What to Know about the NATO Military Alliance and How it is Helping Ukraine

Flags at NATO Headquarters ahead to press conference following NATO Military Chiefs of Defense meeting in Brussels, Belgium, 18 January 2024. (EPA)
Flags at NATO Headquarters ahead to press conference following NATO Military Chiefs of Defense meeting in Brussels, Belgium, 18 January 2024. (EPA)
TT

What to Know about the NATO Military Alliance and How it is Helping Ukraine

Flags at NATO Headquarters ahead to press conference following NATO Military Chiefs of Defense meeting in Brussels, Belgium, 18 January 2024. (EPA)
Flags at NATO Headquarters ahead to press conference following NATO Military Chiefs of Defense meeting in Brussels, Belgium, 18 January 2024. (EPA)

President Joe Biden and his NATO counterparts are meeting in Washington this week to mark the 75th anniversary of the world’s biggest security organization just as Russia presses its advantage on the battlefield in Ukraine.
The three-day summit, which begins Tuesday, will focus on ways to reassure Ukraine of NATO’s enduring support and offer some hope to its war-weary citizens that their country might survive the biggest land conflict in Europe in decades, The Associated Press said.
Much of what NATO can do for Ukraine, and indeed for global security, is misunderstood. Often the alliance is thought of as the sum of all US relations with its European partners, from imposing sanctions and other costs on Russia to sending arms and ammunition.
But as an organization, its brief is limited to the defense by military means of its 32 member countries — the sacred Three Musketeers-like vow of all for one, one for all — and a commitment to help keep the peace in Europe and North America.
That also means not being dragged into a wider war with nuclear-armed Russia. Here's a look at NATO and how it's aiding Ukraine:
What is NATO? Founded in 1949, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was formed by 12 nations to counter the threat to European security posed by the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Dealing with Moscow is in its DNA.
NATO’s ranks have grown since the Washington Treaty was signed 75 years ago — to 32 countries after Sweden joined this year, worried by an increasingly aggressive Russia.
NATO’s collective security guarantee — Article 5 of the treaty — underpins its credibility. It's a political commitment by all member countries to come to the aid of any member whose sovereignty or territory might be under attack. Ukraine would meet those criteria, but it is only a partner, not a member.
NATO’s doors are open to any European country that wants to join and can meet the requirements and obligations. Importantly, NATO takes its decisions by consensus, so every member has a veto.
Who's in charge? The United States is the most powerful member. It spends much more on defense than any other ally and far outweighs its partners in terms of military muscle. So Washington drives the agenda.
NATO’s day-to-day work is led by its secretary-general — former Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg, until he is replaced on Oct. 1 by outgoing Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte.
NATO’s top civilian official chairs almost weekly meetings of ambassadors in the North Atlantic Council at its Brussels headquarters. He chairs other “NACs” at ministerial level and summits of heads of state and government. Stoltenberg runs NATO HQ. He does not order the allies around. His job is to encourage consensus and speak on behalf of all 32 members.
NATO’s military headquarters is based nearby in Mons, Belgium. It is always run by a top US officer. The current supreme allied commander Europe is Army Gen. Christopher Cavoli.
What is NATO doing to help Ukraine? Even though most allies believe that Russia could pose an existential threat to Europe, NATO itself is not arming Ukraine. As an organization, NATO possesses no weapons of any kind. Collectively, the alliance provides only non-lethal support — fuel, combat rations, medical supplies and body armor, as well as equipment to counter drones or mines.
But members do send arms on their own or in groups.
NATO is helping Ukraine’s armed forces shift from Soviet-era military doctrine to modern thinking. It’s also helping strengthen Ukraine’s defense and security institutions.
In Washington, NATO leaders will endorse a new plan to coordinate the delivery of equipment to Ukraine and training for its armed forces. The leaders will renew a vow that Ukraine will join the alliance one day, but not while it’s at war.
Why is NATO stationing more troops on its European borders? While some allies have left open the possibility of sending military personnel to Ukraine, NATO itself has no plans to do this.
But a key part of the commitment for allies to defend one another is to deter Russian President Vladimir Putin, or any other adversary, from launching an attack in the first place. Finland and Sweden joined NATO recently over concern about this.
With the war in its third year, NATO now has 500,000 military personnel on high readiness to counter any attack, whether it be on land, at sea, by air or in cyberspace.
The alliance has doubled the number of battle groups along its eastern flank, bordering Russia and Ukraine. Allies are almost continuously conducting military exercises. One of them this year, Steadfast Defender, involved around 90,000 troops operating across Europe.
Isn't the US doing the heavy lifting? Due to high US defense spending over many years, America’s armed forces benefit not only from greater troop numbers and superior weapons but also from significant transport and logistics assets.
Other allies are starting to spend more though. After years of cuts, NATO members committed to ramp up their national defense budgets in 2014 when Russia annexed Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula.
The aim was for each ally to be spending 2% of gross domestic product on defense within a decade. A year ago, with no end to the war in sight, they agreed to make 2% a spending floor, rather than a ceiling.
A record 23 countries are expected to be close to the spending target this year, up from only three a decade ago.



A Lesson from 1915 … Why the Strait of Hormuz Can’t be Taken by Force

FILE PHOTO: Strait of Hormuz map is seen in this illustration taken April 15, 2026. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration/File Photo
FILE PHOTO: Strait of Hormuz map is seen in this illustration taken April 15, 2026. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration/File Photo
TT

A Lesson from 1915 … Why the Strait of Hormuz Can’t be Taken by Force

FILE PHOTO: Strait of Hormuz map is seen in this illustration taken April 15, 2026. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration/File Photo
FILE PHOTO: Strait of Hormuz map is seen in this illustration taken April 15, 2026. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration/File Photo

The debate over reopening the Strait of Hormuz represents one of the most sensitive issues in politics and security. As questions continue to grow about why US President Donald Trump did not take practical steps to remove the obstacles blocking the vital passageway, this discussion sheds light on the nature of the military challenges that make any attempt to open it by force extremely dangerous, especially given the presence of non traditional threats such as naval mines and warfare.

The answer as to why nothing has been done to reopen the Strait of Hormuz is simple, according to The Independent.

As his advisers will have told Trump before he attacked Iran, it is almost impossible to clear a passage through a minefield when the shoreline is held by the enemy, without being prepared to take significant casualties. And this, it seems, the US is not prepared to do.

It is one thing to bomb a less technologically sophisticated enemy from the air, but quite another to get involved in a real fight at sea level with an opponent who has been planning this form of asymmetric warfare for a very long time.

 

A satellite image shows a fleet of small boats at sea, north of the Strait of Hormuz near the Kargan coast, Iran, April 22, 2026. European Union/Copernicus Sentinel-2/Handout via REUTERS

According to the British newspaper, history gives a stark lesson on why America needs to tread warily – a page from the First World War.

It was March 1915. The “straits” concerned were the Dardanelles – the narrow passage linking the Mediterranean to the Black Sea and giving access to Istanbul. The Turks were the defenders, the British and the French the attackers.

They were in the middle of a shooting war. A vital waterway, which would normally be open for the world’s commerce, was closed because of the actions of Türkiye, the bordering power. The coastline was heavily defended, and there was a high probability that mines had been laid to block the channel.

A decision was made by the British and French that the straits were to be reopened by force – and a very considerable force was assembled for that purpose.

It comprised no fewer than 14 “capital” ships (in those days “battleships” and “battlecruisers”) supported by escorts and a large force of minesweepers.

The plan was a good one. The capital ships would stand off in clear water and bombard the shore defenses. When these had been silenced, the minesweepers would go ahead and sweep another clear area.

The capital ships would then move forward again into swept water and recommence their bombardment – successive waves of big ships moving up, but always into water which had been swept for mines. In this way, the whole channel would be cleared, and the straits reopened.

The big push commenced on 18 March 1915. To start with, it all went well. Four capital ships – HM ships Queen Elizabeth, Agamemnon, Lord Nelson and Inflexible – formed the first attacking line.

The second line was composed of four French ships, Gaulois, Charlemagne, Bouvet and Suffren. They, in turn, were to be supported by six more British ships – HM ships Ocean, Irresistible, Albion, Vengeance, Swiftsure and Majestic – which would form a third line to pass through and relieve the French in line two.

The bombardment was started by the RN ships in line one at 11am. By 12.20pm, the French ships of line two had steamed through the first line to take up their advanced positions.

By 1.45pm, the fire from the shore batteries had slackened under the onslaught of the guns of the eight capital ships, and it was deemed safe enough to send in the minesweepers for the next phase. The third line of six ships was also called up to move the force forward.

However, 15 minutes later, everything started to go wrong. FS Bouvet hit a mine, and in a matter of minutes, she capsized and sank. There were only 75 survivors out of a ship’s company of 718.

The action continued. HMS Irresistible of the third wave was bombarding the forts when she, in turn, struck a mine at 3.14pm. She developed a severe list but continued with the action until she hit another mine, and her main engines were put out of action completely.

An attempt was made to take her in tow, but the situation was hopeless, and the order was given to abandon ship. More than 600 men were taken to safety.

 

The Epaminondas ship is seen during seizure by the Revolutionary Guard Corps in the Strait of Hormuz, Iran, in this image obtained by Reuters on April 24, 2026. Meysam Mirzadeh/Tasnim/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via REUTERS

Meanwhile, shortly after 4pm, HMS Inflexible struck a mine. She remained capable of steaming slowly and was ordered to withdraw. However, she had a 30ft x 26ft hole below the waterline and had to be beached to save her from sinking. She was later towed to Malta for repairs and was out of action for three months.

After these disasters, Vice-Admiral John de Robeck, the British admiral in charge of the Allied naval forces during the crucial stages of the campaign, finally decided that the waters which had been considered to be safe and swept of mines were anything but.

Accordingly, at 5.50pm, less than seven hours into the operation, he signalled a “General Recall” to withdraw the ships and return to the safe waters outside the straits.

Fifteen minutes later, at 6.05pm, HMS Ocean struck another mine, developed a major list and was deemed not to be capable of being saved. The ship’s company were taken off and she was left to her fate. Both Irresistible and Ocean later sank.

Fourteen major warships had attempted to force the straits. Within four hours, three of them had been sunk and one had been so badly damaged that she was out of action.

This one day of disaster was the end of trying to take the Dardanelles passage by solely naval means. The attempt was never repeated.


Trump Keeps Talking About Iran’s ‘Nuclear Dust.’ What Is It?

A satellite imagery taken on February 1, 2026, shows a new roof over a previously destroyed building at Isfahan nuclear site, Iran. 2026 (PLANET LABS PBC/Handout via Reuters/ File photo)
A satellite imagery taken on February 1, 2026, shows a new roof over a previously destroyed building at Isfahan nuclear site, Iran. 2026 (PLANET LABS PBC/Handout via Reuters/ File photo)
TT

Trump Keeps Talking About Iran’s ‘Nuclear Dust.’ What Is It?

A satellite imagery taken on February 1, 2026, shows a new roof over a previously destroyed building at Isfahan nuclear site, Iran. 2026 (PLANET LABS PBC/Handout via Reuters/ File photo)
A satellite imagery taken on February 1, 2026, shows a new roof over a previously destroyed building at Isfahan nuclear site, Iran. 2026 (PLANET LABS PBC/Handout via Reuters/ File photo)

Luke Broadwater, David E. Sanger*

In recent weeks, US President Donald Trump has been talking about a substance he says is key to ending the United States’ war against Iran: “nuclear dust.”

In the president’s telling, Iran’s nuclear program was so badly damaged by US bombs last year that all that remains under the rubble is a sort of powdery aftermath.

The phrase “nuclear dust” seemed designed to diminish the importance of what Trump is actually talking about — Iran’s stockpile of near-bomb-grade uranium, which is stored in canisters about the size of large scuba tanks.

The material is not, in fact, “dust.” It is typically a gas when stored inside the canisters, though it becomes a solid at room temperature. It is a volatile and highly toxic substance if it comes into contact with moisture and, if mishandled, can trigger a nuclear reaction.

Trump’s phrase oversimplifies the complex tasks of enriching uranium, to say nothing of negotiating an end to the war. It’s also a phrase nuclear experts say they’ve never heard before.

“I just interpreted it as Trump’s kind of colorful way of talking,” said Matthew Kroenig, the senior director of the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, according to the New York Times.

Here’s a closer look at what Trump means when he talks about “nuclear dust,” and why it’s important for an end to the conflict.

What is ‘nuclear dust’?

Trump is referring chiefly to the uranium Iran has enriched to 60%, near the 90% purity normally used to make a bomb. There is no use for fuel enriched to that level for, say, producing nuclear power.

So it is a warning sign to the international community that Iran could quickly convert the fuel to bomb-grade, even though there would still be many steps to then build a nuclear bomb.

The United States struck three key nuclear sites in June 2025, including a complex outside Isfahan, where much of the near-bomb grade material was believed to be stored.

“It’s not yet bomb-grade, but it’s on the way there, and it was being stored on the nuclear facility at Isfahan,” Kroenig said.

“And so when Isfahan was bombed, that material was presumably entombed there,” he added.

American intelligence officials believe that the Iranians dug down to gain access to the material, though there is no evidence any of it has been moved.

Uranium contains a rare radioactive isotope, called U-235, that can be used to power nuclear reactors at low enrichment levels and to fuel nuclear bombs at much higher levels.

The goal of uranium enrichment is to raise the percentage levels of U-235, which is often done by running it through gas centrifuges, machines that spin at supersonic speeds to increase the purity of the fuel.

Why is it important to ending the war?

Trump has said that Iran had agreed to turn over its nuclear materials to the United States, though Tehran has denied that claim.

“The US will get all nuclear dust,” Trump told a crowd in Arizona last week. “You know what the nuclear dust is? That was that white powdery substance created by our B-2 bombers.”

Iranian enrichment levels have been rising since Trump withdrew the United States from the Obama-era nuclear deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, saying the agreement wasn’t tough enough.

Trump then imposed several rounds of American sanctions on Iran. In response, Tehran repeatedly moved beyond the strict limits that the agreement had placed on its uranium enrichment, and began to resume production of nuclear material.

“They were enriching at very low levels before Trump administration withdrew the United States from the JCPOA,” said Justin Logan, the director of defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, a libertarian-leaning think tank. “So what he is calling ‘nuclear dust’ did not exist inside Iran after the signing or the first several months of the JCPOA”

Can the material be removed during wartime?

Trump acknowledges removing Iran’s enriched uranium would be difficult. On Truth Social, he said this week that “digging it out will be a long and difficult process.”

It could be almost impossible without Iranian agreement.

“This would be a mission that would take a lot of time, and there would be a lot of nerds that aren’t good at killing people that would need to be involved here,” Logan said. “So the idea of doing this while we have our swords drawn strikes me as crazy.”

He said it would be similarly difficult for the Iranians to extract the material during the war.

“Trump is correct to say that we have eyes over the target pretty much all the time, and the Iranians couldn’t just swoop in the middle of the night and spirit it out; it’s an extremely volatile substance,” he said.

“We don’t know the conditions of the underground storage. Those tanks in which it has been stored might not be in great condition. It’s going to require a lot of nerds on the ground. And that’s true for the Iranians as much as it is true for us,” Logan added.

*The New York Times


Khartoum Mines Pose Hidden Threat to Returning Residents

A member of the Danish Refugee Council and Jasmar Human Security Organization uses a metal probe as he searches for land mines in Al-Mogran Park in Khartoum on April 19, 2026. (AFP)
A member of the Danish Refugee Council and Jasmar Human Security Organization uses a metal probe as he searches for land mines in Al-Mogran Park in Khartoum on April 19, 2026. (AFP)
TT

Khartoum Mines Pose Hidden Threat to Returning Residents

A member of the Danish Refugee Council and Jasmar Human Security Organization uses a metal probe as he searches for land mines in Al-Mogran Park in Khartoum on April 19, 2026. (AFP)
A member of the Danish Refugee Council and Jasmar Human Security Organization uses a metal probe as he searches for land mines in Al-Mogran Park in Khartoum on April 19, 2026. (AFP)

Specialized Sudanese army teams are clearing landmines and unexploded ordnance across Khartoum, amid suspicions the Rapid Support Forces had planted explosives in residential neighborhoods when they held large parts of the capital.

The work comes as authorities seek to stabilize security and as more residents return home.

An Asharq Al-Awsat correspondent accompanied a National Mine Action Center team in Al-Mogran, in central Khartoum to observe operations to detect and remove buried explosives.

The center considers Al-Mogran among the most dangerous areas in the capital. Teams began work after the army retook Khartoum in May 2025, uncovering thousands of mines and unexploded remnants.

Field supervisor Jumaa Ibrahim Abu Anja said the team is clearing about 45,000 square meters in Al-Mogran, an area that saw some of the fiercest fighting between the army and RSF.

He said indicators suggest the group planted thousands of mines across central Khartoum, particularly in streets and residential areas.

“We have found more than 300 hazardous items, including mines fitted with smaller charges and highly explosive materials, designed to inflict the highest possible number of casualties upon detonation,” Abu Anja said.

He added that the aim was to slow the army’s advance and inflict losses. Teams have removed multiple types of mines, including anti-vehicle and anti-personnel devices.

A member of the Danish Refugee Council and Jasmar Human Security Organization sweeps a metal detector as he searches for land mines in Al-Mogran Park in Khartoum on April 19, 2026. (AFP)

The team advances along a line marked with white indicators, moving in measured steps before stopping at a point. A member sweeps the ground with a detector to scan for buried objects.

The team halts again at a triangular area known as the “hot line,” signaling a potential minefield. Work pauses to ensure strict safety checks. Before entering the site, all members must wear armored vests, with journalists kept at a safe distance.

A sharp signal breaks the silence. It may indicate a mine or unexploded ordnance, though it may also be only scrap metal. Every alert is treated as a threat. Once confirmed, the team extracts the device with slow, precise steps to avoid detonation. Photos are taken only from a designated safe zone, with no approach allowed during removal.

Teams mark hazards clearly, placing red signs reading “Danger Mines” to warn residents. When a device is located, a green wooden marker is placed to identify the spot before disposal.

Anti-personnel mines are destroyed the same day under controlled procedures.

Alongside fieldwork, the National Mine Action Center runs awareness campaigns, sending text messages urging residents to report suspicious objects and to avoid them. Authorities also warn against burning waste in neighborhoods due to the risk of hidden explosives.

Abu Anja said about 80 percent of Al-Mogran and other parts of Khartoum have been cleared, but risks remain, especially as residents return.

Progress is slowed by limited funding, affecting the pace of clearance and disposal. Abu Anja warned that delays raise the danger, noting that dozens of civilians have been killed or injured by mines and war remnants.