 | | | |
| ||||
|
Alexander Romanovich: the main NATO members are far from dying for the quarrelsome newcomers 24 èþíÿ 2015 Alexander Romanovich, Secretary of the Presidium of the JR Party Central Council of Foreign Affairs, a member of the SD party faction spoke out about the essence of the NATO policy regarding Russia: Unavailability of the prevailing authoritative (and what is more important) objective opinion in modern world politics results in a great variety of truth which is put forward for protection of someone’s personal interests but which is incompatible with common sense. The essence of he recent heated information exchange between NATO and Russia can be summarized in such a way. NATO and the USA (which is the main initiator in this block) declare that it is Russia which is approaching the NATO positions by moving its own troops throughout its own territory. As for Moscow, it insists that no one but the West and NATO (in particular) have been approaching their military objects to our border (in spite of their previous promises) by "occupying the areas" in the NATO new member countries, including the former USSR republics, to be more exact, the Baltic ones. It is only life and actual development of the situation that must close this chapter (settle the argument) once there is neither the UN’s former prestige nor anything like a European arbitrate there. The matter stands this way against such a background. The process of NATO’s eastward expansion and admission of the new members – the Baltic republics (Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania) – has created a number of long-term discomfortable situations for the NATO members. The most significant among them is Russia’s absolutely natural growing discontent with NATO’s approaching its borders and a simultaneous pressure made by the USA on its European NATO partners to do as much harm to Moscow as possible. Moreover, the former soviet Baltic republics turn out to be Washington’s most active assistants. Instead of keeping down and being content with the Baltic community’s support allowing them to live off and use the NATO programs benefits that fall to their lot, but instead, all the three are constantly inviting trouble and pestering the NATO leadership with their excessive Russophobia. Lithuanian foreign minister Linas Linkevicius declared recently that "Russia (by its actions) is testing the alliance for alertness and solidarity" and that with regard to this, NATO should "provide its permanent presence in the Baltic countries." Hawkish foreign minister of Estonia Pentus-Rosimannus echoed him. She thinks this way: "Our policy must be consecutive and strong, and we must continue to provide our pressure on Russia." Being a reasonable and experienced politician, the alliance Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has to manoeuvre between the anti-Russian persistence of the "Baltic newcomers" and restraint of the classical NATO members who are discontent with the USA dominancy in the block. In this regard, the Europeans were seriously put on alert by the recent statement of the USA-NATO representative Douglas Lute that America would follow Article 5 of the NATO Charter about collective self-defense against an aggressor even without waiting for an agreement of its military block parties. There are really a considerable number of the NATO members who do not approve of a NATO permanent presence at its eastern borders. It is not by chance that so far we can speak just about the tiny NATO contingents in the former soviet Baltic States and a rather symbolic assistance to Georgia and Ukraine. The declaration made by U.S. Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter quite recently about deployment of 250 tanks and artillery guns in seven countries of Eastern Europe should also be referred to confrontation rhetoric rather than to specific intentions. Some other virtual plans of NATO include expansion of the Kiev office and sending of some military staff to Ukraine as well as holding a joint military exercise with NATO under the code name of "Southern Answer" this autumn. No hints on admission of either Ukraine or Georgia to NATO have been made so far. No wonder, because first of all, according to NATO’s internal order, countries with unsolved territorial conflicts are not to be admitted to the alliance. Secondly, all the block members must have a compatible military infrastructure. First of all, communication, common calibers and types of shooting armament, common combat manuals, the English language common for everyone and a lot îf other things. On practice, all the above-mentioned things would require a complete rearmament and retraining of the army of a new NATO member that would cost dozens of billions.. But the main point is that old members of NATO are hardly going to die for the provocative newcomers. Moreover, Jim Kerry, the U.S. Secretary of State recently explained (in a popular way) to Kiev which is striving for weaponry from the USA that they were ready to do it but Russia’s response would be targeted at the newcomers but not at America. By the way this sententia could be well referred to the other east European Russophobes. Alexander Romanovich All-party RegSites Alexander Romanovich, Secretary of the Presidium of the JR Party Central Council of Foreign Affairs, a deputy of the SD Party faction spoke out about the NATO policy regarding Russia.
|
