Final_7&8

 In Syria, over 350 000 killed in civil war and 6 million civilians forced to abandon homes  It was a hybrid organization: part terrorist network, part guerilla army, and part proto state.  Note the Islamic State lost control of key parts of Syria according to this institute, in news published by Reuters.  Reuters – feed that gives you world news  The objectives of ISIS were to expand its influence in the Middle East through four phases: ?we think  A. breakdown state boundaries and generate conditions for civil war.  B. establish the Islamic State as an Islamic Emirate; the Emirate would be a political territory that would be ruled by an Arab monarchy.  C. recruit like-minded people from all parts of the world to fight for and live in the Islamic State.  D. and establish a worldwide Islamic Caliphate o ISIS was the world’s wealthiest terrorist group in 2015. Its net worth was estimated to be over $2 billion  Some experts claim that the Islamic State generated about $3 million per day from selling crude oil on the black market, while others believed that it only earned $1 million a month from such activities  Notwithstanding the inconclusive estimates generated from oil revenues, ISIS remains the world’s wealthiest terrorist organization.  They could buy nuclear weapons with this money  How will the Taliban in Afghanistan prevent ISIS from using Afghan territory to launch terrorist attacks against American and NATO non- combative troops?  It is fifth on Forbe’s List of the Wealthiest Terrorist Organizations. Nation-State Level of Analysis - Case Study #3: The Taliban o Taliban SIMPLIFIED:  Country of operation: Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc.  Notable leaders: Mohammed Omar  Notable attacks: various attacks against troops in Afghanistan eg suicide bombers, bombings of convoys  Goal: imposition of extreme ideology in Middle East  Lawlessness means more money for the Taliban  A UN report has said that the Afghan Taliban growing influence in the country.  Poppy Cultivation and Opium  The report said that the harvest tax - most of which is from poppy cultivation - is the "main source" of income for the Taliban, but the

 These days, one common denominator seems to be a misplaced inclination to see themselves acting on former U.S. President Trump. Or the Prophet Mohammed’s behalf.  But on behalf of Quebec separatism, terrorists with extremist mindsets kidnapped and killed a Quebec cabinet minister during the 1970 October Crisis.  Extremists and fundamentalists appear throughout history and exploit different religious and ideological belief systems to justify their reprehensible inclinations and violent behavior.  “Fundamentalist” religious groups of all faiths and true believers in the conduct of what they vies to be a “just war” may attack symbols of their religious or secular rivals  Cultists who believe in a cult figure or survivalists or neo-fascists who reject the existing order and await their own version of Armageddon may also engage in terrorism. o Muslims do not become terrorists because they are Muslims, Quebec separatists don’t become murderers because they are separatists, Buddhists don’t self-immolate because they are Buddhists, and Christians don’t martyr themselves because they are Christians. o People commit suicide and terrorism bc of their own mental challenges, belief systems, and psyches - To Summarize: we don’t know (what leads people to become terrorists) o can be male or female o religious or secular o most are highly educated (except the ‘third-generation’ which learns from the internet) o tend not to be from poverty-stricken backgrounds, but are not necessarily rich, like Bin Laden o Average age is in their early twenties, but can be much older and mostly single, although can be married and have families o Nobody knows o All these answers are correct How can we stop terrorism? - Address root causes of terrorism o Very expensive and time-consuming - Look for mistakes by groups - Close security holes one by one - Monitor suspicious individuals - Military or police action - Peace process/negotiation How can we stop terrorism in Canada? - ‘Hard Power’ techniques: o (1) Increase intelligence gathering and military reprisals

Third generation seems to learn from the Internet  The first generation of al-Qaeda suicide terrorists learned side by side with Osama bin Laden and his right-hand man, Ayman al-Zawahari, while the second-generation developed hundreds of autonomous cells that communicated with each other but did not necessarily agree, meet or train together. The third generation seems to learn from the Internet, watch televised happenings and adopt Global Salafism’s perception of the “Near Enemy” and the “Far Enemy” (US) on their own, perhaps because they harbour suicidal tendencies. Increasing intelligence-gathering and training soldier  The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) attempted to prevent suicide terrorism in Afghanistan by closing security holes one by one, looking for mistakes by terrorist groups, and using counter-terrorism to monitor suspicious individuals. The NATO allies will continue to use “hard power” techniques in the Middle East and Afghanistan, like increasing intelligence-gathering and training soldiers to conduct military operations against terrorists. Restrictive policies that violate human rights  But increasing homeland security in North America, Europe, and NATO’s out-of-area operations can incite more anger if this entails restrictive policies that violate human rights such as racial profiling. 6 Using new technology, like drones, can disrupt or destroy terrorist organizations from afar, but it can also create new cycles of terror in retaliation. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) or Drones  Using Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) to carry out strikes against suicide terrorists in relatively distant or inaccessible locations needs more consideration, review, transparency and international law regarding drone policy. Erecting more walls  North America and Europe could also increase its homeland security, erecting more walls to prevent terrorists from entering; however, as lessons from North America’s involvement in NATO since 1945 can teach the NATO allies, using hard power has proven overly-expensive for defense spending. “Soft power” techniques such as creating more trust  Domestic populaces in the wake of Covid-19 will need to explore less expensive ways of preventing terrorism, especially given all the pandemic-related financial pressures that will beset the 30 NATO allies. “Soft power” techniques such as creating more trust between adversaries, and forums to vent anger, can combat primary and secondary traumatization experienced by terrorists and suicide bombers. Common security of using non-violent means

 We must oppose the belief systems of groups that espouse indiscriminate, randomized killing, including the makers of many violent online video games. Violent video games - like Assassin’s Creed Odyssey, Call of Duty, Grand Theft Auto III, Mortal Kombat, Pokémon Go, Postal, Rape Day, Soldier of Fortune, and World of Warcraft - espouse black-and-white understanding of ‘us versus them’. Adversaries are invariably portrayed as entirely evil and bent on human destruction, world domination, and mass murder. o Soldier of Fortune  the first-person shooter attempts to stop terrorists from unleashing stolen nukes upon the world in a game that features disembowelments and limbs that can be blown off torsos. o God of War trilogy  Soldier of Fortune was so violent that the game was placed on Germany’s Federal Department for Media Harmful to Young Persons index. In the blood-soaked God of War trilogy, the vengeance-crazed warrior Kratos, and protagonist, shifts to crazed God-killer. Stand against the crusading discourse  Moderate Muslims around the world will also need more help to stand against the crusading discourse by radical Islamists, specifically Global Salafists, who preach non- negotiable goals with no middle ground. Dichotomous understanding of friends versus foes  leads fundamentalists to portray moderate voices as part of the crusading imperialism of the Far Enemy. Global Salfism’s ideology, for instance, with its declaration of war against the Crusader-Zionist alliance, links conflicts across time and space as part of a broader Islamic struggle. Cosmic thinking fuelled by rants  This sort of cosmic thinking is fuelled by rants against the perceived enemy.  For example, according to Bin Laden, “The people of Islam have suffered from aggression, iniquity and injustice imposed on them by the Zionist[1]Crusader alliance.”  Another of bin Laden’s historic speeches attests, “The horrifying pictures of the massacre of Qana in Lebanon, are still fresh in our memory. Massacres in Tajikistan, Burma, Kashmir, Asam, the Philippines . . . Ogaden, Somalia, Eritrea, Chechnya and Bosnia- Herzegovina . . . send shivers in the body and shake the conscience.” All sorts of such diatribes by the first- and second-generation of Bin Laden’s followers, many of whom have since been martyred and killed, seem to play a powerful role in activating third- generation terrorism.

predominate in Americans’ collective memory, so a secretly-planned coup d’état that somehow kills most Taliban leaders might be possible. In the wake of any such American- or Afghan-engineered military coup, could there be democratic elections and the reflow of billions of dollars of humanitarian aid? Doubtful, as embezzlement and high-end corruption are so endemic, all Afghans at every echelon of decision- making cannot be trusted. Afghan President Ashraf Ghani’s conducted a three-week long raid of government coffers—so he could lift off in a helicopter laden with $169 million U.S. dollars—and he and his family threw $49 million onto the tarmac for their male security guards to keep. Nor can we trust American officials—who wavered, vacillated and chose total withdrawal based on spurious time-dictated conditions—rather than the well-advised conditions-based approach. Also to blame for the terrible debacle were abrupt firings and strategic failure in the U.S. military. Searing images that went viral around the world of women handing over babies to U.S. soldiers in the chaos of the airlift continue to be marred further by painful news about the deaths of 13 U.S. Marines Afghanistan has no culture of peace, and even the concept of buffer zones of peace or village counsels peopled by women, combined with bottom’s up integral development failed. Generations of illiterate women beaten by their domestic partners will have no opportunity at school or energy at home to wilfully demand democratic decision-making. One option might be to quarantine and contain the country so that pockets of terrorism do not spread in a petrie dish of desperation. A weak ally in the battle against jihadist terrorism, Pakistan will continue to funnel containment-breakers. Using drones, a land invasion after a couple years of fomentation would probably fail from lack of will within the international community. Even if we wait for a credible ISIS threat (or let’s say the pretext of a credible threat from biological weapons) a land invasion and air power attacks would have to prepare for a new war footing on a different continent. The UN has warned millions of Afghan children are going to die. Estimates in 2023 were are that 20 million people in Afghanistan do not have enough food to survive. The lack of journalists from the West and Al-Jazeera means Afghans will suffer without us knowing, and new crises in Belarus and Ukraine combined with the Covid pandemic means they will die in vain. Air drops of food packages and medicine are a possible solution from last century’s Berlin airlift; but the NATO allies do not perceive Afghans as precious citizenry. President John F. Kennedy’s famous declaration that, “Ich bin ein Berliner,”—translated into “Ich bin ein Afghaner”—might never work because Afghanistan—unlike East Germany formerly—is still seen by Westerners as ‘the other’, woefully overpopulated and illiterate. The well of human sympathy upon seeing Kabul’s international airport besieged and the plea to heed the chorus of Afghans dried up too quickly. Now President Joseph Biden’s remaining

Pacific Economic Cooperation. He graduated with his PhD from the political science department at Western University under the supervision of Erika Simpson. ** Anytime I use the term “we”, I’m most likely referring to Afghanistan 2023 - Has seen suicide bombings- has become harsh reality, global groups think they’re very efficient - Had bodyguards killed (Kabul 2013, Afghanistan 2020) - What can be done to prevent suicide bombings? o Virtually impossible to defeat ideology o Academics don’t have experience, detached from culture o Eliminate poverty- provide economic opp to take away incentive to fight against state - Taliban fighter looks like 16 yr old without education and opp - Was US decision to withdraw a good one? o He said Afghan could defend itself without US, 350 000 soldiers o Abrupt end of support affected moral – thought gradual would’ve made diff o Lots of corruption and deals made with Taliban behind closed doors o Soldiers had no leadership, boarded emergency evacuation flight to UAE - Afghan president, did he think he’d take off with that much money and leave Sakhi on ground o Didn’t know he’d flee o Talks before about if there was a plan to flee, transitional gov’t needed o He said he wouldn’t o Responsible for failure o Unprecedented, how did Kabul fall when professional army of US had thousands of soldiers stationed 5 km away from heart of city - Went to Dubai when he left o PTSD experienced o Stayed there for 7 m, planned on being there for a week o Sought help - Next to impossible to go back to Afghanistan and no purpose now - What happens if ISIS obtains biological warfare and tries to hit West? o Latest intelligence reports state ISIS doesn’t have strength or capability to establish long-term base in Afghanistan  Always on run o Coop btwn Taliban and ISIS when Afghan gov’t was in power but they are foes o Wealth has fallen apart (leadership decimated by NATO alliance, esp US)  Are some sleeper cells funded by external intelligence agencies to achieve own goals (eg parts of 3 rd world, affiliated w curse of terrorism, poverty, lack of funding/opp)  But some cells loosely associated w banner, do not understand main purpose is o BUT if, them trying to use against west is inevitable  Next to impossible for them to do at this point - Current threat of terrorism is in Pakistan w economic meltdown and rogue actors in state o It’s also a nuclear power - Future plans o Currently live overseas

 Georgia and Ukraine told they will eventually become members  1949 it was 12 countries, 1952 16, 155 19, now 30 allies w Finland 31 and maybe Sweden 32 - Risks: o Could decisions to increase our security decrease Russian security, possibly leading to arms spirals and renewed confrontation?  Yes, that is happening  The Russian actions in Crimea, and their generally belligerent attitude with interference, disinformation, and cyber interference shows what Nye calls “sharp power” o Sharp power = Directed, targeted campaigns using non-military mechanisms  Ex: hiring private firms to do work on your behalf o Could we be caught in a new ‘security dilemma’?  NATO enlargement requiring a Russian response  Does increasing NATO security actually decrease overall NATO security because it makes those countries on the border of the new members more belligerent - Obviously, the Russians think they are being surrounded… o Any evidence that they are surrounded?  Yes… - Most Russians opposed NATO enlargement o Broad consensus that if you are a domestic actor in actor, this is not something that you are going to be okay with  Increasing likelihood of conflict with Russia - Every political party in Russia opposed NATO expansion Russian President Boris Yeltsin and NATO Secretary-General Javier Solana after signing the Founding Act at the Paris Summit on 27 May 1997. Only one to not oppose

- Do we run the risk of inciting old hatreds, new insecurities, and more paranoid leadership? o The classic issue of paranoia is that you don’t have the evidence, but you suspect something is the case  If the evidence comes out that you were actually being reasonable, then the paranoia was well-founded o Idea here is that this incentivizes Russia, in particular, to make sure that its militarization stays at a high level o Also incentivizes Russia to encourage dissent in all NATO countries  To create the dissensus where it looks like there’s consensus, to disrupt what’s happening in those territories and expand its influence  Everyone ignored Russia Georgia attack in South Ossetia - The Costs of Insecurity: Spheres of Influence and a Renewed Arms Race? o The perception of short-term security for these individual countries results in a long- term insecurity for everybody o Could NATO expansion incite Russia to extend its sphere of influence into the ‘near abroad’ (e.g., Georgia, Belarus, Ukraine)? o Could the rearmament of Hungary, the Czech Republic and Poland contribute to a new arms race in Central Europe? o Will NATO enlargement create new dividing lines in Europe? - Article V of the Washington Treaty: An attack against one or several members is considered an attack against all - What might be the benefits and costs of extending Article 5 protection to Ukraine? - This issue has been here for over 10 years

o US providing assistance and loans to defense industries to buy more weapons, to equip Ukraine, to be part of this, to spend money to have military alliances in Europe o NATO enlargement is part of the broad American perpetual increase in spending on the military - The Costs of NATO Expansion in the 21 st Century: o The direct financial costs:  Will the alliance’s defense costs jump with NATO expansion? Could NATO enlargement over the next decade cost billions of dollars?  Will Canada’s defense costs jump with NATO expansion? What are our alternatives?  Canada’s participation in NATO has long been a source of tension because we are a free rider, we don’t do our 2% of GDP o Varying estimates as to the costs of NATO enlargement  High-level American officials in 1997:  The cost of NATO expansion will be approximately $27 billion to $35 billion (US) over the next 13 years. o Drastic underestimate, has now spent over 60 billion on Ukraine  Under the US scenario, nearly half of that would be paid by the new member states.  The United States' share would be two billion dollars, leaving the rest, or some $16 billion dollars (US) to the 15 other NATO allies.  US Congressional Report released by the State Department on behalf of President Clinton and the Defense Department in February 1997:  $27-35 billion (12-13 years) or $2.1-2.7 billion a year.  NATO and State Department officials in 1998 prior to US debate on ratification:  total cost over the next decade will be $1.5 billion or $400 million for the United States  1997 and 1998 NATO Studies:  All studies are classified.  Rand Corporation Study:  $130 billion (10 years) or $15 billion a year. o Varying predictions as to Other Costs of NATO Enlargement:  According to David Hamon, Director of Research & Studies, ANSCER, US State Dept, (November 6, 2009):  Newer NATO allies then expand the need for resources ( e.g., Poland, Hungary) “assume US/NATO forces will be there on their behalf” o So, this will end up costing more and more  “Their new young defense ministers tend to have a literal interpretation of Article V and extended deterrence.”

o There have clearly been attacks where NATO doesn’t respond, sometimes they do, sometimes they don’t, so it’s a framework that justifies legal intervention  “They expect they are protected by US extended deterrence.” o May not be the case, US may not want to intervene (Crimea?)  “They make no distinction between lesser security guarantees and extended deterrence.”  So, US State Dept will conduct interviews to discern their assumptions about Article V and extended deterrence… NATO’s ‘out-of-area’ Wars in Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Libya A Russian and American SFOR officer comparing notes at the end of a joint patrol in Bosnia and Herzegovina - For the Serbs, the region has often been called their "Jerusalem." - It was there, on June 28, 1389, that the Serbs fought and lost their most historic battle. The Serbian defeat at the hands of the advancing Ottoman Empire brought the end of Serbia's medieval empire. - No single event in Serbian history has greater significance. - The Ethnic Diversity of the Former Yugoslavia o Kosovo is also home to much of the history of the Serbian Orthodox Church and dozens of its cherished monuments; for many Serbs, a Serbia without Kosovo was unthinkable. - Why did NATO go to war in Kosovo? o Slogon menocavichi? Leader of Serbia wanted to attack- accused of ethnic cleansing o NATO’s involvement in Kosovo was followed by another UN-sanctioned, out-of-area deployment in Afghanistan and then in Libya. NATO also has an operation in Iraq.  Idea that the UN needs somebody to intervene, the intervention can be legal, but it may not be authorized by the security council because Russia or China has the veto  So we know that there’s a need for intervention (public outcry) and the NATO alliance, as a military alliance, has the capacity to do these interventions

o Ex: Canada wanted to participate in Afghanistan but not Iraq (see highlighted text below)  As a consequence, we can, as NATO members, participate in that and avoid the coalition of the willing  Where will it all lead? Is NATO on the ‘right track’? - Under Prime Minister Harper, Canada had about 5,000 soldiers in Afghanistan - its most ambitious and far-flung mission. NATO’s former Secretary General Mr. de Hoop Scheffer twice visited Washington and Ottawa to ask for more troops. He focused almost entirely on the need for success in Afghanistan and the need to provide more support to the contributing NATO allies. o Presently, the United States leads NATO’s multinational force in Iraq. - “But the risk is that as NATO involves its allies in more and more “out-of-area” operations— similar to Kosovo, Afghanistan, and now Iraq—the rest of the world may come to perceive NATO peacekeepers as defenders of the American empire. - As such, while NATO should continue to increase its commitment to peacekeeping, there needs to be a complementary return to the UN as the chief guarantor of safety…. Right now there is a widespread perception that the ‘NATO club’ consists mainly of Northern, ‘rich’, ‘white’ nations based in North America and Europe.” An imperial palace Basic idea of above text: NATO gets involved in conflicts that no NATO country is directly involved in - Erika Simpson, The NATO Club and Afghanistan: Northern, Rich, and White Nations Defend the Imperial Palace , ed. Gary D. Badcock and Darren C. Marks, War, Human Dignity and Nation Building (Cambridge Scholars Publishing) 2010, pp. 70-89. Lesson 2: NATO Current issues (2000-2022) Intro - Which two countries have the technology to support the United States’ power projection capabilities? o UK and Canada - One side of the room represents the Canadian military.

o The Department of National Defence (DND) and the Canadian Forces have undergone a Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA). - Class Exercise: o ONE SIDE OF ROOM : Where do you want future generations of young Canadians to head towards? High-tech careers in the military? Peacekeeping careers in Somalia? Or do you want DND to focus its efforts on a new Central Front in Europe? So much to do… so little money. You have about $20 billion dollars (CDN) a year.  Or would you prefer to see young people become peacekeepers? o OTHER SIDE OF ROOM : US special advisors to U.S. President Donald Trump. You are newly appointed advisors to Donald Trump, and you are eager to hear new ideas from Canada and put forward your own. - Transcript of the Prime Minister’s Comments to other NATO leaders at a NATO meeting: o “He (President Bill Clinton) goes to Haiti with some soldiers. The next year Congress doesn’t allow him to go back. So he phones me. O.K. I send my soldiers. Then… afterwards I ask for something else in exchange.” - The U.S. also has many fronts to defend and many options—and not as much money. o What might be some alternative options? - American advisors to Trump: o What might be some alternative options? o What strategies can you suggest? What Are Some Alternative Options - Canadian side: o Spend some money, but not a lot?  Could be accused of “free-riding” on coattails of US  OR “unfair burdensharing” - American and Canadian advisors to Trump: o Contribute more American and Canadian forces to NATO as rapid-reaction force?  Contribute more UN peacekeepers to Ukraine?  Move rapid reaction forces from Kosovo (SFOR and KFOR) to Ukraine?  Afghanistan (ISAF) Take the money saved and go back to Afghanistan.  Withdraw from Afghanistan and start a new confrontation along new Central Front with Russia? - Professor Simpson’s Alternative Guidelines

o Wait and see—do nothing o Teach peacekeeping training everywhere o Help Trump somehow (although he is a lame duck now?) o Train the trainers in Afghanistan o Be a moral watchdog—yap a lot Implications of the ongoing debate surrounding NATO’s continual reliance on nuclear deterrence - “ As long as nuclear weapons exist, NATO will remain a nuclear alliance.” – 2010 Strategic Concept o Justifies their use of them as it grows - Nuclear weapons are the “supreme guarantee of the security of the alliance.” – 2012 NATO Deterrence and Defence Posture review - NATO’s deterrence strategy evolved: o 1950s: Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD)  Dr. Strangelove  “If you attack me, I’ll attack you back” o 1960s: Flexible Response  We will respond in kind and keep every option on the table rather just this idea that we’ll obliterate everything  Duck and Cover  Not only are we shifting the terrain from the stability of mutually assured destruction, but we’re also now saying we’re willing to use it more often/regularly if any of the members are threatened o 1990s: New Strategic Concept  Paragraph 46 : “Nuclear weapons make a unique contribution in rendering the risks of aggression against the Alliance incalculable and unacceptable. Thus, they remain essential to preserve peace .” - NATO’s Review of its deterrence strategy was nicknamed the " paragraph 32 process". o The 20-month review was initiated by Canada’s Foreign Affairs Minister, Lloyd Axworthy o Idea of not relying on nuclear weapons - NATO’s Nuclear Weapons Policy 2010-16 has largely been to reaffirm that we can use nukes, that an attack against one is an attack against all, and we’re a nuclear power o The Strategic Concept has been repeatedly reaffirmed, despite initial Canadian and German support for change o NATO keeps reaffirming that its nuclear weapons are ‘essential’ o The “contradiction” between NATO’s completed arms control review and the NPT treaty – that not only explicitly forbids the transfer of nuclear weapons to non-nuclear weapons states, but includes an unequivocal commitment to nuclear – has provoked debates in the Belgian and Dutch parliaments

 If your expanding NATO membership, you’re effectively expanding the cases in which you’re willing to use nuclear weapons, which is AGAINST THE VERY IDEA OF NON-PROLIFERATION - Professor Simpson was/is also involved in organizing : o int’l roundtables in Ottawa in October & Feb every yr for 12 yrs o 2004 and 2005 (Steering Committee) (TO, Halifax) o Atlanta II consultation in Feb 2005 (with Carter and int’l diplomats, rapporteur, 250 NGOs) o NPT conference May 2005 (articles) (NYC) o Hiroshima conference July 2005 (60 th ) (Hiroshima with 2 working groups) o Article VI Forum (Sept, March, Sept, Ottawa) o World Peace Forum July 2006 (2 panels, Vancouver) o Extraordinary Strategy Session in July 2007 (prior mtg in July 2006, Atlanta, US) o International Pugwash Roundtable, July 2007 (Berlin) o NPT Review conference, May 2010 (NYC) o NPT Prepatory Committee meeting, May 2012 (Vienna) o NPT Prep Com in NYC in May 2014 o NPT Review Conference in NYC in May 2015 o Pugwash International Conference in Pugwash, Nova Scotia July 2015 o Ottawa CCANW conference on October 24 2016 on Building the Momentum o Dalhousie Univ and Pugwash July 2017 o Nuclear Arms Control and Disarmament Government Consultations in Ottawa, 2016, 2017, 2018 and Mar. 28 2019 o Pentagon and DoD Washington March 2019 o NACD Consultations Mar 28 2019 o 2019 NPT PrepCom coming up in May so May 1, May 8 o Canadian Peace Research Association Annual Conference, Vancouver June 4-7, 2019 o Women Deliver panel, June 2019 Future Issues  what does this enlargement mean and what are the implications? - War with Russia? Deployments in Iraq? Confrontation with ISIS? Withdrawal and Defeat in Afghanistan? Ballistic Missile Defence? Defending the Imperial Palace against the Global Village? Alternatives to Canada’s NATO commitments, 2009-? 1. Could NATO confront Russia militarily over Kalingrad or Ukraine? 2. Could NATO lose in Iraq and Afghanistan due to tribal warfare? 3. Could NATO lose in Libya and Kosovo due to rebels? 4. What might be the implications of Canada and Scotland saying no to BMD? 5. What are the implications of a ‘global’ NATO? What are the alternatives? 6. Should Canada continue to commit to NATO, and if so how?

- NATO and Nuclear Insecurity Book o Atlanta (2005); NYC (2005); Hiroshima (2005) o Washington (2006) o NATO headquarters (2001 , 2007, 2011); Lithuania (2007) o Ottawa (2008); Pugwash (2008); Berlin (2011) o NYC (2009) (2010) (2011) (2014) - What do NATO defenders believe the NATO Club should do about nuclear issues? o Nicolas Butler, US Ambassador to NATO o Elliot Cohen, Paul Nitze School o Ted Whiteside, WMD Centre, Secretary of NATO o Guy Roberts, NATO’s Nuclear Planning Group- in favour of nuclear deterrence o Michael Mandelbaum, SAIS o Rob McRae, Canada’s Ambassador to NATO o Gavin Buchan? NATO Director (Afghanistan) o Vayle Oxford, US Homeland o Christopher Ford, US Nuclear Non-Prolifer Rep - What do critics (doves) believe should be done about nuclear issues? o Doug Roche, chair emeritus, Middle Power Initiative o Peggy Mason, former Ambassador for Disarmament o John Burroughs, Lawyers (US) and Bev Delong o Alyn Ware (PNND)- against nuclear weapons o Mayor Akiba (Hiroshima) and Aaron Tovish o Jayantha Dhanapala (Pugwash) o Randy Rydell, UN (Sec-Gen speech) o Helen Caldicott (If you love this planet) Consensus View - NATO is committed to create the conditions for a world free of nuclear weapons - BUT reductions of numbers or a reduced role for nuclear weapons can happen, but only: o As a result of (bilateral) negotiations with Russia o If all allies agree in consensus o If international political climate allows, and doesn’t more contentious  Means never - The new NATO headquarters in Brussels is more impressive than the refurbished United Nations’ building in New York City, because of its sky-high windows, imposing long wings, gleaming marble floors, and ancient Grecian sculptures. o It features an array of 29 allied flags, flanked by an imposing piece of the Berlin Wall, as well as a wrought-iron sculpture, soldiered from the collapsed twin towers’ remnants.

- Why worry? Whose finger is on the nuclear trigger? o The U.S. election focuses mind on who would be commander-in-chief—and why we continue to have nuclear weapons anyway o British PM and French President can decide to use their weapons - B61 Bombers and Tactical Nuclear Weapons (TNW) o “The removal of TNW would concretely demonstrate the NATO’s countries commitment to nuclear disarmament and would end the last remaining case of forward deployment” ~ Italian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Federica Moguerini o TNW in Germany are “militarily obsolete and therefore should be withdrawn” ~ German Minister of Foreign Affairs, Frank-Walter Steinmeier o “B61s are as useful as nipples on a male pig” ~ Dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs, Frans Timmermans - Shared Assumptions among Critics and Defenders (Doves and Hawks) about Defending the Imperial Palace: o Old ideas about ‘defending’ the Imperial Palace no longer apply. In other words, old ideas about defending NATO’s geographic territory using nuclear deterrence no longer apply (although some believe deterrence should be tailored, firmer).  NATO is no longer geographic anymore, it’s more about peace and security  Nuclear deterrence no longer applies bc if everyone’s in NATO, there are very few outside of it o The Imperial Palace is a state of mind. It is not a real hotel  The Imperial Palace is the place, the state-of-mind where the rest of the Global Village wants to live o What do I mean by the Imperial Palace?  Insiders and outsiders o Why is the Imperial Palace a dangerous idea?  It implies that being on the inside doesn’t create more risk and tension for the outsiders, that actually makes them more likely to attack, decreasing the security of the imperial palace Sample Multiple Choice - Professor Simpson said that “Old ideas about ‘defending’ the Imperial Palace no longer apply. In other words, old ideas about defending NATO’s geographic territory using nuclear deterrence no longer apply.” At the same time, she showed the two pictures below:

- What do these pictures illustrate? o Cowboys emigrating to Eastern Canada and an actual suitcase bomb (idea of a tactial nuke) o Settlers emigrating to Saskatoon, Saskatchewan on wagon trains and a fake suitcase bomb that could be activated by a cell phone. o C The idea that North American territory can no longer be credibly defended by nuclear weapons and the similar idea that suitcase bombs armed with nuclear explosives or ‘dirty bombs’ are undermining the credibility of nuclear deterrence o We can tailor nuclear deterrence so that it is firmer and more credible, despite the evolution of newer technologies Issues to ponder - Could NATO lose in Ukraine, Kalingrad, Iraq, Libya, Kosovo and Afghanistan? - What might be the implications of saying no to BMD? - What are the implications of the new war on terrorism for a ‘global’ NATO? - What are our alternatives? - Should Canada continue to commit to NATO and how? - Where should radar installations be located? o During the Cold War, Canada was important to the US because the DEW line (distant early warning line) for nuclear weapons, Canada were the ones who would notify the US because the shortest distance between Russia and the US is over the arctic (see 2 points below) o They needed to have radars because we didn’t have as much satellite radar systems, so needed to have radar systems in the arctic so the US built all these installations in Canada o We don’t know yet  We look at Iran  Poland and Czech Republic eager but US said no

US Policy Reversal in 2009 on BMD - Did President Obama “sell out allies” by scrapping previous President George Bush's BMD plan in Europe? - President Obama announced in September 2009 the US is scrapping Bush’s plan for placing ballistic missile defense installations in Poland and the Czech Republic. Did the U.S. “abandon” Poland & the Czech Republic? - The announcement elicited mixed reactions from the political right and left in the United States, as well as divergent sentiments across the globe. - Some conservative critics believe Obama was trying to appease Russia and leave our Eastern European allies out to dry, while supporters called the maneuver a “sound strategic decision.” Turkey will host radar for NATO missile shield - Turkey will host radar for NATO missile shield: Surveys and legal arrangements 'finalized,' government says - An early warning radar was stationed in Turkey's southeast as part of NATO's missile defence system. - The system is capable of countering ballistic missile threats from Turkey's neighbour Iran, which last week warned Turkey that deployment of the radar at the military installation would escalate regional tensions. - Turkey insists the shield is not targeting a particular country and the ministry statement made no mention of Iran or Russia. - HOW SHOULD A SMALL ALLY OR MIDDLE POWER WITHIN AN ALLIANCE BEHAVE? o Essentially, this question revolves around the issue of “how should a small ally within an alliance behave?” o As principal power but not great, should take US on as if it’s the hegemon o Middle power argument is we should commit to NATO o Small power argue CA is satellite of US o What are our alternatives? o Should Canada continue to commit to NATO and how? But the old ideas may be outdated as old soviet threat has dissipated and many ideas have been OBGD (outdated by Gorbachev) -what we thought but we were all wrong 2141B Question

- The lecture on NATO’s “out-of-area” conflicts overviewed Kosovo, Serbia, Afghanistan and Ukraine. “Out-of-area” describes conflicts that are outside of NATO’s official territory. We looked at the map below and focused on Afghanistan’s distance from NATO territory. Which NATO ally within NATO territory is seen on the map below? - QUESTION REWORDED: which of the following countries is key to the expansion of the nuclear umbrella through the NATO partnership? o Georgia o Israel o Libya o Turkey o Ukraine Lesson 3: The Arc of the Crisis and the Refugee Crisis The Arc of Crisis and the Refugee Crisis (Georgia, Ukraine, Syria) - My email from Ted Whiteside, Acting Assistant Secretary General for Public Diplomacy NATO Headquarters in Brussels, Belgium Arc of Crisis = from the northeast (the Baltic countries, Ukraine) down to the south, around Turkey (EXAM) - Arc of Crisis and Ukraine: o Population: 45,539,010 (2016 Estimate, CIA)

 Apx 8 million internally displaced  Most in Poland, in moldova, some back to Russia and Belarus o Bigger than Canada: 35,749,600 (2016 Estimate, Statistics Canada) o Ukraine’s Bordering Countries: Russia, Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Romania, Belarus, Moldova (separate neutral country) o President? Currently Petro Poroshenko o Ethnic Groups: Ukrainians (77.8%), Russians – closer to Russia (17.3%), Other Europeans (4.9%) o Separation from the former Soviet Union in 1991 and dissolution of Warsaw Pact o Not part of NATO o UKRAINE CRISIS SINCE MARCH 2014:  (1) Crimean Peninsula illegally annexed by Russia in March 2014 in the aftermath of the Ukrainian Revolution, in violation of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on sovereignty  (2) After Ukraine did not sign trade deal with European Union, it received a bailout from Russia. Protests erupted; the government passed legislation condemning protests.  (3) Then pro-Russian separatists clashed with Ukrainian forces.  (4) Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 was destroyed in July 2014 o CAUSES OF CONFLICT:  President Viktor Yanukovych deposed—masked Russian troops took over Crimea. International community put in place sanctions against Russia.  Putin defended results of referendum…  Ukrainian President, Petro Poroshenkom and Yulia Tymoshenko, first female Prime Minister in 2005 competed for power  Yulia = wife of an oil magnate who earned billions from electricity. She was thrown in jail by the regime but was released.  PRESIDENT VIKTOR YUSHCHENKO AND RUSSIAN PRESIDENT PUTIN  Ukrainian presidential candidate Viktor Yushchenko was poisoned (by Russians?) in 2004. He ingested TCDD, a dioxin and contaminant but slowly recovered. Yushchenko became the third president of Ukraine between 2005-10. Vladimir Putin has been the President of Russia since May 2012, succeeding Dmitry Medvedev. Putin previously served as President from 2000-2008 and as Prime Minister of Russia from 1999- 2000 and again from 2008-12. o WHO ARE THE PRO-RUSSIAN SEPARATISTS?  They are a loose group of ordinary Ukrainians and trained military personnel, who have formed a militia under the command of pro-Russian rebel commander, Igor Girkin.

 The separatists are concentrated in the eastern Ukrainian cities of Donetsk and Luhansk (also sometimes spelled Lugansk).  The separatists no longer want to be part of Ukraine and are hostile to the government in Kiev with its strongly pro-western leanings. o ANNEXATION OF CRIMEAN PENINSULA  The separatists declared two self-proclaimed republics bearing the names of the cities of Donetsk and Luhansk, though these republics are not recognised internationally. The separatists want to unify these two republics into a state called Novorussiya (New Russia). In a clear nod to the confederacy of southern states in America’s Civil War, they have adopted a flag which strongly resembles the confederate flag.  99% wanted to separate  Referendum to separate or not, was a sham  Russian troops surrounding a Ukrainian military base in the Crimean Peninsula.  Russian President, Vladimir Putin signed the final decree, completing the annexation of Crimea in March 2014 o UKRAINIAN PROTESTS AGAINST ANNEXATION  Associate Professor Marta Dyczok’s photo exhibit, “Faces of Displacement” in Ukraine.  To see history in the making, visit Spencer Gallery in D.B. Weldon Library o RUSSIA’S BLACK SEA FLEET  Russia’s Black Sea Fleet was established in 1793 is based in various locations in Crimea and Krasnodar Krai. As a result of the Crimean War, one provision of the Treaty of Paris was that the Black Sea was to be a demilitarized zone , like the Island of Aland in the Baltic Sea …  In 1992, the major part of the personnel, armaments and coastal facilities of the Fleet fell under formal jurisdiction of the newly independent Ukraine as they were situated on Ukrainian territory. Later, the Ukrainian government ordered the establishment of its own Ukrainian Navy based on the Black Sea Fleet; several ships and ground formations declared themselves Ukrainian.  However, this immediately led to conflicts with the majority of officers who appeared to be loyal to Russia. Simultaneously, pro-Russian separatist groups became active in the local politics of Ukraine's Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the Sevastopol municipality where the major naval bases were situated and started coordinating their efforts with pro-Moscow seamen. o DESTRUCTION OF MH-17 CRASH ON JULY 17, 2014  Common domestic flight that was (potentially) shot down by Russian separatists  We think, don’t know

o NATO AND UKRAINE  Ukraine joined the North Atlantic Cooperation Council in 1991 along with other countries, including Russia  Ukraine joined the Partnership for Peace program in 1994 which focused on shared peacekeeping operations  Ukraine and NATO signed the 1997 charter on a Distinctive Partnership, which led to the formation of the NATO-Ukraine Commission (NUC)  Following the increased Russian military presence in Ukraine, Ukraine invoked article 14 of the NATO-Ukraine charter, which led to the condemnation of Russian actions by all the NATO allies  The NATO-Russia Council met to discuss the crisis, but with increased Russian involvement in the crisis, the Council provided no further progress  Then all civilian and military cooperation with Russia was suspended, but NATO still maintains a line of communication from the ambassador level and above with Russia.  Evidently NATO is in a serious crisis over Ukraine o SHOULD UKRAINE JOIN NATO?  Canada has a very large Ukrainian diaspora  So we should support the Ukraine, but not so far that it should join NATO o TIMELINE  Russia declares right to deploy nuclear weapons to Crimea (March 11, 2015)  Russia threatens to put missiles in Kaliningrad if U.S. upgrades nuclear arms in Germany (Sept 23, 2015)  Where are US and Russian nuclear weapons in Europe?  5 countries: o Belgium o Netherlands o Germany o Italy o Turkey

- Syria in the Arc of Crisis: o Population: 22,850,000 (World Bank, 2013) o Canada: 35,749,600 (2015 Estimate, Stat Cda) o Bordering Countries: Turkey, Iraq, Jordan, Israel, Lebanon o President: Bashar al-Assad was preceded by his father who took over and set up the military regime o Ethnic Groups: Syrian Arabs (74%), Kurdish (9%); Turkmens, Circassians, Greeks, and Armenians make up the remaining 17% of the population. o NATO FORCES AROUND SYRIA  A lot in the Mediterranean, Persian Gulf, etc. (refer to map) o SYRIAN CRISIS:  Conflict began as pro-democracy protests broke out in March 2011 due to the Arab Spring  Approximately 250,000-350,000 people have been killed so far  More than 12 million people have been displaced from their homes (displaced includes refugees fleeing the country and people who have lost their homes within the country)  UN Commission of Inquiry found evidence of Use of Weapons of Mass Destruction including chemical weapons and the nerve agent sarin was used in August 2013 o CAUSES OF CONFLICT:  (1) Syrian Government, Bashar Al-Assad  (2) Rise of the Islamic State (ISIS) or the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) or Daesh (France’s Name)  Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian military established it and called it Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad, before changing to the simpler al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI)  (3) The west (?)  (4) Russia (?) o ISIS IN SYRIA AND IRAN  Examples of ISIS acts in just one year (2015)  United States (Dec. 2, 2015) – 14 killed  France (Nov. 13, 2015) – 132 killed  Lebanon (Nov. 12, 2015) – 43 killed  Egypt (Oct. 31, 2015) – 224 killed  Saudi Arabia (May, 22 & Aug. 8, 2015) – 36 killed  Kuwait (June 26, 2015) – 27 killed  Tunisia (June 26, 2015) – 38 killed  Yemen (June 17 & 20, 2015) – 6 killed

 Libya (May 20, 2015) – 23 killed  Afghanistan (April 18, 2015) 34 killed o ISIS PROCLAIMS A CALIPHATE  The Islamic State proclaimed itself a caliphate in June 2014. Since then, more than 5000 civilians have been slaughtered and hundreds of thousands have been displaced in Iraq.  In Syria, 250,000-350,000 people have been killed in a civil war and 12 million civilians have been forced to abandon their homes.  ISIS is a hybrid organization: part terrorist network, part guerilla army, and part proto state. o ISIL OBJECTIVES?  The Islamic State’s objective is to expand its influence in the Middle East through four phases:  (1) breakdown state boundaries and generate conditions for civil war  (2) establish the Islamic State as an Islamic Emirate (a political territory that is ruled by an Arab monarchy)  (3) recruit like-minded people from all parts of the world to fight for and live in the Islamic State  (4) establish a worldwide Islamic Caliphate o EFFECT ON CIVILIANS  REFUGEE CRISIS: THE SECOND WORST HUMANITARIAN CRISIS IN THE WORLD TODAY *worst in Europe is Ukraine? Is Syria worst?  12 million people have been forced from their homes due to fighting, with half of them being children .  7.6 million have been internally displaced in Syria , 4 million have fled to neighboring countries as refugees  Children who are affected by the crisis, are more likely to become malnourished, ill, abused, or exploited.  Millions of children have been forced to quit school  Countries Accepting Refugees  Turkey (has taken the most refugees in by far)  Iraq  Jordan  Lebanon  Egypt  Germany  United States  And many more EU countries  Canada (how many?) o THE HARDSHIPS THAT REFUGEES ARE FACING  They’ve tried to take boats across the Mediterranean Sea and drowned  Walking with no food, long fucking walk

o CONSERVATIVE GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE :  The Conservative government agreed to resettle 11,300 Syrian refugees by the end of 2017.  And it joined the US-led coalition against ISIS/ISIL/Da’esh by undertaking air- strikes o LIBERAL PARTY’S ELECTION PROMISES  Justin Trudeau promised to accept 25,000 Syrian refugees by the end of the year, 14,000 more than the Conservative Government had planned.  Ended up taking 40k  He also promised to end air strikes and Canada’s involvement in the ISIS bombing mission - In partnership with the Upper Valley Presbytery of the United Church of Canada, a registered charity with decades of experience in sponsoring refugees, you & 2 classmates have joined a new club on campus called Project Welcome that intends to sponsor some refugees. - The Chair and the Church members would like some new ideas and feedback from younger people like yourselves on how to help. - Response: o One option: send tents, many refugees are living in tents - London priest gambles away $500,000 donated for refugees o What is the best way for us to help, and make sure it ACTUALLY helps? **not in this lecture??  CBC News ANALYSIS Trudeau tracker: Has the prime minister kept his promise on ISIS fight?  Prime minister meets his campaign promise of bringing home Canada's CF-18 fighter jets o By Chris Hall, CBC News Posted: Feb 08, 2016, 8:51 PM ET Last Updated: Feb 08, 2016 10:27 PM ET o Strategic crossroads in the Ukraine war: offensive long-range weapons?  We are at a strategic crossroads in the Ukraine war. Training Ukrainians to fly advanced Western fighter jets would be time-consuming and difficult. They likely would be perceived by Russia as offensive long-range weapons that could be used to strike deep inside Russian territory. o Tactical nuclear weapons on battlefield  Their deployment could provoke Russians into threatening more retaliatory use of tactical nuclear weapons, especially if Russia is losing on the battlefield. o Train Ukrainians to operate F-35s? F-16s?

 Ukrainians are using Soviet-era fighter jets, manufactured over 30 years ago, while Russia is utilizing heavy-duty jets that can fire missiles from a long range even without flying over Ukrainian airspace. Now the question is whether to train Ukrainians to operate F-35s, F-16s, Eurofighters, Tornadoes, or Saab Griffins. o Canada’s F-35’s will cost $19 billion (Cdn)  In January, Canada announced it planned to replace its aging CF-18s and purchase a new fleet of 88 advanced fighter jets comprised of F-35’s, at an estimated cost of $19-billion. The first of those aircraft will not be available until 2026. o MiG-29 aircraft from Poland (and they get F-16s!)  One possible option affording quick Ukrainian adaptation and less time- consuming training requirements would be to release more advanced MiG-29 aircraft from Poland and other former Soviet allies. Withheld largely out of American concern about provoking Moscow, Poland could dispatch them and request their replacement with more-sophisticated F-16s. o Anti-missile and anti-aircraft defence systems  Ukraine should also receive more extensive anti-aircraft and anti-missile defence systems; poverty-stricken Afghanistan had one that was disabled before the Taliban could take it over. o Risk of preemptive Russian moves  Debates about providing the Ukrainians with fighter jets might show the Russians that Western resolve remains high and unshaken in the face of Moscow’s continued offensives and bombardments. However, nervous trigger- fingers might also result in preemptive Russian moves to prevent a Ukrainian attack on Crimea or Russian nuclear missile bases. o Russian fleet in the Black Sea  The pro-Ukrainian coalition must carefully weigh and prepare for escalations, particularly because Russia might “escalate to de-escalate.” U.S. President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken made it clear at the United Nations General Assembly, and on the sidelines, that any Russian use of tactical nuclear weapons would force the United States to bomb the Russian fleet in the Black Sea, triggering a large-scale war. o Estimates of number of dead on each side  Both sides have already lost possibly 300,000 to 400,000 soldiers on the battlefield. Therefore, it is also time to proceed to the negotiating tables. o Minsk II Accord: practical step proposed by Professors Frederic S. Pearson (US) & Simpson (Canada) in Hill Times (Feb. 19, 2023)  It is important to return to bargaining, at least to ensure Ukrainian grain shipments continue to proceed through the Black Sea even in the midst of brutal warfare. European allies should also seize the prospect of rejigging the Minsk II Accord as a practical step toward a wider peace. o Local autonomy provisions for Donbas provinces in Eastern Ukraine: too late?  French President Emmanuel Macron is pointing to the 2015 Minsk agreement as a blueprint for a breakthrough following talks last week with his Russian and Ukrainian counterparts. Under the multilateral auspices of the region-wide Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), Minsk I—an earlier

failed attempt at a ceasefire agreement—was followed by Minsk II, which posed local autonomy provisions for Donbas provinces in Eastern Ukraine. o Scottish and Northern Irish parliaments: Ukraine should not be invited into NATO  “Minsk III” might, perhaps, propose autonomy on the order of the Scottish and Northern Irish parliaments in the United Kingdom, as well as confirm that Ukraine should not be invited into NATO as an ally, provided the Russians pull back. o Minsk II agreement; concession to Russian aggression?  Ukrainians may well see the fulfillment of Minsk II provisions as a concession to Russian aggression. However, deep concessions will be needed on both sides soon. The Minsk II agreement suggested more dialogue on interim self- government, supervised elections for Donetsk and Luhansk, acknowledgment of the region’s special status by Ukraine’s parliament, advanced OSCE monitoring, and the withdrawal of heavy weapons by both sides. o 13-point agreement in 2015 could lead to promises to refrain….  Representatives of Russia, Ukraine, the OSCE, and the leaders of separatist-held regions Donetsk and Luhansk signed the 13-point agreement in 2015. Now it could be the basis for further negotiations in 2023 and an immediate, comprehensive ceasefire, including promises to refrain from receiving more foreign-supplied military equipment, halt Russian infiltration, and refrain from hiring mercenaries. o A new Minsk deal could promise….UN peacekeeping forces, SHIRBRIG  A new Minsk deal could promise to pardon amnesty fighters on the ground, and call for the immediate dispatch of UN standby peacekeeping forces overseeing troop withdrawals and separate warring forces. A UN-operated high-readiness standby force might oversee a UN-supervised referendum on the future of Crimea. o Marshall Plan 2.0 with Mike Simpson and Erika Simpson; construct sustainable energy sources  “Minsk III” could be combined with “ Marshall Plan 2.0” guaranteeing massive financial assistance from the West and Moscow toward rebuilding war-torn Ukraine. Rather than promise potentially destabilizing fighters in the air that lead to arms spirals, the financial incentives would be for pro-Russian Ukrainians to emigrate to Russia; rebuild war-decimated buildings and towns; and construct sustainable energy sources that reduce both sides’ security dilemmas. Lesson 4: Tactical Nukes in Ukraine? with guests #7 Manza #8 Pearson #9 Saperstein - Professor Frederic C. Pearson at Wayne State and Professor Erika Simpson believe more determined diplomacy is the path to peace in Ukraine. To save lives in an endless war of agonizing attrition, diplomats must call for a ceasefire. Should Ukraine remain a neutral country, like Moldova, not a NATO ally or partner? Perhaps Ukraine must lose the Crimean Peninsula captured by Russian in 2014 as it has been the principal base of Russia’s Black Sea naval fleet since 1783.

- Dr. John Manza was in charge of negotiating with Ukraine until January 2022, after the Afghanistan withdrawal in August 2021. His thesis supervisor Fred Pearson and I are suggesting now that the Donbas region needs to be divided territorially, with autonomy and parliamentary assemblies, akin to Scottish and Irish parliaments. The armistice line will need policing by the United Nations with a stand-by high-readiness brigade. - The costs of continuing with the Russia-Ukraine war continue to mount and worsen. U.S.-Russian relations are at a low point with President Vladimir Putin suspending New Start in February 2023 and saying Russia is ready to resume nuclear testing if the United States resumes testing. The Doomsday Clock was recently moved to 90 seconds to midnight, closer to apocalypse and the end of the world as we know it. - The New Start treaty was the only remaining bilateral nuclear arms control agreement between the United States and Russia, although they share approximately 90-95% of the world’s nuclear warheads. The Start treaty was set to expire three years from now in 2026. Manza thinks Russia may use tactical nuclear weapons in a demonstration shot rather than concede victory. - Simpson argues that the use of 100 tactical nuclear weapons would plunge the earth into a nuclear winter leading to global famine and the starvation of billions of people. The Russian president’s mindset is evidently paranoid and irrational. Putin seems to want to become another Russian Czar, the father of Russian lands that are illegally seized, against international law; but he is failing to succeed by any measure. Russians are entering a dark period of stagnation and anti-Western paranoia - What is to be done? We do not know if Putin needs a military victory in Donbas in order to walk away from the conflict -- or whether he will continue to throw Russian men, like cannon fodder, into the deadly maelstrom of conventional warfighting. Manza has returned to Europe to work there. - Erika thinks China’s global stature may be enhanced by leading calls at the UN General Assembly for common security. China released last week its new common security policy which emphasizes the principles of territoriality and sovereignty, using language steeped in common security concepts formulated by the Nordic countries and Canada after the end of the Cold War. - Manza distrusts China as do most American diplomats. If China can lead peaceful negotiations, its reputation as a linch-pin and mediator would be burnished; but perhaps we should also look to countries in the Middle East, like Saudi Arabia and Turkey, to try to bring warring parties to the negotiating table. Saperstein negotiated with Russia. He says little…. - As a group, we do not tackle the fact that Russians must understand by now that their society is becoming hostile to Western freedom and democracy, paranoid about LGBTQ human rights, and unwarrantedly hostile toward liberalism and free markets. The sanctions will work slowly, perhaps, to isolate Russian oligarchs and business magnates who may be prevented from seeing their children for years, while Russia is fighting an apparently unwinnable war. - Russia’s vast energy wealth, its nuclear arsenal, and the number of men it seems willing to sacrifice portend that the Russian empire will win (however winning is defined). Nevertheless, all of us realize it will be impossible to reign over a conquered population that hates the Russian invaders. Old ways of thinking that prevailed during World War II make “old men,” (like Putin),present the war as a fight against Nazism. Erika thinks

“Dinosaur-like thinking” will be replaced by a younger generation that does not perceive Nazism and NATO as synonymously threatening. - Erika spoke about the risks of shelling Ukraine’s nuclear power plants in our previous recording. Manza and Simpson are worried about escalatory threats to use nuclear weapons. It seems hard to believe that one year after the invasion, Putin is still threatening nuclear use; however, Simpson thinks nuclear deterrence cannot be practiced by irrational men at the apex of power for too much longer. - Simpson and Pearson wrote an op ed for the Hill Times: “Negotiating a new Minsk III accord could be a path forward – a basis for further negotiations and an immediate ceasefire.” We are at a strategic crossroads and training Ukrainians to fly advanced Western fighter jets would be difficult and time-consuming.  - Simpson and Pearson think fighter jets likely would be perceived by Russia as offensive, long-range weapons that could be used to strike deep into Russian territory. - Both sides need to de-alert and remove short- and medium-range nuclear weapons from Western and Eastern Europe. Medium-range B-61 nuclear bombs deployed in five NATO countries are credible bargaining chips that could be de-alerted and disarmed for everyone’s safety. - Pearson and Simpson have written in International Journal in March 2022 that the United States and Russia need to return to and build upon the now-expired Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) agreement from the détente era. They could use the NATO-Russia Council, as leaked documents from the U.S. State Department suggested, to tackle a whole range of issues. - NATO’s Open Door policy under Article 10 of NATO’s founding Washington treaty allows for countries to try to become members – so long as they abide by NATO’s Membership Action Plan – but Sweden is having trouble being accepted as a NATO ally by Turkey –thus it is doubtful that Ukraine and Georgia will become full-fledged allies in the foreseeable future. But Manza thinks all countries should be able to join. - NATO expanded into Russia’s Near Abroad, and it needs to be made clear that Ukraine will be neutral, not a full-fledged NATO ally. There is no checklist for membership, but Ukraine’s membership in NATO is not worth risking another Afghanistan-like military quagmire. Manza was in charge of NATOs forces, esp Afghanistan - The provocative force deployments on both sides need transformation and deep concessions from both sides. Increased transparency of exercises; reducing threats to space systems; and dealing with Russia’s concerns about the United States’ Ballistic Missile Defence project are ways forward to promoting a culture of peace, according to Pearson and Simpson. Saperstein is probably in agreement but says little. Manza: China has more hold on Russian bc providing economic outlet helping it avoid sanctions -should use diplomatic lines -hard when dealing w Putin who doesn’t respond

Pearson: what are lines of Putin? Hard to tell -hard to de-escalate with Ukraine Simpson: no one expecting bilateral and multilateral arms control -but can’t give up Pearson: -experience of Minsk agreement which was aborted meas OSCE and NATO Russia counsel are crucial to be looked at for renewed negotiations Simpson thinks pearson is to quick to blame minsk failure Pearson would like to see minsk agreement brought back bc only way out of this Spencer: what would have to change for it to be workable? At this pt hard to imagine Pearson: have to do smth about dunbas future. It’ll take both sides and creative diplomacy Spencer: who you have to touch crimeria issue. Frozen conflict Pearson: possibly not? Simpson: nothing wrong with frozen front, we have it everywhere -concerned about nato air defence ability -3000 troops for next 20 years -who is going to pay -today increased from 30?-> 3000 Manza: NATO 30 000 troops for several years, but most sitting in home nations not on eastern flank -including Canada -now deployed -doesn’t think they’re multiplying forces Spencer: won’t multiple cost Simpson: have to station them somewhere Manza: absolutely not correct Spencer: why did minsk fail, not usually useful to cast blame -should nato have continued it’s move to east -how much blame should be nato’s for continuing to expand

-what extent does putin have legitimate reasons -no one would argee enough to excuse what he did Pearson: politics weren’t taken into account -why we failedin in Afghanistan -even tendency of biden to overdo things -republicans did it in Afghanistan and iraq -include Obama admin in biden’s people -did too much pushing in places like Libya and Kosovo -principles are important (int law and global order) -created needlessly escalated conflict -poland on radar of Russia -hist of Germany and Russia for polan Spencer: can’t say Russia fears Poland Pearson: fears poland’s hostility -remember warsaw pact -putin trying to recreate warsaw emprie -had paper with 80/20, trying to get control of Romania, hungry -britain got Greece -churcill made deal w Stalin to give away eastern Europe bc red army was there and west wasn’t and figured he had to -roosevelt hadn’t arrived yet -stalin said keep papers, it’s a deal -russias are tyrants but had agreements Spencer: surprising churhill was so genours Pearson: 2 yrs later iron curtain speech Spaisson: say give it away did he have choice? Peasron: no he didn’t- American army hadn’t even reached berlin Sparisson: politics is politics, military is better Simpson: asks Manza

-supposedly angela merkel gave biden wise advice before minsk accord that he ignored Manza: not familiar, wants to go back to spencer pt of enlargement of NATO and risk w Russia and if anyone brought up at time Simpson: 16-19 risk was brought up (14:43) -liberals -richard gerk shot down liberal Manza: mearshimer said this was mistak, cannon who wrote cold war doc of containment thought it was mistake at time -were folks who thought it was too provackative in face of Russia and went along with it anyways -washington treaty says open door -if there are democracies in north atlnatic region qualified to join alliance they will be welcome -each nation need consensus (they all agreed) -probably will for finland and Sweden Peasron: interesting treaty doesn’t give exit strat to kick someone out -can think of some candidates -turkel Spencer: interesting -hungry, Poland (but doing good things taking on Ukraine can’t blame them) Simpson: went thru nato library, no one arguing against doing research on cost Pearson: hubris, we didn’t think there was enemy, we acc offered aid to Russia -similar to formal offer of marshall plan offered to Russian -us was glad they didn’t take it -again didn’t take it w Clinton *they needed after fall of cold war, bad economic position -we dissacoiated that w what it means strategically -that they would lose integral states like Ukraine and Baltic that people had grown up in -glossing over of identity in politics leads to war Wynne: 2 questions from Dr Richard desmin -manza talk about use of bombing with conventional missile of nuclear power plant

-what are chances of negotiations in Ukraine and will Zelensky agree too Peasson: hard issues -zarkmen work *mutually stalemate -ukraine hurting, losing 2000 troops daily and can’t sustain -need to promote stalemate -lack of trust w Moscow -they overplayed sending troops to Ukraine in 2014 -russian wants their way but don’t want to overspend -economic sanction ineffective so far bc gas, idk if econ sanctions ever enter strategic q -bombing nuclear plants is v problematic as dr stappisan can attest -eg Chernobyl (wasn’t bombed but had impact on fallout of Europe Specner doubts people would bomb reactor bc 10x bad as ^ Pearson: attacked one earlier Spencer: made mistake like accidentally shoot at weakend place -inturrept water and meltdown happen -more likely stupid mistake causes compromise Staphassiaon: not sure about ukrainen nuclear reactor, prob without shells -told newer ones are better protected -attacking nucelar plant is self-efeating -only have negotiaotn if 2 parties suffering, russains aren’t now -destroy russain nucelar reactors -west supplies Ukraine w long distance missiles -russains can send missiles thru ukrain cities and cause damage -average Russian citizen isn’t affected Manza: as long as Russian thing they are winning won’t negotatie -us hesitant to supply Ukraine w weapons that go into Russia bc could start nuclear war -not give putin escuse to escualre -issue of their policy of esculate to desculate

-they are wiling to do things we aren’t willing to do ? US Peasron isn’t sure military doctrines are similar -seems they don’t have fire wall to going nuclear -continous Mazna: agrees goes tactical to operational to nucelar in training exercises Pearson: started missile program in 1950s- put in artillary corps -how thye always operatd and still do -artillray is key part of strategy, bombard cities -lepo, checknya, Ukraine -destory to take -tatical is part of destroying Saperstein: put nuclear in our artillery too (army had 155 __) -had bombs so small, one man bazooka Pearson: diff, also had speerate -talking about missile -in cuba field artielary set up Spencer: is it past tense Saperstein: unsure Manza: don’t have anymore Simpson: are 120 tactical nuclear weapons on 5 countries -belgium discovered drug making faculty??