{ "id": "R43478", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "number": "R43478", "active": true, "source": "EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "versions": [ { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 433303, "date": "2014-07-31", "retrieved": "2016-04-06T20:13:24.216167", "title": "NATO: Response to the Crisis in Ukraine and Security Concerns in Central and Eastern Europe", "summary": "Russia\u2019s actions in Ukraine and its alleged role in the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 have caused observers and policy makers on both sides of the Atlantic, including Members of Congress, to reassess the role of the United States and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in upholding European security. The security concerns of NATO\u2019s Central and Eastern European member states and non-NATO member states such as Moldova and Ukraine are of particular concern. \nNATO has strongly condemned Russian actions in Ukraine and has taken steps aimed both at reassuring allies and partners in Central and Eastern Europe and at deterring further Russian aggression. These include demonstrations of support for Ukraine and its territorial integrity; actions to demonstrate NATO\u2019s commitment to defending Central and Eastern European allies; and measures aimed at rebuking Russia. NATO members have said they will continue to conduct previously planned military exercises in Ukraine and elsewhere in the region.\nThe United States has been a key driver of the NATO response and has taken additional military measures intended to reassure its allies and partners in Central and Eastern Europe. These include the deployment of U.S. fighter jets and 600 paratroopers to Poland and the Baltic states, and U.S. naval vessels to the Black and Baltic Seas. In June, the Obama Administration requested congressional approval for $925 million in the Department of Defense\u2019s FY2015 Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) budget to fund a proposed European Reassurance Initiative (ERI). Among other things, the ERI would enable augmented U.S. troop rotations and military infrastructure in Central and Eastern Europe. The United States has supplied the Ukrainian government with some nonlethal military assistance, but has thus far ruled out providing lethal military aid. \nAlthough these actions have been welcomed by supporters of the United States and NATO, some analysts and allied governments have called for a more concerted military response. Among other things, critics have called for more robust forward or permanent deployment of U.S. and NATO forces in Central and Eastern Europe; additional military exercises in the region; and additional military assistance to Ukraine, including military training and anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons. \nThe U.S. Congress has played an active role in guiding the U.S. response to the Ukraine crisis, including by authorizing a $1 billion loan guarantee to the Ukrainian government, $150 million in financial assistance to Ukraine and other Central and Eastern European countries, and sanctions against Russia (P.L. 113-95). However, some Members of Congress have called on the Obama Administration and NATO to take additional military action to reassure allies and deter Russia. Some Members have also called for a more resolute demonstration of NATO\u2019s commitment to enlargement, including to Georgia, a former republic Soviet republic, with which Russia had a military conflict in 2008. For example, the proposed Forging Peace through Strength in Ukraine and the Transatlantic Alliance Act (H.R. 4433) calls for additional NATO and U.S. military assistance to Ukraine and calls for immediate NATO membership for Montenegro and the granting of a NATO Membership Action Plan (MAP) to Georgia.\nThis report addresses the NATO and U.S. military response to the crisis in Ukraine. It does not discuss political, economic, or energy policy responses. For information on these and other aspects of the crisis response, see CRS Report RL33460, Ukraine: Current Issues and U.S. Policy, by Steven Woehrel.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R43478", "sha1": "b0e1fd3967de39375e32e446ae09a13e4fc6bbe2", "filename": "files/20140731_R43478_b0e1fd3967de39375e32e446ae09a13e4fc6bbe2.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R43478", "sha1": "cd324f76c4884cb6a1997e9687e9acf8e2a54940", "filename": "files/20140731_R43478_cd324f76c4884cb6a1997e9687e9acf8e2a54940.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4636, "name": "Europe: Regional Policy, Bilateral Relations, and Key Issues" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc287947/", "id": "R43478_2014Apr16", "date": "2014-04-16", "retrieved": "2014-06-05T20:55:02", "title": "NATO: Response to the Crisis in Ukraine and Security Concerns in Central and Eastern Europe", "summary": "This report addresses the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and U.S. military responses to the crisis in Ukraine. It does not discuss political, economic, or energy policy responses.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20140416_R43478_55fb59d3681320887d1818e3518409b121662a20.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20140416_R43478_55fb59d3681320887d1818e3518409b121662a20.html", "source": "pymupdf" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "International affairs", "name": "International affairs" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Foreign policy", "name": "Foreign policy" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Foreign relations -- U.S. -- Ukraine", "name": "Foreign relations -- U.S. -- Ukraine" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "NATO military forces", "name": "NATO military forces" } ] } ], "topics": [ "European Affairs", "Foreign Affairs", "Intelligence and National Security", "National Defense" ] }