Tweet
PRAVDA< Russia
July 18 2005
NATO: too much fuss and petty achievements
07/18/2005 10:26
Now it is becoming clear that cooperation between Russia and NATO in
the fight against terrorism is fruitless
North Atlantic Treaty Organization has to change its tactics
following the political demarche by the Shanghai Cooperation
Organization during the summit in the Kazakh capital Astana earlier
this July. The member states and observers of the Shanghai
Cooperation Organization supported Uzbekistan's proposal and demanded
that NATO pull out its military bases from Central Asia. Moreover,
the Shanghai Cooperation Organization requested that NATO set a
deadline for the removal of troops. The statement actually threatens
the implementation of decisions taken at last year's NATO summit in
Istanbul which declared a larger part of Central Asia (along with the
Caucasus) a zone of strategic interests of the Alliance.
NATO is likely to shift its efforts to the Caucasus. According to
vice president of the Academy of Geopolitical Studies Col. Gen.
Leonid Ivashov, NATO's rapid deployment military installations will
be set up in Georgia and Armenia when the Russian military bases are
finally squeezed out of those countries. The installations will be
properly equipped and manned by personnel capable of conducting a
large-scale troop and equipment deployment within several hours. The
Alliance is trying to build a new bloc of states comprising Turkey,
Georgia, and Azerbaijan. Col. Gen. Ivashov believes that Azeri
President Ilham Aliev has come under pressure because the Americans
want his go-ahead on the lease of three air fields in Azerbaijan.
More importantly, NATO is going to focus on Ukraine whose political
elite have eyes for Europe. Back in 2002 Ukrainian Parliament passed
a bill allowing NATO to use the whole territory of Ukraine for
deploying its troops including units with heavy equipment. The NATO
Big Black Sea Zone program specifically says that naval bases,
onshore facilities etc. should be developed. Patriotism-conscious
Russian politicians and political scientists are very much concerned
about the above situation. They believe that Ukraine may end up
dismembered into three states at the very least should it continue
following the present political course. The borders of those states
would be defined by confrontation between the west and the east and
instability of the Crimea. "They can only allow parts of Ukraine to
join Europe if they ever agree to let it in," has been saying Col.
Gen. Ivashov to his opponents. The Russian naval base on the Crimean
coast may be shut down due to the developments in Ukraine. Despite
the fact that the Russian Navy is to use the base up to 2017 in
compliance with the bilateral agreement, Ukraine will never integrate
into NATO as long as the Russian Black Sea Navy is based in Ukraine.
After the West was accused of instigating the "color revolutions" and
the recent demands by the Shanghai Cooperation Organization with
respect to the withdrawal of NATO military bases from Central Asia,
Russia tends to recall its previous experiences of dealing with NATO,
the experiences characterizing NATO as an inconsistent organization
which can not keep its promises. Russia insisted that the Russia-NATO
Basic Act should contain a clause effectively banning the deployment
of nuclear weapons in the newly integrated member states of the
Alliance. However, NATO's stance on the issue eventually prevailed
and the clause vaguely stipulated something like "the parties have no
intentions." Now it is becoming clear that cooperation between Russia
and NATO in the fight against terrorism is fruitless. "Can you show
me any bandit captured by a joint effort?" asks Col. Gen Ivashov.
"There is none and we should not expect any results since 85% of the
NATO activities boil down to "improving combat readiness, conducting
defensive and offensive operations on land and by air," adds he.
Col. Gen. Ivashov believes that cooperation between Russia and NATO
is a waste of time.
The Alliance is accused of "concept aggressiveness." Analysts cite
the NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer who made a statement
prior to his visit to Moscow in June this year. In the statement he
said that protection of democracy by taking appropriate steps
including military operations, should the latter be deemed necessary,
was the main objective of the Alliance. Analysts also call into
question the worthiness of joint military exercises. Historical
parallels are drawn yet again in proof of the point of view. The NATO
leadership was convincing the Russian government in 1998-1999 that
military exercises in the vicinity of Yugoslavia would not evolve
into hostilities. Eventually, the story unfolded in a different way.
The NATO forces were ordered to detect and destroy a terrorist
submarine during the military exercises code-named Baltops. Can you
imagine any other subs but the Russian ones that could be detected in
the Baltic Sea?
Incidentally, Russia is not taking part in the military exercises
Peace Shield 2005 that went under way yesterday in Ukraine. The first
stage of the exercises involves about 750 servicemen from 22
countries conducting computer-simulated combats based on a real
military and political situation in Iraq. The international
contingent will move from Kiev to the Crimea on July 25th. The
maritime stage of the exercises will take place from August 3rd to
August 13th.
At times the political orientation and scenario of Peace Shield
exercises were apparently anti-Russian. Here is an example of the
scenario. Riots break out in the Crimea and one of the countries
provides help to the Russian-speaking part of the population. It is
clear that Russia is the only country which could rise to the
occasion. The present exercises also include "missions relating to an
international peacekeeping operation aimed at making peace." That is
possibly why Russia refused to take part in the exercises.
On the other hand, there are people in Russia who have a different
opinion on "alliance between Russia and the Alliance." President of
the Institute of Strategic Analysis Alexander Konovalov believes that
the most terrible thing conceivable has happened to NATO. The
Alliance lost its mission and its enemy. These days NATO is on a
frantic search for new forms of identity. However, the Alliance is
not scoring great success in the fight against the proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, drugs trafficking, and
illegal immigration. The U.S. does not conceal its discontent because
NATO is making too much fuss while making too little progress. Mr.
Konovalov is confident that the NATO member states are not ready to
join forces and defend the Baltic countries. Even though the
relocation of NATO military bases to Eastern Europe looks like a
clear threat to Russia, it is mostly a matter of cost effectiveness.
It is a lot cheaper to keep the bases in Poland and Bulgaria than in
Germany. Alexander Konovalov arrives at the conclusion that NATO
poses not threat to Russia.
July 18 2005
NATO: too much fuss and petty achievements
07/18/2005 10:26
Now it is becoming clear that cooperation between Russia and NATO in
the fight against terrorism is fruitless
North Atlantic Treaty Organization has to change its tactics
following the political demarche by the Shanghai Cooperation
Organization during the summit in the Kazakh capital Astana earlier
this July. The member states and observers of the Shanghai
Cooperation Organization supported Uzbekistan's proposal and demanded
that NATO pull out its military bases from Central Asia. Moreover,
the Shanghai Cooperation Organization requested that NATO set a
deadline for the removal of troops. The statement actually threatens
the implementation of decisions taken at last year's NATO summit in
Istanbul which declared a larger part of Central Asia (along with the
Caucasus) a zone of strategic interests of the Alliance.
NATO is likely to shift its efforts to the Caucasus. According to
vice president of the Academy of Geopolitical Studies Col. Gen.
Leonid Ivashov, NATO's rapid deployment military installations will
be set up in Georgia and Armenia when the Russian military bases are
finally squeezed out of those countries. The installations will be
properly equipped and manned by personnel capable of conducting a
large-scale troop and equipment deployment within several hours. The
Alliance is trying to build a new bloc of states comprising Turkey,
Georgia, and Azerbaijan. Col. Gen. Ivashov believes that Azeri
President Ilham Aliev has come under pressure because the Americans
want his go-ahead on the lease of three air fields in Azerbaijan.
More importantly, NATO is going to focus on Ukraine whose political
elite have eyes for Europe. Back in 2002 Ukrainian Parliament passed
a bill allowing NATO to use the whole territory of Ukraine for
deploying its troops including units with heavy equipment. The NATO
Big Black Sea Zone program specifically says that naval bases,
onshore facilities etc. should be developed. Patriotism-conscious
Russian politicians and political scientists are very much concerned
about the above situation. They believe that Ukraine may end up
dismembered into three states at the very least should it continue
following the present political course. The borders of those states
would be defined by confrontation between the west and the east and
instability of the Crimea. "They can only allow parts of Ukraine to
join Europe if they ever agree to let it in," has been saying Col.
Gen. Ivashov to his opponents. The Russian naval base on the Crimean
coast may be shut down due to the developments in Ukraine. Despite
the fact that the Russian Navy is to use the base up to 2017 in
compliance with the bilateral agreement, Ukraine will never integrate
into NATO as long as the Russian Black Sea Navy is based in Ukraine.
After the West was accused of instigating the "color revolutions" and
the recent demands by the Shanghai Cooperation Organization with
respect to the withdrawal of NATO military bases from Central Asia,
Russia tends to recall its previous experiences of dealing with NATO,
the experiences characterizing NATO as an inconsistent organization
which can not keep its promises. Russia insisted that the Russia-NATO
Basic Act should contain a clause effectively banning the deployment
of nuclear weapons in the newly integrated member states of the
Alliance. However, NATO's stance on the issue eventually prevailed
and the clause vaguely stipulated something like "the parties have no
intentions." Now it is becoming clear that cooperation between Russia
and NATO in the fight against terrorism is fruitless. "Can you show
me any bandit captured by a joint effort?" asks Col. Gen Ivashov.
"There is none and we should not expect any results since 85% of the
NATO activities boil down to "improving combat readiness, conducting
defensive and offensive operations on land and by air," adds he.
Col. Gen. Ivashov believes that cooperation between Russia and NATO
is a waste of time.
The Alliance is accused of "concept aggressiveness." Analysts cite
the NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer who made a statement
prior to his visit to Moscow in June this year. In the statement he
said that protection of democracy by taking appropriate steps
including military operations, should the latter be deemed necessary,
was the main objective of the Alliance. Analysts also call into
question the worthiness of joint military exercises. Historical
parallels are drawn yet again in proof of the point of view. The NATO
leadership was convincing the Russian government in 1998-1999 that
military exercises in the vicinity of Yugoslavia would not evolve
into hostilities. Eventually, the story unfolded in a different way.
The NATO forces were ordered to detect and destroy a terrorist
submarine during the military exercises code-named Baltops. Can you
imagine any other subs but the Russian ones that could be detected in
the Baltic Sea?
Incidentally, Russia is not taking part in the military exercises
Peace Shield 2005 that went under way yesterday in Ukraine. The first
stage of the exercises involves about 750 servicemen from 22
countries conducting computer-simulated combats based on a real
military and political situation in Iraq. The international
contingent will move from Kiev to the Crimea on July 25th. The
maritime stage of the exercises will take place from August 3rd to
August 13th.
At times the political orientation and scenario of Peace Shield
exercises were apparently anti-Russian. Here is an example of the
scenario. Riots break out in the Crimea and one of the countries
provides help to the Russian-speaking part of the population. It is
clear that Russia is the only country which could rise to the
occasion. The present exercises also include "missions relating to an
international peacekeeping operation aimed at making peace." That is
possibly why Russia refused to take part in the exercises.
On the other hand, there are people in Russia who have a different
opinion on "alliance between Russia and the Alliance." President of
the Institute of Strategic Analysis Alexander Konovalov believes that
the most terrible thing conceivable has happened to NATO. The
Alliance lost its mission and its enemy. These days NATO is on a
frantic search for new forms of identity. However, the Alliance is
not scoring great success in the fight against the proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, drugs trafficking, and
illegal immigration. The U.S. does not conceal its discontent because
NATO is making too much fuss while making too little progress. Mr.
Konovalov is confident that the NATO member states are not ready to
join forces and defend the Baltic countries. Even though the
relocation of NATO military bases to Eastern Europe looks like a
clear threat to Russia, it is mostly a matter of cost effectiveness.
It is a lot cheaper to keep the bases in Poland and Bulgaria than in
Germany. Alexander Konovalov arrives at the conclusion that NATO
poses not threat to Russia.