Tweet
NATO FROM SUMMIT TO SUMMIT
Igor Muradyan
12:10 05/03/2013
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/index.php/eng/0/politics/view/29177
Russian and European political commentators of the left trend are
actively trying to present the low productivity of NATO Chicago
Summit for something indicative of the history of the alliance and
its crisis. In fact, Chicago Summit was organized as a breakthrough
in the history of the alliance aimed at overcoming the crisis.
As to the contemporary crisis in NATO, it started immediately after
the collapse of Warsaw Agreement and the USSR. It is not just a
coincidence of two events and processes in chronology. In the 1990s,
against the commonly accepted opinion on the causes of the crisis
in NATO which was determined by the collapse of the opposing bloc,
hardly noticeable objections were made which drowned in the whirl of
developments and information flow.
The question is that the collapse of Warsaw Agreement and the USSR
catalyzed the crisis in NATO, failure of solidarity and understanding
of the goals in the alliance. NATO faces complicated and large-scale
challenges and threats and enemies in abundance. It is another
thing when the Western community collapses as a more or less solid
geopolitical pole, which is aggravated by lack of uniformity and a
new type of economic instability and a deep financial crisis. Apart
from this, meaning and logic of political actions are lost, and the
nearest future of the North-Atlantic alliance as a global security
system will indicate the "basis" and "tuning" in this turbulence.
So, here is an attempt to present NATO as a degenerating and decaying
organization which cannot achieve its goals and implement its decisions
and integrate with new partners in different regions.
Like the European Union, NATO is not only unable to "digest" new
members but also those accepted earlier. The European countries have
been unable to resolve their problems which limit their military
capacity for actions in the regions without the assistance of the
United States, even very small actions.
The Americans think that the main problem of NATO is lack of
appropriate funding of the armed forces by the European states.
Apparently, it is the consequence of other problems, namely the lack
of interest in military actions beyond the "area of responsibility"
of the alliance.
However, the states which are located in regions that are more
or less close to Europe do not need a strong NATO where they will
not be noticed. These states want a "slightly" weakened NATO as a
partner which cannot handle military and political problems without
new partners. Curtailed military expenditure of NATO member states
necessitates compensation of this gap with other resources, i.e.
geostrategic advantages and geopolitical functions of new partners.
Analogically, do the Eurasian countries need an empire? Not, of
course. Meanwhile, if not all, at least majority of states in the area
of influence of Russia are interested in a strong and adequate Russia.
It is time the states which have defined their foreign policy clearly
enough and are seeking for a closer cooperation with NATO set out to
agree several issues between themselves. This would be a new foreign
political objective of regional and interregional importance. NATO must
understand that the alliance is not dealing with separate states but
a bloc of interested countries. First of all, along with integration
with NATO there will be NATO members which will oppose this and will
put forth claims.
The next NATO Summit in Washington is close. It will not be a
revolutionary stage. However, Washington Summit will confirm the
thesis of Chicago Summit on the establishment of new partnership.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
Igor Muradyan
12:10 05/03/2013
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/index.php/eng/0/politics/view/29177
Russian and European political commentators of the left trend are
actively trying to present the low productivity of NATO Chicago
Summit for something indicative of the history of the alliance and
its crisis. In fact, Chicago Summit was organized as a breakthrough
in the history of the alliance aimed at overcoming the crisis.
As to the contemporary crisis in NATO, it started immediately after
the collapse of Warsaw Agreement and the USSR. It is not just a
coincidence of two events and processes in chronology. In the 1990s,
against the commonly accepted opinion on the causes of the crisis
in NATO which was determined by the collapse of the opposing bloc,
hardly noticeable objections were made which drowned in the whirl of
developments and information flow.
The question is that the collapse of Warsaw Agreement and the USSR
catalyzed the crisis in NATO, failure of solidarity and understanding
of the goals in the alliance. NATO faces complicated and large-scale
challenges and threats and enemies in abundance. It is another
thing when the Western community collapses as a more or less solid
geopolitical pole, which is aggravated by lack of uniformity and a
new type of economic instability and a deep financial crisis. Apart
from this, meaning and logic of political actions are lost, and the
nearest future of the North-Atlantic alliance as a global security
system will indicate the "basis" and "tuning" in this turbulence.
So, here is an attempt to present NATO as a degenerating and decaying
organization which cannot achieve its goals and implement its decisions
and integrate with new partners in different regions.
Like the European Union, NATO is not only unable to "digest" new
members but also those accepted earlier. The European countries have
been unable to resolve their problems which limit their military
capacity for actions in the regions without the assistance of the
United States, even very small actions.
The Americans think that the main problem of NATO is lack of
appropriate funding of the armed forces by the European states.
Apparently, it is the consequence of other problems, namely the lack
of interest in military actions beyond the "area of responsibility"
of the alliance.
However, the states which are located in regions that are more
or less close to Europe do not need a strong NATO where they will
not be noticed. These states want a "slightly" weakened NATO as a
partner which cannot handle military and political problems without
new partners. Curtailed military expenditure of NATO member states
necessitates compensation of this gap with other resources, i.e.
geostrategic advantages and geopolitical functions of new partners.
Analogically, do the Eurasian countries need an empire? Not, of
course. Meanwhile, if not all, at least majority of states in the area
of influence of Russia are interested in a strong and adequate Russia.
It is time the states which have defined their foreign policy clearly
enough and are seeking for a closer cooperation with NATO set out to
agree several issues between themselves. This would be a new foreign
political objective of regional and interregional importance. NATO must
understand that the alliance is not dealing with separate states but
a bloc of interested countries. First of all, along with integration
with NATO there will be NATO members which will oppose this and will
put forth claims.
The next NATO Summit in Washington is close. It will not be a
revolutionary stage. However, Washington Summit will confirm the
thesis of Chicago Summit on the establishment of new partnership.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress