Meanwhile, NATO’s joint statement on June 14 went further, accusing Russia of “destructive and illegal” acts in the territory of member states, making statements about weapons. nuclear “aggressively and irresponsibly” or “fuel the fire” in the East Ukraine conflict. The highlight of the NATO Summit also lies in the dense presence of Russia and China in discussions and joint statements. (Source: Wikipedia) The divisions The final highlight is the deepening division between the UK and the European Union (EU). During the G7 discussion session on June 12, the differences between the UK and Europe on how to approach China were more or less revealed. Accordingly, President Joe Biden called on the bloc to criticize and respond to China’s policies in Xinjiang. While British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and French President Emmanuel Macron responded to this proposal, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi and EU leaders emphasized the prospect of cooperation in a number of fields with China. Disagreements between the parties were so sensitive that the Internet connection to the meeting room was cut off to secure information. Differences in interests between the UK and Europe once again “exploded” during the meeting between Prime Minister Boris Johnson with his German counterpart Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron. The Elysee power owner angered the host leader by declaring Northern Ireland is not part of Britain and that Franco-British relations will only “reboot” if the British approve the EU request. Chancellor Angela Merkel did not even react to Mr Johnson’s elbow salute. Russia, not China, is the country most mentioned in the final text. “China” appears 4 and 10 times in the two joint statements of G& and NATO, respectively, while this number of “Russia” is 7 and 61 times, respectively. European Council President Charles Michel and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen stressed that the EU had “absolutely agreed” on Brexit and that the parties needed to abide by what was agreed. At the moment, there is no sign that the UK-EU split will be resolved anytime soon. Finally, it can be seen that the G7 Summit and NATO Summit have shown clear views on a number of hot issues such as relations with Russia and China, finding solutions for global economic growth and challenges. non-traditional security with ambitious commitments. However, how to implement these commitments, how to realize the vision of “rebuilding the world for the better”, will not be an easy task for G7 members and NATO.

US President Joe Biden. Photo: AP “He’s smart, he’s tough, and I see him as a worthy opponent,” Biden said. At the same time, President Biden said that the upcoming meeting with President Putin is important and he will ask Moscow to cooperate in areas of mutual interest if the Kremlin chooses to do the same, according to Reuters. “I want to make it clear to President Putin that there are areas where we can cooperate if he chooses to go this way. If he chooses not to cooperate and act the way he has in the past with regard to cybersecurity and certain other activities, we will respond in the same way,” Biden said. However, President Biden also said that he would make it clear to Putin where the “red lines” are. “I have shared with our allies what will convey to Putin, that I do not seek conflict with Russia but we will respond if Russia continues its harmful activities and we will not. failed to defend the transatlantic alliance. We stand for democratic values,” Biden said. In addition, the White House president also noted that “it would be a disaster” if Russian opposition figure Alexei Navalny died in prison. Specifically, according to the US leader, “Mr Navalny’s death will be another sign that Russia has little or no intention to adhere to basic human rights. It was a disaster. That does nothing but hurt Russia’s relationship with the rest of the world.” It is known that the meeting between President Biden and his counterpart Putin is scheduled to take place in Ho Chi Minh City. Geneva (Switzerland) on June 16. Both Washington and Moscow welcomed the upcoming summit as a positive step towards finding stability in the bilateral relationship.

US soldiers take part in a joint exercise called African Lion in Grier Labouihi, Morocco. (Photo: AFP/VNA) U.S.-led forces are conducting the operation joint exercise with Morocco, entitled “ African lion .” According to the Africa Command (AFRICOM) under the US Department of Defense, more than 7,000 troops come from 9 countries and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (North Atlantic Treaty Organization). NATO ) is participating in the exercise that started on June 8 and is expected to end on June 18. In a notice posted on the website, AFRICOM confirmed that this is the largest exercise of this force. The exercise aims to enhance combat readiness for the US and partner countries. The exercise was conducted mainly across Morocco, from Kenitra Air Base in the north to the Tan Tan and Guerir Labouhi training grounds in the south. The exercise includes many contents, including training on land, in the air and at sea; tactical simulation; training in commanding and combating violent extremist organizations; defense in cyberspace. In recent days, the soldiers have participated in many activities, including patrolling off the Canary Islands of Spain and the air force conducting training exercises. Africa Lion 2021 is one of the large-scale exercises co-organized and directed by AFRICOM and the Royal Moroccan Armed Forces aimed at enhancing cooperation and training, interoperability and promoting cooperation. promote the exchange of experience and knowledge between different military units to achieve the best combat ability.

US President Joe Biden and Russian President Vladimir Putin. Photo: RT President Joe Biden arrived in the UK on Wednesday, June 9, ahead of a meeting with Prime Minister Boris Johnson on Thursday and the start of the G7 summit on Friday. His schedule in the coming days is quite busy. From the G7 in Cornwall (UK), Mr. Biden will travel to Brussels (Belgium) to attend the NATO summit, then to Switzerland to meet his Russian counterpart on June 16. Speaking Wednesday to US forces in Suffolk (UK), Mr Biden strongly announced he would meet with President Putin to “tell him what I want him to know”. Mr Biden’s tough statement received a standing ovation from the troops attending the event, and was described by many commentators as a “warning”. Mr Biden later said he wanted a “stable, predictable” relationship with Russia, built on the “responsibility” shouldered by both powers. “But I have made it clear that the United States will respond strongly if the Russian government engages in harmful activities,” Biden added. “I will inform him that if Russia violates the sovereignty of democracies, in America, Europe and elsewhere, they will have to bear the consequences.” Nearly three years after American commentators criticized former President Donald Trump for being too soft on Putin during a meeting in Helsinki (Finland), lawmakers from both parties expect Biden to take a tough stance. stronger in the next meeting. Biden has previously declared that Putin is a “murderer” and promised during the campaign that he would make Putin “pay” for alleged election interference. Meanwhile, Mr Putin described Mr Biden as “an experienced and careful man” who has devoted his life to politics. The Russian President hopes that these qualities of his American counterpart will have a positive impact on the upcoming negotiations. But Putin also said that Moscow “does not expect any breakthrough in Russian-American relations”. Although Biden’s allies often portray the president as being tough on Putin, in reality, Biden still gave his Russian counterpart a huge opportunity after taking office, by wading orders. sanctions on the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, facilitating the completion of the project connecting Russian natural gas fields with European consumers. Former President Donald Trump, despite his “soft” accusations against Russia, has stalled the project for more than a year with sanctions.

In any conversation related to US military rifles, it is impossible not to mention the M4 – a more compact version of the legendary M16 rifle. The M4A1 rifle. Photo: US Army Although the M4 and M16 are quite similar in appearance, overall, the M4 is still lighter and shorter, with a weight of 2.88kg and a length of 83.82cm (including the stock). This design is intended to maximize the advantage of the M4 when used in situations where compact, easy-to-carry weapons are required, such as urban combat, for cavalry or in battle. cramped armored vehicles. Like the M16, the M4 uses standard 5.56 x 45 mm NATO ammunition. However, because the barrel is 37 cm long, shorter than the M16, the effective range is slightly lower. The M4 assault rifle has the longest range of 600m, a maximum rate of fire of 950 rounds/minute with a warhead velocity of 884m/s. M4 is quite popular in the world. It is widely used in Latin America, the Middle East, Europe and some other regions. FNSCAR The SCAR series of rifles was born in response to the request of the US Special Operations Command for a rifle designed in a modular form (allowing for quick configuration changes, compatible with other types of equipment). supported), uses a standard 5.56 x 45 mm and 7.62 x 51 mm magazine. FNSCAR rifle. Photo: US Army The gun can be assembled to convert into a light version CAR-L and a heavy version SCAR-H. Both models can be used as marksman rifles or melee weapons because they have 3 different barrel types: short, standard and long. Despite their similar appearance, the SCAR-L uses the standard NATO STANAG magazine while the SCAR-H uses a magazine designed by the Belgian company FN Herstal. Assault Rifle M27 The Marine Corps’ new M27 assault rifle is considered one of the most accurate rifles in the US military’s arsenal. M27 rifle. Photo: US Marines The M27 is the designation of the automatic rifle line developed from the German-designed Heckler & Koch 416 prototype, put into service by the US Marines since 2011. The Heckler & Koch 416 was used to destroy bosses. Osama bin Laden during the famous US Navy SEAL raid in Abbottabad, Pakistan. The M27 has significantly improved accuracy, range and reliability over the M16 and M14, thanks to a free-oscillating barrel with a length of about 420 mm and a short-stroke gas piston system. This gun uses NATO standard ammunition size of 5.56x45mm, has a rate of fire from 700 to 900 rounds per minute. Currently, the Marines are considering upgrading the M27’s lethality. Video: US Marines practice firing live ammunition with M27 rifles. Source: AirSource.com Rifle M14 The M14 rifle, produced since 1959, is 1,181 mm long, has a rate of fire of 725 rounds per minute and a range of 460 m, with a wooden stock. It is quite solid, has high accuracy as well as great destructive power thanks to the use of NATO standard 7.62 x 51 mm magazine. Rifle M14. Photo: US Navy The M-14 was the main weapon used by the US infantry in the early stages of the Vietnam War. Although a good rifle, it was not suitable for the Vietnam battlefield because it was too heavy, too long, and the wooden parts were prone to warping due to the humid climate. Finally, the US military upgraded and improved this gun to create a new version, the Mk14 rifle. Rifle Mk 14 EBR The Army and US Special Operations Command redesigned the M14 rifle, creating the Mk 14 Enhanced Battle Rifle (EBR). Compared to the M14, the Mk 14 EBR has the same firing mechanism but different materials. The MK14 EMR rifle. Photo: US Department of Defense The Mk 14 features an all-metal, composite and alloy design, an adjustable stock grip, and an easily retractable gun mount. It also has a Picatinny rail for attaching more modern accessories and scopes. Although the gun is heavier than the M14, it has more stability and durability. M39 EMR The US Marines had similar ideas as the Army, but they decided to modify the M14 slightly, which led to the introduction of the M39 EMR rifle. The M39 EMR rifle. Photo: US Marines The M39 EMR also features a custom stock, collapsible gun mount, and accessory rails. However, this version was quickly replaced by more modern marksman rifles.

Modernization plan The production of the Challenger 2 main tank began in 1994 and lasted until 2002. The tank was officially commissioned in 1998. Immediately after that, the search for a way to modernize the equipment. of Challenger 2 began to be implemented, but until recently, all the ideas were not developed, for various reasons. However, the basic reason for refusing to modernize the Challenger 2 tank was lack of finance. RBLS introduces the tank model of the Challenger 2 Life Extension Project project in 2019. At the end of 2015, the British Ministry of Defense launched the Challenger Life Extension Project 2 (LEP), to upgrade its existing tank fleet. The project was originally planned to follow a “small” modernization, focusing only on instrumentation. The project was then completed in 2019. However, in 2019, the LEP program was relaunched, with new requirements. Proposals are currently being made for a larger modernization, focusing on weapons systems, power plant complexes, turrets and other structures. In addition, the project also considers modifying the volume and cost of the modernization process. In 2019, the German-British joint venture Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land (RBSL) proposed the Challenger-2 modernization project. In September of the same year, the new experimental tank of the project appeared at an exhibition. Then the necessary tests are carried out, in order to determine the actual characteristics and compare with other competing development projects. As a result, RBSL’s project was recognized as the most successful and recommended for full-scale implementation. On May 7, 2021, the British Ministry of Defense announced the signing of a contract for the project. Some contents of the proposed modernization program have been reported in detail. Accordingly, the project will upgrade the Challenger-2 main tank into the Challenger 3 version. Main tank for the future Between 1994 and 2002, the British Army purchased 386 Challenger-2 tanks and 22 training vehicles. By 2010, the number of equipment in the lineup was reduced to 225 and has remained at that level to this day. According to previous plans, such a main tank force would be maintained until 2035. However, now the plan has been revised, regarding the Challenger 3 project. He started implementing the Challenger 2 Tank Life Extension Project since 2015. In March 2021, a new assessment of defense and security was published, which made a request to reduce the tank fleet. Accordingly, only 148 tanks will be used in the future and will be repaired and modernized. This allows them to remain in service until the 2040s. The remaining 77 vehicles will be retired from service. The new contract between the British Ministry of Defense and RBSL accepts this option and begins implementation. The main work of the Challenger 3 project will be carried out at the RBSL plant in Telford (UK). This project will provide 200 jobs, including 130 vacancies for engineers. Individual units will be provided by other companies, where another 450 jobs will be created. In the coming years, contractors will have to complete the project development and prepare the production line. The first tanks to be upgraded are scheduled to arrive in 2027. The last of 148 main battle tanks will return to service in 2030. The total cost of this modernization project, according to the contract. , would be £800 million (about £5.4 million/tank). The British Ministry of Defense highly appreciates the prospects of the new project. The country’s military expects the Challenger 3 to become a “world-class tank” and “NATO’s deadliest machine”. In addition, new weapons and other modern systems will allow the British Challenger-3 to surpass modern Russian main battle tanks. Comprehensive upgrade RBLS’s Challenger 3 project involves extensive modernization of the existing tank line, with the replacement of most major systems and equipment. As a result, the new tank will enhance mobility, increase protection, firepower and other important stats. In addition, the upgraded tank can function as part of a command combat system, along with a modern control system and easy data exchange. The main changes of the Challenger 3 project. During the upgrade process, the tank shell will receive new modular front armor. Its composition and properties are not specified, but the degree of protection is reported to be significantly increased. To replace the old tower, a new hood was developed with reinforced armor and the volume required to install new equipment. In the future, tanks will also receive active defense complexes. Challenger-3’s weapon system is equipped with a 120mm smoothbore gun Rheinmetall Rh 120 L55A1 manually loaded. Cannons can use a full range of existing and new ammunition for different purposes. In particular, the tank’s ammunition base will include new high-explosive fragmentation ammunition, with a DM11 programmable fuse. Additional weapons will include a remotely controlled machine gun combat module. RBSL intends to carry out a radical overhaul of the fire control system and other equipment on the tank. The lens system, control computer and other components of the tank will be selected new, without using the standard equipment of the Challenger 2. The fire control system will be combined with the associated vehicles. modern communication, providing the exchange of data on the tactical situation. Project outlook The Challenger 2 Life Extension Project (LEP) program has passed its first phase and is entering a new phase. In the coming years, the joint venture Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land and related companies will have to organize new content and kick-start work on a series of equipment modernization. According to the general plan, by 2030, the British army will completely renew its main tank force. Challenger 3 will be the main tank of the British army in the future. Due to a lack of funding, the British army could not afford to maintain a large tank fleet, and currently has only 225 main tanks. The modernization of all these equipment also becomes impossible and about a third of the tanks will have to be decommissioned due to lack of funds to restore. Besides, the increase in the capabilities of upgraded tanks is not only due to the benefit of new equipment and weapons. It is also based on the objective limitations and shortcomings of existing tanks. Accordingly, the Challenger-2 has not undergone a major upgrade and its characteristics remain at the level of the late 1990s. This fact led to the need to develop an entirely new combat unit. However, from a technical point of view, experts say that Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land’s Challenger 3 project seems quite successful. The proposed solutions are indeed capable of improving the technical characteristics and increasing the combat capabilities of existing tanks. In addition, all the necessary capabilities of a modern main tank are provided.

Modernization plan The production of the Challenger 2 main tank began in 1994 and lasted until 2002. The tank was officially commissioned in 1998. Immediately after that, the search for a way to modernize the equipment. of Challenger 2 began to be implemented, but until recently, all the ideas were not developed, for various reasons. However, the basic reason for refusing to modernize the Challenger 2 tank was lack of finance. RBLS introduces the tank model of the Challenger 2 Life Extension Project project in 2019. At the end of 2015, the British Ministry of Defense launched the Challenger Life Extension Project 2 (LEP), to upgrade its existing tank fleet. The project was originally planned to follow a “small” modernization, focusing only on instrumentation. The project was then completed in 2019. However, in 2019, the LEP program was relaunched, with new requirements. Proposals are currently being made for a larger modernization, focusing on weapons systems, power plant complexes, turrets and other structures. In addition, the project also considers modifying the volume and cost of the modernization process. In 2019, the German-British joint venture Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land (RBSL) proposed the Challenger-2 modernization project. In September of the same year, the new experimental tank of the project appeared at an exhibition. Then the necessary tests are carried out, in order to determine the actual characteristics and compare with other competing development projects. As a result, RBSL’s project was recognized as the most successful and recommended for full-scale implementation. On May 7, 2021, the British Ministry of Defense announced the signing of a contract for the project. Some contents of the proposed modernization program have been reported in detail. Accordingly, the project will upgrade the Challenger-2 main tank into the Challenger 3 version. Main tank for the future Between 1994 and 2002, the British Army purchased 386 Challenger-2 tanks and 22 training vehicles. By 2010, the number of equipment in the lineup was reduced to 225 and has remained at that level to this day. According to previous plans, such a main tank force would be maintained until 2035. However, now the plan has been revised, regarding the Challenger 3 project. He started implementing the Challenger 2 Tank Life Extension Project since 2015. In March 2021, a new assessment of defense and security was published, which included a request to reduce the tank fleet. Accordingly, only 148 tanks will be used in the future and will be repaired and modernized. This allows them to remain in service until the 2040s. The remaining 77 vehicles will be retired from service. The new contract between the British Ministry of Defense and RBSL accepts this option and begins implementation. The main work of the Challenger 3 project will be carried out at the RBSL plant in Telford (UK). This project will provide 200 jobs, including 130 vacancies for engineers. Individual units will be provided by other companies, where another 450 jobs will be created. In the coming years, contractors will have to complete the project development and prepare the production line. The first tanks to be upgraded are scheduled to arrive in 2027. The last of 148 main battle tanks will return to service in 2030. The total cost of this modernization project, according to the contract. , would be £800 million (about £5.4 million/tank). The British Ministry of Defense highly appreciates the prospects of the new project. The country’s military expects the Challenger 3 to become a “world-class tank” and “NATO’s deadliest machine”. In addition, new weapons and other modern systems will allow the British Challenger-3 to surpass modern Russian main battle tanks. Comprehensive upgrade RBLS’s Challenger 3 project involves extensive modernization of the existing tank line, with the replacement of most major systems and equipment. As a result, the new tank will enhance mobility, increase protection, firepower and other important stats. In addition, the upgraded tank can function as part of a command combat system, along with a modern control system and easy data exchange. The main changes of the Challenger 3 project. During the upgrade process, the tank shell will receive new modular front armor. Its composition and properties are not specified, but the degree of protection is reported to be significantly increased. To replace the old tower, a new hood was developed with reinforced armor and the volume required to install new equipment. In the future, tanks will also receive active defense complexes. Challenger-3’s weapon system is equipped with a 120mm smoothbore gun Rheinmetall Rh 120 L55A1 manually loaded. Cannons can use a full range of existing and new ammunition for different purposes. In particular, the tank’s ammunition base will include new high-explosive fragmentation ammunition, with a DM11 programmable fuse. Additional weapons will include a remotely controlled machine gun combat module. RBSL intends to carry out a radical overhaul of the fire control system and other equipment on the tank. The lens system, control computer and other components of the tank will be selected new, without using the standard equipment of the Challenger 2. The fire control system will be combined with the associated vehicles. modern communication, providing the exchange of data on the tactical situation. Project outlook The Challenger 2 Life Extension Project (LEP) program has passed its first phase and is entering a new phase. In the coming years, the joint venture Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land and related companies will have to organize new content and kick-start work on a series of equipment modernization. According to the general plan, by 2030, the British army will completely renew its main tank force. Challenger 3 will be the main tank of the British army in the future. Due to a lack of funding, the British army could not afford to maintain a large tank fleet, and currently has only 225 main tanks. The modernization of all these equipment also becomes impossible and about a third of the tanks will have to be decommissioned due to lack of funds to restore. Besides, the increase in the capabilities of the upgraded tank is not only due to the benefit of new equipment and weapons. It is also based on the objective limitations and shortcomings of existing tanks. Accordingly, the Challenger-2 has not undergone a major upgrade and its characteristics are still at the level of the late 1990s. This fact led to the urgent need to develop a completely new combat unit. However, from a technical point of view, experts say that Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land’s Challenger 3 project seems quite successful. The proposed solutions are indeed capable of improving the technical characteristics and increasing the combat capabilities of existing tanks. In addition, all the necessary capabilities of a modern main tank are provided.

However, this MBT, right from the signing of the purchase contract, has continuously encountered problems, the first is the translation of technical documents discovered by a third party with a salary of up to 200 million Zloty (equivalent to VND 200 million). $2.6 million), an “exorbitant” price. But the overhead is nothing compared to the money these Leopard 2PLs have taken from the Polish defense budget. It should be recalled that in 2002, Warsaw signed a contract to buy 128 Leopard 2A4s from the German Army, the above MBTs are 25 – 27 years old and the technical condition is assessed quite well. Poland believes that the above-mentioned tanks have only worn 25-30% and can be used normally for at least 10 more years, but from the time they received the tanks until the overhaul in 2011, they just been on the payroll for more than 5 years. In addition to the components with high wear and tear such as the gun barrel, the transmission system, during the overhaul, Poland discovered many problems such as the thermal imager of the gunner and the commander and many components of the system. Fire control is almost out of service. The irony is that these devices have long been out of production, so the Polish Army decided to comprehensively upgrade the Leopard 2A4 tanks to the Leopard 2PL standard. The main battle tank Leopard 2PL of the Polish Army The upgrade package focuses on the viewfinder, front armor, bodywork and undercarriage. However, the addition of steel plates to the chassis to prevent mines was removed because it would increase the weight to 59.5 tons equivalent to Leopard 2A5, which required reinforcement of the suspension system, leading to an increase in costs. The upgrade package also requires replacing the hydraulic cannon stabilization system with electricity, reducing the possibility of the vehicle burning when the vehicle is hit, adding a reversing camera and an auxiliary electric motor. There is also an expansion pack, which includes upgraded communication equipment, integrated remote control machine gun turret, air conditioning for the crew, heatsink for the electronics. The general requirement is that the cost of the Leopard 2PL after the upgrade is only half that of the Leopard 2A6. After many biddings, finally the contract to upgrade 128 Leoaprd 2A4 vehicles was signed in 2015, the main contractor is a Polish company with a German partner, the deadline for completing the work is in 2020. The upgrade contract value is up to 575 million USD, which calculates that each tank requires 4.5 million USD in modernization money, not to mention the initial purchase cost, which is more expensive than the production T-90M Proryv-3 Brand new from Russia.

Former Czech President Vaclav Klaus. Photo: TASS “We are punishing one of the great powers in the world … I see this as proof that our country does not have a proper foreign policy,” former Czech President Vaclav Klaus on April 23 told Blesk newspaper. is based in Prague, mentioning Czech-Russian diplomatic tensions, TASS reported. Mr. Vaclav Klaus also said that the fact that Czech diplomats tried to blame Russian intelligence for the Vrbetice explosion in 2014 and used it as an excuse to expel Russian diplomats, is an act of trying to score points with The United States and the NATO military in the hope of receiving support. According to Mr. Klaus, the Czechs were hasty in this case. He argued that Prague “should have waited for true and serious evidence” before making any conclusions regarding the Vrbetice explosion. “It was a mistake to issue an ultimatum to Russia before having the facts,” Klaus warned. The former Czech president also revealed that he had discussions with his successor, current Czech President Milos Zeman, about tensions with Russia and the explosion seven years ago in Vrbetice. Russia-Czech relations became strained after Prague last week expelled 18 Russian diplomats accused of being officers of intelligence services. Prague also questioned Russia’s GRU military intelligence agency was involved in the ammunition explosion in Vrbetice in October 2014 that caused two deaths. Russia denied all related allegations and asked 20 staff of the Czech Embassy in Moscow to leave Russian territory in response. Moscow’s strong retaliation surprised Czechs. On April 22, the Czech Republic again expelled 63 more Russian diplomats and staff, followed by corresponding action from Russia.

According to CNN, Moscow said it had ended “rapid inspections” of troops in the east and west of the country. Illustration. Source: CNN The process of rallying Russian troops along the border in recent weeks has created tensions in eastern Ukraine. Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said that the country’s army has completed drills near Ukraine and will return to its permanent base before May 1. “I am confident that the exercise objectives are completed. The military has demonstrated its ability to provide a reliable defense force to the country,” Shoigu said at a meeting in Crimea. Shoigu’s announcement came weeks after Moscow initiated the largest military surge near Ukraine’s border since 2014. The European Union estimates that more than 100,000 troops have gathered near the border and in Crimea. However, the announcement does not specify how many troops will remain in the area after Moscow intends to withdraw before May 1. US Department of Defense spokesman Ned Price confirmed that the US would continue to closely monitor the situation along with Ukrainian officials and other allies. “What we are looking for now is action on the Russian side,” said Ned Price. “We have made clear our commitment to the Russian government, reaffirming efforts to curb the escalation and immediately cease all provocations around Ukraine, including military mobilization. Crimea and the Ukrainian border as well as its intention to block ships in the Black Sea, “Pricwe said at a press conference. Russian state news agency TASS said that some weapons from the 41st Army, including tanks and heavy artillery, will be left in preparation for the Russian-Belarus strategic military exercise Zapad 2021 taking place in May. Nine years now. The move is believed to have caused Russia to increase fire tensions on the Ukrainian border more than before. It is too early to reduce escalation Conflict Intelligence (CIT) says it is too early to assess the de-escalation process in this area. “Russian forces staying in the Ukraien border are still in danger of deploying east of Ukraine, while a large-scale invasion of the government-controlled territory will inevitably still have to mobilize more forces to the border. “Conflict Intelligence Team (CIT) said on Twitter. On April 20, the Russian Defense Ministry said more than 20 ships took part in the exercise in the Black Sea – bordering both countries. “A ship unit comprising the Admiral Makarov and Admiral Essen frigates; the small missile ships Grayvoron and Vyshny Volochek with the missile ships; the small anti-submarine and large amphibious ships conducted the exercises. repulsion of the enemy’s aerial attack vehicles. Russian Defense Minister Shoigu said the Russian military was ready to react quickly to any “adverse” developments amid NATO’s ongoing Defender Europe military exercises. NATO’s Defender Europe 2021 exercise is an annual multinational exercise led by the US military to prepare for readiness and interoperability between the United States and the military of NATO partners. The exercise was canceled last year due to the complicated developments of the epidemic. “Each year in Europe, the alliance organizes more than 40 major combat drills with a focus on dealing with Russian challenges. In the spring of this year, NATO’s joint armed forces began the exercises. The biggest ambitious match in 30 years “, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said. The NATO alliance expressed deep concern about Russia’s military deployment near Ukraine. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg last week described the move as part of a provocation from Russia. “Allies fully support Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. We urge Russia to immediately de-escalate, stop provocative actions and respect international commitments,” said Shoigu. to speak. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky earlier this week invited President Vladimir Putin to a meeting in Donbass, urging his Russian counterpart to restore a ceasefire in the eastern region that put “millions of lives” at stake. “President Putin said he is ready to discuss bilateral relations with President Zelensky in the Russian capital,” TASS reported. Ukraine is calling for increased international support in a state of tension with Moscow while calling on the West to introduce new sanctions to prevent the Kremlin from deploying more military forces.

The US President will have his first overseas trip next June. Photo: CNBC On April 24, White House press secretary Jen Psaki announced that President Joe Biden made a trip to emphasize Washington’s commitment to restoring the alliances, restoring transatlantic relations, and merging. Work closely with allies. The announcement comes as President Biden has just concluded a summit on climate change, marking the resumption of efforts related to climate issues by the US. President Biden on April 22 announced it would reduce at least 50% of US emissions by 2030. According to the White House announcement, Mr. Biden will attend the Summit of the Group of 7 leading developed industries in the world (G7) in Cornwall (UK) from June 11-13, where he will have meetings. bilateral meetings with leaders of G7 countries, including British Prime Minister Boris Johnson. “President Joe Biden will work to“ advance major US policy priorities on public health, economic recovery and climate change, while demonstrating solidarity and sharing value among major democracies ”, the White House statement said. After that, the US leader will travel to Brussels to attend the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Summit on June 14. Expectedly, one of the topics at the NATO summit could be the escalating tensions between Russia and Ukraine in recent times. In addition, NATO members can discuss the withdrawal of their military forces from Afghanistan.

Earlier on April 22, the Russian Defense Ministry announced the completion of the exercise near Ukraine and ordered the withdrawal of troops back to the base after the mass deployment of troops close to the Ukrainian border. Video: Russian troops withdraw their troops from the border with Ukraine According to Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu, the troops will return to the base by May 1. Mr. Shoigu said that the military must be ready to react quickly in “unfavorable” situations from large-scale drills led by the US, NATO and its allies, called Defender-Europe. It is not clear whether the order to recall troops back to the permanent base includes all the forces involved in the recent move to the Ukrainian border. In a statement made on April 23, Ukraine confirmed that the withdrawal of Russian troops from the two countries’ borders could ease tensions, but this step alone did not prevent escalation or conflict in the Donbass. Tensions between Russia and Ukraine have increased recently after Kiev accused Moscow of sending tens of thousands of troops closer to the border. Ukraine, Western nations and NATO have accused Russia of deploying “provocative” troops on Ukraine’s eastern border and in Crimea. Russia, for its part, insists its troops pose no threat and that its presence is only defensive and that its presence is only defensive. Moscow simultaneously accused the US and NATO of having “provocative activities” in the Black Sea region.

American B-52 bomber In addition, Minister Austin has also deployed long-range bombers, of which two B-52s have arrived in the area, to protect US forces in Afghanistan during the withdrawal. US and NATO forces in Afghanistan will withdraw ground forces from the country by May 1 and aim to complete the withdrawal of all troops from Afghanistan by September 11. On April 23, US media reported that the United States had begun transporting military equipment out of Afghanistan. Mr. Kirby confirmed the information, adding that the military equipment would be returned to the United States, deployed to other parts of the world, transferred to the Afghan security forces, or destroyed. A Pentagon spokesman said all military equipment would be transported out of Afghanistan by air, but he did not disclose the cost of the US withdrawal. Afghanistan continued to see clashes between the Taliban insurgents and the Afghan army, despite commencing peace talks between the movement and Qatar’s Kabul in Doha in September 2020. CENTCOM Commander Kenneth McKenzie said on April 22 that peace negotiations in Afghanistan are now at a standstill and stressed the need of the US to continue to support the government. Afghanistan to help the government avoid the risk of collapse after foreign forces withdraw.

Mr. Joe Biden will have his first overseas trip as US President in June next. Photo: AFP AFP news agency (France) quoted the White House on April 23, saying that President Biden will come to the UK to attend the summit of the world’s leading industrialized countries (G7). Next, the US leader went to Brussels to attend the meetings of the European Union (EU) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). White House press secretary Jen Psaki stated that Mr. Biden’s first visit would highlight the leader’s commitment to restoring the alliance, revitalizing the transatlantic relationship and acting to align with multilateral allies and partners to solve global challenges, while ensuring American interests. According to AFP, former President Donald Trump has made decisions that affect the relationship between the US and its allies in Europe and Asia. Meanwhile, Mr. Biden has focused on the urgency of rebuilding traditional allies and bringing Washington back to the center of groups like the G7. The White House did not mention whether President Biden would hold a meeting with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin on this trip. However, on April 13, the US leader offered to meet directly with President Putin in a third country in the coming months with the aim of reducing bilateral ties. The G7 summit is scheduled to take place June 11-13 in Cornwall, UK. Ms. Psaki said President Biden will “reaffirm his commitment to multilateralism, strengthen U.S. policy priorities on public health, economic recovery, climate change and justify costs. common values, solidarity among the democratic countries ”. The G7 summit is also an opportunity for leaders of member countries to hold bilateral meetings. Regarding the NATO summit on June 14, Ms. Psaki said that the White House boss Biden would “reinforce the US commitment to NATO, transatlantic security and collective security”. In addition, Ms. Psaki emphasized: “NATO leaders will discuss this approach to orient the military bloc against future threats and ensure effective burden sharing”. Ms. Psaki said President Biden also plans to attend the US-EU summit to “emphasize the US commitment to the transatlantic partnership based on the sharing of values ​​and benefits”.

American soldiers at a training camp in Herat, Afghanistan. Photo: Getty Images According to the VNA correspondent in Washington, speaking during a Senate hearing, General McKenzie stated: “We will add resources to protect forces when withdrawing. This is normal in any event. form of withdrawal “. However, General McKenzie did not give temporary replenishment numbers and said plans were underway. General McKenzie also reiterated the US military’s concern that the withdrawal could facilitate the Taliban increased operations in Afghanistan. He is concerned about the Afghan military’s ability to maintain the current situation without the support it has had for many years. He warns the Taliban are now bigger than 2011, estimated at 50,000 fighters, and control more areas in Afghanistan than they did 10 years ago. Previously, President Joe Biden announced that the US – the country with the largest soldiers stationed in Afghanistan – would withdraw all remaining troops in Afghanistan before 9/11, 20 years after the series of attacks. Al-Qaeda’s father sparked a protracted US war in this southwest Asian country. US allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) have also agreed to withdraw their troops from Afghanistan according to the US withdrawal route. The war in Afghanistan left 2,400 US soldiers dead and cost the country an estimated $ 2 trillion. At the peak, the number of US troops in Afghanistan once reached 100,000 people in 2011. Currently the number of NATO troops in Afghanistan is about 9,600 people, of which the US has 2,500 soldiers and Germany has 1,100 soldiers.

American soldiers at Kandahar airbase, Afghanistan. (Photo: AFP / VNA) The head of American forces in the Middle East, General Kenneth McKenzie April 22 said the US will temporarily deploy more troops to Afghanistan to protect international forces when withdrawing. According to the VNA correspondent in Washington, speaking during a Senate hearing, General McKenzie stated: “We will add resources to protect forces when withdrawing. This is normal in any event. What form of withdrawal? ” However, General McKenzie did not give temporary replenishment numbers and said plans were underway. General McKenzie also reiterated the US military’s concern that the withdrawal could facilitate the Taliban increased operations in Afghanistan. He is concerned about the Afghan military’s ability to maintain the current situation without the support it has had for many years. Mr. McKenzie warned the forces Taliban is now larger than 2011, estimated at 50,000 fighters, and controls more areas in Afghanistan than it was 10 years ago. Previously, President Joe Biden announced that the US – the country with the most troops stationed in Afghanistan – would withdraw all remaining troops in Afghanistan before 9/11, 20 years after the series of attacks. Al-Qaeda’s father sparked a protracted US war in this southwest Asian country. US allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) have also agreed Withdrawing troops from Afghanistan right to the US withdrawal route . The war in Afghanistan left 2,400 US soldiers dead and cost the country an estimated $ 2 trillion. At the peak, the number of US troops in Afghanistan once reached 100,000 people in 2011. Currently the number of NATO soldiers still in Afghanistan is about 9,600 people, of which the US has 2,500 soldiers and Germany has 1,100 soldiers./.

Russian military weapons appeared in Crimea. Photo: ITN With the above decision, the Russian troops reinforced to reach the Ukraine border will be withdrawn to a permanent base deep inside Russian territory from today (April 23) to May 1, with ground forces. will return to bases in Vladikavkaz, Novosibirsk and troops from air force units return to bases in Pskov and Ivanovo. However, Shoigu said Russia would still keep military weapons and equipment at the Pogonovo firing range in the Voronezh region, some 160 kilometers east of the Ukrainian border for other Russian military maneuvers by the end. year 2021. Both NATO and Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky welcomed the step. “The gradual withdrawal of troops from the border between the two countries will cool down tensions. Ukraine remains vigilant, but very welcome any move to reduce its military presence,” the President of Ukraine wrote on Twitter. Since late March 2021, Russia has deployed about 120,000 troops in Crimea and near the Ukrainian border, the highest level since the conflict in eastern Ukraine broke out in 2014, according to NATO reports. Russia did not confirm the increased number of troops, but confirmed that the recent Crimea drills involved 60 warships, more than 10,000 soldiers, about 200 aircraft and 1,200 ground vehicles.

Documentary images are for illustrative purposes only

On the evening of April 12, 2021, an unidentified aircraft illegally entered Belarusian airspace from the Polish side.

After flying over Belarus for a while, the plane returned to Poland.

The Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Belarus announced this, after which Minsk officially asked Warsaw to explain. A few days later, Belarus said Russia would deploy an air defense system over the territory of Belarus.

On April 15, during the working process of the CIS Air Defense Coordination Committee, the Commander of the Belarusian Air-Defense Force, Major General Igor Golub, said that next summer, the Belarusian army and the army The Russian team will begin a joint combat mission, for the air defense force at one of the airfields of the Republic of Belarus.

Documentary images are for illustrative purposes only

The heads of the military agencies of the Republic of Belarus and the Russian Federation by the end of 2020, he said, had approved the plans for the two countries’ unified regional air defense system.

In the actual facility will be deployed by the forces and means of the Belarusian Air and Air Defense Forces and the Russian Aerospace Forces.

The Belarusian military leader drew attention when he reiterated that the servicemen of the Belarusian Republic regularly participate in joint training with the Russian army.

In 2021, the Belarusian Air and Air Defense Forces will participate in exercises at Ashuluk training ground in the Astrakhan region and in the “Battle of the Commonwealth – 2021” exercise.

Furthermore, this year, the country plans to conduct joint “West-2021” strategic exercises with Russia.

Major General Igor Golub added: “We would like to reiterate that, in March this year, Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko authorized the deployment of the Russian Aerospace Forces on the territory.”

According to Major General Igor Golub, the joint monitoring of Russia and Belarus is in fact a response to the willingness to respond to the aggressive approach and behavior of NATO and the Western countries.

Apparently, it was the actions of Poland and NATO that prompted Belarus to quickly enter into agreements with Russia.

German soldiers, joining NATO missions in Afghanistan, patrol in the Mazar-i-Sharif area, April 26, 2016. Photo: AFP / VNA

According to the VNA correspondent in Berlin, in his April 16 statement, German Defense Minister Kramp-Karrenbauer emphasized: “If everything goes according to plan, all German forces will leave Afghanistan by mid-August. “. This means German troops will leave Afghanistan by 9/11.

According to Minister Kramp-Karrenbauer, with the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, the deployment of German troops in the country ended “after nearly 20 years for the most lost and heavy duty in German military history”. She emphasized that the primary goal is to bring all soldiers, civilian personnel and international teammates back to their homeland healthy and safe. In addition to the US forces, there are about 7,000 foreign soldiers deployed in Afghanistan, including about 1,300 German soldiers.

Earlier on April 14, the NATO Council decided to join the US to begin withdrawing troops from Afghanistan from May 1. According to US President Joe Biden, the withdrawal lasted until September 11, the 20-year period of terrorist attacks on the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York and the ministry. Defense of the US in Washington, the capital, the reason for the US to launch the war later in Afghanistan.

At a previous conversation between German Chancellor Angela Merkel and US President Biden, the two sides agreed to cooperate regarding NATO’s military presence in Afghanistan. According to German government spokesman Steffen Seibert, the German and American leaders emphasized the importance of close coordination and cooperation as well as continued political commitment to the waning Southeast Asian nation. demolition after decades of war.

Despite the planned withdrawal, the United Nations (UN) still wants to continue its political and humanitarian mission in Afghanistan. United Nations spokesman Stéphane Dujarric stressed: “We will study the situation further, but our work in Afghanistan will continue. It is clear that the withdrawal of NATO and the US forces will have an overall impact on the country, he said. According to him, the UN has a long presence in Afghanistan, working in the field of humanitarian development. The United Nations Assistance Mission to Afghanistan (UNAMA) consists of about 1,200 personnel, most of whom are Afghan citizens, and does not include a peacekeeping force.

US President Joe Biden has followed this policy with the announcement that Washington will begin on time the final phase of the withdrawal process and will be completed by 9/11/2021, 20 years after the terrorist attack. horrifying in America, sparking war is arguably the longest in American history.

US soldiers are deployed in Dwyer, Helmand province, Afghanistan. Photo: AFP / VNA

The official announcement by US President Joe Biden on the route to withdraw troops from Afghanistan can be seen as one of the indicators of Wahisngton’s strong determination to reduce its military presence in Afghanistan. The US has also agreed with allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) on this issue. The foreign ministers of Foreign Affairs and Defense 30 NATO member countries agreed to withdraw all troops from Afghanistan according to the roadmap announced by the US, and the foreign ministers of the United States, UK, France and Germany met in Brussels (Belgium). on the issue of Afghanistan after the US announcement, showing that US allies in Europe support and are willing to cooperate in the plan to withdraw troops from the South Asian nation.

Analysts say that the US’s implementation of the withdrawal plan under the agreement with the Taliban could have many positive effects. On the one hand, the withdrawal of US troops will motivate the Taliban to be more serious in fulfilling its commitments. So far, the Taliban show no signs of ending violence in Afghanistan, and in March rejected Afghan President Ashraf Ghani’s proposal to hold elections this year and warned of further action. against foreign troops if foreign forces do not withdraw from the country by the 1/5 deadline. This shows that as long as the US military is still present in Afghanistan, the peace process will have little chance of accelerating. The withdrawal of US troops is expected to break the deadlock and force the Taliban to fulfill its commitments.

Former US military officials also argue that postponing the withdrawal risks the Taliban continuing to carry out attacks on US and coalition forces, possibly escalating violence and conflict in Afghanistan. At that time, the US will be more and more “bogged down” in this war.

In addition, for the US, the decision to withdraw will basically bring many benefits, both economically, politically and diplomatically. Economically, the US will save a significant amount of budget to protect security in Afghanistan. The US currently spends about $ 4 billion a year to maintain the Afghan National Security Force against the remnants of al-Qaeda remnants in the country. Preliminaryly, the US has spent $ 1 trillion on Afghanistan since its first military involvement in the country following the 9/11 terrorist attacks on America.

Politically, the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan will show the American people that Mr. Biden has upheld his pledge during the 2020 campaign. The war in Afghanistan has left more than 2,400 US servicemen dead, more 20,700 people were injured and cost the country a huge budget estimated at $ 2 trillion, but these losses have not yet led Afghanistan to the path of political stability. Therefore, the withdrawal will minimize the losses to the US military in Afghanistan.

Experts say that if he acts with a foresight, President Biden could use the end of the war in Afghanistan as an opportunity to begin the process of “restructuring” the way the two main parties in the US next. compete with each other on national security and defense issues. It would be harder for Republicans to oppose Mr. Biden’s withdrawal strategy if it is seen as something that bears the mark of former President Trump – who remains the most powerful figure in the Republican party.

In terms of security, the Biden administration’s move will contribute to enhancing the role of the Afghan government in maintaining security in the country. In fact, Afghan President Ashraf Ghani has noted that the country’s armed forces are “fully capable” of defending Afghanistan.

However, peace in Afghanistan will face significant challenges. Even within the Biden administration, many opinions are still concerned about security risks for Afghanistan if the US reduces its military presence there. In particular, Director of the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) William Burns noted that America’s ability to gather intelligence and act against threats will decline as US troops leave Afghanistan. Burns’ assessment is based on the long-standing presence of elements from terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda or self-proclaimed “Islamic State” (IS) in Afghanistan.

The CIA Director’s warning reflects the concern of some experts that the US withdrawal of all its troops from Afghanistan risks creating a void allowing terrorist organizations, especially al-Qaeda, to come back again. Since the US launched its war on the Taliban 20 years ago, although it has weakened in many ways, it will still pose significant security challenges for Afghanistan.

The Taliban agreeing to sever ties with terrorist organizations, including al-Qaeda, as well as its commitment to prevent al-Qaeda from operating in Afghanistan, is a prerequisite to a peace deal. with the United States in 2020. However, the fact that al-Qaeda has maintained a complicated relationship with the Taliban has raised doubts about whether the Taliban could completely end its relationship with this notorious terrorist organization. , as well as the real Taliban’s intentions of these commitments.

Over the past 20 years, the United States has invested significantly in counterterrorism and intelligence gathering capabilities in Afghanistan. However, US officials concede that once the military has withdrawn, gathering intelligence will be much more difficult. Stemming from that fact, an erroneous US miscalculation of when to withdraw would create an opportunity for al-Qaeda to rise again in Afghanistan, to re-establish bases, from which to launch terrorist attacks. Future.

After the US withdrawal, to continue assisting Afghanistan in maintaining security, the long-term solution for the US is to find a way that allows all political actors to act together with Afghanistan. The United Nations (UN) has also announced it will maintain its political and humanitarian mission in Afghanistan, even after the US and NATO withdraw their troops from the country.

In fact, the peace process in Afghanistan is now a priority promoted by the international community, as increased violence in this conflict-plunged country is killing many civilians and inflicting love. a serious humanitarian and security crisis. According to the United Nations Assistance Mission to Afghanistan (UNAMA), as many as 8,820 civilians perished from conflict in Afghanistan in 2020. Afghanistan is also facing a severe humanitarian crisis, with more than 16.9 million people, more than a third of the population, are facing urgent food insecurity.

In that context, many optimistic opinions that the withdrawal of US and NATO forces from Afghanistan could open a narrow gap towards a new prospect of peace-building in this South Asian country in the near future. However, the opportunity to slip through the “narrow gap” to peace in Afghanistan is still very fragile because there are many factors that dominate, including the building of trust between the parties in Afghanistan as well as the problem. conflicts of interest of related countries in the region.

American experts warn Russia is a nuclear power capable of killing millions of Americans in the event of a war. In his view, the United States can engage in an open confrontation with Russia only in the event of any “vital” threat to its existence.

But Mr. Lawson stressed that Ukraine is not such a case, and the situation in Donbass does not pose a direct threat to US security.

Analyst Lawson said that the US should prioritize cooperation with Russia instead of confrontation as it is now

In addition, the expert also strongly opposes Ukraine’s membership in NATO, because according to Mr. Lawson, it is Kiev that is the cause of all the problems that have arisen in Europe recently. Ukraine’s accession to the military alliance will exacerbate the situation, taking its conflict with Russia to a new level, something no one wants.

Lawson explained that continuing to confront Russia over Ukraine could be exploited by China, which is dreaming of becoming a superpower and surpassing the US on the world rankings. So Washington needs to turn to other issues, and not to conflict with Russia.

Meanwhile, the US intelligence community has released another annual report on global threats. Traditionally, Russia has been at the forefront of America’s security challenges at all levels.

The above development shows that despite opposition from domestic analysts, the administration of President Joe Biden with a tough stance is almost certain to provide military assistance to Ukraine in the event of a war. In Donbass, if you do not participate in direct combat, you will also provide weapons, weapons, and modern military equipment.

.

According to the Russia Today report, after the sudden inspection of Russian forces stationed at the border with Ukraine on April 13, Russian Defense Minister Shoigu stated that the Russian army is ready for the worst scenario, that is is if tensions between Russia and the West escalate to the point of full-scale engagement.

Russian Defense Minister Shoigu. Source: Sina.

According to the report, after that inspection, Minister Shoigu told reporters that the soldiers had met the standards needed to respond to the situation. “The soldiers have shown that they are well prepared and fully competent to complete the task of ensuring the military security of the country,” said Mr. Shoigu.

He also added that this force is conducting an exercise in the border area.

Shoigu said the military deployment was “in response to the joint military operations that threaten Russia”. He also added, “Washington’s troops are moving from the North American continent to Europe across the Atlantic and they are crossing Europe into the Russian border. The main force is concentrated in the Black Sea area. and the Baltic Sea “.

According to the report, Mr. Shoigu also stated that the conflict between Russia and the West is forming a new front line in the Arctic: “To strengthen the defenses of the Russian Federation and protect its national interests in the North Pole. The North Pole, the Department of Defense is working systematically to improve the Northern Fleet’s Combat capabilities. “

Shoigu’s tough statement was made in the context of President Joe Biden and President Vladimir Putin held a telephone call on April 13, the two leaders discussed many regional and global issues, including the situation Ukraine, however, the two sides did not achieve any results on this issue.

The US side continued to emphasize America’s firm commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, expressed concern about Russia’s sudden military increase in Crimea and Ukraine’s borders, and urged Russia to de-escalate. straight.

With that in mind, NATO is planning to dispatch some 40,000 troops and 15,000 different weapons, including strategic aircraft, to gather near the Russian border. NATO also recently launched its biggest 30-year drills exercise called Defender Europe 2021 near Russia. According to Mr. Shoigu, NATO’s actions clearly carry “anti-Russian tendencies”.

In particular, NATO Secretary-General Stoltenberg said on April 13 that Russia does not have the right to interfere in Ukraine’s accession to NATO, whether or not Kiev can join is due to the decision of 30 NATO member countries.

Shortly thereafter, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken continued on April 14 to emphasize that Washington would stand side by side with Kiev in tensions with Russia. Blinken also announced that he would discuss Ukraine’s desire to join NATO, despite Moscow’s objections.

On the Ukraine side, Mr. Andriy Yermak, chief of the Ukraine Presidential Office, said in an interview with Time magazine: “Ukraine is against Russia not only for itself but also for Western countries”. Therefore, it is necessary to deploy the US Patriot air defense missile system on the territory of Ukraine.

“Where does the US deploy Patriot missiles? Most recently in Poland. They should be deployed here,” said Andriy Yermak.

According to the report, in December 2014, Ukraine amended its law to give up its non-alignment. In June 2016, Ukraine saw its accession to NATO as a foreign policy goal. In February 2019, the National Assembly of Ukraine approved a constitutional amendment, which clearly defines Ukraine’s policy on joining the European Union and NATO.

These moves show that the tense situation in eastern Ukraine is on the verge of turning into a large-scale conflict between Russia and the US and NATO. Experts say that the US and Russia are playing the “craters of war” game, the party who “goes into the water” first will be the loser.

This decision is made in the context of the deadline to withdraw troops under the peace agreement that the Trump administration signed with the Taliban last year is about to take effect on May 1 here. A senior Biden administration official told the AP news agency that the September withdrawal deadline was appropriate and would not be affected by domestic security conditions.

Although President Biden’s decision to keep US troops in Afghanistan for four more months than originally planned, it will ultimately end a two-decade war that has left more than 2,200 soldiers. The United States was killed, 20,000 people injured and it cost about $ 1 trillion.

The purpose of President Joe Biden’s 9/11 selection is to highlight the reason why the United States is pouring troops into Afghanistan: to prevent al-Qaeda from turning the West Asian nation into a springboard to attack America. . Photo: AP

Military officials and commanders have once made harsh protests about the Trump administration’s May 1 deadline, saying that the US withdrawal should be based on field security conditions in Afghanistan, including: including Taliban attacks.

White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Mr. Biden had taken a position on “the next steps to take in Afghanistan, including the plan and timing of the withdrawal”.

Ms Psaki did not provide details, but said President Biden “was consistent in the view that there would not be a military solution in Afghanistan, and that the US military has been there for too long.”

Mr. Biden will also visit Arlington National Cemetery “to pay homage to the brave men and women who have died in Afghanistan.”

According to the Biden administration’s withdrawal plan, the only US force that will remain in Afghanistan is the security force protecting the diplomatic mission. There is no exact figure on the total number of US troops in Afghanistan, but some senior officials have tacitly admitted that the actual number is more than 2,500 people, which will include special operations forces with secret missions. secret or anti-terrorism, intelligence agents.

The timeline set by President Biden will allow the US to proceed with a safer and more orderly withdrawal, with the coordination of NATO allies.

However, it is not excluded that the Taliban will retaliate against US forces in Afghanistan. This could become the risk of escalating tensions again, as well as stemming from further political divisions in the US since the country sank into the “endless war” in Afghanistan.

Mixed reaction

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said: “The withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan is a serious mistake. It is avoidance when faced with an enemy that has not been destroyed and the surrender of American leadership.

Republican Senator Jim Inhofe also rated it as a “reckless and dangerous decision.”

The majority of Democrats support this decision of President Biden. Sen. Jack Reed said the May 1 deadline for former President Donald Trump limited Mr. Biden’s options.

“The United States also has important interests in combating possible terrorist attacks in this region, but other hotspots should also be considered,” Reed said.

Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine said that US military forces in Afghanistan should be returned home and the US must focus on rebuilding national security in the face of more pressing challenges.

Speaking to TIME magazine, Mr. David Sedney – a former Pentagon official under President Barack Obama, called this a “foolish strategy, a humanitarian disaster and worthy of moral condemnation.” virtue.

An Afghan official said the US administration’s decision to unconditionally withdraw troops was a shock to the Ashraf Ghani administration, as well as causing the Kabul government to lose its leveraged negotiating card with the Taliban. .

According to the Washington Post, the decision to unconditionally withdraw troops after a series of short but unsuccessful diplomatic efforts has raised concerns.

“This move will likely reverse the economic, political – social progress that the US has fought to protect during the past two decades in Afghanistan,” according to the editorial board of the Washington Post. “This is the tragedy for the 39 million people of the West Asian nation when the US chooses to give up the people here who once hoped to build a democracy, guaranteeing basic human rights”.

In addition, the withdrawal of all US military forces will likely allow al-Qaeda to restore its bases in Afghanistan.

Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahed told the Associated Press that the force is waiting for official announcement from the US administration to give a suitable response. The Taliban had previously issued warnings of “consequences” if the US extended its withdrawal period on May 1.

In a February 2020 deal with the administration of former US President Donald Trump, the Taliban agreed to stop the attacks and hold peace talks with the Afghan government, in exchange for US commitment. on full withdrawal by May 2021.

Over the past year, US military commanders and defense officials have said that attacks on the country’s military have largely ended, but Taliban’s attacks on Afghan people have increased.

They argue that the Taliban have failed to meet the conditions of the peace deal by continuing to attack people and have not completely severed ties with al-Qaeda and other extremist groups.

When he took office earlier this year, Mr. Biden was well aware of the upcoming withdrawal deadline and consulted with defense security advisers and his allies.

In recent weeks, US President Joe Biden’s views have become clearer. “It will be very difficult to meet the May 1 deadline,” he said in March. “If the US withdraws its troops, it will be done safely and in an orderly manner.”

According to Reuters, Mr. Biden decided to withdraw his troops from Afghanistan before 9/11/2021, exactly 20 years after the terrorist attack by Al-Qaeda sparked the prolonged war of the US and its NATO ally in the country. This southwest Asia.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin officially announced the decision to allies in the NATO bloc in Brussels during the meeting on April 14.

“After careful policy review, President Biden decided to withdraw the remaining number of troops in Afghanistan and eventually end the US war after 20 years,” said a State Department official.

US forces in Afghanistan.

Thus, this new decision shows that the previous withdrawal plan (May 1), which was signed by the administration of former President Donald Trump with the Taliban, could not be implemented. In response, a Taliban spokesman warned there would be consequences if the United States did not comply with the said deadline.

The Taliban are said to have been largely in compliance with their promise not to attack troops from the United States and other countries since the deal was signed, but stressed that things will change as the US pulls back from 9/11.

The Afghan peace process has already fallen to a standstill as peace talks between the Afghan government and the Taliban forces in the Qatar capital, Doha, stalled.

The US advocates to promote peace negotiations between the governments of Afghanistan and the Taliban before the last 2,500 troops of the country’s army must leave Afghanistan.

Washington wants the Afghan and Taliban governments to strike some power-sharing arrangements. Recently, the Taliban rejected the proposal of Afghan President Ashraf Ghani to hold elections this year.

Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid said the process had pushed the nation on the brink of crisis. Any decisions regarding Afghanistan’s future need to be reached in bilateral negotiations.

Assessing the decision to withdraw all US forces from Afghanistan on September 11, experts said that this decision will put NATO in a difficult position.

When the US administration under President Trump decided to withdraw troops from Afghanistan by May 1 deadline, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg warned that Afghanistan was in danger of becoming a defeated IS base. Syria and Iraq.

Although admitting that NATO has been fighting in Afghanistan for too long, Stoltenberg said that it is not time to leave, while the withdrawal needs the coordination of the parties. American forces make up a small number of NATO troops in Afghanistan, but the alliance is heavily dependent on the United States for air transport, logistics and support.

The US withdrawal also raises questions about the possibility of the remaining countries pulling out. NATO began operating there in 2003, two years after the US-led coalition came to deal with the Taliban following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

But it is hard to say that NATO has fulfilled its original goal of “ensuring that it will never be a safe haven for international terrorists”. In the future, the continued stay of NATO will also face many difficulties, while withdrawal is undesirable by many parties, when the goal is not reached and the risk of terrorism will become even more haunted.

German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas has rejected the withdrawal of foreign troops from Afghanistan before ending talks between the Afghan government and the Taliban. Maas also criticized the early US unilateral withdrawal of troops from the South Asian country that could jeopardize peace negotiations.

Considering that peace negotiations are very complicated and cannot be ended as scheduled, Minister Heiko Maas stated: “If the US withdraws its forces while other NATO allies cannot take over security in in the short term, the situation will become extremely volatile. “

Russia in response?

Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu was quoted by Russian media on April 13 as saying that Moscow was taking measures in response to a threatening military action by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), in which has combat readiness testing and training.

The Russian Defense Minister stated clearly, NATO is planning to deploy 40,000 troops and 15,000 weapons and military equipment near the Russian border, including the strategic air force. Mr. Shoigu further announced that the US is moving part of its North American garrison to Europe, which is mainly concentrated in the area near the Black Sea and Baltic Sea.

Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu

Shoigu, the TASS news agency, accused the US of increasing forces in Poland and the Baltic countries, and increasing the frequency of air and sea reconnaissance activities. He asserted that on European territory, NATO annually conducts about 40 large-scale combat training operations against Russia. This spring, NATO launched its largest-scale military exercise in the past 30 years, titled Defender Europe 2021 (Defender Europe 2021).

Mr. Shoigu stressed that Russia is taking measures to respond to NATO’s threatening military activities. The combined Russian large-scale airborne and joint military exercises have demonstrated the ability to be ready to fight to protect the country’s security.

Also on April 13, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg urged Russia to withdraw troops that the alliance thinks Moscow is deploying on a large scale on the border with Ukraine. Speaking at a press conference to Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba, Mr. Stoltenberg said: “In recent weeks Russia has dispatched thousands of troops ready to operate in Ukraine’s border areas. This is the largest troop surge since Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 … Russia must end this military build-up in and around Ukraine, immediately stop provocations and go downstairs. “.

US troops in NATO are deployed to Poland

A day earlier, Mr. Stoltenberg had a meeting with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken to discuss “Russia’s move to strengthen the army near the Ukrainian border”. According to a statement by the US State Department, Secretary of State Blinken and Secretary General Stoltenberg discussed an urgent request for Russia to stop its military build-up along the border areas of Ukraine and the Crimean peninsula.

President Vladimir Putin has also voiced denunciation of NATO conducting exercises on the Russian border and America’s intention to expand its influence over former Soviet members. In April, up to 5 out of 10 NATO exercises will be held in member states in the East.

NATO says it’s good …

According to Ukraine, Russia has deployed 46 tactical battalions – about 105,000 troops – along the border with Ukraine and in Crimea, and is provided with 19,000 tons of fuel and 355 tons of ammunition. Kiev urges allies not to repeat the 2014 “mistake” with events in Crimea and Donbass.

During a press conference with US and Western officials in Brussels, Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba said: “Strategically, Russia must understand that Ukraine belongs to the world of democracies, to the Western world, and the West will not let Russia disrupt Ukraine’s democracy and sovereignty.

Ukrainian soldiers

Western analysts say that both Russia and Ukraine may be “trying” the new US President Joe Biden to see how far he is willing to go to protect Washington’s allies and confront Russia. There are also comments that Russia wants to send a message to Ukraine after Kive imposed sanctions on congressman and businessman Viktor Medvedchuk, and banned three TV channels related to Mr. Medvedchuk.

Up to this point, the West still believes that a full-blown Russian strike or a NATO-backed attack against the separatists will not happen at this time. “NATO members will not send any forces to Ukraine,” said expert Bruno Lete, a senior researcher at the German Marshall Fund – a US research agency. the term is in political messaging, military advice and technical assistance. “

Many analysts believe that NATO allies would not be willing to engage their forces in a conflict against Moscow because of the Ukraine issue, but they could strengthen other forms of assistance. On April 14, German Defense Minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer said: “My impression is that the Russian side is trying to do whatever it takes to provoke a response … With Ukraine, we will not be caught up in the process. play this “.

From Crimea to Syria and most recently Nagorny-Karabakh, Russia has demonstrated its determination and unpredictable combat capabilities.

Most observers believe that the current situation will not necessarily lead to an immediate attack, but Russia’s intentions are still unclear, according to politico.eu. very worrying. The West believes that Russian President Putin wants to remain unpredictable, so there is little risk of a completely unexpected war, but there is always a risk of miscalculation or overreaction.

On the Russian side, some analysts in this country said that the outbreak was “a direct result of the internal political situation in Ukraine”. The Russian Expert newspaper assessed that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky took drastic measures such as fighting the opposition media allegedly pro-Russia, punishing billionaire Medvedchuk who allegedly has close ties to the Kremlin, or ban Russian language in schools aimed at regaining its image in the country.

Meanwhile, the World Socialist Web Site contains information proving that Ukraine, the US and the West are acting “aggressive, provocative” against Russia. Accordingly, Kiev in early March adopted a strategy to “withdraw the Crimean peninsula”. On March 25, President Zelensky also adopted a new military strategy emphasizing the urgency of mobilizing the entire population in a war against Russia in Ukraine. This strategy recognizes that Ukraine can only win with NATO support and no less than 19 mentions of its intention to join the military alliance.

On April 14, The Guardian quoted US President Joe Biden officials as saying that the withdrawal would begin before May 1-5. These officials stressed the US sending of troops into Afghanistan to “enforce justice against those who caused the September 11, 2001 attacks, to prevent terrorists from trying to make Afghanistan a safe haven.” and that goal “was achieved a few years ago”. “We evaluate the current Afghanistan threat to the United States as manageable without the need for Washington to maintain a military presence or maintain war with the Taliban here,” one American officials stressed. On the same day, German Defense Minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer said that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) will join the United States with the withdrawal of all troops from Afghanistan next September, because “we always say they I will come together and leave together ”.

US soldiers in Afghanistan Photo: Reuters.

According to the AP, the above decision also means that the US will not meet the deadline for the withdrawal of all troops from Afghanistan on May 1-5 under the peace agreement that the former administration of President Donald Trump had. signed with the Taliban last February. The Taliban have warned that they will resume hostile actions against foreign forces in Afghanistan if Washington does not withdraw as agreed.

In fact, although Mr. Biden once committed to withdraw US troops from Afghanistan when running for the presidency, the White House boss himself admitted that withdrawing by a deadline of May 1-5 was “very difficult”. A US official confirmed, on September 11, 2021, would be “the absolute deadline” and would not be affected by the security situation in Afghanistan, because “conditional withdrawal of troops means staying in Afghanistan forever.” far away ”. AP said that “absolute deadline” shows the determination of the US administration to end the longest war in American history. The costly and costly war in Afghanistan has left more than 2,200 US soldiers dead, 20,000 injured and costing more than $ 1 trillion.

US intelligence agencies have warned the Biden administration about the danger that the Taliban could control much of Afghanistan within the next two to three years, if Washington withdraws all troops from the southwest Asian country. Along with that, this will facilitate the rise of al-Qaeda terrorist network in Afghanistan. According to The Guardian, the Biden administration’s plan to withdraw troops from Afghanistan immediately met with opposition from many MPs from both Democrats and Republicans. Sen. Mitch McConnell of the Republican Party said that foreign terrorists will not leave America “just because our politicians are tired of fighting them.” Mr. McConnell asked President Biden to explain to the American people “why giving up allies and withdrawing in the face of the Taliban makes America safer”. Meanwhile, according to Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of the Democratic Party, the withdrawal “undermines our commitment to the Afghan people, especially Afghan women”. “I urge the Biden administration to do its best from now to September to protect progress has been made, as well as to assist our partners in forming a transitional government,” said Thuong. MP Shaheen wrote on the social networking site Twitter.

Since Washington signed a peace deal with the Taliban, the number of US troops stationed in Afghanistan has dropped from 12,000 to 2,500, according to the Pentagon. However, The New York Times quoted US officials as confirming the number of US troops currently stationed in Afghanistan was 3,500.

On September 11, 2001, al Qaeda terrorists kidnapped four civilian planes and flew them into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania. The 9/11 terrorist attacks left nearly 3,000 people dead. (Source: Reuters)

In October 2001, U.S. President George W. Bush announced the launch of a “war on terror” targeting al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, who was supported by the Taliban administration in Afghanistan and provided shelter. Pictured: The Humvee of U.S. Marines throws dust as it passes through a group of light armored vehicles while patrolling from a Navy base in southern Afghanistan, December 2, 2001. (Source: Reuters)

In early November 2001, a small group of U.S. special forces soldiers were deployed to Afghanistan to fight alongside the Northern Coalition, an army formed primarily by guerrilla gunmen and government troops ousted by the Taliban in 1996. Pictured: William Olas Bee, a U.S. Marine from the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit, fights the Taliban during a shooting near Garmsir in Afghanistan’s Helmand province, May 18, 2008. (Source: Reuters)

In December 2001, Taliban forces were knocked out of their strongholds in Kandahar. The caves in Tora Boca, southeast of Kabul, which is believed to be Bin Laden’s shelter, have been bombed by US B-52s over the course of two weeks. The Taliban collapsed, but Bin Laden escaped with Mullah Omar , the leader of the Taliban. Pictured: Capt. Melvin Cabebe of the U.S. Army’s 1st-320th Field Artillery Regiment stands near a burning M-ATV armored vehicle after it struck a homemade explosive device (IED) near the Arghandab Valley, north of Kandahar, July 23, 2010. (Source: Reuters)

A Stryker armoured vehicle of the U.S. Army’s 5th Stryker Brigade fires a mortar during a night patrol in Kandahar, April 27, 2010. (Source: Reuters)

On May 2, 2011, the U.S. military conducted a raid and killed Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden in a village in Pakistan, marking a turning point in the war in Afghanistan. President Obama hailed the victory as “the most important result of the U.S. effort against Al Qaeda.” But violence in Afghanistan continues. Pictured: U.S. army soldiers fire artillery from a base in Panjwai district, southern Afghanistan’s Kandahar province, June 12, 2011. (Source: Reuters)

Two nearly 227 kg bombs explode at a fighting site with the Taliban Kamdesh, in Nuristan Province, Afghanistan, June 11, 2012. (Source: Reuters)

U.S. soldiers detonate a roadside bomb set up by Taliban gunmen near the town of Walli in Paktika province, near the border with Pakistan, November 4, 2012. (Source: Reuters)

Paratroopers of the Chosen Company of the 3rd Battalion, 509th Infantry on CH-47 Chinook helicopters, begin their offensive mission in Herrera, Paktiya Province of Afghanistan, July 15, 2012. (Source: Reuters)

U.S. Marines take prisoners to detention centers at Kandahar International Airport. (Source: Reuters)

A group of men are detained on suspicion of operating for the Taliban in Kuhak village, Arghandab district, north of Kandahar on July 9, 2010. (Source: Reuters)

After the fighting is a moment of rest and resuscitation. Pictured: An American soldier rests after a night patrol near the Honaker Miracle camp in the Pesh valley of Kunar province, Afghanistan. (Source: Reuters)

The war also inevitably casualties. Pictured: Members of the U.S. Navy shelter comrades injured by an explosion on a helicopter in Kandahar province, southern Afghanistan, October 2, 2010. (Source: Reuters)

A U.S. army officer tries to save the life of a Marine wounded in an IED explosion near the town of Marjah in Helmand province, August 22, 2010. (Source: Reuters)

U.S. Army soldiers of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), light candles in prayer during Christmas Eve at Bagram Airport, north of Kabul, December 24, 2014. (Source: Reuters)

U.S. Marine Chris Sanderson, 24, from Flemington, New Jersey tries to protect an Afghan man and his child after Taliban militants opened fire in the town of Marjah, Nad Ali district, Helmand province, February 13, 2010. (Source: Reuters)

Between mid-2013 and the end of 2014, U.S. President Barack Obama withdrew nearly 34,000 U.S. troops from Afghanistan and announced the official end of the war.Rammed U.S. combat operations in the country on December 28, 2014. However, attacks still occur. U.S. soldiers take care of wounded comrades at the site of an explosion in Kabul, Afghanistan, June 30, 2015. (Source: Reuters)

The Resolute Support campaign began on January 1, 2015. According to the NATO campaign, 13,000 soldiers, mostly U.S. troops, will be maintained in Afghanistan for two years to provide training and mentoring to Afghan security forces. (Source: Reuters)

Since the start of the war in Afghanistan, about 2,400 U.S. servicemen have been killed along with the deaths of thousands of Taliban and Al Qaeda gunmen and civilians and thousands wounded. This fierce battle has caused many families to lose relatives, many people lost comrades, friends … Pictured: Lesleigh Coyer, 25, of Saginaw, Michigan, lies in front of the grave of her brother Ryan Coyer, an American soldier who fought in both Iraq and Afghanistan, at Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia on March 11, 2013. Ryan Coyer died as a result of lingering traumatic complications in Afghanistan. (Source: Reuters)

Boy Ryan Lemm, 4, raises his hand to say goodbye to his father, NYPD officer Joseph Lemm, killed in a suicide bombing in Afghanistan.Funeral held in the Manhattan borough of New York, December 30, 2015. Lemm was one of six U.S. soldiers killed by a suicide bomber near Bagram air base in Afghanistan. (Source: Reuters)

An American soldier of the 3rd Cavalry Regiment pay tribute during a memorial service for expert Wyatt Martin and Sergeant Ramon Morris at Bagram Airport in Afghanistan’s Parwan Province on December 23, 2014. The two men were killed by a homemade explosive device while patrolling near Bagram Airport. (Source: Reuters)

Not only the people of Afghanistan, the world is still waiting for peace to be restored on the territory of this Islamic country. Pictured: Two Northern Coalition soldiers watch as plumes of smog rise after U.S. troops attackEd Taliban positions on Kalakata Hill, near the village of Ai-Khanum in northern Afghanistan. (Source: Reuters)

Recently, according to sources, U.S. President Joe Biden decided to withdraw the country’s soldiers from Afghanistan before September 11, 2021, exactly 20 years after the Al-Qaeda attack, sparking America’s longest war. According to the source, the withdrawal will be based on specific assurances on security and human rights, before formalizing the decision. The sources did not provide further details. Pictured: A Chinook helicopter lands to pick up U.S. soldiers after a night raid in Yahya Khel, Paktika province, in 2011. (Source: Reuters)

(according to Reuters)

Newspapers World & amp; Vietnam highlights of the day:

Russia-Ukraine Ukraine: Russia won’t dare attack

Ukraine’s Deputy Prime Minister Oleksiy Reznikov insisted that, although Russia has been ablediving a large number of troops to the border, there will be no large-scale offensive.

According to Mr. Reznikov, Russia’s concentration of troops on the Ukrainian border is just “a show of force without intention of use,” although there will be minimal probabilities of an attack to occur.

However, Mr Reznikov stressed, the main target remains a “signal” from Russia, which suggests Moscow may attack but that it will prioritise negotiations. (TASS)

Russia ‘reveals’ reasons for marching troops to border

On April 13, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said that Moscow’s large-scale military push in the West was part of exercises to assess readiness amid threats from NATO.

Speaking in a meeting with senior generals, Mr Shoigu said the ongoing exercise was a response to what he called relentless efforts by the US and NATO allies to strengthen their forces near Russia’s borders.

“Russian soldiers are ready to complete the task of protecting the security of the country,” Shoigu asserted. (AP)

Moscow warns West over Ukraine issue

On the same day, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said that the US and EU are stepping up tensions in Ukraine by increasing military support for the country.

“We want to reiterate that NATO countries, who use the fallacy to speculate on the defense of Ukraine’s independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity, should think about Kiev’s belligerent attitude, while ensuring the implementation of the Minsk Measure Package that Kiev is deliberately ignoring,” Ryabkov said.

He added that, in the worst assumption, “Kiev and its allies in the West will be fully responsible for the consequences.” (TASS)

US-Russia: What’s in the Biden-Putin radio?

During the April 13 phone call, U.S. President Joe Biden proposed to his Russian ally Vladimir Putin to hold a summit in a third country.

The White House statement stated: “During the talks, President Biden reaffirmed his goal of building a stable, predictable relationship with Russia and in line with American interests.”

At the same time, the White House boss asserted, the U.S. will act “resolutely” to protect national interests, responding to Russian actions such as cyber intrusion and election interference.

On the Ukraine issue, the U.S. President emphasized Washington’s relentless support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

In addition, President Biden proposed that the leaders of the two countries meet for a third summit in the next few months to discuss a range of issues in U.S.-Russia relations. If held, it would be the first meeting between Mr Biden and Mr Putin.

For his part, the Kremlin announced, during the talks, that the US President had told Mr Putin that Washington wanted to normalize relations and cooperation on arms control, the Iranian nuclear program, the Afghan issue and climate change.

In addition, President Putin has outlined approaches to solving politics in Ukraine and outlined approaches to solving political problems rooted in the Minsk Measures Package. (Reuters/TASS)

U.S. intelligence puts China at the top of threat list

According to the 2021 Annual Assessment of Threats report, China will continue to increase its influence while trying to undermine U.S. influence, “dividing” relations between Washington and its partners, as well as allies.

China’s promotion of power globally is a leading threat to U.S. national security, the report said.

Regarding Russia, the report said, Moscow “does not want a direct conflict” with the U.S., though it will continue its destabilizing efforts toward Ukraine.

As for North Korea, the report said, Pyongyang will likely consider whether it should resume its nuclear weapons and long-range missile tests this year, amid efforts by the Northeast Asian nation to negotiate with the new U.S. administration on its own terms. (Reuters)

American c’Official’ delegation to Taiwan

U.S. President Joe Biden’s administration on April 13 sent an official delegation to Taiwan, a move seen as a “personal signal” of the President’s commitment to the island.

The delegation included Senator Chris Dodd and two former Deputy Foreign Ministers, Richard Armitage and James Steinberg.

In addition, according to a senior official in Mr. Biden’s administration, the U.S. sent the delegation as the U.S. and Taiwan celebrated the 42nd anniversary of the Taiwan Relations Act that Mr. Biden voted to pass as a senator.

“The dispatch of these three individuals – senior politicians, longtime friends of Taiwan and close personal ties to President Biden – sends an important signal of America’s commitment to Taiwan and its democracy,” the official said. (Reuters)

Iran-Israel Iran produces 60% uranium in response to Israel

On April 14, Iran announced next week it would begin producing uranium enriched in purity of up to 60 percent, three days after an attack that Tehran accused of being caused by Israel against a key nuclear facility in Natanz. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani explained that the decision to enrich uranium was in response to Israel’s “nuclear terrorism.”

Speaking on television, Mr Rouhani stressed: “Activate IR-6 (centrifugal machines) in Natanz on April 14, or raise the level of enrichment to 60%… to respond to malice. What (Israel) did was nuclear terrorism. What we do is legal.”

In a report sent to member countries, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi said iran had informed the agency that it planned to start enriching uranium at a maximum of 60 percent. (AFP)

Israeli ship attacked, suspected Iran culprit?

The Israeli-owned Hyperion vessel was attacked off the UAE coast, according to the channel TV 12, this missile was launched from Iran.

The ship suffered minor damage. Channel TV 12 Israeli sources on the same day cited security sources as reporting that the missile had been launched by Iran.

According to the news channel, several unnamed Israeli officials accused Iran of carrying out the attack. (Al-Mayadeen)

South China Sea NATO condemns China in South China Sea

On April 13, speaking online at the Raisina Dialogue (India’s conference on geography and economics), NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said that china’s rise is seen as a global issue, all countries need to pay attention to this.

The NATO secretary general said, “we must be clearly aware of the challenges that come with china’s rise.”

According to Jens Stoltenberg, China is strengthening its military strength along with economic development. The country has tripled its military spending over the past decade, now has the world’s second-largest defense budget and continues to massively invest in military modernization.

Besides, Mr. Stoltenberg asserted, NATO is an important foundation for responding to the security effects of a rising China. “NATO wants to interact closer with partners around the world, because it is the best way to protect the rules-based international order, protecting society and democracy,” Said Stoltenberg. (Business Standard)

China fires real ammunition in South China Sea

The website of China’s Maritime Safety Administration (MSA) on April 14 posted a notice of the country’s schedule of real-life ammunition firing exercises in the South China Sea.

Accordingly, live-fire exercises in the South China Sea take place in an area limited by coordinates 23-18-007N 117-16-00E, 23-18-00N 117-24-00E, 23-10-00N 117-24-00E and 23-10-00N 117-16-00E from 0h-10h daily UTC (7h-17h Hanoi time), from April 15-20.

The above notice states that during the exercises, MSA of Shantou city banned boats from entering the above area. (THX)

Afghanistan: US, UK, NATO simultaneously schedule withdrawals

On April 13, U.S. President Joe Biden decided to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan before 9/11, exactly 20 years after the Al-Qaeda attack sparked America’s longest war.

However, according to unnamed sources, the withdrawal will be based on specific assurances on security and human rights, before formalizing the decision. The sources did not provide further details.

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin are expected to announce the decision with allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in Brussels on April 14. President Biden may also announce his decision.

Following in the U.S., Britain and NATO also announced they would withdraw almost all forces from Afghanistan.

Speaking to a TV channel Ard, German Defense Minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer stated: “We always declare: we will go together, we will withdraw together… I support an orderly withdrawal and that’s why I think today (April 14) we (NATO) will be united on that.” (Reuters/AFP)

A test with President Biden

For now, it’s not hard to see whether America’s adversies are trying to challenge the country’s leader, from Russia’s increased force on its border with Ukraine, China’s moves in Taiwan or North Korea’s missile tests to get President Biden’s attention.

President Biden. Photo: CNN

Mr Biden’s hopes of resuming the nuclear deal with Iran will be even harder if Tehran’s hardline followers are in charge of negotiations. Besides, if Israel is accused of carrying out an attack on Iran, President Biden will likely face a crisis with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in pending the situation. The ability to address these challenges will shape Mr Biden’s legacy.

China has been intensifying its rise over the past year and is now ready to assert military power in Asia, as well as its influence in many parts of the world. Meanwhile, Western tensions and divisions also have many problems related to Russia.

President Biden’s administration understands its enemies are probing a new White House. Bitter disagreements between U.S. and Chinese officials in Alaska last month sent a clear message from Washington to Beijing that President Biden would not be easily persuaded.

Since then, U.S. and Chinese carrier combat forces have increased their presence in the South China Sea. In addition, China sent 25 fighters to taiwan’s air defense zone as a message asking Washington not to interfere in its internal work.

Taiwan is considered the issue with the highest risk of sparking the US-China conflict. After Washington launched the USS John McCain into the Taiwan Strait last week, China warned the U.S. not to “play with fire.”

Along with its Western allies, President Biden’s administration has also put pressure on Russia over the Ukraine issue due to fears that current tensions in eastern Ukraine could lead to a full-on conflict in the sensitive region.

A senior U.S. defense official told CNN last week that the Pentagon is considering moving two ships to the Black Sea to show support for Ukraine, a move that could escalate tensions.

Tough stance

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who spoke directly to Chinese officials in Alaska, did not hesitate to give tough warnings to Russia and China.

“It would be a serious mistake if anyone tried to change the status quo by force,” Mr Blinken said on NBC on April 11.

In Europe, on April 13, during a NATO meeting to announce the U.S. increased military presence in Germany, Foreign Minister Blinken met with Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleb, and said that if Russia continues to escalate tensions, as President Biden has made clear, the country will pay the price and suffer the consequences.”

These hardline statements are intended to counter the claim in both Russia and China that america’s weakening and downward decline is inevitable after two decades of war, financial terrorism, internal political discord and limited ability to cope with the pandemic.

U.S. Secretary of State Blinken’s remarks also need to be taken into account when compared to the foreign policy approach of former President Trump, who has not taken a stance too tough on Russia.

The Current White House’s position with both Russia and China is to cooperate when possible but confrontational relations still prevail, especially in the fierce economic competition with Beijing.

As CNN reported, President Biden’s climate envoy, former Secretary of State John Kerry, will make a brief visit to Beijing to seek common ground between the two countries ahead of the Climate Summit in Scotland in November. In a surprise move, President Biden on April 13 offered a third face-to-face meeting next month with Russian President Putin, just weeks after the U.S. leader endorsed what he called the Russian leader a “murderer.”

The move is said to resemble a “carrot” that Mr Biden gave Mr Putin in order to avoid any escalation of tensions in Ukraine or in connection with the poisoning of opposition figures Alexei Navalny.

Decision to withdraw troops from Afghanistan

President Biden’s decision on Afghanistan appears to be a foreign policy given after calculations on domestic policies.

Republicans with hardline views argue that this decision by the American leader is a dangerous step. The power gap after years of civil war in Afghanistan will cause the Taliban to intensify operations and turn the country into a terrorist paradise for al Qaeda to stage attacks on New York and Washington.

“The hasty withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan is a disastrous mistake because the process takes place when the enemy has not gone away and is a sign that the U.S. is abandoning its leadership,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.

Not all Republicans, though, have criticized the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan. Congressman Ted Cruz, who has always opposed most of Mr. Biden’s policies, is an example. Ted Cruz said he was not opposed to the deadline for withdrawing American troops from Afghanistan that Mr Biden set.

“Bringing our troops back should not be seen as a sign that the U.S. neglects caution in protecting the American people and our allies. We can still defend our interests without the need to maintain a long-term military presence here.”

If Mr. Biden is determined to implement his plan, he can achieve what former Presidents Obama and Trump have tried but failed to do, which is to end American interference in the endless wars that followed 9/11 abroad.