Tweet
NATO POLICY ON CSTO
The first question that occurs after such statement of the issue is
whether there is a NATO policy on CSTO.
Since the establishment of CSTO the Americans have had a rather
critical position on this organization. One remembers a quite radical
pronouncement by Madeleine Albright as a retired political scientist
at Brookings Institute, questioning the existence of this bloc,
and highlighted the absence of a fundamental concept.
It should be noted that most American and European political
scientists followed this statement and supported the thought of the
ex-secretary of the U.S. Department of State. At the same time, the
CSTO and primarily Russia responded to this treatment by accelerating
development of relations inside the bloc, as well as institutional
and military capacity. Over the past few years CSTO has taken big
steps at implementation of declarative intentions.
Simultaneously, the West, first of all NATO, had controversies over
their attitude to CSTO. The United States and the United Kingdom are
trying to thwart the existence of CSTO, developing their relations
with the countries of Central Asia and Armenia. In addition, political
intentions are referred to that any support to CSTO would boost the
influence of Russia on the post-Soviet states, including the support
of totalitarian and not so very democratic regimes.
However, neither the United States, nor the United Kingdom is
trying to boost pressure on any of these states with a view to
destroying CSTO. This policy is linked not only to reluctance to boost
confrontation but also the understanding of localization and regional
restrictions of this bloc which does threaten the West and NATO.
At the same time, France and especially Germany were also indifferent
to CSTO. Unlike the position of France and Germany on NATO enlargement
when both countries of continental Europe take into consideration
Russia's position, in regard to CSTO France and Germany are more
categorical. Aiming at forming an area of economic influence in
Eurasia, Germany is not interested in such significant growth of
influence of Russia in this super region. Besides, the participation
of Belarus in CSTO leads to relative threat to Germany's national
interests and its partners in the Baltic and Black Sea region.
Hence, unlike other issues, the leading members of NATO totally agree
on the problem of CSTO.
Nevertheless, NATO's position on CSTO is in line with the policy of the
alliance on Russia. In other words, NATO is trying to subject Russia
and CSTO to the Western community. In addition, this policy is shared
by the European Union trying to form a scheme of European security
on the basis of NATO (despite resistance and provocations of Turkey).
The United States and NATO need Russia and CSTO for the purpose
of security and defense in the regions of Central Eurasia on which
depend not only NATO's possibilities but also alleviation of tension
in relations with Russia. NATO supposes some "conservation" of
institutional relations with new partners, limiting them to IPAP and
previous programs, as well as special commitments to a few countries
of Eastern Europe but in regard to real defense issues relations with
new partners will have real development. This statement lies at the
basis of the attitude of NATO to CSTO, i.e. integration of Russia
and CSTO in the global security system.
Igor Muradyan 17:54 10/07/2013 Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/index/eng/0/comments/view/30426
The first question that occurs after such statement of the issue is
whether there is a NATO policy on CSTO.
Since the establishment of CSTO the Americans have had a rather
critical position on this organization. One remembers a quite radical
pronouncement by Madeleine Albright as a retired political scientist
at Brookings Institute, questioning the existence of this bloc,
and highlighted the absence of a fundamental concept.
It should be noted that most American and European political
scientists followed this statement and supported the thought of the
ex-secretary of the U.S. Department of State. At the same time, the
CSTO and primarily Russia responded to this treatment by accelerating
development of relations inside the bloc, as well as institutional
and military capacity. Over the past few years CSTO has taken big
steps at implementation of declarative intentions.
Simultaneously, the West, first of all NATO, had controversies over
their attitude to CSTO. The United States and the United Kingdom are
trying to thwart the existence of CSTO, developing their relations
with the countries of Central Asia and Armenia. In addition, political
intentions are referred to that any support to CSTO would boost the
influence of Russia on the post-Soviet states, including the support
of totalitarian and not so very democratic regimes.
However, neither the United States, nor the United Kingdom is
trying to boost pressure on any of these states with a view to
destroying CSTO. This policy is linked not only to reluctance to boost
confrontation but also the understanding of localization and regional
restrictions of this bloc which does threaten the West and NATO.
At the same time, France and especially Germany were also indifferent
to CSTO. Unlike the position of France and Germany on NATO enlargement
when both countries of continental Europe take into consideration
Russia's position, in regard to CSTO France and Germany are more
categorical. Aiming at forming an area of economic influence in
Eurasia, Germany is not interested in such significant growth of
influence of Russia in this super region. Besides, the participation
of Belarus in CSTO leads to relative threat to Germany's national
interests and its partners in the Baltic and Black Sea region.
Hence, unlike other issues, the leading members of NATO totally agree
on the problem of CSTO.
Nevertheless, NATO's position on CSTO is in line with the policy of the
alliance on Russia. In other words, NATO is trying to subject Russia
and CSTO to the Western community. In addition, this policy is shared
by the European Union trying to form a scheme of European security
on the basis of NATO (despite resistance and provocations of Turkey).
The United States and NATO need Russia and CSTO for the purpose
of security and defense in the regions of Central Eurasia on which
depend not only NATO's possibilities but also alleviation of tension
in relations with Russia. NATO supposes some "conservation" of
institutional relations with new partners, limiting them to IPAP and
previous programs, as well as special commitments to a few countries
of Eastern Europe but in regard to real defense issues relations with
new partners will have real development. This statement lies at the
basis of the attitude of NATO to CSTO, i.e. integration of Russia
and CSTO in the global security system.
Igor Muradyan 17:54 10/07/2013 Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/index/eng/0/comments/view/30426